The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics




Скачать 51.66 Kb.
НазваниеThe philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics
Дата конвертации17.02.2013
Размер51.66 Kb.
ТипДокументы
THE PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF THE BIG BREED THEORY INCLUSIVE OF ITS MECHANICS

R.D. Pearson 25/05/09


A letter to Ron, dated August 2nd 1987, came from top physicist Professor J.P. Vigier of Paris. He was also the gravitational consultant for the prestigious journal ‘Physics Letters A’.

An extract from the letter went:

“Your letter now seems to be correct as far as our referee’s and myself can see……I feel indeed that supporters of the Big Bang theory (of which I am not) should discuss the energy problem at creation time (if there is one) and your contribution should not be ignored. (You can utilise this statement if you want) and be published. I hope you will succeed in this.

Yours sincerely,

J. Vigier


An article published by Professor E. Tryon in New Scientist dated, 8th March 1984 had provoked the critique. The article was entitled, “What Made the World”. This said that gravitational potential energy GPE was negative and could cancel the energy of matter so that the universe could have arisen from nothing.

It had seemed obvious that, based on either Newton’s or Einstein’s theories of gravity, the mass energy of any object would still exist where GPE had been assumed zero. This zero had been fixed arbitrarily at infinite distance only to simplify calculation and this choice meant GPE became negative.

What had not been appreciated was, that for the special case of creation, an arbitrary choice of datum was inadmissible. For this case the datum had to be taken at the place where matter was created. Then GPE became positive!

Ron had thought this simple fact had been missed and needed pointing out. A short article had been submitted to one scientific journal after another. Amazingly all had refused to accept there was anything wrong with Tryon’s argument. Even now, over two decades later, the concept appears in articles from time to time, showing it to be fully accepted by the scientific community.


The submission to which Professor Vigier replied was the final attempt to communicate this objection. However, even though this assessor shows he considers the short article presented needed publication, even he could not get it published in ‘Physics Letters A’: a very prestigious journal.


More detail is provided in Chapter 4 of CREATION SOLVED PART I in our series.


By 1987 this had made Ron feel very uneasy. He still remained in awe of the achievements of physicists in the quantum realm: the theory of the atom. Here the physicists remained supreme and Ron said they are justified in being proud of the secrets of nature they have unearthed. However, it seemed these advances had come at a cost. The experience, starting with Tryon’s article, indicated a loss of understanding of simple things within the discipline of physics. If not corrected Ron feared this would lead to physics running into the buffers.

The general public seems unaware that a large overlap exists between physics and engineering: in the realm of the ‘classical’. Here the professional engineer (the ‘Chartered Engineer’) had retained the expertise that needed to be returned to its source.


Physicists Admit they have hit the Buffers!

This fear later turned out to be well justified! In 2005 the physicists held their 23rd Solvay conference. Reports admitted they had lost their way and that nobody knew what to do next. Top physicist Lee Smolin even wrote a book, published in 2007 called, The trouble with physics, that claims nobody in his generation has contributed anything of value since 1980!


Professor Paul Davies and the Big Bang

To return to the history we now have a contribution from the physicist and writer of popular books, Professor Paul Davies. Armed with Vigier’s letter Ron had written to him asking how the flaws in Tryon’s theory could affect the big bang theory of which it was a part.

Davies had responded, in a letter dated 18th August 1987, by kindly enclosing the maths written by Dr.Alan Guth, initiator in 1980 of a major feature of the Big Bang theory: the ‘inflation theory. The enclosure was part of an article to be included in a book of which Davies was the editor. The Big Bang theory purports to explain creation of the universe in a violent explosion and inflation describes that event. Space, like a ball of gas, appears from nothing in a split second. Physicists see space, alias the ‘quantum vacuum’, as being a highly energetic medium existing everywhere in the universe.


Logical errors

Ron was appalled to see that a logical error existed on nearly every line! It began by trying to balance the energy in every cubic metre of space (its ‘energy density’) by a ‘negative pressure’. This jarred against Ron’s understanding of thermodynamics and in any case this pressure had no causative means. It was only an assumption made in an attempt to satisfy energy conservation: to match the energy following creation with the zero value of the previous void.

