Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
This is a really good 24-minute video on issues with Space-Time and STR, by Roger Penrose. The Scientism of Einstein, as will be elaborated in 2 coming posts and which is analysed here, here and here, is coming to an end. It might take 50 more years, but the reign is soon over. There is precious little proof that Banging is relevant.
This video is a good overview of what is wrong when one analyses ‘space-time’ a key insight not from Einstein but from his maths teacher Minkowski, which Einstein incorporated into his STR. This video however misses the obvious fact that Time might well exist outside of space, separate and not integrated into a 4th dimension as proposed by Einstein. This is far more likely, than a ‘dimensional’ cube of interwoven space and time, an idea which Einstein never bothered to physically prove.
Physics is the physical reality and proofs using objects in the real world. Mathematical theories are not proof.
There are no valid reasons or observations to entangle space-time, unless you are trying to prove the mathematics of the STR.
· Contrary to STR and Banging theology, stellar galaxies should be far less than 1 billion years old but this is not what they have found
· Exploding Supernovae are young
· Galaxies – larger than ours – are newly created
· Super galaxies have formed in short periods of time
· According to STR and Banging, the Universe should collapse on itself and either reform or cease to exist
· Magical dark matter and dark energy are invoked to prevent a collapse, neither has been found or can even be described
· Time as an idea is problematic given that it is a human construct
· Time is quite likely, not a linear product or chronometry
· There may be multiple cycles and multiple universes, no one knows, but ineluctably according to the BB, there was a beginning and an end to the universe
· Einstein’s ‘constant’ which is the same as dark matter, dark energy, preserves the universe’s ‘steady state’ that exists for eternity, and prevents a cosmic implosion due to gravity (which by itself is a weak force)
· If the universe is flat, which is what the cosmological proofs state, than STR and its space-time theory based on maths and only maths, is irrelevant
· It is becoming more obvious that space time is not Einstein’s smooth fabric
· Contrary to Newton’s idea of gravity as a pool, Einstein viewed gravity as part of space-time curving the universe
· The STR and Banging maintain that space and time are interconnected as an unprovable 4th dimension
· This means that everything coexists in space and time including the future and past
· There is no proof of this, and it contravenes physical reality
· Others believe that space-time is an artifact of the quantum world
· Quantum theory is where particles exist in multiple places simultaneously (Schrodinger’s cat where the cat is both alive and dead) but this cannot be reconciled with space-time
· Long standing problem in physics is of locality and entanglement, if we have 2 particles far apart, changing one will affect the other, violating the STR
· This means that different observers will have different ideas of locality – for example you can feel closer to someone you love who is far away, than your neighbour that you don’t care about
· STR, GTR maintain that a gravity field cannot be in 2 places or states simultaneously
· Where does the gravitational field reside? No one knows.
· Any theories attempting to merge STR with quantum theory have failed
· String theory is trying to merge quantum and STR/GTR
· Vibrating stings make up molecules and particles
· For this to work the strings must vibrate across 7 dimensions, only 4 are now proposed with the 4th of space-time unproven and theoretical
· This is an abstract maths-based idea with no physical proofs
· Loop quantum gravity is now proposed to replace string theory, in which space-time is a woven loop or network of complexity, contrary to STR
· These defects in STR can only be viewed in Planck time or a millionth of a millionth of a metre
· It is impossible to test LQG with particle accelerators, we would need an accelerator 1000-trillion times more powerful than those at CERN and the size of the milky way
· For now, it is an abstract maths based theory with no proofs
· Many believe that a quantum world is influenced by gravity, which is an entirely new approach to physics and cosmology.
· This pursuit should have the potential to impact real life, since any changes to space time theories would affect all theories in physics and cosmology including our own ideas of the age of space, and the Earth.
· In my opinion the ages of the cosmos and Earth are not the same, with space appearing to be much older than the Earth given the differential in clocks between a terrestrial clock and a space clock (this is probably a valid part of the STR).
Given that all of our devices function according to quantum theory, using this as a basis for a new approach is sensible. Hawking, the rather puerile salesman for Einstein, acknowledged before he died that quantum mechanics properly destroyed his idea about Black Holes. As reality displaces complex mathematics the end of much of STR is guaranteed.
