BP 50013 - 77221 TOURNAN cedex (France)

FAX: + 33 1 64 42 86 68

Click here for lectures by Frank HATEM DSD.



by Frank HATEM (France)

Ever since Karl POPPER who, around 1935, defined the scientific nature of a theoretical proposition as being the possibility to build experiments which disproved it, the notion of " science " has applied above all to Physics and its derivatives : the domain of experimental verification.

As a result of POPPER's position, observation and experimentation themselves are thus excluded from scientific inquiry ; what is true, and proves itself thus experimentally, is nonetheless unscientific, even if nobody can question it. The act of observing, the act of feeling, of perceiving time and space, is questioned by no one. No physical experiment can disprove these fundamental precepts of knowledge, because all of them, irrespectively, serve irrefutably to confirm the perception of the universe, and implicitly, their relationship to it.

Ever since then, existence is no longer a scientific fact. The universe IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC OBJECT, because all experiments are contained within it, are part and parcel of it, and thereby confirm it. Experiments are incapable of disproving it. So, Science forbids itself to talk about the universe. MATTER ITSELF, and energy, are not scientific objects because all experience and all experiments depend upon them and utilise them, thereby rendering impossible the refutation of their reality. So Physics has nothing to say about matter. Another science is necessary.

So, Physics' epistemology is based on a profound contradiction : the bases upon which Physics is founded are UNSCIENTIFIC.

Our goal is to make them more scientific.

This " incompetency " produces severe consequences in the validity of theories about matter, atoms, energy, space, time, and life. A renewal, founded on new bases, is necessary. Science is now limited to serve strictly utilitarian, practical, and technological ends, which do not require any understanding of the universe. Today, you can be right without being scientific, and scientific without being right.

That's a shame because what has activated and motivated man in the development of Science is, precisely, the desire for truth and certainty, whatever may be said. Popperian epistemology is in direct opposition to this, but cannot eradicate it.

Quantum Science demonstrates this : utilitarian ends are now being confronted by the question of the existence itself of matter, independant of the phenomenon of observation. But observation itself is not a scientific object, all experiments (and experience) inherently attesting its proof, and at the same time being incapable of invalidating it. No proposition which claims the primacy of observation over the observed can be " scientific " by nature. Science is confronted by the impossibility to competently answer the problems raised by scientific observation.

It is imperative to break this deadlock if further scientific progress is to be possible (apart from in the technological field, of course). A new epistemology is essential, one that is not based on experimental invalidation.

It could be called " cognitive or metaphysical epistemology ", because it transcends the only sphere that, up until now, has been taken into account : the domain of Physics. At the same time, it is essential that physicists refrain from drawing conclusions regarding the metaphysical questions raised by their work : conclusions which are based on a now invalid epistemology that inevitably lead to further confusion.

A cognitive epistemology does in fact exist ever since 1985, and its principles are taught by the Académie de la Rozeille (France).

These principles provide the answers to Science's main questions and reveal the origin of today's scientific mistakes.

Maybe you think it is impossible to answer these questions. In this major challenge for the 21st century, the referee is YOU.



Before clicking on the underlined words, please read this web till the end. To receive the book to which these texts refer, click here.

I - The "Big Bang" theories do not explain the origin of space and time, nor of energy and matter The Zero-Mystery Science does. (If you click on the underlined words, please be patient. Most of the links on this site take about ten or fifteen minutes to load - with only a black background to look at while you wait... so be warned! - because they are all lengthy and full of explanatory diagrams).

II - An aimless and uncontrolled explosion would be unable to create evolution towards more and more perfection. This evolutionary problem is solved by the Zero-Mystery Science (New theory of Evolution and Fluid Mechanics).

III - Physics and neuro-Psychology are unable to explain what mind is and where it comes from. The Zero-Mystery Science does.

IV - Quantum Mechanics cannot explain how immaterial particles manage to build up a material universe. The Zero-Mystery Science does, thanks to "Degravitation" (the "Hatem Effect").

V - Quantum Mechanics explains neither Gravitation nor other kinds of energy in atoms. The Zero-Mystery Science does.

VI - Only the Zero-Mystery Science can explain why the Earth and planets spin and rotate around stars ; why stars shine and spin, and why the Moon rocks.

VII - And also explain why there are atoms and particles.

VIII - Quantum Mechanics prevents any cohesion in matter. It can neither explain the mechanical consistency of matter nor the everlastingness of the universe

The Zero-Mystery Science does.

IX - One of the major contradictions in University Sciences is the fact that the "Big Bang" theory says that mind evolves from matter, while Quantum Mechanics says that matter is a consequence of mind. Unlike them, the Zero-Mystery Science does not lack unification : it is a Zero-Contradiction Science.

X - Science also acknowledges several incomprehensible miracles:

By what miracle do the number of electrons and protons balance each other's charges?

By what miracle does every " proton ", " electron ", " neutron ", have exactly the same mass and the same " electric charge ", whereas no two things are ever exactly the same in the universe ?

By what miracle are anti-matter and matter of equal quantity?

All of these problems, as well as the one of " hidden mass ", only appear because of errors in the conception of matter and of particles.

With two-pole particles, as proposed by the Zero-Mystery Science, these problems completely disappear.


You know what Physics is: a science conceived according to the observation of matter, aimed at understanding matter. But when physicists arrive at the very core of atoms, they discover... nothing. Or at most a little mind, a little will, maybe that of the observer.

So Physics leads them to conclude that there's nothing physical. Everything is ruled by Physics' worst enemy: Metaphysics (the science of causes, not of "physical" effects).

Another science has been created: Quantum Physics, at the mid-point between old Physics and the Metaphysics of the future. A science in which, seemingly, matter is no longer the point of reference: Mind, the observer's mind, is the major issue.

If Quantum Mechanics were true for the atom, it should be true for the universe as a whole as well: the "outer universe", too, should be generated by the observer's mind. And this should be taught in universities.

Is it?

No. In universities, the "Big Bang" theory is still being taught, and is recognized by the international scientific community as being the most " probable " origin of things.

