THIS PAGE CONTAINS ETHICAL NOTES PERSONALLY WRITTEN BY PROF. SANTILLI IN VARIOJUS WORKS AND REMOVED BY THE EDITORS


Ethical Notes written by Prof. Santilli for the book "New Sciences for a New Era"

Section 3,3

Ethical notes

In the 1970s, when he was Associate Professor of Physics at Boston University, Santilli returned to these early studies and submitted a paper to Physical Review Letters on hypotheses (3.2) and (3.3), that was essentially a review of his 1957 thesis, with a specific proposal for their experimental verification or denial via resonating mechanisms based on neutron interferometry.

Unfortunately for science, Santilli received a very dissonant review rejecting the paper on theoretical theologies, while he was suggesting the conduction of experiments for the verification or denial of the constancy of the electrostatic force between two electrons down to the characteristics frequency (3.1).

Consequently, he abandoned the research in the field, kept his studies for himself, and only in 1983, following the insistence of colleagues, he released two short papers for publication in the Hadronic Journal and in Nuovo Cimento Letters merely to have a (generally ignored) record of his studies

A structure model of the elementary charge
R. M. Santilli,
Hadronic J. Vol. 4, 770-784 (1981)

A conceivable lattice structure of the Coulomb law
R. M. Santilli,
Lettere Nuovo Cimento Vol. 37, 505-508 (1983)

The connection between Santilli's structure model of the electron and string theories (appeared some half a century later) should be noted. Unfortunately, the latter have been patterned along a priority political requirements of representing extended particles while verifying special relativity, a notorious impossibility since the latter solely admit point-particles as indicated earlier.

In any case, string theories essentially constitute an edifice built without foundations in thin air due to the lack of general identification of the truly fundamental notion, the entity that vibrates thus permitting the existence of the strings. This identification is generally omitted because the universal substratum would be perceived as violating special relativity. Additionally, string theories in their current formulation verify the Theorems of Catastrophic Mathematical and Physical Inconsistencies of Noncanonical and Nonunitary Theories reviewed in Section 3.9. Due to these excessive political foundations, as well as catastrophic inconsistencies technically identified below, string theories will be ignored hereon.

Yet, it is clear that Santilli's structure model of the electron can indeed provide plausible foundations to string theories, and their reconstruction based on a universal substratum and related advances is here recommended.

The Foundation wants to be on record that the denial by Phys. Rev. Letters of a call for the experimental verification of laws (3.2) and (3.3) is a case of clear scientific obscurantism because hypotheses so important for human knowledge must be resolved experimentally, and their dismissal via theoretical theologies is a mere action for personal academic or other advantages.

The Foundation is interested in providing financial support for the experimental verification or denial of Santilli's laws (3.2) and (3.3) and is seeking interested experts in the field.


Section 3,4

Ethical notes

The serious scholar should be alerted that Einstein's gravitation is one of the most ascientific fields of inquiry because populated by Einstein's fanatics without any regard to due scientific process and knowledge, solely intent in serving organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines. Since this political manipulation of the field is conducted by physicists at "high ranking" academic institutions without any institutional or governmental control whatsoever, any expectation of any serious scientific process without the joint addressing of issues of scientific ethics and accountability generally under public financial support, would be illusory.

We merely mention here the existence in the literature of a number of manipulations of Santilli's exterior identification of the gravitational and electromagnetic field evidently intended to preserve preferred theories without even addressing, let alone dismissing physical evidence. The most frequent manipulation is the claim that "Einstein's field equations do include a source tensor of electromagnetic origin in the r.h.s." which statement is correct but fraudulent on various counts, particularly when proffered by experts, because:

1) Santilli's origin of the gravitational field requires a source tensor that is of first order in magnitude for bodies with null electric and magnetic fields, in which case Einstein's field equations have no source at all;

2) Even assuming the case of a charged massive body, Einstein's equations solely admit a source tensor for the total electromagnetic field that is about 10-40 weaker than the gravitational field, thus ignorable for quantitative study, while Santilli's source tensor is that of the gravitational field, thus not being ignorable;

3) Assuming that the extremely weak source tensor in Einstein's field equations is acceptable (which is not the case because in conflict with quantum electrodynamics), the equation violate the Freud identity of the Riemannian geometry, since the latter require two first order source tensors with the structure of Santilli's equations (3.5)

Due to a number of copyrights violation and paternity frauds existing in the literature, the Foundation warns authors, editors and publishers against plagiarisms of Santilli's exterior identification of gravitation and electromagnetic fields via Eqs. of type (3.5) without a quotation of his MIT paper of 1974 in the proper chronological order.


Section 3,5

Ethical notes

The reader should be aware that the American Physical Society prohibited any mention of the intended use of the relativistic Galilei symmetry for the characterization of a universal substratum, for the evident political reason to avoid the perception of the paper being incompatible with Einsteinian doctrines. The presentation of the new symmetry adopted above has been derived by the Foundation from Santilli's unpublished manuscripts of the time, and coincides with the above quoted Phys. Rev paper only in the formulae.

Following the appearance of the proposal to replace the Poincare' symmetry with a broader spacetime symmetry, and the expected consequential broadening of special relativity, Santilli experienced unprecedented academic obstructions for the continuation of its study. For instance, Santilli was denied the "libera docenza" (an Italian governmental title of professor) at its last session held in Rome, Italy, in the mid 1970s, denial issued by a committee headed by the Italian physicists V. De Alfaro of the University of Torino, R. Gatto of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and P. Budini (later changed into Budinovitch) of the ICTP, Trieste, Italy.

This denial was quite damaging to the credibility of the Italian physics community since the "libera docenza" was granted to all other applicants, even though Santilli had substantially superior publications (besides the new symmetry here presented, Santilli had numerous publications on Lie-admissible theories, the extension of the PCT theorem of the next section and numerous other listed in his curriculum). In any case, Santilli was the only candidate with the official position of Associate Professor at a U. S. university.

In view of these and other hardly credible academic obstructions, blatantly intended to maintain the dominance of Einsteinian doctrines via the suppression of scientific process on structural advances, Santilli abandoned the research in the field by stating: I believe that there is no possibility at this moment of a true scientific process in surpassing Einsteinian theories due to excessive opposing interests with capillary organization on a world wide basis. I write papers beyond Einstein primarily for posterity because, unlike other fields, corrections in quantitative science are only a matter of time.


Section 3.6

Ethical notes

It should be noted that the results reported above solely present the version published by Phys. Rev. and not the complete research conducted by Santilli. In essence, the editors of Phys. Rev. kept the paper for years without accepting it and without rejecting it, evidently due to the absence of a credible technical counter-arguments (in the 1970s, technical arguments were requested for a rejection, something completely abandoned these days at the American and other Physical Societies that reject politically nonaligned papers without any technical motivation whatsoever).

Santilli finally understood the reason for the delay, changed the final parts, and the paper was accepted and published immediately thereafter. The political problems were multifold. First, there was the conclusion that, in the event a given discrete symmetry and its dual are violated, the Wightman axioms are violated too. This evident conclusion had to be removed from the paper for its publication, as confirmed by Santilli recollections, because Wightman was in control of quantum field theory of the time.

The biggest political problem, was, however, caused by Santilli's analytic continuation of a discrete symmetry to its connected component as expected from Lie's theory, namely, the achievement of the original goal of deriving the lack of exact character of the (continuous) Lorentz transformations from the violation of a discrete symmetry. Unfortunately, the Foundation could not identify any of Santilli's original manuscripts in the field. Following consultation, Santilli released the following statement:

A direct test of the applicability or inapplicability of special relativity under conditions violating discrete symmetries was inconceivable in the 1970s as it is inconceivable today due to organized opposing interests controlling major particle laboratories around the world.

This scientific obscurantism is implemented despite the evidence that a theory, such as special relativity, that is strictly invariant under time reversal, cannot possibly be exact for a strictly irreversible process, such as a weak interactions decay, since the scattering amplitude is invariant under time reversal, thus predicting the spontaneous recombination of the debris of the decay into the original particle.

Due to this unfortunate political control of basic physical knowledge, in the 1970s I asked myself whether there was any way of establishing the lack of exact character of the connected component of the Lorentz symmetry from the violation of its discrete component. To my best recollection, I did find an analytic continuation connecting said components in such a way that the violation of one would imply that of the other.

However, for scientific honesty, I have to stress that I am not sure whether the derivation was correct due to lack of its technical review by the American Physical Society. Also, in view of the extreme complexity of the field in which I have not conducted research for some thirty years, I do not have the time to reconsider it now.

I am proud for my reputation of never accepting abuses without due response. In this particular case, the defense of the Ph. D. thesis of my student Ktorides was at stake because crucially dependent on the publication of the paper by Phys. Rev. Hence, I had to accept the political manipulation by the editors of Phys. Rev. and their referees to allow Ktorides graduation.

Following the appearance of the 1974 paper, I destroyed the entire file out of sheer rage that, in a seemingly democratic country, the American Physical Society was allowed such a totalitarian control of fundamental human knowledge in complete impunity and without any control by the country .

The Foundation is interested in supporting research on "Santilli problem in quantum field theory," namely, whether there is an analytic continuation or other mechanism under which the violation of a discrete symmetry causes the inapplicability of the Lorentz symmetry and special relativity.


Section 3,7

Ethical notes

Ethically sound scholars are assumed to be aware that any theoretical or experimental topic that might remotely imply the inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines has been strongly opposed throughout the 20th century and continues to be "disqualified" by organized interests in the field. Thus, any expectation nowadays of "academic acceptance" on fundamental tests beyond Einstein is naive at best, or complicity in the ongoing obscurantism.

Santilli has experienced extreme academic obstructions in merely proposing the experimental measurements of the gravity of positrons in horizontal flight on Earth on grounds that "antigravity is not predicted by Einsteinian theories," even though said theories cannot represent neutral antimatter, let alone represent their gravity.

As an illustration, the test of the gravity of positrons was attempted in the 1960s at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center by W. M. Fairbanks and F. C. Witteborn via low energy positrons in vertical upward flight although, regrettably, the experiment was never completed and no statement was ever released, whether in favor or against antigravity. Santilli confronted in the 1990s retired SLAC members who indicated that the Fairbanks-Witteborn experiment was never completed "because of strong opposition by Einsteinian supporters."

Whether this is true or false, one aspect is certain: to this day, SLAC has not completed the test, and solely conducted very expensive and sophisticated experiments fully aligned with Einsteinian doctrines, yet with no scientific relevance comparable with that of the test of antigravity. Additionally, the Nobel Laureate Burton Ricther, then director of SLAC, had the audacity of prohibiting in writing a visit by Prof. Santilli to discuss his 1994 proposal to test the gravity of positrons in horizontal flight, despite Santilli statement that he would support all costs by himself.

