In this Essay I am going to show my disdain for the way in which the 'peer review' system works. Once you get into the academic world that thrives on getting scientific papers published and serving as 'peers' reviewing the research findings of one's rivals, you have become one of the sheep grazing on the farmlands that are helped by government funding. To succeed, you have to be sure you join the right flock and are seen to blend in well with that flock and move with the flock as a whole.

If you dare to wander off a little to discover greener pasture then you will be shunned and denied recognition as a member of that flock. You are not then one of the sheep, in that metaphorical sense, but you deserve respect, because you have made efforts to explore new ground rather than playing it safe and moving only with the body of opinion that endorses the common consensus.

Referees of scientific papers submitted to learned journals for prospective publication express their views anonymously. They can criticize without being reproached or without having their opinions put on public record. It is no wonder therefore that, as experts in their field, they only allow intruders to trepass if those intruders pay homage in their submitted papers to the reviewer's own beliefs and, preferably, refer with favour to the reviewer's own prior work of published record.

You might think that, in the main, this scenario applies to the leading journals, the ones which dominate university library shelves, because the lesser journals are seen to specialize on publishing contributions which are peripheral to mainstream beliefs or lack the quality needed to find their way into the primary chain of periodicals. Not so, as even maverick sheep have a way of flocking together and developing that instinct of 'consensus', even though the facts of science are not tailored to our taste, nor can they depend upon our opinion. What is taught about science in schools and universities is the product of consensus opinion. It may not be, and indeed it certainly is not, 100% factual.

So long as we are governed by 'opinion' then those who influence that 'opinion' by asserting their authority behind the scenes should not act behind a cloak of anonymity. It is not 'peer' review if the 'peer' is frightened of putting his name to what he writes about the work of others.

Like many, if you are a physicist, you will have tried to make some sense out of what is written about 'Big Bang' creation and expanding space. You may even have heard of the Higgs field, but been confused by the story which tells you things like:
"One must assume that the early universe had regions that were hotter than about 10²⁷ degrees and were also expanding. In these regions thermal fluctuations would drive the Higgs fields to zero and symmetry would be unbroken. ... The system would supercool to a negligible temperature with the Higgs field remaining at zero, and the resulting state would be considered a false vacuum."
I am quoting from Scientific American (p.99 in May 1984 issue) which goes on to refer to "EXPANDING BUBBLES of broken symmetry..." and from there progresses to: "Roughly speaking, the isolated bubbles that were discussed in the original model are replaced by the domains. The domains of the slow rollover transition would be surrounded by other domains rather than by a false vacuum, and they would tend to be spherical. The term 'bubble' is therefore avoided."

So here is something sharing that consensus opinion of the main flock that grazes on the pastures of the early universe and it is sufficiently developed to warrant an article in Scientific American in May 1984.

Towards the end of 1984 I had prepared a paper entitled 'G as a Step-Function at Creation' and I offered it to Foundations of Physics, billed on their letterhead as 'An International Journal Devoted to the Conceptual Bases and Fundamental Theories of Modern Physics, Biophysics, and Cosmology'. I wish to draw your attention to an anonymous referee opinion sent to me with a rejecting cover letter by Alwyn van der Merwe, Editor of that journal, on April 4, 1985 from his address at the Department of Physics at the University of Denver, Colorado. It reads:

"(a) There is no astronomical evidence for the gravitational domains which Aspden postulates. Instead, a single gravitational field appears to fill the entire universe. This determines, first of all, cosmological behavior including the expansion of the universe from, apparently, a complicated singularity. Then there are groups of galaxies held together gravitationally. Next, there are the individual galaxies held together gravitationally. Then the various star systems are held together gravitationally, and so on.

(b) There is no evidence for gravitational changes induced by movements across domain boundaries. Presumably, the boundaries do not exist.

(c) The observed red shift of distant objects indicates the universe is expanding from a point in time when it was so small none of the particles or atoms we know now could exist.

(d) The present submicroscopic arrangements of matter developed gradually. The heavy elements found in the earth were generated in nova or supernova and ejected into space. This process occurred eons after creation. Only later did the solar system condense out. The condensation was not induced by the onset of gravitation."

So you see, 'God' has spoken and there are no domains that have boundaries which affect gravitation. They are just thermal domains that have something to do with the Higgs field, according to Scientific American which tells us that those domains are not 'spherical bubbles'.

It seems not to have occurred to the common flock of cosmologists that, if gravity is confined to interactions between matter within a common space domain, that would explain why stars form, one single or binary system within each domain. Galaxies would still form because, with passage of time, stars would wander across space boundaries and begin to cluster together, just as a chain holds together in spite of becoming slack in places. Surely, someone on Mars viewing a tug boat on Earth pulling a ship through a chain link might not see the chain and so think that, because boat and ship seem to move in a coordinated way, there is some direct force acting between. Why is it that we cannot imagine a broader horizon? What we think we see out there in remote space may well be different if viewed from a closer distance. If we infer actions based on the physics of what we see occur within the confines of our laboratories here on Earth, then we may be extrapolating beyond the limits justified by our observations.

The anonymous referee says that 'The condensation was not induced by the onset of gravitation'. He or she 'knows' which came first, the chicken or the egg, because the chicken was born at a discrete point in space along with billions of other chickens all compressed into that 'singularity'. No need for the eggs! The creation of protons and electrons in a steady state universe, followed by cooling which brings the 'onset of gravitation' and then the formation of stars is ruled out. Instead you are told, as I read in a book by Barry Young intended for science-minded Internet users, "At 10^-42 seconds after the big bang, the electromagnetic and strong and weak forces remained as one indistinguishable force, but were separated from the force of gravity. In other words, gravity came into being." I quote this from page 127 of Free Stuff for Science Buffs, published in 1996 by the Coriolis Group, Web address http://www.coriolis.com

So those poor chickens all cooped up in that point singularity had to suffer for a good 10^-42 seconds before even experiencing the force of gravity, but then, instead of that force holding them together in what really would be a 'black hole', they all found they could fly away and become the 'expanding universe'! But chickens lay eggs and, if you have read what I have written in the Tutorials in these Web pages, you know that the aether creates protons! Lecture No. 5 tells you how the Sun and planets were created.

I believe that even God might be laughing at the account of Big Bang creation which man has invented. He is surely whispering to us to urge us to look again at Maxwell's equations and ask how waves can disturb the aether with lateral field vibrations without being dynamically balanced. The message is that there is a dual, or reciprocal, electric displacement and that can explain how energy from electromagnetic waves can be absorbed in transit through the aether to give dispersionless wave propagation, but propagation where frequency reduces over distance travelled. You see, the idea of the expanding universe sinks into oblivion once you understand that the cosmological red shift is not a doppler effect. Search these Web pages and you will understand more on that subject, beginning by abstracts [1982a] and [1984e]. Go on read Lecture No. 11, The Hubble Constant: Its 'Free Energy' Role, Then, read on below to see that paper that should have been published in 1985, but never was, because the Editor of the journal Foundations of Physics decided it should not be published.

Abstract: Developments in particle theory which suggest that the space-time metric has properties analogous to the ferromagnet are applied to the gravitational-electromagnetic field unification problem. It is shown that the onset of gravitation may have occurred at the time the solar system was created, as the space-time metric acquired order by cooling below its Curie temperature. The proposal is verified by deducing theoretically the quantity (angular momentum)²/mass for the planets in relation to the mass and radius of the Sun.

The ultimate unification of electromagnetic and gravitational actions may well emerge from enquiry into the initial phases of the creation of our universe. An aspect of this problem which has received little attention hitherto is the pre-creation phase. As will be shown, there is good reason for believing that at the initiation of creation the forces of nature involved a step function at time t=0, as if the primary cosmic property, gravitation, actually came into existence at that moment. Before that event, mass existed in a flat space-time metric, but later the effect of mass was to cause curvature of this metric.

In order to assess such a proposition, it is worthwhile to consider (a) the analogy with the magnetic state with which unification is sought and (b) the special consequences of the proposal that G changes suddenly from 0 to its present value at t=0.

