Way back in 1996 we didn't realize our work would have immediate outcomes, tho' suspecting a dramatic long-term impact.
But then, what did we know?
The first sign that our accumulating conclusions might be readily useful came in 1998 when NASA published a kind-of plea for help.
It was headlined by news orgs as variants of "Three spacecraft reveal unexplained motion" and the PR release admitted that long-range extended flights by some spacecraft were showing up "gravity" effects that didn't tally with modern physics theory to-date.
Serendipitous factors applied:-
Relatively long-distance and long-duration flights displayed the effects, which could have gone unseen, and any case could have safely been ignored if the spacecraft were in say, orbits or transits closer to Earth.
We'd coincidentally built up a database of predictions of non-Einsteinian effects on masses, especially rotating masses, that could very well apply to those spacecraft
So our forecasts for "extra gravity" were sent to NASA and eventually acknowledged (mail to/from John R Gustafson of NASA's Los Alamos PR Dept)
The problem could be seen again (2002) in report from "The Sunday Telegraph" quote - "We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works ... If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation" from Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California. Feb 2002.
LATER - "stilslo"
LATER - "ytagen"
LATEST - "oldnews1"
Early outline of forecast non-Einsteinian effects is at footnotes2 page
After that little excitement was over, by mid-1999 physical scientists around the world were preparing for the major eclipse due that year
They were wanting to experimentally test other effects which had been preshadowed by some almost forgotten observations of Foucault pendulums during earlier eclipses
These old observations, of changes in the pendulum's rate link-01 of change of movement during an eclipse, had either been forgotten or disbelieved for some years but were now being re-examined, by NASA amongst others
Again, we looked at our database and saw information that would help the NASA research and which, if applied, would enable an inertial device for navigation. Again, it went off to NASA and again it was acknowledged.
(last mail to/from NASA scientist at regyros)
[ NASA worked fast, a resulting inertial navigation 'speedometer and compass' combo could be ready for testing soon - details ]
This work is doubly interesting, a) because our predicted effects will be vitally useful, and b) because the phenomenon disproves an axiom of modern physics called the 'Principle of Relativity' link-02
Sadly, other information contained in our full forecast of inertial effects for the 1999 eclipse also proved all too accurate
The tectonic (earthquake) activity followed almost exactly the "shadow path" of the eclipse, from eastern Med. across EurAsia to Taiwan / Japan. There was tragically heavy loss of life
Nb. our concern about this likelihood had prompted us to warn NASA and some British government departments ahead of the worst quakes. For mailing and forecasts check fertility#later But clearly NASA and the British bureaucrats thought there was nothing to be gained by taking our warning seriously (they were probably right - but only because we're still at a primitive earthquake-reaction-stage).
No rest, for we were still working on associated problems and accumulating results when we heard - in September 2000 - a radio program claiming to be 'for women'
A worried listener asked "Is it safe for me to fly during my pregnancy" and the studio `expert' answered "Yes - it's perfectly safe" (or words to the effect)
Luckily we'd just been re-reading our conclusions on effects we expected in cellular / organic life.We suspected it wasn't safe to travel by long-haul flights, after a threshold of speed & altitude, especially not for pregnant women
[In addition, for a while we've been making noises about deleterious effects expected for astronauts - these also since confirmed link-03]
You've maybe noticed that in previous cases we'd been content to state our facts & forecasts and let the 'experts' bury the embarrassing results until they can arrange a dignified way to save face - (maybe hoping we'll disappear dramatically or conveniently early)
But this was a matter of life or death where our warning, if we shouted loud enough, could save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives of women and unborn babies every year
So, taking a deep breath but wasting no time, we did it
You all know some of the results, even if you've not been allowed to know the reasons
Sequence of events and mailings is at fertility#timing
We're proud to think we've helped save hundreds, possibly thousands of lives already. By speaking out - against the wishes of the establishment link-04
Then, new shocks to traditional science, another boost for UEF Theory "Jupiter Hot Spot Makes Trouble For Theory"chandra.harvard.edu/press/02_releases/press_022702.html - to 07 March 2000 - science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/07mar_jupiterpuzzle.htm?list158840
""we just don't know what it is...." says x-ray astronomer at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center"
This might not've allowed further conclusions about UEF Theory. Like the Moon / Earth effects in favor link-05 of UEF, `experts' might claim the info on Jupiter could be indeterminate.
But Jupiter is huge - 318 times Earth's mass and even bigger in volume ('cos it's much less dense, being mainly light gases/liquids). However, while its main body - of gaseous and liquid hydrogen - is huge, the rocky or metallic core is tiny, maybe only Earth or Moon size.
And Jupiter is fast. The visible skin of the giant atmosphere has only a 9 hr 50 min `day' at the equator link-06 (slowing to about 50 hrs at the poles).
No-one knows how fast the tiny core is spinning but we feel that 45 minute `pulse' - in reports above - could be the true rate (or even a multiple) of its rotation.
That means Jupiter may have a threshold of mass/speed that allows UEF effects to become more visible - and incontrovertible
What effects? UEF Theory says a body rotating with sufficient mass / speed will firstly radiate emr and thrust (along the axial line) from the poles link-07 - then, if mass / speed increases, `jets' of harder radiation and even plasma / matter emerge from the poles. link-08
[ Dramatic `jets' come from spinning neutron stars and larger ones yet from rogue galactic cores link-09]
And it looks like Jupiter is big enough and fast enough to show some of these unique and incontrovertible UEF effects
LATER - 2005 "Saturn's `Anomalous' South Polar Hot Spot"
LATER - 2007 "Brown Dwarfs Beaming Like Pulsars"
LATER - 2007 "jets coming out from a 24 Jupiter-mass brown dwarf"
And you don't need us to tell you - it's the same reason for the same phenomenon!
Now, another discovery brings a confession from traditional science - "We don't yet know...what is producing the jets!" - yet another boost for UEF Theory
They've spotted a star actually jetting fairly dense matter - molecular water - as forecast above and linked in UEF pages. link-06
But tired establishment excuses for "jets" elsewhere link-08 just don't work on this find : spaceflightnow.com/news/n0206/20fountains/
QUOTE ""What is producing the jets? "We're not sure" Diamond said. "Traditional wisdom says that it takes a disk of material closely orbiting the star to produce jets, but we don't yet know how such a disk could be produced around such an old star" he added UNQUOTE - link-10
Simple `Perceptions' explanation for all jets - combo of rotation and `collapse' - also applies here.
The star has recently crossed a threshold of increase of rotation speed or decrease in fusion activity - most likely a combination of both - that amplified its joint density / spin to the point where its jetting goes from `radiation' to material jets link-11
If the `experts' have old-enough snaps of that star they'd find emr jets - of radiation - actully predated the material ones
We're glad they've found it - but it's a case of "Well, well" link-10
Latest - Jan. 2003 see
"experts prepare for climb-down" [external site]
29 January 2003 - Looks like N.A.S.A. & the A.A.A.S. are getting on-board UEF Theory without quite admitting it - now hinting that "black holes" aren't "black" and aren't "holes".
But some old fogies seem still in denial of the fact that :-
UEF Theory says "New galaxies are created by older cores redistributing matter"
UEF Theory also says "There are no `black holes'!" link-11