To begin with, consider Galilean relativity which is best described in the following para, which is by Galileo himself:

“Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you some flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. Have the ship proceed with any speed you like, as long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. The droplets will fall into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The butterfly and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up from the course of the ship“.

Now consider the butterfly and that space (say one cubic metre) within which the butterfly is moving all the time, let’s call this space as `B`.

In 5 minutes B has moved 2 kms (Considering that there is no such thing as a background screen which remains fixed as time evolves, and assuming further that the ship is moving at 24 km per hour) in the direction in which the ship is moving.

In addition, considering the rotation of the Earth, B along with the ship would have moved about 140 kms away along the circumference of a sphere of about 7 Km radius.

In addition, considering the motion of the Earth about the sun, B along with the ship and along with the Earth would have moved another 15000 kms away.

In addition, considering the motion of the Sun about the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, B along with the ship. along with the Earth, along with the Sun and the entire solar system move a further `x` kms away… and so on … not forgetting the motion of Milky Way towards the Andromeda Galaxy…. And finally the galaxies moving in line with the expansion of the universe.

So it turns out that the butterfly along with space `B` has in 5 minutes moved several millions of miles away. In short the concept of an absolute space has to be abandoned even if we adopt the Galilean Relativity Principle.

Likewise, when considering special relativity … the limiting speed as the speed of light and the constancy of the speed of light, the concept of an absolute time has to be abandoned. Why we don`t do it is simply because we cannot easily contemplate the impact of the phenomenally large magnitude of the speed of light in comparison with the speeds encountered normally.

If Galileo’s logic works only when we shut ourselves up in the cabin with the knowledge that the ship is moving with a uniform motion, and does not work when we are at the deck.. we must ask the question what is the change in our understanding and what kind of logic works when we are on the deck, and not just on the deck, but also when our ARENA of observation is `SPACE-TIME` itself. While there is no doubt whatsoever that Galileo was a great genius and that the Galilean Relativity Principle was the foundational Principle on which our understanding of the subject of `Relativity` rests, the question may be asked : ` Would Galileo ( as well as Newton), not in principle have gained great benefit from the `Modern Physics understanding based on the `space-time` perspective as it is understood today, which understanding is the sum total of the combined Genius of Maxwell, Minkowski, Poincaire, Lorentz, to mention just a few… and above all Einstein who has encapsulated the entire knowledge on the subject in his Special and General Relativity.

In short, in Modern Physics we need to view the history of the universe physically as it happened, and still happening, in a `four-dimensional space-time`, rather than in a three dimensional space evolving with time

The idea of `Space-time` is not Einstein`s idea. This idea is attributed to the Scientist Hermann Minkowski who actually specialized in geometry. In a famous lecture Minkowski asserted:
“Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of unity between the two will preserve an independent reality“.

And in the words of Richard Feynman:

“Relativity is not some airy-fairy philosophy, nor is space-time mere mathematical formalism. It is the foundational ingredient of the very universe in which we live.“
So, as I said earlier, I must place all the cards on the table … It doesn`t matter who I am or where I get the information from … whether from Books or from Google or my own thoughts. The idea is to provide all the information and let the reader judge for himself what can be the truth which has the greatest chance of being accepted by the great intelligent minds on the planet Earth. Let’s first get at the truth and then see what we can do to deal with the casualty violation Paradoxes that ensue, if any.
First, I provide here an extract from Roger Penrose`s introduction to Feynman`s book `Six Not So Easy pieces`:

“`The great scientists Galileo and Newton centuries before Einstein, had already pointed out that in the dynamical theories that they themselves were developing, the physics as perceived by an observer in uniform motion would be identical with that perceived by an observer at rest. The key problem with this had arisen only later, with James Clark Maxwell`s discovery, as published in 1865, of the equations that govern the electric and magnetic field, and which also control the propagation of light. The implication seemed to be that the relativity principle of Galileo and Newton could no longer hold true; for the speed of light must, by Maxwell`s equations, have a definite speed of propagation. Accordingly, an observer at rest is distinguished from those in motion by the fact that only to an observer at rest does the light speed appear to be the same in all directions.

The relativity principle of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein differs from that of Galilio and Newton, but the implication is the same ..viz that the physics as perceived by an observer in uniform motion is indeed identical as that perceived by an observer at rest. Yet in the new Relativity, Maxwell`s equations are consistent with the principle and the speed of light has a fixed value in every direction, no matter in what direction or with what speed the observer might be moving. How is this magic achieved so that these apparently hopelessly incompatible requirements are reconciled?

In order to be consistent with the relativity principle, whereby physics `looks the same` to an observer in uniform motion as to an observer at rest, there must be a `symmetry transformation` which translates one observer`s measured quantities into those of the other. It is a symmetry because the physical laws appear the same to each observer, and `symmetry` after all asserts that something has the same appearance from two distinct points of view. As Physics develops, there are mathematical formalisms that develop with it, and which are needed in order to express the new physical laws. When the mathematical tools are skilfully tuned to their appropriate tasks, they can make the physics seem much simpler otherwise. The ideas of vector calculus are a case in point. Physical laws have a symmetry under ordinary rotations in space. Feynman brings home the power of the vector notation and the underlying ideas for expressing such laws.

Relativity theory, however tells us that `time` should also be brought under the compass of these symmetry transformations, so a four-dimensional vector calculus is needed. This calculus is also introduced to us here by Feynman, as it provides the way of understanding how not only time and space must be considered as different aspects of the same four dimensional structure, but the same is true of energy and momentum in the relativistic scheme.“`

To explain further how the Galilean transformation is incorrect for light :

“Consider a car going at 100000 miles per second, and the light going at 186000 miles per second, then apparently the light going past the car should be 86000 miles per second. In any case by measuring the speed of light going past the car (If the Galilean transformation is correct for light) one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the Earth. The experiments gave no velocity at all“ … Feynman.

Which means the light actually goes past the car at 186000 miles per second and the Galilean transformation is incorrect for light.

Clearly something is the matter with the equations of physics, and some Transformation is required, by providing appropriate substitutions in Maxwell`s equation, so that there form is unchanged while at the same time, the results obtained are matching fully with the observations made. The Scientist H A Lorentz provided precisely such a transformation.

Einstein, following a suggestion originally made by Poincare, then proposed that all the physical laws should be of such a kind that they remain unchanged under a Lorentz transformation. Applying the same criteria to Newton`s equations, they need to be rewritten in such a way that the above conditions are satisfied. As it turned out, all that was required was to substitute the mass `m` with the expression `mo/(1 – v^2/c^2)^0.5`, where the “rest mass“ mo represents the mass of the body that is not moving, and c is the speed of light.

For solving problems …that is all there is to the theory of relativity…We just need to change Newton`s laws by applying a correction factor to the mass `m`

(For further reading refer to the thought experiment relating to Pat Boone`s song Bernardine as described in the manuscript of my talk on `The Travelling Cosmic Mind`

Extract (of Roger Penrose`s introduction to Feynman`s book) continued:

“`When Einstein became accustomed to the idea of space-time, he took it completely into his way of thinking. It became an essential part of his extension of special relativity – the relativity theory I have been referring to above that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein introduced- to what is known as general relativity. In Einstein`s general relativity, the space-time becomes curved and it is able to incorporate the phenomena of gravity into the curvature. “`

As transpires – as per the flow of information over the last few centuries in accordance with the concept that it is the `Information in the field` that is responsible for all that happens in the universe – there is no way that Einstein would not have come out with his theories of Special and General Relativity, and further there is no way that the latter theory would not have led to the concept of `Black holes`.
Let us now discuss the various apparently `casualty violation paradoxes` that ensue consequent on Einstein`s theories, and which need to be resolved with some additional understanding of the subject.
If a subject is understood in all respects, there is no such thing as a `Casualty Violation Paradox`. The `Cause` itself needs to be understood properly before deciding if the corresponding `Effect` is a paradox or not.

Consider the famous `Twin Paradox`: Paul flies away at very high speed. Peter who is left on the ground sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul`s clocks appear to go slower from Peter`s point of view. Paul lights a cigar taking the normal time to do so and noticing nothing unusual, but Peter sees him lighting the cigar and taking too much time to do so, much more than the normal. If Paul travels around and about for some time and comes back, he will be younger than Peter. For example, if Paul left Peter at a particular instant of time `t` and travelled at 0.8 times the speed of light for about ten hours before returning back to meet Peter on the ground, he finds himself to be younger by four hours. Now the particular `instant of time` `t1` when the two meet again might be ten hours after `t` in the eyes of Peter, but Paul actually took only six hours to reach `t1` from `t.

Now I ask the question: Was that a Paradox? Was casualty violated?

No, It wasn`t.

We call something as a paradox only if we find that a physical law is violated. But in this case the physical law has NOT been violated. Its just that we have a better understanding of the physical law, the law to which a Lorentz transformation has been applied, to make it in conformity with what actually happens in the world. In short, the transformed Physical Law has not been violated at all.

The question may be asked. Can we not say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly?

I think not ..The one who has travelled and felt the acceleration is the one who would be the younger of two.

Two different geometries are involved. For movement in space Euclidian Geometry is fine, but for movement in time we need a Lorentz geometry.

As per the Euclidian Geometry (for movement in Space). the two sides AB and BC of a triangle add up to be greater than AC or at least equal to it in case of collinearity.

For the one who has travelled in a space ship, we consider that he moves along the sides AB and BC. We further assume that at B, it’s a smooth curve towards C and not a sharp and abrupt change … as that would be Fatal for him/her … this won`t change the calculation much.

However, when we consider the movement in time we need to incorporate the Lorentz transformation in case of the traveller, and accordingly use the Lorentz geometry for this purpose. And in case of Lorentz Geometry the two sides of the triangle AB and BC when added up turn out to be less than AC or at the most equal to AC when A,B,C, are all on the World line of an inertial particle ie the straight `inertial` path representing the maximizing of the measured time between two fixed end events.

When two observers meet at some point and shake hands, then the event corresponding to the shaking of the hands at the point corresponding to the junction between the two hands, if it happens at a certain time `T`, we can very well say that time `T` is a fixed instant of time ( albeit in someone`s imagination). But the interval of time between the Big Bang and time `T` is not the same for the two observers or for their constituent parts … the trillions of atoms and molecules. This interval of time is different for each and every one of these constituent parts and depends on their travel schedules and the speeds at which they were travelling in their journeys through the cosmos via Supernovas etc, and of course on the number of times Lorentz transformations were applied to them.

In my view… by now … as per the current status of knowledge on the planet … the acceptance of the fact that time is not an absolute concept, as well as space not being an absolute concept should not be considered to be something revolutionary.

In real life we do not experience such situations. Even if we travel at 20000 miles per hour, impact of Lorentz transformation will not be greater than one part in about 3 billion. But the correctness of the formula has been confirmed by the observations of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging upto practically very close to the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally.

Next consider the apparent paradoxes that happen in connection with Black – holes.

Nobel Laureate Subramanyan Chandrasekhar considers Black holes as perfect macroscopic objects. He wrote :

“The black holes of nature are the most perfect macroscopic objects there are in the universe: the only elements in their construction are our concepts of space and time. And since the general theory of relativity provides onle a single unique family of solutions for their descriptions, they are the simplest objects as well“

But there is nothing simple about what happens inside or around Black holes within the so called `Event horizon`.. the surface area around the black hole from which nothing can escape .. not even light.. not even information.

It was Einstein`s theory of General relativity which resulted in the concept of a black hole as something possessing an enormous gravitational pull so powerful that whatever entered within the event horizon was forever trapped and completely captured .. not to mention `crushed` with no chance of escaping.
Most black holes are products of Supernovas. In the final moments of a dying massive star (several times as massive as our sun), there is a fight between Entropy and Gravity. If Entropy wins, all the matter in the exploding star gets out and nothing remains inside. If it’s a close fight such as a short head victory for Entropy a portion (somewhat major) escapes out and a portion remains which is called a neutron star. And if Gravity wins, the star becomes a black hole.

When Quantum Mechanics was understood (sometime in the mid 20th century), people started thinking that the `information` – ie. The material sucked into the black hole – had to be conserved, and that it should be possible to retrieve the same at a later date.. but perhaps in a different form altogether.
Then in 1970 the Scientist Stephen Hawking proposed that black holes were losing mass and would eventually evaporate and in doing so take all traces of what fell into them. Thus the information would not be conserved. It would be vanished.

What ultimately happens to the information is unclear and this aspect is known as `The information paradox`.

There are a whole lot of other paradoxical situations that arise consequent to the fact that light cannot escape from the black hole, such as what does a person trapped inside a black hole ( assuming he is somehow alive though in pieces) see when he looks outside : Does he see the future unfolding itself all of a sudden ? ( I wish he calls me up and tells me who is going to win the 2017 Kentucky Derby).
How can that be ?… What does he actually see ? …. This is so difficult to believe that sometimes I think Black Holes can`t exist.

Indeed they do exist … they have been observed for decades .. observed by deduction of course as the invisible members of curious double stars, where the visible member`s movement around the invisible one provided enough information to prove that the invisible one was much more massive than a white dwarf or a neutron star, and was thus a black hole. There is one in the centre of our own galaxy ..the Milky way… a really massive one, perhaps millions of time as massive as our sun. This is borne out of the fact that all the stars with all their family members (the planets), are orbiting them. In fact all the galaxies must have a massive black hole at their centres.

Then there are the exotic and immensely unbelievable paradoxes involving the interconnectedness of universes via things known as `wormholes`.

This is too much.

But even some top level scientists believe that a certain `Space-time` (derived from some interesting mathematical features) can be thought of as representing a time-evolution of two different universes that become connected by a `wormhole`, which subsequently `pinches off` in a singularity.

As I said earlier … This is too much for me!

Now …how do we explain and take care of these paradoxes?

Simple … We apply the same principle as we did while discussing the `Twin Paradox` earlier on … viz that there is no such thing as a paradox, if the physics concerning the cause is perfectly well understood, and the effect happens in accordance with expectations.

The trouble is, we do not yet understand the physics relating to what happens in and around black holes perfectly well. There appears to be a problem in understanding what happens in extreme situations encountered in black holes – a sort of a mismatch in the outcome when we apply Einsteins General Relativity ..with that when we apply Quantum Mechanics. Both these theories appear to break down at these extreme points and it becomes necessary to look towards a new theory of `Quantum Gravity`. In short .. in the physics of `Quantum Graviy` we need to look for an appropriate change ( a sort of transformation) to these two theories such that the outcome is similar in both.

Till date there is no such consensus on a perfect understanding of what this quantum gravity is. But whenever it happens I guess each and every paradox will cease to exist.

Whether `wormholes` are possible or not will also be known at that stage.

At this stage I barge in with my idea of `The Travelling Cosmic Mind` .. via the `Intelligent Field` .. and try to figure out how it deals with all these paradoxes. Here I have to point out … as I did many times before .. that the total amount of intelligence in the intelligent field is a measure of the `Information in the Field` as accumulated over trillions of years, and countless Eons of the Universe.

As discussed earlier (Speculation … of course …as this is an uncharted territory) the Cosmic mind takes full responsibility for two extremely important roles.

1. It takes care of all the mathemetics and provides all the mathematical constants to the laws of nature in a way that will someday result in creating probabilities of lives and consciousnesses to emerge at various places in the universe, and theoretical Physicists to arrive and then understand the universe.
2. It travels throughout the cosmos to all the locations where adequate biochemistries are available, and provides itself with consciousness’s to do all the needful. He is all in all. You and I are just inanimate matter .. robotic bodies made up of atoms and molecules.. it covers itself with. We just do what it tells us to do … such as type on the laptop.

Will discuss the third role shortly.

The Cosmic Mind has already fed the information at the time of the Big Bang ( just prior to it) in the computer and the Cosmic Mathematician has already provided all the required mathematical constants and ordered the Cosmic Physicist to proceed with the construction of the new Eon of the universe in accordance with these orders.

And that information included information about `Quantum Gravity` which the Cosmic Mind understood, but the physicists on the planet Earth have not understood so far. Here I have to say that his ( CM`s) own understanding of the subject at that time, was a measure of the total `Information in the field` as accumulated during trillions of years and countless Eons of The Universe that existed prior to that time.

I think it has worked … never mind what happens in Black holes and to objects flying near the speed of light.

Now I come to the third role of the Cosmic Mind.

Some time back I gave a talk at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore on the topic “The Travelling Cosmic Mind“. During my talk I opined that for the universe to make Sense, we remain forever conscious, for which the only requirement is that we remain forever in the Stelliferrous Era where stars are shining and life and consciousness is flourishing, and the only way this can happen is … if we consider our `mind` to be integral with a cosmic mind that can travel backwards and forwards in time to remain forever in these liveable eras. The mind does not travel into the everlasting Degenerate and Dark eras of deep future for the simple reason that it cannot find consciousness over there.

In the same way it can be said that even while remaining all the time in the Stelliferrous Era, the mind does not venture to go to these black hole type of locations where it can not obtain consciousness of any kind, nor does it put itself into conscious containers like human bodies .. and travel at near the speed of light and put these human bodies into all kinds of torture.
This then is the third role of `The Travelling Cosmic Mind`

“So much of life, it seems to me, is determined by pure randomness. “ —Sidney Poitier

An example … a hypothetical one … to illustrate how randomness makes it difficult to predict future events :

Rudolph was reading the book “Critique of pure reason“ by Immanuel Kant. It was ten in the night. He decided to stop reading and go to sleep. As he went to close the main door he could feel the pleasant and invigorating breeze outside in the garden. Why not .. he thought .. I should take a walk in the garden.

So he took that walk in the garden, came back inside, closed the main door, bolted from inside, switched off the lamps, and went to sleep.

There was no way Rudolph could predict, that about one hundred and fifty years later, about twenty million people would die … all because of that walk in the garden … all because of a mosquito bite during that walk in the garden … all because of his falling sick with malaria consequent on the mosquito bite during that walk in the garden … all because of his getting hospitalized as a result of  his falling sick with malaria consequent on  that mosquito bite during that walk in the garden … all because of the beautiful nurse that looked after him in that hospital.

Yes indeed there was no way anyone could predict that twenty million people will lose their lives  … all because of a man called Rudolph falling in love with a young and beautiful nurse who looked after him while he was under treatment in a hospital consequent on his falling sick with malaria as a result of a mosquito bite during the time he took a walk in his garden.

They got married … Rudolph and the nurse … and lived happily thereafter.

They had a daughter … she was Hitler`s grandmother.

….                                ….                                ….                              ….

I place all the cards on the table … all the information in the field on what happened in the past …  all the important events of the twentieth century – whether positive or negative for peace –   which had some bearing on the current situation where we have about one hundred thousand Nuclear Warheads located at several locations on the planet Earth and not all of them are in possession of `Safe Hands`.

 EINSTEIN`S EQUATION:

It all began with Einstein`s special relativity theory and the understanding of the equivalence of mass and energy and of course the equation e = mc^2.

The ball was set rolling for Experimental Research on the subject.

DISCOVERY OF FISSION :

A  certain walk in the snow covered woods outside Stockholm, was to shape the future of the human race, It was a walk during which the walkers viz the Scientists Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch discussed the findings of an experimental research carried out by another Scientist called Otto Hahn, and during discussions they discerned something of extreme significance relating to the splitting of the Uranium nucleus and consequent release of energy.

In the words of Otto Frisch (recalled in his memoirs) :

“ When I came out of my hotel room after my first night in Kungalve, I found Lise Meitner studying a letter from Hahn and obviously very puzzled by it. I wanted to discuss with her a new experiment that I was planning, but she wouldn’t listen, I had to read that letter. Its content was so startling that I was at first inclined to be sceptical. Hahn and Stresemann had found that those three substances were not radium … (but) barium.

The suggestion that they might after all have made a mistake was waved aside by Lise Meitner: Hahn was too good a chemist for that, she assured me……..

` We walked up and down in the snow, I on skis and she on foot (she said and proved that she could get along just as fast that way), and gradually the idea took shape that this was no chipping or cracking of the nucleus but rather a process to be explained by Bohr`s idea that the nucleus is like a liquid drop; such a drop might elongate and divide itself… We knew that there were strong forces that would resist such a process, just as the surface tension of an ordinary liquid drop resists its division into two smaller ones. But nuclei differed from ordinary drops in one important way: they were electrically charged, and this was known to diminish the effect of the surface tension..

At this point we both sat down on a tree trunk, and started to calculate on scraps of paper. The charge of uranium nucleus, we found was indeed large enough to destroy the effect of surface tension almost completely, so the uranium nucleus might be a very wobbly, unstoppable drop, ready to divide itself at the slightest provocation (such as the impact of a neutron). But there was another problem. When the two drops separated, they would be driven apart by their mutual electric repulsion and would acquire a very large energy, about 200 MeV in all; where could that energy come from? Fortunately Lise Meitner remembered how to compute the masses of nuclei from the so-called packing fraction formula, and in that way she worked out that the two nuclei formed by the division of a uranium nucleus would be higher than the original uranium nucleus by about one-fifth of the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy is created, according to Einstein’s formula E =m*c*c, and one fifth of a proton mass was just equivalent to 200 MeV.So here was the source for that energy; it all fitted.` “

The work of a genius …. A masterstroke …. Ushering in unlimited prospects towards achievement of energy security for the world, all in very good taste, But of course, perhaps a step closer towards the `Collapse of civilization`.

(For further reading:  “ Lise Meitner – A life in Physics“ …    …   … By Ruth Lewin Sime)

THE RACE FOR SUPREMACY AND EINSTEIN`S LETTERS TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT:

The properties of Uranium,  the nuclear chain reaction, and the finding that such a chain reaction could either be controlled to produce usable energy or allowed to go out of control to produce a violent explosion, led the Scientists world wide to undertake experiments on the subject.

Two letters written by Einstein to President Roosevelt in August 1939 and March 1940 – the latter actually written to Dr. Sachs for onward transmission to Roosevelt –warning of the German research in fission and urging the President to initiate and then speed up a research programme in the US to explore the feasibility of atomic bombs, were considered by many as the biggest and most powerful interactions between Einstein and the US. The German occupation of Czechoslovakia had brought a halt to the sale of Uranium and evidence pointed to intensive nuclear research by German scientists. The two letters along with a third letter that resulted in the setting up of the Manhattan project – contents reproduced below –contributed significantly towards enormous atomic research effort in the US that ultimately tilted the scales in favor of the US in the race towards the first use of the atomic bomb.

Contents of the third letter (in part) :   “I am convinced as to the wisdom and the urgency of creating the conditions under which that and related work (referring to the research work of Szilard and Wigner) can be carried out with greater speed and on a larger scale than hitherto. I was interested in a suggestion made by Dr. Sachs that the Special Advisory Committee supply names of persons to serve as a board of trustees for a nonprofit organization which, with the approval of the government committee, could secure from governmental or private sources or both, the necessary funds for carrying out the work. Given such a framework and the necessary funds, it (the large scale experiments and exploration of practical applications) could be carried out much faster than through a loose cooperation of university laboratories and government departments.“

THE MANHATTEN PROJECT:

The nonprofit organization corresponds of course to the organization responsible for carrying out the Manhattan project . The letter was implemented briskly. The Briggs committee was drastically reorganized and brought under the wing of the National Defense Research committee created by Roosevelt, and a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences set up to inform the Government of any development of nuclear fission that might affect defense.

Though Einstein was an out and out pacifist, there was no way he could have not written these letters as the consequence of a German first use of atomic bombs might have been catastrophic. Had these letters not been written, we have no idea what would have been the history of the planet Earth for the last about 70 years.

For further reading:

• `Einstein-The life and times` …   … By Ronald W.Clarke
• `Some strangeness in the proportion – (chapter on `Albert Einstein – Encounter with America`) … … Edited by Harry Woolf.

More than 130,000 people worked on the Manhatten Project. The total cost of the project was in excess of $ 2 billion. It was operated entirely under a shroud of secrecy, so much so that President Harry S.Truman who took over the Presidency upon Roosevelt`s death in April 1945, had no knowledge of the Manhatten project prior to that.

THE BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI AND THE AFTERMATH:

For a comprehensive account of the dropping of the bombs and its impact on the world  I give below some extracts from the book “THE MANHATTEN PROJECT“… which is a groundbreaking collection of essays, articles, documents, and excerpts from histories, biographies, plays, novels, and letters on the subject… edited by Cynthia.C.Kelley:

“`On December 17<sup>th</sup> 1944 LT.Col Paul.W.Tibbets Jr, was given command of the newly created 509<sup>th</sup> composite  group of the Army-Air forces. Its top secret mission was to drop the World`s first atomic bombs. The unique shapes of the `LITTLE BOY` and `FAT MAN` Bombs required a great deal of testing with pumpkin bombs to ensure accurate flight after being dropped from specially modified B-29 planes. The 509^th trained at a scheduled base in Wendover, before being sent to Tinian Island in the Marianas in May, June, and July 1945. At Tinian the Manhatten project recreated a little Manhattan, naming the roads after New York city streets.

The mission of the 509^th was kept so secret that Admiral Chester W Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific theatre, did not know of the atomic bomb until February 1945. A target committee was convened in April and May 1945 to select a short list of Japanese cities as possible atomic bomb candidates. By the end of July the list included Hiroshima, Kokura, Niagata, and Nagasaki. Earlier secretary of war Harry Simpson  vetoed the ancient capital Kyoto with its magnificent shrines and temples. On July 25^th 1945, official orders were issued to the 509^th composite group to deliver its first atomic bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 august 1945 on one of the targets…. Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by project staff. The order was issued to General Carl Spatz, commanding general United States Army Strategic Air Forces, with the directive  that the discussion of any and all information concerning the use of the weapon against Japan is reserved to the Secretary of War and the President of the United States. It was signed by Thos.T.Handy General GSC Acting Chief of Staff. General Spatz was directed to personaly deliver  a copy to General MacArthur and another to Admiral Nimitz.

At 0245 Tinian time on Monday 6^th August 1945, Col. Tibbets  and crew took off in the `ENOLA GAY`. As the crew approached the mainland of Japan, the weather was clear for the visual drop requirement. Col Ribbets described the final minutes before the drop:

` We made the final turn to 272 degrees magnetic course for 14 minutes (72NM). Major Ferebee (Group Bombardier) checked the bombing  sights and said “I have the aiming point in sight“. Capt Van Kirk (Navigator) checked and agreed. The crew put on the dark goggles and turned on the tone for the instrument plane to know exactly when the bomb was released. Two small corrections were made and we finally released the bomb.`

At precisely 17 seconds after 0815 Japan time , the Enola Gay released the first atomic bomb over the target of Hiroshima. The `Little boy` uranium fell from 31,600 feet, detonating 43 seconds later, 600 yards in the air over the city. In a millisecond, a force of 20000 tons of TNT was released, generating a fireball of heat equivalent to 300000 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature at the ground beneath the burst reached an estimated 3000 to 4000 degrees centigrade, and the heat rays caused flesh burns upto 13000 feet away. Nearly 80000 people were killed instantly, and almost every building within a 2 mile radius was obliterated.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa describes the utter devastation of the bomb in Japan in contrast to the sense of “overwhelming success“ in Washington DC as President Truman warned the Japanese to “expect a rain of ruin“ : `LITTLE BOY exploded 1900 feet above the courtyard of Shima Hospital, 550 feet off its target, Aioi Bridge over Ota River, with a yield of equivalent to 12500 tons of TNT. The temperature at ground zero reached 5400 degrees F, immediately creating a fireball within half a mile, roasting people “to bundles of smoking black char in a fraction of a second  as their internal organs boiled away“. Thousands of such charred bundles were strewn in the streets, sidewalks, and bridges. A man sitting on the steps of a bank waiting for it to open vaporized, leaving only his shadow on the granite steps. The blast that followed the explosion destroyed thousands of houses, burning most of them. Of 76,000 buildings in Hiroshima, 70,000 were destroyed. Fire broke out all over the city, devouring everything in its path. People walked aimlessly in eerie silence, many black with burns, the skin peeling from their bodies. Others frantically ran to look for their loved ones. Thousands of dead bodies floated in the river. Everywhere their was “massive pain, suffering, and horror“, unspeakable and unprecedented. Then the black rain fell, soaking everyone with radiation. Those who survived the initial shock began to die from radiation sickness. According to one study conducted by the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 110,000 civilians and 20,000 military personnel were killed instantly. By the end of 1945, 140,000 had perished.

When a report with the  message “Big bomb dropped on Hiroshima “ was handed over to President Truman by Captain Frank Graham of the White House Map Room, the President beamed. He jumped to his feet and shook hands with Graham. “Captain“ he said “this is the greatest thing in history“.

In a broadcast that evening, Don Goddard added a chilling concreteness to these ominous forebodings: ` There is reason to believe tonight that our new atomic bomb destroyed the entire Japanese city of Hiroshima in a single blast … It would be the same as Denver Colorado, with a population of 350,000 persons being there one moment, and wiped out the next`.

President Harry S Truman issued a statement immediately after the world`s first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. His statement unveiled the top secret Manhattan Project as an immense “scientific gamble“ and the “greatest achievement of organised science in history“. Looking ahead President Truman envisions the production and use of atomic energy for power within the Unites States and as a force for maintaining world peace. “` …  …   … End of extract

The Manhatten Project was successful.. It was an `Unsurpassed accomplishment of Science and an Engineering feat`. The US won the race for the first use of  the Atomic Bomb. On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered unconditionally.  The second World War ended.

Frantic Build Up of Nuclear capabilities by powerful nations of the World, was a natural consequence, as was the urgency to ensure control of such build up by other nations, the NPT, the CTBT, the IAEA and the safeguards necessary to ensure that nuclear materials do not go into the wrong hands, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, section 123 of the act pertaining to cooperation with other nations, the demand supply gap in energy, the necessity of more and more nations in the world to partake in the responsibility to ensure prevention of use of nuclear weapons, etc .

PUGWASH CONFERENCES AND THE RUSSELL-EINSTEIN MANIFESTO:

The Pugwash Conferences take their name from the fishing village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia, site of the first meeting in 1957 which was attended by 22 eminent scientists (seven from the United States, three each from the Soviet Union and Japan, two each from the United Kingdom and Canada, and one each from Australia, Austria, China, France, and Poland). The stimulus for this first Pugwash meeting was the “Manifesto” issued in 1955 by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, and also signed by Max Born, Percy Bridgman, Leopold Infeld, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Herman Muller, Linus Pauling, Cecil Powell, Joseph Rotblat, and Hideki Yukawa, which called upon scientists of all political persuasions to assemble to discuss the threat posed to civilization by the advent of thermonuclear weapons.

Extract from the Russell Einstein Manifesto :

“` In the tragic situation that confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to apprise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between communism and anti-communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious  has strong feelings about one or more of these issues, but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps, the question we have to ask ourselves is: What steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times more powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water sends radioactive particles into the upper air. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H bombs might possibly put an  end to the human race. It is feared that if many H bombs are used, there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority, a slow torture of desease and disintegration.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that , if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether communist or anti-communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.

Their lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we instead, choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels ?. We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

RESOLUTION:  We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: ` In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them consequently to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them`  “`….   end of extract.

The 1957 meeting was hosted by the American philanthropist Cyrus Eaton at Thinkers’ Lodge in Pugwash, his birthplace, and Mr. Eaton continued to provide crucial support for Pugwash in its early years.

From that beginning evolved both a continuing series of meetings at locations all over the world – with a growing number and diversity of participants – and a decentralized organizational structure to coordinate and finance this activity. By September 2002 there had been over 275 Pugwash Conferences, Symposia, and Workshops, with a total attendance of over 4,000 scientists and other individuals.

Pugwash convenes between 8 and 12 meetings a year, consisting of the large annual Conference, attended by 150 to 250 people, and the more frequent Workshops and Study Group meetings, which focus on specific issues and typically involve 20 to 50 participants. A basic rule is that participation is always by individuals in their private capacity (not as representatives of governments or organizations).

“ The purpose of the Pugwash Conferences is to bring together, from around the world, influential scientists, scholars and public figures concerned with reducing the danger of armed conflict and seeking cooperative solutions for global problems. Meeting in private as individuals, rather than as representatives of governments or institutions, Pugwash participants exchange views and explore alternative approaches to arms control and tension reduction, with a flexibility seldom attained in official East-West and North-South discussions and negotiations. Yet, because of the stature of many of the Pugwash participants in their own countries (as, for example, science and arms-control advisers to governments, key figures in academies of science and universities, and former and future holders of high government office), insights from Pugwash discussions tend to penetrate quickly to the appropriate levels of official policy-making.

The first two decades of Pugwash coincided with some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War, marked by the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the repression of the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia, and the Vietnam War. In this period of strained official relations and few unofficial channels, the fora and lines of communication provided by Pugwash played useful background roles in helping lay the groundwork for the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and SALT I accords, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, the Intermediate-range theater Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Despite subsequent trends of generally improving East-West relations and the emergence of a much wider array of unofficial channels of communication, Pugwash meetings have continued to play an important role in bringing together key scientists, analysts and policy advisers for sustained, in-depth discussions of the crucial arms-control issues of the day, particularly in the areas of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. “…. From the Pug wash website

JOSEPH  ROTBLAT:

Joseph Rotblat was the main driving force behind the Pugwash movement.  A nuclear Scientist – par excellence – he worked for the Manhatten Project but left in controversial circumstances.

“The subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, intensified his ethical concern over the involvement of scientists in developing weapons of mass destruction, and drove him to become deeply involved in the antiwar movement.“… Andrew Brown .

The book “Keeper of the Nuclear Conscience“ written by Andrew Brown tells the story of Joseph Rotblat who dedicated his life to the furtherance of peace among nations, and above all the prevention of nuclear wars. It is also the story of a time of intense superpower rivalry, and a time when the scientists had the ear of presidents and premiers.

MY REVIEW – ON AMAZON – OF THE BOOK   “KEEPER OF THE NUCLEAR CONSCIENCE“.. BY ANDREW BROWN

“It  is better for peace in the world if this is widely read.

Its a privilege to be the first – on Amazon –  to review this book of extraordinary significance.

Andrew Brown has written a masterpiece about the life and times of Joseph Rotblat, a nuclear scientist par excellence, whose excellence was demonstrated even more in making the scientists of his time to understand their ethical responsibility and leading them on to  play  a vital role in launching an ethical revolution. Joseph Rotblat dedicated his life for furtherance of peace among nations, and above all the prevention of nuclear wars. He was the main driving force behind the Pug wash movement – the conferences – which bring together from around the world, influential scientists, scholars and public figures concerned with the danger of armed conflicts,  to seek solutions for global problems.  The stimulus for these conferences was provided by a Manifesto issued by Einstein and Bertrand Russell in 1955.

The book is a historical review of events of the twentieth century .. not necessarily described in a sequential way. But all the essential information is there. The author has placed all the  cards  on the table with regard to what happened in the past.  How many times in the past has the emblematic clock moved closer to midnight just minutes before the pressing of the nuclear buttons ? How were the probabilities created to prevent the pressing of those buttons ?

Books like this should be in the private libraries of leaders of nations … no harm will be done if these leaders partake in the Pugwash movement … but not as members  of this or that nation, religion, or creed, but as human beings, whose continued existence is in doubt. As Einstein/Russell stated in their manifesto, they should consider themselves as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

There is no doubt we are currently passing through a  dangerous time zone –  getting even more alarming as the population rises and resources crumble –  where we have about one hundred thousand nuclear warheads located at several locations on the planet Earth, and not all of them are in possession of `Safe Hands`. The probabilities must be created to come out safely from this time zone.

I reiterate once again that the significance of this book must not be underestimated.

It is better for peace in the world if it is widely read.“

THE 1962 CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS AND ITS AFTERMATH :

This is best described with an extract from James Martin`s book …`The meaning of the 21^st Century`

“`The 21^st century is confronted with one of the greatest paradigm shifts in history – There will be no all out war between nuclear nations or no civilization.

Henry Kissinger observed that the greatest danger of nuclear war lies not in the deliberate actions of wicked men but in the inability of harassed men to manage events that have run away from them. This surely describes the future.

The world came shockingly close to nuclear war in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis. In the defining moments of the crisis, the US blockaded a Soviet fleet to prevent it from going to Cuba. The Executive committee of US  who called the shots, was unaware that the  four Soviet submarines had nuclear weapons. At about 5 p.m. on 27^th October 1962, an American ship, depth charged a soviet submarine, unaware that it had a nuclear weapon on board. The depth charge exploded next to the hull but did`nt penetrate the hull. The Russian Captain felt honour bound to retaliate and ordered that a nuclear weapon be launched at the Americans. To do so two other officers had to agree to the firing and turn their keys simultaneously. At the last moment, the second Captain Vassili Alexandrovich Arkhipov refused. If he had not done so there would have been a devastating nuclear war.

In the 1980s the game speeded up drastically. Cruise missiles – designed to carry nuclear warheads immensely more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb – were built. The nuclear command and control systems were designed so that at the very highest level of alert, nuclear retaliation would happen automatically with pre-programmed missiles. The situation becomes like that of the gun fighters of the classic westerns. Each wants to be `The fastest gun in the West ‘instantly ready to fire.

A major problem with the control of nuclear forces, however, is that the brains would be the first thing to be attacked. What happens if Washington and US president are destroyed?. What happens if the command and control systems are destroyed?. When the top level commanders are destroyed, lower level commanders have to take over, but then how are unauthorized firings prevented? “

Biological warfare – after a nuclear attack – with the release of large number of small bomblets spraying smallpox, anthrax, and deadly plagues on a massive scale to wipe out any shattered survivors of the nuclear devastation, is a distinct possibility.

A few hundred nuclear warheads are enough to destroy the entire human civilization and we have accumulated nearly a hundred thousand of them on the planet.

And there is no moral force acting against this… No outrage shown by the Church …or by religious leaders of any religion against this massive accumulation.

Nations in conflict are always in a state of readiness…and if a suspicious activity is detected…a preemptive strike to prevent from being attacked becomes highly likely.“`   ….James Martin

 PUGWASH ROLE IN THE RESOLUTION OF CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS  :

Extract from “Keeper of the Nuclear Conscience“…by Andrew Brown:  

“`Khrushchev brought the world to the edge of the abyss by installing Soviet Missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba, in the most provocative and perilous trial of nuclear deterrence. Rotblat`s response was to transmit a cable signed by American Pugwash Scientists to their colleagues in Moscow, asking them to urge the Soviet Government to reroute the ships approaching Cuba which were thought to be carrying more weapons. For their part the Americans would do their utmost to persuade the Kennedy administration from taking precipitate action. Over several days Jo was in almost continuous  telephonic communication with Washington and Moscow  trying to organize  an emergency meeting of US and Soviet senior scientists in London. The intensity of the near catastrophe spurred both leaders to new disarmament efforts in the face of strident internal opposition.“`   … Andrew Brown.

THE 1981 FIRST STRIKE SCENARIO:

“`The international climate deteriorated significantly during the years 1980 and 81. Although the Americans and Soviets signed SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty), it was dead on arrival at US senate for ratification, largely because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Both superpowers increased deployment of new missile sytems in Europe and departed from the defensive posture of nuclear deterrence to declare nuclear war thinkable. Joseph Rotblat dismissed President Carter`s notion of limited nuclear war as an `asinine excuse` for escalating the nuclear arms race, and warned a `thinkable` war would soon become an all out holocaust. At the same meeting, another prominent Pugwashite Patricia Lindop delivered a `stirring speech` which was greeted with thunderous applause. In January 1981, the editors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced the hands on its emblematic clock forward from seven minutes to four minutes before midnight in the light of deteriorating super power relations and against a background of an annual global armament budget of $600 billion and the existence of sixty thousand nuclear warheads. Writing in the same edition of the Bulletin, Rotblat concentrated on the increased sophistication and `fantastic precision` of modern weapons that threatened to bring an unanswerable first-strike option into play again. `The notion that one side can choose to wage a limited nuclear war is absolute nonsense` he wrote, explaining why any use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe was bound to escalate. Attacks on military targets in cities in the war zone would lead inevitably to attacks on targets in the adversary`s homeland, to be followed eventually by a massive exchange. `One side can start a war` he said `but it takes two sides to keep it limited`. He thought governments were trying systematically to condition the public to accept the possibility of limited nuclear war, partly through promoting civil defence again as with the `Protect and Survive` campaign in the UK.“… Andrew Brown.

STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE (SDI):

Reagen`s plan of designing a defense system that would intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missile before they reach American soil. In essence, It was more like an offensive system aimed at `mopping-up` any Soviet missiles fired in retaliation, after an American first – strike. Russians would doubtless consider such an anti-missile system as part of a first strike weapon aimed at them. Mainstream American Scientists and all the Pugwashites in the US vehemently criticized the initiative.

 MIKHAIL GORBACHOV`S POSITIVE APPROACH IGNORED BY US :

In January 1986 Mikhail Gorbachov prepared the text of a three stage plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth  by end of 1999. He sent a  letter to Reagan with his three stage plan. Appropriate response from Reagan was not forthcoming. Reagen persisted in talking about the SDI development and did not join the Soviets in a nuclear test moratorium.

In April of the same year ..“There was the devastating fire at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, which served to reinforce Gorbachev`s antinuclear sentiments. Two weeks after the catastrophe, he pointed out during a televised speech that it `showed again what an abyss will open if nuclear war befalls mankind`. The impact of the fire was considered equal to the German invasion of 1941, and after Chernobyl it was believed `the nuclear danger ceased to be just something abstract, it became tangible, concrete“..A Brown

The nuclear reactor accidents and radiation hazards became serious topics for discussion in the subsequent Pugwash conferences.

Gorbachov was always very serious about immediate deep cuts in the arsenals of both superpowers, and in the aftermath of Chernobyl, Moscow was `so scared of `accidental war`, that a special unit was formed in the Chief of Staff machinery to deal with the problem on a continuing basis`.

In December 1988 Mikhail Gorbochov gave a speech of historical significance at the UN in New York.

“It seemed to lift the Iron curtain whose descent Churchill described so memorably four decades before. While he may have lacked Churchill`s grandiloquence, the content of Gorbachov`s  speech was  detailed and bold. He announced the unilateral shrinkage of Soviet armed forces by five hundred thousand men with commensurate reductions in conventional armaments within two years, and the withdrawal of six tank divisions from Eastern European states within three. He explained that these and other fallbacks to clearly defensive positions were in line with the new `principle of reasonable defense sufficiency“… A Brown

. Once again the reciprocal response from US was not forthcoming at all. George HW bush did not grasp the epoch ending status of Gorbachov`s speech, nor did the final departure of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in February 1989 convince it. Gorbachov still intent on nuclear disarmament , wanted to eliminate all short-range or `tactical` nuclear weapons from Europe and announced the unilateral withdrawal  of five hundred warheads in May. Still no response from US except to remark that `Gorbachov was throwing out arms control proposals like a drugstore cowboy. However the Bush administration did  enter negotiations that would culminate in the Conventional Armed Forces Treaty (CFE) within  a short space of two years.

NOBEL  PRIZE FOR PEACE:

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash shared the Nobel Prize for Peace for 1995. He delivered his acceptance speech “Remember your humanity“ and was rewarded with a standing ovation. Following the reward, Rotblat became a public figure. He was lauded as the conscience of nuclear science and invited to lectures all over  the World. In his Nobel lecture, Rotblat gave his customary emphasis to the social responsibility of scientists, suggesting also that `whistle blowing` should become part of the scientist`s ethos.

SWIMMING AGAINST THE CURRENT.. RESPONSIBLE DISSIDENCE :

A certain Vanunu served an 18 year sentence in solitary confinement for revealing details to the Sunday Times about plutonium manufacture at the Damona Nuclear Plant in Israel, where he had worked as a technician. His disclosures could not be refuted by the Israeli Government and exposed a large hole in their policy of nuclear opacity. Rotblat played a predominant role in the campaign to free Vanunu. He gave a seminar entitled “Swimming against the current: Responsible Dissidence“, taking as his exemplar Sakharov, whom he credited with exposing the hypocrisy of the Soviet Union over nuclear disarmament during the cold war. Rotblat considered Vanunu`s act as a generational act for the world, not a malicious attempt to harm Israel.

ROTBLAT`S TEN POINT MEMO:

At a meeting in New York, Rotblat presented a memo on the rationale, prerequisites and implementation of a NWFW (Nuclear Weapons Free World). It contained ten essential points.

1. Nuclear disarmament is a legal obligation under article 6 of the NPT.
2. Reduction to a few hundred weapons is not acceptable because it is not stable and it will not stick. The only stable situation is zero.
3. The most succinct reason for elimination is McNamara’s `…The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons carries a high risk of a potential catastrophe.`
4. Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) should be based on the Chemical Weapons Convention and make possession a crime under international law.
5. NWC should be universal and once ratified by a certain number of states should become mandatory on all others. No provision for withdrawal.
6. Outlaw all secret research.
7. Have a clause mandating all states to pass national laws calling on citizen`s to notify an international authority of any attempt to violate the convention.
8. Will only come about if the 5 NWS (Nuclear Weapons States) agree its in their interest and so it is unlikely that they will violate the NWC by retaining some nuclear weapons.
9. Attempts to violate the NWC by a rogue state can and will be dealt with by conventional military forces only. Any decision about enforcement would be taken by UN Security Council.
10. International authority to monitor progress of dismantlement and implementation. All states where weapons-useable fissile material exists – whether civilian or military – will be internationally supervised and guarded.

THE WORLD OTHER THAN COLD WAR WORLD :

Notwithstanding the enormous contribution of Pugwash in reducing the cold war conflicts, the geopolitics of the world other than the US – SOVIET world, has remained largely unaffected by the Pugwash movement. Leaders of nations in general are generally unaware of the Pugwash conferences … or may be indifferent to them.

THE 1999 KARGIL WAR :

This is best described in an extract from `Engaging India : Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb`…by Strobe Talbot ( taken from Google)

“` During the first week in June [1999], just as Milosevic was acceding to NATO’s demands over Kosovo, Clinton turned his own attention to India and Pakistan. In letters to Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee, the president went beyond the studied neutrality that both prime ministers were expecting—in Pakistan’s case with hope, and in India’s with trepidation. Clinton made Pakistan’s withdrawal a precondition for a settlement and the price it must pay for the U.S. diplomatic involvement it had long sought. Clinton followed up with phone calls to the two leaders in mid-June emphasizing this point. The United States condemned Pakistan’s “infiltration of armed intruders” and went public with information that most of the seven hundred men who had crossed the Line of Control were attached to the Pakistani Army’s 10th Corps.

In late June Clinton called Nawaz Sharif to stress that the United States saw Pakistan as the aggressor and to reject the fiction that the fighters were separatist guerrillas. The administration let it be known that if Sharif did not order a pullback, we would hold up a $100 million International Monetary Fund loan that Pakistan sorely needed. Sharif went to Beijing, hoping for comfort from Pakistan’s staunchest friend, but got none.

Pakistan was almost universally seen to have precipitated the crisis, ruining the promising peace process that had begun in Lahore and inviting an Indian counteroffensive.

On Friday, July 2, Sharif phoned Clinton and pleaded for his personal intervention in South Asia. Clinton replied that he would consider it only if it was understood up-front that Pakistani withdrawal would have to be immediate and unconditional.

The next day Sharif called Clinton to say that he was packing his bags and getting ready to fly immediately to Washington—never mind that he had not been invited. ..He warned Sharif not to come unless he was prepared to announce unconditional withdrawal; otherwise, his trip would make a bad situation worse. The Pakistani leader did not accept Clinton’s condition for the meeting—he just said he was on his way.

“This guy’s coming literally on a wing and a prayer,” said the president.” That’s right,” said Bruce Riedel [NSC aide], “and he’s praying that we don’t make him do the one thing he’s got to do to end this thing.”

It was not hard to anticipate what Sharif would ask for. His opening proposal would be a cease-fire to be followed by negotiations under American auspices. His fallback would make Pakistani withdrawal conditional on Indian agreement to direct negotiations sponsored and probably mediated by the United States. Either way, he would be able to claim that the incursion had forced India, under American pressure, to accept Pakistani terms.

After several long meetings in Sandy Berger’s office, we decided to recommend that Clinton confront Sharif with a stark choice that included neither of his preferred options. We would put before him two press statements and let Sharif decide which would be released at the end of the Blair House talks. The first would hail him as a peacemaker for retreating—or, as we would put it euphemistically, “restoring and respecting the sanctity of the Line of Control.” The second would blame him for starting the crisis and for the escalation sure to follow his failed mission to Washington.

On the eve of Sharif’s arrival, we learned that Pakistan might be preparing its nuclear forces for deployment. There was, among those of us preparing for the meeting, a sense of vast and nearly unprecedented peril. When Clinton assembled his advisers in the Oval Office for a last minute huddle, Sandy told him that overnight we had gotten more disturbing reports of steps Pakistan was taking with its nuclear arsenal. Clinton said he would like to use this information “to scare the hell out of Sharif.”

Sandy told the president that he was heading into what would probably be the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency. It would also be one of the most delicate. The overriding objective was to induce Pakistani withdrawal. But another, probably incompatible, goal was to increase the chances of Sharif’s political survival. “If he arrives as a prime minister but stays as an exile,” said Sandy, “he’s not going to be able to make stick whatever deal you get out of him.” We had to find a way to provide Sharif just enough cover to go home and give the necessary orders to Musharraf and the military.

The conversation had already convinced Clinton of what he feared: the world was closer even than during the Cuban missile crisis to a nuclear war. Unlike Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1962, Vajpayee and Sharif did not realize how close they were to the brink, so there was an even greater risk that they would blindly stumble across it.

Adding to the danger was evidence that Sharif neither knew everything his military high command was doing nor had complete control over it. When Clinton asked him if he understood how far along his military was in preparing nuclear-armed missiles for possible use in a war against India, Sharif acted as though he was genuinely surprised. He could believe that the Indians were taking such steps, he said, but he neither acknowledged nor seemed aware of anything like that on his own side.

Clinton decided to invoke the Cuban missile crisis, noting that it had been a formative experience for him (he was sixteen at the time). Now India and Pakistan were similarly on the edge of a precipice. If even one bomb were used…Sharif finished the sentence: “. . . it would be a catastrophe.”

[Clinton] returned to the offensive. He could see they were getting nowhere. Fearing that might be the result, he had a statement ready to release to the press in time for the evening news shows that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan.

Sharif went ashen.

Clinton bore down harder. Having listened to Sharif’s complaints against the United States, he had a list of his own, and it started with terrorism. Pakistan was the principal sponsor of the Taliban, which in turn allowed Osama bin Laden to run his worldwide network out of Afghanistan. Clinton had asked Sharif repeatedly to cooperate in bringing Osama to justice. Sharif had promised to do so but failed to deliver. The statement the United States would make to the press would mention Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan—and, through its backing of Kashmiri militants, in India as well. Was that what Sharif wanted?

Clinton had worked himself back into real anger—his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces for action. On top of that, he had put Clinton in the middle of the mess and set him up for a diplomatic failure.

Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally. He denied he had given any orders with regard to nuclear weaponry and said he was worried for his life.

When the two leaders had been at it for an hour and a half, Clinton suggested a break so that both could consult with their teams. The president and Bruce briefed Sandy, Rick, and me on what had happened. Now that he had made maximum use of the “bad statement” we had prepared in advance, Clinton said, it was time to deploy the good one. ..Clinton took a cat nap on a sofa in a small study off the main entryway while Bruce, Sandy, Rick, and I cobbled together a new version of the “good statement,” incorporating some of the Pakistani language from the paper that Sharif had claimed was in play between him and Vajpayee. But the key sentence in the new document was ours, not his, and it would nail the one thing we had to get out of the talks: “The prime minister has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration of the Line of Control.” The paper called for a cease-fire but only after the Pakistanis were back on their side of the line. It reaffirmed Clinton’s longstanding plan to visit South Asia.

The meeting came quickly to a happy and friendly end, at least on Clinton’s part.

…   … Strobe Talbot

M.S.SWAMINATHAN`S`S MESSAGE :

In January 2003, in a symposium on `Science and Beyond`, Professor M.S.Swaminatan who was at the time the President of `Pugwash movement`, in his talk on `Science, Peace, and sustainable development` delivered a sterling message:

“Scientists and technologists have a particularly vital role to play in launching an Ethical revolution. The Pugwash movement, which I now have the privilege to lead, is an expression of the social and moral duty of scientists to promote the beneficial applications of their work, and prevent their misuse, to anticipate and evaluate the possible unintended consequences of scientific and technological development, and to promote debate and reflection of the `ethical obligations of scientists in taking responsibility for their work`. It will be appropriate to quote in this context, what Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein said in their famous manifesto of 1955, issued on the occasion of the 10^th anniversary of the use of atom bombs on Hirashima and Nagasaki:

` We appeal as human beings to human beings. Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death`

Shall we renounce war and violence as a method of settling disputes, or shall we put an end to the human civilization ? This is the question facing us today. We are witnessing a growing intolerance of diversity and pluralism in human societies, as for example in terms of religion, ethnicity, political belief, color, culture, gender and language. The confluence of science and religion should be reflected in all areas of human enquiry. The growing violence in the human heart that we witness today underlines the urgency of ensuring  that science   and technology are employed for human happiness and not its destruction. The Pugwash movement has been constantly reminding scientists of their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their research and governments of the immorality, illegality, and peril inherent in nuclear weapons.“ …. M S Swaminathan

CHARLES TOWNES` VIEWS ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION:

In the same seminar the Great Scientist and Philosopher Charles Townes gave the following message :

“ There are two fundamental reasons why I believe that religion and science must be parallel and must interact. One is that, if there is purpose and meaning in the universe, then the purpose must be related to its structure –  and in fact must determine its structure. The second is that in both fields we use all our human abilities in a quest to understand the world we inhabit. Religion and science are more similar in terms of our efforts to understand than we normally think. Among the general public, it is very common to believe that scientists simply design their experiments, write their equations, use logic, and then conclude, objectively and without questioning, what the truth is. And that is it. Religion on the other hand is often viewed as a matter of faith alone. In this view religion is about things we do not know and cannot prove, things that belong to the domain of the emotions. In fact, though we use all our human abilities in both endeavours. In both realms, we want to understand. The Noble Laureate scientist, Bridgman of Harvard University, who was also known as something of a philosopher as well, was once asked to define the scientific method. Bridgman said: `The scientific method?, that is to work like the devil to find the answer, with no holds barred`, well, that is just what it is. We use our every instinct, our every ability, to do the best science of which we are capable. I deeply believe that the same is true in religion. The emphasis may be different, but the striving to understand is similar. And this striving to understand , using all our abilities, represent a broad parallel  between these two great activities of the human spirit.“… Charles Townes.

CURRENT GEOPOLITICS OF THE WORLD:

The subject  must be understood from a neutral perspective:

How would  a neutral figure  such as a being from outer space ( lets call him `F` )  who has watched all the proceedings and has a complete knowledge and understanding of all the conflicts on  the planet Earth address the problems in a way that is as far as possible acceptable to all concerned? It is assumed of course that `F` understands human nature and is perfectly aware that a typical human being anywhere in the World wants to live in peace and that the average moral standard  is the same in all countries and does not differ from country to country as it is not a measure of `temperature` or `humidity’. The average quotient “qx“ pertaining to the desire `to live and let live` is also generally the same for all countries. It is a requirement for peace in the world that the corresponding quotient “qy“ pertaining to the leaders of nations must be well above `qx`. That this is not the case in some countries is the reason behind conflicts and wars ..in particular `civil wars`. It is the `Interactions of the world` which lead to the coming together of millions of atoms and molecules and becoming  a speck of jelly, and it is the same phenomena that is responsible for the said speck of jelly to go on to become either Hitler or Gandhi or Einstein or you and me. And the same phenomena is responsible for some leaders of nations ending up with `qy` substantially below the required level.

A serious understanding of the laws of causation is necessary to understand the sequence of events that is responsible for the current status relating to the geopolitics of the World. It is the information in the field which is responsible for the phenomena.

With all this it does not serve the purpose if we call a certain country – which is just a geographical area – as a terrorist state and another country – another geographical area –  as a  `Selfish and arrogant policeman`, when we know that it is the leaders of nations  – having low `qy` -who must be held responsible for bringing their nations to such disrepute.

But the common man should not suffer on account of the low `qy` value of his country`s leaders.

Therefore `F` should first understand how the common man from the various countries finds himself entangled in these complex and dangerous situations for no fault of his and how he can  be extricated  from these entangled states.

Hence the main requirement in the analysis is to identify the leaders of nations who had … or who have … or who could have in the future … a negligibly low `Qy` who were …or who are… or who could be in the future .. dangerous for the world, particularly so if they had … or if they have .. or may have in the future … access to Nuclear Arsenal .

As an example … to drive home the point that I am making … consider the case of Adolf Hitler whose `Qy` was  always  extremely low. Now  if Germany  had won the race towards first  use of the Atomic bomb, it is distinctly possible he would not have limited to just a couple of strikes, it is quite likely he may have struck multiple times in multiple countries and caused catastrophic damage world wide. As it happened Germany was defeated in the  war, and Hitler was about to commit suicide… If at this stage .. when his `Qy` would have reached near `zero` level …if, he  ( somehow )had in possession the same quantum of Nuclear Arsenal …which Germany has now … he would surely have  made full use of that and perhaps destroyed the human civilization.

Now we can not blame Germany … which is just a geographical area … for this. The common man in Germany with an average `Qx` which may  not be lower than the average `Qx` in the rest of the world, would not be responsible. It is the `Qy` of the leaders …in particular of the supreme leader  that matters.

It can happen in the future… in the not too distant future. … The nuclear arsenal can go into the wrong hands…. The hands of the terrorists…. and increase their power and capacity to cause damage. But substantially more dangerous than that is the distinct likelyhood of `Powerful hands making wrong use of the arsenal which is already in their possession.

The available Nuclear Arsenal  in the world is about a thousand times more than the quantity required to destroy the entire human race, with each of the five most powerful nations in possession of more than fifty times the required quantum to finish the human race.

Look at the  possibilities… In twenty to twenty five years, when China overtakes America in terms of power, and a situation far more dangerous than the `Cold War Of The Sixties`  develops, with Russia, China, and probably India on one side and the rest of the World on the other side, with the Middle East getting Sandwiched in between.

Look at the Randomness coeffiecient… coupled with possible innumerable `Ferdinand moments` taking place in various corners of the world, adding to the Chaos. Look at the distinct possibility of a ` Bush like powerful national leader` …losing face badly… getting humiliated… and experiencing a sudden and massive fall in his already low `Qy` value and then getting harassed… enough to consider blowing off the entire world with more than the required arsenal available at his disposal to do so.

The task here is to analyse  — with a serious understanding of the laws of causation — all the `Information in the Field` , understand what happened in the past, how it happened, what is happening now, and what can happen in the future. Who are the leaders of nations whose `Qy` is falling, and what `good sense` should prevail that can raise these `Qys` to safe levels.

The subject is discussed under three headings:

AMERICAN INTERFERENCES:

America was once  considered the best place in the world to be in.

In the words of Einstein:

“It has an internatio­nal `psyche`. it constitute­s the bulwark of the democratic way of life, it has demonstrat­ed that individual freedom provides a better basis for productive labor than any form of tyranny, its political and economic position is so powerful that it can help the world by breaking the tradition of war from which the world suffered“­…

All that has changed now. Having become rich and powerful, America also tended to become selfish and arrogant, selfish in the sense that it started grabbing a disproport­ionately higher share of the world`s resources and arrogant in the sense that in order to ensure the safety and security of its own people, America took recourse to large scale interferen­ces in the affairs of other countries. And these interferences were so manipulated so as to create rifts between nations interfered with, or between two segments of the same nation interfered with…. And then to add salt to injury … give a blind eye to these rifts

Once again it is reiterated that it is the leaders of nation … in this case the American POTUSes in particular of the Republican variety – with an extremely low `Qy` value  – who are to be blamed for all these interferences. The American public which is by and large quite sensitive is NOT to be blamed.

Having said that… let us discuss the subject of the `American approach`in the context of its impact in `creating rifts and escalating conflicts` in a world which is already in a chaotic state, caused by religious intolerance and  extremism.

American interferences in the Middle East where they preferred dictatorships to secular liberal democracies, so that it could easily make common cause with the dictators and grab the country`s resources, is responsible for disenchantment of the common people in these countries and consequent unrest.

Its an established fact that the United States … with the kind help of Israel …did not allow secular nationalism to prevail in many countries in the Middle East… Rather they destroyed secular nationalism. And this helped create Islamic fundamentalist extremism.

It would not be out of place to provide here some extracts from Noam Chomsky`s book `What we say goes` which is considered by `NEW STATESMAN` as a thorough tour of today`s geopolitical horizon:

“If you destroy secular nationalism, people aren`t going to just say : `Ok cut my throat`. They are going to turn somewhere else. And that somewhere else has been extremist religious fanaticism.

In fact sometimes these movements are actively encouraged. Since the second world war, the US has been the world`s strongest outside supporter of extremist Islamist fundamentalism. Washington`s oldest and most valued ally in the Arab World is Saudi Arabia. Iran looks like a democratic heaven in comparison. The threat to Saudi Arabian religious extremist tyranny was secular nationalism, mainly embodied by Gamal Abdel Nasser. So Nasser became an enemy because he threatened the US base of extremist religious fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia, which happens to control the oil, the underlying reason. In 1967, Israel performed a huge service to the United States, to Saudi Arabia, and the energy corporations by essentially eliminating secular Arab nationalism which was threatening to use the resources of the region for the needs of its own population.

The same thing has happened time after time. Israel created Hamas by destroying the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation, which was calling for negotiations and settlement. Since that was the last thing US and Israel wanted, they destroyed it. And then what happened? The population didn`t disintegrate, they turned to something else, in this case religious fundamentalism.

The US base of extremist religious fundamentalism received a further shot in the arm by the US when they organised them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan…not for the Afghan`s…but against the cold war enemy“

. … Noam Chomsky

That all the terrorist organizations created and initially supported by US turned full circle against America and the West was not a surprise for America, suited America very well. It now gave America  authentic grounds to fight against terrorism and enhanced its scope for further Interferences as and when it liked and provided its Military Industrial Complex with assured business and growth … never mind if it  was paid for by the American taxpayer.

By far the single most act of blundering error of judgement (  or stupidity ) was George Bush`s invasion of Iraq in 2003, resulting in more than two hundred thousand civilian deaths, and responsible for the current civil wars in Iraq and Syria.

According to Rotbalt :

“Neither of the three reasons advanced for the launch of the attacks .. viz to eliminate Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction, to destroy the link with Al Quida, to overthrow a bad regime was acceptable to the World. The main reason was that the USA was pursuing global dominance intermittently since the second world war. From the very beginning the development of nuclear weapons was used to give the US a dominant position in the World. At the beginning they were determined not to allow any other nation to have nuclear weapons.“ He believed President Bush`s disregard , for arms control treaties, coupled with an interest in developing new nuclear warheads, threatened the progress made in nuclear disarmament over the previous two decades. In regard to morality and equity in World affairs…as told by Rotblat… “it is the US that has to be called to order. It is intolerable that in this day and age, the mightiest country in the world should have declared, that its overriding motivation in International affairs was the self-interest of the USA. I cannot help the feeling that selfishness and greed – which became the driving force after the victory of capitalism in the ideological struggle  – are to some extent responsible for the terrible carnage that we have just witnessed “… Jo Rotblat

That the  current Civil war in Iraq and Syria is also a consequence of American Interferences is not difficult to understand. It is known to all. No analyst would think otherwise. The invasion resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Friends and relatives of those killed .. of a particular faction `Sunnis`.. became terrorists… so it became a justification to fight them … a Government and a local army was installed  to fight remnant terrorism..this army was predominantly made up of another faction `Shias` but had several `Sunnies` too, at the behest of the Bush Government the Sunnies were thrown out of the Iraq Army. They had no jobs and no where to go. They became victims of time caused by the interactions of the World. We can understand their mindset. We can also understand the sudden and substantial fall in their `Qx` values. So when the American forces withdrew from Iraq.. which turned out to be  a great error of judgement by Obama …Those of them who were in possession of weapons as well as of substantially low `Qx` became terrorists … Others of their faction acquired weapons and joined them, others did not join them as fighters but simply supported them. They are in control of large areas in Iraq as well as Syria. They are called `ISIS`. There is nothing  religious about them or about their actions. As explained earlier, they are all made up of disgruntled people, insecure and unhappy victims of time caused by the `IOTW`. They pick up `disgruntled young people` from all over the world..mostly from Europe… sympathise with them  and entice them to join them. If the essence of religion ..any religion .. is `To live and let live` and to live in peace and harmony .. then there is nothing religious in what they do… but they do take advantage of the contradictions in their religious document… which according to their own interpretations permits them to indulge in Jihad against Non Muslims. The trouble is they perform Jihad not just against Non Muslims, but also against Muslims of other factions… including those of their own faction who do not support them.

Their philosophy is simple :  If you join them ..you are safe and secure from them …you will be provided weapons.. and all you have to do ..during working hours… is to perform Jihad against the non muslims ( or Muslims of other factions) …this is what their God wants them to do… and if they die in the process.. they are promised a place in heaven by the same God… and to convince them they show passages from their religious documents. It goes without saying.. that this philosophy can be  appealing to many young people who are disgruntled and unhappy with their lives, and don`t mind the change.

Result …there are now tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Syria with substantially low `Qx`, and they have  leaders with  a ridiculously low `Qy`. Now.. if these leaders can lay their hands on Nuclear weapons .. It is a no brainer that they will utilize them  to the full extent that they can do so.

The extent of complexity in the Middle East … consequent of course on the American Interferences … can be gauged from the fact that sometimes it is possible  that the United States and Al Quida might have been on the same side side of the net, as may have happened if the  US had attacked Syria in September 2013 in response to Assad`s use of chemical weapons against his own people.. the rebels.

THE ARMIES OF PAKISTAN INDIA AND THE US:

Consider the relations between India and Pakistan.

Hindus and Muslims have  lived together for centuries, they all look alike, they  speak the same language, they sing the same songs, they watch the same movies, they have the same passion for Cricket, and I can go on and on.  There is no denying that the common people of the two countries would like to live in friendship and peaceful coexistence with each other. This is denied to them and the only agencies coming in the way are the Armies referred above ..in particular the Pakistan Army  and its common cause with the  network of the `Military Industrial Complex` of the US of A. Here too the American Interferences and subsequent blind eying  have played their part  in a big way  in preventing  the improvement of relations between the two countries. It  is true  India and Pakistan have some misunderstandings.  There have been wars between them.  There are complexities involved…. Such as Kashmir. These are not insurmountable  and If left alone they can be resolved,  provided there are no interferences …and no blind eyes after interfering…. provided also that the Pakistan Army is under control of its civilian leadership that wants `To live and let live` with its Indian counterpart. The trouble is …neither of these `provisions` are forthcoming. The Pakistan Army is in total control over policies concerning national security particularly in respect of  its enmity with India. I doubt if this enmity with India  ( of the Pak Army … not the  common people ) will reduce even if the Kashmir issue is resolved.

And as for American interferences they began with Ronald Reagen`s support to the Pak army`s policies on India. As Noam Chomsky said ..in his book “What we say goes“:

“In Pakistan , the movement relating to radical islamism began with former president Muhammed Zia Ul Haq, who was strongly supported by the Reagan administration. In fact, all through its tenure, the Reagan administration pretended that Zia wasn`t developing nuclear weapons. Of course they knew  that he was.But every year they would religiously certify that Pakistan was not developing  nuclear weapons,   because they wanted to support their radical extremist fundamentalist friend. They knew perfectly well that Saudi Arabia was funding the extremist madrassas, the religious schools that undermined the Pakistani educational system, which had been pretty good beforehand. You could not get students to study sciences, because schools teach only the Koran. That wasn`t true in the past. All these developments were supported by the Reagen administration.“ …. Noam Chomsky.

All this is blind eying… I think.

Consider the  US Drone  Strikes in Pakistan:

Now It is not possible that the US is unaware of the fact that a substantial portion of American aid to Pakistan for fighting militancy is going towards strengthening and expanding its nuclear arsenal.

The US of A cannot be unaware of the fact that US and Pak are partners in fighting terrorism of only one kind,  viz related to Al Qaida/Taliban considered dangerous for the West, and the US is not unduly concerned  about terrorism inside Pakistan itself, or Terrorism directed against India, or about the possibility that a few more 26/11 type of attacks could test India`s patience  leading India to target the terror camps in Pak territory, ultimately leading to the use of nuclear force by certain elements in Pak.

All this is blind eyeing I think.

Now consider the predicament of the common man in Pakistan , he was doing fine for several decades after getting independence – never mind sometimes fighting and sometimes playing Cricket with his Indian friend – but suddenly found terrorists in his land… towards his west …. Where did they come from?….. Driven out from Iraq and Afghanistan of course…. And then to compound it all, a certain section of the population ( Taliban) with a different ideology decided to support the terrorists…not to mention play host to them….Now I will come back to talk about these  categories  of people and to show that they too were once the common people on the street, and how they got entangled into the mess for no fault of theirs, and what `F` our being from outer space should do to extricate these people from this entangled state without using drones….. but first consider the situation of these unfortunate victims of time.

What happens … when a drone strikes?

Its all  in line with expectations…

Viz…It kills people  – intentionally designed to be killed – not because there exists a remote possibility that they might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks…but because of a remote probability that they may in future make plans for terrorist strikes.

It kills innocent people – not intentionally designed to be killed – as the   drones cannot distinguish to which category the victims belong to.

It puts the common man  in Pakistan exposed to an ever increasing probability of domestic terrorism.

It reduces the already depleted chance of a reconciliation with Taliban and widens the rift between the two factions of Muslims.

It puts the leaders of Pakistan in a hopeless situation… How will they face the public? …They may pretend to condemn the strike and show that it is a violation of their sovereignty, but in truth they have facilitated these strikes in return for having accepted payments for them. The combined negative potential of leaders of two nations is utilized to kill people ….. Available to be killed as sitting ducks…. Without even a semblance of a trial.

It puts the common man in America – particularly the sensitive type – in a terrible predicament. He has to carry the stigma that he belongs to a nation whose leaders are engaged in war crimes and it makes it even     worse for him when he realizes that he is paying for all this with his taxes.

It puts the terrorist further and further away from becoming a normal human being. Once he `WAS` indeed a normal human being… with a mom and dad, brothers and sisters….and then became a victim of time caused by the interactions of the world…. Poverty, no job, no food.

All terrorists in the world are victims of time … victims of the interactions of the world … The information in the field says:   Their only hope of salvation… become suicide bombers…. Kill some more   …get some job satisfaction ….And get out of this rotten world…. What else is there to do?

Religion has nothing to do with it … but a certain interpretation of the religious document… makes them feel comfortable in performing Jihad … and if they die… a place in heaven is promised to them by their leaders.

Its a natural selection virus called “To live and let die` that enters minds and causes  conflicts and wars, that has infected the minds of the leaders, and they are injecting the virus into the minds and bodies of normal innocent human beings in such a way as to create a different kind of virus called `to die and let die`.

Qx of these people and the `Qy` of there leaders is near zero… if Nuclear Arsenal falls in their hands… They will surely use it…thats for sure.

However.. the availability of Nuclear Weapons with the two armies seems to have altered the very nature of war between the two countries, as explaine below:

LIMITS ON WAR:

Given below is an extract from `V.R.Raghavn`s  review of the book “INDIA`S SENTINEL` which is about AirCommodore Jasjit Singh`s select writings on the subject:

“ On nuclear deterrence Jasjit was a pioneer in highlighting the limits nuclear weapons placed on fighting wars. He was emphatic that the `sheer existence of nuclear weapons with both adversaries imposes major limitations on the way force and violence can be used against each other without risking a nuclear exchange. This alters the very nature of war`. This axiom was soon proved in the Kargil when Pakistan used its army to occupy the heights on and across the LOC. This had led to an Indian response which was executed bearing in mind Jasjit`s warning on the nuclear weapons. This had in turn led to a wide ranging debate on fighting a `limited war` under a nuclear overhang. While the debate is yet inconclusive, it nevertheless proves the merit of the argument that nuclear weapons have indeed changed the way war will be fought by two nuclear adversaries.“… V.R.Raghavan

Military force is no longer the answer… conflict through terrorism is considered more effective by the Pak Army.. not to mention substantially cheaper. The extract continued :

“ Pakistan army believes terror is an instrument of state policy, for which as Jasjit Singh`s writings show, military force is not the answer. The belief that Pakistan can be weaned from this strategy by concessions through appeasement and by talks about talks is seen by many as a misplaced notion. Pakistan has changed rapidly in the last decade and is currently in a state of political and economic uncertainties.“… V.R.Raghavan

LATEST UPDATE … NOVEMBER 2015

Thermonuclear missile launch near Los Angeles is final sign of World War III on the precipice… US, China and Russia all escalating covert attacks in run up to global war

NaturalNews) “A mysterious bright light in the sky has sent Californians into panic,” reports the BBC. “Videos posted online show a bright flare rising high, before a wide, bright blue flash emerges in a cone shape. Many videos continue to track the light for several minutes.”

Last night, Californians immediately leapt to social media to propose their theories of the phenomenon, ranging from a nuclear missile attack to meteors. “Law agencies and news media in San Diego were flooded with calls about 6 p.m. from people reporting everything from a flare to a comet to a nuclear bomb in the western sky,” reports the San Diego Union Tribune.

Just a day earlier, the FAA had issued flight restrictions for the Los Angeles International Airport, denying aircraft access to one of the most frequent approach paths for international and domestic travel.

The official explanation is a lie

The “official” explanation of this event — and remember that “official” explanations are almost always cover stories — is that the U.S. Navy launched a test missile just because they “routinely” test missiles.

“Media in California confirmed that the light came from an unarmed Trident missile fired from the USS Kentucky navy submarine,” reports the BBC. While they call the missile “unarmed,” they fail to mention that the Trident missile normally carries a thermonuclear warhead. There’s also no way for the media to know whether this missile was really unarmed or not, as the sole source on that question is the U.S. Navy itself.

Apparently the media thinks the public is so incredibly stupid that they’ll believe the U.S. Navy has nowhere else to launch a test missile other than right next to Los Angeles. Somehow we’re supposed to believe the entire Pacific Ocean won’t work for such a test launch, so they have to launch it adjacent to the airport and thereby inconvenience commercial aviation traffic for an entire week.

Obviously, the official cover story is pure bunk. So what’s the real story behind this? It all has to do with China and the covert war that’s already underway between China, the US and Russia.

China’s military submarines are a huge threat to U.S. national security

To get up to speed on what’s really happening, read this report from the Congressional Research Service (PDF) found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

Authored by Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, and just released on Sep. 21, 2015, the report is entitled, “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities.”

The report states:

China is building a modern and regionally powerful navy with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime — the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War.

China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a broad array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems.

The most important section of this report, in my assessment, is this description of China’s ship-killing ballistic missiles:

China is fielding an ASBM, referred to as the DF-21D, that is a theater-range ballistic missile equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) designed to hit moving ships at sea. DOD states that China continues to field an ASBM based on a variant of the CSS-5 (DF-21) MRBM that it began deploying in 2010. This missile provides the PLA the capability to attack aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. The CSS-5 Mod 5 has a range exceeding 1,500 km [about 810 nm] and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.

China, in other words, has weapons capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships. The 1,500 km range is key because it allows a very wide operational range.

Just recently in August, the Chinese and Russians held their largest naval joint exercise in history as a way to “counter U.S. influence in Asia.” As reported by Collapse.news:

The Russian and Chinese navies are set to hold their largest joint exercises ever, featuring scores of warships, hundreds of troops and an amphibious landing, in what appears to be a deepening of ties meant to counter a rising U.S. military presence in Asia.

In September, Chinese warships were spotted operating near the coast of Alaska. This was reported across the mainstream media, including in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, “Five Chinese Navy Ships Are Operating in Bering Sea off Alaska.”

Fox News also covered the same story: “5 Chinese warships spotted off Alaska coast during President Obama’s visit.”

In response to that territorial provocation, the U.S. Navy sent the USS Lassen destroyer to within 12 nautical miles of China’s newly-constructed military bases in the Spratly Islands.

China’s communist government openly condemned the act as a provocation of war. From the Straits Times:

China claims most of the South China Sea and on Oct 9 its Foreign Ministry warned that Beijing would “never allow any country to violate China’s territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands, in the name of protecting freedom of navigation and overflight.”

The U.S. Navy’s “showcasing” of the Trident missile near Los Angeles is a $31 million billboard that tells China, “Don’t f–k with us.”

Nobody in the mainstream media is report this; probably because, with a few exceptions, they are mostly clueless, brain-dead propagandists who know nothing about international geopolitics and the real state of conflict in our world. Also, they are ordered what to write by the U.S. government regime in exactly the same way China’s “journalists” are ordered what to write by the Chinese regime.

Right now, the United States and China are in an undeclared state of war. China stands ready to strike the USA with nuclear warheads or high altitude EMP weapons that would destroy the U.S. power grid and cause 90% casualties across the unprepared population. Legendary American journalist Ted Koppel has even written a book about this entitled Lights Out: A Cyberattack, A Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath.

China and Russia preparing massive first strike against America

Many people believe that China and Russia are working together to prepare for a massive first strike against the United States that would cripple its defenses and economy. Following that first strike, a land invasion would commence using Russian troops.

Supporting this theory, Russian submarines have been spotted near undersea internet cables in an obvious effort to document their whereabouts so that the cables can be instantly severed, unleashing a devastating blow to the U.S. economy, Wall Street and even military communications. “Russian submarines and spy ships are aggressively operating near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians might be planning to attack those lines in times of conflict,” reportsWND.com. ” In times of tension or conflict, the ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West’s governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent.”

At the same time a new Russian “drone sub” has been created that can strike U.S. coastal cities and harbors with nuclear weapons. Writing on NationalSecurity.news, Jon Dougherty states, “According to officials, the developmental unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, when it is deployed, will be outfitted with megaton-class nuclear warheads that can destroy key ports used by U.S. nuclear-armed and powered submarines like Kings Bay, Georgia, and Puget Sound in Washington state.”

The ultimate pre-emptive strike on America: EMP attack, cyber attack, currency wars and bandwidth blackouts

If you put the pieces of the puzzle together, what’s really shaping up here is a massive, multi-layered pre-emptive strike against America, an empire seen by the rest of the world as an insane bully that meddles with everything on the international stage. This first strike, combining the forces and expertise of both China and Russia, may consist of:

• High-altitude EMP detonation over North America, destroying regional power grids.
  • A devastating currency war initiated by China announcing its own gold-backed currency while dumping U.S. Treasury debt on the open market.
  • A Russian-led severing of undersea fiber optic cables.
  • Russian-launched nuclear missiles targeting U.S. coastal cities.
  • China-led assault on U.S. Navy warships using anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs).
  • A cyber warfare attack on key U.S. infrastructure, including water delivery systems, nuclear power plants and the power grid.

As all this is going on, the Obama administration — has been firing all the top military commanders who know how to survive such an assault. Instead of America’s military focusing on how to win wars, troops are now subjected to sensitivity training and the politically correct push for female troops on the front lines.

This is not fiction. Even the U.S. White House is now openly preparing for a massive EMP attack launched by China.

Dave Hodges also reports in this article about World War III:

Congress has now heard testimony that the United States is not ready for World War III while Russia is chomping at the bit to “get it on”. Further Congress has learned that Obama has been once again been badly outmaneuvered by Putin, the master chess player… the Chinese and the Russians are going to kick America’s rear end in the upcoming war.

Very disturbingly, there is a growing awareness, among Congress, that the United States cannot win World War III. There was only discussion, in these congressional meetings, as to whether, or not, the U.S. could prevail in World War III, not win the conflict.

To stay up to speed on all these events and how you might survive them,  you should  pay attention to the following websites:

TalkNetwork.com , NationalSecurity.news,  Bugout.news,  AlternativeNews.com
Space.news, Cyberwar.news, Collapse.news, Treason.news, FETCH.news, stevequayle.com
allnewspipeline.com,  thecommonsenseshow.com
Sources for this article include: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-3475…
ALL IN ALL A REDUCED `QY` IS ALL THAT MATTERS

After all is said and done… what matters is that the `Qy` of the leaders of the Pakistan Army  is ridiculously low,   ..and  if sufficiently harassed… such as by an Indian response to another `26/11 kind`  terrorist  attack …   they may utilize the Nuclear Arsenal which is already at their disposal… Some sort of chain reaction will be inevitable.

The Geo politics in many other countries is unstable and even chaotic and leaders of many nations have a substantially low `Qy` such as for example of `North Korea, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc etc… to name just a few. Some of these  are already in possession of Nuclear weapons while others are in the process of acquiring them.

EXTENT OF DANGER TO THE WORLD IF GOOD SENSE DOES NOT PREVAIL:

Recall the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and caused 130000 deaths instantly and several thousand other deaths due to radiation. But the present day bomb is about 2500 times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only about 100 of these … if dropped as uniformly distributed across the planet…. are enough to obliterate the human race. And we have about one hundred thousand of these at our disposal and not all of them are in `Safe hands`.

Unless good sense prevails… There is extreme danger to humanity. A solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons is required as a vital contribution to preventing their chance of going into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.

GOOD SENSE MUST PREVAIL.

 WHAT EXACTLY IS GOOD SENSE? :

The Einstein Russell Manifesto of 1955 gives us some ideas on what can be that good sense, as does Joseph Rotblat`s ten point memo after he received the Noble Prize for Peace. Here are a few more for your consideration. Your own comments and suggestions are welcome and  may be  made available with your answers to the three questions.

• Complete nuclear disarmament and dismantlement strictly in accordance with Joseph Rotblat`s ten point memo .
• Armies of the World must be drastically reduced to about 50% of their current strength. About 25 % of the reduced strength should go towards the formation of a world force, another 25% should be utilized only for developemental works including disaster management whenever required. Only about 50 % of the reduced strength should be towards national security including maintenance of law and order. All armies must be under the control of Civilian leaderships.
• The Republican party of the US of A should reorient its ideology and bring it in line with that of the Democrats. particularly The primary objectives should be :

1. To reduce the role of the `Military Industrial Complex` in line with the requirements of para 2 above.
2. To limit its interactions with the rest of the World towards positive measures only required to ensure peace, and not to supply arms and ammunitions to nations in conflict.
3. To substantially reduce the disparity between the rich 1% of America and the remaining 99 %.

• Civil wars in the world should end immediately, and secular liberal democracy to be installed in all countries which are in conflict internally. The World force should be utilized to make this happen. The world must come to the rescue of countries in Civil War such as Iraq and Syria. A common man in these countries who is living in constant fear will not be bothered much about patriotism, or about the sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country.
• Secular liberal democracies to be installed in all countries where it is not already functioning.
• Conflicts between nations must be resolved by talks and cultural exchanges.
• Friendship between India and Pakistan must be strengthened and all impediments to peaceful coexistence, progress and development must be removed by  intelligent talks  and cultural exchanges.
• World leaders must unite to save the world from self destruction. They should join the Pugwash conferences …in fact they should  play the leading role in the Pugwash movement. The Scientist Pugwashites should act as advisers only.
• World wide conferences between Scientists and Philosophers … in particular religious philosophers, should  be held routinely towards achievement  of a comprehensive convergence of Science and Religion and of all Religions into one religion … all on the basis of the following guidelines:

1. The established principles and the established truths of Science must not be violated.
2. The essence of religion to be forever kept in mind …viz ..` `to find solace and peace of mind in prayer and/or meditation`.. `to live in peaceful co existence with all and to live and let live`.. ` To take care of the environment around us`.
3. Teachings of the great religious leaders should be followed but there should be no requirement to believe in miracles such as the rising from the dead, or the walking on water etc.etc.
4. Religous documents that suggest intolerance of other religions should be reformed.
5. Religous documents that suggest gender inequality should be reformed.
6. An individual should be free to choose his religion and that freedom should include freedom from religion.

The entire subject relating to convergence of science with religion  needs to be viewed in the context of the `Information theory`. People order their lives based on their beliefs which in turn are based on the information accessible to them which in turn is based on the past interactions of the rest of the world on them which has made them what they are. There is no doubt  that the presence of such `information` in the field that gives solace and peace of mind in prayer and in the knowledge of God`s presence ( in whatever form one can imagine) is very much helpful to mankind. But when it is a question of `talking science` and discussing the subject in the context of its correlation with the `information theory`, we must ask the question : Is resurrection a possibility ? and then why is it assumed that the answer provided to this question by a `naturalist` or a `scientist` will be different from that provided by a theologian, particularly in the light of the fact that the information – the data that constitutes the input to perform their analysis – available to all of them is the same in all respects , not to mention that all three of them are made up of the same atoms and molecules.

Indeed, we must follow the teachings of the great religious leaders of the past.. but there should be no reason to believe the `rising from the dead`, `the walking on water`, or `the carrying of a mountain on a finger`.

On the other hand, it is to be realized that  the presence of `Information` on religions of the world, including that on mythology and religious philosophy, which leads people to go to the churches, temples and masjids etc, or  to perform rituals that provide solemnity ( even romance) to occasions such as marriages, festivals etc,   has over the years given immense happiness, solace and peace of mind to the people of the world, and there is no reason to believe why they should not continue to do so. However it is also to be realized that the presence of certain `information` in the religious doctrines that permit intolerance and Jihad against other religions, is full of self-endangerment and destructive potentials,  has over the years caused religious extremism, conflicts and wars, and there is no reason to believe why these doctrines should not be reformed.

All in all, when we talk science, the nature of reality is just  `Information` …the information in the `Intelligent Field` or the `Infinite Mind`. We may call this `IF` or `IM` as our `God` which is just a matter of taste ..but this God is just a computer. No doubt it is intelligent… it gives us everlasting consciousness (everlasting in the sense that we are unconscious of our `unconscious tenures` so they pass quickly ), it designs our bodies and their capacities to grow, and above all it designs the laws of the universe with precisely calculated mathematical constants… etc, but this intelligence in the field is limited to the sum total of information acquired and processed through time. The quantum of intelligence is of course powerful enough to sustain the universe, which is impressive  of course, but whether we can call  it `divine` is a matter of taste. We must take into consideration the fact that many times life can only live at the expense of other life…That most living creatures kill each other in everlasting strife.

But of course …the time spent `living` is always several million times longer than the time spent `dying`.

And no harm will be done if we call it `divine` as the `information` stored in our minds tells us that we are forever conscious …

There was never a time when we could ask the question: `Where is the universe?`

In conclusion I give below a Paul Davies quote;

“Whatever their difference of opinion about the nature of God, I know of no religion that does not teach that God is a mind“…( from `God and the new physics` …Paul Davies)

This fits very well with the `Intelligent field`, or the `Infinite mind`, and the `Six Words`

• Once … all the steps from 1 to 7 above are taken… and all the countries are secular, liberal and democratic and religions have converged … there will be no role for terrorists…. and terrorism may be considered as non existent…and any remnant terror kind of activity may simply be considered as a law and order problem.
• Worldwide rise in population must be controlled. A U turn must take place before it reaches the 8 billion mark and the world population should stabilize at about 6 billion.

These are just a few steps that need to be taken… your suggestions on additional steps … are welcome.

WILL GOOD SENSE PREVAIL IN THE END ? :

What lies ahead if good sense does not prevail? :

This is not an easy question to answer… how can we predict the future with so many uncertainties. with such a high randomness coefficient as prevailing now…?

If we go to Google in search for an answer… you`ll find hundreds of articles on the subject… Many predicting disastrous wars… some even predicting end of human civilization… while there are some .. rather a few in number.. who think otherwise, they are of the opinion that with such a large amount of nuclear Arsenal available on the planet, no country will ever take the risk of going to war, and there will never ever be a nuclear war…. wishful thinking of course.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

Having placed before you all the cards on the table…. all the `Information in the Field`… I now ask you dear reader to answer three simple questions according to your own experience, knowledge and best judgement. For each question there are ten possible answers . Select one among these as the most likely according to you.

QUESTION 1 : If  adequate good sense is not forthcoming,  what according to you is the probable chance of a nuclear attack taking place during one calendar year ?

Tick one of the following;

1. No chance at all
2. About 1 in 10000
3. About 1 in 1000
4. About 1 in 500
5. About 1 in 200
6. About 1 in 100
7. About 1 in 50
8. About 1 in 20
9. About 1 in 10
10. Greater than 1 in 5

Q2 : For each nuclear attack, what are the chances that there will be a global chain reaction leading to the collapse  of human civilization?

Tick one of the following:

1. Less than 1 in 20
2. About 1 in 20
3. About 1 in 15
4. About 1 in 10
5. About 1 in 8
6. About 1 in 6
7. About 1 in 4
8. About 1 in 3
9. About 1 in 2
10. Greater than 1 in 2.

Q3 : What are the chances that Good sense will prevail and there will be no nuclear war in the next 500 years ?

Tick one of the following:

1. No chance at all
2. About 1 in 1000
3. About 1 in 500
4. About 1 in 100
5. About 1 in 50
6. About 1 in 20
7. About 1 in 10
8. About 1 in 5
9. About 1 in 2
10. More than 75 percent

Looking forward to reader`s responses.

Cheers

….                                ….                                 ….                            ….                            ….

Study and research done during summer of 1959 while studying for Post graduate course in Mathemetics in Bombay University.

Article first written in 1960 …not published

Article updated in 1986, and sent with a covering letter to `The Director…Institute of Mathematical Sciences… Madras on 4th April 1986… It was not published but an encouraging response received.

Article  recomposed in November 2014 and tells  of  my letter to IMS Madras, the manuscript of  the 1986 article, and compares it with the latest inputs available on `Google` on the subject.The November 2014 article is being published in the website..`www.sixwords.in`

In April 1986, I wrote a letter to The Director, Indian Institute of Mathemetical Sciences, Madras on the subject `Edward Warings conjectures (1770) on theory of numbers, inviting his kind attention to an article in Illustrated Weekly of India, relating to the recent proof of Waring limit for 4th powers by Dr. R. Balasubramanium in collaboration with two French Mathemeticians. It appeared – with that proof – that Waring limits upto 9th power stood proved, at the time. It was also mentioned – in the weekly – that there is no documented evidence available which shows how Edward Waring arrived at his conjectures 200 years back.

In my letter I mentioned that I had derived a general expression for a number `x` in terms of `n`,  such that there is no positive integer existing which cannot be representated as a sum of  – not more than – `x` nth powers of integers. The derivation of the general expression was  entirely based on known Waring Limits upto the 7th power of which I was aware of at the time. However – I wrote – that  the authenticity of the general expression can be a gauged from the table – which I enclosed – which gives the value of `x` as worked out from the general expression for upto `n`  = 15, by tallying the same with corresponding Waring limits upto 15th power which should be available with the latest literature on the subject. The importance of the general expression can be judged from the fact that if this is proved, it will act as a comprehensive proof of Warings Conjectures for all powers.

The referred table which constituted a part of the letter gave the values `x` for all values of `n` from 2 to 15, as 4, 9, 19, 37, 73, 143, 279, 558, 1079, 2132, 4223, 8384, 16673, and 33203 respectively.

MANUSCRIPT OF THE ARTICLE OF APRIL 1986 :

“Waring limits postulated over 200 years back (in 1770) by Edward Waring have once again been in the limelight following the recent proof of the Waring limit corresponding to the 4th powers by Dr. R. Balasubramanium of the Institute of Mathemetical Sciences in collaboration with French Mathemeticians Jean Yuves Peshouillers and Francois Press.

What are these Waring limits?

Waring`s theorems or rather conjectures, since he could not prove them, are on the following lines :

1. a) Every integer is either a square or it can be represented as a sum of two, three, or upto four squares. In other words no positive finite integer exists which cannot be represented as a sum of four or less than four squares. The number four can be considered as a Waring limit for squares.
2. b) Every integer is either a cube or it can be represented as a sum of two, three, four, or upto nine cubes. The number nine can be considered as a Waring limit for cubes.
3. c) Every integer is either a fourth power, or it can be represented as a sum of two, three , four..or upto 19 fourth powers. The number 19 can be considered as a Waring limit for 4th powers.
4. d) Likewise Waring conjectured that every integer is either a 5th power, a 6th power, a 7th power etc, or it can be represented as a sum of upto 37 5th powers, 73 6th powers, 143 7th powers etc respectively, and the numbers 37, 73, and 143 being regarded as Waring limits for 5th, 6th, and 7th powers respectively.

As can be seen, there is no distinct pattern existing between the Waring limits for various powers ( 4, 9, 19, 37, 73, 143, etc), and todate there is no documentary evidence available which shows how Waring arrived at his postulations. During the last 50 years or so, Mathemeticians have proved Warinhs Theorums upto several powers, the latest one being that of Dr. R. Balasubramaniums proof corresponding to 4th power. However it appears there is no record of a successful research having been carried out for the evaluation of a generalised expression for Waring limits, let alone its proof. The author here has conjectured to derive a general expression based on available Waring limits upto 7th power. Using this expression waring limits upto 15th power are determined and indicated in table `A`.

EVALUATION OF GENERAL EXPRESSION FOR DETERMINING WARING LIMITS :

A detailed analytical study of the Waring limits upto 7th power will reveal the following:

1. a) The smallest integer that requires the summation of the maximum number of squares is the number 7, and it requires one square of 2 and 3(*) squares of 1.
2. b) The smallest integer that requires the summation of the maximum number of cubes is the number 23, and it requires 2 cubes of 2 and 7(*) cubes of 1.
3. c) The smallest integer that requires the summation of the maximum number of 4th powers is the number 79 and it requires four 4th powers of 2 and 15(*) 4th powers of 1.

Proceeding in the same way, it can be found that the smallest integer  requiring the summation of the maximum number of 5th  powers is  the number 223 (requiring six 5th powers of 2 and 31(*) 5th powers of 1), for 6th powers the corresponding number is 703( requiring 10  6th powers of 2 and 63(*) 6th powers one ), and for the 7th powers the corresponding number is 2175 (requiring 16 7th powers of 2 and 127 (*)  7th powers of 1.

The numbers marked with an asterisk contained within brackets (*) ie 3, 7, 15, 31, 63, and 127, are significant, and follow a distinctive pattern, each being one short of 2, one short of cube of 2, one short of  4th power of 2, one short of  5th power of 2, one short of  6th power of 2, and one short of 7th power of 2 respectively.

In each of the above cases it is observed that the smallest integer that requires the maximum number of nth powers is less than the nth power of 3. Denoting this smallest integer as `D`, it is seen that `D` requires the summation of nth powers of 2 and 1 only.

Hence D = a*2^n + b*1^n     ….       ….       ….        ….    ….        (A1)

Where `a` and `b` are constants.

Further it is noticed that `D` is in each case found to be exactly one short of the number containing the maximum number of nth powers of 2 before the nth  power of 3.

Hence by definition: D = c*2^n – 1 ….          ….         ….       ….   (A2)

Where `c` is a constant giving the maximum number of nth powers of contained in 3^n. ie c is equal to the positive integral value ( quotient only) of the expression ( 3^n/2^n).

For  n = 2, c = quotient of the expression (3^2/2^2) = 2, and D = 2*2^2 -1 = 7

For  n = 3, c = quotient of the expression (3^3/2^3) = 3, and D = 3*2^3 -1 = 23

For  n = 4, c = quotient of the expression (3^4/2^4) = 5, and D = 5*2^4 -1 = 79

For  n = 5, c = quotient of the expression (3^5/2^5) = 7, and D = 7*2^5 -1 = 223

For  n = 6, c = quotient of the expression (3^6/2^6) = 11, and D = 11*2^6 -1 = 703

For  n = 7, c = quotient of the expression (3^7/2^7) = 17, and D = 17*2^7 -1 = 2175

As indicated earlier `D` contains nth powers of 2 and 1 only. Denoting by `x` the maximum number of nth powers required to represent D, it is obvious that x is equal to the sum of the quotient (ie the positive integral value) of the expression (D/2^n) and its remainder `R`.

Ie   x = quotient of (D/2^n) + R

From equation A2    D = c*2^n – 1

Hence x = quotient of |( c*2^n – 1)/2^n)| + R

Substituting for c as quotient of |3^n/2^n|

Where   |      | denotes the positive integral value (quotient only) of the expression within.

We get   x  =  {(2^n*|3^n/2^n| -1)/2^n } + R   ….              …..             …. (A3)

Which is the general expression for Waring limits.

Where  {        } denotes the positive integral value (quotient only)of the expression within, and R as the remainder.

Thus it can be stated that every integer is either an nth power or it can be represented as the sum of 2, 3, 4….or at the most `x` nth powers, or in other words there exists no positive integer which cannot be represented as the sum of  `x` nth powers, where `x` is given by the expression in (A3).

Based on the expression in (A3) the values of `x` as determined upto 15th powers ie for n= 2, 3, 4 …etc …upto   n =15 are 4, 9, 19, 37,73, 143, 279, 548,1079, 2132, 4223, 8384, 16673, and 33203 respectively.

A more simplified expression for `x` than that indicated in (A3) can also be determined.

As per (A1)  :    D = a*2^n + b*1^n,      and x = a + b

As found out earlier, the value of `b` is just 1 short of 2^n, ie b  = 2^n – 1 and the smallest integer D contains 1 nth power of 2 short of the maximum number of nth powers of 2 that can be contained in 3^n, ie a = | 3^n/2^n | -1

Hence   x =  a + b =    | 3^n/2^n | + 2^n  – 2      ….               ….               …. (A4)

Where,  |       |  denotes the quotient ( ie the positive integral value ) of the expression within.

Expressions ( A3) and (A4) above, give identical results. This can be checked and verified for all values of n from 2 to 15.

CONCLUSION :

On the basis of known Waring limits upto 7th power, a general expression has been derived for `x` in terms of `n`, such that there is no positive integer that exists, which cannot be represented as a sum of x nth powers. The primary assumption which facilitated the derivation being that the smallest integer `D` that requires the summation of maximum number of nth  powers is less than 3^n, and that D is in each case just one short of the number containing the maximum number of nth powers of 2 before 3^n. In the validity of these assumptions lies the proof of the general expression which in turn would prove Waring`s conjectures comprehensively.

….        ….     Manuscript    ends       ….        ….

UPDATE ON THE SUBJECT :

Following my brief interaction with Institute of Mathemetical Sciences , Madras (now called Chennai) in connection with the manuscript, I tried hard with my search to find the latest literature  on the subject in particular on  the general expression, but couldn`t find anything worthwhile, there was no Google at the time. And then, I got busy with work –Design and construction of structures – and later got myself deeply involved in Science and philosophy, and the article was out of mind ever since for the last 28 years. In the interim I along with my team of Structural Engineers received an International award  ..`The Bentleys Global Be Inspired Award` for innovations in Structural Engineering for the year 2013,  and wrote a book on Science and Philosophy called “SIX WORDS… Seminar held in a parallel universe“, published in January 2014.

Now – in November 2014 –  I am including the manuscript in my website, to solicit reader`s comments and thought I should find out the latest on the subject ..Through `Google` of course.

During my search, I found an article on `Recent Progress On Waring`s  Theorums  And Its Generalisations ` …BY L. E. Dickson.

Its a very lengthy write up… here are two small  extracts from the article :

“ On the Ideal limit for Universal Waring Theorum : It has been proved that every positive integer is a sum of 9 cubes, whence 9 is the ideal limit for cubes. For biquadrates (fourth powers) the ideal limit is 19.“

“ The ideal limit for nth powers is I = q + 2^n – 2, where q is the greatest integer less than (3^n/2^n)“

Dickson goes on to with his elaborate study and analysis to discuss various theorems related to the subject pertaining to the Ideal limit for various powers. His analysis is extremely complex and difficult to comprehend. It is also a little bit confusing and has a few errors too; In his table of Ideal limits he gives a value of 558 for the Ideal limit for 9th powers, which according to me is 548 (perhaps it might be a misprint).

I could not find in Dickson`s analysis or anywhere else the simplified methodology to arrive at the general expression put forward by me in my article.

I have prepared an excel sheet for evaluation of `x` ( the ideal limit in Dickson`s nomenclature ) for various values of `n`. Proceeding further the values of `x` for n values 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are determined as  66190, 132055, 263619, 526502, and 1051899 respectively.

Some time back there was an International conference on the subject  -“ The 2011 Thoroughbred Pedigree, Genetics and Performance Conference“.

Some of the speakers and their topics were:

 Dr. Ernie Bailey.. Nature and Extent of Genetic Variation Among Thoroughbred Horses

 Dr. Matthew Binns… Improving the Efficiency of Selecting of Thoroughbred Horses Using Molecular Genetics

 Dr. Emmeline Hill …The Equinome Elite Performance Test: Genes Critical to Sprint,

Middle-Distance and Long-Distance Racing

Bill Oppenheim …Myths We Live By: The Data We Use and Its Limitations

Jon Seaman …The Phenotypic Outlier: Why Breeding Type-to-Type is Vital for Success

Dr. Steve Roman… Aptitudinal Type and the American Classic Horse: The Relationship Between Pedigree and Performance in the Racing Thoroughbred

Dr. Dav Doodnauth… Genetic Signatures of Elite and Ordinary Thoroughbred Racehorses

Alan Porter …Looking at the Whole Pie: Examining the Complete Thoroughbred Pedigree as

it Relates to Performance

Bill Pressey… Using Heart Rate, Blood Lactate and GPS Data to Acquire Metabolic Indicators of Thoroughbred Performance

Dr. David Lambert… Genetic Testing: The Benefits and Challenges for the Industry At Large

Byron Rogers… From Theory to Fact: Marrying the Best Practice of Genomics and Pedigree Theory to Optimize Output

These were marathon talks, highly technical, and it can be gauged from the nature of topics given above, with regard to the complexities involved and the extent to which statistical studies and analysis is required in order to decide on `Selective breeding` for optimum success. If I had the time and means, I would have loved to attend this conference – as the subject is enormously interesting to me – and perhaps asked some questions from a philosophical – cause and effect – angle.

Based on a common sense view – when we take the laws of causation seriously enough – we realize that it is the interactions of the world that lead to the arrival of a certain tiny little speck of jelly and it is the same `interactions of the world` phenomena that leads that speck of jelly to go on to become either Hitler, or Einstein, or Gandhi or you and me.The same theory holds good for horses. The contribution of Genes gets over at the speck of jelly stage, thereafter it is the interactions of the world that determine its future. Interactions such as the health of the Mom, the food she eats, and how she looks after the baby inside, the facilities at the stud farm where the first couple of years are spent, the caliber of the trainers, the love and affection of the owners, the preparations, planning and scheduling of the races it runs, the caliber of the jockeys, how the races are run, etc etc.
Being a Structural Engineer, I am inclined to think like this: That there is a certain `Code script` built in inside that speck of jelly that constitutes an architect’s plan (or maybe a structural design) that envisages what the structure should become, and then there are the interactions of the world which constitute the `Builder`s craft` that tries to develop the ultimate structure according to the initial plans, but due to the many uncertainties of these interactions, there is a large variation in the extent to which success is achieved.
Ultimately it boils down to just statistics and probabilities of expectations.

And so If I had attended that conference and happened to be one of the privileged  ones selected to ask a question or two I would have asked one  relating to the `Code script` in the Genes, and the uncertainties brought in by the `Builders craft`. But that is hypothetical, as I was not there. So, I decided to go through the list of topics and see if there is one where the speaker might have talked something on these lines, and sure enough, I found one which looked like having the answers to my questions, viz:

“The Myths we live by…. The Data we use and its limitations“    …..     by Bill Oppenheim 

      I did a Google search and soon learnt that this gentleman `Bill Oppenheim` is one of the World`s leading consultants on `Selective breeding`. I was also able to access the full text of the talk he gave on the subject during the conference. To say that I was deeply impressed would be a gross understatement. It was a marathon talk. I am giving below an extract of a portion of his talk which is related to that uncertainty angle:

Extract from Bill Oppenheim`s talk:
SECTION 3. THE IMPLICATIONS OF UNCERTAINTY
“`Every time a breeder signs on the dotted line to breed his or her mare to Distorted Humor, or Unbridled`s   Song, or Giant’s Causeway–and a few others–it’s near enough a $100,000 decision. It should make a difference to those of us who work in the field of evaluating and recommending pedigrees, where percentage plays are so important, that we are speaking from a vantage point of uncertainty, not of certainty. Even from the point of view of the scientists, we’re entitled to ask “how do you even know what to measure?” and “how can we know that what you do measure is significant?” Whatever we do, we’re taking a shot here: the odds in any given case are against
success. It bothers me when I hear someone assert “this or that is absolutely the way to go;” it bothers me when I say it myself. At best it is absolutely the way to go, given the circumstances. I try not to be too militant, above all to be open-minded, to use inductive as well as
deductive reason–let the evidence tell you, not the other way around .An example is the application of dosage to matings planning. Dr. Roman, who will be speaking tomorrow, will be able to explain it much better than me. I don’t have a problem with the theory of dosage, but with the application of it. Here’s what I mean. As I understand it, dosage is a sort of pedigree map, showing the important names in pedigrees and the aptitudes of those named sires. A calculation is then done which shows the distribution of influences in the existing pedigree, from which the idea is that you can predict aptitude, and add certain elements to balance out the pedigree; in some way to produce a good horse.
It seems to me the problem here is an assumption, the assumption that the individual horse on the ground or the prospective individual horse on the ground will resemble the designed pedigree. My experience is that most horses throw back to certain influences in their
pedigrees, except, given the genetic law that populations tend to breed back to the middle, you might find a horse “throws back” to a certain sire, but isn’t as good. If horses throw back to particular influences in their pedigrees, surely a map of a horse’s dosage tells us simply about the opportunity, not the fact, of influence. Like I say, my issue is not with the theory of dosage, but the application of it: the pedigree may be that of a two-mile stayer, but if the horse on the ground looks like a sprinter and stops after five furlongs, I’d be looking for the names in that pedigree of five-furlong horses, and start working from the assumption that’s the horse we’re really dealing with.There are two corollaries to approaching pedigree assessment with an open mind: one is the recognition that, even in science, the development of hypotheses requires a creative ‘spark’–somebody has to think up the right question to ask, the right hypothesis to test. The other corollary is what is called to “think outside the box. Let me give you an example that utilizes both. At the end of 1985, I was hired to make recommendations for the American mares of one of the major international operations. There was a particular mare, a Halo mare, who I was keen to see go to Mr. Prospector. His first foals had raced in 1978, but until then–1985–he had yet to sire a good horse out of a mare from the Hail to Reason sire line. But, expanding the parameters one level, I knew that Mr. Prospector’s sire, Raise a Native–and, in fact, virtually all Native Dancer–really liked Hail to Reason-line mares. So I explained the situation, explained why I thought it would still be worth trying, and they rolled the dice.
They got Machiavellian. From then on, I became a lot less rigid about insisting that this sire had to have worked with that damsire.
The point I’m ultimately driving at is that we are operating in a universe, this universe of Thoroughbred racing and breeding, which is more chaotic than ordered. There is a natural tendency to want things to make sense and be in order. But that path leads to overrating the true, applicable value of the data we are using and the conclusions we reach from that data. It’s the search for the one great formula, or set of formulas: the Philosopher’s Stone, the Magic Wand, the Secret Elixir. I don’t think they exist, not in this pursuit,
breeding racehorses.
Then what?
Then, we have to recognize–to concede–that the pedigree work is only part of the equation; it’s dangerous to make all this that we discuss too big a factor in the decision-making process; at the end of the day, it’s an individual bred to an individual. Let me just reiterate the reservations I have about the assumptions which result in conventional wisdom:
1. Jumping to conclusions based on too small a sample size;
2. By the time we discover a particular cross is really good, it is losing its potency;
3. The assumption that all black-type should count the same as an indicator of class is flawed;
4. The value of measuring opportunity is open to question;
5. A pedigree is a map of opportunity, not a statement of fact. Horses are not blends;
6. Generalizing ‘up one level’ is often more productive than trying to be too specific;
A few final thoughts: the first thing we have to do is: eliminate obvious errors. Then, get ahead of the curve; and do art as well as science. Finally–it’s blindingly obvious that the people who use the services we’re all working to develop want the silver bullet, the Holy Grail, the magic formula. Yes, let’s use all the tools we have and can develop, but let’s also try very hard to make them understand, as we should, the limitations of what we are doing.

Thank you.“`

End of extract

What exactly is the purpose of my posting here, and taking so much of the reader`s time?

It is three fold:

1. To make accessible to the reader, the text (albeit in part) of Bill Oppenheim`s wonderful speech, as
2. To understand that while there are uncertainties involved, it cannot be denied that the greater is the strength of the initial `Code script`, the higher will be the expectations of probabilities of success likely to be achieved when the `Builders craft ‘ has taken its toll. And for the initial code script to be strong, it goes without saying that we need to go deeper and deeper and deeper into the statistics to have a greater chance of success. And in my view the measurement of success need not be restricted to `successful performance as a race horse`, perhaps it should also include `successful performance as a Sire or a mare`.
3. The third one – of far reaching significance – will be discussed later in Part Two – Impact on humans

The Indian Scene:

It will not be out of place here to give a comparison of the standard of thoroughbred race horses in India as against those of the rest of the world. In India the number of race horses of a particular age group that achieve a Time form rating of 100 or more (Corresponding to a rating of 126 or more on the Indian scale) is on the average about 6 or 7, out of nearly 600 to 700 horses of that age group who actually race in the premier race tracks of India – correct me if my figures are wrong – which means not more than one percent success rate, which is far below the World average – which is perhaps 3.5 to 4 percent. Not only that, no Indian race horse has achieved a rating higher than 118, a good 28 points below the World`s best, and neither of the three greats i.e Mystical, Squanderer, or Elusive Pimpernel will figure in the top 500 thoroughbred race horses of all times.   What can be the reason for this?

I do not think inadequacy of `Builders craft` could be the reason. The facilities at some of the leading stud farms are comparable to the best anywhere, the trainers are of reasonably high caliber, and so are the jockeys, not to mention that some of the World’s leading jockeys ride in the winter season at some of the premier race tracks in India.

In my view, the reason for this lack of success is none other than a Weak initial `Code script`.

Two reasons for this:

1. We do not have high caliber Stallions in India, which accounts for the upper limit of 118 of TF rating achieved so far.
2. We do not, perhaps, go as deep as required in undertaking  detailed statistical studies and in depth analysis etc before taking decisions on `Selections`, which accounts for the low percentage of horses attaining 100 plus ratings. Perhaps, our breeding establishments should have expert advisers of the caliber of Bill Oppenheim, Steve Roman, or others listed above to guide.

It is my considered view that if these issues are addressed and if India can produce race horses comparable to the best in the world – A reasonable target would be about 25 horses exceeding 100 TF level, about 6 or 7 exceeding 115, and about 2 to 3 exceeding 130 – it would catapult Indian racing to a different level altogether, which in turn will be a substantial impetus towards an all round improvement in nearly every aspect of the game. And if the Government is persuaded to reduce the Betting Tax substantially, and the Tote deductions kept within 14 or 15 percent, as is the case all over the world, it will be the icing on the cake.

INTRODUCTION:

This article predicting the Fair values of the Sensex for the next 15 years will be updated at intervals, and particularly whenever an important event of far reaching impact takes place. It was originally written in November 2008 and its first Para was as follows:

“This is a circuitous route to the conclusion that all is well with the Indian Stock Market, that there is no cause for panic; we have passed through such phases before, which are normally short-lived before normalcy is regained. It is possible that the current US recession may have impacted global financial health significantly including that of India, and that it may take some more time, may be six months or more before recovery, but it does not alter India’s growth story which is likely to continue for several years till it catches up with the leaders and for this it has a long way to go. For long term investors (5 years or more) the current trend in the movement of the sensex presents a lifetime investment opportunity of the kind witnessed only once before in the last 30 years since the base date of the Sensex.The earlier opportunity lasted for a very short time in the year 2003.The present value of the sensex is far below its inherent fair value even after discounting and absorbing the ongoing global economic slowdown and assuming the worst case scenario for its impaction on the Indian stock market. Currently the only losers are some FII`s who are having to sell at whatever price available in order to fulfill their redemption obligations. Buyers are taking advantage of FII`s plight and striking deals at low levels thus preventing  the market to rise in accordance with the fundamentals, resulting in the sensex fluctuating between 8500 and 9500.“

In the write up Fair values of the Sensex corresponding to its intrinsic and true worth were predicted for a fifteen year period beginning April 2009 and ending on April 2024.At the time of the first edition of the write up the two figures corresponding to the start date (April 2009) and end date (April 2024) were determined as 12600 and 79500 respectively.

Then in March 2009 the article was updated. Though the first Para remained more or less unaltered, `yours truly` became a little more pessimistic after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks as well as the realization that the impact of the global recession was somewhat deeper than anticipated earlier and reworked and altered the two vital figures to 11100 and 65500.

Now this is the end of August 2009 when there is a newfound stability at the centre after the UPA won the elections convincingly and there are signs of the global recession tapering off somewhat, the sensex is travelling within the range 15000 and 16000, and `yours truly`  has revised the two figures back to 12600 and 79500. It goes without saying that the first Para in the original write up makes no sense at all. The lifetime opportunity has gone; the sensex is near the top end of even an optimistic range and on the verge of getting out of this range into an irrational zone. The insiders are making their plans ready to fleece the outsiders once again. Now the first Para needs to be reshaped and instead of saying `There is no cause for panic`, I should be saying `There is no cause for Euphoria’. But I am wiser now so I begin the article with a more generalized approach so that whatever happens I don`t have to revise the opening Para time and again in subsequent editions.

“This article is a circuitous route to the conclusion that even with a conservative assessment of the future growth of the Indian equity market a long term investment (10 years or more) in the Sensex  group of shares is expected to yield an ROI (Return on investment) ranging from `Fairly Decent` at its minimum to `Excellent` at its maximum

Fair values  as well as Fair ranges of the Sensex have been assessed for the next 15 years at annual  intervals starting from 1^st April 2009.In fact three sets of values have been worked out, based on a Pessimistic assessment, a Reasonable assessment, and an Optimistic assessment. The term `Fair Range`(to be defined later along with Pessimistic Range and Optimistic Range) is considered  as the range in which the sensex is expected to travel for the longest periods of its journey and is commensurate with its intrinsic and true worth. (Past experience has shown however that the Indian sensex has traveled extensively in the optimistic range).The term `FAIR VALUE` is considered as the midpoint of the Fair range. It can be shown that a long term investment – say for 10 years in the sensex group of shares is expected to yield the following returns:

Even if one enters the market at the highest of the Optimistic range, and after 10 years exits at the lowest of the Pessimistic range the expected annual compounded return is about 6.0%.On the other hand if one enters at the lowest of the Pessimistic range and after 10 years exits at the highest of the Optimistic range the expected annual compounded return is 21.4%.The corresponding values for a 15 year period of investment are 7.5% (Minimum) and 18.5% (Maximum) and those for a 5 year period of investment are 0.5% (Minimum) and 29.2% (Maximum).

The investment however has to be a long term one and should be in the Sensex group of shares preferably in proportion to their respective weightages.If you are a little bit smarter, then you’ll know that within this group there are a few companies (about half a dozen) which give a distinctly higher return than the average of the sensex group. For short term investments and for investments in shares other than those belonging to the sensex group one has to be extra smart, knowledgeable, resourceful and above all very lucky.

Sometimes  the Sensex goes  beyond the optimistic range (Let’s call it period `O`), and sometimes  below the pessimistic range ( period `P`).Such periods are rare and short lived when  insiders and speculators are in full command, they are smart people ready and alert to take advantage of the common man who is caught in the euphoria of the boom time and buys during time `O`, or is caught in a Panic stage and sells during time `P`.Some financial experts contribute towards these irrational movements by making short term predictions after factoring in the anticipated speculation activities while formulating their opinions without actually revealing these aspects in their reasoning.  Period `O` has been experienced a number of times in the past, notably the 1992 and 2000 scams and the 6 months ending mid January 2008.Period `P`has been experienced only a few times in the last 30 years, viz during May 2003 when the sensex came down to about 3000 compared to its earlier peak of about 6000, and on a few occasions in the recent past, notably during October/November 2008 and March 2009 when it went below the 9000 mark.

The purpose of this article is to safeguard the outsiders (retail investors) from the insiders by making these inputs and charts readily available to them at all times, along with the understanding that the index will invariably return to the fair range. Investors should know precisely when to exercise caution and when to avoid panic. Financial experts and Investment advisers who care for their clients should analyze and prepare their own charts and update the values each time there occurs an event of consequence, but this adjustment in the values should be done only to the appropriate extent which is commensurate with the magnitude of the event`s impact.

The analysis is based on a factor called `Y-Factor`(where `Y` is simply the Return On Investment, ie the percentage annualized appreciation of the sensex compounded every 12 months) whose values are first determined according to the movement of the sensex over the last 30  years based on available data and then predicted for the next 15 years based on the assumption that the broad trend established will continue in the same manner with suitable adjustments after factoring in the recent events as well as the  broad parameters that might govern the future trend.

Factor `Y` is determined as follows:
Let `A` be the base value of the sensex which is 100 on the base date which is taken as 1^st April 1979.
Let `T` be the time elapsed in years since the base date to the time at which theY factor is determined.
Let `A1` be the value of the sensex at the time of measurement (i.e. T years after the base date).
Then Y is given by the equation:
(1 + Y/100)  ^T    =A1/A     ——————-         ————- (1)
As an example consider the date 25^th July 1990 when the sensex touched 1000 for the first time. Putting A1 = 1000, A =100,
T = 11.3 years, Y is worked out as 22.6

Values of the factor `Y` have been worked out for about 30 different dates selected at random based on Sensex values and time elapsed as on these dates, these are indicated in Table – 1 ( see Appendix A – 01 ) and will give some idea as to how this factor has progressed. As can be seen from this Table the lowest recorded value of `Y`was 15.2 during May 2003.If in the recent  bear phase this record was to be broken the sensex would  have had  to go down below 6540 mark.

Next we determine the Fair values of this Y Factor corresponding to its true/intrinsic worth in the following manner:

Ignoring the sharp upswings and downswings of the past we work out the average values of the sensex (From past records) beginning from 1984 ie 5 years after the base date..We next calculate the Y factors for each case from equation `1’. We call these as Yat (the suffix t corresponding to the time elapsed since base date).Next, For each year we calculate the cumulative Y factor denoted Yct by giving due weightages in accordance with the time elapsed `T`as per the following equation:

Yct = (Yat*T + Yat-1*(T-1) + Yat-2*(t-2) + — +Y5*5/(2.5 +0.5T)*(T-4)  ——– (2)

All calculations are done on EXCEL and shown in Table – 2 (see Appendix A-02 ).

For example Yc7 =(Ya7*7 +Yc6*6 +Yc5*5)/6*3.

We now evaluate the Fair Value Y Factor `Yft` on the assumption that in whichever year the factor Yat exceeded Yct it was over optimistic, and in whichever year Yat was less than Yct it was over pessimistic, perhaps not to the same extent as the former. This aspect can be taken care of by considering:

Yft = 0.25 Yat + 0.75 Yct   whenever Yat was > Yct

And     Yft = 0.25 Yct + 0.75 Yat   whenever Yat was < Yct

Based on the Yft values the Fair values of the sensex can be calculated  by using Equation 1.These are given in the last column of Table 2 (Appendix A-02)

This column thus indicates how the sensex would have run its course had there been no scams, no speculators, no insiders, no bulls, and no bears etc.Thus we see from Table 2, the journey of the Fair value Y Factor of the sensex during which it attained a peak of 23.7 in 1994 and a low of 16.5 in 2003 finally ending at 19.0 on April 2008. This was comparatively the easier part of the analysis where the element of intuition was not very high and recorded figures of the past were made use of.

Next comes the daunting task of arriving at the most appropriate value of `Y` corresponding to the fair value of the Sensex as on 01-04-2009 and the anticipated value towards which it will tend to approach 15 years later ie on 01-04-2024.In short we need to find out  the  two crucial values viz  `Yf30` and `Yf45`, based on which the Sensex values ( Fair,Pessimistic,and optimistic) for the next 15 years will be determined.

Forecasting the future can be a tricky business. There are no mathematical formulas available. Factors and parameters that need to be considered are far too many, Uncertainties are enormous; events of the future, many of which may have far reaching significance are unknown today. The problem is uncommonly complex. A holistic approach packed with intuitions will be followed. Even the greatest of financial experts will do it no other way.

You might ask the question why a layman like me has taken it on him this unenviable task of forecasting the future and why anyone should or would rely on my assessment. In answer to the first of these two questions I quote a statement made by Einstein when he was asked to give his thoughts on the World economic crises of the early thirties (Refer `Ideas and Opinions` by Einstein) :

“If there is anything that can give a layman in the sphere of economics the courage to express an opinion on the nature of the alarming difficulties of the present day it is the hopeless confusion of opinion among the experts.“

Sometimes a layman is better off if he takes the average view of the experts.  However we need to differentiate the good experts from the not so good. This should not be difficult. You don`t have to be a good batsman to know who is a good batsman.

Not all experts however are confused. In fact there are some (let’s call them E1) who are extra smart for they even take into their calculations the likely acts of speculation  thus improving the probability that their prediction will come true. Then there are the confused ones (E2) who tend to play safe by predicting that the prevailing trend will continue. This is akin to forecasting the next day`s weather by simply saying that it will be nearly the same as today`s, for which prediction there is a 77 percent probability of coming true. They will continue  to impress with their predictions until the U-turn stage…when the levels reached are no longer sustainable, at which stage they will be proved horribly wrong. The same experts who in January 2008, when the index was at the 20000 level had no hesitation in predicting that 25000 was very much on the cards – despite the fact that triggers for the global economic recession were already felt, later in March 2009 when the sensex was hovering near the 8500 level, confidently predicted still lower levels despite the realization that the impact of the US recession on the Indian economy was not commensurate with the 60 percent decline in the index from its previous peak. In the process many investors suffered to such an extent that they lost complete faith in the stock markets and were not emotionally in a proper frame of mind to reenter even at low levels. Perhaps they may be tempted again when its too late. There are of course some genuine experts (E3) who give honest and sincere views on where the market stands in relation to where it should be.The trouble is that the market invariably goes far outside the fair range for the simple reason that there is an abundance of category E1 and E2 experts and an acute shortage of category E3.

The answer to the second part of the question relating to the extent of reliability of the forecasts will be given after the forecasting is done. For the present I just wish to say that:

“If ten of the World`s greatest and most competent Financial wizards were asked to forecast the value of the fair value Y Factor Yf45 as on 01-04-2024 and if these values as determined by the ten experts vary between `A` and `B`, then it can be said with some confidence and conviction that – considering the nature and magnitude of the uncertainties of the future and the enormous complexities involved in assessing the impact of future events and notwithstanding the holistic approach, packed with intuitions, and crude methodology applied in the analysis – the probability is reasonably high that the corresponding value as worked out by `yours truly` will be within that range rather than outside it“.

We now proceed with the rest of the analysis. The first part which involves                             determination of two crucial factors ie Yf30 and YF45 and done in a single page and shown in table below is simply listing out the important factors and their likely impact (+) or ( -) in changing the Y factor.

While the above assessment is  predominantly intuition based, some insight into the reasons considered and the methodology adopted for arriving at the impact magnitude figures is given  here :

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

THE INDIA SHINNING FACTOR:

Observe progress of Yft from 1989 to 2008 in table 2 (last column) and try to correlate the significant events that may have impacted the sensex.We all know the opening up of the Indian economy and the landmark budget of Dr Manmohan Singh in 1991.This might have been good enough to raise Yft by 2.5 points over a period of time but the entire rise took place in just a couple of years (via the 1992 scam).Later acts of positive impacts over the years such as financial reforms, disinvestment, Dream budget of 1997, etc etc could not raise Yft any further which was absorbed and discounted in the initial rise.Now we cannot say that in any particular year in the future a path breaking budget will be presented. Instead all these aspects can be covered under the heading “Indian growth story or the India shining factor“.Indian economy is considered among the emerging fast growing economies of the world. It still has a long way to go before it catches up with the leading nations and so has an enormous potential for development. A positive impact of 1.5 points in this category is not unjustified.

RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN:

Factors such as the demolition of Babri Masjid,communal riots, Kargil war, Acts of terrorism etc may have impacted negatively by about 1.5 points of which 0.5 points could be attributed to 26/11 Mumbai attacks. These aspects can be taken under the heading “Relations with Pakistan“.If an index of 1.0 is assigned towards perfectly good relations between India and Pakistan, it can be considered that this relationship index varied between 0.25 and 0.5 in the past. Perhaps today it stands at 0.3, which is just above the lowest. Currently it looks as if this will improve as both countries have realized the foolishness of confrontation. But control over terrorism may not be achieved soon and so a negative impact of 1.0 for the future is considered in this category.

CURRENT US AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN:

The global economic slowdown`s impact on the Indian stock market was far more pronounced than expected and was not at all commensurate with the extent to which the Indian economy was implicated. The fall in the Sensex from 21400 (January 2008) to about 8000 in less than a year corresponds to a fall in `Y`from 20.5 to 16.0 ie  by about 4.5 points. More than two thirds of this can be attributed to `irrational behavior’. For quite some time before the impact of the slowdown, the sensex was beyond the optimistic range and then the shear momentum of its fall carried it to below the Pessimistic range.An overall impact of ( – ) 3.0 is considered appropriate for this category. Out of this 50 % ie ( -) 1.5 can be taken as already absorbed and discounted in the current fair value and the remaining ( – ) 1.5 attributed to the future to take care of the balance uncertainties of the current slowdown and the probabilities of similar recessions in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE:

This is an enormously complex problem. The trouble is that a certain 7 % of the world`s population (the richest) generates 50 % of the world`s Green house gases, and a certain 50% of the population generates just 7% of GHGs.It is this fact that makes the solution of the problem extremely complex in as much as the targets and time frames for reducing emissions by countries need to be commensurate with the quantum of their existing per capita emissions rather than total emissions. But the overall targets for reducing emissions to a certain acceptable level in a certain time frame say by 2050 cannot be met in this way, and so the only way out is that country `x` will have to pay the carbon price for its old excessive emissions to a country `y` for reducing its future emissions to an unfairly low level. Indeed the mathematics is complicating and  the solutions which are acceptable to all concerned are not easy to find. Needless to say that perfect solutions will not be forthcoming unless there is a global approach, global understanding and global cooperation. For countries like India where removal of poverty is still a more pressing issue, and per capita emissions are less than in developed countries (Though the total quantum of emissions are substantial ) targets for reducing emissions may not be so stringent at present, and adaptation rather than mitigation seems to be their approach to the problem. Though it may be some years before direct impact is felt in India, ten years from now it will become imperative and unavoidable for India to address these problems in a scientific manner and it goes without saying that resolution of these issues will be at the cost of recession in some sectors like Auto & Power sectors at first and consequently several other sectors in course of time whereas some sectors may even benefit such as IT Sector. A negative impact of 2.5 is considered in this category.

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES:

Continued advances in technology  is one of the most dominant factors in stimulating growth and development worldwide over the last hundred years and continues to do so. There is no knowing what surprises are in store for us. Who knows there may be some technological breakthroughs to address issues such as global warming or depletion of resources? Computing power is forever increasing; Moore’s law which states that computing power is doubling every eighteen months is still going strong, though it may not last for many more years, it is possible after a gap of several years there may be a sudden jump in computing power when Quantum computation is made possible practically. A positive impact of 1.0 is considered in this category.

2009 ELECTION RESULTS AND THE INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM:

A  comfortable majority for the UPA augers well for the future, at least for the next 5 years and a positive impact of 0.5 points is considered in the fair value  Yf30 itself. However in the long term a negative impact of 0.5 is taken in this category, as it appears that some political parties having negative ideologies may persist with these ideologies, such as BJP with its non secular approach, and the Left parties with their Anti West approach. The negative impact could have been more but for the fact that the former(BJP) tends to be somewhat less non secular when in power and the latter (the Left) has scant probability of ever attaining enough numbers to cause concern.

INDO US NUCLEAR DEAL:

Can spur India`s growth even further, improve energy security, enhance India`s status in the world in the context of overall non proliferation. Positive impact considered 0.5.

LIKELY GLOBALISATION AND COLLECTIVE APPROACH:

Globalization in the world is progressing gradually but steadily. Also More and more nations are becoming democracies. In recent times we are seeing a new found collective approach to resolve problems of all kind. Recent G-20 meets to address the economic slowdown issues was highly successful. Wars between nations are becoming rare. State terrorism has declined somewhat.  In general there has been a marked improvement in relations between countries. People have realized that tourism is a better option than geographical controls. However the picture may not remain rosy for long. The problem of population explosion if not addressed amicably and in time (10 to 15 years) may have far reaching implications with rising nuclear war probabilities. For a 15 year period however a positive impact of 1.0 points is considered in this category.“

From the overall impact of all the factors listed in the table above it can be inferred that `Yf30` as on 01-04-2009 was 1.5 points less than Yf29 worked out earlier as 19.0 and and will further reduce uniformly by another 1.5 points by 01-04-2024.Thus Yf30 is taken as 17.5 and Yf45 as 16.0 Predicted values of the Sensex for the next 15 years are worked out in the following manner and shown in Table 3 (refer Appendix A-03).

1. A) REASONABLE VALUES:

From equation 1 Fair values of the Sensex  on 01-04-2009 and 01-04-2024 are worked out as 12622 and 79544 respectively  based on `Yf30` as 17.5 and Yf45 as 16.0 Fair values during the intervening period are worked out at yearly  intervals on the assumption that the `Yf“ factor reduces progressively from 17.5 as on 1^st April 2009 to 16.0 as on 1^st April 2024.Fair value range is determined as varying from a value which is the average of the fair and pessimistic values to a value which is the average of the fair and optimistic values.

1. B) PESSIMISTIC VALUES:

Pessimistic values of the sensex are determined by simply reducing the `Y` factor by 0.75 percentage points. Thus pessimistic value as on 01-04-2009 is worked out as 10416 based on a `Y` factor of 16.75Pessimistic value as on 01-04-2024 is worked out as 59408 based on a `Y` factor of 15.25. Pessimistic values during the intervening period are worked out on the assumption that the `Y` factor reduces progressively from 16.75 to

15.25.The pessimistic range is determined as follows: the upper value of the range is the same as the lower value of the fair range, and the difference between this value and the pessimistic value is deducted from the pessimistic value to get the lower value of the pessimistic range

1. C) OPTIMISTIC VALUES:

Likewise the optimistic values are determined by simply increasing the `Y` factor by 0.75 percentage point and are worked out as 15277 as on 01-04-2009,and 106307 as on 01-04-2024,and the intervening values as well as the range worked out in the manner as shown above. The optimistic range has its lower value same us upper value of the fair range and the difference between this value and the optimistic value is added to the optimistic value to get the upper value of the optimistic range.

From Table 3 we can work out the minimum and maximum ROI for various durations of holdings, the minimum ROI corresponding to buying at maximum of O range and selling at minimum of P range and visa versa for maximum ROI.This is shown in Table 4/chart1 (see Appendix A-04).It can be seen that the longer the duration of holding the higher is the minimum guaranteed ROI provided all transactions are done when the index is within the overall range. Note that the index is likely to remain in the broad range for more than 95 % of the time. An example to show how to calculate the likely minimum and maximum ROI for a specific investment made for a specific duration of time is given below:

Suppose `A` wants to invest in October 2010 when the sensex is 17000 on the day of his investment and he decides to remain invested till April 2022.

Period of investment = 11.5 years

Lowest of P Range on April 2022 (From table 3) = 40452

Minimum ROI = ( ( 40452/17000)^(I/11.5) -1)*100 = 7.8 percent.

Highest of O range on April 2022 = 94092

Maximum ROI = ((94092/17000)^(1/11.5) – 1)*100 = 16.0 percent.

We now discuss the issue regarding the coefficient of reliability of the forecasts made in this article. The Question is which particular forecast needs to be reliable. Should it be a requirement that the Fair range of the sensex as on 01-04-2024 be precisely as predicted here ie from 69500 to 93000 or that Yf45 should be precisely 16.0? I do not think this is a necessary requirement nor is it possible for any expert in the world to make such a precise prediction All that is necessary is that the statement made at the beginning, viz that ` For a long term investment the ROI will vary from fairly decent at its minimum to excellent at its maximum` should be  a reliable statement. Its easy to see that this statement will hold good not just for Yf45= 16.0 but for all values of Yf45 >16.0 and in fact will get better and better as Yf45 increases beyond 16.0.The probability that Yf45 is expected to be >16 is further enhanced when we consider that it has been worked out quite conservatively. The figure is in fact lower than the lowest value (16.5) seen in the last 30 years (see Table 2 – B002).Expecting Yf45 to be less than 16 is identical to an expectation that the growth rate of the sensex for the next 15 years will be less than 13 % as compared to a growth rate of 17.5 % seen in the last 30 years.For minimum ROI( based on investments made at the highest level of O Range) to be in any of the following categories, the corresponding probabilities, the required `Y` Factors etc are indicated in the table below:

For `A` to be still a loser after remaining invested for 10 years,Yf45 must go down to 13.8 which is similar to expecting today`s sensex  going below the 5000 mark and staying there for a substantial length of time. By no means is this an impossible situation. Nuclear war is always a distinct possibility. However if that happens there may be other pressing life and death issues to be confronted with, and winning and losing at the stock exchange may have hardly any relevance.

APPENDIX   A
(A -01)

TABLE 1

EVALUATION OF `Y` FROM SENSEX VALUES

(A -02)
TABLE    2
EVALUATION OF FAIR VALUE Y FACTORS (Yft) OF THE PAST

(A -03)
TABLE – 3
PREDICTED FUTURE FAIR, OPTIMISTIC, AND PESSIMISTIC SENSEX VALUES

( A-04 )
TABLE 4
Maximum and minimum ROI (Compounded annually) expectation provided all  transactions made within the broad range – ie lowest of pessimistic to highest of optimistic: 

BY

S.K.SAGAR …BANGALORE

So far so good.

But there will be  no such good luck for our parent Black holes. They are proceeding headlong towards collision pulling at each other. To us, it looks like Andromeda coming towards us, but to someone  on the planet called `Dearth` of the star system `Stun` in Andromeda, it may look like the Milky Way is heading towards them. And they are Supermassive  – these black holes – by any yard stick you can think of. The Milky way Black hole is about four million times as massive as Sun, and the Andromeda black hole could be about five million times as massive as Sun ( I haven`t checked this). And when they do collide..it won`t be as moderate a collision as the Jim Reeves ( or Roger Miller) song suggests. You can rest assured it will be Earth shattering…Oh ! What am I saying…it will be Black hole shattering. And the impact will not be without its effect on all the star sytems orbiting the black holes.

And so even if we – from Sun and Stun –  pass each other without touching , escaping from danger will not be a cake walk … rather it is certain to be a cake walk going into  that danger. We have no idea, how the orbits will be reoriented and what unforeseen forces will act upon us…but we have a fairly good idea that these forces will be catastrophic in magnitude, and it will not be just tension or compression, you can rest assured there will be torsion too.

Indeed we will have to rise to the occasion, and do the necessary calculations on how to escape from the catastrophe. No God of any kind will come to our rescue. We will all have to manage with that `Intelligent Field` travelling with us with all the information contained in the field. For, once the information goes into the black holes it will be lost forever. Maybe in deep future it may come out again as Hawking radiation… but that will be too late.

And four billion years is not so much of a time on cosmic scales, considering the universe ( at least the present aeon of) is just 13.7 billion years old. So if the present age of the universe is considered as twenty four hours, then the forthcoming collision is just about seven hours away.

But the trouble is we the human beings  – on whom a great many technological civilizations of our galaxy will perhaps be banking on –  arrived  just three  seconds back and we haven`t stopped fighting each other yet. And the manner in which our population is rising , the manner in which we are accumulating nuclear arsenals, and the manner in which we are fighting to save our egos, is a clear-cut sign that our civilization will collapse   within the next three or four centuries, which on the above scale works out to just a fraction of a second.

And what happens when we self destruct our civilization…  simple .. we all seven billion ..or so.. `Minds` or `souls` whatever,  find ourselves stranded in interstellar space with no idea where to go or where to find   another  suitable environment to come alive again. And in case if we have to wait for the Dinosaurs to come and go, it may be a long wait as we never know when – if ever –  a huge asteroid will strike again.

So if we are to hope for living long enough to first colonize the galaxy, and then living as long as the next four billion years, and hope to save ourselves and our  galactic friends from that fateful collision, we need to first create probabilities on our planet Earth to survive from the immediate danger of `Self Destruction`.

And to do just that, a formula ….   …. is given in my book : `SIX WORDS ….Seminar held in a parallel universe`

Good luck