Next posts: Dingle’s clock paradox, and the many issues of STR as given by hundreds of scientific experiments and observations.
The first post discussed the theory of STR and what the theory is trying to achieve. There are 2 postulates or Einstein’s ‘laws’, which the science says are infallible and proven.
The first postulate is that the laws of physics apply to all objects universally, as long as an ether or medium is not present. ‘Laws of physics’ refers to the Catholic Galileo’s work in the 17th century and his law of inertia, summarised as: "Objects move with constant speed in a straight line when no external agent is acting on them”.
The second rule or postulate is that the speed of light or its velocity is constant for all objects regardless of their motion. Again, this is similar to Galileo’s own experimental proofs.
Einstein’s ex-cathedra postulate pronouncements are now deemed infallible and eternal. These postulates surround and protect his STR theory. The postulate and rules by themselves may well be sensible. I don’t think they prove much of anything if we extend the postulates to the STR itself or the physical world. Postulate one is basically unprovable. Postulate 2 would not hold outside of a vacuum. STR itself, in toto, is largely premised of course, on mathematics and in particular endless pages of dense equations.
As Einstein supposedly remarked, not more than a dozen people on the planet would understand the theorem. Maybe that was the whole point. The layman with his curiosity and his weathered dirty hand on a shovel handle, may inquire as to what connection exists between the endless equations with their odd symbols, and the physical world. He is answered with more maths and sometimes ridicule.
This post carries on from the introductory post, looking specifically at the mathematical foundations of the theory.
By 1632 the Catholic Galileo had developed complicated equations which would be the basis of mechanical physics. These equations described the transformation between the coordinates of two inertial frames (objects on a grid). The equations are the basis of STR theory. In essence Galileo’s transformation model can be summarised as:
x1 = vt -> where x is a coordinate of an event in one inertial frame (called S usually, with S being an object eg a moving train); x1 is the coordinates of the same event in another inertial frame (S') moving at a constant velocity
y1 = y -> the same as x in the context of y
z1 = z -> same as x, y, in the context of z
t1 = t where t = inertial time
In this theorem the transformations in the y and z directions are identity transformations, which means that there is no change along those axes. The above is very similar to what is deployed in the STR.
Using the above maths Galileo describe the transformations between frames of reference at speeds much less than the speed of light. It is not relativistic. The theory cannot describe the relationship between space and time at relativistic speeds. The Lorentz transformation theory by contrast, can articulate space and time at all relativistic speeds, including at the speed of light.
The Galilean transformation was superseded by the Dutchman Hendrik Lorentz’s equations or the ‘Lorentz transformations’, published in 1895. It is undeniable that much of STR is derived from Lorentz though Einstein did not credit the Dutchman. It is well-documented that Albert Einstein corresponded with Lorentz, and he had studied Lorentz's work. The Lorentz transformations describe the mathematical relationship between the coordinates of events in different inertial frames and are the core of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
In their correspondence, Lorentz and Einstein discussed various aspects of electromagnetism, and Einstein was familiar with Lorentz's efforts to reconcile the phenomena of electromagnetism with the principles of classical Galilean mechanics. Einstein took Lorentz’s work and extended it, adding the 2 postulates analysed in the first post, and E=mc2 or the conversion of energy and mass. This would be proven in nuclear reactions. E is the energy of the object, m its mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
In reading both theorems I am not convinced that Einsteins’ theory is that much different. Einstein uses Lorentz whole hog and adds E=mc2, a formulae developed by others though he stated he arrived at it independently. I don’t find this convincing. For the record, E=mc2 is initially an output of electro-magnetic theory, with Maxwell and others (for example, the British scientist J.J. Thomson, in 1881, and the Italian Olinto De Pretto, in 1903), being its true inventors, not Einstein. Einstein dispensed with the ‘ether’ (luminiferous particles which interact with light and electro-magnetism, which is indeed different than the idea of ‘dark matter’ which does not interact with light). He reformed the velocity of light to be a constant in a vacuum as well as proposing the exchange of energy with mass. Lorentz’s ideas are the real foundation of STR.
Lorentz’s calculations run to many pages. In summary and to simplify some core aspects of the theory found in textbooks and on sites would be the following.
We can see the similarity with, and the use of Galileo’s transformation equations.
Lorentz’s theorem can be summarised in the following way:
1. -t = time and x = space coordinates for one reference object, called S, moving at a certain velocity or v, relative to another reference object (or frame) called S1
2. v = the relative velocity between two inertial frames of reference or 2 objects within the same or different coordinates
3. -For both objects S and S1, coordinates or location maps covering both objects, are calculated using the variables, y, z an y1, z1 for both objects along the y and z axes
4. -The z axis is a 3rd dimension axis to imitate space is added to the above 2-dimensional diagram (the z axis was added in 1908, by Einstein’s math professor Hermann Minkowski)
5. -c is the speed of light (for Einstein, this meant only a vacuum)
6. The symbol γ is gamma or the Lorentz factor given below
The full equations and explanations can be found in any physics textbook online. Many sites possess calculators where you can stroll through the theorem against a thought or paper experiment.
The maths is difficult to wade through.
A key difference between the 2 theorems is that Lorentz, like Maxwell and others, believed in an ether, or a medium in space which could interact with and propagate light, whereas Einstein did not. However, both theories are so similar that they are conflated with each other, with STR categorised as the ‘Lorentz-Einstein model’. Lorentz’s theory in and of itself is not relativistic, but Einstein’s is. However, proofs offered for STR include the relativistic outputs of Lorentz’s equations. This is both tautological and usually tangential. You cannot use part of a theorem to prove the theory.
The maths is abstract but can be applied to moving objects. In his 1905 paper, Einstein used the analogy of a train and an observer on a train platform. Assume we have an observer on a train platform, watching a train moving past the station at 60 mph. Let’s put two objects emitting light, one at the beginning of the train, and one at the end of the train. Calculations can be made to show the separation in time between when the lights flashed as seen by either the platform observer, or a second observer seated in the train in the middle of the car.
Logically the person in the train would never see the flashing lights but that reality is dismissed in favour of trying to prove the relativistic nature of objects in motion and their light signals as seen by the 2 observers, one static on a platform, the other in a train moving at 60 mph away from the platform. What does it mean?
1. The Lorentz transformation purportedly shows that time and space are not absolute and can be different for observers in relative motion.
2. The Lorentz factor accounts for the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction with the length (or mass) of an object becoming smaller as it moves away from an observer.
Lorentz offers the ‘transformation’ equations to show relativity in space and time. He also uses his ‘factor’ to ‘prove’ relativity between objects in time dilation (the twin’s paradox) and length contraction.
Based on the above ideas, perhaps the key point in special relativity is that the relationships between space and time coordinates are intertwined. Observers moving relative to each other at a constant velocity will experience different perceptions of time and space.
As already stated a major addition to Lorentz’s theorem by Einstein, is the formulation of Energy = mass x the speed of light in a vacuum square (E=mc2). This theory states that mass and energy are interchangeable. Nuclear reactions offer proof of this. Fair enough. For example, a small amount of mass may be converted into a large amount of energy.
Within STR the mainstream narrative offers that this equation is a key element in describing how energy and mass are observed in different inertial reference frames moving relative to each other. I am not sure this is true. It can lead to theories about time dilation for example, or as already stated, length contraction where an object that is moving away relative to an observer will appear contracted in the direction of motion (which may be incorrect, more later).
Much of this is only theory and still open to dispute. Though E=mc², is a fundamental expression in the theory of relativity, it is not and cannot be used as a direct proof of time dilation or the concept of different clocks running at different speeds. This would be tautological. At best it helps describe such phenomena if they exist.
The main areas of importance of STR, cited within the mainstream science literature include:
1. Time-dilation (not as clear cut as presented, scanty proofs, but can be observed),
2. Red-shift calculations (absolutely nothing to do with STR and eviscerated here),
3. GPS systems (if STR did not exist these would still work),
4. Bending of light (this seems correct).
Two out of four. The above are not the vital points about STR. There are two implications of STR in my opinion. More here
Why is Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity or STR and its purported defects of importance with all that has gone on and is going on in our world? It is a very complex domain. Those of us who have spent time studying and investigating this topic know of its importance both in and out of science, especially given the often hysterical and exaggerated claims by its supporters as to the limitless wonders and knowledge it bestows on humanity. STR has indeed conferred proofs and benefits but much of it is entirely open to dispute though the single narrative of ‘the science’ will never discuss such issues.
