ANSWER TO CRITIQUE OF "SURVIVAL PHYSICS"
by Ronald Pearson
During a meeting of the SPR on 24 April 04 that discussed the relevance of physics to the paranormal opinions were asked regarding my theory now called "Survival Physics". The opinions were not very complimentary. It was said it had good points and bad ones. Will anyone please tell me what the bad points are so that these can be addressed?
The theory was published in the Spring/Summer 1997 edition of "Frontier Perspectives" pp 70-78 without the maths entitled "Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon". (Note that this was somehow missed from the contents list.)
Good science demands the publication of all theories that fit experimental facts and for which no flawed logic or internal contradiction can be identified—regardless of any lack of prestigious address or lack of status. Opinions are usually negative, as history shows, and should therefore not be regarded as valid criteria.
The approach was regarded at the SPR meeting as being no better than others and most people seem to have rejected the idea that an intelligent background medium could exist. It seems to me that several matters of considerable importance have not been appreciated and so I will briefly summarise these in the hope that a better appreciation of them will be transmitted.
A real background medium had to exist to create the organised waves needed at the quantum level.
This ultimate level could not depend on wave-mechanics like the quantum level otherwise an even deeper level would be needed to make its waves.
All four forces of nature are dependent on wave-mechanics arising at the quantum level and so could not exist at the ultimate level, now to be called the "i-ther".
Therefore a dynamics of energy had to be formulated for use at the i-ther level and it was decided to assume a similar dynamics would apply at the macroscopic level.
General relativity is such an energy dynamics but was inapplicable since its assumptions make it incompatible with any kind of background medium.
An alternative to relativity had to be devised, as a dynamics of energy, that matched all observations equally well. This was achieved but it was necessary to go to Russia to obtain peer-reviewed publication (1991). How many critics have taken this difficult task into consideration? The main features are: that all objects are made from the arithmetic sum of rest energy and kinetic energy with a corresponding inertial mass as the sum of the rest mass and kinetic mass (not possible in relativity). Also light moves more slowly in vacuum in high gravity, associated with a non-uniform i-theric density.
This should not be discounted owing to the publication of Hal Putthof's theory that makes gravity a residual of electromagnetism and also yields Newton's second law. This can represent the way the dynamics of energy was provided and indeed the two theories are mutually compatible and mutually supportive.
Next it was necessary to solve the problem of the "Cosmological Constant": Theorists can find no way of adequately switching off the "inflation" assumed to create all the matter and energy of the universe in a single explosive burst of creation—effectively violating the conservation of energy for a split second and then obeying it precisely ever-afterwards. Even today cosmologists have no solution to offer yet it totally invalidates all the subsequent histories of the universe they explore. A solution was provided in the next Russian publication of 1993 and is incorporated in the 1997 publication. This demanded the application of the energy dynamics to an opposite kind of energy-negative energy as well as to positive energy for use only at the i-theric level. This is termed "opposed energy dynamics" and is based on the application of the conservation of energy simultaneously with the conservation of momentum.
These two laws, applied to the collision of "primaries" the i-theric particles and the only true particles that really exist, showed that when opposites collided both gained energy of their own kind in equal and opposite amounts. It meant spontaneous creation from the void of nothing could happen. This replaced the flawed inflation theory.
It is impossible to find a way of creating a flaw-free theory that allows the universe to arise from nothing without accepting the possibility of primaries made as a mix of positive and negative energies!
Next comes the jewel in the crown: a solution for the cosmological constant! The initial creative explosion shuts down spontaneously to yield a slowly yet ever-accelerating expansion of the i-ther. This happens because a myriad of minute flow cells becomes possible in which primaries all converge from all directions to common lines at the centres of cells. The net momentum in each low cell is zero before collision, the same value as for the zero energy state. This means annihilation is favoured and so the violent explosion shuts down to a gentle growth in which it is predicted that distant points move away from one another at speeds proportional to the "Hubble Constant" with accelerations equal to the square of the Hubble Constant times distance. This prediction was confirmed by astronomical observation in 1998.
Filaments of annihilation could form up into a structure and this seemed to have the potentiol of evolving a conscious intelligence. If this can be confirmed by computer studies then we have a very plausible explanation of the creation of the universe. The structure is only able to produce waves and some form of machine intelligence would be required for their organisation to build repeated transient structures that appear to us as sub-atomic particles.
Hence a new and very appealing interpretation for the unresolved enigma called "wave-particle duality" has emerged. Furthermore if the sub-conscious mind is assumed to be part of the i-theric structure then almost the entire spectrum of paranormal phenomena is readily provided with explanations as potentially real effects—inclusive of OBE's NDE's and the survival of death.
It also follows that space and matter could not have arisen together 15 billion years ago as it does according to big bang theorists. The i-ther had to appear first, at least 100 billion years ago, and then matter could be created as a deliberate act, possibly 15 billion years ago. I am aware of the "tired light" theories of people such as Aspden, who show electrons and ions of intergalactic space could produce the red shift. This is then assumed to eliminate expansion giving a return to a steady state universe. The tired light ideas can be incorporated so that the expansion is slowed but not stopped, yielding a mix of two approaches.
In my opinion this derivation makes the idea of an intelligent background a very plausible and attractive hypothesis, considering the large number of problems for which the theory offers solutions. To answer Professor Josephson's request for the way physics is affected and how experimental verification could be attempted I make further comment.
Quantum theory is not changed, neither is electrodymnamics. Only the theory of gravity is affected and eight new experiments spin-off, most of which would distinguish my "Exact Classical Mechanics" from special and general relativity. The paranormal can also be regarded as giving experimental support.
I feel people should weigh all these factors before coming to the conclusion that this theory is no better than any others. How many of these others provide as many solutions to vexed questions?
Related material on this site:
"Consciousness as a Sub-quantum Phenomenon" - Ronald Pearson's paper
Published in the journal Frontier Perspectives, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Volume 6. No. 2, Spring/Summer 1997 (pp70-78). ISSN: 1062-4767
An Exact Classical Mechanics leads toward Quantum Gravitation - Ronald Pearson
This pamphlet suggests that misconceptions in classical mechanics are responsible for blocking progress in physics. Refinements are described which spill over into quantum theory and appear to provide answers to vexed questions. For example, it leads to alternatives to both special and general relativity which match the achievements of both. Unlike relativity, however, the new solution is fully quantum-compatible, being consistent with the concept of the quantum vacuum.
Summary of Ron Pearson's Theory - by Rory MacDonald
Answer to Critique - Ron Pearson responds to criticism of his theory (May 8, 2003)