A Letter of Support

A letter to Ron, dated August 2nd 1987, came from top physicist Professor J.P. Vigier of Paris. He was also the gravitational consultant for the prestigious journal ‘Physics Letters A’.
An extract from the letter went:
“Your letter now seems to be correct as far as our referee’s and myself can see……I feel indeed that supporters of the Big Bang theory (of which I am not) should discuss the energy problem at creation time (if there is one) and your contribution should not be ignored. (You can utilise this statement if you want) and be published. I hope you will succeed in this.
Yours sincerely,
J. Vigier

Now the critique in Ron’s submission was all to do with gravitation but even though this assessor shows he considers the short article presented needed publication, even he could not get it published in Physics Letters A: a very prestigious journal.

Worse, this was the last and only positive response arising from dozens of attempts at publication in other journals. All other assessors had demonstrated, by their rejections, an inadequate understanding of classical mechanics!

An article published by Professor E. Tryon in New Scientist dated, 8th March 1984 had provoked the critique. The article was entitled, “What Made the World”. This said that gravitational potential energy was negative and could cancel the energy of matter so that the universe of matter could have arisen from nothing.
            The reason this is totally invalid is explained in the book called CREATION SOLVED? so will not be considered here. Alarmingly Tryon’s idea is well entrenched and accepted by at least most of today’s physicists.

In 1984 this made Ron feel very uneasy. He still remained in awe of the achievements of physicists in the quantum realm: the theory of the atom. Here the physicists remained supreme and Ron said they are justified in being proud of the secrets of nature they have unearthed. However, it seemed these advances had come at a cost. The experience, starting with Tryon’s article, indicated a loss of understanding of simple things within the discipline of physics. If not corrected Ron feared this would lead to physics running into the buffers.
The general public seems unaware that a large overlap exists between physics and engineering: in the realm of the ‘classical’. Here the professional engineer (the ‘Chartered Engineer’) had retained the expertise that needed to be returned to its source.

Physicists Admit they have hit the Buffers!
This fear later turned out to be well justified! In 2005 the physicists held their 23rd Solvay conference. Reports admitted they had lost their way and that nobody knew what to do next. Top physicist Lee Smolin even wrote a book, published in 2007 called, The trouble with physics, that claims nobody in his generation has contributed anything of value since 1980!

Professor Paul Davies and the Big Bang
To return to the history we now have a contribution from the physicist and writer of popular books, Professor Paul Davies. Ron had written to him asking how the flaws in Tryon’s theory could affect the big bang theory of which it was a part.
Davies had responded, in a letter dated 18th August 1987, by kindly enclosing the maths written by Dr.Alan Guth, initiator of the ‘inflation theory’ in 1980. Inflation is the major part of the big bang theory that purports to explain creation of the universe in a violent explosion. Space, like a ball of gas, appears from nothing in a split second. Physicists see space, alias the ‘quantum vacuum’, as being a highly energetic medium existing everywhere in the universe.

Logical errors  (for the technically minded)
Ron was appalled to see that a logical error existed on nearly every line! It began by trying to balance the energy in every cubic metre of space (its ‘energy density’) by a ‘negative pressure’. This jarred against Ron’s understanding of thermodynamics and in any case this pressure had no causative means. It was only an assumption made in an attempt to satisfy energy conservation.
This negative pressure was then used in one of Einstein’s equations to switch the energy density of space to a negative value – which is impossible when it had already been defined as positive. The negative density then switched Newton’s law of gravity from attraction to repulsion to drive the inflationary creation. But the basis now implicitly assumed the energy density of space to be positive again! And Newton’s laws are invalid at the speeds close to that of light that were being predicted. Also the negative pressure would have produced implosion and this effect was ignored completely.
Only positive pressures can drive explosions!

There were other flaws as well and are detailed in the scientific books, but these samples alone are sufficient to make the point: the theory is untenable!

The Big Bang theory makes badly wrong predictions!
Not surprisingly a major false prediction appeared, known as the quantum version of the ‘Problem of the Cosmological Constant’. The explosive creation had to switch off after a minute fraction of a second but no means existed to produce the switch.
Another well-known physicist, Stephen Weinberg, wrote in 1989 that, “This represents a major crisis in physics”. The string theorist Brian Greene admitted in 1999 that his theory could not solve the problem and gave the value of the ‘error’ involved as 10120 times too high! This is a one followed by 120 zeros times too high! This figure dwarfs to insignificance the entire number of atoms in the observable universe!

So how, you may ask, do cosmologists deal with this difficulty? The answer is simple: they just ignore it altogether and carry on as if the switching problem had been resolved!

After inflation, they say, the ball of gas produced carries on expanding due to its own inertia. The force of gravity, that acts to mutually attract everything to everything else, slows the expansion of the entire universe: possibly to an ultimate stop.

Unfortunately for them astronomers announced in 1998 that the expansion of the universe was speeding up: it was not slowing at all! Cosmologists all admitted their surprise and promptly invented ‘dark energy’ producing unexplained and mysterious long-range repulsive forces. This patched up the big bang theory to make it fit the facts.
    But what use is this when the major problem is left unresolved and dwarfs to insignificance anything dark energy could do?

How our theory solves the big bang ‘s problems

We are jumping ahead too far. In 1987, following the information Professor Davies had supplied, Ron had realised his own expertise ought to be able to provide a flaw-free alternative to the big bang and set about its derivation.

The first difficulty to emerge was that Einstein’s theories of relativity could not fit into the picture. They also clearly contained internal contradiction and yet theorists had been trying, since the 1960’s, to match Einstein’s ideas with quantum theory to produce the ‘holy grail’ of ‘quantum gravity’. The endeavour is still continuing in 2009 - as yet with no success in sight.

Many people do not realise that Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on photo-electricity: not relativity. Stockholm would have nothing to do with his relativity theories!

On his 70th birthday Einstein wrote that he had got it all wrong and yet people still ignore his warning and go on trying to do the impossible. This is not due to lack of intelligence. Ron thinks the teaching received in early years has diverted theorists away from searching for simple solutions.

Not so constrained the engineer can view quantum gravity as a relatively simple problem in applied mechanics that requires nothing more sophisticated than knowledge of the calculus.

Unfortunately it soon became clear to Ron that publication in scientific journals was impossible. Journal after journal simply rejected it on grounds that relativity had withstood the test of time so that no alternative was required. No assessor had even attempted to criticise the logic or dispute the way the theory matched all the experiments still considered Einstein’s unique achievements. Even Professor Josephson of Cambridge, although supportive of our group in regard to survival, refuses to accept Ron’s mechanics. His objection is that he does not think much of the maths. However, he cannot fault either the maths, the methodology or the match with experiment and so, in a backhand kind of way, adds credibility to the approach. His negation also illustrates the difference in attitude between the mathematician and the engineer.
Because the problem of quantum gravity has appeared so formidable, due to being locked into Einstein’s sophisticated theories, more and more sophistication in mathematics has developed. So now the theorist is emotionally blocked from accepting solutions based on relatively simple maths.

Enter Dr Louis  Essen

Now an interesting development occurred. Dr Louis Essen FRS, famous for his invention of the caesium beam atomic clock, wrote an article in 1998 criticising Einstein’s theories. Subsequently, despite his achievements, he was warned that he was, “Placing the tenure of his post in jeapody”. So he was forced to desist. Some correspondence with Ron then resulted in Essen suggesting he go as Essen’s deputy to deliver his theory at a scientific conference in Russia. Essen said that it was impossible to publish either critiques or alternatives to relativity in the West but over there scientists were much more open-minded. So Ron followed this proposal and a publication entitled, ‘Alternative to Relativity including Quantum Gravitation’ was finally achieved there in 1991.
The ‘new exact classical mechanics’ led directly to quantum gravity and permitted a new solution to the problem of creation of the universe to be derived. Again this had to be presented in Russia in 1993 and was published by them in 1994.
In 2008 Ron became aware of work the physicist, Hal Puthoff, had published in 2002. Hal had published a theory of mechanics based on the same assumptions Ron had adopted. Does this not prove the rejections were unwarranted?

Branded a Maverick for offering Critique!

The reason for rejection of all papers submitted emerged in 1996 at a scientific conference in Cirencester. Ron asked the organiser, a cosmologist, if he knew the reason. He pulled no punches with:
 “You are well known in cosmology circles – as a Maverick: No journal is ever going to publish any of your work.”
            This highlights a very serious situation that Ron considers the real reason physics has hit the buffers. No science can flourish if critique is stifled. It has recently emerged that others have been similarly classified for trying to ‘blow the whistle’. Elsewhere on this website we invite other such “Mavericks” to participate in the hope of bringing pressure to bear that will put a stop to this malpractice.
            However, one article slipped through the barriers by publication is a new scientific journal in 1997. That door closed abruptly. Another was published in India in 2005 but again that door soon closed as well.