This negative pressure was then used in one of Einstein’s equations to switch the energy density of space to a negative value – which is impossible when it had already been defined as positive. The negative density then switched Newton’s law of gravity from attraction to repulsion to drive the inflationary creation. But the basis now implicitly assumed the energy density of space to be positive again! And Newton’s laws are invalid at the speeds close to that of light that were being predicted. Also the negative pressure would have produced implosion and this effect was ignored completely.

Only positive pressures can drive explosions!

Furthermore an incredibly high acceleration was being assumed during this inflation process and yet pressure and density had been assumed uniform. Even if produced by a reversed force of gravity, forces of reaction need to balance those of action and this demands the existence of huge pressure and density gradients. Again this important aspect had not been recognised. The theory is untenable!

More detail is provided in Chapter 10 of CREATION SOLVED PART I.

Davies was so embarrassed that he refused even to answer the telephone. However, some notice had been taken since when the book appeared the presentation had been modified. Equations had been made more complex and some steps omitted so that, together with two typing errors, it would have been incomprehensible to anyone who had not seen the original. (see pp57-59 Davies, Paul : The New Physics : Cambridge University Press 1989)


The Big Bang theory makes badly wrong predictions!

Not surprisingly a major false prediction appeared, known as the quantum version of the ‘Problem of the Cosmological Constant’. The explosive creation had to switch off after a minute fraction of a second but no means existed to produce the switch.

Another well-known physicist, Stephen Weinberg, wrote in 1989 that, “This represents a major crisis in physics”. The string theorist Brian Greene admitted in 1999 that his theory could not solve the problem and gave the value of the ‘error’ involved as 10120 times too high! This is a one followed by 120 zeros times too high! This figure dwarfs to insignificance even the entire number of atoms in the observable universe!


So how, you may ask, do cosmologists deal with this difficulty? The answer is simple: they just ignore it altogether and carry on as if the switching problem had been resolved!


After inflation, they say, the ball of gas produced carries on expanding due to its own inertia. The force of gravity, that acts to mutually attract everything to everything else, slows the expansion of the entire universe: possibly to an ultimate stop.


Unfortunately for them astronomers announced in 1998 that the expansion of the universe was speeding up: it was not slowing at all! Cosmologists all admitted their surprise and promptly invented ‘dark energy’ producing unexplained and mysterious long-range repulsive forces. This patched up the big bang theory to make it fit the facts.

But what use is this when the major problem is left unresolved and dwarfs to insignificance anything dark energy could do?

How our theory solves the Big Bang‘s problems

We are jumping ahead too far. In 1987, following the information Professor Davies had supplied, Ron had realised his own expertise ought to be able to provide a flaw-free alternative to the big bang and set about its derivation.

To emerge from the void the energy needed to make the universe would need to be balanced by an opposite kind of energy that was its mirror image. This could be provided by reversing the forces of ‘action’ and ‘reaction’ in Newton’s laws so that mechanical work, force times distance moved, would have the force directed opposite motion. Then energy gains and all associated energies would be negative. Then if both positive and negative energies existed in balanced amounts they could mutually annihilate without emitting anything and revert to the nothingness of the void. Creation would also be permitted as the converse case. This would, however, have to be a sub-quantum phenomenon.

The quantum world

A study of quantum theory had revealed that the components of atoms, their ‘sub-atomic particles’ behave in an un-real manner. Sometimes they behaved as abstract ‘wave functions’ in a limbo state with all possibilities superimposed. For example, they could be spinning in opposite directions simultaneously, which seems a logical impossibility. So the quantum level of reality was ephemeral and weird.

Some early quantum physicists had made comments like. “This is more like Eastern mysticism than modern science”. Then by way of explanation, led by Neils Bohr, the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of wave-particle duality emerged. This said the waves collapsed into particles only on observation. This meant consciousness participated in the creation of matter.

However, physicists to this day, insist that consciousness is pure brain function and that brains evolved from matter. So how could matter exist before consciousness evolved?

This conflict could be resolved if the sub-quantum medium to be studied could have some kind of structure with the potential to evolve its own consciousness. Then the quantum level could emerge as the existing energies organised mathematically. So the organising level was named ’i -ther’: meaning ‘intelligent ether’.

