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

Rotating vs. a Non-Rotating Earth and Electro-Magnetism (EM)

Sat, 28 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

“The phenomena of electromagnetism are due to the existence of a medium... the magnetic field is a state of angular momentum (vortex) in that medium, and the electric field is a state of radial tension (displacement). The motion of a conductor relative to these stationary vortices is what ‘pushes’ the electricity.” Maxwell, J.C. (1861) ‘On Physical Lines of Force’, Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 21, Part II.

“We must look upon the Aether as the ultimate foundation of all physical action... The Earth, whether in motion or at rest, is a ‘strained’ structure within this plenum. The magnetic field of a planet is not a ‘creation’ of its rotation, but a local manifestation of the Aetheric stress surrounding its mass.” Larmor, J. (1900) Aether and Matter: A Development of the Dynamical Relations of the Aether to Material Systems. Cambridge University Press, p. 162.

The two men above quite easily destroy modern ‘science’ as they give evidence based on mechanical observations describing how an aether, or ether, or the medium, generates EM. Rotation does not need to play a role in EM creation. Today both men, very capable intelligent engineers, would be burnt at the stake in the public square. They would be labelled ‘anti’ and a threat to the general welfare.

We have discussed why the aether has been covered up and buried. Thomas Kuhn in 1962 discussed ‘paradigms’ within ‘Science’. What he meant was the imposition of ‘Scientism’ or the creation of powerful institutions and processes, based on power and philosophies, which support non-science and falsified data to enforce worldviews and guarantee eternal governance and profits. This is where we are.

‘Modern’ science is equivalent to the Epstein network. It trafficks in false claims and underaged theories, assaulting and abusing its victims, and is deeply connected to the rich and powerful. Kuhn updated.

Electromagnetism (EM) and ‘models’

In the last post we travelled through Electromagnetism or EM in fairly simple, conceptual terms, to describe what exists in reality versus the claims of the ‘Standard Model’.

Electromagnetism (EM), the Earth and the Aether. How does EM work in reality versus what 'The Science' says?

Dr Ferdinand Santos III

21 Mar

Read full story

In this post we will debate how EM could be generated by the Allais-Brahe model of a static, stationary non-rotating Earth and by the Consoli model which advocates a rotating Earth through the aether. More here

Electromagnetism (EM), the Earth and the Aether.

Sat, 21 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

“The two sentences ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves’ and ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest’ would simply mean two different conventions... could we not likewise as well suppose the Earth to be the center of all things?” Saint Albert of the Einstein (1938), Jewish Apostle to the Gentiles

“Life is not a chemical accident; it is an Electromagnetic Event. We are vortices of energy sustained by the high-pressure aetheric environment of the uniquely positioned Earth. If you ‘unplug’ the Electro-magnetic (EM) field, atoms lose their instructions and revert to dust. To understand life we need to understand that chemical soups cannot exist and form structure, and that EM energy through an aether is the ‘spark’ or ‘the breath’ of life which informs all matter and gives all life forms their divine source of existence.” Ferd Santos III, 2026.

Maurice Allais and the 'Paraconical Pendulum' which proves the Aether and disproves Foucault, Newton, Einstein and Gravity as a constant.

Dr Ferdinand Santos III

7 Mar

Read full story

The Link

In two previous posts we discussed experiments which disprove the Standard model of Physics and Cosmology and proved the aether. What we want to do over the next few posts is continue that discussion and go through the following:

1-In this post we travel through Electromagnetism or EM in simple, conceptual terms, to describe what exists in reality versus the claims of the ‘Standard Model’. We will take an axe to the claims of the Standard Model and EM. The reality of EM shatters the standard paradigm and narrative.

2-In a second post we will debate how the Allais-Brahe model of a static, stationary non-rotating Earth would operate (how would it generate energy which is necessary for life?), and how the Consoli model, which advocates a rotating Earth through the Aether, would function.

3-In a third post we will engage with Michael Faraday who built the first functioning battery and energy system and using mechanical experimentation, and proved that EM operated within an aether.

4-Lastly we will have a look at the work of J C Maxwell, the man who took Faraday’s work and created the mathematical equations to explain EM. Oddly ‘the science’ strips the aether, which is central to Maxwell’s equations, and invokes the non-existing vacuum. Logically this would mean that Maxwell’s equations would not work. By way of introduction, and by necessity, we will discuss some of Maxwell in this post.

The above will again disprove much of the standard model. Given that these issues are never considered let’s persist and see where we go. More here

Maurice Consoli's Aether audit, proving Dayton Miller right, Einstein wrong

Sat, 14 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

“The historical interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment as a ‘null result’ is the product of a systemic oversight. When one audits the raw data without the bias of the vacuum-script, a persistent, small-scale anisotropy emerges. We have not been measuring ‘nothing’; we have been measuring a medium that is partially entrained by the Earth’s own bulk.” Consoli, M. & Pluchino, A. (2019). Michelson-Morley Experiments: An Alternative for the 21st Century. World Scientific, p. 54.

“Modern physics treats the vacuum as a ‘superfluid’ in its mathematical formulations of the Higgs Field and the Standard Model, yet it denies the physical reality of that very substrate. We are in the absurd position of an engineer who uses the equations of hydrodynamics to describe a pipe but insists that no water exists within it.” Consoli, M. (2009). “The Vacuum of the Standard Model as a Relativistic Superfluid.” Physical Review D, 80(8).

Author’s note: Higgs particle is a fraud, future post on this.

Reality bites, so does the Aether

The aether of space exists.

A vacuum is anti-science and a fiction. All of modern physics, astrophysics and cosmology is based on a lie – ‘space is a vacuum’. In reality space operates within the reality of fluid dynamics and apparently in reality, a viscous substance needs a medium. However, without the ‘vacuum’ the maths of Newton, Einstein, Relativity (there are many, pick the one you like), and the Banging of the Biggest all fail. Every single component of the current ‘cosmological worldview’ is based on the fraud of the ‘vacuum’.

The Aether disproves Relativity. Einstein's obfuscation and confusion around the Aether.

Dr Ferdinand Santos III

5 March 2025

Read full story

Into this debate enters another personality that no one has heard of – the effervescent Italian Maurice Consoli. Born in the 1950s Consoli is still active. He is a trained physicist from Catania University in Sicily and is a highly accomplished physics researcher for the Institute for Nuclear Physics or INFN. The authour has worked with Consoli (the author also highly recommends a visit to Catania including its wonderful open-air sea-food market and marvellous ecclesiastical buildings and of course Etna, beware the crazy driving).

Consoli audited both Michelson-Morley and Miller. He confirmed that Miller, who reproduced the results of MM performing over 300.000 mechanics. More here

Maurice Allais and the 'Paraconical Pendulum' which proves the Aether

Sat, 07 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Authority and Leviathan

In the last post we discussed how French engineers and naturalists recovered and proved the wave theory of light within an aether. This is not an accident. Using the power and soapbox of the Royal Society Saint Newton of the Light Corpuscle and Gravity in the early 18^th century, used his position as President of this body to crush opposition. He imposed the non-science of a ‘vacuum’ with light as billiard ball particles which resembled his view of the universe.

Newton’s models took precedence in all scientific domains. Anyone proposing an aether which annihilated Newton’s maths, or a wave theory of light which destroyed his billiard-ball prototype, was buried and professionally erased.

The modus operandi of using institutional authority to eviscerate dissent was replicated and has been imitated in every society since that time. It is with Newton that ‘Science’ becomes cojoined with ‘the State’. Today to criticise ‘The Science’ is to be a disloyal subject, a wayward Sheeple. In Newton’s reign, to criticise the ‘vacuum’, or ‘light corpuscles’ was to be ‘anti-science’. This might ring familiar to critics of government and ‘The Science’.

From the time of Newton onwards, it has not been uncommon for dissenters to be ‘de-lifed’, many have not only been financially and professionally destroyed, deregistered or censored, but physically attacked and killed. Newton personally sought to erase any physical legacy of his rivals including Robert Hooke, Christian Huygens and Gottfried Leibniz. He built the playbook to silence the malcontents.

We therefore witness a long history of Scientism. Cults which are as religious as ‘The Science’ do not engage in debate, transparency, mercy or tolerance. They don’t suffer heretics.

Allais and Aetheric Antinomies

The proofs for an aether are quite obvious. We can start with taking a walk outside our door in the open air. Allais’ achievement is overwhelming and virtually unknown (see Munier 2010, on the suppression of Allais). It does not comport with Scientism or its underlying philosophy.

Maurice Allais (1911–2010) was a practical French physicist-engineer of the mid-20^th century. An independent, critical thinker, Allais the mechanical savant, devised a proof of the aether that the cult of Scientism has never been able to explain away. His skill and capability match those of Georges Sagnac, Dayton Miller, Carl Anderson, Herbert Ives and many others who demonstrated the existence of an aether, practical engineers who are unknown to most PhD’s in Physics.

In 1954 the Nobel laureate and polymath Allais observed that during a solar eclipse his ‘paraconical pendulum’ would change its behaviour. This is important and we will get to why this observation is so paradigm-shattering. The ‘paraconical pendulum’ was a specialized version of the Foucault pendulum in Paris. More here

Saint Isaac of the Divine Light 'Corpuscule' (particle) was wrong.

Sun, 01 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Saint Newton of the Corpuscles violently insisted that light was a stream of physical ‘bullet-ball’ particles. The theory is wrong (more below), but the most significant part of this story is that Saint Newton used his immense political power as Pope and President of the Royal Society to crush the ‘Wave Theory’ proposed by his rivals, Robert Hooke, and Christiaan Huygens (Shapin, Schaffer, 1985). Why is this important?

By crushing the ‘anti-corpuscularists’, Saint Isaac delayed the understanding of electromagnetism and ‘wave mechanics’ by 150 years. This delayed the creation of modern technology by generations. Thanks Apostle Isaac. In fact, the author would maintain that Saint Isaac permanently destroyed real physical science by denying the aether and using abstract and rather ridiculous geometry to justify his worldviews (heliocentricity, gravity at a distance).

Saint Isaac applied this historically important misdirection through his abuse of political power as President of the elitist, corrupt Royal Society, simply because a ‘particle’ was better aligned to fit his Newtonian-‘billiard ball’-universe better than a medium-based wave. This was a colossal and destructive act that still reverberates.

But of course, you know all of this! State education and the ‘science media’ discuss some criticisms. Or maybe not.

More here

Saint Isaac Newton, Lord of Gravity. Scientist or Quackitist?

Sat, 21 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

In previous posts we have discussed aspects of Newtonian physics and the ‘laws’ of Saint Isaac, ‘axioms’ that must be remembered and regurgitated. There are many problems with Newton’s 3 main ‘postulates’ (laws). We will recapitulate these below. Newton is about celestial mechanics and has nothing to do with practical engineering.

Regarding celestial models, what is rarely mentioned by hagiographers and gatekeepers is that Newton imbibed and indeed depended on Kepler’s maths and Kepler’s 3 laws (debunked earlier). In fact the whole point of Newton was to calcuate the critical ‘constant’ that rotted Kepler’s maths. That constant was ‘gravity’.

Disclosure: One reason why the author does not like Newton is that the Englishman supported and even propagated the myth of a ‘vacuum’, which was marketed because it made his gravitational maths work. Newton was wrong (more below). If you deny the aether, you are in denial of reality.

What then of gravity as a theory? Yes it exists, but Newton does not explain how it works, nor what it is. Yet his massive corpus of unintelligible maths (some say gibberish) is accepted as ‘the science’ and buried his critics and started the funeral of the concept of the aether.

As we elucidated in a previous post, Kepler’s maths are at best the level of a first-year university student and tautological. In fact, the author, rather deviously, has taken Kepler’s maths and sent them to ‘experts’ for comment without telling them the provenance, and the responses were the same – the equations are inexact and circular. You can try this yourself. What then of Saint Newton, Apostle of the Mechanical Universe? More here

Kepler the murderer and mathigician?

Sun, 15 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

“I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care.” (Kepler, 1609)

In 1601, the German Kepler stole from Tycho Brahe’s laboratory what would have been a treasure trove of information. Brahe was the most formidable force in astronomy since Ptolemy. There is ample evidence that Kepler, who worked with Brahe before Tycho’s mysterious death, murdered the Danish astronomer to get his bloody hands on inimitably pure observational data.

Here we will discuss what ‘The Science’ never will. Saint Kepler is always referenced as a giant amongst the Apostles of ‘The ‘Science’, who saved the phenomena of Copernican theory with his mathematical ‘proofs’ of elliptical orbits. Is this really true?

Was Saint Johannes really an Apostle saving ‘science’ and the ‘truth’ of the church of Scientism from the toothless and shoeless ‘anti-science’ heathens and pagans?

Was he really a divine light of reason in a world of unbelieving darkness and ignorance?

Or was Kepler just another Sunworshipping quack and worse, a conniving criminal murderer? More here

Apollo 11 Fraud - searchable spreadsheet with details

Sun, 08 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Below is a summary table of ~100 rows which summarise many posts and issues with Apollo 11 and the Apollo ‘moon landing’ narrative. Many more can be added, this is just a skeleton.

When confronted by the Fanboys it can be used (and searched) for answers. This is a first step to creating a proper database, cloudifying it, and sharing it. When that is done, I will post the real database as well. Looking forward to the Artemis-Orion ‘moon fly by’, promised now for about 10 years and analyse that ‘flight’ against the data details presented.

Embedded searchable

Euclid and the Sun, Part 2. Real observations don’t support the Standard Model

Sun, 08 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

In a previous post we discussed why Euclidean mathematics gives a completely different and far more ‘physical’ distance measurement. This post extends that view and includes the Moon. The distance to the Moon (~238.000 miles) is accurate in the author’s opinion (summary below).

Interestingly, this accurate Earth-Moon distance, shatters the Relativistic calculation used by the standard model to arrive at the Sun’s distance from this planet. We should acknowledge that the desire to place the Sun at 93 millions from this planet is a very recent and a rather incredible claim based on circular logic and Kepler’s ‘Laws’ which are debunked in the next post (Kepler’s manipulated maths eventually put the Sun at a distance of 52 million miles). Some historical calculations you are not told about:

The problem is obvious. More here

Euclidean Distances and why the Standard Model distance calculation is wrong

Sun, 01 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Euclidean Distance: Euclidean distance treats space as a three-dimensional physical extension. It is based on the rigid geometry of the spatial medium itself and uses Pythagorean equations to calculate linear distances.

Standard Candle, Standard Model Distance: This is an inferential secondary calculation that relies on assumptions that the vacuum is real, and the speed of light is a universal constant. It is an estimation of distance based on the observed brightness (luminosity) of a celestial object, assuming its ‘true’ brightness is known.

Euclid and Pi

Our quite ‘flat’ universe comports with the Euclidean 3-dimensional reality most of us outside of ‘The Science’ inhabit. In the philosophical science fiction of Relativity and the Biggest Bangers, they inhabit the Reimann-Minkowski-Einstotle-curved universe.

Einstein and the Space-Time deceit. 'Time' has nothing to do with 'Space'.

Dr Ferdinand Santos III

25 January 2025

Read full story

The data is clear. The cosmos is not curved. Taken as a whole, the universe is strictly Euclidean. This means that if we pull out our grade 9 maths set, we could inscribe a giant triangle in a circle in outer space, and the calculated value would be π (3.14). You remember Pi. More here