There are many reasons for laypeople to dig into STR besides its practical usage in some technical and scientific applications.
First, anyone who studies STR objectively must notice that STR is one of the best examples in modern history of the cult of ‘science’ or Scientism, in which arcana and esoterica, often unrelated to physical evidence, become ‘laws’. From these ‘postulates’ one does notice the creation of entire industries and compliant media, replete with funding and power. This is now how ‘modern science’ operates. It often has little to do with physical science.
Second, the elevation of ‘science’ to cult like status, including ‘heroes’ like Einstein who are to be feted and worshipped, provides a cultural backdrop for totalitarianism as evidenced by the Corona plan-scam-demic in which ‘science’ (fiction only), with its priesthood of ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ clinging to the only holy gospel of secular truth, were invoked as rationale for the complete destruction of freedom and rights. Corona can be accurately described as a pilot project of geo-Fascism. Scientism or the religion of science, is essential for a technocratic fascism, with its exalted prophets, priests, cardinals and bishops, against whom no heresy or heretic can stand.
Third, if there is a disconnect between STR and practical physical reality this must by default, retard and obstruct actual scientific advancement, especially in physics and cosmology. Entire tracts of both would need to be reassessed when enough brave souls dare to put STR to proper physical testing and assess its tautological inconsistencies. This includes the obvious issues and disproofs of the Big Bang theology.
The following is Part One of 4 articles on the topic, split into equal measure due to complexity and length.
Part One is split between (a) and (b) to introduce the subject. Part One (a) looks at the theory, its context and its primary focus. Part One (b) delves into the underlying mathematical models.
Part Two discusses the historical context of STR, and key antecedental and contemporary figures of Einstein including Maxwell, and Lorentz along with mathematical theorists like Minkowski who greatly influenced Einstein.
Part Three will focus on the famed scientist Herbert Dingle’s detailed and never answered critique of STR (the only replies were ad hominins and completing ignoring his maths and proofs). Dingle was of course slandered, attacked, and degraded but his many objections were never answered by either experimental proofs or logical mathematics.
Part Four will look at other general objections to STR and its many problems outside of Dingle’s complaint. Many of these are detailed, logical and experimentally based. They are of course dismissed as ‘outside the mainstream’ as if that is a serious defect. Part Four will also summarise the implications of what has been investigated.
In short, any layperson with a curious mind, possessing average logical and mathematical skills can understand STR. The priests and prophets of the ‘science’, many of whom do not understand the theory, keep it cloaked in mystery and incense to elicit compliance and to evade incisive and debilitating questions. Can you imagine a schoolteacher reacting to a curious student’s statement, ‘yes teacher E=mc2 is interesting but has little to do with the theory of relativity, or relative motion and using that as proof is circular reasoning since it is embedded in the theorem’.
The abstract, closeted nature of theoretical arcana which are declared to be laws, is precisely why STR should be looked at. It is about time that ‘science’ rejoin reality and be forced to explain its ‘logic’ in plain terms, to common people. We should encourage questions and debate.
In 1905 Einstein issued his paper on STR which was divided into two parts:
I. Kinematical Section;
II. Electrodynamical Section.
Kinematics is the branch of mechanics concerned with objects in motion, but not with the forces involved and electrodynamics is the study of moving electric charges and their interaction with magnetic and electric fields. The whole essence of STR is contained in section I on kinematics, which is significant, though I found little commentary on it in the mainstream publications (more later).
STR is usually portrayed as a revolt against Newtonian mechanics. I am not sure this is correct. What Einstein was trying to do was correct some issues with Newton’s theorems on gravity – in particular the orbit of Mercury. He was trying to support it, not displace it. He offered the view that each object through gravity, can ‘curve’ the fabric of space and time around them, forming a sort of a depression, akin to a heavy object resting on your sofa cushion. Objects including your cat or light would fall into the depression.
This is the space-time curve, which Newton did not know about, and which is now attributed to Einstein but it was not his ‘discovery’ but originally that of Minkowski a mathematician (more later). More here
It is obvious to anyone who has a functioning cortex, that the Corona plandemic used the mythical scariants of ‘viruses’ as the casus belli for what is rightly termed a poisonous and often lethal injection marketed as health care, designed to accrue profits and power. As the founder of Merck said, create the disease, sell the cure. Since the days of the quack and fraud Jenner, ‘germs’ and ‘viruses’ have invaded the imaginations of the ‘science’ and its ‘experts’ and our daily lexicon, much to the detriment of health and freedom. As Antoine Béchamp noted in his book ‘Les Microzymas’ p. 819 (1878), on the incoherence of ‘germ’ theory:
‘In all the experiments of recent years, it has been the microzyma proper to an animal and not a germ of the air that has been found to be the seat of the virulence. No one has even been able to produce with germs obtained from the atmosphere any of the so-called parasitic diseases. Whenever, by inoculation, a typical known malady has been reproduced, it has been necessary to go and take the supposed parasite from a sick animal; thus to inoculate tuberculosis, the tubercle has to be taken from the subject affected.’
No germ or virus carrying disease or infection has ever been isolated in the atmosphere or even in a human cell. Germ theory wrongly conflates external ‘germs’ with internal bacteria and microzymas which do produce disease as explained below. The implications of this fraud and incoherence is staggering.
Bacteria exist in their billions inside each human body. What Béchamp discovered was that these ‘microbes’ or microzymas as he named them, can develop into bacteria and are not only vital to clean out the human body and cell detritus, but they can change shape, form and function if the ‘terrain’ or environment of the body is assaulted with poisons and becomes toxic. This completely upends Pasteurian myth and our entire modern medical and healthy systems.
Inside each human cell, there is a nucleus which contains DNA genetic material (deoxyribonucleic acid). The nucleus has a membrane which is similar to the cell membrane. There is also a pathway to the nucleus of each human cell called the endoplasmic reticulum. This has ribosome's connected to it which also contain genetic material called RNA (ribonucleic acid), or the ‘logic’ that transcribes the ‘plans’ from DNA to produce functionality. This endoplasmic reticulum is also made of cellular membrane material.
Each human cell is therefore a very complicated ecosystem with ‘organelles’ floating in a watery mixture called a cytoplasm which also harbours RNA.
In a case of toxaemia poisoning, a cell, containing the complexity mentioned above, will burst, providing an abundance of cellular membrane material containing the sticky proteins of DNA and RNA which are now floating in the fluid between the other living cells. This is called the interstitial fluid. ‘Germs’ are simply bacteria which normally do waste management but have now changed their shape and function to feed on the cellular destruction, spreading the toxicity and detritus. As with any living organism these pleomorphic (many forms) bacterium emit waste, fluids and if the cell is damaged and toxic, poisons. In simple terms this process is what causes an illness.
The important point is that if the host’s toxicity is pervasive, the bacterial effluence and invasion can damage cells. This is not from an external barbarian-germ or virus invasion, but due entirely to the detritus and cellular debris now building up and furthering the toxicity of the host.
Immunity is a defence system the body uses to eliminate toxic matter that has built up over a period of time. The immune system is wonderfully complex and starts when the ‘front lines’ of the body’s defence have not been able to eliminate toxic matter effectively, and the toxicity has breached the circulatory system and organs. Our immune systems will then issue white blood cells which are designed to remove dead organic matter, or garbage, from the body.
Within the immune system antibodies are also produced. These are specially synthesized body proteins which aid the white blood cells when toxicity reaches more extreme levels and when the body is trying to eject a surfeit of poison. For the record injecting antibodies in the form of jabs and stabs is not only useless but dangerous, given that the immune system will not recognise the foreign antibodies as anything other than a foreign toxic agent and the compound proteins they contain cannot be broken down and will directly damage organs and tissues.
F. Harrison, a Professor of Bacteriology at McGill University, wrote a book, ‘Historical Review of Microbiology, published in Microbiology’, in which he says: “Geronimo Fracastorio (an Italian poet and physician, 1483 – 1553) of Verona, published a work (De Contagionibus et Contagiosis Morbis, et eorum Curatione) in Venice in 1546 which contained the first statement of the true nature of contagion, infection, or disease organisms, and of the modes of transmission of infectious disease.” This predates Pasteur by 300 years.
Fracastorio divided diseases into different groups, one of which infected the host by either immediate contact, through intermediate agents, or at a distance through the air. Organisms which cause disease were in his view, composed of viscous or glutinous matter. These particles, too small to be seen, were also capable of reproduction in appropriate media, and became pathogenic through the action of animal heat. These concepts anticipate Pasteur’s ideas. Fracastorio did not possess a microscope and could not know that these substances might be individual living organisms.
According to Harrison the first compound microscope was made in 1590 in Holland, but it was not until about 1683 that anything was built of sufficient power to show up bacteria. Harrison relates: “In the year 1683, Antonius van Leenwenhoek, a Dutch naturalist and a maker of lenses, communicated to the English Royal Society the results of observations which he had made with a simple microscope of his own construction, magnifying from 100 to 150 times. He found in water, saliva, dental tartar, etc., entities he named animalcula.” More here
In Part I about Louis Pasteur, it was offered that much of his work was of great scientific value and merit. A long list of real scientific discoveries is certainly attributable to Pasteur and his associates, many of them beneficial, verifiable, and reproducible. However, when the trained chemist strays into diseases, immunology and poisoned concoctions named after the cow, he is supremely out of his depth, reflected in the fraud, misuse of data, and even outright mendacity in forwarding claims around the germ theory of disease, flying viruses which spread infections and stabbinations which provide succour and safety for the afflicted.
In short, Pasteur made the unfortunate but predictable journey from scientist to Scientism. Like the unimpressive venal corrupt quack Edward Jenner, Pasteur became a Public Relations salesman, a sophist and hand-waver, eager to accrue credit, assets and attract the adoring gaze of a redeemed, sacralised, and saved public. The rush to fame if not fortune prevented the Catholic Pasteur from entering the narrow gate.
We now turn our attention to a very dense and excitable book on this aspect of Pasteur by Ethel D Hume ‘Béchamp or Pasteur’ first published in 1923. The investigator is very hostile to Pasteur and his ‘science’, and this should be borne in mind. Transparently she does declare this bias, which is unlike ‘modern science’ which hides their worldviews and sources of finance and the power cliques which direct their ‘research’. No need for transparency in ‘modern science’.
This book ravages all of Pasteur's work and discoveries which seems rather excessive. In essence, fermentation, silkworm infection, viniculture spoilation, biogenic life creation and other claimed discoveries by Pasteur are alleged frauds, with Pasteur stealing the ideas, conclusions, and even experimental proofs from Béchamp and others. It is more likely that many researchers were involved in the same domains, doing different varieties of experimentation, and given that most were writing letters and sharing information it is rather intolerable that we ascribe fraud to all of Pasteur’s work. It is better to discern the good from the bad. So, we will skip much of the book and focus on the 3 main areas of controversy, germs, viruses, stabbinations and the related fraud and deceit. Hume’s detail is meticulous and much of it has been confirmed by observations and research since 1923.
Hume adores Béchamp and sets him up as the protagonist against the ‘Machiavellian’ if not demonic Pasteur. A summary of Béchamp’s life and accomplishments renders the man as great a scientist as Pasteur, perhaps greater. Yet he is not remembered, was never feted, nor even applauded. He spent his entire career in the shadow of Pasteur dying some 13 years after Pasteur, but never receiving due approbation. Béchamp declared throughout his career that Pasteur purloined many of his ideas and conclusions from his own research. Disagreements between the two men included the following as found in Hume’s book.
1. In 1858 Béchamp was the first to prove that moulds accompanying fermentation contained living organisms and could not be spontaneously generated. He recorded his experiments in his 1858 memoir, six years before Pasteur came to the same conclusions publicly, declaring that spontaneous generation was impossible. Pasteur did acknowledge that Béchamp’s work was ‘meticulous’ and correct and had preceded his but gave no indication if Béchamp’s experiments directly affected his own or were copied in some way. Béchamp never received recognition that he had in fact disproven spontaneous generation before Pasteur (a central tenet still held by Darwinists, many atheists and ‘scientists’).
2. Pasteur offered his germ theory of disease during the early 1860s, stating that each kind of ‘pathogen’ or germ which he described as airborne ‘animals’ or microorganisms, produces one specific ‘fermentation’ or disease-like effect. Béchamp however proved that a microorganism might vary its fermentation based on the surrounding medium or environment. Béchamp’s experiments showed that these ‘microforms’ as he called them, under varying conditions, might even change their shape. These observations were reproduced by Felix Loehnis and N.R. Smith of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1916.
3. By 1866, after very thorough experimentation, Béchamp had discovered that chalk rock which is common in the Paris basin, seemed to be formed mostly of mineral or fossil remains of a ‘microscopic world’ containing organisms of infinitesimal size, which he named ‘microzymas’ and which he believed were or had been alive. In 1866, he sent the Academy of Science a memoir called On the Role of Chalk in Butyric and Lactic Fermentations, and the Living Organisms Contained in it. After more geological examinations, he wrote a paper in 1870 entitled, On Geological Microzymas of Various Origins. He was convinced that these microorganisms were alive, and possessed life cycles and complexity that were not understood.
4. Béchamp’s discovery of microzymas refuted Pasteur’s germ theory. He referred to microzymas as the builders and destroyers of cells. It is the destructive aspect, or the “end of all organization,” which causes disease, not perambulating, flying germs or viruses. In his very meticulous and professional manner, Béchamp always found microzymas remaining after the complete decomposition of a dead organism and concluded that they are the only non-transitory biological elements. In addition, they seem to carry out the vital function of decomposition (or they are the precursors of bacteria, yeasts and fungi which decompose a dead body). These ideas are opposed to those of Pasteur who blamed diseases on exogenous factors, namely poisoned ‘germs’ and ‘viruses’ who ‘transmitted’ their poison through the air or through touch.
5. Microzymas became the foundation for Béchamp’s principle of pleomorphism, which was in direct conflict with the monomorphic theory of Pasteur. Today the monomorphic view is the only accepted paradigm of disease generation, premised on the theory that through a binary fission, most bacteria divide transversely (crosswise), to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology as the original. Pleomorphists accept the transverse division of bacteria but maintain that bacteria demonstrate complex life cycles including filterable and pathogenic (see Felix Lohnis, 1922, entitled Studies upon the Life Cycle of Bacteria).
6. For Béchamp and pleomorphists, disease occurs when the ‘terrain’ or internal environment of the body becomes favourable to pathogenic organisms. Human disease occurs as a malfunction of physiology due to changes which take place when metabolic processes (such as pH levels), are out of balance. Pathogens which have complex life cycles (a fact confirmed from the 1960s onwards) will take the opportunity to stimulate symptoms within a human body when an imbalance erupts, and if uncorrected, a disease. In this view, the human body is a ‘mini-eco system’ to quote Béchamp, and not a sterile static state as evinced by Pasteur.
7. For Béchamp, microbes or microzymas naturally exist in the body (a fact since confirmed, we have billions of them), and it is the disease that reflects the deteriorated condition of the host and changes the function of these microbes or microzymas. The terrain of the body, once distorted and affected, generates disease endogenously meaning that exogenous factors in disease generation such as ‘germs’ or ‘viruses’, cannot be accountable nor valid.
8. Based on the above, if the pleomorphist-microzymas theory is true, all stabbinations of chemical cocktails into the blood stream will do nothing except weaken the terrain of the body further, adding more misery and dislocation to the host, along with disease and incapacity (a proven fact with mRNA injections which have led to SADS, cancer, blood disease and many other ailments).
This is the essence of Hume’s work when you strip out the rather tedious references to endless fraud and plagiarism. Many researchers work on the same problem at the same time. Not all of them are stealing and plundering from each other. But fraud most certainly did exist, and Pasteur undoubtedly lied, disseminated, made up data and ignored contrary evidence (all of this is provided by Hume in much detail). More here