Accounts of rejected Nobel-winning discoveries highlight the conservatism in science. Despite their historical misjudgements, journal editors can help, but above all, visionaries will need sheer persistence.
Coping with peer rejection, Editorial, Nature, 16 October 2003; page 645

Hoping against hope that editors of such revered journals really mean what they write, and words such as the above are not merely to cover shortcomings or complacency in their entrusted positions of great responsibility not only to the scientific community but also to the taxpaying public at large,
I heed their advice and plod along...


3 January 2005

Professor Joseph Rudnick, Chair
Physics & Astronomy Department
Box 951547
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547

Dear Professor Rudnick,
Toward the betterment of science

This is to kindly request of you, as Chair of one of the most esteemed physics departments in the world, your help in resolving a matter of great importance.

I am the author of And now, the long awaited... “Theory of Everything” published in 1999 by Vantage Press, New York. It is a comprehensive work of private (fully self-funded) research that could well prove to be the greatest conceptual breakthrough of all time. A synopsis of the treatise, a paper submitted earlier to journals, is readily accessed on the web.

Since 1995, journal editors have seemed to fight shy of even commenting on it one way or the other. The Discover editor, on the other hand, may have had sensed something amiss here. In an entirely unsolicited article, ‘Notes From a Parallel Universe,’ April 2002, pages 66-71, the magazine carried an impartial feature on me (which article also won a place in the prestigious anthology, The Best American Science Writing 2003, for the Berkeley-based author, Jennifer Kahn). Further, it wasn’t perhaps unintentional on the part of the editor to have, in contrast, the cover story of that same issue on Alan Guth and his inflationary universe. (It’s a pity such great minds are continuing to miss the forest for the trees.)

Under these circumstances comes my earnest request to you here. In essence, it concerns my offer to the academia as posted on my homepage and which reads as follows.

After over five years and no takers, the book-cover offer,
“UP TO ONE MILLION US DOLLARS!   An offer to high-school students and university professors alike just to refute this simple no-nonsense theory of action and reaction...”
has now been modified to attract the academia in a more convincing and “no-scam” manner:
A sum of US Dollars Twenty-Five Thousand plus all profits from book sales – without ceiling or limit – is hereby offered to the first person to successfully refute, as fundamentally flawed, the singular model of the Universe, from the atomic to the cosmic, propounded in my book and web pages. The US$25,000 is available immediately in cash as upfront payment, on request, to any university physics department head, who will be kindly required to hold the money in trust and award it personally to the successful contender. Any refutation, in writing, shall be based on classical mechanics and classical mechanics alone. It shall then be subject to the sole judgment of the department head or any person or group the head may choose to appoint on his/her behalf for the purpose. For the services, the department head's fee, too, will be honored by me in advance.


If the synopsis and complementary pages on my website seem of consequence, I shall be much obliged if you would also kindly accept to be the moderator here and present the above challenge to your department (and to any others, of your choosing, within University of California or without). I shall then rush to you: (a) a bank draft for US$25,000; (b) a separate bank draft as advance payment of fee that you specify for your kind services; and (c) three complimentary copies of my book.

You may, of course, open the challenge only when the drafts are cleared through the banks. I shall also then post a notice on my homepage to temporarily suspend acceptance of challenge from others.

As you may agree, debunking this purely classical mechanical worldview on the nature of things should be easy and straightforward if the model is not self-consistent, that is, across the entire realm of physics as required of the final theory. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction factor for moving bodies, the mainstay of Einstein’s speculations, is perhaps the best crucial argument for the purpose. Here, the present theory holds that matter does not contract transverse to motion; whereas I have shown that it does, and derived the transverse and longitudinal contraction factors – for the first time ever – from first principles. If a challenger could show my failings in this or any other such about-face now called for in the final paradigm, he or she would also shut me up for good, still doing true science a great service.

Finally, as a further token of sincerity, a signed copy of this letter will follow in the post with a check for US$25,000. The latter, drawn on my personal account with the Royal Bank of Canada (at 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa), may be held as a legally binding tender until the aforementioned drafts are received following your kind approval.

Your early response, one way or the other, would be greatly appreciated. (This request is not going out simultaneously to any others.) If a decision is hard, please do give me the benefit of the doubt – its ramifications could even save lives in natural disasters such as the one last week in Asia (please see LIGO).
Thank you very much for your time here.
With best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam


Simon Eugene Sittampalam
PO Box 134
645 Beach Road
Jaffna, Sri Lanka

Tel:       +9421 222 6851
            +9411 259 5259


Every once in a while, we at Science receive a paper that causes us to exercise particular care in handling,

because it may be controversial or because it is important – or both. ...
I have been asked, “Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so much controversy?”

Well, that’s what we do; our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best as we possibly can. ...
What we ARE very sure of is that publication is the right option, even – and perhaps especially – when there is some controversy. ...
To Publish or Not to Publish, Editorial, Science, 8 March 2002; page 1793



– End of Letter –



A signed copy of the above e-mail letter was posted to Professor Rudnick, under registered cover, on 5 January 2005.

A check for US$25,000, too, was enclosed. The latter was drawn on my personal US dollar account with the Royal Bank of Canada, Sparks & Metcalfe Branch, 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa Ontario K1P SB4.

Acknowledgement of receipt is still pending.


Eugene Sittampalam

2 January 2006


Return to homepage