Misconceptions in Cosmology and how to correct them

Misconceptions in Cosmology and how to correct them
Ronald Pearson B.Sc,(Eng)*C.Eng.M.I.Mech.E .
*prior to retirement:
inventor of the ‘Gas Wave Turbine’ that caused a stir in America
The editor of ‘Scientific American’ has realised something is badly wrong in physics and has
organised a competition asking for entries to show what is wrong. (See FQXi after
references.) It may seem strange for an engineer to be pointing out false aspects of
Cosmology but the reason is simple. There is a large area of overlap in the disciplines of
physics and engineering and my own 28 year long study suggests this is where we could help.
The engineer is taught classical mechanics in a different way and in some respects with
greater rigour than physicists. People looking from a different perspective can sometimes see
better where things have gone wrong: why physics has stagnated. It is my hope therefore that
this essay will be accepted in the spirit intended – as an attempt to help. Now for some errors:
A Problem with the concept of ‘Potential Energy’
Edward Tryon (1984) proposed that it was customary to choose the datum from which
to measure potential energy from infinite distance. This, he showed, meant gravitational
potential energy was negative. He claimed it could cancel the mass energy of the object and
concluded that all the energy from which matter is composed could be cancelled so that it
could be created ex-nihilo – from nothing. It follows that if a star rose up the energy from
which it was made would reduce: it would have to become zero at infinity.
Then Clifford Will on page 32 of Paul Davies (1989) The New Physics says the mass of a star
is less than the sum of the masses of the particles making it up, because of ‘negative gravitational
binding energy’ – NGBE. (Again the datum is taken at infinity). This is the same thing as negative
gravitational potential energy NGPE but given a different name.
Will goes on to say that, in an extreme case, NGBE might make the star’s mass go negative,
making it exert anti-gravity. This was not his idea. He says in the mid 1960’s the ‘Positive Energy
Theorem’ was posed that forbade such an occurrence. Then, to cap it all, he says relativists debated
and discussed this conjecture for almost 15 years! Only in 1979 was this theorem proved by
mathematicians and another proof given in 1981.
Clearly, if the star’s mass is less than that of its components, it follows that when its components are
pulled away to infinity they increase in mass. As corollary it follows that when the whole star rises
against gravity its mass must increase.
So this is the converse of Tryon’s statement and clearly both cannot be correct.
What is very worrying is that this ‘binding energy’ idea was debated for so long by
mathematicians, when simple logic gives the answer.
One visualises an object being pushed/pulled down by a force exerted from what seems empty
space. This acts over the distance of fall: so transferring energy from space to the object to increase its
kinetic energy. A mass increase due to the energy increase occurs since E=m.c2 and so the binding
energy concept is totally invalidated – simple! However, this does not mean Tryon was correct
because he based his theory on Newton’s mechanics that assumes no mass change occurs.
In fact the concept of gravitational potential energy has to abandoned and replaced by the
aforementioned model when an exact mechanics is being derived:
As an object rises freely in a gravitational field it pushes against space and so is transferring its
kinetic energy to space. When the object falls back the gain in kinetic energy comes from space.
The point is that, for any object or particle, energy is not conserved when considered as isolated
from space. It is essential to adopt this model when deriving an exact classical mechanics. The use of
GPE etc. has to be confined to Newton’s approximate mechanics.
Flaws in the Big Bang theory. Does resolution solve the Dark Energy Mystery as well?
The big bang theory that attempts to explain creation of the universe suffers from a
major false prediction known as ‘The Problem of the Cosmological Constant’. As presently
formulated, according to the string theorist Brian Greene (1999), the theory predicts a rate of
expansion 10120 times greater than astronomers can allow! The reason for this is simple:
theorists posit a creation of all the energy needed to ultimately form the universe by an
‘inflation’ that must switch-off after a minute fraction of a second. Unfortunately, from the
logic used, no effective way of switching it off appears.
The theory tries to show how creation from the zero energy state of the void can
happen without violating a major law of physics: the law of conservation of energy. A huge
rate of energy supply is required and has to be balanced by something. Then the net energy of
the whole sums to the same value after creation as it did before – zero. Alan Guth in 1980
chose to balance energy density by an ‘intrinsic negative pressure of the vacuum’ described
on p57 of Davies (1989) book.
From the perspective of my own discipline it seemed that this was a major error since
in no possible way could such a pressure could be produced unless negative energy was
included. Furthermore pressure and energy density have a totally different nature. The two
balancing partners need to be of the same nature. Only one choice remains and the hint of
what this could be was provided by Paul Dirac in the thirties: negative energy!
Negative energy is defined in different ways by different people but for this problem
there is only one choice. The forces of ‘action’ and ‘re-action’ in Newton’s third law of
motion need to be interchanged. Then an object made of negative energy has negative mass
and needs to be pulled back to make it accelerate forwards! Everybody baulks at this on first
introduction because it seems to violate common sense. However, if the object doing the
pulling back is also of the same energy, it also has these forces reversed. In consequence
exactly the same responses occur as we expect from experience. An example is shown in
FIG.1 showing rockets, one with everything of positive mass and energy with the lower one
of opposite kinds. The same acceleration
“a” results even though the accelerating
force “F” and momentum arrow “p” (i.e.
m times v) are reversed for the negative
case, as shown. The pressure “P” in the
combustion chamber is negative so
causing a left to right force to act on the
propellant and this accelerates the
opposite way to emerge as a jet just as
in the case of the positive mass
alternative everybody uses. Then both
rockets accelerate to the same speed “v”
in the same direction. Indeed the whole
universe could be made from negative
energy and we would never know.
Strange things, however, are
predicted to occur when opposites
collide. For analysis the simultaneous
application of another fundamental law
of physics, known as the conservation of
momentum, needs to be applied.
Momentum “p” is the mass of an object
multiplied by its velocity: p = m.v. It is
something first recognised by Galileo. It is readily proved both by theory and experiment
that, when two objects made of the same kind of energy collide, the sum of their momenta,
measured in any given direction, always remains constant. The same thing is readily shown,
by simple analysis, to also apply when opposites collide.
The short book entitled, The Big Breed Theory etc., explains what will happen when
two objects of opposite masses collide. The need to conserve momentum forces both to
increase in energy of their own kind in balanced
amounts. This was first published by Pearson
(1994) at a scientific conference in Russia and
again in a western scientific journal: Pearson
(1997). These ‘primaries’ grow, bump by bump,
to a limiting size and then split up. In this way a
violent inflation is readily predicted that is 1043
times as fast as astronomers can allow. This is
still a huge false prediction.
Fortunately a solution appears. When
packing densities have risen high enough primaries start to experience multiple collisions and
when more than four collide together annihilation starts to replace creation. Flow patterns can
spontaneously form in which particles of both kinds converge from all possible directions.
Then the same law of conservation of momentum dictates near total annihilation of energy.
The inflation switch-off mechanism has appeared naturally. The whole field has selforganised into a pattern of myriads of flow
cells, each minute as compared to an atomic
nucleus, and all nesting together like a
honeycomb in the simplest possible
geometry as illustrated in FIG.2. At the
centre of each cell, a filament of annihilation
forms. At their surfaces particles called
‘primaries’ of both kinds arrive to squeeze
each other out of existence as they travel to
the centre points. Another option yields blobs
of annihilation and with both geometries
combined a chaotic structure results as
depicted in FIG.3. Pure creation still
proceeds undiminished in the annular space
surrounding filaments and blobs. It is now,
however, being cancelled out nearly as fast
as creation is proceeding. At an ultimate
density total annihilation results but this state
can never be reached since expansion to
accelerate the surrounding substance will
result: so the central region will be confined
by inertia. A minute net creation then
remains everywhere that produces an everaccelerating expansion. The two effects, net
creation and acceleration form a self
adjusting system.
So the universe has to exist in a state
of ever-accelerating expansion! Has the required solution to the Problem of the Cosmological
Constant thrown some light on what the nature of the mysterious ‘Dark Energy’ is as well?
Why an alternative to relativity had to be found
As described Newton’s mechanics have provided the required insights but that theory
is only applicable to speeds very low as compared with light. Before the ‘big breed theory’,
outlined above, could be quantified mathematically speeds up to that of light had to be
included. The only theory available to cover this case was Einstein’s theory of special
relativity. Consequently a study of this was required and the simplest book to start with was a
popularisation Einstein wrote that was translated by Lawson (1952).
It was immediately obvious that this was incompatible with the problem being
addressed. A background medium was an essential feature of the creation scenario and
special relativity theory does not incorporate any such medium. Therefore an ‘Exact Classical
Mechanics’ had to be derived that would match all the experiments just as well as both
special and general relativity but would be consistent with the background medium that I
chose to call ‘i-ther’. Furthermore this ECM theory would need to be fully compatible with
quantum theory. Clearly theorists had been trying for over fifty years to match up general
relativity with quantum theory to produce their ‘quantum gravity’. No success had yet been
achieved and it was not hard to see why.
Quantum theorists posit the existence of mediators called ‘gravitons’ to produce the
force of gravity. Therefore they accept a real force exists. Einstein, however, uses an
unimaginable ‘curved space-time’ in which objects move in straight lines that appear curved
to us. He states that there is no actual force involved. It therefore seemed clear to me that the
reason no quantum gravity had appeared was that the two theories were totally incompatible.
Cosmologist Michio Kaku (2005) waves his arms on TV in desperation and says, “These
theories fight each other: they just do not fit”. So I am sure he would agree with me.
Then something seemed wrong with gravitons. These are emitted from one object to
be absorbed by another object. The first recoils with the second pushed away. Of course this
produces a repulsive force but, as Feynman (1985) has described, mathematicians use the
idea of the ‘negative coupling’ to switch it to an attractive force. What worried me here was
that if the gravitons were of positive energy, as they assume; then a massive violation of the
conservation of momentum is involved that never gets a mention.
However, that problem is readily resolved as soon as the existence of negative energy
states is recognised. A mediator of negative mass has its momentum arrow pointing opposite
motion (see Fig.1). Then no such violation exists. Why does nobody recognise that, for forces
of attraction, the mediators need to have negative virtual mass? (‘Virtual’ means they need to
arise from nothing, carry momentum and then vanish back to nothing.)
Now that the difficulty with gravitons had a simple remedy; attention could focus on
general relativity. The density of the air we breathe reduces with altitude and this is easy to
imagine. Could curved space-time be replaced by the effect of a background medium having
a density reducing with altitude to give the same predictions? Could both theories of relativity
be based on wrong assumptions that fortuitously give an exact match with the experimental
observations made to check them out? If this was so then another theory must be capable of
derivation that would match observation equally well. This seemed at first to pose a daunting
problem but, in the event, a solution appeared more easily than anticipated!
Another puzzle concerned special relativity theory. It starts by postulating that any
non-accelerating observer, regardless of speed relative to any others, can be considered as
standing still.
As soon as I started reading special relativity, I checked the consistency of this postulate by
making up a thought experiment. This concerned two space-ships, which went as follows:
Space ships S and M at first sit together and are considered stationary. Space ship S remains
standing still but M accelerates away to a high speed and then cruises at constant speed.
The observer in S looks at M speeding away and accords M an energy increase. This is
correct since energy E has been added to M to provide acceleration. Since E=mc2 it follows
that mass m has also increased. So S correctly accords M a real mass increase.
Now M looks back and sees S speeding away backwards. According to Einstein, observer
M is equally entitled to be considered stationary, when now travelling at constant speed in a
straight line. So according to Einstein M has no mass increase, even though moving, but
accords mass increase to S that has not moved!
All physicists to whom I have shown this say there is no contradiction because the moving
observer M is seeing the correct mass increase of S according to him. In other words the mass
increase is assumed to be an illusion. However, for the observer S the mass increase of M is
real since real energy had to be supplied to accelerate M. One cannot arbitrarily choose to
assume illusion in one case when it is fully real in another. Could the principle of relativity be
invalid when speeds are significant compared to that of light?
Perhaps an experiment is needed to provide resolution of the dispute. Now electric
charge in motion produces the force of magnetism. If each observer carries two oppositely
charged objects side by side then a magnetic force (v/c)2 times the electrostatic force is
produced tending to push them apart. So moving observer M should measure this force but S
should not if S is stationary with respect to the background medium.
Indeed, a charged capacitor in earth orbit could be used as an absolute speed
measuring device. It is readily shown that a free-floating capacitor will oscillate with a
frequency directly proportional to absolute speed. In this way the dispute could be resolved
using a capacitor in Earth orbit. If no oscillation is reported to mission control then Einstein
wins. Unfortunately very small capacitors need to be used to produce oscillations at more
than one Hertz frequency in close Earth orbit. However, a new and cheap experimental check
could be provided. It could ultimately be used to explore the velocity structure of space.
Are there any takers please?
An Exact Classical Mechanics – ECM theory
An Exact Classical Mechanics based on Euclidean geometry and universal time with a
background density reducing with distance from the centre of any object was formulated. A
start was made, however, assuming flat space. Absolute speeds had to replace relative speeds
for the calculation of mass increase and magnetic force. Two objects, both in absolute
motions, could still have relative speeds for the calculation of their relative momenta, but the
masses involved had to be based on their absolute speeds. A problem arose in defining the
datum from which absolute speeds needed to be measured. For objects in Earth orbit the
Earth’s centre had to be used whilst for planets the datum had to be near the centre of the sun.
It followed that if the background medium was assumed to be the ‘quantum vacuum’ this
could only exist as a fluid having a velocity structure. A blob of it had to move with the Earth
with streamline flow through a larger blob centred on the sun. Then the velocity structure
could explain the near zero absolute speed of the Earth as measured by Michelson and
Morley (1887). It could also explain the Bradley aberration, which this astronomer
discovered. He observed stars moving in little circles over each year.
Absolute speeds had to use as datum the state of the quantum vacuum at the place
where the object was situated. This was termed the ‘local frame’.
It also followed that the quantum vacuum and the i-ther could not be the same
medium. Except for its continual accelerating growth the structure of i-ther meant it had to
behave more like a solid though in filled with a gas-like state. The resolution of this
difficulty has it that the i-ther is the only true ultimate reality made from real energy. The
quantum vacuum emerges from it as a mathematically organised three dimensional virtual
reality with fluid-like properties.
Now light falling on a surface produces ‘radiation pressure’ and could only be explained as
the rate at which momentum is received per unit area of surface. It therefore followed that
the photons, which are the carriers of light, had also to carry momentum. The momentum of a
photon must therefore be its mass multiplied by the speed of light. So, contrary to accepted
dogma, light cannot have zero mass: it must carry a ‘kinetic mass’ that is directly
proportional to its energy – which is a form of kinetic energy.
How would this relate to matter? To answer this question the acceleration of an
object, in the absence of gravity, needed to be explored. For this, energy had to be supplied in
the form of mechanical work: accelerating force times distance moved. This added kinetic
energy to the ‘rest energy’ it had when stationary in local space to produce what I termed
‘sum energy’. Then since the kinetic mass of a photon is associated with its kinetic energy,
then the same must apply for matter to preserve consistency. Accelerated by a constant force
the mass of the object would increase so its acceleration would continually reduce, finally to
zero. Simple maths produced E=mc2 without reference to relativity at all and also showed c.
the speed of light, to be where mass increased to infinity: so matter could go no faster.
Next it was assumed that starlight grazing the sun is bent. The distance the photons
have to travel on the inside of a bend is less than on the outside. Special and general relativity
assume the speed of light to be a universal constant and in consequence time has to ‘dilate’ as
level in a gravitational field is reduced. In ECM since time has been made the universal
constant; it is the speed of light that has then to become the variable: it reduces as height
Then E=mc2 no longer means mass and energy are equivalent since, if E does not
alter then m must increase to compensate for the reduction in c as, for example when an
object is lowered on a cable. The reader may wish to decide, using this example, which
remains constant E0 or m0 where suffix 0 means rest values. It turns out that E0 is the
universal constant with m0 increasing as the object is lowered. Now a mass on a spring
constitutes a simple clock when vibrated. Increase the mass and the frequency reduces.
Exactly the same equation appears as provided by general relativity and considered as ‘time
dilation’. Of course interpretation is now different since it is not time dilation any more.
What this also shows is that: sum energy is the true building substance of the
universe. Mass is now relegated to the ‘property of energy’ that governs its acceleration.
The force of gravity
Without curved space-time allowed light bending meant the photons of light had to
couple with the gravitational field – just as matter does. Then since the photons only carry
kinetic mass and energy it followed that Newton’s equation for the force of gravity needed to
be revised. As it stands this law is based on objects having a constant mass: their ‘rest mass’.
For a unified theory to satisfy both light and matter a kinetic component had to be added.
Then if gravitons produce the force they will be emitted in proportion to the substance from
which the attracting object is made. This has proved to be the sum energy ES of the emitter.
They will be absorbed in proportion to the sum energy E of the object attracted but its
acceleration will be in proportion to its mass. This meant the mass of a planet like Mercury
would increase as it fell from apogee to perigee, due to two effects in combination, during its
elliptical orbit. And this would mean that an inverse square law of force would no longer
apply. Only that law produces closed elliptical orbits. When the index is higher than 2, as has
now proved to be the case, then ‘precession’ results. The axes of the ellipse slowly rotate.
However, mathematical analysis showed the precession fell short of observed values.
Furthermore at this stage the deflection of starlight was predicted to be the same as
when Newtonian theory is applied. However, both false predictions had been expected since
no variation of the density of space had been included at that stage.
It will be remembered that one aim was to see if a non-uniform density of space could
have the same effect as Einstein’s ‘curved space-time’. A book by Novikov (1983), from
quantum theory, gave 1/(m.c) as proportional to the average separating distance of the virtual
particles of space. Combined with E=mc2 out came a separating distance increasing in the
same ratio as that of light as altitude changed. So now this also quantified the way the density
of space would reduce with altitude.
The result was to double the predicted deflection of starlight to match the prediction
of general relativity and now the precession of Mercury also matched observation. The
reduction of the revised speed of light as it moved nearer the sun also matched Einstein’s
prediction of the ‘Shapiro Time delay’. Radar beams bounced from Mars and Venus and back
to us take slightly longer to come back than if calculated for an unchanging speed of light.
As hoped the end result matched all the experiments that support both of Einstein’s relativity
theories. However, in every case a different interpretation appeared. Whereas in general
relativity clocks lose time as altitude reduces due to time dilation, now it is the speed of light
that reduces with rest mass increasing to cause clocks to lose time. A similar effect causes
clocks to lose time when moving at an increased absolute speed but is only half Einstein’s
value. In this case, however, magnetic forces due to electric charges inside atoms add an extra
effect but introduce anisotropy. Analysis showed that now clocks fell into two classifications:
light clocks and matter-clocks. Those based on lasers like caesium beam atomic clocks gave
exactly the same frequency shifts as general relativity. A quartz clock based on mechanical
vibrations only gave the same result if slowly revolving owing to the anisotropy. This meant
another kind of absolute speed measuring instrument could be invented that could
discriminate between the two theories. Apart from this exactly the same equations appear as
in general relativity for every check considered but the meaning is totally different.
Finally and since the initial assumptions were quantum compatible, at least a theory of
gravity had appeared that fitted well with Feynman’s (1985) QED and QCD quantum
theories that explain the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces. The question is: does this
provide a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity and if not, why not?
Effect on Cosmology
Applied to cosmology the combined theory produced very different interpretations
from those resulting from analysis using special relativity. Some cosmologists say the
universe is of infinite extent. The mechanism producing the accelerating expansion, however,
shows this cannot be correct. Cosmologists assume the acceleration is produced by a reversed
force of gravity at long range. The solution to the problem of the cosmological constant,
however, shows the acceleration is due to a minute net creation going on everywhere. This
causes pressure gradients to arise with maximum pressure at the origin point. It is these
pressure gradients that produce the acceleration. The positive and negative components of ither interact strongly to produce creation and annihilation but only weakly in regard to
momentum transfer between them on a larger scale. In consequence each phase of the
mixture is accelerated by its own pressure gradients. If the universe had infinite radius the
origin pressure would have to be infinite and this is clearly impossible. Therefore the
universe is limited to a finite radius. Indeed it now became possible to measure the diameter
of the universe and this turned out to be about 50 billion light years using ECM theory for
Very different results were returned from those given when special relativity is used
to analyse the red-shift data provided by astronomers. The frequency of light was still
Doppler-shifted at its source. However, that source and local space, were receding from us at
a high speed. Consequently light had to fight against an opposing flow that reduced as the
light approached us. This meant it had to continually speed up at the expense of the energy it
carried, so adding a very large extra red shift. This not only reduced the Hubble constant but
also increased the estimated age of the universe from 13.7 to about 22 billion years. The ither also expanded with a shock-fronted edge to colonise the void outside. That edge moved
at only about 0.6 of the speed of light so that the Hubble telescope was probably seeing right
to the very edge of the universe as it was when the light was emitted.
So to conclude I have to say that a number of false paradigms exist in the realms of
physics and cosmology that must be a major reason for stagnation at the present time. The
paradigms shown to be false are firstly that the use of what is known as ‘gravitational
potential energy’ is being misused. It was shown that different physicists arrived at opposite
conclusions due to ambiguities in regard to the way it could be applied. It was concluded that
its use had to be confined to applications where Newton’s inexact mechanics were adequate.
Instead objects had to be considered in isolation from space so they lost energy as they rose
but gained it when they fell back. The concept of gravitational potential energy had to be
discarded altogether when an exact mechanics was being derived.
Another paradigm was then questioned. This is a negative pressure that cannot be
equated to an energy density to allow creation from the void. Secondly only a negative form
of energy can be substituted to do this. Then the major problem that still invalidates the big
bang theory is resolved by the provision of a creation switch off means. As a consequence a
slowly accelerating expansion of the universe emerged as a prediction. This also seemed to
provide a solution to what Dark Energy really is – the ultimate background medium called ither: the only truly real thing that actually exists!
To provide a fully quantified creation theory extended to consider speeds up to that of
light Newton’s approximate mechanics had to be discarded. Then relativity theory turned out
to be inappropriate since it was incompatible with the creation solution. What seemed an
internal contradiction to an engineer was discounted by physicists. To resolve the dispute an
experiment in Earth orbit was proposed involving a small charged capacitor that could form
an absolute speed measuring device.
These preliminaries set the stage for the derivation of an exact mechanics: ECM.
Since time had been assumed universal it transpired that the speed of light reduced as height
reduced in a gravitational field. The photons that carry light also had a kinetic mass and this
is ignored in established theories. The consequences of these effects were considerable.
Firstly it meant that mass could no longer be considered the equivalent of energy. Secondly
Newton’s law of gravity had to be replaced by one based on sum energy instead of rest mass
and sum energy consisted of rest energy plus kinetic energy. The latter component meant
another variable was replacing a constant.
Einstein’s curved space-time was replaced by a space, alias quantum vacuum, whose
density reduced with distance from the centre of any object. The effect of all these changes
then provided a theory whose predictions matched those of both special and general relativity
but without the internal contradictions and mismatch with quantum theory from which those
relativity theories suffer. A satisfying theory of quantum gravity seemed to have emerged!
Now cosmologists rely on both special and general relativity for the analysis of the
data provided by astronomers. When ECM theory is substituted for this analytical tool
different end results appear. The Hubble constant is reduced and the age of the universe
increased from 13.7 to about 22 billion years. Owing to accelerating expansion the universe is
restricted to a finite size that can be estimated from red-shift data. It is a ball about 50 billion
light-years across at the present time.
The ECM theory was first published in Russia by Pearson (1991)
References (alphabetical order)
See www.pearsonianspace.com
Davies, Paul (1989) The New Physics: Cambridge University Press
Feynman, Richard, P: QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
Princeton University Press. 1985
Greene, Brian (1999): The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden
Dimensions, and the Quest for an Ultimate Theory.
Jonathan Cape, London 1999
Emergence of Life.
Penguin Books Ltd., 80 Strand, London WC2R ORL
Guth, A. & Steinhardt, P.: (1989): The Inflationary Universe: pp.57-59
The New Physics Ed. Davies, Paul: Cambridge University Press
Kaku, Michio (2005): Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the
Cosmos. New York: Doubleday
Lawson, R.W. (1952): Relativity: The Special and General Theory
(Translated from Einstein) Bonanza Books, New York
Michelson, Albert A. & Morley, Edward, W. (1887): On the
Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether:
The American Journal of Science, No.203,Vol.134,P.333-345,
Michelson, A.A. & Gale, H.G. (1925): Nature 115 No 2894 566
Novikov, I, D, (1983): Evolution of the Universe
Cambridge University Press (1983)
Pearson, Ronald D. (1986):Pressure Exchange Engines (Now called Gas Wave Turbines)
The Thermodynamics and Gas Dynamics of Internal Combustion Engines
Vol.II, Ed.Horlock . H. & Winterbone D.E.pp.906-935
Pearson, Ronald D (1991): Alternative to Relativity including
Quantum Gravitation: Second International Conference on
Problems in Space and Time: St. Petersburg, Petrovskaja
Academy of Sciences & Arts (Sept. 1991) pp 278-292
Pearson, Ronald D, (1994).: Quantum Gravitation and the
Structured Ether: Sir Isaac Newton Conference. St. Petersburg,
Russian Academy of Sciences, (March 1993) pp 39-55
Chairman Local Organising Committee:Dr. Michael Varin:
Pulkovskoye Road 65-9-1 St. Petersburg 196140, Russia.
FAX: (7) (812) 291-81-35
Phone:Alexandre Alekseev: office:(7) (812) 291-36-73,
Home:(7) (812) 173-55-69 E-Mail: [email protected]
Pearson, R. D.(1997): Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum
Phenomenon: Frontier Perspectives, Spring/Summer 1997,
Vol.6,No.2 pp70-78
Pearson, R.D. see website: www.pearsonianspace.com for:
THE BIG BREED THEORY of the Creation of the Universe
A short 57 page description with no maths: and:
Dark Energy Mystery Solved by Big Breed Theory
Provides full mathematical treatment
Tryon, E.P.(1984): What Made the World?: New Scientist, 8/3/84, pp14-18
See below for details of the contest organised by the editor of Scientific American who has
realised things are badly wrong in physics and cosmology and is trying to find the truth.
Contest supported by Scientific American: Questioning the Foundations – Which of Our Basic Physical
Assumptions Are Wrong?
posted August 31,
2012 by
David Scott de
(Thanks to NPA member Jeff Baugher for bringing
this to our attention). Is this as a chance for the fringe scientist to shine?  You can find out by entering
this essay contest sponsored by the FQXi community and Scientific American.  Here is  a link to the
Here is a list of some entries that almost look like some were written by NPA members: