A Brief History Giving Solutions to Still Unresolved Problems

By Ron Pearson
January, 2014
It is important that physicists and cosmologists are made aware that some solutions to vexed questions exist that they have been prevented from seeing.

These three solutions in physics have been available since 1992 and nobody else has yet provided solutions.
These solutions are:
  1. A solution to the problem of the big bang that makes an absurd prediction.
  2. To complete the solution to 1, an alternative to relativity had to be formulated.
    This provided a paradox-free solution to 'quantum gravity'.
    (Theoreticians have been trying since 1960 to do this from Einstein, and still struggle.)
  3. A solution to the problem of 'Dark Energy' that was not discovered until 1998 when cosmologists were taken by surprise.
    The solution to 1 threw up the prediction that the universe is committed to a slow, but ever-accelerating expansion that theorists dubbed the mystery of 'Dark Energy'.
It is wasting $billions looking for clues using 5 satellites to try and get a lead on what it is.
And it is impossible to even communicate these solutions to anybody in academia.

I can be blamed for not trying to obtain the appropriate qualifications but, coming up to 89, it is too late to rectify the situation that way.
However, these solutions need to be assessed since they could save a lot of public money and have the potential to initiate the paradigm-shift that is overdue.

I list the options at the end before the references.

Professor E. Tryon says that: since gravitation has its datum at infinity, its potential energy is negative and so can cancel all mass-energy in the universe.

The flaw sent to many scientific journals was rejected by all, on grounds it was established physics.(10)
But see what an eminent physicist says of the final version sent:
Professor J.P. Vigier
Université Pierre et Marie Curie.
Paris August 2nd. 1987

Dear Dr. Pearson,

The last version of your letter now seems to be correct as far as our referees and myself can see. However, as I told you the problem discussed therein is not within the range of subjects discussed in ‘Physics letters A’ and is more suitable for GRG or some Journal like Fundamento Scientiae.

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
Prof. J. Vigier was the gravitational consultant for Physics Letters A.

It had everything to do with gravitation.
These assessors accepted that Tryon’s theory was really flawed but even they could not get it published!

I found early in 2013 that it is still accepted as valid established physics.

I sent the critique to Prof. Paul Davies asking how this could affect the big bang theory.

Prof. Davies responded by sending Guth’s theory of ‘inflation’ that is the main part of that theory.

This is known to give a false prediction called, ‘The Problem of the Cosmological Constant’.
It refers to the rate of expansion of the universe that is a number so many times too high as to dwarf to insignificance even the number of atoms in the universe.

I was horrified to discover flawed logic on nearly every line!
This betrayed an inadequate understanding of mechanics and thermodynamics. The wrong prediction was no longer surprising.

The theory is still established in 2014.

The draft sent by Davies was to go in a new book to be published in 1989(2).
He would not comment on the list of flaws I returned but clearly some notice had been taken since the theory presented on pages 57 to 59 had been modified.
But the errors are still there!

I realised the solution had to incorporate an opposite kind of energy to replace the “intrinsic negative pressure” that Guth had wrongly relied upon to allow creation from the void.
I set to work to derive a viable replacement theory.
This avoided the false prediction but needed to be extended to cope with speeds up to that of light.

On studying Einstein’s theories of relativity, to provide the extension needed, it became clear that they could not be incorporated.
They contained internal contradiction and were incompatible with the background medium being introduced.
In any case, the assumptions made relativity incompatible with quantum theory.
So what seemed at first a daunting challenge had to be attempted.
This meant finding a satisfactory alternative mechanics.

Amazingly this turned out to be very easy and a new general equation for ‘Exact Classical Mechanics’ had appeared within a couple of days.

However, I do have to admit I had some etheric help in quantifying the non-uniformity of density of the background medium that was to replace Einstein’s ‘curved space-time’.

A book by Novikov (1983)(1) seemed to light up on a shelf in the library. I opened it at random and, right where I was looking on that very page was the clue I needed! I had been guided by a mind not my own.

It took several months to derive secondary equations to compare with experimental checks but each came out as hoped.

The theory matched every experimental check just as well as did Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity.

All journals refused publication on grounds that the acceptance of Einstein’s theories as basic starting point was mandatory: no alternative was admissible.

Dr Louis Essen, the famous inventor of the caesium beam atomic clock, wrote to me.

Dr Essen said that, since it was impossible to publish critiques or alternatives to Einstein’s theories in the West, I should try Russia.(3)
He invited me to go there as his deputy.

Another incentive was a demand from the editor of the SPR, J. Beloff, that my submissions could not be accepted by the SPR until a peer reviewed publication was offered.

When the publication in the proceedings of the Russian conference of 1991 was offered his response was, “We do not recognise the Russian Academy of Science”.

The new mechanics enabled the replacement of the existing big bang theory to be completed.

This had two important spin-offs:
  • default_titleIt provided a self-organising structure that promised to extend physics by explaining the paranormal and suggested our minds are separate from our brains.
  • default_titleIt predicted the universe to be of finite size and in a state of slow but ever-accelerating expansion.
  • Show More

Another visit to Russia to present ‘Quantum Gravity and the Structured Ether’.

Professor F.M. Kanarev proposed my alternative to relativity should be adopted for teaching throughout Russia.(5)

Conversation with Dr Bernard Carr at an SPR conference at Cirencester.

Dr Carr tells me:

“You are well known in cosmology circles, as a Maverick. No journal is ever going to publish any of your work.”

I do achieve a peer-reviewed publication.

This gives the basic logic of what is now called the ‘Big Breed Theory’.(8)

This provides a paradox-free alternative to the big bang theory.

The prediction 2 above in 1992, of an accelerating expansion, was confirmed by two astronomers who were later awarded the Nobel Prize for this.

The whole community of cosmologists were taken completely by surprise, since, until then, they had all considered the expansion to be slowing down.(9)
They had no explanation but assumed some new kind of energy was involved and called it ‘Dark Energy’.
This had mysterious powers of anti-gravity repulsion at long range.

Five satellites are now in orbit looking for clues in the CMB to tell them what it is.
They say Dark Energy accounts for some 70% of all the energy in the universe.
What they are really looking at is the effect of the ultimate level of reality that is 100% of all that exists!

And the acceleration is the result of a tiny net creation going on everywhere all the time: it has nothing to do with anti-gravity forces.

But what is the use of their speculation when the problem of the cosmological constant, which still invalidates the big bang theory, remains unresolved as far as they are concerned?

And if the solution made available from Russian 1994 proceedings(5) and from the peer reviewed publications of 1997(6) and 2005(8), were read it would be realised that the search of the CMB tells them nothing.

Huge public funds are being wasted!
So now we come to the available options.
My choices are:
  1. Sit back and do nothing.
    (I am not an easy giver-upper.)
  2. Try China, India(7) or Russia(3).
    (I regard this as a last resort option since the result would not benefit the UK or the USA.)
  3. Meet my Member of Parliament to show how the failure to recognise sound solutions is wasting public money: to suggest an enquiry be initiated.
    (Undesirable, since it might not be well received by some people.)
  4. Persuade as many professors as possible to e-mail this to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, suggesting the material be considered by both the schools of physics and mechanical engineering.
    (The former have a vested interest to protect, and so the latter is more likely to return a non-biased verdict.)

    The Vice-Chancellor is to be requested to ask for any flaws in logic to be identified, whilst avoiding the return of any unsupported negative opinion.


  • Novikov, I.D.(1983): Evolution of the universeCambridge University Press
  • Davies, Paul (1989): The New PhysicsCambridge University Press
  • Pearson, Ronald D.(1991): Alternative to Relativity including Quantum Gravitation: Second International Conference on Problems in Space and Time: St. Petersburg, (Sept.1991)pp 278-292. Petrovskaja Academy of Sciences & Arts
    Chairman Local Organising Committee: Dr. Michael Varin:
    Pulkovskoye Road 65-9-1 St. Petersburg 196140, Russia.
    FAX: (812) 291-81-35 Phone:Alexandre Alekseev:
    office:(7) (812) 291-36-73, Home:(7) (812) 173-55-69
    E-Mail: consym@saman.spb.su.
  • Pearson, Ronald.D (1992): Origin of Mind: (the first derivation of a true solution to the problem of the cosmological constant)70-page booklet available from the author
  • Pearson, Ronald.D.(1994): Quantum Gravitation and the Structured Ether: Sir Isaac Newton Conference. St. Petersburg (March 1993)pp 39-55 : see above for address.
  • Pearson, R. D.(1997): Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon: Frontier Perspectives, Spring/Summer 1997Vol.6,No.2 pp70-78
  • Pearson, R.D. (2005): A Paradigm-Shifting Physics Supports Immortality!: CONSCIOUSNESS SERIES 7Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Darshan Bhawan, 36, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, Mehrauli-Badarour Rd., New Delhi 11oo62
  • Pearson, R.D. (2005): Survival PhysicsParanormal Review, Issue 36 Oct.2005 pp. 11-17
  • Schwarzchild, B. (1988): Very distant Supernova Suggest that the Cosmic Expansion is Speeding UpPhysics Today, Vol.51(6) pp.17-19 (1988)
  • Tryon, E.P.(1984): What Made the World?New Scientist, 8/3/84, pp14-18
  • www.bigbreed.orgThe Big Breed Theory - The scientific theories of Ron Pearson
  • Show More