The Foundation wants to be on record to denounce Nobel Laureate Burton Ricther for violations of U. S. Federal Laws prohibiting discriminations at publicly funded national laboratories with his denial to Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli, a U. S. Nobel candidate, to visit SLAC. The occurrence also illustrates the main scope of the Foundation, the containment of unprecedented decay of scientific ethics via legal proceedings if necessary without which any expectation of a serious scientific process is naive at best.

The Foundation is interested in funding Santilli's proposed experiment to measure the gravity of very low energy positrons in flight in a horizontal vacuum tube on Earth under the condition that the test be conducted in corporate laboratories without advance knowledge by academia. Under these premises, the Foundation is seeking experimentalists expert in very low energy positron physics for possible participation.


Section 3,8

Ethical notes

In 1989 L. Biebernarn and R. Macfairlane published their known papers on the simpler q-deformations with product (A, B) = AB - qBA without any quotation of Santilli's origination of 1967, even though they were fully aware of it (Biedenharn joined Santilli in the early 1980s for a DOE grant application precisely on Santilli's mutations/deformations as per documentation we hope to make available in this website, and Macfairlane was directly informed by Santilli years prior to 1986).

In particular, Biedenharn and Macfairlane changed Santillis original, algebraically more appropriate term of "mutations" into "deformations," and carefully avoided the identification of their Lie-admissible and Jordan admissible character to prevent an instantaneous identification of Santillis origination, due to his known expertise in these algebras.

Following these publications, thousands of papers on q-deformations appeared in the physics literature generally without any quotation of Santilli's origination (see the legal page of this website); as a result of such a deplorable occurrence, Santilli has been dubbed the most plagiarized physicist of the 20-th century.

The misconduct by Biedenharn and Macfairlane should be denounced because it offended the memory of the famed American mathematicians A. A. Albert, the originator of the notion of Lie-admissibility, not to mention the damage caused to Jordan's dream of seeing physical applications of his algebras. In fact, all q-deformations are indeed Jordan-admissible but such a property is not mentioned in the papers.

The lack of quotation of Santilli's origination by Biedenharn and Macfairlane was unfortunate for physics because the subsequent literature suppressed the Lie-admissible and Jordan admissible character of the algebra, as well as their characterization of open irreversible systems. For an illustration, see the open denunciations.

Particularly deplorable has been the conduct of Roger Newton, editor of the Journal of Mathematical Physics, because he managed to implement the systematic suppression of Santilli's origination of the q-deformations in all papers in the field published in that journal since 1989, despite countless documented requests by Santilli. Additionally, Newton rejected without any credible technical argument Santilli's submissions of papers on the catastrophic inconsistencies of q-deformations as published by said journal (see their review in the next lection), all papers immediately accepted without modifications by other refereed journals.

After the exhaustion in almost two decades of all calls to scientific ethics and the laws, a lawsuit was prepared for filing against Roger Newton and the University of Indiana at Bloomington, when Newton resigned as editor of that journal. The following Notice to Cease and Desist to the Journal of Mathematical Physics to halt manipulating references in q-deformations was served to the new editor in chief and all editors of that journal, whose publications are currently under monitoring for appropriate legal actions if needed.

The condition of physics nowadays can be seen in its real nature if one meditates a moment on the fact that Santilli merely requested the quotation of his 1967 origination of the q-deformations jointly with any additional desired reference, BUT in the appropriate chronological order to prevent serious science be turned into manipulatory actions. The Foundation is currently attempting the securing of the (rather voluminous) documentation of the case from its storage in Europe, to make it available as free pdf download.


Section 3,9

Ethical notes

Numerous seemingly authoritative journals, including those of the American, British, Swedish and other societies, continue to publish to this day (fall 2008) catastrophically inconsistent theories without any indication whatsoever of their inconsistencies, let alone attempting their resolution in refereed journals. Said publications persist following the awareness by authors and editors alike and occur in a way completely oblivious to serious science. See, for instance, the public denounciation at

Notice to Cease and Desist to the Journal of Mathematical Physics to halt manipulating references in q-deformations

Since this unreassuring trend is in violation of elementary rules of scientific ethics, the Foundation recommend legal action against authors, editors, and publishers in the event of lack of due corrections, particularly for papers published under public financial support. Legal actions are evidently necessary due to the complete absence of self-corrections because of protracted impunity, as well as not to turn science into a mockery under the abuse of academic (pseudo-) authority.


Section 3,10

Ethical notes

There is no doubt that the experimental verifications of special relativity have been, not only impressive, but also emotionally overwhelming, as it is the case of the explosion of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, confirming the validity of the equivalence principle E = m c2. No wonder that, following verifications of that magnitude, special relativity was widely assumed as being valid throughout the universe. In fact, beginning with the early part of the 20th century, all physical research of any type in any field was adapted to verify special relativity.

However, ethically sound scholars will agree with Santilli to the effect that no matter how beautiful and valid a given theory may appear at a given time, its structural generalization is only a matter of time. With the passing of the decades, knowledge advanced progressively beyond the conditions of original conception and verification of special relativity (point-like particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum), but the validity of special relativity was imposed without a serious scrutiny.

In the second part of the 20th century, the adaptation of nature to verify Einsteinian doctrines had reached such a dimension to create a true scientific obscurantism due to the complete lack of scrutiny on the validity of the preferred theory, no matter how dramatically different the conditions were considered to those of the original conception and verification. Consequently, numerous authoritative voices of alarm began to appear, such as that by the British philosopher Karl Popper and others, including the outcry voiced by Santilli in his book of 1984

Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View
R. M. Santilli,
Alpha Publishing (1984)

Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volume I
Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volume II
Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volume III
R. M. Santilli,
Alpha Publishing (1985)

In essence, with the progressive increase of the complexity of the problem considered, there was the emergence of deviations from the prediction of Einsteinian theories from experimental data. These deviations were quickly "fixed" via the introduction of ad hoc parameters that were fitted from the experimental data and Einsteinian theories were then claimed to be exact.

The above process reached extremes of academic misconduct for political gains, such as the case of the Bose-Einstein correlation where, as we shall see in a subsequent section, the two point correlation functions could at best admit two arbitrary parameters, while the representation of the experimental data was achieved with four parameters (called "chaoticity parameters") and special relativity was still claimed to be exact, while in the scientific reality the four parameters provide a direct measurement of the deviations from the basic axioms of special relativity.

During the last part of the 20th century, the scientific obscurantism on Einsteinian doctrines had deteriorated to such a degree to be denounced as a threat to mankind due to various factors, such as: the impossibility of resolving the alarming environmental problems afflicting our planet with Einsteinian doctrines due to their reversibility compared to the irreversibility of energy releasing processes; the systematic academic suppression of any scientific democracy for qualified inquiries the world over; the impossibility of conducting any serious experimental verification of special relativity beyond the conditions of its original verifications, e.g., for irreversible particle processes; and other factors.

All scientists proposing direct experimental verifications of Einsteinian doctrines, under conditions unknown during Einstein's time, were instantly disqualified, and kept away from academia, at times via illegal actions, such as the termination of tenured positions via organized academic power rather than scientific evidence.

For instance, Santilli proposed some 18 years ago the experimental verification of the expected redshift of Sun light from the Zenith to Sunset, but the test has been and continues to be systematically ignored in astrophysical laboratories via equivocal means such as personal attacks to Santilli without any serious consideration of the test itself. The same situation occurred in all experiments proposed by Santilli over decades, such as: the verification of expected deviation from special relativity on the behavior of the meanlife of unstable particle with energy at the time of their irreversible decay; the interferometric measurement of the deformation of the charge distribution of protons and neutrons under external strong interactions expected to resolve the vexing problem of nuclear magnetic moments; the synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons; and others.

Physics laboratories around the world have systematically and continue to prefer dramatically lesser relevant and dramatically more expensive experiments than basic tests of Einsteinian doctrines, no matter how fundamental the proposed tests are for scientific knowledge, and no matter how important for mankind are, as it is the need for new clean energies.

These occurrences identify the very essence of Santilli's scientific life and the aims of this Foundation, namely, the impossibility for a serious consideration of basic advances without a joint consideration of issues pertaining to scientific ethics and accountability.

As Santilli puts it: Following some fifty years of active research on fundamental open problems, it is my conviction that theories in physics are nowadays established by organized academic interests and definitely not by a serious scientific process. I also believe that the decay of scientific ethics and accountability has reached such a level that truly basic experiments at physics laboratories around the world can only be conducted following judicial action, due of the capillary character of organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines the world over, complete impunity guaranteed by lack of control for decades, and full support by governmental agencies funding the research.


Section 3,11

Ethical notes

Santilli had to endure truly incredible vexations by the U. S. physics community because of his decision to build Lie-isotopic and Lie-admissible coverings of Einsteinian and quantum Lie theories. To begin, Santilli disclosed in 1978 to his colleagues at the the Lyman Laboratory of Physics of Harvard University the research programs for which he had been invited by the DOE to apply for the research grant DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001 (see Figures 1.1 and 2.3). Following that disclosure, in the evident studious intent to discourage him from conducting his research, the colleagues at Harvard University prevented him to secure the grant and left him without any income for the entire 1978-1979 academic year, in full knowledge that Santilli at that time had two children in tender age and a wife to feed and shelter.

It was only at the edge of lawsuits that the physicists at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics finally allowed Santilli to be transferred in late 1979 to Harvard's Department of Mathematics, under which affiliation the grant was finally accepted and administered and Santilli received his salary. Even so, Harvard's physicists continued to pound mathematical colleagues with the statement that "Santilli research has no physical value" and similar slander. These pressures grew to such an extent that Harvard University was forced to terminate the administration of Santilli's grants from the DOE.

The conduct by the physicists of the Lyman Laboratory of Physics of Harvard University is soon qualified by noting that, while slandering Santilli with the claim of "lack of physical value," and despite the absence of any salary for one full academic year, Santilli published in 1978 his first volume of "Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics" with the most prestigious scientific house of the time, Springer Verlag of Heidelberg, Germany, in its most prestigious series; was under contract with Springer-Verlag to publish the second volume of that series plus other monographs; had various papers published and others accepted for publication at Journals of the American British and Italian Physical Societies; and had written support from Nobel Laureates and famous scientists.

It is then evident to ethically sound scholars that the slander was studiously perpetrated for personal gains against the interests of society, under the illusion of the control of science via the abuse of Harvard's name. It is the Foundation's opinion that the primary responsibility of this historical shadow on the credibility of Harvard University rests with its administration of the time, due to excessive support via inaction of clearly equivocal conduct by physicists at Harvard University under public financial support, despite repeated complaints to said administration filed by Santilli and documented below.

While leaving Harvard University, Santilli was warned by his physics colleagues there that he would have been unable to locate any academic positions in the U.S.A. This threat turned out to be true, because Santilli applied to numerous physics departments in the U.S.A. and was unable to secure a job despite the availability of a rather large DOE grant, an occurrence that proves not only the capillary nature of the organized academic interests in the U.S.A. on Einsteinian and quantum doctrines, but also their power. It should be stressed that this was and continues to this day as being a misconduct primarily in the U.S.A. since Santilli has received offers for prestigious academic positions abroad.

By looking in retrospect, the prevention by Cantabridgean physicists via slander for Santilli to secure an academic job (despite the availability of a rather large DOE contract that was in fact administered by the Institute for Basic Research as per below outline), turned out to be a blessing for science and mankind. Excessive academic greed is usually blinding. Consequently, the Cantabridgean physicists slandering Santilli did not understand that, had he remained part of academia, his research would have been controlled in one way or another. Instead, Santilli found himself completely free of conducting whatever research he desired, a freedom that was essential for the achievements reported in these lines.

In late 1981 Santilli accepted the Presidency of the Institute for Basic Research (IBR), an independent research institute organized by over one hundred mathematicians and physicists in various countries. To house the IBR, a Victorian house was purchased at 96 Prescott Street, Cambridge, MA, within the compound of Harvard University. The independence of the IBR, the calibre of its members, and its location multiplied the act of scientific gangsterism by the Boston scientific community with all sort of vexations conceivable only under a dictatorial regime, such as the prohibition to list IBR advanced seminars in the local physics calender, the prohibition for IBR members and visitors to attend local seminars (to such an extent that some of visiting scholars used to wear the Jewish yarmulke just to prevent vulgar discriminations), and other vexations. To understand the occurrences, one should keep in mind that, already by the early 1980s, Santilli and his visitors had scientific achievements immensely superior to those by the average local physicist.


Figure 3.11. A view of the New-England style Victorian building located at 96 Prescott Street, Cambridge, MA, within the compound of Harvard University, locally known as The Prescott House, which was purchased by Santilli's Real Estate Trust in late 1981 to provide the headquarters of the Institute for Basic Research, as well as the main editorial office of the Hadronic Journal, Hadronic Journal Supplement and Algebras, Groups and Geometries. Among the numerous research activities which took place at The Prescott House during the period 1981-1989, we mention: the initiation of systematic studies for a structural generalization of contemporary mathematics based on progressive liftings of its basic unit known as iso- and geno-mathematics and their isoduals; the conception and development of the Birkhoffian and other classical mechanics; the axiom-preserving, nonunitary, isotopic and genotopic lifting of quantum mechanics into hadronic mechanics; and numerous other fundamental mathematical and physical research (for more details, visit the IBR History)

Jointly with these local vexations, organized Cantabridgean interests propagated their suppressive actions to the world wide scientific community, including the prohibition for Santilli and all his associates to publish papers in the journals of the American, British, Italian, Swedish, and other physical societies, a prohibition that still stands to this day. As an illustration, following the last paper published by Santilli and his associates at Phys. Rev. in 1980,

Elaboration of the recently proposed test of Pauli's principle under strong interactions
C. N. Ktorides, H. C. Myung and R. M. Santilli
Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 22, 892-907 (1980)

Santilli was called by Larry Biedenharn and told he would not be allowed to publish any additional paper at the APS. And indeed all submissions for decades to the journals of the APS of the order of various hundreds (documented) submissions by Santilli and scientists the world over, were rejected with vulgar scientific manipulations without any scientific content. At any rate, the words "hadronic mechanics" have not yet appeared in any journals of the APS to this day and various authors have been requested to eliminate references to Santilli in their papers as a condition for publication in Phys. Rev. Similar rejections by hundreds of papers on hadronic mechanics were perpetrated by the British Institute of Physics, and the Italian Physical Society, in the latter case under the written admission by its president of the time that the papers could not be accepted because the research was opposed by physicists at Harvard University.

Jointly, this massive, dictatorial-style organization attacked each and every founder of hadronic mechanics (see the Foundation's pages on pictures) by forcing them to cease any collaboration with Santilli via various means of scientific gangsterism, some of which with offers of promotions (a rather routine reward for scientific manipulations) and others with threats of terminating their tenured jobs (something also done in the U.S.A. not only for Santilli's research, but also for other undesired studies, as it has been the case for professional historians who have seen their tenured academic job terminated because of undesired scholar studies on the origin of the holocaust).

Yet, Santilli continued his research in a way completely oblivious to these insane actions of scientific gangsterism. In view of such a continuation of unwanted research, one evening in February 1989, while Santilli was working late at the office of the IBR in the ground floor of at 96 Prescott Street, Cambridge, MA, two local Einstein fanatics entered in the office without ringing and openly threatened his life for his research. The Santilli family reacted immediately by deciding to leave the area and move to Florida, where the IBR was also transferred. In leaving the Boston area in June 1989 following life threats because of the nature of his scientific research, Santilli pledged never ever to return to the Boston area for the rest of his life, and he so stated in his works. In this way, organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics turned what once was an area of great learning, into a ghetto, with due exceptions, of sheer scientific gangsterism, manipulations and suppression of undesired advances in scientific knowledge.

If we really care for democracy, we cannot abstain here from a connection with the historical case of Sacco and Vanzetti who, in the early part of the 20th century, merely promoted the implementation without violence of political democracy in the Boston area and, in so doing, they were executed following a notoriously rigged trial. By comparison, Santilli merely attempted to promote scientific democracy for qualified inquiries and, in the process, had to leave the area following life threats, thereafter continuing as being the victim of vexations. As Santilli put's it: Per my personal experience and documentation, the scientific establishment of the Boston area is organized to implement the worst form of slavery, that of the mind, and I will remain with that conviction until I see corrective measures implemented, not in dirty accademic corridors, but via publications surpassing Einsteinian and quantum doctrines in an ethically sound way, that is, without the usual paternity frauds implemented via the suppression of prior contributions under equivocal collegial consensus.

Santilli has always responded and will always respond to acts of scientific gangsterism, particularly when so clearly against the need by mankind for basic advances. Thus, Santilli prepared in 1984 a comprehensive presentation on the scientific gangsterism he was victim of, that is now available in free pdf download with 1150 pages of documentation in the four volumes below

Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View
R. M. Santilli,
Alpha Publishing (1984)

Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volume I
Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volume II
Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volume III
R. M. Santilli,
Alpha Publishing (1985)

A detailed documentation of all subsequent acts of scientific gangsterism has been collected by Santilli and donated to a European conduit for its public disclosure at the appropriate time. The Foundation is currently negotiating the possible purchase of this additional documentation for its release as free pdf downloads for the international scientific community because, if we truly care about democracy in general, and scientific democracy in particular, we all have the ethical duty to identify problems as the evident necessary condition to prevent their continuation. As Santilli puts it: Supine acceptance of any act of suppression of scientific democracy for qualified inquiries, is complicity in a crime against society.

After leaving the Boston area for Florida, rather then subsiding, the organized scientific gangsterism against Santilli intensified, also in view of the world attention created by his isorelativity and hadronic mechanics. Among numerous, additional, incredible episodes, we report one that happened in 1990, in connection with the Fifth International Conference on Hadronic Mechanics and Nonpotential Interactions, organized, to Santilli initial great surprise, by members of the so-called physics establishment, under the official sponsorship by the Departments of Physics and Mathematics of the University of Northern Iowa at Cedar Falls. To the horrified surprise of foreign participants, Santilli was prohibited to attend that workshop, namely, a workshop in the field he had created and in which he continued to be the primary contributor. As indicated above, Santilli always responds to organized scientific gangsterism.

In fact, an open denunciation of immoral conduct, with the termination of various organizers of the conference as editors of scientific journals, was circulated by horrified foreign participants during the last session of the meeting. S. Okubo, an organizer of the conference, warned Santilli that objections against the decision for him not to attend would have caused the termination of research on hadronic mechanics in the U.S.A., another threat suffered by Santilli that turned out to be true. Some eight years have passed since that act of scientific gangsterism, and the net outcome has been the vast development of hadronic mechanics by Santilli's group, while the originators of the scientific gangsterism and their associates have remained out of basic advances, thus solely damaging themselves.

Numerous additional incredible acts of scientific gangsterism have continued to be perpetrated against Santilli, too many and at time so extreme not to be credible, since occurring in what is expected to be a democratic society. We merely limit these lines to indicate:

1) The statement by L. Lederman in 1992, then APS president, that Santilli's research has no physical value released in writing to a formal inquiry filed at the APS by the U. S. Senator Bilirakis from Florida on the reasons for so numerous rejection without serious arguments by the APS of so many submissions (readily published in other refereed journals) on hadronic mechanics from authors the world over, all submissions ultimately aimed at seeking new clean energies and fuels;

2) The prohibitions in 1993 by physicists at Fermilab for Santilli to attend meetings there, despite their conduction under public U. S. funds at a U. S. national laboratory;

3) The prohibition in 2007 by Cornell University for Santilli to upload his papers in the appropriate electronic archives arXiv despite full peer authorizations as per the arXiv requirement, while the same arXiv had accepted for uploading numerous papers in fields initiated by Santilli without any quotation whatsoever of Santilli's prior works, thus de facto prohibiting Santilli to have a record at the arXiv of his scientific paternities and priorities; and other truly incredible acts of scientific gangsterism.

Above all, the serious scholar with a serious commitment to scientific democracy should keep in mind that the indicated act of scientific gangsterism constituted a clear violation of U. S. Federal laws preventing discriminations under public financial support. Most alarming is the impunity guaranteed by complete lack of the very means for controls, let alone the absence of any control of any type by society in a segment as vital as that of basic physical knowledge.

The flagrant violation of U. S. Federal Laws due to blatant discrimination under public funds, illustrates the need for addressing issues of scientific ethics and accountability for any serious consideration of fundamental research surpassing pre-existing doctrines.

The above litany of scientific gangsterism illustrates that the organization of this Foundation for the support of basic scientific advances without a joint addressing of ethical and legal problems in contemporary science, would have been a farce to the benefit of the enemies of science.

By attesting to the greatness of the United States of America, particularly its way of life via checks and balances, while the physics community of the Boston Area went into a frenzy of misconducts, the U. S. Department of Energy did continue to support Santilli with additional grants after the termination of their administration by Harvard University, thus permitting the initiation in 1981 of the research at IBR and the multiplication of the efforts in the construction of hadronic mechanics and isorelativity.

In fact, the five DOE grants for the birth and development of hadronic mechanics (grant numbers ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, DE-ACO2-80ER10651; DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, and DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A002) permitted a flurry of scientific activities and advances during the period 1978-1982, including partial support for: the organization of five Workshops on Lie-Admissible Formulations; the organization of three Workshops on Hadronic Mechanics; the organization of the international conference at the University of New Orleans in France Lie-Admissible Formulations and Nonpotential Interactions; two seminal monographs by Santilli Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics; two additional monographs Lie-admissible Approach to the Hadronic Structure; various additional monographs by independent authors; plus hundreds of papers published the world over; a research activity for an estimated number of ten thousands pages of research published in the period 1978-1982 with partial support by said grants, that Santilli has continued to praise at the initiation of all his seminars in various countries for some three decades.

