The Big Breed Theory of Energy Creation
Dark Energy Mystery Solved
Creation Solved ?
Quantum Gravity via Exact Classical Mechanics
Physics hits the Buffers - Why?
The Big Breed Theory of the Creation of the Universe
- Click on any of these to go to a short preview page before buying
For those readers wanting a little more information before buying the books there are some articles you might like to read
Article 1 & 2 are on Solving the Cosmological Constant
Article 3 is on Quantum Gravity
Can two identical objects both be heavier than each other?
At their 23rd Solvay conference in Brussels physicists were admitting failure to solve their major problems.
New Scientist (10th Dec. 2005) reports the anxiety shown by Nobel Laureate, David Gross. He said:
“We are missing perhaps something as profound as we were back then”. (meaning in 1911 when radioactivity was not understood)
The editorial is headed “Ideas needed”, and extracts from it say:
“Physics’ greatest endeavour has ground to a halt. We are in a period of utter confusion."
“General Relativity is incompatible with quantum theory. (The latter refers to the atom at minute scales) Since the 1960’s theorists have struggled to solve this problem, so far to no avail. And the trouble is we have nothing to put in relativity’s place.”
The New Scientist report went on, “Many of the greatest minds in physics were there at last week’s conference but none had an answer”.
The list of failures outlined shows it has become only too clear that the whole basis of science is now facing a dilemma of unprecedented magnitude. What is odd is that Einstein on his 70th birthday sent a letter to a friend containing the following extract:
“Now you think I am looking at my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But on closer look it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm. I an not sure if I was on the right track after-all.”
Is this the firm vote of confidence on which you would expect physics to found one of its “two pillars of twentieth century achievement”? It is still regarded as one of those two pillars!
Physics is floundering by its own admission and a statement made by Adrian Berry, science correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, is just as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. Again it has great relevance to our topic. In the edition dated 5th November 1990 he said:
From a successful attempt to solve a major problem in physics, known as the ‘cosmological constant’ a theory of creation emerges in which true reality is provided by the ‘i-ther’ a real background medium extending to the very edge of the universe. According to the mathematics that provides this solution, the i-ther has a filamentous structure joined by cores all embedded in a self-creating fluid of primary particles. The structure has similarities to the neural networks of our brains but exists, not as matter, but at the ultimate level of reality that creates matter. The structure is dynamic and generates power in the form of waves, so enabling the next higher level of reality to exist, called the ‘quantum level’. This has a weird unreal character but is so organised as to cause the ‘macroscopic level’ to emerge. This is a level to which our senses are attuned, so giving us the impression of being so totally real.
Another vexed question is now also automatically resolved. This is known as ‘wave-particle duality’: a feature of quantum theory. Sub-atomic particles behave like balls bouncing off one another in some experiments but behave like waves on a pond at other times. No satisfactory interpretation has been provided in existing literature. So the i-ther is the creative ‘intelligent ether’.
The background structure organises the waves it spontaneously generates to create the elementary particles of matter and the forces of nature. What we call ‘atoms’ are made up from these elementary particles and, assembled in huge numbers, such atoms give rise to the universe of matter we all observe.
Consequently, and unlike other theories, this is a ‘monist’ approach. The creative i-ther spontaneously self-creates. It then evolves conscious intelligence due to the known organising power of chaos and finally organises its own energies to build the universe we presently inhabit.
A start is made by taking a critical look at outstanding problems in physics and cosmology. The philosophy is considered in a descriptive manner with maths avoided so that the intelligent lay reader should be able to follow the arguments. However, some equations are quoted though derivations are avoided.
A top physicist, Professor J. Vigier, supported the first critique. He recognised its importance and made effort to obtain publication. This critique, followed by others, had been triggered by the realisation that, due largely to diversion of effort, physicists were making some logical errors that appeared to have resulted in the big bang theory giving a hopelessly wrong prediction. It still remains outstanding and is known as ‘The Problem of the Cosmological Constant’.
These logical errors appeared to show that some loss of understanding of classical mechanics and thermodynamics had occurred. These were areas of knowledge their predecessors had so painstakingly built up. This expertise, however, now resides in the faculties of mechanical and electrical engineering. The author began with the desire to return the lost understanding to its source, thinking this would be appreciated.
