physicists administering the Cornell physics archive have unfortunately
set limits as to what they consider to be legitimate areas of
scientific investigation. Taboos for them might include
subjects such as: experimental research on cold fusion, theoretical
alternatives to the big bang theory, energy experiments seeming
to challenge the First Law of Thermodynamics, technologies dealing
with gravitational control, extraterrestrial communication, and
the study of ancient myths and folklore (as conveyors of scientifically
seems that if a scientist has published books or written papers
describing work he has done in one of these areas, he runs the
risk of being put on the archive's exclusion list. In the
case of Dr. LaViolette, one needs only to conduct an internet
search to see that he has written papers and books that have
dealt with a number of these "forbidden" subjects.*
Then, even though the paper he submits to the archive does
not itself necessarily deal with any of these subjects, just
the fact that he has dared to explore these "fringe"
areas in past books and publications or on his website makes
him a candidate for their blacklist. In making their decision
as to whether to allow a paper to be posted to the preprint archive,
the archive moderator "thought police" do not appear
to consider whether the paper is well written and thought out,
but instead it appears that they look at who the person is who
is writing it, what gossip is being said about them on the internet,
and whether that person holds the same scientific paradigm views
as their own. Clearly, this is the case when scientists
are prevented from posting their papers, even when these papers
have already been accepted for journal publication or are advocated
by Nobel Laureates.
Most quantum jumps in science
are made by creative, individualistic thinkers, who are not afraid
to challenge mainstream beliefs. It seems that the archive
administrators seek to block such people from the archive and
admit only those who are like themselves: highly specialized,
of narrow focus, business-as-usual type scientists. Not
to say that the highly specialized individuals do not play an
important role in science. But, to exclude the more creative
sector of academia, that of clear thinkers who do not wish to
genuflect to antiquated party line physics doctrines, is a policy
that borders on idiocy.
* For those interested in doing an internet search on Dr. LaViolette,
be aware that some posted news articles contain blatant disinformation
about him. Here, in his own words, he corrects some of
these erroneous statements:
- I am not a "cold fusion devotee"
as the Washington Post claims. Cold fusion is not
my religion. Also I do not "believe in cold fusion,"
as Robert Park has claimed in Playboy magazine. Also
I do not have an "obsessive belief in the validity of
'cold fusion'," as implied by a Minneapolis newspaper. I
do keep an open mind on cold fusion, and consider its validity
to be proven through the results of experiments. I do have
an ongoing interest in cold fusion because of its possible future
potential as an alternative energy source. I am also interested
because I have developed a physics theory, "subquantum kinetics,"
whose now verified nuclear field predictions happen to provide
a basis for understanding why cold fusion actually takes place.
- I did not argue to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission specifically "that belief in cold fusion should
be treated as a protected religious belief," as Park
claimed in his Playboy magazine interview. Nor
did the Commission "in effect rule that cold fusion is
a religion." I do hold the view that the physical
world is an aspect of the spiritual and hence is sacred. Therefore
I believe that all scientific investigation is a sacred endeavor
and should be approached with humility and honesty.
- Astrology is not my religion, as claimed
by an internet tabloid operated by Microsoft Corporation. A
few of my books do discuss archaeoastronomical aspects of ancient
myths and lores associated with the zodiac constellations, but
certainly horoscope astrology is not my religion. I know
of no one who has astrology as their "religion."
- I did not base my physics theory (subquantum
kinetics) on natal astrology, as claimed by a Washington D.C.
news tabloid. To the contrary, subquantum kinetics is founded
on well accepted systems theory concepts which I had applied
to the field of physics.
- I did not say that my scientific beliefs
can't be separated from my religious beliefs, as misquoted by
this tabloid. Nor did I argue that
my alleged belief in cold fusion constituted, or was somehow
congruent with, my belief in a Supreme Being, again misquoted
by this tabloid.
- I did not take my job at the Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) to "infiltrate the Patent Office" as part
of a conspiracy to bring in ideas on "fringe science,"
as claimed by Science magazine, the Washington Post,
and by Robert Park, spokesman for the American Physical Society.
- Tom Valone did not "recruit" me
to obtain my Patent Office examiner job as claimed by the Washington
Post, Science magazine, and Robert Park. I had
no prior knowledge of any internet posting that patent examiner
Valone may have circulated.
- I did not issue any patents on cold fusion
technology nor did I issue any patents on "dubious"
technologies, as claimed by an internet tabloid operated by Microsoft
Corporation. A quick search of the PTO website lists the
patents that I processed which are all on the fairly mundane
technology of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
- It is interesting that so much of the negative
press against me fixates on the subject of cold fusion. For
those who have not heard, the Navy's Space Warfare Systems Center
conducted a ten year investigation of "cold fusion"
and determined that it is a real phenomenon. Their 2002
report may be downloaded
here. As I mentioned earlier, cold fusion is
not a main area of interest for me. One reason that the
physics establishment media has focused so much attention on
this may be because in Spring of 1999 I did help the Integrity
Research Institute publicize an alternative energy conference
they were then organizing at the U.S. State Department, a conference
that included one paper on cold fusion (which was to be delivered
by Edmund Storms, one of the archive blacklistees). I had
merely mirrored on my website an announcement of that upcoming
conference. That was apparently enough to put fundamentalist
physicists such as Robert Park on the warpath. Angered
by this, a State Department physicist speaking at the March 22,
1999 annual American Physical Society meeting denounced Tom Valone
and his effort to put on this energy conference and said to the
audience that he and "Robert Park would work to expose and
purge anyone at the Patent Office who sympathizes with cold fusion."
He then stated "Bob Park will sink his teeth into that one."
It is clear to whom he was referring. At the time,
Tom Valone and I were working at the PTO as patent examiners.
A FOIA request revealed that in the days that followed
the Patent Office directors were showered with emails many of
which cited or copied Parks derogatory website postings about
us. It may be that this vendetta continues even today through
efforts to bar me from posting to arXiv.org.
- I have not stated that "the B-2 stealth
bomber uses secret antigravity technology, reverse-engineered
from a crashed flying saucer," as Robert Park claims
in his Playboy magazine interview. I
have written a paper showing that the electrogravitic field propulsion
concept described in a patent issued to U.S. inventor T. Townsend
Brown anticipates many of the features disclosed to operate in
the B-2 bomber. But nowhere have I related this technology
to "crashed flying saucers."
- My conclusions on pulsars presented at the
winter 2000 American Astronomical Society meeting were received
favorably by a large number of astronomers with whom I spoke
there, contrary to a tabloid quote of a Society "spokesman."
Also, contrary to allegations on the internet, my findings
have received support from a large number of scientists, both
in personal correspondence and in journal citations. Of
course, physics is a heterogeneous field; there is no one theory
agreed to by everyone. So, every theory has its dissenters.
One way of deciding whether a theory is valid is to see
how many of its predictions have been verified. My theories
have had an exceptional verification track record. See
Predict.html and Predict2.html.
I hereby affirm that the above statements
about my views, writings, and activities are true.
Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D.
December 5, 2004
In brief, there is much garbage in print and
on the internet that attempts to brand Dr. LaViolette as a crackpot.
Unfortunately there are many people including scientists
who believe these cheap shots. Much of this misinformation
has originated from Robert Park, a Washington lobbyist and PR
flack for the American Physical Society whose APS website postings
routinely make fun of legitimate scientists whose ideas don't
happen to fit his conceptual mold. A Washington
Post book review article about Park offers an accurate
glimpse of some of the character assassinations he has carried
It is unfortunate that science and the media
have come to be so vicious in their treatment of new thinkers.
If it is true that moderators of ArXiv.org use such internet
garbage to decide whether or not Dr. LaViolette should be blacklisted
and prevented from posting papers, then science has indeed stooped
to a very low ethical standard.