Non-technical readers will wish to see confirmation of the theory expounded in this book. Not having mathematical expertise they will naturally look to the accepted experts in the field of gravitation for an opinion. They will naturally think of sending the TECHNICAL SECTION to a physicist specialising in this field. Before this step is taken it is necessary to consider some psychological aspects which are only too relevant. Neglect of these will almost certainly lead to a false impression being returned.
The established experts in gravitation are really experts only in relativity and established quantum theory and have not managed to relate the two despite all efforts. They have been taught to accept relativity at a fairly early age and despite the fact that internal contradictions are known to exist experimental verification has reinforced their view that Einstein was right, as shown by Will (124) & (108). They cannot therefore be expected to take kindly to any alternative approach which would undermine confidence in Einstein's theory. To reinforce the barriers, Einstein seems to have become the God of physics, with relativity as its bible. Any attempt to provide an alternative view is regarded as heresy. The "MBM" rejection syndrome described at the end of Chapter 1 will almost certainly come into play and the opinion returned will almost certainly be highly negative. Indeed it is most probable that ridicule will be used to reinforce this opinion. If the request is made that any flaws be highlighted, the most probable answer will be that these are too numerous to mention.
This does not mean, however, that there is necessarily anything wrong with the new theory. It is more likely to mean that it has been interpreted as a threat. The greater the strength of the negative response, the greater the threat syndrome is likely to be operating. Therefore in some strange way this helps to indicate that the new is valid. The new is a threat because it is not based on relativity in any way. The experts in gravitation are likely to feel hostile when the validity of a main plank of their specialisation is questioned. If the new is accepted, then they are no longer experts in their field. Understandably this generates a hostile response. one can only sympathise with people in this position and expect to be obstructed by them. It is a situation which has delayed the progress of science throughout history. But sympathy must not be allowed to override the need for rationally based assessment.
The way to obtain a satisfactory answer is to avoid requesting an opinion. A request should instead be made of a statement of validity of the initial assumptions and for a list of any logical errors and internal contradictions which are found. The next hazard is that the new will be claimed flawed by logic which turns out to be totally false and is readily refuted. What has so far happened with depressing regularity is that untested predictions of Einstein's theory have been used as proof that the new is flawed. Then when it was pointed out that these differences were the very ones which could be used to design experiments capable of discriminating between the two, no further response was ever received.
It can be concluded that the last thing these establishment critics want is to promote experiments which might show Einstein to have been wrong. It is accepted by physicists that new experimental checks for relativity are very hard to find. The new theory, however, points to quite a number. One, the pure creation experiment, has already been described, but the rest are described in the TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT. Most could be used to discriminate between the two theories. So even if the new is ultimately found wanting, its communication could achieve a useful role in providing a new set of experimental checks.
It is important, therefore, that the would-be refutations are checked for their content against the list of new proposals for experimental checks given at the end of Chapter T.S.2.
One most disappointing aspect of the criticisms received so far has been the lack of comment regarding successes of the new theory. In no single case have any of these even been mentioned by any referee. Several letters have stated that it is insufficient to show that a single successful check can be met, making reference to the precession of Mercury. Yet each article submitted covered all five checks, even stating this in the summary! Not a single critic has ever written a word about the way the ratio of the gravitational to the electric force is predicted. Yet this has not been achieved in any other theory so far published. It was a goal Einstein pursued for many years and finally had to abandon. Surely the open-minded critic should find this worth just a mention? No single critic has expressed any surprise that the equations for the so-called "relativistic" component of precession of planets is given just as accurately by the new theory as by Einstein's. Yet there should have been some surprise, because the equations compared in FIG. 13 (T.S.) look totally different. Nor has any surprise or credit been given for the coincidence in predictions given for the remaining checks. There has been a total absence of comment regarding the internal inconsistencies shown in Chapter T.S.2 to be inherent in special relativity. Hence none of the criticisms received to date can be regarded as unbiased.
To obtain an unbiased judgement it is necessary to go to people who are not too closely involved. Nobody needs to be an acknowledged expert in gravitation to give a value judgement. Indeed experts need to be avoided. Anybody familiar with Newtonian mechanics and having a background in 'A' level mathematics will be able to judge the issue. Suitable people are professional mechanical, electrical and structural engineers and mathematicians outside the field of cosmology together with young physicists. Young physicists have not yet invested so much intellectual capital in the established approach as to make them feel reluctant to explore alternatives.
This advice is given as the result of a frustrating six years of effort in attempts to publish aspects of the new theory in the scientific journals. Not a single success has so far been achieved, yet none of the assessors has pointed out a single valid objection. I will quote extracts from two examples to show the kind of objections which have been received:
25 Aug. 1987
"In selecting papers for consideration we have to apply our editorial judgement as to whether the arguments contained in the paper concerned will have an immediate impact on the readership of Nature - on the course of research in particular. This is not to say they should not be published at all. It is simply an editorial decision that they cannot be published in Nature."
Several articles had been submitted over about a three-year period regarding gravitational topics. These included Tryon's "negative gravitational potential energy,' the need for negative mass as mediators for attractive forces and a solution to the long-standing problem of a huge "cosmological constant" predicted by established theory and known to be totally false. Several redrafts had been made in each case to satisfy previous objections, which were all of a trivial kind.
Yet reference to the last problem is made several times in the workshop proceedings of 1982, edited by Gibbons, Hawking and Siklos (207). They repeatedly and openly state that failure to resolve this problem undermines confidence in their theory. They are trying to so amalgamate general relativity with quantum theory that the universally attracive force of gravitation is predicted. Instead the combination results in the prediction of a huge
repulsive force associated with a "cosmological constant", which is said to be 1050 times greater than astronomical observations can possibly allow! In Chapter TS1 the mathematical logic involved is summarised being taken from the book by Novikov (211). It attempts to amalgamate three theories each based on assumptions which are incompatible with the others. This goes against all the rules of logic.
Then a year after my attempts to communicate a solution an article appeared by Abbott (101) in the same journal, addressing the same problem. Briefly he says that there are other universes existing in higher dimensions and are connected to ours via "worm-holes" in space. It is then hoped that they have a similar problem of a huge cosmological constant which somehow is exactly equal but opposite to ours so that mutual cancellation takes place. The article ends by stating that "the approach relies on a shaky formalism and on many untested assumptions."
At present quantum theory has no satisfactory explanation for attraction. It relies on the idea of "negative coupling", which, as shown in Chapter 5 of this book, is an untenable concept because it contains another internal contradiction. The rejected article showed the necessity for accepting the existence of negative energy states and then went on to show how space, regarded as an exact balance of positive and negative states, would predict the cosmological constant to be zero as required. Again this is summarised in Chapter TS1. Most of the assumptions used in new concept have been fully tested and accepted in mainstream physics. They are listed in Chapter T.S.1 50 the reader will be able to judge the issue.
Why do journals accept solutions which openly state their logic to be highly questionable with initial assumptions untested or untestable, which also involve internal contradictions, and yet reject solutions which fit the facts without involving contradictions?
It is not my wish to discredit "Nature". Indeed this particular journal has been one of the most reasonable in the way it has dealt with my submissions. I have received from them references for books I should consult on the subject and they have always taken great pains to find reasons for refusals to publish. They cannot be blamed for this reaction. Clearly they have to retain their readership. They know what their readers will be pleased to see. Clearly a theory which would "rock the boat" is unlikely to please.
This puts the finger on the crux of the matter. It shows why new ideas are always resisted in the initial stages to the detriment of scientific advance. The barriers in the way of progress seem virtually insurmountable.
Some journals refused these and other articles on grounds that they were not specialists in gravitation, despite the fact that they published articles relevant to this topic from time to time. They advised sending the work to specialised journals. The following is typical of the specialist response:
Journal of Physics
Gravitation" (Submitted 8/8/88)
"This paper does not meet the standards of CJP, since it fails to properly connect with currently accepted gravitational theories such as Einstein's general relativity and the presently accepted problems In quantum gravity."
The new theory completely resolved the problems mentioned because they simply did not appear in a theory quantum-based from the start. The paper showed that the extended Newtonian physics gave all the same predictions as Einstein's theory except for gravitational waves, Which had not been studied. This final rejection had been preceded by several acknowledgement cards saying that the paper was under review during the 16-month period they took to make up their minds. Clearly they were unable to find a logical flaw to justify rejection.
Nobody has yet been able to connect Einstein's general relativity to quantum theory. Hawking(115) openly states on page 11 of his best-selling popularisation that quantum theory and relativity are now known to be incompatible with one another, so one of them must be wrong. He implies later that relativity is the theory chosen as correct. So if Einstein is wrong, and the present work suggests that he is, there is absolutely no official way of communicating alternative theories. Clearly the rejections are all motivated by political reasons which are being allowed to totally override scientific evaluations. The assessors decide in advance what is acceptable on the basis of its compatibility with established views; then if it does not fit they look for excuses no matter how weak, or use false logic to justify rejection. This is just very bad for science. Science can only thrive in an atmosphere of constructive criticism. All new ideas which have been checked and found free from logical flaws need to be positively encouraged, otherwise progress is stifled.
My next approach was to offer the new theory to a number of universities, in turn, as a Ph.D. thesis. Already having an honours degree in a scientific and mathematically based discipline, university regulations are already satisfied. I thought if I had a Ph.D in physics, then the acceptance barriers might no longer be insurmountable. It is tempting to name the universities which have been approached but this will be resisted. There is no need to go out of one's way to cultivate enemies! One refused to look at it. Another used the excuse that they would have no time to assess it owing to pressure of other work. So they also would not look. A third said that their rules forbade anyone submitting who had not obtained a first degree at that university. I do know they can waive this rule when it suits them and they are also aware of the new approach.
At least I know what Galileo must have felt like when nobody would look through his telescope!
When excessive time is being taken to solve an intractable problem it makes sense to diversify effort by studying all possible approaches. Other disciplines can help by offering new angles. It could be that in the area of gravitation and cosmology theoreticians have been following a false trail for the last seventy years. Hawking (115) states that he thinks they will have a solution for quantum gravitation by the turn of the century. So they still think they need ten more years! When this time is up, will they still need ten more years? Will they ever reach their goal following their chosen path? Could it be that with every move they make they depart further from reality? These are the questions which in my opinion the critics should be asking. The theory Abbot described (which was originated by S. Coleman) and which is summarised above indicates the way the thinking is developing and the reader can judge its plausibility.
Science needs something like the Hippocratic oath of the medical profession if it is to be prevented from stagnating. This should state that all new ideas, from whatever source, be given a fair analysis. Ideas need to be criticised to discover any fundamental flaw and if none can be found, then without exception they should be encouraged and receive priority for publication, regardless of any opposition from others who might consider their interests impaired.
If a group of professional people like me with expertise in mathematics, Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetics, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics got together with some young physicists who know more about the strong and weak forces than I, then we would stand a good chance of beating the acknowledged experts to the "GRAND UNIFIED THEORY"! This is the "Holy Grail" of Physics at the present time. Some more work is needed to find a way of calculating the energy loss involved in the radiation of gravitational waves. Then some modification may be needed to quantum theory to express the strong and weak forces in terms of three spatial dimensions plus time and energy. We need to explore established quantum theory to find all the areas in which negative energy states are causing embarrassment. As shown in Chapter 5 negative energy forms have to exist. Hence what is indicated is some wrong assumptions or false theorising. We will need to sort these out and come up with viable alternatives.
The major point is that whatever successes are claimed for the established approach, it can never be valid because it contains so many internal contradictions. Even a single contradiction is sufficient to invalidate any theory! These successes therefore have to be interpreted as meaning that a parallel alternative solution must exist and needs to be sought.
12.1 MEETING CRITICISM
A constructive criticism was recieved from Richard Austin and is of the kind I like to see. He is a competent mathematician familiar with quantum and relativity physics. He stated that the great attraction of the route being followed by mainstream physicists is that there are promising signs that they can eliminate the need to put universal constants for the forces of nature in "by hand". It would not be possible to do this with the approach made here. This may true up to a point, but an experimental determination of at least one constant has to be made somewhere. The objection is at least partially refutable by the theories given in the TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT where it is shown that from a common starting point the same energy densities of space are required to relate the electric and gravitational forces. The lower densities required by the strong and weak forces can readily be accommodated. The new approach might be capable of extension to achieve the same promised result. This aspect has simply not been explored. The main emphasis has been to find a common base free from the contradictions bedevilling the established approach. Until a theory is soundly based refinement seems pointless.
He also thought my splitting of the four forces into two groups would be cause for criticism. I place the electromagnetic and gravitational forces into one group based on buoyancy type forces. These are caused by the virtual particles of space forming energy density gradients. The strong and weak forces fill the other group, since they operate by mediator absorption processes. The reason for this is fully explained in the text. In trying to use a common absorption basis as in established theory it seems that some important factors have not been recognised. It is not possible to explain the absence of gravitational shielding by layers of matter, if mediator absorption models are postulated. Furthermore such models will predict both planets and electrons to progressively gain angular momentum and spiral out of orbit. For the strong force, speeds approach that of light and then the objection does not arise. In this case. however, absorption is necessary since binding energies would not otherwise be reflected as mass deficits.
He pointed out that a major triumph of modern physics was the successful relating of the electromagnetic force to the weak nuclear force. This suggests that the same absorption model will apply to both. By sheer coincidence, however, it turns out that for the electric force almost the same energy density of space is needed for the absorption model as is needed for the buoyancy type. A parallel solution is therefore indicated which is free from contradiction with observation. A common absorption model does not need to obtain.
It is much more important that a theory is free from internal contradiction and fits observation than that it fits in with what theorists feel to be a neater arrangement. None of the accepted theories meet this criterion. However, in the present theory all four forces depend on a common quantum base so there is still a unification of the four forces at a basic level.
He also felt that having a Grid which deliberately designed the universe to permit life forms to exist would lay the theory open to criticism. After all, he says, Jews and Christians say the world is as it is because God made it that way. True. But find a way of explaining wave-particle duality which does not have inbuilt paradoxes, uses unacceptable assumptions, violates causality and makes true prediction without a universal computing base interpenetrating the whole of space. Find one which explains why atoms are ball shaped and not like discs without being based on a Grid. If these matters can be satisfied without one, and no theory has emerged which can, then and only then, does such a criticism hold water with a Grid allowed then a creation scenario seems perfectly acceptable. If this is how it all really happened and scientists are totally committed to theories based on a purely accidental origin, then it is impossible for a solution ever to emerge.
The point of this presentation is to show that an alternative is plausible and should be pursued in parallel with the accepted scientific route. There is no way any religious group can be proved wrong in the common fundamental belief in a Creator and so this needs to be considered as a viable option which needs to be explored. It must also be repeated that the present solution did not start out to prove God exists. I was an atheist when I began. This was homed in on as an inescapable conclusion.
It is also true that no attempt is made in the present theory to predict the existence of new particles such as the 'W' and "Z" which were a triumph for the existing approach. My answer here is that this part of quantum physics needs to be integrated with the present theory instead of trying to fit it into the far more abstract and totally incompatible curved space theories of higher dimensions. As Mr Austin points out in the supportive part of his critique, the ideas of space curvature and mediating particles are basically incompatible. Either mediators are needed to produce forces or particles can be assumed to feel accelerations caused by curved space. These theories cannot be satisfactorily integrated because each provides a complete explanation without need for the other, he states.
So another avenue is opened for extension of the new theoretical approach which started by extending Newtonian physics.
Mr Austin thought the material would prove very heavy reading for the layman. He did not consider the presentation would have a popular appeal comparable with a Paul Davies book. This I have to ruefully admit is probably only too true. I too have found the Paul Davies style captivating. I have done my best but I am not a naturally gifted writer for the non-specialist. I made great efforts to follow the accepted route of first obtaining scientific acceptance, only to find all doors locked and barred. I have therefore to try the popularisation first. It is the wrong way round but I am left with Hobson's choice.
But his criticisms also had a strong positive aspect. He said he was fascinated to see a theory capable of explaining paranormal phenomena. This was something he had hoped to see for many years.
This is how a critique should appear. It represents constructive criticism. The kind which avoids mentioning positive aspects is purely destructive and needs to be condemned.
There is also another area in which more study is indicated. This will now be considered.
The abstract mathematical reasoning which led to the formulation of electromagnetic wave theory also needs inspection. In Chapter T.S.1 a physical structure is briefly described which relates the photon to space so that this wave can be imagined. This approach indicates that in the formulation, a phase lag of o/2 must have been dropped somewhere. In the philosophy on which the Present theory is based all mathematical formulations need to be consistent with imaginable logic. Any mismatch which arose during development of the extended Physics presented in this book was taken to indicate the existence of an error in either the initial assumptions or the mathematics. A flaw was always found and rectified. The place where the o/2 has been dropped will ultimately be discovered.
This highlights the difference in the present approach from that of contemporary physics. This is best expressed by mentioning another of the many rejection letters received. My submission said that the new theory had the advantage of being easily imagined. Instead, the assessor used this as his reason for rejection. He claimed that physics had become so sophisticated that it had long passed the stage at which anything could really be imagined. Physics had developed into pure abstraction. Therefore this was indeed a valid reason for rejection because it indicated the submission to be a regressive step. A viable solution to the problem of the "Cosmological Constant" was unacceptable because it did not look difficult!
Surely simple approaches ought to be communicated so that people can criticise them and compare with the established view. Theories involving contradictions or so-called paradoxes means that science is going up a blind alley. Are students being asked to take on board theories containing internal contradictions which logic should prohibit? In this book, in both Part I and Part II, internal contradictions are shown to exist in the established approach. If students are being trained to accept false logic then a situation exists which needs to be rectified. Each new generation will continue to mislead the next unless a group from outside the discipline can develop sufficient credibility to override inbuilt inertia.
If a new group can complete the picture, then it would indeed achieve the "Super Grand Unification" which combines within it the explanation for psychic phenomena. The Cambridge Professor, Brian Josephson (116), argues that this has to be the next step. It would not be as difficult as it might seem at first sight. The new theory already relates the magnitude of the force of gravity to the electric force and this has not been done before. Already a theory is offered here which integrates gravitation with an explanation of psychic phenomena based on the evidence of wave-particle duality. Also, as shown in Chapter 3, the idea of higher spatial dimensions arose because theoreticians could not explain gravity by accepted Newtonian methods. The latter used only three-length, breadth and height. But the extended Newtonian physics succeeded without using any more. Hence the justification for higher dimensions no longer exists.
The young physicists we need may be able to reduce present explanations for the strong and weak forces to the same terms. Present-day theoreticians in this field could be experts in false concepts, because according to Hawking (115) they are developing the new "string theories" in either 10 or 26 dimensions. Consequently it is highly probable that their formulations do not represent reality. If so the door is wide open. it would also be necessary to find an amateur journal in which the work could be published, because it is quite clear that none of the professional journals would be interested.
The information would be trapped for some time within a small group, since the establishment would not accept the logic. The chances are that a completely successful theory of everything will emerge based on the extended Newtonian approach. It would spread out from the centre and could ultimately become
Just one warning note needs to be sounded which the young physicist would be well advised to heed. In the past people coming up with new ideas which contest the established view have injured their career prospects. This happened in the case of the emerging theory of "quarks". For protection, therefore, the young physicists who think as I do and want to join in, had better not disclose their names. Instead, a system of numbers can be allocated. Then when sufficient strength has been acquired, and not until then, names associated with those numbers can be disclosed.