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
Rudnick, ChairBox 951547
Physics & Astronomy Department
Los Angeles, CA
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
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
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.90 Sparks Street,
Ottawa), may be held as a legally
binding tender until the aforementioned drafts are received following your kind
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
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
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.
Simon Eugene Sittampalam
PO Box 134
645 Beach Road
Jaffna, Sri Lanka
Tel: +9421 222 6851
in a while, we at Science receive a paper that causes us to exercise
particular care in handling,
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
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
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,
Acknowledgement of receipt is still pending.
2 January 2006
Return to homepage