A cruel dilemma for physicists. So they have to teach that the universe was born in a violent explosion, providing it with the energy it should need to evolve, an explosion of " something " where atoms will be born, gather together, agglutinate, and build beings able to think, observe, and ask questions.

The various Big Bang theories allege that everything comes from matter or some "concentrated energy" (i.e., matter). And that mind is a product of evolution, and not the producer. If some physicists try to cancel the contradiction by saying that the explosion is an explosion of mind, they lie. Mind doesn't explode. Mind knows and wills. A brutal explosion of observations is nonsense. " Mindblowing " indeed !

Cruel fate. So, to be a physicist today is to be torn between two contradictory options, both recognized and almost irrefutable: Quantum Physics from mind to matter, and "Big Bang", from matter to mind.

Obviously, if Physics wants to have some consistency, it will have to give up one of these two options, or even both. Most likely both. For if no serious scientist today believes any longer in the "Big Bang" theory, no serious scientist thinks that Quantum Physics will lead to real knowledge of the origin of the universe. It raises too many problems and is too far removed from reality. Its only consistency is a mathematical one. In fact, Quantum Physics is doomed to remain only a utilitarian theory, able to produce several technical advantages. But to explain the origin of things, it is doomed to be replaced by something even less physical: by Metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the science of the cause of observation itself. Of creative consciousness. Some physicists know that they now have to listen to what else has been said: Notably in Metaphysics, where all the answers to their questions are now available. Since they have ears to hear, they are going to discover with great joy what only several hundred people already know.

Why hundreds instead of thousands? Instead of millions? As long as the French scientific community denies non-physical ways of knowledge (because this theory of mind and matter comes from France, as foreseen by the Tibetan), Metaphysics can't be taught in universities; it can't be broadcast on TV. And people say: maybe you're right, but what do scientists think about your metaphysical theory?

Scientists think nothing about it. They ignore it. They will ignore it as long as they fail to admit certain fundamental errors in Physics. Fortunately, in the United States, some physicists are prepared to admit that everything is definitely spiritual. Let Metaphysics explain; that is its job. Physics' job is to describe and to copy mechanisms. Metaphysics' job is to understand why.

To understand why everything spiritual looks material, you must understand why and how YOUR mind takes the form of external atoms, where your mind comes from, and why it is obliged to feel itself evolving toward the undisputable aim, that we shall explain later. Soon, there will no longer be any problem for you about the universe, and it will be a great joy for you as it was for us.


I - Do you still believe in

the "Big Bang" Theory ?

II - Quantum Mechanics :

No Future ?

III - About Time.

Towards a Science of Mind


I - Do you still believe in

the "Big Bang" Theory ?

with Léon Raoul HATEM


One of the major errors of Physics comes from the ignorance of what a cause is. Since they believe that the cause is the origin IN time, they search for an explanation of the existence of the universe in its past. This is impossible. If the effect is present, the cause is present. Time and the universe are the same thing, hence you cannot explain the universe within time. Time cannot start somewhere in time, niether can the universe.

The "Big Bang" theory is founded on the Newtonian theory of "Gravitation". If magnetism rules the universe, as we demonstrate, this theory becomes impossible. We explain below that dualistic magnetism creates planets and particles at great distances from each other, and renders impossible the concentration of all matter or energy in the same place. So, no "explosion" is possible; and this "explosion" theory becomes redundant since it is easy to explain the kinetic energy of motions in the universe without the need for any "impulse" at the beginning. Anyway, it is difficult to imagine that an explosion could create the complexity of life and evolution. And most important of all, it is impossible to explain the explosion of something out of NOTHINGNESS, together with the beginning of time one day in past time, which are in direct contradiction to Quantum Physics' assertion that matter comes from mind.

Most of our webs are free, although many people think the information they contain is worth Nobel Prices, and really can make a difference.
If you want us to continue, and can help us, please donate, by a kind click on button below.
Thank you very much indeed.

LEON RAOUL HATEM will now talk with you about that.

YOU: Please, Mr ATOM... Sorry: HATEM, what is "The Big Bang" theory?

Léon Raoul HATEM: Nobody really knows what it was: A supposed huge explosion of all available matter (or energy), concentrated in one point, supposed to provide the universe with all its movement, atoms and stars. It's considered to be the best hypothesis to explain the huge amount of energy required to move stars and planets. Pieces of exploding " something " allegedly were launched in space about 15 BILLION YEARS AGO, giving rise to atoms.

You may have noticed that heat is, in fact, a result of the concentration and MOTIONS of atoms, and that as long as there are no atoms, there can be no heat. Physicists do not know what heat is, and imagine that heat exists in its own right. If there had been a concentration of everything somewhere, motion would have been impossible, there would have been no friction at all, and it would have been absolutely cold. As long as physicists fail to demonstrate that heat exists without atoms, I cannot believe in any original explosion due to initial heat. We know that heat comes from compressed atoms. So, for there to be heat, atoms must already exist. However, the Big Bang theory does not explain where the atoms and the matter come from.

YOU : Do you have the answer?

L. R. H. : If there were none, I would not be here talking with you. There is no heat at the beginning. The Zero-Point is NOTHINGNESS. And creation takes place at each present moment. Not in the past once and for all, but at every moment. The principles we shall explain later generate instants of infinite mind, and this mind is obliged to reduce itself to concentrated forms which are " particles ". This takes place without time, outside of time. Time starts when motions start, and they start slowly and quietly at their scale, in accordance with some still-unknown (in Earth's universities) magnetic laws. We will explain all of this later. At our scale, we cannot see this. It is too quick to be perceived. It is immediate. But the whole universe re-creates itself at each moment within mind, each time a little different.

It is not possible to sum this up now. Please be patient.

An explosion of matter in the past is a childish idea. It becomes stupid if, at the same time, it is supposed to create millions of galaxies with billions of little birds singing in the trees.

YOU: Surely, a " God " willing to create life would be better qualified. A smiling little bird is a strange result for an explosion.

L. R. H.: In fact, from an explosion or anything sudden, only DEGRADATION is possible. Not improvement or increasing complexity. So, if a "big bang" had happened, surely it would have been much more intelligent, good-looking and fuller of love than we are now.

Without a deep and strong " will " within " matter " and " energy " to live and to evolve, it is impossible to explain anything. Even a single atom cannot be the result of chance. Too many conditions are necessary for it to be.

YOU: Atoms are supposed to be born out of the explosion, but Quantum Physics says that they are made niether of particles of matter nor of movement. Only of numbers. What, then, is the purpose of the explosion? Is it an explosion of probabilities ?

L. R. H.: The only real " big bang " is the revolution in thought that knowledge can bring forth. The universe is not an expolsion of " matter " outside the " zero-point ", but an implosion of intelligence and love INSIDE the nil-point. The " Big Bang " theory was invented because of some supposed expansion of the universe; thus Abbé Lemaître imagined that it was more concentrated in the past, and the discovery of nuclear explosion made some physicists think that a concentration of matter could have exploded. If atoms were formed before, to generate heat and the explosion, then we will have to find another explanation for the origin of the universe, because this theory appears to be only the description of a change in the distribution of atoms. So, it's redundant. And if atoms were not already formed, then it must explain their coming into existence. Even if an explosion were responsible for some revolving motions in the sky, it would be absolutely incapable of providing particles with reasons to spin and remain in their orbits for billions of years... In order to create bigger masses also spinning and revolving! The Big Bang theory wasn't invented to explain atoms, and it can't explain them. So, it doesn't explain the universe at all.

And there is another reason why that theory is useless : In fact, an explosion is necessary only if you believe that atoms and planets consume energy in order to move at their incredible speeds. But they don't. Their motive energy is created all the time by their magnetic relations between one another, derived from a cause we will explain later. So, no colossal primary push, coming from any explosion, is required.

YOU: But the Big Bang was invented according to actual observations. The expansion of stars, the background light and its disparities, the range of mineral elements, where helium atoms are too numerous...

Doesn't the expanding universe confirm that it was concentrated a billion years ago?
L. R. H.: First of all, it's impossible to be sure that the whole universe is expanding, instead of just the part of it in which our galaxy takes place. Secondly, the expansion is supposed to occur according to the interpretation of the apparent shift of the stars' spectrum towards red. Since physicists know the Doppler effect, which shifts waves according to your position and the motion of the source, they interpreted this shift of light in the same terms. But it does not mean that this is so. Maybe it is a matter of evolution. The farther you look in space, the earlier you see in time, where the universe is less evolved. The colours you see depend on the wave length, which depends on the acceleration of motion from the beginning, and on the concentration of energy. So, you must not believe that expansion is a certainty. It is only a hypothesis proved by nothing.
This shift is bigger and bigger the farther you look into the past. If it were an expansion, this would mean that the expansion is faster and faster since the beginning. This is impossible. Where would the increase in speed come from? From what source of energy? After an explosion, motions never speed up.

Our spiritual interpretation is consistent with this observation: the farther you look, the lower the level of evolution; so the shift of the stars' color spectrum of colors is increasingly accentuated.

In any case, this alleged expansion makes this model unable to create a universe : An expansion would be that of all the pieces of matter in all directions from the exploding center. So, how could they encounter other ones in order to make a planetary system? The universe cannot be the result of an expansion, even if there is expansion. And thirdly, there are other reasons why the universe expands. But those reasons are due to rules that scientists are still ignoring, and which explain the "background light", which is supposed to be the residue of the explosion.

YOU: Are you sure that physicists still believe in an explosion of matter? Some now say that it is a boundless field of energy which becomes solid little by little, or that there are many little "bangs" everywhere...

L. R. H.: If physicists stop backing the idea of explosion, there will no longer be a "Big Bang" theory. No bang at all. There will just be Laplace's Nebula. But if there is no explosion, it will be difficult to explain the motions of stars and, most of all, of atomic particles.

And if there are several big bangs, we can imagine whatever we want. A big bang for each star, or a big bang at every moment. In fact, they are obliged to admit, sooner or later, that the origin takes place everywhere at the same time, and at each moment of time, without expansion, and to forget Doppler effect and " background light ".

To really explain a universe, or an infinite number of universes, created at each moment, they will be forced to invent a spiritual theory of "I AM", just as we shall explain it, an eternal source of consciousness and energy which gives rise to the effect of matter, thanks to magnetic energy. If they do not, they will never explain anything. There is no other option.

I do not mean that physicists are stupid. I only think they are afraid of truth. Scientists generally know that the "big bang" theory is impossible. The problem is that they have nothing with which to replace it, it is consistent with the usual mistakes of Physics (but in absolute contradiction to Quantum Physics). So they carry on teaching it.

We will not talk about today's Physics any longer. What is most interesting is to understand the universe. We have everything we need at our disposal for that: we shall explain how to emerge from Nothingness at each moment because of an undisputable AIM ; we shall explain the origin of space and time, and how the effects of matter and particles arise; we shall demonstrate which energy is the only possible energy, and why it creates two-pole concentrations of mind, far from each other, and why they are obliged to start moving without any external intervention. We are going to see the birth of an atom. And when you understand ONE atomic system, you understand the whole mechanics of the whole universe.

YOU: Do you think everybody will be able to understand?

L. R. H.: Of course. It's man's nature that we are going to show. No complication is necessary. The universe is the simplest thing you could imagine. If not, it wouldn't exist. The only complications that exist are those which man himself introduces in order not to understand. And when things become too complicated, he needs Mathematics to bail him out. We never use Mathematics. It is only necessary for technical achievements, not for comprehension. Everything here is concrete and full of life. Mathematics, as taught in Universities, is part of the Universe. It is a consequence of Physics. So it cannot explain the Universe and is of no use to us since our purpose is to show the reality " beyond ", or " before " the physical universe.

The atom is everyone's problem. Everybody must know how an atom works in order to know his own body. THE WHOLE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE AND OF MAN CAN BE FOUND WITHIN A COUPLE OF MARBLES REVOLVING AROUND EACH OTHER. And it is a wonder. Something absolutely miraculous; incredible: In free space, spheres start turning and revolving and continue for eternity! It is certain that there cannot be two different explanations for that. It is too extraordinary. It is impossible for there to be two theories, one for the sky, and one for the atoms, leading to the same result! Nonsense again. Even if physicists now say that particles do not revolve around nuclei. But their model of the quantum atom cannot account for macrocosmic effects of matter. They are in total confusion, and this leads them to complicate their theories, and each day invent new laws for new phenomena.

