Updating Newton

By Ronald Pearson

During a Talk Radio discussion on 23rd April 1995, following your UnConvention, Peter Brookesmith ridiculed Newtonian concepts saying it was not surprising that reviewers rejected them, and implying that reconsidering them would be a retrograde step, physics having long since progressed beyond such old-fashioned ideas. According to Brookesmith, 'superstrings' needing up to 26 dimensions, and 'superspace' having an infinite number, were the sophisticated order of the present day.

He did not, however, say these provided a solution to the major problems confronting cosmology-physics: mainly the problem of finding a theory of gravitation compatible with explanations of how the atom works (quantum theory). Indeed, it was the flaws and internal contradictions within established physics that triggered my own activity in this domain.

I found that Newton's laws needed updating because, since light falls like matter, it is necessary to add the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of an object to the mass that Newton used to define 'inertia' for his laws of motion. A background medium also had to exist which was more dense (compressed) the closer it was to ponderous matter. Then predictions appeared which matched all the valid achievements of Einstein's relativity theories. It gave the same life increase of muons in cosmic rays, the same frequency shifts of clocks, the same perihelion advance of Mercury, the same doubling of light deflection by gravity, the same Shapiro Time Delay, and was consistent with Einstein's 'equivalence'. It has now evolved into "a quantum-wave theory of gravity". The waves have been shown to create the density gradients specified by the aforementioned revision of Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein Broke the Rules of Logic

If this had been discovered between 1900 and 1920, then Einstein's theories would never have been accepted - they contain internal contradiction while Newtonian theory is totally free from such objection. For example, Professor Herbert Dingle, a one-time ardent relativist, pointed out in the Sixties that relativity meant that clocks would run both fast and slow simultaneously which was logically impossible. Dr. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, said Einstein broke the rules of logic by fixing the speed of light as a universal constant and adjusting the unit of time to keep it so. The famous scientists Rutherford and Soddy had rejected Einstein's concepts as absurdities right from the start.It was the lead given by Einstein's curved spacetime ideas that caused theorists to develop even more extreme ideas. These involve huge numbers of spatial dimensions, all curled up into little balls, whose very existence is beyond all hope of proof. Worse, after more than 60 years of world-wide effort, theorists are still unable to match up relativity with quantum theory. Even Stephen Hawking, who admits this on page 12 of 'A Brief History of Time', spends most of the book discussing how theorists are still trying to achieve what he has already implied is impossible by the following statement regarding quantum and relativity theories:

"unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct."

He ends by saying it will take them another ten years to find a solution.

Compatible with Quantum Theory

The revised Newtonian argument starts off quantum-based and so fits in perfectly with quantum theory: there is just no problem! Furthermore, another difficulty of establishment theory vanishes as well - the 'Cosmological Constant'. This predicts galaxies are accelerating apart at a rate 50 orders of magnitude above that allowable from astronomical observations.

The Newtonian theory is not just compatible with quantum theory, it provides considerable enhancement, explaining its basic feature - wave-particle duality - including what these waves are and how they are powered.But there is more. The revised Newtonian theory demands the existence of an all-pervading medium to interconnect all things: the Ether of Huygen, Crookes, Lodge, Baird and other famous scientists. A structure of Ether emerges directly from the mathematics that seems to have all the essentials needed for behaviour as a neural network: it seems to have the potential to evolve consciousness. In consequence it cannot be asserted that the so-called paranormal is impossible on grounds of the violation of physics. This is because when the mind is considered as part of the structure of the Ether it could account for all such phenomena and the mind itself could well be immortal.Originally, the idea of the Ether was discredited because of the "failure" of the Michelson Morley experiment to detect any motion of the Earth. This was reinforced by an incompatibility with relativity theory. Neither of these objections are applicable any longer. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that physics has been ploughing a false trail for the last 60 years or so and is now bogged down up to its axles. In such circumstances, progress can only be made by going back to the place where things started to go wrong. If the West continues to reject Newton without even looking - which is what is happening - it will be overtaken by the more open-minded East. I have to say that some Russian physicists have already shown a keen interest in this revised Newtonian approach. At the 'Sir Isaac Newton Conference' that took place in March 1993 in St. Petersburg, Professor Philip Kanarev, a physicist at the Kybar State University, came to the lectern to propose that the theory I presented at the same Convention in 1991 be adopted for teaching in all Russian universities.

So please let's have some open-minded assessment here in the West!

The Editor of the magazine 'The Unexplained', Peter Brookesmith, made an attack on national radio against Ronald Pearson's secular scientific explanation for so-called paranormal phenomena. The reason for this magazine's existence disappears if a scientist comes along and explains things! Here Ronald Pearson answers his critic.