How good a scientist are you?

How good will you be in the future?

Would you like an opportunity to make a little bit of history?

We have a challenge open to anyone who thinks they are a brilliant or even good, logical thinking, scientist. It may be easier if you have a background in Mathematics and Physics, it would also help to have some knowledge of cosmology and engineering, but it is not as important as being able to think logically.

The challenge is to fault the logic presented anywhere in the book Creation Solved? Special effort should be given to addressing athe new classical mechanics rather than the quantum part, since it is the classical mechanics that this work now says is wrong in physics and the part that has thrown the discipline up against the buffers. There are no cash prizes but any critical contributions will be displayed on this site together with our comments. You need to find an internal contradiction in the logic or a significant mismatch with observation. Beware of giving unsupported negative opinions

Not only do you have to point out the flaws, but you must find a solid logical reason, backed up with evidence or observation as to why they are flaws. To take up this challenge you will need to buy the book Creation Solved? and then go on to buy the next book in the Trilogy.

Be warned that you may be constrained by your past learning. Many things are taught in educational establishments that have inadvertently now been accepted as fact, when, in reality, they are just only theories as well.

Be also warned that you may find yourself having a negative emotional reaction to what has been written, as it may appear to go against the grain of the conventional or majority way of thinking.

Be also warned that this is no easy challenge, indeed, of the few of the world’s top physicists who have made a study of this work, none have succeeded so far in this challenge.

You must remember not to use false logic or assumptions brought from other theories. You must only use the assumptions this theory works on and test only the logic presented.

You must keep your wits about you and look for the truth and make decisions based on sound strategy. How good are the observations? Are you working with all the observations or just a few? How should I determine what constitutes a valid observation? In short how do you currently get your information? Is it first hand primary observation? Is it a reliable secondary observation or is it a piece of tertiary information that has come via other, potentially emotionally constrained, sources?
Above all though, please enjoy the challenge. There is no cost to do this save for your time. Get your colleagues to try it out. One thing we would ask though is that you do not dismiss it if you cannot disprove the theory in Creation Solved?, as that would be illogical.

One final point to consider is that the work might be correct or at least as near to the truth as is possible. If it is that leaves us with fantastic implications where mankind could benefit in many new ways. If this theory is correct it has profound implications for all areas of science. Whatever scientific discipline you specialise in, you may find something here that could lead you to discover major advances in your own field.

If you find yourself becoming emotional during the reading of the work, we would suggest you examine these emotions to see if they are positive or negative. Will emotions of any sort allow you to think and come to any correct decision regarding the truth? How will you cope and retain logical thought in the face of unwanted emotions?

What we will be asking you to do will challenge the very soul of what is taught in physics today. We offer a very important word of warning at the outset. This information is highly volatile and controversial to some people. If you are hoping to pass any exams you would do well to not use any of the information presented. What you are taught at schools and universities may or may not be correct. The truth, in fact, is irrelevant in order to pass exams, gain degrees and even doctorates. To pass and gain useful qualifications you are being judged on your ability to remember and reproduce what has been taught to you. If your work goes against the grain of scientific opinion be cautionary and look around at others who have gone before you and done the same thing. What happened to them? This may sound ridiculous but forget it at your peril. This is just an exercise in logical thinking. What may surprise you is that many people will try to put you off taking up this challenge. Ask yourself why. Why do we do science and why are we all interested in science? The only answer we can really give you is that we think that it is mankind’s old quest for the truth. These days the truth can be too hot to handle for some.

If at the end, after you have the first two books of the trilogy, you feel able to pass comment on their content you should do so in the following way. We would be happy to read any professional critique of the work. This ought to include any positive critique on any achievements you think it has accomplished as well as any negative critique you would like to add. Evidence of both positive and negative feeback is one potential sign of non-emotional encumbrance.

The negative critique should include the flaw or flaws you have spotted and the reasons and observations why you consider this to be a flaw. Again we would remind you that a written emotional response will be regarded as a weakness in your own logic and if any are found the whole critique will be discarded. Phrases like ‘In my opinion…’ or ‘I do not believe…. Have no place in the science when looking to discern the truth.

The reader is asked to consider a new theory on the origins of the universe.
You will be shown reasons why the current models are inadequate because certain observations have been overlooked or wrongfully discarded.
You will be asked to question the three major problems with the current theories.
You will be shown a new theory that solves all these three difficulties and many more.

However, to do this, the new theory will also have to throw out some existing work that currently scientists think are not only right and correct but almost ‘sacrosanct’ in the world of science.

The point we wish to get across is that, although all the observations seem to show that these old theories were right, they also fit the new theory.

This new theory even made a prediction in 1992 that was proved correct by observation in 1998 – that the expansion of the universe was speeding up.

The reader will be given loads of information on a variety of areas. Much of these will surround observations that do not fit with the current scientific viewpoint. These will come from many respected sources who hold different scientific viewpoints. We are not saying that their viewpoints are correct or incorrect, just that the observations should be able to fit the overall new theory being presented.

One final thing to say, and it is in a way a form of a quick lesson, is this:- Alfred Korzybski, a great Polish Semanticist once recommended that the verb ‘to be’ should removed from language and communication because of the difficulties in communication it causes. One of the biggest problems in science today is the misrepresentation of this verb in nearly all the scientific and popular media. When used it implies fact. For example ‘This flower is blue’. Korzybski recommended that language ought to take into consideration something called ‘E-prime’. This personalises all statements of fact. In our example the new translation would read ‘To me this flower appears to be blue’. The statement is still correct yet it now is considerate of others and their views and perceptions. In the case of the flower others might state the colour to be more violet or purple than blue.

Imagine now an emotive subject like religion and how conflicts could be avoided. For example in E-prime a statement would read ‘According to my beliefs Hinduism appears to me to be the only true path to God.’ You could substitute any religion in this sentence and immediately you can respect an individual viewpoint without getting emotional. So, it appears to me, it should be with science. If we just put words together we can make a sentence, that may not make it grammatical though and it could be insufficient for useful communication. We can put words together in the right order and it can become grammatically correct however it might not be logical. We can put grammatically correct and logical sentences together and we can gain understanding, however that may not be the truth. Put truth and logic together and you get semantics - a logical search for the truth. That however is still not enough as we now know we are also affected by communication so we need to understand how we interact personally with semantics. This leads us to General semantics. General semantics should be the art of the communicator so we invite you to consider this in your challenge.


The Challenge will not be without reward but only if you can find a flaw to the logic in the theory. In order to enter, you will need to complete your critique using only the attached file and to send it to:-

remainder deleted except for:

Click below for
Application to submit a critique.
If you would like a taster of what you will read before you go on to buy one - Click on Articles and read Article One