Besides the above DOE grants, Santilli received vast support in the U.S.A., including: acceptance of seminal papers by various qualified and refereed U. S. physics journals (of which he was not an editor), such as Physical Review D, Foundations of Physics, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and others (see Santilli's CV); received a strong private support from various U. S. scientists that has increased in time; was able to organize an international research institute that has reached the most innovative advances of the second part of the 20th century with no other U. S. institution with comparable outcome; received vast financial support from U. S. corporations as soon as his studies approached industrial relevance; and, thanks to corporate income, has been able to live a full life including: having his children reach the highest education; owning various prestigious sports cars and boats; having (during his stay in the Boston area) a house in Newton, a summer beach house in the Boston Harbor and a winter house in the Virgin islands; and the like.

In view of all the above, the Foundation is proud to indicate that the birth, development, experimental verifications and industrial applications of hadronic mechanics to date have (December 2008) been permitted by the United States of America thanks to the opportunities offered to persons with strong determination, conviction and commitment. When reminded of the vexation he had to suffer from his colleagues, Santilli has stated:

My former colleagues at Harvard University, S. Coleman, S. Weinberg and S. Glashow, in their hysteria of opposing my studies to surpass Einsteinian and quantum doctrines, never understood my sincere appreciation because their opposition actually increased the pace of research, cut them out of basic advances, and provided me the evident gift of important scientific priorities.

Section 4.2

Ethical notes

The Italian-American scientist Ruggero M. Santilli and the American chemist Donald D. Shillady presented their new isochemical models of the hydrogen and water molecules at the 1998 international meeting on quantum chemistry held in St. Augustine, Florida, under the joint sponsorship of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science and the University of Florida at Gainesville.

Due to the great interest shown by participants on the new isochemical models because of their unique features not permitted by quantum chemistry, such as exact representations of molecules features from first principles, reduction of computer time by at least 1/1000 and other features, Santilli and Shillady submitted with a very respectful letter their historical papers

A new isochemical model of the hydrogen molecule
R. M. Santilli and D. D. Shillady,
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 24, pages 943-956 (1999)

A new isochemical model of the water molecule
R. M. Santilli and D. D. Shillady,
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 25, 173-183 (2000)

to Per-Olov Loewdin, member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science and (at times) of the Nobel Committee in Chemistry, in his capacity of editor in chief of the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. The submission was made for the above quoted papers as being part of the proceedings of the 1998 meeting for which Santilli and Shillady had paid all participation costs and fees.

To the authors surprise, Per-Olov Loewdin entered into a comprehensive review of the entire mathematical, physical and chemical background of the submission, something quite unusual for contributions to proceedings. The authors respectfully complied with all editorial requests by providing the requested large variety of preceding papers published in technical journals the world over (essentially the papers quoted in Chapter 1-6 prior to 1998), even though some of them had no relevance for the submission.

Following such an extensive., comprehensive, and protracted review, the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry rejected the papers via a communication having no visible technical motivation deserving the qualification of "scientific" or honoring due scientific process. The rejection was final and without appeal. The auhors then submitted the papers to the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, where they were immediately accepted and published without any modification. Because of this occurrence, Santilli pledged never to participate again to the St. Augustine meetings in quantum chemistry and requested the removal of his email from their list.

The episode propagated rather rapidly and widely in the scientific community, by reaching the International Committee on Scientific Ethics that hired an investigative agency in Sweden to secure more details on the case, with the alleged report that the decision of rejecting the above quoted papers without credible or meaningful scientific motivation originated at the highest levels of the Nobel Committee in Chemistry. This report triggered the well known international denunciation of the Nobel Foundation as allegedly being responsible for one of the biggest scientific obscurantisms in history, as one can see in the web site

Open denunciation of the Nobel Foundation for heading an organized scientific obscurantism.

In regard to this case, Santilli has released the following statement: The suppression of scientific democracy for qualified inquiries, with particular reference to the suppression of well motivated, quantitative, dissident views presented in the proper scientific language, without motivations passing the stringiest possible ethical scrutiny, is a serious crime against society due to the well known, ever increasing dependence of contemporary societies on new scientific advances over pre-established theories, as it is the case for the much needed new clean energies whose quantitative treatment cannot be credibly conducted via quantum chemistry due to its strictly linear, reversible and Hamiltonian character as compared to the strictly nonlinear, irreversible and non-Hamiltonian character of all energy releasing processes. Therefore, the suppression by organized interests on pre-existing doctrines of quantitative efforts toward a nonlinear, irreversible and non-Hamiltonian covering of quantum chemistry, as is the essence of the case at hand, constitutes a threat to mankind (see Section 4.4A).

In the event any of the above information is incorrect, the Foundation requests documentation for immediate corrections.


Section 4.4

Ethical notes

Following the appearance of Santilli's historical monograph and papers

"Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry,
with Applications to New Clean Energies and Fuels"

R. M. Santilli,
Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001)

The novel magnecular species of hydrogen and oxygen with increased specific weight and energy content
R. M. Santilli,
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 28, 177-196 (2003)

A new gaseous and combustion form of water
R. M. Santilli,

Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 31, pages 1113-1128 (2006)

and related vast number of publications by independent scholars, such as the review

Review of Santilli's "Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry"
E. Trell,
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 28, pages 251-253 (2003)

J. M. Calo, a chemical engineer of Brown University in Providence RI, felt compelled to publish the following strong and offensive criticism of Santilli's work

Comments on: A new gaseous and combustion form of water
J. M. Calo,
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 32, pages 1309-1312 (2007)

without any technical knowledge whatsoever of hadronic chemistry, the new chemical species of magnecules and underlying new mathematics, ignorance admitted in the comments themselves (sic!), the sole value of the criticisms being the identification of numerous garbling, such as unidentified symbols of the type KGML showing that the printed version is not that approved by Santilli but that of old and uncorrected galleys.

Immediately following the appearance of Calo's criticism, there was the publication of the following counter-criticisms

A chemist view of J. M. Calo's comments on: A new gaseous and combustion form of water
M. O. Cloonan,
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 33, pages 1309-1312 (2008)

Rebuttal of J. M. Calo's comments on R. M. Santilli's HHO paper
J. V. Kadeisvili,

Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 33, pages 918-921 (2008)

essentially denouncing Calo's action as ascientific and asocial due to the excessively evident lack of technical knowledge of the field in which the criticisms were ventured, particularly of a field dealing with the much needed new clean energies.

Since one of the main objectives of our Foundation is a control of ethics and accountability, without which any claim of serious scientific process is naive at best, Santilli's affiliates hired an investigative agency to secure more detailed information on Calo's conduct, with the result that "Calo was commissioned to write the criticisms on Santilli's work by high ranking chemists in the USA." Alternatively and equivalently, it is unlike that a U.S. academician would publish strong and offensive criticisms on a new field without first having "consultations" with high academic levels.

In regard to the case, Santilli has released the following statement: I compare scientists feeling repugnance to scientific novelty to priests desecrating the altar. A person elects to be a priest to honor the altar. Similarly, a person elects to be a scientist to seek new knowledge. Therefore, a scientist desecrating the very reason of his/her choice of life acts indeed like a priest desecrating the altar.


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

ETHICAL NOTES WRITTEN BY PROF. SANTILLI FOR HIS VOLUME IV OF
HADRONIC MATHEMATICS, MECHANICS AND CHEMIUSTRY

\footnote{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{When Santilli proposed the construction of hadronic mechanics while being at Harvard University in 1978 under DOE support [14], he did indicate to his colleagues S. Coleman, S. Weinberg and S. Glashow the ultimate aim of studying new energies, with the specific reference of the need of surpassing Einsteinian theories and quantum mechanics for the neutron synthesis, a need well known at that time. It is unfortunate for Harvard University that, rather than at least tolerating the research without obstructions, the possible applications to new energies turned Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow into very vociferous opponents to the extreme reported in Refs. [89,90] and in Footnote 1 of this volume, of: first forcing Santilli to leave the Lyman Laboratory of Physics at Harvard despite the availability of DOE support; then forcing Santilli to leave Harvard's Mathematics Department despite the continued availability of DOE support; then obstructing the operations of the newly born Institute for Basic Research on Harvard Grounds; and, above all, obstructing publications inm the journals of various physics societies for about three decades.}

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

\footnote{A LITTLE INSTRUCTIVE EPISODE AT MIT. When at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in mid 1970s, Santilli heard a report on SETI\index{SETI}\index{Extraterrestrial life} (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) with the conclusion (still valid today) that "there is no sign of extraterrestrial intelligent life," at which point Santilli asked "where, here or out there?" Like all other scientific activities of the 20-th century, the SETI program too was (and remains) restricted, beginning with its funding, to comply with Einsteinian doctrines. The assumption of the SETI program is essentially that possible extraterrestrial civilizations can only use conventional electromagnetic waves for communications because they are the sole possible as dictated by Einsteinian theories. Hence, if we do not detect new civilizations from far away stars via electromagnetic signals, they do not exist. Santilli disagrees with this view because political, and not based on serious science (in fact, Santilli's stay at MIT was quite short). Our technological civilization is just about $150$ years old. By comparison, other civilizations can have millions of years of technological evolution. Under these conditions. the denial of the existence of these civilizations on grounds that we do not detect electromagnetic signals from them is preposterous, because advanced extraterrestrial intelligent life may have abandoned them hundreds of thousands of years ago in favor of better forms of communications. Longitudinal waves propagating in space are only one possibility among several others, all permitting speeds immensely bigger than the speed of light. However, and this is the main point, all of them must be by conception beyond Einsteinian doctrines, something impossible at MIT due to the complete control of science at that college by the organized scientific crime on Einsteinian doctrines (see its definition on Footnote 1 of this volume) fully aligned with the corresponding crime at Harvard University, Princeton University and other "leading" colleges.}

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

\footnote{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{ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME AT CORNELL AND OTHER 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 other 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 allegiance 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{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{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 anonymous 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 dubbing 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 Weinberg, Glashow and other quark theologists 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{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 distribute 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 documented already, see the lawsuits at scientificethics.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{A lawsuit for plagiarism, scientific fraud, abuse of public funds and other claims was filed on February 2007 at the U. S. federal Court against F. Cardone, R. Mignani, their funding institutions and other defendants, due to the impossibility over decades to have them quote the origination paper [3] and at least address the catastrophic inconsistencies of their work conducted under public financial support, of which one of them had been an originator [29].}

