Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults - Recent Articles

Black Holes cannot physically exist in reality. An overview of the narrative vs real physics.

Sun, 06 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Not a single University or ‘education system’ will teach anything which calls into question the fantasy world of the ‘Big Bang’, ‘Relativity’ or its inevitable, illogical computer generated fraud of ‘Black Holes’. The propaganda promoting Black Holes is limitless, energised by an infinity of funding and confident propagandists on their village soap boxes selling the snake oil.

Saint Stephen who was Hawking this story, spent most of his life extracting money from making up stories about the cosmos and deep dark ‘Black Holes’. Apostle Stephen’s specialisation was ‘entropy in Black Holes’ (woah Steve, slow down, easy on the factual relevancy); only to apostasy near the end of his existence and admit it was all a scam. Thanks Steve. Even the discredited comedian Einstein knew that Black Holes cannot exist. Let’s explain why the Messiah was right (for once!). Round of applause for the Einstotle.

On this substack we have disproven the General Theory of Relativity. This means that the Big Bang is rendered false. We can persist with an elucidation around another misdirection which is also impossible – the ‘Black Hole’. These only exist if General Theory of Relativity is true (it is false); and if matter can be ‘crushed’ into a ‘singularity’ (it can’t). Computer models and arrows against a black backdrop are not ‘science’.

More here

Why the size of the Universe must be enormous - yet it is still much smaller than we are told.

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Why the size of the Universe is enormous but not nearly as large as we are told

https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/video-on-why-the-size-of-the-universe

Problem statement: Why is the universe so large and how big is it really?
Answer: The size is dictated by physics and reality - no other design choice. But how big is it? Good question. Does anyone really know? Who amongst the Scientific elite is God?

Granular details: The physical universe is between 90 Million and 10 Billion light-years (LY) across based on JWST (James Web Space Telescope) and other data. A fraction of what we are told.

Standard Model Bayesian: 30 Trillion LY across
Standard Model FLRW (Friedman, Lemaitre, Robertson, Walker algorithm) metric: 93 Billion LY across
Standard Model JWST evidence: 30 Billion LY across
Resonator Model: 2-10 Billion LY across
Fluid Dynamics, JWST evidence: 93 Million LY across
Our Milky Way: ~200.000 LY

Our Solar System to the Oort Cloud: 1.5-3.2 LY

Note: LY = 5.9~Trillion human miles, still quite a jaunt and this is based on the incorrect constant of light speed. Light speed is variant. It is likely close to infinite in ‘space’ or far greater than the purported 186K per second constant demanded by the Standard Model, disproven many times and discussed at length on this substack. This means that the ‘5.9 Trillion miles’ per LY is quite probably vastly overstated by a 1000x time or more.
You know this because of your own common sense. If I measure light speed in Paris using assumptions and maths this calculation will not hold if I am standing on Pluto or floating out near Alpha Centauri. In both cases the speed of light will be different and the further away from dense high pressure zones and mass you are; the higher the speed.

Part 2 with more details

It has long been understood that the Standard Model, GTR (general theory of Relativity) and FLRW do not comport with reality. But you need to give the Fanboys some time to catch up. Worldviews being shattered and all that. FLRW means the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker algorithm the little wizards use to calculate the speed of the ‘infinitely expanding universe’ based on the magic of ‘Dark Energy’. Just make things up and construct equations. We will deconstruct and demise the FLRW in the next post.

The universe as Einstein originally thought, is not expandin and in violation of Einstein’s philosophy, the universe is not warped and massively curved; it is a mostly flat disc which oscillates. This is what the evidence states. Further, humans do not see ‘all of the cosmos’, we can only observe a part of it. A real phenomena in physics and cosmology is the ‘hall of mirrors’ effect, where the arrangment of the galaxies and stars will produce a hallucination of expansion and recession. A smaller space can well look massive and imply motion away from the observer. Have a stroll through Versailles Hall of Mirrors.

The Aether: a visualisation of a medium with 4 layers within the container.

Sat, 15 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Did you know that in 1920 Einstein admitted that the aether must exist? He admitted that light cannot be transferred in a nothingness. This was the year before he was asked ‘what is the speed of sound’ in Boston by a reporter and had no idea. Einstein’s PhD was in fluid dynamics (sugar molecule decomposition); he fully understood why ‘something’ needs a container for transmission or state change activity involving energy and kinetics.

