India! I dare you to be rich

Category Archive: Bad ideas!

Criminal Indian yogis: “Swami” Satyananda Saraswati (1923-2009) and Akhandananda (d.1997)

A concerned Australian has written to me to comment on these criminal yogis about whom allegations are now emerging in the Australian newspapers. These criminals are (or, rather, were, since both criminals are now dead) part of the global range of Satyananda Saraswati ashrams. I'm informed that: "apparently there is another Indian spiritual group to come before the Royal Commission that will eclipse the Satyananda hearing". 

I assured him that India is FLOODED with criminal "yogis" and "godmen" who cheat the whole country all the time. This is not news. I EXPECT a good proportion of all "swamis" to be mega-criminals or cheats.

Deepak Chopra is more sophisticated, so he only operates on your pocket (extracts your money). Others are much worse.

I have come across only three "yogis" in my lifetime:

a) Satya Sai Baba, whom I once saw as part of a public group (when I was around 20 years old) in Whitefield near Bangalore. He was an absolute crook who plied his customers with cheap magic tricks to bilk them. I've written extensively about him on this blog. There are many believable allegations about sexual abuse by him. But since he managed to fool "eminent" Indians he was quite safe from prosecution.

b) "Swami" Shuddhananda, whom I came across a few years ago in Melbourne. I even attended 4 of his lectures, and invited him to my home. This man, very soon, turned out to be a scoundrel, involved in sexual misdemeanor.

c) "Swami" Ramdev, whom I came across in late 2012 and interacted till mid-2013. I've now heard very strong and, I would argue, confirmed reports from very reliable sources (who have known him for many years) about rampant sexual abuse in his ashram. But his support for black money is now more clear than ever. I'm further investigating.

I've, of course, come across many yoga teachers (including at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration). I believe yoga teachers are (generally) quite good, and have nothing to say against them.

But there are too many criminal "swamis" in India. A recent case involved severe sexual abuse by one "Swami" Asaram Bapu. He is now in jail. Then, there was the more recent "Sant" Rampal in Haryana, who was involved in murder and has been recently arrested by the police, at great cost of life and money (many people died in the process).

There are strongly documented stories about sex abuse by Indian "gurus". I'd strongly warn people to stay away from these crooks.


===Satyanand Ashram==

See its website.

More news:

Child abuse royal commission: Woman admits having sex with boy, 14, at Satyananda Yoga Ashram

Global yoga guru was a violent sexual abuser, royal commission told

Yoga handmaiden had sex with boy

Brutal initiation ceremony at Satyananda yoga movement 'saw seven-year-old girl sexually assaulted after leader licked her blood' 

Yoga guru may have raped seven year old, royal commission told

'Violent discipline' part of yoga culture, royal commission hears

Sexual abuse rife at yoga group, royal commission hears

Yoga ashram didn't consider sex abuse a crime, royal commission told


I should not fail to mention Swami Om Poorna Swatantra, about whom I've written elsewhere. Swami Swatantra is not really a swami in the sense commonly understood. He does not run an ashram, but lives like a farmer. He doesn't teach any yoga nor (unless I'm mistaken) much spiritual stuff. He is more like Thoreau, living a quiet life by himself, but engaging with nearby farmers. He is an outstanding man, and I would therefore like to add that there may be SOME outstanding gurus or swamis, and people ought to take responsibility for their own choices and decisions.


There are plenty of other such cases. Some examples here.

Another one: Swami Nithyananda


A commentator reminded me of Sri Sri. He writes:

Sri sri's followers strongly believe that his photograph can charge their mobile phones,  their vehicles can run without petrol, their guru can appear in different places at the same time, his sudarshan kriya is a cure for all diseases including cancer and sudarshan kriya is a definite ticket to Moksha, he can bring back alive the dead and their followers can get rail/air tickets even last minute and so on so forth. Our IITians, IIMs and Harvards are his followers and they all believe in all these so called miracles without any iota of doubt. 

I agree. Sri Sri is a small time magician (not much magic, though). I've written about him. However, I've never heard any perverted thing about him, so he is otherwise OK.