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

\footnote{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{ANOTHER LITTLE EPISODE AT MIT. When the author was visiting in the mid 1970s the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the Massachusetts Institute of technology (thanks to a kind invitation by the director of the time, Francis Low, that it is here acknowledge with appreciation), the author used to participate to rather pleasant lunch meetings that were perhaps more interested than formal MIT seminars because informal, thus allowing participants a somewhat limited freedom of scientific expression. During one of these lunch meetings, the author asked a leading colleagues on quark conjectures, MIT bags, and all that, whether he would accept a graduate student for a Ph. D. thesis in the joint use of the Mendeleev model for both the classification and structure of atoms. The horrified colleague blasted the author with strong words for posing such a nonsensical question. The author then noted "But that's exactly what you do for hadrons by using the $SU(3)$ model for both the classification and the structure of hadrons," at which point the horror in the colleague's face turned into a silent anguish. This and other episodes reviewed in book [89] and documented in volumes [90] indicated that the author did not (wanted to) belong to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In fact, the author soon moved to Harvard University thanks to a referral by Francis Low to Steven Weinberg, referral that is recorded here for appreciation.}

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

\footnote{LACK OF TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS BY THE ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME. One of the most frequent "arguments" used for the dismissal of the research herein presented, still routinely used these days, November 19, 2007, is that "Santilli publishes his papers in his journal" (the Hadronic Journal), which has been indeed occasionally the case, but without indicating the majority of the papers published in virtually all technical journals around the world, as anybody in good faith can see with a simple inspection of the author's CV. The intellectual dishonestly is established by the ascientific implications of the "argument" essentially intended to establish scientific validity via the political clout of the journal of publication, without any consideration of the content. Consequently, by using the same "argument" one could claim that the celebrated Fermat theorem is wrong because it was never publisher. In real science, that outside organized political interests for personal gains, the important issue is the validity or invalidity of the {\it content} of a given paper. The use of tangential "arguments" of dismissal is proof of personal opposition to undesired advances combined with lack of serious knowledge for a technical dismissal.}

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

Santilli cannot disclose the entire documentation in his possession (held in a safe place in Europe to protect his house and office in Florida from useless vandalism by the crime) because some of the documentation carries names sufficient for soliciting a parliamentary investigation in the USA and England. Yet the following representative messages are here reproduced as an indication of the plausibility of views 1)-5). \vskip0.29cm

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

{\it -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Don Borghi experiment

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:08:54 +0300

From: Wladimir Guglinski

To:

\vskip0.29cm

Dear Dr. Santilli

\vskip0.29cm

Thank you for your offer of funds and support to Prof. "xxxx"} [name withheld to prevent the disruption of his academic and family life as occurred to Santilli - see Footnote 1 and following of this volume - and to so many others] {\it for the repetition of Don Borghi experiment. However I think he is afraid of reprisal from the scientific community, if he accepts your invitation .

As you know, academic scientists apply hard penalty against those ones that defy the scientific community with experiments that disprove Einstein's theories, such as not approving research grants, not allowing to teach in universities, cutting funds for research, etc.

But let me tell you what I think about Don Borghi's experiment. I think that Don Borghi's experiment has already been performed in some universities worldwide, and several academic physicists already know that the results of Don Borghi's experiment have been confirmed in some universities

And there are academic theorists who know that in the future Don Borghi's experiment will be accepted by the scientific community, and a new physics will be required.

However theorists like Steven Weinberg, Gell-Mann and G. t' Hooft do not want to be alive when Don Borghi's experiment finally will be accepted by the scientific community in the future. That's why they undertook efforts with the aim of prolonging the time along which the experiment is not accepted in the universities.

To be accepted in the universities, Don Borghi's experiment will have to wait the death of several physicists currently in control, when a new generation of scientists will grow free of the lies that keep the prevailing scientific dogmas.

Regards

\vskip0.29cm

WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI}

[Prof. Guglinski has authorized in writing the disclosure of his name, a courageous act it is hoped will be followed by colleagues as the only way to denounce and contain the international organized scientific crime]

\vskip0.29cm

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

\vskip0.29cm

{\it -------- Original Message --------

Subject: Reruns of Don Borghi Neutron Test

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:08:23 +0300

From: xxxx yyyyyy

To:

\vskip0.29cm

Dear Prof. santilli,

I read with great excitement volume IV of your book on hadronic mechanics (available in pdf free downloads at your website www.i-b-r.org). You should know that Don Borghi's experiment has already been secretly repeated with success in the USA and perhaps abroad too, but the results have been kept secret. Enough is enough. I decided to get going in promoting a senate investigation of all this. Also, I understand you received threats by known fanatics on Einstein. Thus, I made a report to the FBI of all this with the names of all gangsters listed in your book as opposing your work, plus the names of the organizations behind (Cornell University arXiv, Wikipedia, APS, AIP, etc.). I pray God to protect you from these real gangsters who must be identified and punished, if we really have a democracy in America. You have broken Einstein's dike and your action is now unstoppable no matter what, Please feel free to disclose the content of this email,. but keep my name confidential to prevent my being stopped by these gangsters.

Best and sincere regards

\vskip0.29cm

xxx yyy}

[name withheld to prevent the organized scientific crime from his/her going ahead with the protection of democracy in the USA].

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

\appendix{Denounciation of Organized Scientific Crime at the European Physical Society}

In early 2006, Santilli received an invitation from the editorial office of EuroPhysics Letters to submit there some of his paper, invitation presumably issued following various learned referee reports provided by Santilli to said journal.

hence, on December 26, 2006, Santilli submitted to {\it EuroPhysics Letters} (EPL),\index{EuroPhysics Letters}\index{EPL|} a journal of the European Physical Society\index{European Physical Society} (EPS),\index{EPS} a condensed version of the measurements herin reported, under the title "Apparent confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment toward the synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons," Ref. No. EPL 1799, essentially consisting of Ref. [118] except for insignificant touches. Copy of the submission was sent to all members of the EPL Editorial Board requesting the courtesy of comments as well as the consideration of possible independent re-runs of the measurements due to their evident fundamental scientific character as we, as well as environmental relevance.

Since the synthesis of the neutron is a fundamental open problem of nature, thus demanding a collegial knowledge, Santilli feels a moral obligation to disclose the EPL ''review" and present his comments.

Following numerous exchanges, fruitless suggestions of true experts in the field and release of additional information, including copies of a large number of scans and additional data, as well as the release to EPL editors of a strong letter of support for paper [118] authored by Dr. David Hamilton of the U. S. Department of Energy and other authoritative support, on March 21, 2007, the Editorial Office of EPL released the following final rejection:

\vskip0.29cm

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

{\it Dear Professor Santilli,

The manuscript you submitted to Europhysics Letters (EPL) has been reviewed by an expert referee. I regret to inform you that on the basis of the attached resulting report, we cannot accept your manuscript for publication.

Thank you for your understanding.

This decision is final.

Yours sincerely,

\vskip0.29cm

vskip0.29cm

Prof. Paul Sutkliffe

European Physical Society

6 rue des FrŹres LumiŹre

BP 2136

F - 68060 Mulhouse Cedex

tel/fax: + 33 389 32 94 44 / + 33 389 32 94 49

email: editorial.office@epletters.net

web: https://www.epletters.net

\vskip0.29cm

EPL "REVIEW"

I must admit that I have been intrigued by this paper and spent some time following up references. I had not heard of Don Borghi's experiment, nor indeed of 'hadronic mechanics'. I am afraid a number of statement in the paper lead me to worry about the credibility of the science in some places. For instance, the statement that 'antineutrinos have negative energy'. This is at best a misleading statement and at worse, just poor physics. Likewise the statement 'the neutron is one of the largest reservoirs of clean energy available to mankind' is not true. Of course everyone knows the neutron is unstable when outside nuclear matter and beta decays with release of a small amount of energy. But this is not a practical way of extracting energy for useful power to generate electricity, say, in the same way that nuclear fission or fusion is, at any rate not with current technology.

However, my main concern is with very basic physics. The paper suggests that a new type of bound state between a proton and electron can be formed (the psuedoneutron) that is far far more tightly bound than a hydrogen atom. Its spatial size of ~1 fm is five orders of magnitude smaller than a hydrogen atom and I have two objections to this idea:

1. I cannot see how a magnetic field can add to the 1/r Coulomb potential in a Schroedinger equation to give rise to eigenstates bound so tightly as to give rise to an object so small. The statement that the Coulomb potential is 'very strong' is obvious if we could force the proton and electron so close together, but basic quantum mechanics (which I am not yet ready to forego) tells us this cannot be allowed. This leads to objection 2.

2. The uncertainty principle states that an electron cannot be confined to such a small volume of space as this proposed bound state since such a small uncertainty in position leads to a large uncertainty in momentum and the electron's small mass implies it will have a large classical velocity that stops it from sticking around very long. This is after all why we know atomic nuclei cannot contain preformed electrons, something we have known since the days of Heisenberg, Pauli and Enrico Fermi.}

\ *************************************

\vskip0.29cm

SANTILLI COMMENTS ON THE EPL "REVIEW"

Palm Harbor, Florida, January 19, 2008

\vskip0.20cm

TO THE EPL EDITOR IN CHIEF

Prof. Volker Dose

AND THE CO-EDITORS

Prof. Naftali Auerbach Prof. David Bensimon Prof. Enric Canadell Prof. Antonio Coniglio Prof. Leticia F. Cugliandolo Prof. Valeri T. Dolgopolov Prof. Helmut Dosch Prof. Stephan Fauve Prof. Rosario Fazio Prof. Gillian A. Gehring Prof. Thierry Giamarchi Prof. Rudolf Grimm Prof. Michael Horn von Hoegen Prof. Anders Kastberg Dr. Guinevere A. Kauffmann Prof. Gabriel Kotliar Prof. Astrid Lambrecht Dr. Fernando Lazaro Freire Jr. Prof. Liliane Léger Prof. Decio Levi Prof. Hongru Ma Prof. Deepak Mathur Prof. Michael C. Payne Prof. Francesco Pegoraro Prof. Zoltan Racz Prof. Peter Reimann Prof. George A. Sawatzky Prof. Udo Seifert Dr. Laurent Simon Prof. Sauro Succi Prof. Paul M. Sutcliffe Prof. Hidenori Takagi Dr. André Thiaville Prof. Robin W. Tucker Prof. Jan M. van Ruitenbeek Prof. Luis ViĖa Prof. Patrick B. Warren Prof. Fu-Chun Zhang \vskip0,29cm

\vskip0.29cm

With extreme regret, the underwriter Ruggero Maria santilli feels an ethical obligation to denounce the existence at the European Physical Society of an organized scientific crime (as per its definition in footnote 1 of this volume) on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics. It should be indicated that the use of the word "obscurantism" (rather than "crime") is inappropriate here because we are dealing with an organized suppression of due scientific process in the search of new clean energies and fuels so much needed by society, which suppression is manifestly damaging to society, thus being a "scientific crime", rather than an obscurantism.

