Survival Physics - An Interview with Ron Pearson

Following the publication of a brief summary of Ron Pearson's theories in Volume 3.2 of "The Seeker", Duncan Macdonald interviewed Ron Pearson in October, 2003.

DM: Although I qualified nearly fifty years ago as a teacher of maths and science and was a practising meteorologist for ten of my 25 years in the Navy, I make no claim to being either a physicist or a mathematician. I come to your publications primarily as a mystic fascinated by the study of mind rather than of matter. I have come to look on mathematics as 'intellectual mysticism'. As already intimated, I much enjoyed your "Intelligence Behind the Universe!" which was for me a fertile source of new ideas and analogies. I offer the following comments on "Survival Physics" in a spirit of friendly criticism. First of all, the title makes me uneasy, because it lays you open to the charge of manipulating physics to promote a survival agenda, thus predisposing the sceptical reader to doubt your scientific detachment.

RDP: If you can think of a better title I will use it. I take your point and perhaps this impression could be cancelled by a sub-title such as: Arising from the need to answer questions in quantum physics which are never asked.

DM: In your introduction, you say that
"...on the small scale of the atom, what we interpret as 'reality' only occurs at the instant of observation".

I would say that we make our own 'reality' on every scale. As Will Hand puts it, "Reality is a matter of choice". What we may call 'actuality' is whatever we have to choose from, and this for us consists of the vibrations to which we are sensitive.

RDP: I have only used the Copenhagen interpretation here, one which I do not accept because it leads to paradox like Schroedinger's cat and which I replace with a paradox free alternative.

DM: Whilst I am sympathetic to your I-ther (perhaps because it makes me feel 'at home' as I was brought up on the idea that vibrations need some sort of medium for their propagation) I still tend to adhere to the view that the only background medium we need is mind, and I feel uncomfortable with the idea of a pseudo-material medium whose density is variable but which is simultaneously frictionless.

RDP: I never said it was a frictionless pseudo material. My background medium is mind, but made of positive and negative energy. If mind creates the universe out of itself then mind must be made of the same material as us.
However, to solve the problem of the "cosmological constant" arising because the theorists can find no way to switch off the creative explosion they postulate, I found the only way this could be done was to add negative energy to the initial state, the initial substance of everything. Although all matter must then be comprised of both, an asymmetry makes the positive sort dominant and so we think that positive energy is all that everything is made from. Note that nobody else has yet found another solution to this problem and so this solution ought to be regarded as acceptable, at least until something else emerges, if it ever does.
Mind has to be made out of something and this argument suggests it has to be these two energy forms.

DM: I look upon time and space as being properties of mind. I observe that whereas local clock-time seems to run at a constant rate, dream time is a mental creation, and in deep sleep time disappears altogether. Similar considerations apply to space. When we recall a scene, mind supplies the space in which it is located. Do we, perhaps, experience a dream within a dream?

RDP: These are subjective impressions and so are not relevant to the passage of real time. Of course, Einstein showed from his assumptions of relativity that time would have to run slower for objects or clocks moving at high speed relative to any observer. However, the assumptions I use in my "Exact Classical Mechanics" have time running at the same rate everywhere as measured by some hypothetical master clock. At high speeds or in high gravity relative to this master, other clocks run slow due to increase in inertia as shown in the analysis. It matches all the data just as well as relativity but with several advantages and freedom from the internal contradictions of relativity.

So I stick to this. However, there is no way anybody could prove that an even deeper reality than the i-ther could not exist. It might and if so could be creating the void from which my i-ther springs and could be the creator of both space and time. But this is something we could never reach to prove and so is pure speculation. It is not worth considering in my view since the i-theric structure still appears from the logic.

DM: I unreservedly welcome your addition of a "mirror mechanics" and negative mass. Traditions of many cultures, including the Celtic, take the existence of an "otherworld" for granted, and admit the possibility of some interaction between them - of which we may, or may not, be consciously aware. This is also necessary to reconcile the concept of creation 'ex nihilo' with the first (and second) laws of thermodynamics. I see no need for more than two such "worlds". Once the binary principle has been established, cause and effect can produce further vibratory elaborations ad infinitum.

RDP: I think you have misunderstood something here. I do not say a mirror universe exists made of opposite energy so that only two would be possible. The i-ther itself has to consist of both positive and negative energy. This can only generate waves since the filamentous net arising is so fine grained that no sub-atomic particle could travel through it if it was made as a solid little object. Only waves can travel and so a perfect reason appears to explain why, at the quantum level, particles appear to act also as waves. Waves going along the filaments travel at almost infinite speed and those going through the fluid of breeding primaries travel at the speed of light.

Then a whole gamut of interpenetrating universes can be created with particles made by focusing these waves. Each can be tuned so that although all others are present in the same space they do not mutually interfere and only one can be seen at a time. Each is made from both positive and negative energy with one kind apparently dominant.

DM: While I felt comfortable with the numerical grid in your book, I am less happy with developments in "Survival Physics", where the "primaries" seem to have acquired some sort of "physicality" without sufficient explanation from the mentalist point of view.

RDP: I am saying that the i-ther is the only physicality and that what we relate to is a contrived one best described as a semi-virtual reality. This is what quantum theory seems to be telling me. Surely something needs to be absolutely real and this has to be the something from which everything else emerges. Also our universe is just too complex to have arisen by accident as the "Anthropic Principle" postulates. The i-ther has a very simple basis from which complexity can evolve.

DM: You say: "At each collision of opposites, the need to conserve momentum forced each primary to gain energy. They were breeding like opposite sexes!"
I cannot immediately see why increasing the energy of two primaries should give rise to new primaries. This needs explanation. Having read the book, I can imagine that the increased energy in a volume containing a "population" of short-lived primaries will result in an increased population of such short-lived primaries, but if that is the explanation, I think you need to say so. The meaning of the remainder of the paragraph is obscure to me.

RDP: The basic logic showing why conservation of momentum forces energy increases is given in my "Frontier Perspectives" Spring/Summer edition 1997 pp70-78 (Not included in contents list) called "Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon". It can also be found on

The primaries grow until collisions cause break up at some critical size. So in effect the primaries are breeding. They only have short lives because they arrive at solid filaments where they mutually annihilate. I cannot see why you find this obscure.

DM: In the paragraph beginning "The centres of annihilation", I cannot envisage materialistic structures like 'filaments' and 'bundles' forming a 'centre'. I am much happier with mental control of wave-numbers in a non-material grid, because personal experience has persuaded me of the literal truth of "mind over matter". Although I appreciate that dyed-in-the-wool materialists cannot envisage anything they cannot see or touch, the "lego" of bundles of filaments needs to be described more clearly even for them. Did you perhaps have "string theory" in mind? Perhaps because of my meteorological background, I would feel more comfortable with something like a vortex rather than a T-Junction. Indeed, esoteric literature envisages psychic centres as vortices. Just a thought!

RDP: the centres of annihilation are the filaments. I cannot see why this is difficult to imagine.

DM: I have another note from Will Hand where he talks of "Information and Energy".
It reads:
"To take an analogy from quantum physics, we can say that the energy is the force, the power, or the wave. Information comes from the shape of the wave or its vibratory pattern according to string theory and has a recognisable structure ("in-for"). A perfect illustration of this is the heartbeat with its characteristic wave-form or signature."

Information and energy work together with one complementing the other. Information without energy is powerless since there would be no carrier wave to disseminate the information. But also energy without information is purposeless since a wave with no form will be nothing.

RDP: Yes I have no quarrel with this, but where does the power and organising ability arise from?
My contribution is to provide answers to these questions without challenging these concepts in any way.

"Now we as living souls take our energy from the vital life force giving us LIFE. Information is what we each take in and add as we evolve and grow thus increasing the LIGHT.
"So we can therefore say that: Light without Life is powerless Life without Light is purposeless."

Whilst I agree with the overall sentiment Will expresses, I cannot immediately relate string theory and heartbeats, because a string is a one-dimensional entity whereas the heart would not work if it were not a three-dimensional entity. In "Esoterism and Symbol", R A Schwaller de Lubicz derides the Euclidian geometry based on the notional non-dimensional point. He says:
"To recognise the point which results from the volume instead of following Euclid's proposition would be to adopt a wholly new attitude, accepting a priori the existence of a metaphysical world. It would be to search for vital logic, for a science of life that looks upon the interstellar 'void' as Fire, the nutritive substance whence come all things owing to the cycle of a genesis conforming to immutable Law."

I find this highly suggestive, so I pass it on . I wish you every success in stirring up the ossified physics of vested interests.

RDP: I think our problem is that you have read much mystic material which does not offer real explanations. I am trying to put meat on the bones.
Hope these answers cover your questions adequately. I much appreciate the feedback.

Ron Pearson has discovered a structure of the ether that has potential to evolve intelligence, and has provided the mathematics to back up the experiments of Sir William Crookes and Charles Richet. In these experiments, deceased people returned, proving they had survived death.
Duncan Macdonald is a member of Mensa. His website: