1. Citizenship: China, Canada
2. Published "feathers:"
1) Nutr. & Metabolism, an 8-page article on "infant death and essential fatty acid" in the last issue of 1976(or'77), by KC Cheng and LB Fisher
2) The Quantum Memory Theory(Sample), Nov 1977, KC Cheng Press, a copy can be obtained from the National Library of Canada, Ottawa.
3. Unpublished major works:
1) The discovery of the physics of memory, mentation and behaviour, in my "Electromagnetism of Memory" about 20 volumes, 19 volumes(as of 6/1/1998) completed.
This is the first great breakthrough: uncovering and proving the neurophysical mechanisms of memory, mentation.
Abstract Already in my Nov/77 Sample(under 2.2) supra), other samples available if needed and possible to reproduce(photocopying).
Mainly, memory has been discovered and proven to be electromagnetic particles(eMs) each specific to its external image or size, shape and magnitude which the eM represents. Thus, when we see red, the light in the red band would be the electromagnetic substance entering the nervous system to stimulate the brain visual cortex. Naturally, once entered, it cannot readily escape. There then, it remains to be the "red electromagnetic particle(s)" in the various neurons. The latter made of atoms surely are held together into neuronal forms by tremendous inter-atomic and inter-molecular forces which can easily and actually firmly hold incoming electromagnetic particles. This is the basis of memory storage.
At the retrieval stage, neuronal firings underlying our mental activities would inevitably cause electromagnetic interactions with the existing electromagnetic memory particles. Interaction means induction and retrieval of the previously stored electromagnetic particle information without erasing it. This is analogous to playing back voices recorded on cassette tapes. Replaying the recorded voices does not erase them. Clearly, this electromagnetic inductive process can easily occur also in the brain where we all know the dominating activities to be brainwave and brain electrical activities, and therefore, electromagnetic activities.
The brain is hence a live electromagnetic unit constantly firing off travelling and interlacing electromagnetic waves which can, like a cassette player, carry the pre-existing electromagnetic messages(memory information) out to even outside of the brain, accounting for the long-confirmed phenomenon of telepathy: one person sensing and interpreting another's brain electromagnetic activities. Of course, this does not mean that just because we now know the mind operates on the principles of electromagnetism there cannot be a soul. Quite to the contrary, only because of this proven electromagnetic mechanism could there be at all the possibility of a soul which may be able to somehow communicate with the living.
Also, with such stored memory particles constantly interacting via electromagnetic pulsations, we can with training, generate highly organized thoughts which can occur only by the orderly organization of the pre-existing memory fragments. Only when such memory particles are themselves electromagnetic particles can memories be so made available for recombination into different thoughts by the fundamentally electromagnetic activities of the brain. Otherwise, how could electromagnetic activities at all retrieve anything stored inside the neurons without erasing it and without actually rearranging the neurons themselves? Only when the a memories are electromagnetic particles could they be readily retrieved without being erased [from various parts of the brain] for recombination into different images or thoughts comprising previously acquired(acquired by the various sense organs, or by self-generation of images, voices, ideas, thoughts, from one's own imagination, dreams, etc.) basic memory particles.
Memory storage in the brain differs from taping in one significant respect. Whereas on a tape the message is unalterable and non-recombineable, that is, if on the tape it is "I like you ," when played back, it cannot become "you I like" but can only be "I like you." In contrast, our brain can alter and recombine anything in an infinite of ways. Thus, when I have these basic memory particles "a,b, c, the, like, you, him, " etc., I could use these basic elements for recombination into " a, b, like him" or "I like you," etc. This neuronal ability to recombine the previously stored memory thus indicates that there does not occur fundamental molecular or atomic rearrangements in the memorineurons to represent memory. Instead, the memories must be in the stimulus-specific electromagnetic particle form. That means, the memory of "a" is stored as "a" itself, not as a form of neuronal molecular or atomic rearrangement as could occur in an audiotape. In the latter case, since the molecular rearrangements have occurred, when it is replayed, there can be only ONE message, the same as the one put onto the tape, there stored as molecular rearrangements. Hence, a taped audio or video message cannot be recombined and be different from what was put in. This vastly differs from memory registration in the brain which can readily put out things fantastically different from what was put into it.