Your above "review" of EPL 17991 is a manifestation of said crime according to a similar pattern protracted for years, for the following reasons:

1) By its very admission, the referee has zero knowledge of the field. Hence, your processing of paper EPL 17991 is unethical by any minimal editorial standard as Santilli can state following some thirty years of editorial experience for technical journals around the world. As you are expected to know, in order to qualify as "expert reviewer," a referee must have a record of publications, {\it specifically,} in the field of the paper, while the "reviewer" issuing final judgment admits to have none. Your unethical conduct is rendered particularly grave by the intentional refusal to consult at least some of the real expert reviewers suggested by the Santilli. the evident scope of this refusal is preventing additional support for the undesired scientific knowledge of the paper, besides support on file of the caliper of Dr. D. Hamilton of the DOE and other, all trashed out by you for personal; gains. As an illustration your "review" of paper EPL 17991 is equivalent to a review of a paper, say, in quantum chromodynamics by a politically selected referee who has no knowledge of even the existence of the field. It is evident you do not do such reviews for papers authored by your friends in QCD. Hence, besides unethical conduct in editorial processing at the European Physical Society, you have perpetrated a clear discrimination in handling papers in different fields that is in flagrant violation of the very statute of said Society. 2) The sentence

{\it I am afraid a number of statement [sic] in the paper lead me to worry about the credibility of the science in some places. For instance, the statement that 'antineutrinos have negative energy'. This is at best a misleading statement and at worse, just poor physics.}

\noindent confirms the main motivation of the "review," rejection, because paper EPL 17991 is not aligned with organized financial, academic and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines. The reader in good faith is expected to know that the interpretation of antimatter as having negative energy (referred to a negative unit of energy) has been published in very prestigious refereed publications around the world. As such, these publications cannot be credibly assumed as being unknown to an expert reviewer of a seemingly reputable journal of the European Physical Society.

3) The subsequent statement

{\it Likewise the statement 'the neutron is one of the largest reservoirs of clean energy available to mankind' is not true.}

\noindent is a confirmation of alignment of your review with organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines, because, as known to any expert to qualify as such, the utilization of the energy contained in the neutron is incompatible with quantum mechanics, but fully admitted by covering theories. At any rate, the statement is contradicted by the same referee in the following statement

{\it Of course everyone knows the neutron is unstable when outside nuclear matter and beta decays with release of a small amount of energy.}

4) The statement

{\it I cannot see how a magnetic field can add to the 1/r Coulomb potential in a schoedinger equation to give rise to eigenstates bound so tightly as to give rise to an object so small. The statement that the Coulomb potential is 'very strong' is obvious if we could force the proton and electron so close together, but basic quantum mechanics (which I am not yet ready to forego) tells us this cannot be allowed.}

\noindent is a further manifestation of organized scientific crime because:

4A) The referee rejects experimental {\it measurements} via purely {\it theoretical} concoctions, which posture is against scientific ethics since measurements can only be dismissed by counter-measurements, as Santilli had requested to {\it all} EPL editors;

4B) In order for the above theoretical posturing to make physical sense, the referee tacitly assumes that the proton is a point and the electron orbits around it at $1~fm$ distance, a theological posturing that is itself unethical because at $1~fm$ mutual distance the electron is forced to penetrate within the hyperdense medium inside the proton;

3C) The referee explicitly confesses his/her assumption that quantum mechanics and related Einsteinian doctrines are terminal theories of nature, an assumption that can only be condemned as a crime against mankind; etc.

5) The final statement

{\it The uncertainty principle states that an electron cannot be confined to such a small volume of space as this proposed bound state since such a small uncertainty in position leads to a large uncertainty in momentum and the electron's small mass implies it will have a large classical velocity that stops it from sticking around very long.

} \noindent is a final confirmation of organized scientific crime at the European Physical Society for numerous additional reasons, such as:

5A) The "argument" on uncertainty has a minimum of scientific credibility, again, under the assumption that the proton is a point and the electron orbits around it in vacuum at $1~fm$ distance. This posturing is unethical because no ethically sound scientist can proffer final knowledge on the uncertainty of an electron trapped inside the hyperdense medium inside the proton;

5B) The referee first assumes the theoretical theology of point 4) and then uses it to dismiss experimental measurements. This posturing is also unethical, and definitely against even minimal standards of serious scientific conduct;

5C) Inspections of EPL publications establish that you routinely accept papers on quarks beliefs under the knowledge that, per your own above statement, quarks cannot be bound inside hadrons for your very argument, while you reject exactly the same physical conditions for the electron inside the proton. The evident reason for the disparity only naive people or accomplices can deny, is that quarks beliefs are compatible with Einsteinian doctrines while the same conditions for the electron are not. Besides the manifest violation of the statute of the European Physical Society caused by such a blatant discrimination, European taxpayers supporting the European Physical Society should keep in mind that quark conjectures are totally useless to society, besides being afflicted by catastrophic inconsistencies (such as impossibility to have gravity, and other inconsistencies denounced in this section). By comparison, all of you were informed that the studies of the paper are specifically motivated by clear possibilities of developing new clean energies. Asocial and ascientific discriminations of these dimensions must be publicly denounced as a crime against society if we truly care for human knowledge, for silence would be complicity.

In view of the above, and of additional documentations of similar organized scientific crimes against any surpassing of Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics, Santilli {\it requests} that the European Physical Society restructures its operation under an external Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability as a necessary condition to assure the participation of the European physics community to the survival search for new energies that, to be clean, must surpass said doctrines.

In the absence of the requested self-restructuring within a reasonable period of time, Santilli suggests the initiation of judicial proceedings against the European Physical Society for violation of scientific ethics, lack of accountability, misuse of public funds, scientific fraud, and other violations of the law, such judicial proceedings being the only remaining way for unmasking the members of the organized scientific crime currently in control of the European Physical Society and minimizing, in this way, the ongoing severe damage to society and the expected severe judgment by posterity. \vskip0.29cm

Ruggero Maria Santilli

acting { {\it pro se} as a U. S. Citizen under the protection of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution that is particularly in effect when used for the protection of societal interests..

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\appendix{Denounciation of Organized Scientific Crime n Italy}

Following the above reported final rejection of Ref. [118] by EuroPhysics Letters, Santilli submitted the same paper to the {\it Societa' Italiana di Fiusica} (SIF, Italian Physical Society)\index{Italian Physical Society}\index{SIF} for possible publication in any of its journals as deemed appropriate by the editors.

Following additional routine correspondence, including the release of qualified refereed, documentation of the numerous scans as partially available (due to their volume) in the web site [119], and various comments, Santilli received on December 21, 2007, the final rejection quoted below apparently issued by P. Biscari on behalf of C. Cercignani. Santilli then immediately contacted C. Vasini of the society editorial office to make sure that C. Cercignani had inspected the "review," but received no answer to this day, January 21, 2008.

\vskip0.29cm

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

\vskip0.29cm

{\it Subject: Il Nuovo Cimento B. REF: ncb10066

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:00:47 +0100

From: Paolo Biscari

To: Ruggero Maria Santilli

CC: Carmen Vasini

\vskip0.29cm

Dear Author

On behalf of Il Nuovo Cimento B, and according to the new Referee's report below I regret to tell you that your paper REF: ncb10066 On the laboratory synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons can not be published on Il Nuovo Cimento B.

Best regards,

\vskip0.29cm

Carlo Cercignani

Vice Director /Il Nuovo Cimento B

Dipartimento di Matematica

Politecnico di Milano

Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32

20133 Milano (Italia)

Tel: +39 - 0223994557

Fax: +39 - 0223994568

e-mail: cercignani.ncimb@polimi.it

\vskip0.29cm

SIF "REVIEW"

As a general comment one can point out that the paper does not contain solid scientific motivations and/or argumentations to proof the claim made about the laboratory synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons. It contains only a series of hypothesis rather “shocking” and not experimentally justified which are presented using a style not always appropriate for a Scientific Journal as Nuovo Cimento. It does not provide the reader with the basic information usually present in a paper in a form of plots and tables showing quantitatively the measured physical quantities. A good and clear presentation of the data is the starting point before any speculation on the results is made. In addition, the interpretation of the results is not based on well justified arguments and facts.

Here below some more specific criticisms and comments to this paper.

1) An experiment such as that described in this paper measuring only fluxes of neutrons and gammas without a clear discrimination among them and not providing their energy spectra does not give the necessary information requested to support any of the speculations reported in the paper.

2) pag.1 neutronization is indeed a fundamental process in astrophysics , but it was obviously not suggested by Rutherford before the discovery of the neutron.The don Borghi article does not discuss specifically of the emission of neutrons, but only of nuclear transmutations, anyway never observed in any further published experiment

3) pag.2 the neutron detectors here reported and illustrated in the WEB page, are of common commercial used. They are employed to detect intense neutron fluxes. In absence of these fluxes they are very sensitive to reasons different than those due to the presence of neutrons like mechanical vibrations etc.. Typical examples were experiments on the so called “cold fusion” where faked emission of neutrons was often observed.

4) At the top of pag. 4 “ The traditional use of silver and gold foils placed around Klystron ……showed various electron and photon emission, but not clearly identifiable conventional emission…” . I would have expected the author to show a spectrum (or something else but a quantitative observable) of the conventional emission together and that measured in that situation in order to judge the differences.

5) pag. 4. The author himself says "we cannot exclude that some of the tests did indeed produce ordinary neutrons", but nobody apart him said that neutrons were produced. The possibility of "entities" looks indeed a fantasy , while the trivial one of mechanical vibrations looks quite more acceptable

6) Another disturbing point is that the author really ignores in his speculations on the combination of the “pseudoneutron” with a proton the basic properties of the deuteron. In fact, he claims that the binding energy for a neutron proton system (2.225 as reported in all text books and not 2.015!!) is the same of that of the proton-pseudoneutron system. The author seems to have forgotten that the nucleon interaction depends on spin (in fact the deuteron does not have excited states and the proton-neutron system is bound only in its ground state as spin triplet state). Therefore how can he claim that a particle with spin 0 ( a boson) can be bound to a fermion spin ? with the same interaction strength of two nucleons with spin ? coupling to total spin 1? Consequently all the predictions for gamma-ray energies are wrong.

8) Again I have doubts on the precision with which he treats the problem, particularly if this type of precision is applied also to the measurements for which we do not see anything. In fact, again in the expression (2) at page. 4 he ignores in the evaluation of the possible energy of the gamma-rays the mass of the electron which he says that it is small. In this case what he calls small it turns out to be 55% of the energy predicted for the possible emission of photons!!!