Even Einstein knew an aether existed. So ask yourself why do the self-annointed scientistic-elite prattle on about a ‘vacuum’? Is it because an aether destroys most of the models used in ‘The Science’ and would eradicate many world-views and force a complete change in philosophical outlook?

Tesla, unlike Einstein, a real scientist and engineer, proved the aether existed and harnessed its energy. Tesla called this ‘free wireless’. The US government - your best friend of course - has his designs and experimental outputs. That should work out well. See 9-11.

Telsa consciously or unconsciously followed the experiments of Benjamin Franklin (1748-1752) and ascribed divine energy and inspiration - the holy spirit - to the aether. He was not wrong. He also rightly described how the aether, within the context of the vastness of our cosmos (though the universe is much smaller than we are led to believe) is a factory for material and element creation.

Atheric Layers

If we were to make a visual representation of the aether based on classical electrodynamics and physical mechanics, it wouldn’t look like empty space, nor would it look like a collection of billiard-ball particles floating in a vacuum. Instead, it would be depicted as a dense, continuous, elastic dielectric substrate; an energetic plenum rather than a void. Yes you can and do chew on it.

More here

The Physical Medium: the Aether, Matter, Light, and Life. The Standard Model in crisis.

Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT

When Einstein developed his Relativity theories which are mutually exclusive he completely ignored the reality of waves, energy, light and a medium (in 1905 he dropped the aether and gravity, spacetime was flat & uncurved; in 1915 he added back an amorphous aether and curved spacetime to account for gravitational waves; the speed of ‘science’, it is agile). The image below is a visual breakdown of electromagnetic wave propagation and antenna polarisation, illustrating how radio waves travel through space (an aether) and how their physical orientation is tied to the transmitter emitting them. This is rarely taught but puts the lie to much of ‘The Science’ not to mention NASA’s movies. We will tie this into the aether near the end of the post.

We have discussed this elsewhere in a few posts. More here

Why the Aether exists: energy, waves and life

Sun, 02 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Video explanation here

Based on real world data, the fraud called Einstein was forced back to at least some concept of an aether, but one that was amorphous enough to satisfy his pet ideologies, namely the flat-merged-space time of Special Relativity (1905); and the curved-space-time of General Theory of Relativity (1915). Notice that the ‘4D’ universe goes from flat to curved in 10 years. JWST observational data confirms it is flat and not expanding (future post on the hysterical-tortured maths they use to claim expansion).

Einstein’s philosophy, now the platform for modern physics and cosmology, meant that the aether was largely massless without particles, and immobile. This entailed it could not be a transmission or transduction agent - as false as a fighting sword made from paper and just as useless.

In 1923, Arthur Eddington, one of Einstein’s disciples, summarised the incoherency of the Relativity cult and its approach:

“If a substantial aether analogous to a material ocean exists, it must rigidify, as it were, a definite space; and whether the observer or whether nature pays any attention to that space or not, a fundamental separation of space and time must be there. Some would cut the knot by denying the aether altogether. We do not consider that desirable, or, so far as we can see, possible; but we do deny that the aether need have such properties as to separate space and time in the way supposed.”

Thanks Arthur. As a Relativist he admitted that space and time are not merged and the aether is real but for the sake of theory, let’s ignore it. The aether exists as an immobile or rigid medium (as Descartes believed), yet the leader of the Relativity cult (Einstotle) admitted that the aether might indeed be mobile and might indeed possess physical properties.

So, this is what passes for ‘The Science’. A melange of mish-mash, half baked ideas, endless changes, opinions, open-ended malleable equations, mutilated maths driven and shaped by philosophical need and imperative. Packaged and marketed as divine truth. No need for mechanical engineering or common sense. Try pouring water into a nothingness.

More here

Mach, Thirring & Miller: the aether, fluid dynamics, mechanical models

Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Mach’s foundational 1883 work, The Science of Mechanics, attacked the 19th century ‘scientific’ establishment's unprovable metaphysics. Mach wrote, "No one is competent to predicate things about absolute space and absolute motion; they are pure things of thought, pure mental constructs, that cannot be produced in experience."