For instance, what I am now putting on this paper was never before put into my brain at all. I am using my previous memory pieces to recombine into something none has ever known before, not regurgitating what was earlier "taped" onto my brain cells but retrieving and recombining memory particles into fantastically new thoughts or images. Thus, unlike audio or video tapes, memory storage in our brain does not occur by way of molecular rearrangements. Without the latter, the only alternative would be the storage of the exact electromagnetic inputs via and into the nervous system. Therefore, a red electromagnetic particle of a red light would have to be the same red particle that stimulates and is stored in our brain cells to be our memory of that red [color].
At this point, one can readily see that I have proven memory to be electromagnetic particle storage into the brain. Hence, the remaining more extensive proof will not be repeated here, and can be obtained from my previous 19 volumes of "The Electromagnetism of Memory, Mentation and Behaviour," Cheng Review I:1, I:2, I:3, I:4, etc. (revised 17/1/1998).
2) Darwin overthrown by my 27 volumes of The Theory of Biogenesis.
Here, having seen that indeed I have discovered and PROVEN correct the electromagnetism of memory, one ought to have a little more confidence in my claim that I have also overthrown Darwin. He seems to have convinced a lot of people that we came from evolution. However, by purely biological , genetic and logical methods of proof, I have without alluding to God, proven evolution genetically and biologically impossible.
Kuan-Chyun Cheng(C) 1986
Abstract The most decisive factor in refuting Darwin has been his emphasis and reliance on morphologic changes and similarities amongst the diverse species. Whereas it appeared possible at his time without a genetic knowledge of inheritance, that morphologic similarities between two species could very well permit evolution of one species into the next by even adaptation or by the action of external factors; our present day knowledge of genetics, and chemical reactions have allowed me to prove that whatever external factors there may be potently acting, such effects cannot bring about evolution from one species into the next. This impossibility is ascribed to the very fact that any organism during its morphogenesis and embryogenesis form and grow only according to the strictest dictates of its genetic constitutions. External factors cannot bring about fundamental changes to vary it into the next species. For instance, substances could be classified as either non-toxic or toxic depending on their effects on the human or animal fetuses. The non-toxic agents cause no changes except in size or rate of growth in the fetuses. Thus, they cannot cause fetal malformations or birth defects. Non-toxic substances therefore have no teratologic effects.. But there are teratologic substances. Even these, however, cannot accomplish any more than deforming the fetuses without changing them into other species. Why? Because the fetus is endowed with its own species-specific genetic and biochemical constituents which cannot be by any external factor changed into genetic make-ups of other species. Without these other species' genetic and biochemical constitutions, it would be impossible for it to differentiate and grow into these other species. This is the fundamental principle of species-specific and even individual-specific law of embryogenesis.
Based on this well proven law which I formulated from modern observations in embryogenesis and fetal development, I further established that an organism cannot change into another species during life after maturation by merely interacting with the environment. When neither prenatal zygotic genes(genes within the fertilized ovum), nor the post-natal genes within the developed adult, could be modified by either chemical or physical means to the extent of becoming those of another species, of course there exists no means whereby evolution from one species to another could occur.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution therefore has been refuted on basis of the lack of any biologic means to permit the morphologic modifications he argued in favour of evolution.
At the genetic level, suppose new chemicals are introduced into say, a developing human fetus, as stated, these chemicals would be either ineffective in inducing any morphologic changes in the developing being, or, effective only to the extent of producing fetal malformations, appearing to be monsters and still with basically human characteristics. Have you ever seen any human fetus,or, any animal fetus, that has been able to be malformed by certain chemicals, to the extent of becoming another species? No! You have not. Otherwise, you are lying: because all the known chemicals on earth including those artificially synthesized and therefore absent at the time of the formation of the various organisms on earth, could not do it. They cannot alter the fetal composition in any way to turn a monkey fetus into a human fetus. Why? Because a monkey fetus has its unique monkey genes in harmony with themselves, typically directing the synthesis of chemicals attacking and rejecting any incompatible outside genes artificially introduced from another individual or another species( i.e. immunologic rejection). Remember, in nature, there is no such sophisticated laboratory molecular and genetic engineering to ensure the acceptance of the artificially added genes by the host, here the monkey genes. The latter specifically directs the fetus to differentiate and grow into a monkey, never possible a human. Of course, since artificially synthesized chemicals were absent at the time of life creation, they cannot at all be candidates to have altered any life form or contributed to species divergence.
This is a fundamental proof that an organism's zygote cannot be in any way altered in genetic and chemical constitution to become the zygote for another species, and that, unless a zygote's genetic constitution can be effectively converted into that of another species, it will continue to differentiate and develop into an organism of the same species, the same as its parents.
In addition,mutations have been proven to be quite rare and focal. If they at all occur, they cannot alter any more than one or two single traits, e.g. the skin colour, of a given individual. Hence, an originally black person could have his "skin colour genes" mutated to become an albino WITHOUT AFFECTING ANY OF THE OTHER genetic and phenotypal traits. Mutations would then still mutate men into men, not men into apes or vice versa. The differences in genes between species are not limited to few foci, but to the extent of having different numbers of chromosomes. Mutations certainly could not at all possibly occur to increase or decrease the number of chromosomes in some animals into the required number of them for other species.
Even more restrictive is the fact that if I want to become a person of a race other than Oriental, mutations or adaptations alone would never take me there. If my offsprings and I forever marry only Chinese, there is no way that any of my future descendants would suddenly mutate into a blue-eyed blond, or black-skinned African. My descendants could at all turn into other races only if I or any of my offsprings, particularly I, have "goofed!" Goofed and not mutated!
There has to be some inter-marriage with people of other races before anyone could have one's offsprings become one of another race. The other race's racial traits would have to be introduced into my gametes in an acceptable and viable fashion for the resulting zygote to be able to undergo the necessary ontogenesis into fetus, and a newborn. That means, my gamete would have to unite with an ovum of another race for this to occur, for this normal fetal development to occur. Otherwise, embryogenesis would be impossible. Why? Because any embryologist would tell you that unless a zygote is safely formed in a suitable environment without toxicity of adverse environmental factors, it would not develop normally, and may just wither away. That is why in any artificial insemination, or test-tube babies cases, there has to be the strictest control of the environment for fetal formation and growth. Otherwise, there cannot be a baby at all. This is why introduction of other races' traits at the genetic level could be accomplished only in a manner acceptable to the later fetal development, and not just in any way one wishes by wantonly introducing chemicals into a gamete.
Clearly, despite the apparent close kinship between two different races, going from one race to another necessitates this inter-racial union of their gametocytes, not just by any sort of chemical or physical induction to effect certain "mutagenic" changes to an already developing zygote formed from the gametes of the same race. Hence, mutations are insufficient to just overcome the very minute barriers of genetic differences in the gametes of different races. Before any "evolution" from one race into another could begin to occur, one race's gamete must successfully unite with that of another. Even inter-racial "evolution" therefore cannot occur by the mere action of external factors, whether physical or chemical, upon one race's gametes. There has to be first a genetic foundation paved by the union of gametes from different races before any change from one race into another could occur.
One step further and even more restricting is the case of individual-specificity in embryogenesis. This, as with the case of race-specificity indicated above, is likewise a manifestation of the irrefutable law of inheritance. The genes specify what traits would be inherited and developed. As a result, an offspring's morphology cannot depart from what he has in his genetic constitution inherited from his parents. This is the reason why there are such precise tests to confirm whether a person is the father of a child on basis of whether they share certain vitally important individual-specific genes transmitted by the precise process of inheritance. To wantonly declare that people can easily mutate from one individual into another is to violate this irrefutable law of inheritance.
Exactly due to this immutability of individual zygote's genetic constitution to ensure the development of a fetus carrying and manifesting in its parental traits, it is questionable that the various races of the human species could have ever "mutated" from one to the other. They do share essentially identical traits in every respect except those distinguishing one race from another. Hence, they may be equally intelligent, and yet differ in skin colour, eye colour or /& profile. These racial traits obviously cannot mutate for one race to look like another. When man so much alike in every aspect between for instance, the Caucasoids and the Orientals, or the Caucasoids and the Africans, cannot inter-racially mutate; how could it be possible for "monkeys" or chimpanzees to mutate into human beings?