9) pag.5 The ”discovery” of don Borghi, was never later confirmed and the idea of having discovered new particles is indeed a fantastic one. The same is true for the properties of the so called “pseudoneutrons”

10) pag 6. no relation exists with reference 6 which treats plasma problems

11) pag 9. no relation exists with reference 6 which treats energy production and related “humanitarian” considerations

To conclude this paper cannot be accepted for publication.}

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

\vskip0.29cm

SANTILLI COMMENTS ON THE SIF "REVIEW"

Palm Harbor, Florida, January 19, 2008

\vskip0.29cm

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ITALIAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

With extreme regret, as it was the case for the European Physical Society, the underwriter Ruggero Maria Santilli feels an ethical obligation to express a public denunciation for the existence at the Italian Physical Society of an organized scientific crime (as per its definition in footnote 1 of this volume) on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics dating back to the organized oppositions in the 1960s against experiments on the laboratory synthesis of the neutron, oppositions that forced Don Borghi and his associates to leave Italy and conduct their tests in Brazil.

It should be equally indicated that the use of the word "obscurantism" (rather than "crime") is inappropriate here because we are dealing with an organized suppression of due scientific process in the search of new clean energies and fuels so much needed by society, which suppression is manifestly damaging to society, thus being by its Latin definition a "crime", rather than an obscurantism.

Your above "review" of ncb10066 is a manifestation of said crime according to a similar pattern protracted for decades, for the following reasons:

The "review" is unethical because it dismisses {\it experimental} measurements via purely {\it theoretical} posturing, the unethical character being established, firstly, by the fact that {\it experimental measurements can solely be dismissed via counter-measurements,} and, secondly, by the fact that {\it the theoretical posturing used for the rejection is theoretically vacuous,} as shown below. Hence, whether studious or not, the "review" suppresses due scientific process on the search of much needed new energies, in {\it de facto} support of ascientific and asocial, organized academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics.

It is now over forty years that the Italian Physical Society has been exposed to the need of conducting {\it experiments} on the laboratory synthesis of the neutron. It is now over forty years that the Italian Physical Society has opposed and disrupted said experiments because the synthesis of the neutron is irreconcilably incompatible with Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics as established in this section. Hence, it is now time to file a public denunciation of the existence of an organized scientific crime at the Italian Physical Society, which denunciation, to avoid complicity, is expected to be supported by all Italians who really care about a democratic pursuit of new, fundamental scientific knowledge, let alone care for the dignity of their Country.

The above public denunciation is further mandated by the fact that the cost of the repetition of Don Borghi and Santilli experiments is lilliputian when compared to the cost of other experiments in particle physics strongly preferred by the organized interests currently controlling the society, the transparent different being that the former tests are incompatible with Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics, while the latter tests are strictly aligned with said doctrines.

Under the assumption that the "reviewer" is a qualified referee, as expected by SIF, the opening statement:

{\it As a general comment one can point out that the paper does not contain solid scientific motivations and/or argumentations to proof the claim made about the laboratory synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons.}

\noindent is intentionally false. In fact, Santilli makes an effort in indicating that the "entities" detected in tests [118] are not neutrons, since the actual synthesis of the neutron would imply direct experimental evidence on the continuous creation of matter in the universe, as established with clarity in this section.

The second opening statement:

{\it It contains only a series of hypothesis rather “shocking” and not experimentally justified which are presented using a style not always appropriate for a Scientific Journal as Nuovo Cimento. }

\noindent is a manifest manipulation of science to serve organized interests on Einstein and quantum mechanics because the paper carefully {\it avoids} "hypothesis" and solely presents {\it experimental measurements} with very tentative and preliminary possible interpretations.

The subsequent statement:

{\it It does not provide the reader with the basic information usually present in a paper in a form of plots and tables showing quantitatively the measured physical quantities. }

\noindent is intentionally false because the paper was submitted as a short communication with all plots, tables and data available in the adjoining web site [119]. Additionally, the editorial office of the SIF studiously refused the inspection of print-outs of thousands of scans, measurements records, data, etc. accumulated in close to one years of tests.

1*) Rejection 1) is vacuous because the American manufacturers of the detectors provided the print-out of all recorded measurements. No additional information can be credibly requested on the purely theoretical posturing of the SIF, while carefully avoiding the {\it repetition of the measurements} prior to venturing judgment on a problem of such an evident basic relevance. Particularly condemning for the SIF is the very low cost of the repetition of Don Borghi and Santilli tests, thus leaving as the only credible reason for their lack of conduction the serving of said organized interests.

2*) The first part of rejection 2), {\it pag.1 neutronization is indeed a fundamental process in astrophysics , but it was obviously not suggested by Rutherford before the discovery of the neutron} is historically false. Rutherford is the originator of the hypothesis of the synthesis of the neutron from hydrogen atoms inside stars as universally acknowledged. The second part of the statement {\it .The don Borghi article does not discuss specifically of the emission of neutrons, but only of nuclear transmutations, } is totally insidious because it may imply the reviewer dream that the nuclear transmutations detected by Don Borghi were not caused by neutrons, thus being fully compatible with Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics. The final statement of rejection 2), {\it anyway [said nuclear transmutations were] never observed in any further published experiment .} is a primary motivation for this public denunciation of organized scientific crime at the Italian Physics Society because it was indeed the duty of said society to repeat the tests and either very or deny them. In reality, as it is known in well informed circles in Italy, the Italian Physical Society never repeated the tests and, as in this case, used their absence to dismiss the results, because of serious expectations that a repetition of Don Borghi's experiment would establish its validity, thus damaging organized academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics in disrespect of the interest of society for new scientific knowledge.

3*) The "motivations" of rejection 3) are simply preposterous and not appropriate for a serious physical society. The first part of the statement dismisses the measurements on grounds that the detectors use din Santilli's test {\it are employed to detect intense neutron fluxes. In absence of these fluxes they are very sensitive to reasons different than those due to the presence of neutrons like mechanical vibrations etc..} The SIF expects serious scientists to believe that the continuous alarms jointly measured by three different, calibrated and verified detectors, alarms that caused the evacuation of the laboratory reported in the paper, are due to "vibrations". This is an unbelievable manipulation of scientific evidence for transparently equivocal personal gains, since a statement of that type can only be ventured following counter-measurements. The mere mention of the "cold fusion" in the final statement of 3), {\it Typical examples were experiments on the so called “cold fusion” where faked emission of neutrons was often observed. } then seals the intent by the reviewer to perpetrate a scientific crime.

4*) The "argument" for rejection used in 4) is scientifically vacuous. Santilli tests have established that the exposure of silver and gold foils to the "entities" {\it does not} produce conventional nuclear transmutations, thus being evidence of its anomalous character. All data were available in the print-outs of the scans that the SIF studiously avoided to inspect. In any case, the {\it sole} possible scientific statements in the issue are those following {\it independent re-runs} of the test.

5*) The "argument" used in rejection 5) is an additional manipulations of scientific evidence in studious, or otherwise de facto support of organized interests. In fact, the statement {it The possibility of "entities" looks indeed a fantasy , while the trivial one of mechanical vibrations looks quite more acceptable.} should be compared with the numerous neutron alarms by different detectors all without any detection of photons as per certification of the manufacturers. The idea that such continuous multiple alarms causing laboratory evacuations (see a samp,e of then in web site [119], with one print-out only presented as Figure 6.29) are a "fantasy" causes the collapse of all credibility by the Italian Physical Society, or its expectation that all scientists ar either naive or subservient to said organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics.

6*) The sentence in rejection 6), {\it Another disturbing point is that the author really ignores in his speculations on the combination of the “pseudoneutron” with a proton the basic properties of the deuteron. In fact, he claims that the binding energy for a neutron proton system (2.225 as reported in all text books and not 2.015!!) is the same of that of the proton-pseudoneutron system. } can only be claimed as being "disturbing" because without any scientific content. The pseudo-neutron (a name introduced by Santilli for scientific caution to stress that the detected entities are not necessarily neutrons) are clearly unstable and, when absorbed by nuclei, they are expected to decay instantly into protons and electrons. Hence, the binding energy for protons can be used leading to the same results. In view of the third digit approximation considered, the difference between 2.25 and 2.015 would imply deviations in the seventh digit, way beyond available meaning !!! The additional statement on the spin dependence of nuclear interactions is also intentionally false (assuming the "referee" to be qualified) for the reason just indicated (the only stable part in the pseudo-neutron is the proton that has the spin 1/2 called for by the "referee"). The further statement {\it Therefore how can he claim that a particle with spin 0 (a boson) can be bound to a fermion spin ? with the same interaction strength of two nucleons with spin ? coupling to total spin 1? Consequently all the predictions for gamma-ray energies are wrong. } is another major motivation for this public denunciations because it constitutes the sublimation of the suppression at the Italian Physical Society of due scientific process on much needed new energies. In fact, Santilli has no claim on the correctness of the numerical value of the energy released by nuclear transmutations caused by the "entities" (see the comments in connection to Eqs. (6.2.206) and following). The incontrovertible aspect here studiously suppressed for personal gains is the {\it esoenergetic character} of said reactions, hence the ethical duty for the Italian Physical Society to trash out theoretical theologies in the field because transparent scientific corruption and conduct instead serious measurements, now necessarily needing external ethical control for credibility in view of the indicated forty years of scientific manipulations of the case.

8*) The "arguments" of rejection 8) is also an additional manipulation of scientific evidence for personal gains. In fact, rejection 8) enters into theoretical theologies on the denial of the nuclear transmutations detected by Santilli on the basis of the impossibility of knowing at this initial stage the exact value of the emitted energy (!!!), while denying again the societal, let alone the physically important point, their incontrovertible esoenergetic character (!!!).

9*) The "arguments" of rejection 9) are offensive to serious science because the SIF first opposes for forty years the conduction, let alone the repetition of Don Borghi's experiment; then uses the absence of such a repetition to deny the scientific value of the experiment; then the SIF uses this studious chains of nonscientific posturing to use theoretical theologies to deny the laboratory synthesis of the neutrons; then the SIF continues the use of these manipulated steps to discredit Santilli's measurements and expect that laboratory evacuations were caused by "vibrations" (!!!).

10*) The statement in rejection 10) and 11) is false. Reference 6 of the paper does indeed study bound states of the proton and the electron at orbits smaller than Bohr's orbit, thus being directly relevant to tests [118,119]. This additional dismissal is equally studious and motivated by the transparent desire to dismiss any and all possible corroborative evidence. For what reason? certainly not to serve science!!!

All the above manipulations of scientific evidence has one and only one credible explanation: the studious intent at the Italian Physical Society to serve ascientific, asocial, organized, academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics.

Santilli here requests that the Italian Physical Society initiates its reorganization under an external ethical committee for the supervision of its operations, in which absence, judicial proceedings will be rendered mandatory by the increasingly cataclysmic climactic deterioration of our planet.

\vskip0.29cm

Ruggero Maria Santilli

acting { {\it pro se} as a U. S. Citizen under the protection of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution that is particularly in effect when used for the protection of societal interests.

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

Santilli would like to have a record of the following additional documented events.