Mach is saying that Newtonianism is philosophy not ‘science’. It is entirely unproven and not mechanically evidenced. Mach’s view of the universe is the contrary to that of Saint Newton’s.

Newton: Newton believed space was a real, rigid, physical entity, basically an empty room. In Newton’s water-bucket experiment (link below this section analysing why this is wrong); if we spin a bucket of water hanging from the tree limb, the water climbs up the walls of the bucket due to its rotation ‘relative’ to that absolute, fixed room.

In this experiment the word ‘inertia’ indicates an object's resistance to changing speed relative to space itself. Inertia references an object at rest, or, an object going in the same direction at the same speed (no acceleration, no deceleration). Newton’s maths only work with inertial frames. Compare this to Mach.

Mach: For the Austrian "empty space" is an unprovable abstraction. If God, the ‘Universe’, or Einstein deleted every star, planet, and atom from the universe except for one bucket of water, "rotation" loses all meaning. There is nothing to rotate relative to. Therefore, the water does not climb the sides of the bucket, and you would never feel dizzy if you were spun around.

Einstein agreed with Mach and picked up the theme that knowledge and data interpretation is ‘Relative’ and applied this ‘axiom’ to Saint Isaac of Gravity and his mechanics. It was Messiah Einstein who minted the phrase, "Mach’s Principle" to argue that “local inertia is merely an interaction with the rest of the universe's matter”.

So here we have 2 worldviews: Newton’s absolute space (an empty room) and objects measured against that absolute background; and Mach who maintains that physical relationships must be ‘Relative’ and premised on many variables. More here.

Thomas Edison - a self taught engineer, aetherist and fierce critic of the Mathemagicians.

Sat, 18 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT

“This phenomenon [etheric force] is an entirely new force of nature... operating directly through the ether substrate without ordinary electrical charge.” Thomas A. Edison, 1875 Laboratory Notes and Press Briefings.

“I don’t think anything of Einstein’s theory because I can’t understand it... [My son] may go flying into the clouds with that fellow Einstein. And if he does that, I’m afraid he won’t work with me.” Thomas A. Edison, 1923 Interview following his son’s graduation from MIT. I wonder what Thomas would think of MIT and the Ivy League now….

Yet another aetherist and mechanic whose true story is rarely taught.

The real work of Thomas Edison embarrasses the thin armed math wizards with their abstruse claims and declamations that all technological progress was a top-down victory by geniuses and theoretical mathematical models. Misinformation and propaganda are spoon fed to young minds and the masses that the mathemagician-druids with chalkboards and pencils, scribbled abstract equations, declared truth and reality, conjured a design which they then handed over to ordinary mechanics and engineers, who after bowing low to the ground, went off and built the toys.

Piffle.

Real scientific history tells us the exact opposite story. Witness electricity. The modern grid was not built by the blackboard deduction wizards; it was developed out of the physical environment by tough, self-taught practical engineers who completely ignored the academic ivory tower. Chief among these ‘science-deniers’ was none other than one of history’s greatest practical scientists and inventors: Thomas Alva Edison. Edison’s story ends with a surprise twist; and his physics and belief in an aether are always ignored by the gatekeepers.

Edison and the first phonograph, 1877. Did it pass peer review? Given its useful functionality and popularity, apparently it did. What did Einstein and Newton invent again?

Thomas Edison and his White Privilege

Thomas Edison was not a “scientist” in the modern, institutionalized sense of the word. He was an aggressive, relentless industrial engineer, material strategist, and very capable businessman. Largely homeschooled and entirely decoupled from the rigid academic tracks of his era, Edison viewed the universe not as a mathematical equation to be solved, but as a physical workshop to be organised. He operated on a simple, brutal philosophy: if it doesn’t have immediate, real-world utility and commercial viability, it was a waste of time and not worth pursuing.

Unlike Ben Franklin, Edison was not birthed into grinding, suffocating, working class poverty, but he certainly suffered from precarious economic circumstances. Little in the way of White Privilege was attached to Thomas Edison. He was born in 1847 in Milan, Ohio and his Canadian-born father ran a highly successful timber and shingle mill, ensuring that the family enjoyed a relatively stable, middle-class life. Then in the mid-1850s a new railroad was built which bypassed Milan and eviscerated the town’s canal trade. The local economy collapsed, taking the family’s business and related financial security with it. The Edison’s were forced to move to Port Huron, Michigan, to start over in severely modest circumstances.

