DURING a Talk Radio discussion on 23rd April 1995, following
your UnConvention, Peter Brookesmith ridiculed Newtonian concepts saying it was
not surprising that reviewers rejected them, and implying that reconsidering
them would be a retrograde step, physics having long since progressed beyond
such old-fashioned ideas. According to Brookesmith, 'superstrings' needing up to
26 dimensions, and 'superspace' having an infinite number, were the
sophisticated order of the present day.
He did not, however, say these provided a solution to the major
problems confronting cosmology-physics: mainly the problem of finding a theory
of gravitation compatible with explanations of how the atom works (quantum
theory). Indeed, it was the flaws and internal contradictions within established
physics that triggered my own activity in this domain.
I found that Newton's laws needed updating because, since light
falls like matter, it is necessary to add the mass equivalent of the kinetic
energy of an object to the mass that Newton used to define 'inertia' for his
laws of motion. A background medium also had to exist which was more dense
(compressed) the closer it was to ponderous matter. Then predictions appeared
which matched all the valid achievements of Einstein's relativity theories. It
gave the same life increase of muons in cosmic rays, the same frequency shifts
of clocks, the same perihelion advance of Mercury, the same doubling of light
deflection by gravity, the same Shapiro Time Delay, and was consistent with
Einstein's 'equivalence'. It has now evolved into "a quantum-wave theory of
gravity". The waves have been shown to create the density gradients
specified by the aforementioned revision of Newtonian mechanics.
Einstein broke the rules of logic
If this had been discovered between 1900 and 1920, then
Einstein's theories would never have been accepted - they contain internal
contradiction while Newtonian theory is totally free from such objection. For
example, Professor Herbert Dingle, a one-time ardent relativist, pointed out in
the Sixties that relativity meant that clocks would run both fast and slow
simultaneously which was logically impossible. Dr. Louis Essen, inventor of the
atomic clock, said Einstein broke the rules of logic by fixing the speed of
light as a universal constant and adjusting the unit of time to keep it so. The
famous scientists Rutherford and Soddy had rejected Einstein's concepts as
absurdities right from the start.
It was the lead given by Einstein's curved spacetime ideas that
caused theorists to develop even more extreme ideas. These involve huge numbers
of spatial dimensions, all curled up into little balls, whose very existence is
beyond all hope of proof. Worse, after more than 60 years of world-wide effort,
theorists are still unable to match up relativity with quantum theory. Even
Stephen Hawking, who admits this on page 12 of 'A Brief History of Time', spends
most of the book discussing how theorists are still trying to achieve what he
has already implied is impossible by the following statement regarding quantum
and relativity theories, "unfortunately, however, these two theories are
known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct". He
ends by saying it will take them another ten years to find a solution.
Compatible with quantum theory
The revised Newtonian argument starts off quantum-based and so
fits in perfectly with quantum theory: there is just no problem! Furthermore,
another difficulty of establishment theory vanishes as well - the 'Cosmological
Constant'. This predicts galaxies are accelerating apart at a rate 50 orders of
magnitude above that allowable from astronomical observations.
The Newtonian theory is not just compatible with quantum theory,
it provides considerable enhancement, explaining its basic feature -
wave-particle duality - including what these waves are and how they are powered.
But there is more. The revised Newtonian theory demands the
existence of an all-pervading medium to interconnect all things: the Ether of
Huygen, Crookes, Lodge, Baird and other famous scientists. A structure of Ether
emerges directly from the mathematics that seems to have all the essentials
needed for behaviour as a neural network: it seems to have the potential to
evolve consciousness. In consequence it cannot be asserted that the so-called
paranormal is impossible on grounds of the violation of physics. This is because
when the mind is considered as part of the structure of the Ether it could
account for all such phenomena and the mind itself could well be immortal.
Originally, the idea of the Ether was discredited because of the
"failure" of the Michelson Morley experiment to detect any motion of
the Earth. This was reinforced by an incompatibility with relativity theory.
Neither of these objections are applicable any longer. It is therefore
reasonable to conclude that physics has been ploughing a false trail for the
last 60 years or so and is now bogged down up to its axles. In such
circumstances, progress can only be made by going back to the place where things
started to go wrong. If the West continues to reject Newton without even looking
- which is what is happening - it will be overtaken by the more open-minded
East. I have to say that some Russian physicists have already shown a keen
interest in this revised Newtonian approach. At the 'Sir Isaac Newton
Conference' that took place in March 1993 in St. Petersburg, Professor Philip
Kanarev, a physicist at the Kybar State University, came to the lectern to
propose that the theory I presented at the same Convention in 1991 be adopted
for teaching in all Russian universities.
So please let's have some open-minded assessment here in the