Einstein Doesn't Work Here Anymore

A treatise on the New Science
Maurice B. Cooke [pseudonym]
Marcus Books
Edition / Year: 


This is a beautiful example of what might be called dilettante physics: science conducted as if thoroughness, accuracy and care were optional extras to the process. Maurice B. Cooke (with the help of two unnamed collaborators) offers an alternative set of theories to replace the models of modern physics, because, he says:

... science has failed in its primary purpose, to give the enquiring mind a coherent, non-contradictory conceptual picture of reality.

His two particular bugbears are Quantum Theory and Einstein's Theory of Relativity presumably because, as with much in modern physics, they do not accord with “common sense” and they are not easily represented by simple mental models. (My challenge to anyone who thinks that physics is obliged to explain matters in such terms is for them to provide an simple interpretation of Young's Double-Slit Experiment.)

Cosmic Vortices and Vibrations

Cooke is not averse to weird ideas, though, as long as they are his weird ideas, and can be illustrated simply, with arguments based on analogy and rhetoric rather than rigour. Like most exponents of alternative physics he has a firm belief in the existence of the aether, in this case argued on the basis that if space is curved then there must be something to have this curvature, and that thing is the aether. Curvature of space and the fourth dimension in general are key elements of Cooke's thesis, as for example in his model of the atom, in which the electron is:

not an actual particle at all, but purely a rotational motion or vortex [...] in the aether.

Cooke thinks the electron is a sort of miniature whirlpool, sucking the aether down a tiny cosmic plughole. But, as he asks, “where does the removed aetheric substance go?” The answer is that it forms a little bridge in the fourth dimension and reappears through a neighboring proton. “What we have just described may sound preposterous on first exposure”, he acknowledges. Actually it can continue to sound preposterous indefinitely.

His explanation of gravity is just as crackbrained. Space, he claims, is filled with a constant vibration in all directions. Bodies shield one another from this vibration, somehow, and as a result they are pushed together: hence the gravitational force. Perhaps it's no worse than claiming that gravity is a manifestation of universal love between atoms. I presume he simply forgot to include the detailed workings which show how these vibrations transmit force and the mechanism by which the shielding effect operates, not to mention his mathematical derivation of Newton's Law of Gravitation.

The vibration referred to enters our universe through what he calls “primary points”. These, he decides in a breathtaking leap to illogical conclusions, are to be found in the atoms of so-called inert gases:

The question which [..] arises is, why are members of the inert series all gaseous, when one might expect at least Krypton and Xenon to be solid or liquid?

The only reasonable answer we can find is that the elements of the inert gas series are constantly in a vibrational state which is greater than that which would result from temperature alone. In our view there must be two “inputs” to the vibrational level of any inert gas atom: that which is accounted for by the temperature of the gas, and that which is constributed by an internal vibratory effect arising spontaneously and continuously within the atom itself.

Leaving aside the contradiction inherent in a vibration which prevents a gas from liquefying but does not raise its temperature, the underlying premise that there is some mystery about these gases is simply wrong. As the Wikipedia article linked to above says: “The noble gases have very weak inter-atomic forces of attraction, and consequently very low melting points and boiling points. This is why they are all gases under normal conditions, even those with larger atomic masses than many normally solid elements.”

Something Fishy

Cooke reckons that the presence of primary points within inert gas atoms means that when placed in a magnetic field an inert gas will emit some sort of beam, and he provides detailed instructions for building apparatus to test this effect. Strangely the effect is detectable only by direct contact with the human body, as:

A “prickly sensation”, “heat” or “coolness”.

Absolutely no chance of any observer error there, then. But Cooke also performed a number of experiments of a different design in an attempt to measure bending of the aether by a strong magnetic field, using a form of interferometer.

Aether bending detector

Here is part of one of his reports from this experiment:

One day our observation in the morning showed a shift equal to 4 fringe widths. At noon of the same day, a quantity of fish was fried in the kitchen, one floor above the laboratory. The house had central air heating, which meant that all the air in the house was generally circulated through all of the rooms. As a result, the strong aroma of frying fish soon invaded the laboratory. At about the same time we again ran the fringe experiment. This time, there was no fringe shift whatever. It was as if something in the molecules responsible for the fish smell had 'locked up' the aether to such an extent that it would not respond in any way to the magnetic field.

It was after this that Cooke added to his apparatus a pan of boiling water, as shown in the diagram above, in order to “cleanse” the aether.

Stubborn Thought-Forms of the Fat

What migh be termed “Cooke's Fish Odour Effect” deserves further investigation, I feel, though practical applications are hard to envisage, unlike his Inert Gas Beam which apparently has wide-ranging medical uses documented in the final section of this volume - providing that one is prepared to swallow the idea that certain diseases are caused by “thought-forms” accessible to psychic perception:

In early 1980, I became acquainted with a woman who had the gift of total clairvoyance. She was able to 'see' not only auras, astral entities and the like, but also thought-forms of the kind discussed in the previous chapters [...]

[In treating a subject's obesity] I attempted to use 'hand-healing' with the guidance of the clairvoyant in terms of colors to visualize. The recommended colors were first green, then blue. My hand was held just above the throat of the subject, palm down - the location where the thought-form was attached. The effect was that strands of color threaded themselves through the thought-form and seemed to remain intertwined with it even after the 'healing' was stopped. However this procedure did not cause the thought-form to diminish in size or intensity.

If you had any remaining doubts about the value of Cooke's work, the above will surely have dispelled them. As for Cooke himself, he is something of an enigma. He has been described as a “Toronto businessman” and the blurb of this book says he and his co-authors “have been involved in various branches of physics for most of their adult lives”. He has written some books on astrology but he is mainly known for “channelling” a being called “Hilarion”, who seems to generously spread himself around a number of individuals including one Jon C Fox, who also shares Cooke's passion for inert gases. Disappointingly, in all his channellings thus far, Hilarion seems not to have said anything about the smell of fried fish and its effect on the aether. Maybe we on Earth are not ready for that one.


"“What we have just described may sound preposterous on first exposure”, he acknowledges. Actually it can continue to sound preposterous indefinitely." That is hands down my favourite witticism. You are a wonderful man.

Gosh, thanks Francois. On this gloomy morning such kind words are very welcome.

Now, have you got any moles I should know about?

I have one on my left cheek right below the cheekbone. Sadly, I do not have a copy of Moles and Their Meaning to divine the meaning of such.
actually the official website of Marcus Books, The Hilarion Series and Maurice B Cooke is http://www.masterhilarion.com where you can find all the books available once more as they have been republished www.MasterHilarion.com

Go there now for all your Christmas idiocy needs!

the site www.MasterHilarion.com no longer represents Maurice B Cooke or his work but it now represents more updated channlled material by Hilarion from different channellers; Elizabeth Rose Howard and Simon C.Godwin
the site has also nothing to do with Jon Fox nor does it support previously channelled material by other sources


I wasn't at all happy with my purchases from this particular web site - I don't believe they are channelling Hilarion at all.

everyone is entitled to their own views. You call nonsense what you have not read, which are books completely unrelated to physics. Yours is not informed opinion but a biased one.

Everyone is entitled to their own views, yes, and mine, based on having read some of this stuff, is that it is nonsense. Name one piece of verifiable and original information obtained through channelling and I might change my view.

not all channelling is done by charlatans who talk about physics and pseudo theories that come from "spirit" and are meant to change the world. I agree with you and people should beware of that. The new channellings I talked about are about spirituality and spirituality only, without making big claims that stray from the subject of spiritual philosophy. Such is the content of the new books written by other people, and spirituality is not scientific nor do these particular channellers ever apprach the subject like others have done in the past with impunity. Spirituality and religion are a philosophy and a way of life that people around the world adopt by choice for a variety of reasons. I wouldn't be so quick to judge new content by different authors about spiritual philosophy and not physics. New channellings leave science to scientists, and whoever claims to channel new scientific discoveries is seriously misguided.
I forgot to mention that one of the golden rules upon which the spiritual movement has been founded is that true mediums and channellers do not channel scientific information, because God wishes for people to improve themselves by experience. The second one is that spirits channel spiritual matters, not physical ones like science. (This the spiritualist theory behind false mediumship from the book "The mediums' book" by Allan Kardec published around 1869). Channellers that purport to have channelled from spirit new scientific discoveries usually have not channelled at all, but have written books by borrowing the name of an exalted source so that they would be listened to, because it would have been unlikely to gain such exposure and following under the name of John Smith for example. Such people are the ones who have given the whole spiritualist movement (channelling and mediumship) a bad reputation, because they are usually the ones who are exposed on the news for their own half-baked scientific theories. It has been going on since the 19th century and it is the reason why people should not believe what they say. So I understand that to people who are not interested in channelling and in delving deeper into its priciples and objects, such channellers represent the norm and that they all must be like it. This is not the case. There are many channellers who do this with integrity without seeking platforms for self-aggrandizement by coming out with scientific theories under the names of saints, and that only stick to what channelling should be about: spiritual philosophy, the validity of which is subjective and not scientifically provable (they do not claim that it is, and they usually put BIG disclaimers with their work) As for the validity of channelling per se, that is a whole different discussion which is grouped under the argument of religious belief versus scientific research. It ultimately bolis down to the way people want to live their lives, for there is really nothing after death, then people are free to live their lives according to what they choose to believe psychologically without repercussions. I understnd where you are coming from and I agree with you, especially when people's health is concerned. What I don't agree with is grouping all channellers under the same header, especially those who do not publish new scientific theories that are ment to revolutionize science and stick to philosophy alone. I apologise for the long reply, but I wanted to bring a different point of view to the discussion.
I agree with the last posts, especially the part about channellers sticking to channelling spiritual material and not science. After doing some research online, I found out that Steffan Vanel,the man who represents the "channelled" work of Maurice B Cooke online actually believes that Maurice B Cooke never channelled. If the man represents him, the author must therefore agree with him. "That Mr. Cooke is a channel I can accept, as it requires only low-grade clairvoyant ability. (In fact, continued channeling often degrades the channel remarkably.) Should we believe those who claim to channel some famous or great person, that they, in fact, channel this or that famous person? Generally, no. We should never. Our first job as readers is to strip away the name & then ask if what we are reading is worthy of such an exalted source. And the answer is always no. Perhaps hearing voices, perhaps not, Mr. Cooke was unwilling to publish under his own proper name, presumably for fear that no one would notice. And, in fact, what he has written under the pen name Hilarion, is no better than what one may read from a variety of strictly human sources - and there are many better" http://www.astroamerica.com/essays.html
there is no question about it, the guy is a charlatan. He also wrote a book along the same lines of "moles and their meaning" called "body signs". It would be interesting to read a review of this book as well on this site

Your greatest "bugbears," Mr. Article Writer, seem to be anything that contradicts what you want to believe. "Oh noes! A scientist who disagrees with what my teacher TOLD me was true! Quick, call him names and use obscure words to sound smarter than him, so he'll look ridiculous! Mustn't let anyone become curious to investigate his work!!"

Haha, maybe you should grow up and unlearn your public school propaganda before you try reviewing scientific experiments. XD

Cooke wasn't a scientist, I learned about relativity through my own reading, and I I haven't the foggiest idea what public schools have to do with any of this. Relativity is a successful theory because it makes predictions that can be tested. If any of your preferred alternatives can explain the retardation of atomic clocks in satellites for example, please do let the world know.

Yes, obviously the Theory of Relativity is completely unproven and is only still in circulation because of public schools. You are an idiot.

Add new comment

Subscribe to Comments for "Einstein Doesn't Work Here Anymore"