This sudden slide into financial hardship left a permanent impact and attitude on the very young Alva Edison. By age 12, he was working on the Grand Trunk Railroad, wallowing in his White Privilege selling candy, sandwiches, and newspapers to passengers. But this is Edison. The young boy did not just hand out and sell newspapers; he decided to buy an old printing press and established a printing business in the baggage car. He wrote, promoted, printed and distributed his own newspaper, complete with spelling mistakes and his own opinions, to train workers and travellers - at the age of 12….. More here

Alexander Graham Bell: the aether, the undulating current, sound and the Telephone.

Sat, 11 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The background and inspiration for the invention of the telephone is a largely unknown story. Alexander Graham Bell was born in 1847 in Edinburgh, Scotland, his family moved to Canada and he ended up in the Excitable States where he conducted most of his experimentation. Bell did not approach the problem of electricity from the perspective of an abstract academic physicist or a mathemagician. Bell was a practical man, largely self-taught and was, fundamentally, a subject matter expert in acoustic mechanics and also human physiology.

You want complexity? Study the ear. You want to know if your ‘doctor’ actually knows anything about your body? Ask Dr Quack about the ear (a dumb look will greet the question, followed by ‘are you quackcinated against the latest scariant?’).

Bell’s grandfather and father (Alexander Melville Bell) happened to be world-renowned authorities on phonetics and elocution. His father invented what is called ‘visible speech’, a written universal phonetic alphabet that mechanically illustrated exactly how the human throat, tongue, and lips must position themselves to create any given sound (evolution Fanboys tell us that such complexity arose uniformly and gradually as monkey-man hopped off the branch and became you, sure thing). Bell’s mother and his later wife, Mabel Hubbard, were both deaf. Bell therefore swam in the world of phonetics and sound. This was the decisive factor in his creation of a unit to transmit sound. This is rarely cited or remarked upon.

For Alexander sound was not an abstract concept, but a physical, mechanical displacement of matter. Could sound be harnessed? Could it be transmitted? How does it work? How does our ear actually function and process sound? Bell’s curious mind explored. More here

Benjamin Franklin, the experimental Physicist who proved that electricity resided in an aether.

Sun, 05 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Benjamin Franklin is sometimes taught in the ‘education’ system, usually now with disdain. The propaganda often centres on Ben flying a kite in a storm and getting electrified. This is as silly and irrelevant as Newton’s fictitious apple which never fell on his head and was invented as part of his mythos some 100 years after he died. The details of Franklin’s physics is of course never discussed. If ‘space’ between particles existed or if there was a ‘vacuum’, Franklin’s experiments would have failed. They succeeded but no one is taught why.

The simple reason Franklin is ignored is that he proved the aether existed and knew that energy in the aether could be harvested. Franklin anticipates Tesla. More here

Sir Edmund Whittaker, auditing the Aether of Farraday and Maxwell.

Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT

In the framework of mechanical reality, Sir Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1873–1956) is one of the most significant figures in the history of science. Unlike the Relativist-Priesthood tying its religious fanaticism to Einstein, the Rothschilds, money and power; Whittaker was a subject-matter-expert of both abstract mathematics and the physical mechanics of the aether. He wasn’t just a thin armed metaphysician-comedian with chalk and a blackboard.

Why is Whittaker important? Whittaker is the greatest historian of physics after Pierre Duhem (future post on this unknown and quite remarkable physicist and historian). Like Duhem, Whittaker is crucial because he recorded the heuristic or narrative movement in ‘Science’ from reality to maths; and he proved that Maxwell’s equations weren’t just maths, they were descriptions of Fluid Stress in a real, pressurised medium.

Another important reason to enjoy Whittaker is that he called out the clown-show called Einstein (1951). He references the fraud of Relativity to be the maths (and maths only) of Lorentz and Poincaré. Lorentz’s maths, that Einstein ‘borrowed’ without attribution, are based on the aether. Few know this.

More here