Santilli initiated his Ph. D. research in the late 1960s at the Department of Physics of the University of Torino, Italy, with the Lie-admissible generalization of Lie's theory, including the first $(p, q)$-deformations of Lie algebras, a topic vastly unknown at that time in pure mathematics, let alone physics. Following 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 Santilli's face "you will never get an academic position in Italy." Santilli was subsequently nominated by the Estonia Academy of Sciences for that paper among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times, the only name of Italian origin in that list (see the introductory part of Volume I), but Regge's threat turned out as being true, and Santilli was forced to leave Italy after the publication of paper [1] for an academic job in the USA.

Being of Italian origin, Santilli 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" in Rome, Italy. The session for physics was 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, and others.

Even though Santilli constituted no longer a threat for an academic job to their pupils in Italy (since at that time Santilli was Associate Professor of Physics at Boston University), and even though Santilli attempted to qualify himself as a scientist, thus requiring the 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 Santilli, beginning with the relativistic extension of the Galilei group outlined in Appendix 3E, was so furious that it turned into a hysterical rage rather inappropriate for heads of a governmental session.

In the end, De Alfaro, Budini/Budinovich and Gatto granted the "Libera Docenza" to {\it all} other participants except to Santilli, even though Santilli 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 with 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 not only teaching to a Graduate School in Physics in the U.S.A., but was also conducting post Ph. D. seminar courses for 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. [1,5,6,7,10] (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, with the first known hypothesis on the identification of the gravitational field with the electromagnetic fields originating matter also for neutral bodies [24]

5) Various publications in in various fields with various colleagues.

Santilli used to go (and continues to go) to Torino 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 Torino, Italy, and he will never visit that department again for the rest of his life.

Another episode worth reporting is the following. Santilli 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 according to Einstein definition, because of the dimension of his scientific vision combined with his serious commitment to scientific democracy for qualified inquiries.

In 1967, when Santilli 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 Santilli to use the Lie-admissible algebras for possible advances in the hadronic structure, a suggestion that turned out as being prophetic.

The author kept in periodic contacts 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 Santilli 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 physics community 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. What a human, let alone scientific putrescence.

Additional episodes have confirmed the existence in the Italian physics community of an unprecedented decay of scientific ethics that Santilli, 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, and actually 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 Santilli to file lawsuits in both the U. S. A. and Italy (see http://www.scientificethics.org) among the Italian physicists E. Conte., R. MMignani, F. Cardone. M. Marrani and others. At any rate, evidence established that, among all scientists the world over, Santilli 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 Italian 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 major problems of ethics 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 in these volumes. 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 Footnote 1 of this volume and in Refs. [89,90].

The following additional, deplorable episode must be denounced. In 1994, Santilli received a visit from the Italian architect Franco Valente inviting Santilli to organize a new center of research at a beautiful Longobard castle in Monteroduni, Molise region, Italy, that Valente had restored, known as the Castle Prince Pignatelli, from the name of the royal family who owned the castle since the middle age. Santilli then visited Monteroduni to receive the full support of the population and a formal commitment by the town for the use of the entire castle by the Italian division of the U. S. Institute for Basic Research (IBR). Pictures of the Castle Prince Pignatelli can be seen in the Historical Notes of the web site www.i-b-r.org.

Santilli and his wife Carla then entered into a year of very intense legal, administrative and academic work for the appointment as IBR members of some 150 scholars from over 33 countries, including members of Nobel Committees, presidents of scientific society, and the like.

An all encompassing conference, from pure mathematics to engineering applications, was organized on the various aspects of hadronic mechanics, and scheduled at the Castle Prince Pignatelli in August 1995. The beautiful color poster announcing the conference was mailed to all developed or developing countries with the exception of Italy, since Santilli feared interferences from the Italian physics community due to the lack of alignment of the topic of the conference with Italian academic, financial and, above all, ethnic interests on Einsteinian doctrines.

One week before the date of the conference, Santilli authorized the mailing of the announcement to Italian Universities. The reaction by the organized scientific crime in Italy was instantaneous. In fact, the major of Monteroduni was immediately called for a meeting by members of the University La Sapienza, in Rome,, who indicated that "Santilli stole money from the American Government," presumably because Santilli had received grants from the DOE,. but the money was administered by Harvard University, it was not clear how Santilli could have stolen governmental money in Americ). Facing such a denunciation from such a high post, Monteroduni's mayor had no other chance than conducting investigation on its veridicity in the USA, including the intervention of the American Ambassadors in Italy of the time that happened to originate from Monteroduni, of course, confirming that the denounciations was a pure cloaca by putrescent people.

The organized scientific crime in Italy then used all possible channels to suppress the IBR in Monteroduni, including the religious, the scientific and the political channels. As an illustration, the head of the near-by Montecassino monastery (who is the second in power at the catholic church in Italy) was supposed to initiate with Prince Pignatelli the ceremony for the transition of the castle from the Pignatelli family to the Molise region and the IBR following some four centuries of ownership. However, the evening before the ceremony, said head of the Montecassino monastery received orders from Rome not to participate, and had to be substituted by a local bishop at the last moment without sufficient notice for him too to be ordered withdrawal.

The conference was indeed held with some 150 scientists from some 30 countries (which conference resulted in some 3,000 pages of printed proceedings in virtually all branches of quantitative sciences) because the participants had arrived in Monteroduni while orders for its suppression were being issued from Rome. Subsequently, local administrations in Molise, under religious, and/or scientific and/or political pressures from Rome entered into hysterical actions for the suppression of the IBR. As an illustration, the Chamber of Commerce of the Isernia province near Monteroduni requested the documentation of a college degree from the conference participants, that included members of the Nobel Committee and director of major scientific academies, said request being ventured as a condition for the release of funds already formally allocated and approved. Note that the same chamber of commerce in Isernia routinely release funds for local electrical and plumbing works without the request of a copy of the electricians and plumbers have license.

The irresponsible behavior by virtually all structures in the Molise region to serve organized academic, financial and ethnic interests reached its climax in prohibiting the IBR to file grant applications for over ten billion lires of the time (some ten million dollars by today standards) at the European Community in Bruxelles, grant applications requested by very distinguished scientists as principal investigators. As an illustration, this immoral goal was reached via the change of the keys of the entrance to the Castle Prince Pignatelli, so as to prevent the filing of said grant applications due to lack of an office, change of keys that was denounced to the local police because in violation of criminal laws due to the existence of legally binding and fully valid occupancy permits by the IBR. Of course, the filing of the criminal act with the local police in Isernia resulted as being a waste of time because the filing was quickly trashed out.

Santilli left the Molise region in late 1995 with a deep sense of shame to have been born in that region and the firm determination never ever to have any additional contact with people in Molise so servile to so manifestly immoral interests and so immensely insensitive to any scientific value, besides committing the vile action of first inviting famous scientists to serve the Molise region (without any pay, mind you, including lack of any pay to Santilli, of course) and then throwing them out because of changes in the wind of manifestly asocial and self-damaging politics.

A final unreassuring episode, that Italians truly interested in the dignity and democracy of their country should know, is the following. As recalled earlier, in 2007 Santilli was forced to file a lawsuit at the U. S. Federal Court against some of the most important academic institutions in Italy, including the Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare (INFN - the governmental agency financing all physics research in Italy), the Consiglio nazionale Ricerche (CNR - the most important research center in Rome outside universities), the Third University of Rome, the University of Aquila, and other entities. The lawsuit was filed because of protracted plagiarisms, paternity fraud and misuse of public funds by the italian physicists F. Cardone, R. Mignani and M. Marrani and their supporting institutions. The lawsuit, still pending, is available at the web site of the U. S. Federal Court, District of Tampa, Florida, with mirror site http://www.\-scientific\-ethics.org/Lawsuit-\-Cardone-Mignani.\-htm

Due to the gravity of the episodes, and their protracted character for years without any intervention by the responsible institutions, Santilli prepared in mid 1007 a press release in Italian on this lawsuit with all essential information, including a short outline of the lawsuit, web site of Santilli's CV, the mirror web site of the lawsuit, etc. This press release was sent to ALL Italian daily newspapers, to ALL Italian weekly magazines and to ALL Italian monthly magazines requesting a presentation of the case for the Italian people. Despite repeated interventions, ALL indicated conduits studiously suppressed the information to the Italian people that a qualified American physicist of Italian origin had been forced to file a lawsuits at the most important American court against the most important Italian academic institutions. Why? The only credible, but unreassuring answer is the complete subservience to, or the capillary control by the organized scientific crime of the entire newsmedia in Italy. Other "explanations" are left to naive people or accomplices.

Despite all the above, general 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, except the unfortunate case on Don Borghi experiment denounced above. 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.

\vskip0.29cm

\noindent PUBLICATIONS BY R. M. SANTILLI AS OF 1974 DURING THE EXAM FOR THE ITALIAN LIBERA DOCENZA:

\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 {\it 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.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\appendix{Denunciation of Organized Scientific Crime in England}

The author wants to have a record of the following documented events. 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.}

A rather serious additional episode requiring denunciation is the following. In the fall of 2007 the British scientific association with headquarters in London www.santilli-galilei.com (of which Santilli is not a member) granted a number of Gold Medals to scientists who had dared to surpass Einsteinian doctrines, or parts thereof, for the search of new clean energies and fuels. the association then entered into a contract with the Imperial College in London for facilities to held there the Prize Ceremony scheduled for July 2008, with due advance payment of all costs, whose reception was acknowledged by the Imperial College.

To the astonishment of scientists the world over, in late 2007 the Imperial College withdrew the contract with a written communication on grounds that there were "renovations" scheduled for that period. The statement resulted as being false because an investigative agency in London hired by the {\it International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability} (www.scientificethics.org) indicated that: 1) All renovations had been completed; 2) Various other meetings scheduled at the Imperial College in the same period had not been canceled and additional facilities were available in any case; and 3) Members of the British Institute of Physics had issued the order to the Imperial College of denying facilities for the granting ceremony of Gold Medals to scientist who had put their academic career on line to serve society. Mutatis mutandae, it must be excluded that the Imperial College could reach a serious decision of the above type with international repercussions without the blessing the the blessing of at least some members of the highest physics authority in England. In any case, the denial stands as of today, January 19, 2008.

Needless to say, as it is generally the case, 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.\index{Royal Society}\index{British Royal Society}\index{Proc. Royal Soc.}\index{IOP}\index{China}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\appendix{Denunciation of Organized Scientific Crime at CERN-Physics Letters}

IN PREPARATION

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\appendix{Denunciation of Organized Scientific Crime at the American Physical Society}

IN PEPARATION

February 9, 2008

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

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

Copyright © 2008 by The R. M. Santilli Foundation, LLC, P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.
Tel: 1-727-934 9593 Fax: 1-727-934 9275 E-Mail: "info(at)santilli-foundation(dot)org