YOU: Stephen Hawking said that when the true theory of the universe is discovered, it will be easy to understand, and everybody will be able to talk about it. Do you think that everybody will find your theory easy to understand?

L. R. H.: Not easy but simple. As soon as they get used to a few metaphysical concepts. For there are no mathematics, and only ONE Creative Principle accounting for every phenomenon in the universe. A Creative Principle which of course is present at every point of Infinity, granting every atom its own source of power. This is the only way to explain such a universe: only one source somewhere is nonsense. The Creative Principle we propose is based on three legs in order to give stability to matter: magnetical dualism, harmony (synchronized spins) which produces kinetic energy and generates gravitation, and revolving motion which balances accelerations and produces equilibrium (we say "revolution" or "revolving" when a planet turns around another one, like the Earth around the Sun, and "spin motion" for the turning motion of a planet around its rotation axis: the Earth "spins").

When you understand why those "marbles" are, and why they turn, you understand what you are. Those marbles are stars, planets, but also protons, electrons, your body and your form. To understand our bodies' birth, we shall refer to a little machine which shows us the main principles of universal mechanics.

If you want to read our proposals about the problems we have talked about, you only have to click on the underlined words.


II - Quantum Mechanics :

No Future ?

by Frank HATEM

Does Quantum Mechanics lead to Knowledge or to its own collapse? (Seeking a little piece of matter, do physicists find a little peace of mind?)

Well done ! Quantum Mechanics has called into question the mutual separability of atomic particles in certain conditions: effecting manipulations to one particle simultaneously manipulates others. And likewise, mind can determine what is being observed, thereby depriving matter of a large part of its objectivity. This has led a number of spiritualists to proclaim : " There you are ! Physics is in the process of proving " God ", unity, and the spiritual nature of the universe. "

That's perhaps talking too soon because if we look into the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics, we find that this apparent progress is much more related to progress in observational techniques than in theoretical principles emanating from the notion of quantum.

In fact, the basic principles of Quantum Physics are radically opposed to metaphysical concerns. Quantum Physics is, and shall remain, an instrumental theory, essentially useful for technical application, but as incapable as Classical Physics of explaining the origin of the universe.

Physics obliges us to observe the instant,
which forbids us from believing
in the reality of matter.

Moreover, Quantum Mechanics originates more from the evolution of observation techniques than from Planck's notion of " quantum ".

For a long time, unity was assumed between celestial mechanics and atomic mechanics. There were many reasons for this. However, while the Cosmos can be observed daily, and the position of planets predicted in advance by referring to their past movements, techniques designed to observe particles found themselves confronted with the impossible : we can only observe particles by intercepting them, surveying their traces, eventually by destroying them.

Only their instantaneous positions can be known, and in this split-second instant it is obviously impossible to observe a SPEED, a continuous movement.

Whether we like it or not, these observation techniques are largely responsible for the radical separation in theories between universal macrocosmic mechanics (which remains essentially newtonian in orientation, because physical movement is part and parcel of it) and atomic physics.

The atom has become a statistical entity, electrons only having a position according to certain probabilities. These positions can be verified by interception, but then nothing can be revealed either about their anterior positions, or about what would have been an electron's position had it not been intercepted. Which has led to it being said that " quantum objects " only exist when we observe them, unlike macrocosmic objects.

It's a shame that we have never stopped to ask ourselves if, in fact, the celestial macrocosm wouldn't behave in exactly the same way if we could only observe stars by intercepting their trajectories. In fact, we would come to the same statistical theory, which leads us to believe, in fact, that there is not necessarily any difference in nature between galaxies and atoms. We would never have envisaged a statistical theory for atoms if, as with stars, we could have permanently observed them in their movements.

Having said that, the reality of particles dependent upon observation could have called into question the notion of matter in a much more productive way. Imagine that we weren't GIFted with sight: surrounding objects would only become real for us if we collide with or brush up against them. Physicists are only trying to invent a number of " technical senses " with which to understand the atom, and hence their theories only reflect the limitation in quality of these " senses ".

For the material macrocosmic world, the number of senses is limited. Less limited, it's true. It's reasonable that, here, another logic has been elaborated. But there's no more reason here to believe in objectivity (of movement, as of matter or of energy), than there is regarding the atom. Other senses allow for a more elaborated and more temporal conception of matter than in the case in which we depend purely upon physical contact. But this doesn't mean that matter is any different in nature.

Moreover, it probably wouldn't occur to any scientific mind to claim that stars are constituted by atoms which lack material or energetic existence, " quantum atoms ", but that nonetheless these stars have a material reality that is not dependent upon instantaneous observation.

Have we never observed the universe other than in the present moment ? Does movement in time exist in reality, or is it simply the present phenomenon of MEMORY ? All evidence leads to suggest, uncontestably, that it's sheer memory. Only memory gives matter its " objectivity ", and therefore matter IS NOT objective. The only difference with the atom is that, in its case, there is no possibility of antecedent memory of the immediate observation. We find ourselves confronted by the present instant, which alone exists, but which in fact (being null, a zero-point) removes all reality from the existence of things.

Whence the physcists' obligation to recall that metaphysicians exist, a fact that was possible to ignore as long as the illusion of time in macrocosmic observation seemed to confirm the uncontestable reality of things. This " reality " is nothing but our present memory.

According to HEISENBERG, one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics, the atom is a mathematical abstraction created by mind, as is the universe. For an increasing number of quantum physicists, the world's reality is, by dint of the examples we have shown, very often purely spiritual. We could now well ask what exactly separates science from spirituality ? In all truth very little, but this " very little " is determinant with regard to the consequences for human, social and moral issues. And a choice has to be made.

Something else that HEISENBERG said clarifies this further : " The division of the world into two parts (an observed system and a system of observation) is opposed to the notion that the law of causality is rigorously founded ".