The next problem was to decide on the kind of mechanics needed for operation at i-ther level. Clearly this could not be quantum mechanics since that would require an even deeper level for its organisation. An unacceptable infinite regression would then be involved.

Therefore something truly real would be required to produce a universe that was more like a virtual reality. The three forces of nature, fully explained by quantum field theory, could not emerge as real forces, as described in the Big Bang. They would also need to be mathematical simulations and therefore also of an abstract nature. Only gravity remained as an oddity that might have a real existence.

Could a modified Newtonian mechanics operate at i-ther level where nuclear and electrodynamic forces would not exist? If so and to be convincing this would need to penetrate the quantum level for checking its predictions at the macroscopic level. So Einstein’s theories of relativity appeared at first to be the most promising choice.

From a study of that possibility another shock resulted. It was immediately clear that Einstein’s theories contained unacceptable internal contradiction!

Any observer was regarded as a ‘frame of reference’. Any other object observed would appear to have its mass increased due to relative speed. So two identical observers, in relative motion, would each see the other as more massive than themselves. This was only possible if the mass increase was an illusion but had to be considered real for other cases – such as in particle accelerators. One could not accept a theory that needed a feature to be considered both real and illusory. Furthermore, there was no way that Einstein’s concept of ‘curved space time’ could fit in with the i-ther concept. So an alternative would first need to be derived that would match Einstein’s achievements and be applicable to both positive and negative energies. More detail of the difficulties is provided in. CREATION SOLVED?

Lorentz


Einstein had taken over from the theories of Lorentz who had insisted on the existence of ether. He considered this was required for the propagation of light. It had been easier to incorporate Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism if the speed of light was considered a universal constant and time permitted to be a variable instead. It also followed that objects would shorten in the direction of motion. This is the ‘Lorentz contraction’ applying to both space and matter. Also time would ‘dilate’ for the moving object.

However, when the effects of length contraction and time dilation are multiplied together they cancel out. This shows that if Euclidean geometry is used with universal time then the same energy gains and mass increases are predicted for an object accelerated from rest to any high speed. So the Lorentz contraction with its associated time dilation needed to be regarded as mathematical operators. These help to simplify electrodynamics but have no physical counterpart.

Einstein had eliminated both the absolute motions of Lorentz and the need for ether. At the same time he regarded the Lorentz contraction and time dilation as real instead of simply as expedients.


It is worth noting that theorists have been trying, since the 1960’s, to match Einstein’s ideas with quantum theory to produce the ‘holy grail’ of ‘quantum gravity’. The endeavour is still continuing in 2009 - as yet with no success in sight.

Many people do not realise that Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on photo-electricity: not relativity. Stockholm would have nothing to do with his relativity theories!

On his 70th birthday Einstein wrote that he had got it all wrong and yet people still ignore his warning and go on trying to do the impossible. This is not due to lack of intelligence. Ron thinks the teaching received in early years has diverted theorists away from searching for simple solutions.


Not so constrained the engineer can view quantum gravity as a relatively simple problem in applied mechanics that requires nothing more sophisticated than knowledge of the calculus. On this basis Ron produced what he considered a satisfactory solution. It is summarised later on this website and in mathematical detail in CREATION SOLVED? PART II.


For the logically minded who are not familiar with maths the theory leading to quantum gravity is explained in:

CREATION SOLVED? PART I

And a summary description is included in the popularisation:

INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THE UNIVERSE II

Exact Classical Mechanics ECM

Since the theory had to operate at i-ther level, where electromagnetism does not exist, only a modified Newtonian mechanics was considered. Then for use at the macroscopic level the theory has to use only the particle nature of light. Its associated wave nature being obtained from Planck’s law of energy equal to Planck’s constant times the frequency of light. From the considerations outlined the ECM alternative to relativity emerged with the following features:

1 Euclidean geometry and universal time.

2 The ether or quantum vacuum have fluid properties and exist as information welling up from i-ther. The latter, as will be shown, has a fixed though porous structure not in motion except for its continuous growth.

3 The existence of two kinds of positive energy is recognised: rest energy and kinetic energy. Their arithmetic sum is called ‘sum energy’. An object at rest in the ether or quantum vacuum is made of rest energy but in motion, due to the addition of kinetic energy, is made of sum energy. There is a corresponding ‘rest mass’ and ‘inertial mass’ with the latter determining the rate of acceleration and, when multiplied by velocity, gives the momentum of an object. The photons of light are made only from kinetic energy and so possess a corresponding kinetic mass.

4 GPE, the gravitational potential energy, that Tryon relied upon, has to be rejected as a real energy form. It is useful in Newton’s original mechanics but is inapplicable in an exact mechanics. Objects interchanging energy with the ether replace GPE. This makes an important difference since now objects in free rise or fall have a sum energy that does not remain constant. Sum energy reduces in free rise and increases in free fall.

5 The gravitational bending of a beam of light means that the distance photons move on the outside of the bend is greater than on the inside with time of travel equal for both. Consequently light travels faster on the outside than on the inside. This means the speed of light c increases with increase of altitude and also leads to something similar to black holes.

6 E=mc2 is derived from considering acceleration but if E remains constant as an object changes altitude and c changes as a consequence, then mass has to change as the inverse square of c. A ‘gravitational mass increase’ therefore occurs as an object is lowered, for example on a cable, and yet the rest energy of the object concerned does not alter. The result is to cause clock slowing exactly equal to that of Einstein’s gravitational time dilation. In a similar way all his other achievements are paralleled.

7 To cause the photons of light to fall their kinetic energy needs to couple with gravity. It follows that all objects couple with sum energy: not mass. This requires a simple modification to Newton’s equation of gravity.

8 The effects of Einstein’s curved space-time are replaced by an i-ther having non-uniform density and pressure. The pressure gradients are the cause of the force of gravity treated as one of ‘negative buoyancy’. For the first time this provides a theory predicting about the correct magnitude of this force.

9 The density gradients are produced by the energy welling up from the i-ther and needed to maintain the organisation of matter. This energy is deposited where matter exists but then leaks back radially outward by viscous flow through the porous structure of i-ther. This results in exactly the inverse square law of pressure gradients that are needed to produce the force of gravity.

Frames of reference

A blob of the fluid ether is gravitationally locked to Earth and so moves with the Earth. It extends to about the inner Lagrangian point facing the Sun but could extend like the tail of a comet on the side opposite the Sun. Similar locally confined co-moving blobs of ether surround all planets. The Sun is surrounded by a far larger blob that fills the whole solar system and through which all other blobs move in the manner of the sources and sinks method of analysis used in aerodynamics.

Similar blobs surround all stars. Star blobs flow through galactic sized blobs. Only away from concentrations of matter is the ether in a static though ever-growing state. Such blobs form the ‘local frames’ of reference from which kinetic energy, mass increase and magnetic force are measured. When an object, such as a space probe, moves out of a blob into a larger one the local frame changes. For example, if a probe moves from Earth space to Sun space, absolute speed and associated kinetic energy greatly increases. However, no change in speed is observed from Earth but some rest energy has transmuted so that the object’s sum energy remains unchanged.

The complete theory demonstrates the inadequacy of relativity theory when applied to the analysis of the red-shift data returned by astronomers. Difficulties arise when ether is ignored because it has to be assumed light travels at a fixed speed c everywhere relative to Earth observers. With an ever expanding ether moving with remote galaxies and with light moving relative to ether, the photons are moving against the recession speed v. So for the Earth observer the photon approach speed is c-v and v reduces as the photons approach. In consequence the photons constantly speed up. Since momentum needs to be conserved photon mass steadily reduces and with it the transmitted energy. This leads to an extra red shift not predicted by any relativity theory.

The consequence is the prediction of a much reduced Hubble constant from the same data. The accepted value is 71 km/s/MPC but revised from the theory with ether present reduces this to 29 km/s/MPC. In consequence the time required for light to reach us from the very edge of the universe is increased from 13.7 to 22 billion years. Even this does not specify the age of our universe since the galaxies have to fly out first to the edge where they are observed. This, ignored by cosmologists, could add a further 10 billion years to its age.

The theory covered, in an as yet unfinished book, shows that we are close to the origin point of our universe and should be able to see right to its very edge.

A kinetic energy meter ought to confirm the concept of local frames and could be constructed as a torque-mounted electrically charged capacitor flown in orbit.


Unfortunately it soon became clear to Ron about 1989 that publication in scientific journals was impossible. Journal after journal simply rejected it on grounds that relativity had withstood the test of time so that no alternative was required. No assessor had even attempted to criticise the logic or dispute the way the theory matched all the experiments still considered Einstein’s unique achievements. Even Professor Josephson of Cambridge, although supportive of our group in regard to survival, refuses to accept Ron’s mechanics. His objection is that he does not think much of the maths.

However, he cannot fault either the maths, the methodology or the match with experiment and so, in a backhand kind of way, adds credibility to the approach. His negation also illustrates the difference in attitude between the mathematician and the engineer.

Because the problem of quantum gravity has appeared so formidable, due to being locked into Einstein’s sophisticated theories, more and more sophistication in mathematics has developed. So now the theorist is emotionally blocked from accepting solutions based on relatively simple maths.

Enter Dr Louis Essen

Now an interesting development occurred. Dr Louis Essen FRS 1, famous for his invention of the caesium beam atomic clock, wrote an article in 1988 criticising Einstein’s theories. Subsequently, despite his achievements, he was warned that he was, “Placing the tenure of his post in jeopardy”. So he was forced to desist. Some correspondence with Ron in 1991 then resulted in Essen suggesting he go as Essen’s deputy to deliver his theory at a scientific conference in Russia. Essen said that it was impossible to publish either critiques or alternatives to relativity in the West but over there scientists were much more open-minded. So Ron (Pearson3) followed this proposal and a publication entitled, ‘Alternative to Relativity including Quantum Gravitation’ was finally achieved there in 1991.

The ‘new exact classical mechanics’ led directly to quantum gravity and permitted a new solution to the problem of creation of the universe to be derived. Again this had to be presented in Russia (Pearson 4) in 1993 and was published by them in 1994.

In 2008 Ron became aware of work the physicist, Hal Puthoff 7, had published in 2002. Hal had published a theory based on the wave nature of light but involved density gradients of the ether similar to those specified by ECM theory. So Puthoff’s theory and ECM seem to be mutually supportive. Both give similar predictions though one uses the particle nature and the other the wave nature of light. Does this not prove the rejections were unwarranted?

Branded a Maverick for offering Critique!

The reason for rejection of all papers submitted emerged in 1996 at a scientific conference in Cirencester. Ron asked the organiser, the cosmologist soon to become Professor Bernard Carr, if he knew the reason. He pulled no punches with:

“You are well known in cosmology circles – as a Maverick: No journal is ever going to publish any of your work.”

This highlights a very serious situation that Ron considers the real reason physics has hit the buffers. No science can flourish if critique is stifled. It has recently emerged that others have been similarly classified for trying to ‘blow the whistle’. Elsewhere on this website we invite other such “Mavericks” to participate in the hope of bringing pressure to bear that will put a stop to this malpractice.

However, one article slipped through the barriers by publication is a new scientific journal in 1997 (Pearson5). That door closed abruptly. Another was published in India in 2005 (Pearson6) but again that door soon closed as well.


THE BIG BREED THEORY

So now, at long last, we come to the point where the Big Breed alternative to the Big Bang can be described. The i-ther has to be created from a mix of both positive and negative sum energies in balanced amounts for the reason already explained. The ECM theory is applicable to particles, to be called ‘primaries’, of both positive and negative energy. Each type consists of sum energy: the sum of both rest and kinetic energy and, as required by ECM theory, rest and kinetic energy are able to transmute one into the other.

. A sub-quantum level of reality has to exist, to be called ‘i-ther’, in order to differentiate it from the old ‘ether’ that is different and emerges as a level of information from i-ther.

Initially only the nothingness of the void of zero energy existed except for the occasional eruption of a double pair of primaries. This is permitted since two pairs can emerge in such a way that their net energy and momentum sum to zero. A single pair that conserves energy disconserves momentum. The fact that double pairs can emerge, however, shows the void to be unstable and has the potential of creation. Then by a remote chance enough primaries converge to produce a critical number density.

Our theory shows that at this condition a Big Breed will be initiated. When primaries of opposite energy collide in twos the need to conserve momentum across the collision event forces both partners to gain energy in balanced amounts of their own kind. The net energy gain of the two primaries is zero but each individual has increased in energy of its own kind. There is also a corresponding increase in size. They go on colliding mostly in twos owing to the packing density being quite low. Like collisions of either positive or negative energy make no contribution to growth but each collision of the unlike variety does. So on average all keep growing until each reaches a critical size. Then they split just as do raindrops that grow too large. The net effect is a rapid increase in numbers within a growing ball of i-ther that is also increasing in packing density everywhere.

Primaries breed like opposite sexes!

This describes an incredibly rapid ‘inflation’ but in a way totally different from that postulated in the Big bang theory. The rate of energy gain per unit volume of space is predicted, from application of an adapted kinetic theory of gases, to be frighteningly huge. Fortunately, however, the principle contains the potential for switch off: something the Big Bang theory totally lacks.

Pressures and packing densities always have a maximum value at the origin point falling off to low values near the rapidly growing edge. This produces the pressure gradients needed for generating the accelerating growth. Starting at the origin point densities reach a level at which a second instability arises. When more than double pairs collide the conditions for mutual annihilation start to appear. This is because the need to conserve momentum now favours mutual annihilation over creation. Then as more collide from all directions the probability of annihilation is increased until the formation of a core of annihilation develops. With each new spherical shell of cores forming the net growth is reduced until the entire seething mass has spontaneously divided itself into myriads of minute cells each containing a central annihilation core. Inside each cell primaries continually breed unhindered in their outer annuli but the creation going on forces radial implosion so they all converge to the core and then mutually annihilate inside. More cores form starting from the centre and spreading out as densities keep increasing. When cells fill the whole sphere growth is brought almost but not quite to a stop.

This is the way the Big Breed theory provides a solution to the thorny problem of growth being predicted as billions upon billions of times too high. The switch-off means, the Big Bang theory so sorely lacks, has appeared!

The switch-off is only partial at first but drastically reduces the rate of growth everywhere but now a new balance is created. The higher the pressure and density the lower the net creation becomes but conversely the greater the acceleration the more creation is demanded. Consequently a balance is reached and the system is self-regulating. As the growing ball increases in size so densities increase and accelerations reduce. In this way a mechanism has appeared able to match the data astronomers have provided.


There is much more to come. Cores can exist as blobs or a tangle of filaments. The annuli of cells act like high temperature sources of energy with cores providing low temperature heat sinks. These are the conditions needed for turning energy into useful power. The junctions between filaments and cores and between filaments and other filaments can break and modify. All the ingredients needed for evolution by the organising power of chaos are present. Mathematicians studying chaos all admit to being amazed at the way chaotic systems fed with energy move to the edge of chaos and then demonstrate self-organisation. Structures and mechanisms appear that could not have been predicted from the simple physics governing the individual behaviour of elements making the whole.

So has the theory the potential for providing the sub-quantum intelligence needed for organising matter at the quantum level of existence? This is the as yet unanswered burning question. However, if a positive answer is ultimately returned from possible further research involving the use of super-computers, then the answer to the question of existence may well have been found.

The Big Bang of Matter

Detailed analyses, assuming a positive answer is possible, have predicted that the i-ther must be at least 300 billion years old. Plenty of time has been available for its self-organisation to become a conscious intelligent entity. It would be capable of creating the universe by its mathematical programming ability. So instead of a single Big Bang there was the Big Breed and aeons later the Big Bang yielding the matter of our universe could have been created in the manner of self-replicating computer viruses. All would be provided with a replication cut off routine. In this way the Big Bang itself is provided with its own switching means.


To support the likelihood of such an advance becoming reality further study has been made of the outcome and is described in our popularisation, INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THE UNIVERSE II. Here the so called ‘paranormal’ is investigated and shown to be perfectly feasible as an extension to advanced physics. The i-ther is able to create not just our universe of matter but a whole set of several interpenetrating universes. Each occupies the same space as the others but each operates independently of the remainder. Each is invisible to others and does not interfere with the others. It is perfectly possible for the minds of Earth people, being fragments of i-ther, at the ultimate level of reality, to transfer to a parallel universe when their Earth bodies become dysfunctional.

Precognition and the concept of TIME

One difficulty has demanded considerable attention and that is the question of what time really is. Some people, such as the incredible dream detective, Christopher Robinson, have highly developed powers of precognition. Chris has time and again demonstrated this ability to become very famous in Japan. Their TV people regularly fly him out to give live demonstrations. Unfortunately the secret censorship in the West prevents this knowledge being given to our people.

However, Chris and others like him all claim time does not really exist except in our realm otherwise accurate prediction of the future would be impossible.

The answer from our theory is that the memory banks provided by i-ther are so huge that every incident is recorded, even the future intentions of the i-ther itself. These precognitive types have the ability to read the memory banks.


Rory Macquisten, who has been invaluable since this website could not have emerged without his help, was the person who christened this the BIG BREED theory.


This theory, unlike the big bang, contains no false logic or internal contradiction. It solves the problem of the cosmological constant that still invalidates the Big Bang theory. It simultaneously predicts the accelerating expansion of the universe.

The theory with this potential was first published as a pamphlet in 1992 followed by the publication in Russia in 1994 and that in America in 1997, all before the astronomical discovery was made in 1998!
REFERENCES

1 Essen, Louis (1988): RELATIVITY – joke or swindle?

Electronics and Wireless World, Feb.1988 pp 126-127

(Essen says Soddy called it a swindle and Ruther ford treated it as a joke. However, Essen goes on to say that he does not think Rutherford would have thought it so funny had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.)

2 Pearson, Ronald D. (1986): Pressure Exchangers and Pressure Exchange engines. (gives details of the Gas Wave Turbine ) pp.903 –943 The Thermodynamics and Gas Dynamics of Internal Combustion Engines edited by I.H. Horlock and D.E. Winterbone Clarendon Press . Oxford 1986

3 Pearson, Ronald D.(1991): Alternative to Relativity including

Quantum Gravitation: Second International Conference on

Problems in Space and Time: St. Petersburg, (Sept.1991) pp 278-292. Petrovskaja Academy of Sciences & Arts

Chairman Local Organising Committee: Dr. Michael Varin:

Pulkovskoye Road 65-9-1 St. Petersburg 196140, Russia.

4 Pearson, Ronald.D.(1994): Quantum Gravitation and the Structured

Ether: Sir Isaac Newton Conference. St. Petersburg (March 1993)

pp 39-55 : see above for address.

5 Pearson, R. D.(1997): Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum

Phenomenon: Frontier Perspectives, Spring/Summer 1997,

Vol.6,No.2 pp70-78 (Not included in the contents list)

6 Pearson, R.D. (2005): A Paradigm-Shifting Physics Supports

Immortality!: CONSCIOUSNESS SERIES 7: Indian Council of

Philosophical Research, Darshan Bhawan, 36, Tughlakabad

Institutional Area, Mehrauli-Badarour Rd., New Delhi 11oo62

7 Puthoff, H.E. (2002): Polarizable Vacuum (PV) Approach to General Relativity: Foundations of Physics, Vol.32,No.6, June 2002.

Добавить в свой блог или на сайт

Похожие:

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconA unitary Process of Big-World History. A transcendental and Constructivist Perspective in History

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconTowards a more inclusive philosophy of biology

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconHistory of philosophy

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconHistory of philosophy

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics icon[ a history of Western Philosophy

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconPhilosophy of Law & Legal Theory: a basic Bibliography

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconProgram in History and Philosophy of Science

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconHS2502 history & philosophy of science II (15 credits)

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconWorldviews : an introduction to the history and philosophy of science

The philosophy and history of the big breed theory inclusive of its mechanics iconSchool of philosophy and art history 2012-2013


Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
lib.convdocs.org


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.convdocs.org 2012
обратиться к администрации
lib.convdocs.org
Главная страница