The big bang theory purports to explain creation of the universe of matter directly from the void of pure nothingness. A creative explosion is postulated that needed to shut off within a split second. Unfortunately the theorists had tried to balance the energy so created by a negative pressure. This was the source of the false prediction – it was something disallowed from thermodynamic considerations. The result was that no way could be found for the adequate shutting off of the creative explosion.
The philosophy of an entirely different theory, called the ‘big breed’ is developed in this book. This provides an elegant solution to the problem. That the universe exists in a state of ever-accelerating expansion was also predicted by this theory before its discovery in 1998. Cosmologists, taken by surprise by these astronomical observations, quickly devised a ‘dark energy’ fix to correct their previous contention of an expansion that was ever slowing due to gravitational attraction.
The reader will be justified in asking at this point, “What is the use of making such corrections when these are dwarfed by a major unresolved problem?” In this book the correct prediction appears naturally as result of the different approach.
Although Einstein’s theory of special relativity can be applied in formulating the big breed theory with negligible error, inconsistencies arise when applied to cosmological matters. In consequence a new mechanics was derived to produce a totally paradox free theory for general application. It includes a theory of gravity. This is the first part of the theory that is described in the book. A little more detail may be of interest.
On the large-scale gravity rules all motion. Newton was the first to realise that gravity is a universal force that attracts every bit of matter to every other bit of matter in the universe. What caused an apple to fall was the same force that held the moon in orbit round the Earth and the Earth in orbit round the Sun. He devised his famous law of gravity and his three laws of motion to provide the explanation by what is now known as ‘classical mechanics’. However, in 1900 a new kind of mechanics to do with the very small started to emerge. It concerned the weird nature of the world of atoms and soon came to be known as ‘quantum theory’.
Almost simultaneously Einstein started to modify classical mechanics and by 1916 had produced a theory called ‘general relativity’, which seemed to render Newtonian mechanics obsolete. Over the next few decades, however, difficulties emerged and grew to become an insoluble problem. Einstein’s relativity theories could not be made consistent with quantum theory: the two just did not match. Even the acknowledged genius of our age, Professor Stephen Hawking (1988) admits about page 12 in his best selling book that quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity theory are inconsistent with one another: so one of them must be wrong.
Yet the search for that ‘holy grail’ of physics called ‘quantum gravity’ still continues: the search for a way to match up quantum theory with that of general relativity.
It turned out that a solution to this problem was also needed to provide the totally satisfactory theory of creation this author had embarked upon. The reader will be intrigued to see how a solution yielding a quantum theory of gravity emerges, based on density gradients of the i-ther. These gradients are produced as a side effect of the real quantum waves used to create matter. Such gradients have mathematically similar effects to Einstein's curved space-time and result in paralleling its achievements. Unlike relativity theory, however, this replacement does not suffer from internal contradiction or incompatibility with quantum theory.
A further consideration is included right at the beginning of this book. It concerns the weirdness of the quantum level of reality. The components of atoms, their ‘sub atomic particles’ seem to behave as waves until observed. Only then do they seem to collapse into the reality of particles. This meant that the background medium called i-ther needed to be able to evolve a conscious intelligence before matter could be created. It then had to organise its own energies by using waves as numbers to produce the effect we observe as matter. The book shows how the solution to the problem of the cosmological constant yields a structure having the capability of evolving the required intelligence.
The reader who studies this book will be able to judge whether it has the potential to trigger this long overdue paradigm-shift across all the sciences.
The book contains full mathematical detail of the ‘exact classical mechanics’, or ECM theory, that is described without maths in PART I. This requires knowledge of algebra, Euclidean geometry, and a little differential and integral calculus.
The book begins by deciding on initial assumptions and shows they need to start from those matching quantum field theory – Euclidean geometry and absolute time. This is an absolute theory depending on finding ‘local frames of reference’ from which absolute speeds and kinetic energies are evaluated regardless of the motion of any observer. This is a major difference making a departure from any relativity theory.
Then the acceleration of an object from a state of absolute rest is considered. This results in the derivation of E=mc2 together with another equation that seems to replicate the result of special relativity. However, the methodology is totally different and so are the interpretations. Since energy is imparted to produce acceleration the object also experiences an increased mass. The same match with observation results but Einstein’s ‘time dilation’ is replaced by clocks running slower after speed increase due to the associated increase of mass. A magnetic effect caused by the charges inside atoms adds its contribution. The mass increase also accounts for the life extension of cosmic rays raining down from the upper atmosphere.
A mathematical proof is given as an appendix showing that atoms will distort by a lateral expansion due to absolute speed. The amount is such as to exactly cancel any difference in the speed of light measured in any direction. This shows that any apparatus depending on the use of beams of light – such as interferometers or atomic clocks – will record null results whatever is the absolute speed of the apparatus.
This means that all the experiments made to measure the absolute speed of the Earth in the late 1800’s were bound to fail by returning null results. So the basis of both of Einstein’s relativity theories is undermined. In ECM theory, however, and unlike any relativity theory, a new category of clock needs to be considered. All those depending on beams of light need to be classified as ‘light clocks’ and will give null results. The new category is the ‘matter clock’. In this case speed induced atomic distortion can reduce the frequency of vibration by 2.5 times instead of cancelling the signal.
Consequently a matter-clock experiment is proposed for use in Earth orbit for attempting to measure absolute speed. This is new physics since nothing of the kind has ever been proposed before.
The ECM theory is further developed by replacing Einstein’s ‘curved space-time’ by an i-ther having non uniform density and is shown to give the same match with observation. The force of gravity is explained as one similar to buoyancy and it is shown to solve the riddle of why the force of gravity is so weak as compared with that of electromagnetism.
Another experiment is proposed that should prove what is called ‘sum energy coupling’ of the gravitational force. Sum energy is the arithmetic sum of the rest and kinetic energies of any object. This replaces the rest mass used in the original Newtonian equation of gravity. It is another feature that, together with non-uniform i-theric density, provides the complete theory yielding a satisfactory paradox-free theory of quantum gravity’.
The book also covers the mathematics of ‘Opposed Energy Dynamics’ (OpED theory) that has been used in derivation of the ‘big breed’ theory that solved the creation problem and eliminated the ‘problem of the cosmological constant’ – an absurdly high predicted rate of expansion - that still invalidates the big bang theory.
Why physicists are advised not to buy any of these books.
This is because of that daft question!
Although the big breed solution can be derived using special relativity it follows that an ether-like background is created before matter can arise. Then two inconsistencies appear. Special relativity does not permit of any ‘special frames of reference’ so that any observer can be regarded as standing still. However, any object in relative motion is assessed as having kinetic energy and since E=mc2 this means that it has increased mass as compared with an object seen to be stationary. So according to that theory two identical observers in relative motion each assess the other as more massive and therefore heavier than themselves. So the answer to the daft question that is a firm “No” in everyday use, has to be “yes” if special relativity is regarded as valid.
The response of a physicist that is typical of others received from dedicated relativists is worth quoting:
“Can two identical objects both be heavier than each other?
The answer to this, what you call "seemingly daft question", is yes within the context of special relativity (i.e. taking that descriptive) when given two objects in a rest frame where their masses are the same, then when they are separated by a constant velocity, from the frame of either of them the other will appear more massive.
Why you keep insisting that this is a problem or a paradox is beyond me.”
The point is that “appear more massive” implies an optical illusion. This would be acceptable if no real mass increase actually occurred. However, when an electron is accelerated through a million volts or so the mass increase is no illusion. Since the mass increase has to be regarded as real the “yes” answer is invalidated.
The same physicist had said earlier that one had to regard this as an IS that must not be questioned so that students could get on with the difficult part of understanding the theory. So what is a contradiction in common usage is accepted as not a contradiction for this exceptional case.
Nobody will shift the theorists on this matter and this is why these books are not recommended for physicists.
Furthermore no two observers in relative motion can both be standing still in the ether-like background the big breed theory throws up. Worse, Einstein’s ‘general relativity’ based on ‘curved space time’ could also not match the solution.
In consequence an alternative to general relativity had to be derived before a totally paradox-free solution could be considered acceptable. This ‘exact classical mechanics’ (ECM theory) is also described in this popularisation and provides a solution to the second outstanding problem: