Since physics is not your discipline, how did you get involved
in trying to relate survival of consciousness to physics?
Reading cosmology physics of all things. I spotted some alarming
logical errors in the Big Bang theory which should have been
spotted by the assessors. I could not therefore understand why
the hypothesis had been accepted for publication. I tried to
publish critiques but all were rejected. Mostly the rejection
letters also showed the assessors lacked a grounding in basic
principles. I just went on from there.
How could that lead to the theory of survival?
I realised that some basic grounding had been lost in the
teaching of physics and thought I could help to put the
theorists back on track. This turned me on to looking at other
aspects of physics. The solution to some major problems appeared
and these showed that consciousness had to be part of an
invisible background medium. This meant it could not be mere
brain function postulated by almost every scientist:
consciousness had to be a construct of an invisible background
medium with the potential to be immortal.
What made you think the physics might be wrong?
Flaws in the logic of the Big Bang also led to false
predictions. The worst is known as "The Cosmological
Constant". They say that all the matter and energy in the
universe appeared from nothing in a blinding flash of creation.
But they can find no way of switching off the creative explosion
they invented, so this goes on still pushing the galaxies apart
at rates billions upon billions of times greater than they know
is remotely possible. In my opinion the theory should never have
passed peer review until this had been sorted out.
Well how do the theorists deal with this difficulty?
Very simply. They just ignore it altogether even though it
totally destroys the validity of all the scenarios they present,
including the age of the universe. This they estimate as 12
billion years. It also gives other headaches. For instance
astronomers say some stars seem older than the universe.
That seems a remarkable indictment which I think you need to
substantiate. I find it difficult to believe that the entire
scientific community would condone the acceptance of things
which do not even make sense: even to a non-scientist.
I agree. But these problems are still baffling cosmologists. For
proof look at a book by Brian Green published in 1999 about the
latest craze, "superstrings", expected to provide the
physicists holy grail, the theory of everything. The book is
called, "The Elegant Universe", written as a
popularisation to boost enthusiasm for this theory. It admits on
page 225 that the theory is unable to solve the problem of the
cosmological constant. He also admits on page 211 that the
theory cannot yet provide a single valid prediction able to
confront the data followed by, "Is string theory right? We
just donít know."
Well that just shows how difficult are the problems they face
and maybe you should be praising their courage in tackling them
rather than pulling them down.
The last thing I am trying to do is to pull them down. I greatly
admire their mathematical expertise. I could see, however, from
my own background, that they had lost a vital bit of
understanding. I could see what they are doing wrong and wanted
to help them back on track.
And could you do that?
The solution which appeared from a commonsense approach, only
requiring relatively unsophisticated mathematics had provided a
solution to both problems by 1987.
Then why are they still looking for answers?
Because they are running a closed shop and will not allow anyone
from allied disciplines to publish critiques of their work or
any solutions to their problems. Consequently theorists are
still searching in vain for solutions by inappropriate
sophisticated mathematics when perfectly satisfactory solutions
have existed for years. If you find this hard to believe then
visit the website of Dr.Brian Martin which is:
is a physicist who has become so disillusioned by the
suppressions by his own colleagues that he switched to a study
supported by the: "Fund for Intellectual Dissent", Box
U129 Wollongong University. NSW 2500, Australia. He also says in
his book called "Suppression" that there is no hope of
publication in any scientific journal unless one has a Ph.D. in
physics and writes from a prestigious address, such as a
Does that mean you have not achieved a single publication to
prove that your work is not all wrong?
No, but I was forced to go to Russia to seek freedom of
expression. I had a solution to the gravity problem published in
the proceedings of the scientific conference in Russia dated
1991, another concerning the intelligence of the background
medium in their proceedings of 1993 and finally an 8 page
article of mine was published in the scientific journal,
"Frontier Perspectives", The Center for Frontier
Sciences at Temple University in the USA. It appeared in the
Spring/Summer edition of 1997. This was called,
"Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon" and so
dealt with survival, showing it to be intimately related to
creation and a solution to the gravity problem. These were all
fully peer-reviewed by physicists and so I consider these
justify my contention that the logic is sound.
So now you are bringing gravity into the picture. Why make
things so complicated?
Survival is intimately linked to the rest of physics and I found
it appeared from a holistic solution which involved several
different problems. The other main problem concerned finding a
satisfactory theory of gravity compatible with quantum theory.
I thought Einstein had already solved the problem of gravity and
that this was fully proven and accepted.
Yes. This is his theory called, "General Relativity".
It is fully accepted because it fits in with nearly all the
experimental checks made to substantiate its validity.
Unfortunately it is incompatible with the existence of any
background medium, such as the aether, and something like it has
to be accepted to make quantum theory work. In consequence
theorists have been stuck for about 70 years trying to match up
these two so-called, "pillars of twentieth century
achievement". Worse from the viewpoint of survival,
relativity blocks the way by not allowing a real background to
How do quantum and relativity theory differ?
Quantum theory explains the fine workings on the small atomic
scale of things and is quite different from the large scale
mechanics used to describe the motions of large objects.
Theorists consider they have all the mechanics of quantum theory
tied up nicely for all the forces of nature except gravity. They
admit, along with Prof. Stephen Hawking, that these "are
inconsistent with one another so one of them must be wrong"
(a quote from his book on page 11) but still go on attempting to
match them up.
And do you agree with this?
I agree that they can never be fitted together but say that a
different approach has to be used. My own expertise of
engineering is based on Newtonís mechanics, including his
equation for the force of gravity. These are not applicable,
however, when speeds approach those of light.
therefore started by revising this mechanics to make it exact
and to my surprise and satisfaction started coming out with
predictions matching those of Einsteinís relativity. In about
a year nearly all the experiments made to establish relativity
theory were found to satisfy the new approach just as well. The
huge advantages, however, were that, unlike relativity, there
were no internal contradictions or incompatibility with quantum
theory. One reason was this approach required a background
medium to exist which I now call the "iether" since it
differs from that of other people. All speeds are measured from
this instead of the observer as in relativity. It seemed to me
therefore that this just had to be the solution.
Why does survival come into this?
The solution to creation meant the iether had to consist of a
mixture of primary particles, I call "primaries" of
two kinds. Some were of positive energy with the rest of a
negative kind. They were all dashing about at fantastic speeds
continually in collision with one another like molecules of a
gas to form a seething mass. I donít want to go into technical
details about the meaning of positive and negative except to say
that this has nothing to do with electric charge. It turned out,
however, that when pairs collided a breeding effect occurred so
that each gained energy of its own kind from the void. A new
mechanism of creation had appeared spontaneously. It then
transpired that when many primaries collided from all directions
the opposite occurred. Now we have mutual annihilation. The two
effects almost cancelled to leave a universe in a state of
ever-accelerating expansion. It was not until 1998, however,
that this was confirmed by the astronomical observations made of
important thing, however, was that the annihilation resulted in
the spontaneous formation of a fine grained filamentous network
embedded in a fluid of primaries able to flow through the
structure. It had all the elements needed from which a type of
neural network could evolve. Those made by our scientists have
memory and learning capability and so it seemed reasonable to
assume that the iether could have evolved a primary
consciousness. Hence the theory had come out with the prediction
that mind must be part of the iether: nothing to do with the
brain at all.
So now you had diverted from thoughts about the cosmological
constant and gravity?
Not at all. The cosmological constant no longer existed so this
problem was solved. Also no stars could any longer seem older
than the universe since the iether now turned out to be
indefinitely old. It would have been half the diameter it is now
100 billion years ago, so dwarfing the 12 billion of the Big
Bang. But until the iether had evolved consciousness, matter and
gravity could not exist.
So how do matter and gravity come in?
Both were deliberately created by the conscious intelligence
after it had evolved. All it could do, however, was organise the
waves, like sound waves in air, which it spontaneously
generated. These were the only tools available. So it focused
its waves to make transient spikes of density at places
organised so that atoms would arise seeming to us like solid
objects. As the waves re-expanded moving out, to occupy spheres
of ever growing size, they stimulated excess creation leading to
a non-uniform density of the iether. It was denser the closer to
massive objects. The theory of gravity has now become the
"quantum wave theory of gravity" since it is entirely
dependent on these energy non-uniformities. An important spin
off is that a new interpretation for a basic feature of quantum
theory had emerged naturally. This is called,
"wave-particle duality". Tiny particles behave also as
if they are waves and theorists are still puzzling. They usually
fall back on the Copenhagen interpretation which has it that
everything exists as unresolved waves until observed. Then these
collapse into the particles of reality Ė "The paradox of
Schoedingerís cat" highlights its impossibility.
I see now how all these things tie in. We have mind as part of
the invisible with matter made from the same stuff. So how do
mind and matter relate to each other?
There is this background mind split into fragments by
programming information filter-barriers around each. Then each
drives its own matter-body via the brain. Then it is easy to see
that only matter can be experienced. In this way each sub-mind
can gain experience by interacting with other minds only through
the intermediary of matter. That matter is all is then
experienced as a deliberately contrived illusion.
What happens when we die according to your concept?
Just as our matter systems can be contrived, so can others.
These interpenetrate our own just as radio waves all co-exist
together. We can only tune into one station at a time and so our
minds can similarly only tune in to one matter-system at once.
When we slough off our bodies we will therefore find ourselves
with another matter overcoat and will be able to experience a
different set of physical laws. I call ours a "semi-virtual
reality world" because others could be completely virtual.
They would build atoms by numbers on a grid alone and without
needing to focus real quantum waves.
Now I see how everything fits together and why you had to
consider so many aspects. According to this the mind creates
matter for its own use. Is that what you are saying and are
there any other aspects you think worthy of mention?
Yes. That just about sums up the situation as I see it. There
are many other aspects. For example, the quantum wave theory of
gravity has thrown up ten new ideas for experiments by which it
could be falsified/verified. An interesting speculation is that
the gamma ray bursts which are just being found might have an
explanation. Nobody has offered one yet to my knowledge. They
appear at a rate of about one a day at remote distances but if
one occurred anywhere in our galaxy everybody on our planet
would be vaporised so the physicists tell us. I think these may
well be the births of new galaxies introduced to fill the
ever-expanding space. No single big bang could ever have
occurred according to this new scenario.
Well that just about covers everything I think. So we can now go
and have a cup of tea.