Ron Pearson, the man who came up with this theory, spent many years as a University lecturer in Thermodynamics and Wave mechanics. He was also the inventor of the Gas Wave Turbine. On his retirement, he switched from Engineering to Physics & Cosmology and it was then that he found the basic flaws in the Big Bang Model of Creation. From that point onwards he has not stopped in trying to find an alternative that fitted all observations. He has finally succeeded in this venture and the following is a short synopsis that will help scientists understand the angle and the viewpoint from which he is coming from - a viewpoint that stems from the deep conceptual logic of the Engineer. This is a very different perspective than from the theoretical physicist.
In 1987 my target problem was to find a solution to a major problem of the big bang theory that predicts a rate of expansion many billions of times too great. Immediately the need arose for an Exact Classical Mechanics (E.C.M.) that would be applicable up to the speed of light and extreme gravity.
Special relativity theory was consulted but soon found unacceptable since it contained what seemed to me to be obvious internal contradiction. General relativity used 'curved space-time' that made the force of gravity zero. The 'force' was an illusion caused by curvature. This seemed incompatible with quantum theory that had force carriers called 'gravitons'. So GR had also to be rejected.
The question was, '"Could a non-uniform density of space have the same effects as curved space-time and yet permit an equivalent theory to be derived based on the existence of a real force?"
The ECM theory that followed was derived from first principles to see if having a background medium in which its density reduced with distance from an object would substitute for Einstein's unimaginable 'curved space-time'. The other issue was to make it an absolute theory by having an absolute kinetic energy measured from local space instead of observers in order to eliminate internal contradiction. This meant using the centre of the Earth as reference for possibly distances as far as the moon but with the sun as centre for planetary orbits.
To start off fully quantum compatible the new theory had to be written in only the three dimensions of Euclid, together with universal time, and be a revised version of Newton's mechanics.
This was therefore to be a mechanical model using the particle nature of light and matter with its wave nature as a secondary issue based on Louis de Broglie's equation wavelength = h/p.(Planck's constant/momentum)
By considering the acceleration of an object (outside the scope of S relativity) out came E=mc^2 and mass increase due to speed as an absolute 'must'. No arguments about it as there is from the relativistic approach - because no contradictions existed that, in SR, made mass increase seem questionable.
In general relativity the speed of light was postulated as a universal constant and in consequence time became a variable. Now that time was fixed, simple logic concerning the gravitational bending of light, showed that it was the speed light that would reduce as altitude reduced.
With m = E/c2 and E fixed m had to increase as altitude reduced. This meant clocks would lose time when moved to a lower level. The same equation appeared as from GR but no longer meant 'time dilation'.
Similarly clocks ran slow after acceleration to high linear speed.
Anomalies like the 'twin paradox' no longer posed conceptual difficulties.
The increase of life of cosmic rays was shown to be an increase in real time caused by mass increase.
To accommodate both light and matter by a unifying equation of gravity the logic then showed that both the rest energy and the kinetic energy needed to couple with gravity: not mass. The kinetic energy of planet Mercury is greater at perigee than apogee and so would effectively increase the force more than the inverse square law predicted. Would this account for precession?
Computer modelling showed that it would.
As expected, prediction fell short of the experimental observation for both the precession of Mercury and the bending of starlight grazing the sun when space was assumed flat.
So then the space density variation was derived from a quantum rule and plugged in.
Now the predictions of these factors matched the experiments still considered the unique achievements of Einstein's general relativity. The 'anomalous' precession of Mercury was 43 arcseconds per century and the bending of starlight twice the flat space value corresponding to the Newtonian value.
Light bending and the Shapiro time delay are closely linked. The latter is the excess time taken by a radar beam reflected from a planet back to Earth due to the slower value of c when nearing the sun. The resulting equation was not identical with Einstein's but the difference was negligible.
So at this stage, in 1998, it could be claimed that a satisfactory alternative to both relativity theories could be used to yield the same predictions. It had the advantages of being far easier to use and understand, together with freedom from internal contradiction and incompatibility with quantum theory.
But trouble lay ahead as I will recount next section
Only after that will I go into details using only the most elementary calculus - all that is needed!
Section 2 summarising ECM theory.
First a complaint from a physicist needed an answer. The internal contradictions of special relativity arise from the assumption that the observer is the frame of reference from which mass increase and time dilation are measured. It is obvious that the values returned by different observers all moving relative to one another will not agree. This is why relativists cannot agree on whether mass increase is real or illusory.
The remaining summary of ECM history
Having derived a mechanics compatible with quantum theory, which could be substituted for both special and general relativity, it was now time for the easy bit - getting the theory published.
Two years of effort resulted in the collection of many rejections all giving one liner reasons that were minor variants of, "Relativity has withstood the test of time: no alternative is required". Not a single one criticised the logic or mentioned the good agreement with observation.
Dr Louis Essen FRS, inventor of the caesium beam atomic clock, told me that it was impossible to publish any critique or alternative to relativity in the West. He said he had been warned, "He was placing the tenure of his post in jeopardy” (by publishing such critiques). He then suggested I go as his deputy to present my 'Alternative to Relativity' at a conference in Russia in 1991. I followed this advice.
At this conference an astronomer, Svetlana Tolchelnikova, presented a paper showing that measurements of the Shapiro time delay, many days away from superior conjunction, far exceeded the predictions of GR. Since almost all attendees were dissidents this pleased everybody - except me. The announcement seemed to discredit my own theory just as much as it did GR.
Later it emerged that GR had the advantage of providing multiple solutions for this time delay. All that was required was to choose the one that fitted best. This was the Tausner-Holdridge 1967 solution. ECM theory provided only one solution and this did not match this experiment. Not until 2005 was this problem resolved.
Worse, by this time I had made very time consuming investigations of extreme fields and had discovered an inconsistency in my theory. Energy could be evaluated in two ways when carrying out finite difference explorations of planetary orbits in strong gravity. One method simply used the general equation. The other added it up during the computational procedure. Up to about the surface of a white dwarf star these gave good agreement but beyond that discrepancies started to build and soon became unacceptable.
Months spent on looking for computational errors led know-where. Eventually the reason emerged.
The fault lay in the assumption that mechanical work was simply 'force times the distance moved by that force'.
I returned to investigate the horizontal acceleration of an object from a state of rest. This time, however, any arbitrary level in a gravitational field was considered. A new result emerged showing the conventional equation had to be multiplied by a space density factor. It will be remembered that the new theory replaced Einstein’s ‘curved space-time’ by a non-uniform energy density of space.
Now, for the most extreme of fields, very good agreement by the two methods of energy calculation appeared. The exploration of neutron stars and black holes could now be justified.
What first emerged was the very small change in the energy density of space from the value at Earth to that at the surface of a neutron star. The ratio is only 1.48.
Going to even more extreme fields allowed non-rotating black holes to be explored. The prediction is a black hole in which the speed of light falls to zero only at a zero radius that is never quite reached. The reason for the latter condition comes from the associated big breed theory that places a limit on density. In other words no ‘event horizon’ exists. There is no need to speculate about time reversal inside event horizons or the possibility of ‘worm holes’ existing. These reduce to science fiction. There is also no need for concern about the existence of ‘singularities’.
A re-evaluation had to be made which showed all the same predictions resulted except one. The perihelion advance of planets was increased in the ratio 4/3. Recently one NPA member provided new evidence showing the accepted value is too low and so the original concern about this may not have been justified.
Finally in 2005 the difficulty regarding the Shapiro time delay turned out to have a simple solution. I found that if the speed of light in vacuum had been underestimated by only 5.92 m/s then the experimental curve would coincide with the prediction from ECM theory. This figure is only 2 parts in 108 and is within the range of resolution of experimental apparatus.
It seems we can be misled by trusting the results of experiment without taking account of their accuracy.
Application to the original target problem concerning creation
The main feature of big bang theory is a period of ‘inflation’ during which time all the energy needed to build the universe is posited to emerge from nothing in a blinding flash lasting for only a split second. Then creation has to switch off. Unfortunately, from what I perceived as false logic, no means existed for switching. In consequence inflation continued forever yielding a rate of expansion said to be 10120 times too large. The source of the difficulty, I reasoned, was the use of an ‘intrinsic negative pressure of the vacuum’ for balancing the enormous energy density of space.
Now it had also occurred to me that an inconsistency is also present in quantum theory that nobody ever seems to mention: the ‘negative coupling’. Forces of nature are modelled on the assumption of ‘mediating virtual particles’ emitted from one particle and absorbed by others. Application of the conservation of momentum shows that the two particles concerned would be pushed apart. Forces of repulsion could therefore be explained in this way. But forces of attraction also exist and need explaining by the same model. Mathematicians simply insert a negative sign and call it a negative coupling. This permits the theory to yield correct predictions. However, what is ignored is the massive violation of momentum conservation this entails.
Obviously, the only way to eliminate the violation is to postulate mediators that carry negative momentum: their momentum arrow has to point opposite their motion. This means they have negative mass and energy.
First attempts to solve the ‘problem of the cosmological constant’, as it is known, assumed all mediators to be made of negative energy so that the positive energy of matter could be cancelled.
Unfortunately, it soon emerged that matter would simply vanish into nothing. The final solution, now called the Big Breed theory had an ultimate background medium consist of ‘primaries’ of opposite kinds of energy. This not only provided a resolution of the creation problem but also showed the ultimate acted like a porous ever-growing solid permeated by a gas-like state. It deposited energy where it organised matter with the consequence that the energy density was locally increased. A viscous flow resulted yielding exactly the correct density gradients required by ECM theory. So a cause for these gradients is provided when the two theories are combined.
The conclusion I reach from this 25 year long study is that a satisfactory alternative to relativity theories has been formulated that is also fully compatible with quantum theory. It is my hope that this summary has created the enthusiasm needed for further study.
Deriving an alternative to special relativity
The derivation, by ECM theory, begins from the experimental observation that light, falling on a surface, produces a force per unit of area known as ‘radiation pressure’. It tends to push that surface away. These experiments have shown that the photons, which are the carriers of the radiant energy of light, also carry momentum in direct proportion to that energy.
It follows that, contrary to established opinion, photons must have a ‘kinetic mass’ directly proportional to their energy:
i.e. m µ E.
(The existing theory of radiation pressure cannot logically be applied as it stems from another one starting from different assumptions. So we start from the experimental observation)
1.1 THE HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION OF
A MASSIVE OBJECT
A heavy object is now to be considered in a state of absolute rest and is then accelerated to a high speed v, in a horizontal direction, by application of an accelerating force F that moves with the object for a distance x. Therefore energy is supplied to the object equal to the mechanical work done on it so the energy gain, given symbol dE is equal to F ´x i.e.
Since both mass and speed are to be considered variables a refined form of Newton’s second law has to be used that states:
Force equals rate of change of momentum.
Momentum is mass ´ velocity with both mass and velocity now changing.
Since m µ E, as justified from the radiation pressure observation previously considered, mass has to be written m = BE. The constant B is to be evaluated from the analysis based on the assumption that no friction is present, so that all the mechanical work supplied is retained as kinetic energy in the accelerated object.
Then momentum, symbol p, has to be written:
 [1.1.1]
FIG..1.1 illustrates the problem. This shows a spherical object (though it could be any shape) accelerated by a force F from rest in the quantum vacuum QV. It moves a distance x so doing work Fx to increase the energy of the object (shown bigger) as it is accelerated up to speed v. This horizontal velocity is best considered a tangential velocity since motion is perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational field. The force of gravity has, however, been assumed cancelled by the object moving along a sliding support offering zero friction and not impeded by air resistance.
The object then hits an inclined plate from which it makes a perfect bounce and is deflected. The absolute speed remains unchanged but is now represented by the velocity vector w whose components are the reduced tangential velocity v and radial velocity component u.
Both v and m, and also therefore E are variables and so Newton’s second law has to be written ‘force = rate of change of momentum expressed in mathematical terms as
Using [1.1.1] this can be written as:
  [1.1.2]
Differentiating by parts and multiplying both sides by dx we have:
 [1.1.3]
Now Fdx = dE and dx/dt = v and so [1.1.3] can be written:
Re-arranging we have:
This can be arranged for integration as:
: [1.1.4]
Put z = 1 - Bv2 and then dz = -2Bvdv
Substituting in [1.1.4] and integrating we obtain:
This can be re-arranged to read:
 [1.1.5]
Now as v increases E/E0 increases according to [1.1.5] until Bv2 = 1 when E becomes 1/0 which is infinite. This indicates that an ultimate speed exists that will be defined as v = c, the speed of light, since it is known that photons travel at this speed.
Hence from [1.1.5] B = 1/v2
Which now becomes: B = 1/c2 [1.1.6]
Substituting [1.1.6] in [1.1.1] and [1.1.5] yields:
 [1.1.7]
The energy E is the arithmetic sum of rest energy E0 and kinetic energy EK and so E will be termed ‘sum energy’. Then:
EK = E – E0 [1.1.8]
In this way two important equations have appeared simultaneously. When v = 0 then E = E0 and m = m0 . These are the rest energy and rest mass respectively. The equations look like those from special relativity but there is a subtle difference: the frame of reference is the local background medium to be called ‘local space’: not the observer as in Einstein’s relativity theories.
Consequently the inertial mass m and the sum energy E are both higher than rest values by real amounts due to a real increase in absolute kinetic energy, whilst in relativity this kinetic energy is relative and has no definite value. This is because all observers, in relative motion with respect to one another, each accord different values to the mass increase of any object they observe.
In other words special relativity contains internal contradiction that makes it impossible to decide whether the mass increase it suggests is real or illusory. The approach made here resolves this dilemma by showing the mass increase has to be real.
This explanation has proved inadequate for some physicists. For example, Robert De Hilster, still considered mass to remain at its rest value by definition of standard mass.
This opinion is readily countered by considering the acceleration of an electron by an electrostatic field to v/c values of about 0.9. The force produced by stopping the beam is readily measurable and can be interpreted to yield the momentum of the electron.
Another physicist, Roger Rydin, offered a refutation on grounds that if a mass increase occurred, then distant galaxies would have enormous mass increase compared to our own galaxy. This was obviously incorrect, he concluded, and so he interpreted this to mean the foregoing derivation is invalid.
What this physicist has not realised is that he is using special relativity as the basis of his conclusion and this is not applicable. As shown in the co-derived Big Breed theory, the background medium from which matter derives is in a state of ever-accelerating expansion carrying the galaxies along. The mass increase occurs with respect to local space: not earthbound observers. So their mass increases will be insignificantly different from our own.
So this physicist has not invalidated the derivation!
1.2 The Gravitational Bending of a Beam of Light
 A major assumption of ECM theory is the unification of light and matter. Light is bent by a force of gravity just like matter and the photons that carry light exist entirely, or almost entirely, of kinetic energy. Hence both kinetic energy as well as rest energy are assumed to couple with gravity.
In FIG.1.2 the rightward moving beam, of depth dr, is assumed to be initially horizontal but is acted on by gravitational acceleration g
Bending is assumed with propagation of light always maintained perpendicular to the wave front. This is justified since when light is refracted in moving from air to glass its speed of propagation is reduced by exactly the amount needed to maintain propagation perpendicular to the wave front.
Regardless of the true shape of the arc photons will reach a speed in the direction of gravity in a very short time t of amount gt without change of c. This enables the velocity triangle shown on the right to be established. It is also clear that if the distance of travel of light is ct on the inside of the bend, then on the outside this distance is increased by amount dc´ t when the short depth of the beam is dr. The velocity triangle and spatial triangle of sides dc´ t & dr and gt & c are similar and so can be equated to yield:
 [1.2.1]
Finally the assumption of the waves always remaining perpendicular to the direction of propagation is shown to be consistent with the final solution later in the derivation.
A solution using full rigor provided in the book gives the identical solution. The way this also leads to the derivation of the deflection of starlight grazing the sun is derived but will be omitted at this stage.
What is important here is that, when time is assumed invariant, the speed of light must increase with increase of radial distance r from the centre of attraction of any massive object.
1.3 Energy is the Substance of the Universe: not mass
Equation [1.2.1] shows that the speed of light must increase with distance from the Sun. So the speed of light has to be considered as a variable and E = mc2 no longer means that energy and mass are equivalent: since if c increases then m must reduce if E remains constant, or the converse might apply.
To decide whether rest energy or rest mass remains constant in a gravitational field we need to consider the lowering of an object on a cable. First, however, it is necessary to assess what effect potential energy will have.
1.3.1 Potential Energy
In Newtonian mechanics the sum of potential and kinetic energy conveniently remains constant: a feature that facilitates easy calculation. As will be shown later, however, the concept of potential energy cannot be applied in an exact mechanics in which the speed of light varies in the gravitational field.
In ECM theory a background medium has to exist that can be called ‘space’ or ‘quantum vacuum’.
What is really happening, when an object is lifted, is that a gravitational force, produced in space, has to be overcome. This force, multiplied by the height to which the object is raised, yields the energy needed to lift the object.
Where does the energy expended now reside?
The answer is simple. The object has been pulled against space and so energy has been delivered to space where it now resides.
When the object falls back, energy is delivered from space. In this way energy conservation is satisfied. There is no need to introduce potential energy. The latter is now seen as a useful mathematical artifice that has no real existence. Therefore this concept can be discarded.
If the object is considered in isolation by the new interpretation, then its energy is not conserved in free fall.
 Instead, as an object rises under its own inertia it is doing work against space and so loses energy. The converse happens when the object falls. An interchange of energy with space restores energy conservation.
Now we consider the thought experiment of an object lowered on a cable from a winding drum fitted with a brake. All the work done by gravity acting on the object is extracted from space. This energy is dissipated at the winding drum as it slips past the brake. This means that the rest energy E0 of the object remains constant.
Since c has reduced and E0 = m0c2 applies at any level, it follows that mass has increased to keep E0 constant without any change in the quantity of matter present.
Another way of arguing the case is to consider the gravitational force W on the object balanced by the force F of reaction produced by the cable. The forces of action and reaction are equal and opposite so that no net force does work to affect the energy of the object.
Another experiment is to drop a ball from a height onto a plate fixed at 45 degrees to the vertical, assuming no air resistance and no loss of energy at the bounce. The rest energy of the object E0 has kinetic energy EK added by the fall and remains so after the bounce, now to move horizontally. This extra energy is dissipated by friction so leaving the original E0 at the lower level.
Whatever test is applied it is seen that it is the rest energy of any object that remains constant as it changes level in a gravitational field and so E0 is a universal constant for a given object.
It follows that the rest mass, m0 with suffix D representing the primary datum taken arbitrarily at average Earth orbital radius, varies according to the relation:
 [1.3.1]
Since c increases as an object is raised to a higher level, by a lifting device, so rest mass reduces, even though no energy has been taken away. Inertia, being a function of mass, has also reduced. This shows that mass cannot be regarded as a measure of substance but instead governs the dynamics of energy: the true substance.
The relation between inertial mass m and sum energy E is:
 [1.3.2]
If a mediator flux of some kind, such as a stream of gravitons, acts on an object to produce a gravitational force, then the absorption cross section of the object has to be proportional to its sum energy, since this is the only substance from which it is made and clearly the energy of motion is just as important as rest energy when defining ‘substance’. This rule then applies equally to massive objects and particles having no rest energy (like photons). However, it is argued later that the graviton model is incorrect. Instead the force of gravity is one of negative buoyancy. In this case the volume of the elementary gravitating particle must be proportional to its sum energy. A new law of physics can now be stated:
Sum energy is the building substance of the universe and so couples with any kind of gravitational flux to produce a force, but inertial mass governs the acceleration of that sum energy when any kind of force is applied, inclusive of the gravitational.
HOME PAGE
|
