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

Aetheric theories vs the Integrated Aetheric Model.

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Harold Aspden (1927–2011) was a Cambridge-educated electrical engineer, patent lawyer, and former IBM patent director, who spent decades developing one of the most mechanically detailed, alternative classical physics frameworks of the late 20th century.

Aspden’s theory is well built and incorporates most of the features utilised by other aetheric theorems of the past century.
This is why we highlight his theory.
Harold’s model unfortunately is insufficient, and bows too low and too often in the direction of the Standard Model.

Aspden was philosophically aligned with the Standard Model but he was not an atheist – he was a deistic creationist. However, Harold fully accepted both heliocentricity and the physical axial rotation and orbital motion of the Earth - without endeavouring to prove either.

In summary Aspden’s framework was a direct attempt to replace both Einstein’s General Relativity and modern Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) with a purely mechanical, electromagnetic aether.

Aspden’s cubic lattice model, its core mechanics, its theoretical triumphs, and its fatal engineering/physical roadblocks are discussed below. More here

Y2K Scam. Related to $cientism. The marketing, the corruption, the fraud - similar runbooks.

Sun, 20 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

To sell the scam, you need to market the panic.

As the 1990s rolled toward 2000 the global public was told that human civilisation was held together by the most tenuous of algorithmic threads. It was close to ending. Forget the Black Death of the 14th century. The presage to the parousia was the “Year 2000 problem” (Y2K), premised on a two-digit year convention utilised in legacy COBOL date fields.

The COBOL date field issue was marketed not as a routine software deprecation and maintenance task, but as an impending systemic apocalypse. Governments and enterprises poured hundreds of billions of dollars into consultancy contracts, vendor remediation, and crisis planning amid warnings of crashing airliners, dark power grids, and collapsing financial systems. The media did a Viking beserker. The money for the media was in the apocalyptic narrative. You remember.

Yet, when midnight struck on 1 January 2000, nations that spent virtually nothing on remediation, such as Russia and Italy, experienced the exact same uneventful transition as nations that depleted public treasuries. The author knows this being located in Russia on January 1 2000. Nothing happened. Not. A. Damn. Thing.

So, back to critical thinking. What happened? Why did the world buy into yet another scam? What were and are the technical realities of legacy COBOL architectures? What really transpired from the industrial mechanics of the panic, and the lucrative commercial nexus that transformed routine string-handling routines into an unprecedented IT consultancy windfall? More here.

The Aether and the confirmed 370 km/second movement of Cosmic Background Radiation.

Sat, 19 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Cosmic Background Radiation movement measured using different tools and vectors which alight on the same general velocity, roughly 370-400 km / second disproves Relativity, the Big Bang and the ‘void’ or ‘vacuum’ of space. This is why you will never hear of it and why it is never discussed. This is one disproof out of dozens of the Standard Model, but it is worth having a trot through the details and what it means.

Voiding the Void

Modern theoretical physics rests on a single foundational dogma: the universe is an isotropic (homogenous), directionless void with no preferred rest frame.

This postulated canonical script is 100% rubbish.

If you can measure a velocity of an absolute background than Relativity does not exist.

According to Messiah Einstein’s Special Relativity (don’t confuse this with ‘General’ Relativity which is different), all motion is strictly ‘Relative’ (another buzzword with no value). In this model there is no absolute background or physical medium against which true velocity can be measured. We know that this postulate is unscientific and unworthy even of being used as a bad joke. A CMB velocity just confirms what 100 other data points have already plainly stated - ‘Relativity’ is junk $cience.

Further, as this substack has painfully elucidated, according to standard Big Bang cosmology space is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. In essence the thin armed wizards zoom out the universe to create the fable of an even ‘void’, punctuated only by a cosmic similarity. To achieve this they use the fraudulent FLRW equation or the Friedman, Lemaitre, Robertson, Walker metric which is just another geometric toy based on General Relativity which should not be confused with the entirely different ‘Special Relativity’ (“Which ‘Relativity’ would you like to balance the equations Sir?”), which proposes that the cosmos are expanding at ~2 million km/hour. But you know this already. More here

Saint Stephen of the Hawking: 'A Brief History of Show-Time and Money'

Sat, 12 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Peter Higgs (Nobel Laureate in Physics)

“It is very difficult to engage him in discussion, and so he has got away with pronouncements in a way that other people would not... His celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have.” (Peter is famous for his own fraud - the ‘Higgs’ particle, future post on that nonsense)

Leonard Susskind (Theoretical Physicist, Stanford University)

“Stephen claimed that ‘information is lost in black hole evaporation’ and, worse, he seemed to prove it. If that was true, Gerard [’t Hooft] and I realized, the foundations of our subject were destroyed.” (Susskind’s ‘subject’ is thoroughly destroyed. Read this substack for more info.)

John Lennox (Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford)

“Nonsense remains nonsense, even when it’s talked about by world-famous scientists... To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for the existence of the universe sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not science.“

Christopher Norris (Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Cardiff University)

“Hawking’s dismissive claim that philosophy is dead demonstrates an unreflective reliance on the very speculative, philosophical, and unexamined assumptions that underpin his own theoretical models.”

Ouch.

Sympathy for the Devil

Not everyone fell to their knees and worshipped Apostle Saint Stephen of the Hawking. The critics above are from within ‘The Science’ and respectable academia. They are not ‘fringe theorists’ and skulking losers on the ‘conspiracy edges’ chewing on their lips, naked in a raincoat, denying the true religion of ‘The Science’. They had contact with the angelic Apostle Saint Stephen of the Black Hole and saw through the divine-light charade and thought he was more devil than saint. Hawking is one of the most obvious examples of marketing a religion - a false one.

Why was the little Englishman in a wheelchair rolled out over 30 years and shoved into your face as the acme of scientific celebrity even though he was a fantasist and false prophet? Let’s summarise:

· Hawking (1942-2018): Theoretical physicist impacted by Parkinson’s disease (neurological disorders) from the 1960s onwards. The author wonders if Hawking was exposed to DDT or other chemical poisons which accelerated from the 1930s onwards. Are these perhaps the genesis of his physical and neurological issues? Did these also impact his grasp on reality? Neurological problems by definition impact your cognition…..see ‘Long Rona’ for more information. Anyone suffering from ‘Long Rona’ suffers from a longer, and lower IQ.

· Mandate from heaven: Declared in the 1980s to be the Apostolic successor to the Papal chair of the Messiah Einstein and the Pope of Modern Physics. Usually attributed to be at the same level of genius as Newton and the Messiah, both of whom are wrong. Yawn.

· Philosophy: Moved from a cosmic design and ‘natural laws’ in physics, to random stochastic chance and ‘evolutionary-entity-emergence’ (whatever that means), over 50 years. Fictionist.

· Insights: Manufactured a law of entropy in Black Holes, which he later said cannot exist. This was his main claim to fame, and salon-women the world over swooned and fainted at the mere utterance, ‘Black Hole entropy’. A sure way to get a date and impress the ladies. ‘Excuse me lovely, can I amaze you with my Super Massive Black Hole and its entropic attributes?’

· Importance: He marketed the Big Bang and its attendant General Relativity (GTR) maths as science using arcane, unproven and quite theoretical formulae to ‘confirm’ that Black Holes result from GTR geometry (before having second thoughts in 2014; he died in 2018). Someone forgot to tell the Saint that 4 D geometry and other play-things are not physical forces and don’t exist.

But of course you believe in Saint Stephen. He is consensus. Everyone knows. The smartest of the smart even though communications were a bit of an issue. Click Clack. More here

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.