In other words, to separate the observer from the observed, is to put an end to all logic, and to prevent the understanding of the universe in a coherent way. This is completely true because Logic is by definition the identifying link between two elements : the universe can only be logical if it's the same nature as man's mind.

We cannot " comprehend " (understand) the universe
unless we " comprehend " (include) it
(or unless it is part of us).

All that's needed would be to stop separating the " observer system " from the " observed system ", and the law of causality would come into its own right. The complete comprehensibility of the world would return. However, physical science cannot allow that. It is attached, by definition, to the " observation of the external and material world ", which it sees as being physical, as opposed to being spiritual and subjective: the " observer system " (i.e. physicists and their instruments of measurement). It's obvious that Physics can only lead to a dead end as far as explanations are concerned, and that is exactly where it finds itself .

Physics seeks to unify, but on the condition that it does not unite.

Today, common consensus in the scientific community recognizes that science is " instrumental ", that it can be used to master effects by developping the technical capacity of matter, but that it is anything but explanatory. The explanation of the universe is religated to the " non-scientific ", domains of Religions, Philosophy (to the extent that we accept the definition of Science as being what is externally verifiable, thus the extremely abusive assimilation of Science and Physics).

However, we can only admire the perseverance of physicists, who continue to consider that their discipline is " scientific " when it has, by now, become well established that it is in complete opposition to Logic and to the causal understanding of phenomena. Physics proves itself to be unscientific: on the one hand, it recognizes the spiritual nature of phenomena (which implies unity between the observer and the observed), while on the other hand, maintaining, as a definition of what is scientific, the separation between the observer and the observed, in the name of objectivity. Who do they think they are kidding ?

Luckily, this is not always the case. There is another science - an anti-physics - which rejects this absurd separation between oneself and the universe, and considers that this separation is a hypothetical point of view, without any valid basis. On the contrary, the spiritual anteriority of the universe can be a certainty, and is therefore scientific. You only have to ask yourself :

" Can I be conscious
of something which is outside
my consciousness ? "

The answer is NO. If I am conscious of something, it is proof that it is part of my consciousness. So, all apparent material reality is spiritual. And this goes without saying, because everything we call matter is a sensation: of resistance, of impenetrability, of density, of inertia; and this sensation is purely mental. Nothing, ever, has been able to prove the existence of the most minute morsel of matter. We've known this ever since HERMES Trismegistos (" the universe is mental "), and long before, and it has been confirmed by many a philosopher since DESCARTES. Descartes' " cogito ergo sum ": " I am ", is the first certitude, upon which all others depend, just like the " I am " of JEHOVAH, proclaiming the unique divine reality to MOSES. In spite of that, and as a result of an imposture born out of nineteenth century materialist science, which continues to this day, those disciplines which affirm matter's reality claim to be scientific. Naturally, in getting to the bottom of these errors, we come to the opposite conclusion, which is where Quantum physics finds itself today.

But physicists are not yet ready to accept anything that calls into question the very foundations of their science. Because, if we take note of Heisenberg, we realize that if we do Physics (which consists in considering the observed world as being " external "), we cannot understand anything about the universe: have you ever seen a cause ?

We cannot find the cause
by observing effects.
What is visible is the result of a cause.
There is no visible cause.

Nonetheless, Heisenberg and many others continue to do physics and refuse all metaphysical incursions which, in studying the mind (the invisible world of causes) that observes the visible universe (the world of effects), enables us to understand things. Matter is a form of our mind, and Metaphysics unifies matter and mind by including matter IN mind (it is impossible to include mind into matter).

In reality, we can only understand things because they are INTERIOR to our mind. And the LOGIC discovered therein is the manifestation of the evident identity of natures between our reason and matter. To counteract this evidence, physicists often say that we cannot understand the universe because it is impossible to reach its objective reality. As if causality depended upon objective reality. How convenient ! That avoids giving us the impression that they cannot understand the universe (while also bringing us back to talk of an " unknowable God "). But it is erroneous. It is precisely because the universe appears to be exterior, even though it is interior, that it is interesting to search... and possible to find. And it's obviously oneself that one finds. Solitude is the unexpected and feared reward. The deep, unconscious reason for this error.

It is absolutely possible to understand
the universe and mind
(the origin and aim of existence)
in a completely rational way,

... with no difficulty whatsoever, as soon as we courageously accept the evidence that SELF and the universe are one and the same thing, without needing recourse to separatory observation. There are seven fundamental truths as valid as Descartes' Cogito, which enable us to understand the origin, the nature, and the aim of mind, which thinks in us, and equally of the universe, which is thought by each of us.

These truths lead to the fundamental certitude that,


Each of us is not a mind separated from everyone else, but the means whereby a unique Mind lives a particular unique universe, at once incomparable and incommunicable albeit essential for the constitution of an all-embracing Mind. In other words, what we call " God " (the Whole) is an imperious need for all of our personal limitations, and their resultant imperfections. And we can but respect and love the " other's " imperfections, which are necessarily different from our own, but mutually indispensable. An end to comparisons. An end to guilt. An end to exclusion. This spiritualist ethic is the opposite of the materialist one which rejects mind's responsibility, and considers that everything is matter and thus open to manipulation.

Let's not fool ourselves, spiritualist quantum physicists are still scarce. Physical science's monopoly of power positions in this world depends upon matter remaining the law, and it is not likely to give it up in a hurry.

" Quantum " means the smallest energetic value necessary for an energetic manifestation.

In fact, it is not a corpuscular reality but only the unit of measurement for the mechanical consistency of atoms. Until a certain quantity of energy is applied to an atom, the " electrons' " orbits remain unchanged. Beyond this quantity, they are. Of course, the cause of this resistance is unknown by Planck and his successors, and as usual, they get round the question by giving it a name.

The cause of mechanical consistency is to be found in magnetic synchronism between the " electrons' " and " nuclei's " spins, once we have accepted the magnetic duality of every particle (Léon Raoul HATEM's unitary theory of atoms and universal magnetic mechanics).

According to PLANCK and EINSTEIN, " quanta " would constitute waves which wouldn't be continuous but discrete. This corpuscular conception of energy, necessarily leads to a materialist conception of energy, since it is impossible to restrict a quantity of energy in space. This would represent a retrograde step in comparison to the energetic conception of matter, which is the first step toward realizing that matter is spiritual. In fact, the real nature of energy, as well as that of corpuscles, is unknown by physicists.

In fact, a wave's corpuscular aspect
(e.g. a " photon " released by an " electon ")
only appears when, and where, a wave (limited in power)
is intercepted, and because of this interception,
and the corpuscle's undulatory aspect comes from
the alternance of its opposing magnetic fields.

The Zero-Mystery Science can explain how the effect of matter, the " grain ", appears, there where the mind " freezes " energy 's movement by " observing it ". Quantum Mechanics is right to evoke " interactions " producing the creative " collapse ". But an interaction is a relationship, and you cannot believe that a particle can be born by this interaction and have a real existence. Its nature relies upon the intention behind the act of observation, and disappears when the relation ceases. It can neither exist before nor after. Each time you change the relationship, you change the particle. Hence you can discover as many particles as you want.

In fact, it is the evolution of observation techniques in the research of such " grains " that accounts for the separation that has occured between Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics.

What lends originality to Quantum Mechanics, as opposed to Classical Physics (that of causal relations in which we believe in objectivity, as did Newton and Einstein), is that it has at its disposal extremely modern experimental techniques. It's the experimentation process that has led to a division between the two ages: formerly, it was said that a particle was capable of movement, and that its position could be calculated at any given moment, just like a planet: here one moment, and there the next.

But we had never concretely tried out this observation. In doing so today, we find - surprise, surprise - that in any given particle's position, neither speed nor movement can be attributed to it. Obviously. Because in the present moment, it has no speed. Speed or movement can only be observed within time. The present moment has no duration.

Mind, which is always this present moment, cannot move in time and in space because it is already EVERYWHERE, in time and space. It follows that we can only know a particle through its movement (energy wave) without ever being able to observe it, or alternatively, as a corpuscule of matter (observed), but never both simultaneously.

The atom, deprived of its evolutionary dynamic, is no longer but a probabilistic system without reality, and without understanding, because it comes from nowhere, and is going nowhere. From now on, a particle is " likely " to be here or there, but there will be no evolutionary cause in that. Pure " elusive hazard ". This is a bit annoying because it suggests a determinist (i.e. governed by the laws of Mathematics and probability) image for the atom which is, on the contrary, intelligent. In forbidding matter to have a cause and an aim, we've made it an incomprehensible, meaningless virtuality. If we could only see the Moon by intercepting it and stopping its movement, we would also have invented a probabilist theory of the Moon.

As experimentation is accepted as being the sole criterion to gauge what is " scientific ", all visions other than this determinist vision of the atom, which might restore the atom's evolutionary intelligence, are rejected de facto. We are not allowed to know where the atom comes from or where it's going. The moral of this conception is, necessarily, that we can act with impunity on matter, and thereby on man, without concerning ourselves with their profound reality, their desires, their experience. Anything goes. And with it our civilization of genetic manipulation and the blind destruction of " living " atomic nuclei.

But this conception of " instant atoms " is severely threatened as soon as observation can no longer be used as a support: Quantum Mechanics itself begins to realize that the observer influences what is being observed to the point of... wondering whether he is not the source itself !

The experimental basis
of Quantum Mechanics
is in the process of " collapsing " .

This inextricable duality of the particle - on the one hand a wave of movement ; on the other hand a corpuscle, the result of probabilities - is an impossible contradiction to resolve. But it's this duality that, according to BOHR, has given birth to the atom. Actually, the intercepted wave is experienced as a " grain of matter ". That's only the observer's problem. It removes nothing of the atom's spiritual nature. And this wave is only a result of another spinning particle. Because energy is dualist, attractive and repulsive, at once mutually opposed and complementary, which is what provides the source of all our sensations.

And only this dualism allows us to explain energy from sheer NOTHINGNESS.

Today, the wave/particle contradiction is rationally resolved. The inseparability of the wave aspect and the corpuscle aspect goes without saying. But without this inextricable dilemna, theoretical Quantum Mechanics (and the fragile atom, and the anti-mechanics to which it has led) would have no reason to be. Hyper-fluids, supra-conductors, and televisions would continue to work in exactly the same way. The only difference would be the clear explanation of causes.

Spiritualists would be mistaken to expect anything from a science whose only " brain-wave " directly contradicts its own theoretical bases, and in spite of them. It is shown that the separation observer/observed is a psychological complex seeking to reassure certain fears belonging to the human consciousness, and that, accordingly, the non-causality which defines Quantum Mechanics is a dead end, causality having become re-established by others, leading to the total comprehension of the universe, and of its origin from Nothingness via mind, to its goal. Wave-particle incompatibility was resolved in 1955, whatever physicists may say. Today we are perfectly capable of understanding the atom in a spiritual, evolutionary process... As long as we dare look reality in the face, and pursue Logic to the end, the Logic of the Unity of me/universe.


Why do physicists today teach that there are positive particles (that they call "protons"), and negative ones (that they call "electrons")... and neutral ones: "neutrons")?

In 1897, Thomson discovered "negative charges" in atoms. If you ask a physicist what a "negative or positive charge" is, he cannot answer. It is an energetic effect. He cannot say what "energy" is either, nor what a "field" is. Never mind. In Physics, when a phenomenon is observed, it is given a name, not an explanation. "Gravitation" was invented this way, and Thomson similarly invented the "electron". A star was born. Although there is absolutely no reason at all to attribute a "charge" to a particle. Inventing a particle to explain a charge is completely arbitrary. Why don't they invent particles of wind, particles of time and particles of intelligence? It would have been much more intelligent to try to imagine what energy is. Thomson might have discovered that any energy absolutely MUST be at the same time positive and negative, as religious Traditions have been saying for millenia.

Later, Rutherford discovered repulsion between some atoms. He thought this was due to negative charges around the atom (electrons), repelling each other, and concluded that all positive power is in the middle, in the "nucleus" (protons). By using the mistake of his predecessor, he created a bigger mistake. This one deprived the atom of any mechanical or energetic stability, and conferred upon it only a mathematic equilibrium. Which supposes, of course, that every particle has the same power, thus the same quantity of energy, and the same size. Of course, this is absolutely impossible. You cannot believe for a second that two particles would be the same. Did you ever see two same-size planets in the sky?

The third mistake results from the second: when you heat an atom, it should not resist and should dilate until it disappears. This would be so, since there is no solidness at all in such a unipolar-particled atom. But it is not so thanks to the stability coming from the positive-negative duality of every particle (we will explain this later). So, to solve the problem, Planck invented the QUANTUM: electrons cannot enlarge their orbit continuously; they need a minimum package of energy to leap from one orbit to another. This is supposed to provide atoms with some stability, as observed. The cause of quanta? Little matter ! Mathematics was satisfied, and some technical achievements followed, meaning that the theory was right. Mathematically speaking, of course, it is.

Then the atom entered the domain of "discontinuity". Einstein goes further by inventing discontinuous light: he invents "photons", particles of light (although nobody ever saw light between a source and a receptor: light is in the "receptor"'s sensation, not outside). Invention of particles went on without ever asking whether the bases were right or not. In fact, it quickly becomes impossible to say the opposite. When so many Nobel Prizes are awarded each time a mistake is hidden by a new mathematical artefact, it becomes impossible to say: "everything was wrong; we must start again from the beginning". Impossible. All the more since science manages to create technical achievements, using Quantum Mechanics (laser, supra conductors, etc.). Scientists do not imagine that their interpretation of natural facts does not prevent laws to be what they are, and that with the right interpretation, they surely would achieve much more.

De Broglie reverses Einstein's proposition: if the energy wave is discontinuous, if it is made of particles, particles may be waves of energy. This is a great event for Physics because from now on, it is no longer necessary to invent a mechanical stability. Every particle is a wave, and it will be experienced that the wave becomes a particle when you oberve it. So as long as you do not oberve it, no problem, it does not have to be solid, and so has no reason, for instance, to fall upon the nucleus. In fact, it only exists when you use it. When you oberve it, it is steady, its motion cannot be observed, so there is no problem of stability either.

It is all the more interesting since, if no motion can be observed (you can only intercept it to grasp its existence), there is no need to invent consistent theories in which the motion of particles is explained. The theory you will read in the next chapter is the very theory explaining these motions, in time and evolution, as opposed to present observation due to a particle accelerator. For you, particles will be real and able to produce matter.

Now, Quantum "Mechanics" diverges completely from astrophysical theories, in which, on the contrary, we can observe the motion of stars, predict their positions, and which are then forced to try to explain their rotation and revolution.

The subterfuge is practical but unsatisfying: how can atoms founded on probabilities, without either particles or motions, comprise stars and planets, and various objects which are not probabilistic but mechanical, in space and time?

An unsolvable problem for today's Physics which does not want to question the bases of its theories. It is a pity, for if they could admit that negative fields of energy are impossible to separate from positive ones, even if the effects are separated, the atom would be completely consistent with stars and galaxies, easy to explain in its motion, and easy to explain starting from Nothingness. And with the same, or better, technical results.

And with the same conclusion, finally, that everything is spiritual, as Quantum Physics is, moreover, obliged to admit today, since it can only observe the atom's PRESENT MOMENT: where in fact there is no particle.

This scientific revolution, the explanation of illusion, is what we are achieving here. For those who want to know.


Quantum Physics avoids the problem of causes and effects. But the problem is still there for Astrophysics. One of the main problems of Physics is to better define what a cause is. Generally, instead of causes, it searches for the ORIGIN of things. An origin is not a cause (even the triggering factor is not the cause). Both origins and triggering factors take place in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.

EVERYTHING PAST IS AN EFFECT, AND AN EFFECT IS A CREATION OF THE CAUSE. When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. Quantum physicists could have guessed that if they tried to observe the present reality of particles, they would be bound to banish the idea of "particle".

And in Astrophysics, since physicists observe only the illusion of motion in time, unable to observe "I am"'s present reality creating these things, they observe only effects, denying causes. For them, effects are causes and causes are effects.

So, "observing" the atom, they can only deal with causes, and in Astrophysics, they only believe in effects. They cannot explain either one or the other. The relationship between causes and effects is Logic and Knowledge itself, uniting and separating the two fields of Science.

Can an effect be the cause of another effect? As a rule,we tend to think so, but this is a mistake. Every sequential effect is the result of a cause which is THE GOAL. The cause is a PRESENT NECESSITY, producing effects in order to be realized. Only a goal is a source of energy, able to create something. Nothing other than a goal is able to provide the universe with energy to create something. There is no power at all in the past. It cannot produce anything. It does not exist. The PRESENT does exist, and the present is the Necessity of the goal. The cause is always present, and it is only by studying the present that you can grasp the cause.

That is the reason why physicists say that our model of the atom is wrong, since when they observe matter in Quantum terms, they find incredible phenomena which show that particles are not particles and do not behave like planets and stars, not like the two-pole revolving magnets we will describe, having a position, a speed, a volume etc.: Quantum Physics is not able to directly observe the appearance of atoms: To observe particles, it has to interrupt their motion; it has to place itself in the very PRESENT, where the CAUSES are, in a Metaphysical field, where there are no phenomena but the contrary of phenomena: "noumena", mind; it becomes difficult to call "particles" something which behaves just as mind does: communicating without delay with one another, being in several places at the same time, moving in time as easily as in space. Confronted with such unusual behavior, Physicists are obliged to invent even more complicated equations to introduce what is not physical into a physical field.

Hence they think that our model of the atom is wrong, too "classical", too "planetary". However, our atom is the right one, described in time and in illusion, with motion, speed and positions, not in the present where it disappears and is only created by the observer. We describe the effects in the "past" (memory) comprising our "material reality", caused by a present necessity which is the only true reality, but which cannot be seen. When you are confronted with it, it does not look physical, and is impossible to understand... unless you confront it with metaphysical tools and not with physical ones.

What is visible is always illusory, an illusion produced by a cause but unable to create anything. The cause cannot be visible. The present cannot be visible. It is the creator of appearances. Physics cannot apprehend what is not physical, so Physics will always remain ignorant of the causes of the universe

For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed. HENCE THE CAUSE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE, and apparent reality is always illusory. This is why when Physics tries to seize the atoms' reality, it discovers... nothingness.


III - About Time

Towards a Science of Mind

by Frank HATEM

Time. The sensation of evolving from a past to a future, is evolution itself. A sensation, hence something spiritual. No honest mind can logically state that time exists by itself, that it is a physical reality. The same applies to matter, which is first and foremost a sensation ; you cannot believe in it unless, first, you have proved that it exists independently from the mind which feels it.

In fact, nobody can prove the existence of matter, and nobody can prove the existence of time existence. They are only sensations, parts of our mind.

We think we live within time; but it is time that lives within us.

We think we live in a universe, but it is the universe which lives within our mind.

You probably think this is an hypothesis, just like the belief in physical time or physical matter.

Yesterday, it was.

But today, without recourse to such hypotheses, it turns out to be possible to explain every single physical phenomenon, all the phenomena of matter, and all the phenomena of time, solely from mind, without depending upon the intervention of real time or any particle of matter. They are useless to explain the universe.

On the contrary, those who suppose that matter or time does exist, are unable to explain them, and even less to explain mind.

Mind is the first reality, when you understand it, you understand matter and you understand time.

There is no other possibility.

So, the problem is solved. It is becoming unscientific to talk about matter or time as a useful hypothesis, to presume their existence.

These hypotheses are no longer useful for Science.

If you want to understand time, you must not study it. If you study it, you presume its existence, and thereby prevent yourself from understanding it.

You must study its cause, and its cause is MIND. Metaphysics is the science for understanding mind.


Read the principles of Hatemian Cognitive Epistemology grounding the following text on "mind.htm", and metah.htm for demonstrations. Then you will acknowledge the above :

- We demonstrate that only Nothingness can be, and that Infinity is an absolute, unconditional reality, even if Nothingness is.

- We demonstrate that Infinity is bound to be nil. If not nil, no logic is possible, since it supposes something (God or Energy, or Matter...) without any cause. In which case no science would be possible. This option is possible, but it is in contradiction with the fact that mind suffers from its incomprehension of itself. If you want to understand, you ban the hypothesis of something (actual) infinite or without cause.

Nothingness is bound to be both infinite and nil. So it merges the two necessary principles: " voidness " (" nil-ness " or " zero-ness ") and infiniteness. We know that, on the one hand, infiniteness is an absolute which does not require any conditions.

But on the other hand, we demonstrate that the real existence of the principle of Voidness, which is undisputably equally necessary for the infinite to be nil (or for Nothingness to be), demands the infinity-principle to be " rejected ", to be " outside " nought.

Now, you will be able to understand that Consciousness constitutes such an opposition between the two original principles ; beteween zero and infinity. So, in order to be actual, " voidness " requires consciousness: If Zero is not in OPPOSITION to entire infiniteness, voidness is impossible: It would contain something and would not be nil. For Nothingness to be, CONSCIOUSNESS (which is the opposition which " creates " outer infinite space from the center where " I " feels itself to be), is engendered at each and every moment by the necessity of Absolute Nothingness, nil AND infinite combined.

This opposition is actually the origin of the feeling of SPACE. The maintenance of infinity " outside " by nought, creates this " feeling " of remaining in the center of the whole, which is only a permanent reaction against the " outer ".

And since the goal of this opposition is UNITY between voidness and infiniteness (Absolute Nothingness, which is at once the aim and the cause of all this, would constitute this unity), this original opposition tends to be cancelled. The unity of Absolute Nothingness, which is a present reality in fact, is hence a goal for present consciousness which becomes a refusal of unity, a REPULSION. The fact that what is now real is as yet a goal, but a goal which is always refused (since the opposition remains necessary), engenders the feeling of FUTURE, of evolution in time, like an arrow.

This evolution is drawn by and felt like what we can call "love" (ATTRACTION), since it is an attractive motion towards unity. The object of this attraction is anything "outside". So, each moment of evolution is the act of cancelling a part of outside space, getting it "INSIDE" (into what consciousness feels itself to be: a centre of the whole), instead of remaining "outside". This is what we call mind's experience. Experiencing something is to transform space outside into inner MEMORY. Memory is the feeling of past time: " Inside me " is what I consider as me, separating me from what I do not yet consider to be myself ".

Evolution (of I, or 1) is the feeling of making memory with something from outside, from nought to infinity

So there is not one dimension (or three dimensions) of space and one dimension of time, since in fact all space is ONE point (mind), inside which the feeling of time constitutes its cancelling process. SELF (one) is the process which transforms space into time : Only one dimension of "energy" caused by the aim. This process is bound to take place an infinite number of times within the zero-point. This is the creation of the "One".

Zero may become ONE only by infinite division. Multiplying it is impossible and useless.

Now you understand that the "Big bang" is not an explosion of matter outside the zero-point, billion years ago; but an infinite and eternal IMPLOSION of love, inside itself, now and always.

We are not several minds conscious of one universe outside,

but one sole mind, conscious of an infinite number of universes inside.


BP 50013
77221 TOURNAN cedex

Fax : + 33 1 64 42 86 68.

Now Science is extricated from its deadlock. If Physics works hand in hand with Metaphysics, everything becomes possible.

for the Third
Origin of Mind,
Origin of Energy,
Origin of Matter.
to order.

Links to other Pages

for the Third
Origin of Mind,
Origin of Energy,
Origin of Matter.
to order.

Links to other Pages

for the Third
Origin of Mind,
Origin of Energy,
Origin of Matter.
to order.

Most of our webs are free, although many people think the information they contain is worth Nobel Prices, and really can make a difference.
If you want us to continue, and can help us, please donate, by a kind click on button below.
Thank you very much indeed.

To read our books, please click here.

See you soon.