Continue Reading

For mysterious reasons God imprints “his” image/ symbol on toasts and chappatis

It is a mystery to me why "God" prefers to send "his" symbols to us on perishable bread. Why can't "he" directly appear before us and answer our 1000s of questions.

Today I was blessed to come across an Om Chapatti. This is a sign (from "above") for me to compile all such symbols. This post will remain a placeholder for such symbols.

Please send me links as you come across them. Let's get all these symbols together and analyse God's message to mankind.

Om Chappati


Om chappati discoverer's Linkedin profile:





This has 22 of them.

12 Things Currently Being Sold On eBay Because They Kinda Look Like Jesus

Jesus Toast? Toaster Sears Christ's Face Onto Bread



And this video as proof:

Continue Reading

More on the Science Publishing Group racket (but there are now THOUSANDS of others, making easy money!)

As further proof that ALL journals published by the "Science Publishing Group" are junk I now offer these three pieces of evidence. Three examples is enough proof.

1) My findings on the junk written by Siva Prasad and published by Science Publishing Group.

2) Findings by Peter Woit, Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia University. I'll republish these below (just in case the relevant blog post is later removed!)

3) Findings by Tom Spears which systematically busts this (and other junk) "publishers".  This blog post is REALLY good! A real investigation.

I rest my case. Whois tells me that the domain was created on 10 October 2012.

Updated Date: 04-oct-2014
Creation Date: 10-oct-2012

The owners won't disclose their names/ details but I'm willing to take a bet they are located in India with a fake address/ website (hosted by Godaddy). A good money-making enterprise, typical of the Indian mind – at least Rs.1 lakh received per junk article. A business worth crores of rupees! Plus a way to further deceive and confuse "Hindu" (and other) devotees! This is good fun.

If you find more proofs of the scam known as Science Publishing Group, do let me know. Also send in a list of other such publishers.

Wikipedia discusses predatory open access publishing here.  I really dont' have time to study this further, but clearly 'buyer beware' applies even more strongly with regard to online journals. 

I am also willing to take a bet that this scam will shut down in a few months/ years and re-open as another domain. 

Who regulates such scamsters? Any consumer protection law applicable in this case? This "company" being located in India, it is INDIA that needs to act. But can Modi, with his Ganesha plastic surgery beliefs, and floating in black money, act against such rackets?


American Journal of Modern Physics

Posted on March 7, 2013 by woit

This morning an e-mail came in from the “Science Publishing Group”, a call for “Editorial Board Members, Reviewers and Paper” for their open access journals, advertised as

Full peer review: All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo double blind peer review.
Fast publication: Fast peer review process of papers within approximately one month of submission.

This included a special deal on the “Article Processing Charge”: $70 or $120 before May 15. I’ve been highly suspicious of all “author pays” open access schemes in math or physics, so I decided to check into what this one was. When I went to their web-site and looked at their list of journals, the first on the list that looked like it would have material in it I would know something about was the American Journal of Modern Physics. The first paper that showed up on the journal web-page was MSSM Neutral Higgs Production Cross Section Via Gluon Fusion and Bottom Quark Fusion at NNLO in QCD by Tetiana Obikhod, so I took a quick look at it.

It looked perfectly competent, but oddly it wasn’t on the arXiv, and the only papers by that author on the arXiv appeared to be some papers on F-theory and D-branes from 1997-98. A little bit of investigation quickly showed that much of the paper was plagiarized from elsewhere, including at least a 2003 paper by Harlander and Kilgore, Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order and a 2011 paper by Bagnaschi et al. Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM (neither of which are listed in the references).

For instance, the AJMP paper introduction has

In the Standard Model the gluon fusion process [12] is the dominant Higgs production mechanism at the LHC. The total cross section receives very large next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD corrections, which were first computed in [13]. Later calculations [14, 15] retained the exact dependence on the masses of the top and bottom quarks running in the loops. The next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections are also large, and have been computed in [16]. The role of electroweak (EW) corrections has been discussed in [17]. The impact of mixed QCD-EW corrections has been discussed in [18]. The residual uncertainty on the total cross section depends on the uncomputed higher-order QCD effects and on the uncertainties that affect the parton distribution functions (PDF) of the proton [19].

while Bagnaschi et al. has

In the Standard Model (SM) the gluon fusion process [4] is the dominant Higgs production mechanism both at the Tevatron and at the LHC. The total cross section receives very large next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD corrections, which were first computed in ref. [5] in the so-called heavy-quark effective theory (HQET), i.e. including only the top-quark contributions in the limit mt . Later calculations [6, 7, 8, 9, 10] retained the exact dependence on the masses of the top and bottom quarks running in the loops. The next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections are also large, and have been computed in the HQET in ref. [11]. The finite-top-mass effects at NNLO QCD have been studied in ref. [12] and found to be small. The resummation to all orders of soft gluon radiation has been studied in refs. [13, 14]. Leading third-order (NNNLO) QCD terms have been discussed in ref. [15]. The role of electroweak (EW) corrections has been discussed in refs. [16, 17, 18, 19]. The impact of mixed QCD-EW corrections has been discussed in ref. [20]. The residual uncertainty on the total cross section depends mainly on the uncomputed higher-order QCD effects and on the uncertainties that affect the parton distribution functions (PDF) of the proton [21, 22, 3].

In the body of the AJMP paper, for example starting at the bottom of page 3 with

The subprocesses to be evaluated at the partonic level are given as following…

the following material in the paper including the equations is an edited version of Harlander and Kilgore, starting at their page 4 with

The subprocesses to be evaluated at the partonic level are given as following…

As far as I can tell without spending more time on it, the author did run some kind of package to calculate something (the plots in the paper aren’t in the older papers), and then wrote the surrounding paper largely by plagiarizing the other two papers. There’s a good reason this one isn’t on the arXiv: they now run an automated system which would have immediately identified the plagiarism problem.

It’s possible that I just got unlucky, that there was a problem only with the first of the papers I looked at, but this seems unlikely. I realize that this is a very obvious case of a journal with extremely low standards, run to make money off of the increasingly popular “author pays” model of financing journals, but I’m hoping that those that are trying to move high-quality journals to this model are seriously thinking through the issues involved. Just this month in the AMS Notices, there is discussion of a proposal to move two of the AMS journals in that direction. Yes, this is very different than AJMP, but there’s an argument to be made about the “author pays” model that it is best avoided, since it’s a good idea to keep academic and vanity publishing strictly separate endeavors.


Blinded by scientific gobbledygook

Bad chemistry: How fake research journals are scamming the science community


OTTAWA — I have just written the world’s worst science research paper: More than incompetent, it’s a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble.

Now science publishers around the world are clamouring to publish it.

They will distribute it globally and pretend it is real research, for a fee.

It’s untrue? And parts are plagiarized? They’re fine with that.

Welcome to the world of science scams, a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate.

And even veteran scientists and universities are unaware of how deep the problem runs.

When scientists make discoveries, they publish their results in academic journals. The journals review the discovery with independent experts, and if everything checks out they publish the work. This boosts the reputations, and the job prospects, of the study’s authors.

Many journals now publish only online. And some of these, nicknamed predatory journals, offer fast, cut-rate service to young researchers under pressure to publish who have trouble getting accepted by the big science journals.

In academia, there’s a debate over whether the predators are of a lower-than-desired quality. But the Citizen’s experiment indicates much more: that many are pure con artists on the same level as the Nigerian banker who wants to give you $100 million.

Last year, science writer John Bohannon sent out a paperwith subtle scientific errors and showed that predatory journals were oftenfailing to catch them. The Citizen covered his sting, published in Sciencemagazine.

Estimates of their numbers range from hundreds to thousands.

To uncover bottom-feeding publishers, the simplest way was to submit something that absolutely shouldn’t be published by anyone, anywhere.

First I had to write it.

My short research paper may look normal to outsiders: A lot of big, scientific words with some graphs. Let’s start with the title: “Acidity and aridity: Soil inorganic carbon storage exhibits complex relationship with low-pH soils and myeloablation followed by autologous PBSC infusion.”

Look more closely. The first half is about soil science. Then halfway through it switches to medical terms, myeloablation and PBSC infusion, which relate to treatment of cancer using stem cells.

The reason: I copied and pasted one phrase from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology.

I wrote the whole paper that way, copying and pasting from soil, then blood, then soil again, and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars. They had squiggly lines and looked cool, so I threw them in.

Footnotes came largely from a paper on wine chemistry. The finished product is completely meaningless.

The university where I claim to work doesn’t exist. Nor do the Nepean Desert or my co-author. Software that catches plagiarism identified 67 per cent of my paper as stolen (and that’s missing some). And geology and blood work don’t mix, even with my invention of seismic platelets.

I submitted the faux science to 18 journals, and waited.

Predators moved in fast. Acceptances started rolling in within 24 hours of my submission, from journals wishing to publish the work of this young geologist at the University of Ottawa-Carleton.

First came the Merit Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Sciences, which claims it sent me to “peer review” by an independent expert in the field who gave me a glowing review. It laid out my article and was ready to post it online 48 hours after submission — for $500.

That’s cheap. The going rate at genuine journals is $1,000 to $5,000.

I didn’t pay.

There are seven more acceptances from the International Journal of Science and Technology, Science Journal of Agricultural Research and Management, the International Journal of Current Research, Science Park, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Research (actually based in Jordan), American Journal of Scientific Research, and International Journal of Latest Research in Engineering and Computing. Yes, “Latest.” Makes you wonder what other kind there is.

Several others are still considering and a couple are silent and appear to have shut down.

Only two turned me down, for plagiarism. And one of these will turn a blind eye and publish anyway if I just tweak it a bit.

The acceptances came embarrassingly fast. A real journal needs weeks at the very least to ask reviewers — outside experts — to check an author’s work.

I wrote back to one of these publishers explaining that my work was “bilge” and the conclusions don’t stand up.

The journal wrote right back offering to tweak a few passages and publish anyway. And by the way, it asked, where’s the $500?

At the University of Saskatchewan, medical professor Roger Pierson wonders how can scientists trust the journal system to share knowledge.

“Basically you can’t any more,” he said, except for a stable of well-known journals from identifiable professional societies, where members recognize ethical work is in all their best interests.

He had just spent time with the committee that oversees tenure and promotions at his university.

“We had three cases where people had published things in what were obviously predatory journals, and they didn’t think anything was wrong with that.

“The reality though is that these (fake journals) are used for promotion and tenure by people who really shouldn’t be there. The world is changing fast … It’s a big problem.”

He tracked a paper from one job applicant to the journal website and found the giveaway clue: It takes weeks to publish, the site said, but if authors needs faster service to impress their universities then “it costs another $500 and they’ll publish it in days.

“It’s got absurd. There are hundreds if not thousands” of shady publishers, Pierson said.

“Universities are particularly vulnerable” to being fooled by these fake credentials.

It used to be pretty easy to spot them, said Pierson. “But the predatory journals are becoming a little more sophisticated, (and) new journals in every field are popping up weekly.”

Even Pierson didn’t know the latest trick. Journals are rated on their “impact factor” — how often their articles are used as references in later studies. And the predatory journals are now buying fake impact factors from equally fake rating agencies.

He believes this taints the reliability of what is published everywhere.

“Scientists are wasting way too much time filtering through crap to find a good article. Instead of having 60 or 70 that are of good quality, suddenly you’ve got 200, and you’ve got to be the judge.”

Young researchers are squeezed into dealing with shady journals by a near-monopoly of a very few established publishing houses, says Mark McDayter of Western University. The established journals have sky-high fees, while the “open access” journals (i.e. those free online) “are the Wild West” of publishing.

Some are of top quality, such as PLOS (Public Library of Science.) But it’s hard to tell which are good.

“It’s in some danger of wiping out an entire generation of scholars who simply can’t make it because they can’t find legitimate venues for publication.”

Even the universities don’t realize how bad it has become, McDayter believes.

As well, he says academics write such dense jargon in such specialized fields that almost no one can understand them. This makes their research hard to evaluate.

“The other problem is that scholarly writing is just dreadful and has become more and more dreadful over the past 10 years or so,” he points out.

McDayter says posting free online for all to read is pointless “if it’s complete and absolutely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn’t have a PhD in your field.”

David Moher of the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and a grad student are studying predatory publishing. They have a list of 380 dubious publishers, but Moher confesses it’s often hard to know who belongs on the list.

Most scientists are spammed with regular emails fishing for contributions in such journals, he said. He gets them from medical-sounding sites, but he also gets them from areas he where he has no expertise, such as physics.

Even reporters have started getting these spam messages. So have Ottawa city councillors, and a roller hockey league.

But Moher also suggests that people may treat the traditional system of peer review with too much respect.

It’s still possible that the predators are publishing decent work, even without peer review, he said. “What you have pointed out (with the bogus article on soils) is quite flawed and problematic. But I’ll be devil’s advocate for a moment. Set that aside … We do not have any strong evidence anywhere that peer review works.

“I’m an editor and many editors don’t like to hear that … But it may not in the end make any difference.”

The bigger problem is that in this case the publisher clearly didn’t even read what it offered to print, not even the title, “and that’s hugely problematic.”

In Saskatchewan, Roger Pierson asks: “How do we begin to teach students about ethics in science versus the needs of career advancement? It’s going to be an interesting time.”

There’s been one more development in my own story. The Science Publishing Group (it lists its address simply as “USA”) has asked me to apply for a post on its editorial board, which would put me in charge of judging others’ work. The future looks bright indeed.

* * *

Pierson’s ideas on beating the predators:

• “You don’t just count publications (to evaluate a young researcher). A bunch of us crusty old guys will actually read them. It’s sad for an old career person to say this has become a game but I think that’s the reality.”

• Stick with the established publishers such as Science, Nature, and Cell, even though their costs are high.

• Researchers might only take on students who have previously studied under a colleague they know and trust.



Continue Reading

The startling claims of Siva Prasad Kodukula re: “Indian” “science”. Seeking a wider opinion.

Someone on FB brought an amazing "journal article" to my notice, by one Siva Prasad Kodukula. I read the first para and was astonished that such material could get published.

So I tried to verify and came to a conclusion that the journal is a scam.

Fortunately, Siva Prasad Kodukula has accepted my FB friend request and has been quite cooperative, so I'm going to summarise the current state of affairs as follows, and request my readers for their comments. At the end of this either Siva Prasad Kodukula will be known as a genius or a fraud. 

Why is this important? Why do I care to spend time to write this blog post?

Because to defend the ridiculous claims of Modi and his followers, this man's work is being cited as proof of the greatness of "Hindu" science. Funnily enough, Siva Prasad himself states: "I have not touched religion and I am not skeptic about religion and God. It is science." And the Siva's constant and K-Suryon he talks about are based on his name, not on any mythological Siva. (So much for the Modi-bhakts who believe anyone who talks about Siva must be referring to the Vedas!)

Who is Siva Prasad Kodukula?

[I’m going to lightly edit the info below, so most typos in the original source aren’t edited]

1. He is a Project Management Consultant, A Civil Engineer, B.E(Civil Engineering) From Andhra University, 1989 [Source]. He previously worked with Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., M.N.DASTUR&CO(P)LTD, M.N.Dastur&Co(P)Ltd [Source]

2. He is also an:

Editorial Member -American Journal of Civil Engineering (Science Publishing Group) where he reviews and edits research articles in "Civil Engineering"

Editorial board-member-"International Journal of Astrophysics & space sciences" (Science Publishing Group) where he reviews and edits research articles in ASTROPHYSICS.

Editorial Board Member-"American Journal of Physics&Applications" (Science Publishing Group) where he reviews and edits research papers in physics and applied physics. [Source]

3. In his own words on FB:

I have a research back ground in physics from 1986 it self  Even I have written letters to Prof Narlikar and sumission letters of international journals..(At that time I was studying my second year B.E(CIVIL eNGINEERING) I am a graduate in civil Engineering fro Andhra university and worked in Multinational Companies. If you want educational back ground you can get so many Phd's (useless).If people asked 'Einstein' for educational back ground to publish his paper. We would have not reached this stage.

Published "work"

Relation between Planck Length and Origin of Consciousness in Life Sciences-A Mathematical Proof, Biomedical Science and Engineering. 2014 2 (3). doi: 10.12691/bse-2-3-1

Analysis on Hawking Radiation and Steady State Universe by Siva’s Theories, International Journal of Physics. 2014 2 (2). doi: 10.12691/ijp-2-2-1

New Discovery about Prediction of a Particle ‘K-Suryon’ as Basic Building Block of Mass, International Journal of Physics. 2014 2 (1). doi: 10.12691/ijp-2-1-3

space time equivalence-A new concept, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications

Equation for consciousness in terms of Physics, International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology (ISSN 2278-7763)

siva's constant 'K' of Physics, International journal of Advancement in Research and Technology

Siva's Classical Equation for Space Time and Matter, International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology (ISSN 2278-7763)

Two Equations showing the relation between Mass and space time & density of space time associated to mass, 

Siva’s Equation for Singularity of Black Holes, International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science

Siva's theory of quantum gravity, American Journal of Modern Physics

Super theory of relativity-explanation to ‘rest mass of photon’, ‘quantum entanglement’ and ‘consciousness’, American Journal of Modern Physics



1. Who is the publisher of these "journals"?

Science Publishing Group. It "publishes" over 120 "journals".

Science Publishing Group
NEW YORK, NY 10018
Tel: (001)347-688-8931
Skype ID: sciencepg

2. How did Siva Prasad Kodukula become editor of these journals?

As per SiencePG applied for editorial position with my complete appraisal. They have given me these positions by my back ground (submitted with proofs. We can die like this we can not cry….You people do not know the word 'exception' . Let me live my life. You be with luxuries.. and laugh even at 'Srinivasa Ramanujan' Albert Einstin' etc.…. Thank you Sir…

The SPG website states:

Join as Editorial Board Member
We are seeking professionals to join our Editorial Board. You will be entitled following benefits while working with us as an editorial board member of the journals.
1.    You are enforced to read carefully various manuscripts in your area of importance and interest. This is the way you are routinely forced to keep yourself up-to-date while checking and suggesting the changes in manuscripts.
2.    This work helps to add in and provides a better way to create your identity as a well known expert in your field and may lead to increased invitations to speak at conferences or demand for invited research of your specialized area.
3.    You will be among the contributors who will shape and decide the urgent ways as required with changing societal needs.
4.    Your ideas and subject inputs may help in arranging special issues as per topics of your interest and choice.
5.    You will come across the latest research before everyone else and gives you a position of leadership in your research community.
6.    Research articles provided by the editorial board members will be published with a 20% discount.

​Clearly these people are INDIAN. No one else in the entire world can write such English.

3. Has anyone commented adversely about these journals?

Yes. Peter Woit. Peter is Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia University. According to Peter, 

This morning an e-mail came in from the “Science Publishing Group”, a call for “Editorial Board Members, Reviewers and Paper” for their open access journals, advertised as

Full peer review: All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo double blind peer review.
Fast publication: Fast peer review process of papers within approximately one month of submission.

This included a special deal on the “Article Processing Charge”: $70 or $120 before May 15.

Peter checked ONE article and found it to be heavily plagiarised:

much of the paper was plagiarized from elsewhere, including at least a 2003 paper by Harlander and Kilgore, Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order and a 2011 paper by Bagnaschi et al. Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM (neither of which are listed in the references). 


Well, I have only read ONE paragraph of one of his articles: Equation for Consciousness in terms of Physics.


At present consciousness is an up coming issue of interdisplinary fields of physics, cosmology, nurology ,genetics etc. The research is going on for the attempts to define consciousness which can withstand for experiments. Physics is only the subject which will give substantiate experimental results. But up to now there is no concept which clearly define consciousness in terms of physics. First of all it has to be defind and should be accepted by scientists to do further experimental verification with in the frame work of physics. An attempt has been made to define the consciousness in terms of physics. Brief description of the following concepts is used for analysis to arrive a new concept of consciousness.

No prizes for guessing why I call this junk. Not even basic spellcheck, leave along syntax and grammar. References are the "author's" own works! Cool. Write junk and cite it yourself, and get published in a "peer reviewed" journal. And become member of the "editorial board" without a single day of teaching experience in any reputed university. (Of course, this way you can be "routinely forced to keep yourself up-to-date"). 


I invite anyone with ANY physics or other scientific background to read these "papers" and provide comments. My opinion is clear: this is junk. But I've only read one para. Don't have the desire to read more. 

I'm curious to know what others think.

Siva Prasad has asked me to discuss his work. I have asked him to wait. Let me first hear from those who have the patience to actually read more than one paragraph of his "work".

From his photo, Siva Prasad is a nice fellow. I wish him well. Just that I don't appreciate the publication of junk, and I don't appreciate fake "journals".

And do not appreciate junk that is cited as proof of India's "great" scientific knowledge in the hoary past (knowledge which was apparently entirely forgotten and is now being "rediscovered" each time someone in the West comes up with some genuine breakthrough: "we knew that!". No you didn't!).

Continue Reading

Parents, you teach religion to your children at your risk. Religion can kill them and/or their children.

Religion is not harmless. I strongly recommend that parents NOT teach it to their children. 

Get out of your personal brainwashing and don't brainwash your children.

The other day, a Sydney woman lost FOUR SONS to the Islamic State. They are now helpless to get them back

Similarly, if you teach your children religion, they could reject medical science in favour of mumbo-jumbo and quackery. These Christians allowed their child to DIE rather than get properly treated.

Religious teaching is harmless for 98 per cent of the population. Most people don't take religion seriously, or merely go through the motions to "fit in" with others.

But in 2 out of 100 cases, your chidren can take religion seriously. It can then KILL. Then don't complain if your children (or their children) die out of their religious stupidity.

Best remedy: DON'T indoctrinate your children in religious garbage. Teach them to THINK.


Sanjay Gadhalay has written this and I fully agree. This is what parents should teach:

Teach and learn this instead: The 6 core lessons of my Guru prof Indiresan. Which I am guided by in all I do …and share with all of you for your own adoption as deemed fit ::

1. Being Principled is everything. He taught me to examine my beliefs and values, and then to remain centered and never give upcoming on those examined principles.

2. To speak one’s mind without fear or favour. I was taught by example to articulate my views clearly and logically, uninfluenced by the possibility of adverse reactions from others.

3. Disagreement does not mean being disagreeable: Even when one has radically divergent views from others, one can articulate and debate with others and even disagree. However, it does not mean that we have to be offensive in our manners. Civil discourse is the mark of a civilized mind.

4. Catholicity of taste: He was a voracious reader and would devour books on almost any topic. All reading was to educate the mind and provide food for further thought.

5. Social Awareness: An engineer by background, he constantly sought solutions to the problems of society. He encouraged thinking about social problems and was tireless in his search for solutions to them.

6. Zest for life: Through his abundant energy, the multiple projects & causes he associated himself with, he taught me that life is for the living. He taught me to live it fully.

Continue Reading

Debunking the swindle of Homeopathy

[This is a placeholder blog post]

I'm compiling here evidence that demonstrates that homeopathy does not outperform placebos. 

The best starting point is this comic.

An article in The Economist "Why homeopathy is nonsense".

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake by Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Is there any proof that homeopathic medicine works?

A Physicist’s Personal View of Homeopathy


Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy

​the effects seen in placebo controlled trials of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis.

Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials



Watch the whole thing, below, but from 9:32 is best.

Continue Reading