There is a positive analogy between the sudden onset of gravitation and magnetism, bearing in mind the situation in a ferromagnet as it cools below its Curie temperature. The ordered spin state of ferromagnetism is destroyed by heat but is eventually restored as the ferromagnet cools down. Then a mutual magnetic attraction between the spins appears as the substance becomes magnetically polarized. The analogy gains strength if one looks into the realm of particle physics and the question of parity breaking, from the viewpoint of Goldstone [1]. Goldstone pictured a vacuum state with aligned two-dimensional vectors at each point in space, the particle property arising from an oscillation in their direction. Phillips [2] later posed the question: 'Is the graviton a Goldstone boson?', whereas Biritz [3] related the broken symmetry of the Goldstone vacuum to the material state of ferromagnetism. This idea was advanced by Durr [4] who imagined the vacuum to be a very large isoferromagnet, a proposal which led Breit [5] to question the vacuum analogy in relation to temperature effects and domain structure. In a recent survey Weisskopf [6] refers to the Higgs isotopic spinor field which requires the vacuum to have a certain fixed direction in isospace and, by analogy with a ferromagnet, retain this direction so long as the energy transfers are smaller than the Curie temperature. From this background Rebbi [7] now writes about space-time having a cubic structure allowing calculations to be made concerning quark confinement. However, lacking in this earlier work is the clear proposition advanced here that, as in a ferromagnet, the state of gravitation actually comes about as the space-time metric cools to form a lattice arrangement of ordered spin states.

Breit's question about domains in the vacuum deserves attention. It can be conceived as a large scale domain structure, each domain having its own spin direction and the boundaries setting the range of the attractive force operative within the domain.

Keeping this thought in mind, imagine now that the pre-creation phase is a state of no gravitation, with matter dispersed throughout space as a highly tenuous gas. However, as soon as the underlying order appeared, spreading rapidly so as to be virtually a spontaneous transition within each domain, the matter in that domain would be drawn together by gravitation and coalesce to form a single star or binary system.

There is a fascinating aspect to this hypothesis which justifies its conception. The idea that G switches on, as it were, at t=0 means that for an initial period the positive heavy nuclei of the dispersed and partially ionized matter are subject to a mutual acceleration of gravitation that is far greater than the mutual acceleration of gravitation applicable to the electrons. The matter forming the primordial Sun would come together with a positive charge initially to be neutralized later when the slower moving electrons arrived. Full analysis shows that the positive charge build-up is retarded by its electrostatic repulsion to become:

during the transitional phase. Here M_s is the mass of the Sun, less the mass of electrons bringing the balancing charge, relatively a minute quantity.

This, of itself, would have little consequence, were it not likely that something of basic consequence might happen during this period when the Sun was charged. There could be an interaction between this powerful electric condition and the underlying spin metric coextensive with the body of the Sun. The metric has isospin and it is the seat of a resonance condition with which we associate the graviton. The same metric is known to have an affinity for the frame of the local observer since it adapts its properties to assure isotropic propagation of electromagnetic disturbance. Equally, if subject to an electric field, such as the radial field set up by the charge (1), it could well respond to exhibit a neutralizing radial electric field by a kind of displacement conforming to Maxwell's equations. Relativity holds as a valid description of such a metric, subject to the one condition that if there are two observers moving relative to one another at an infinitesimal spacing then the metric adopts the inertial frame of one to the exclusion of the other. This implies quantum properties and eases the resolution of the clock paradox.

Picture now an expanse of such a metric coextensive with the body of the primordial Sun. Consider a state of rotation of the lattice of the metric about a central axis. Each element of the metric will then have a motion comprising two components, its intrinsic spin and its rotation about the central axis. It was Goldstone's basic requirement [1] that particles in the metric could exhibit zero mass, because when they rotate in phase there is no energy gain because symmetry is preserved. Thus, we impose the condition that the phase is universal in the metric, meaning that the compounded spin angular velocity has to be constant. The result is a radial displacement of the metric about its axis of rotation and, conversely, a forced radial displacement implies a state of rotation.

To understand this let the element of the metric be at a radius R from an axis about which the system rotates at angular velocity W. The axis makes an angle A with the directions of the isospin vector which we connect with a spin velocity at radius r of W_o. Note that r and W_o are respectively very small and very large, being of the magnitude we might associate with electron spin states. The compounded velocity is the vector sum WRcosA+W_or in planes perpendicular to the isospin vector. Goldstone's in-phase condition requires this to be a motion for which the angular velocity in the inertial frame is W_o. This can only be the case if the spin radius of the element varies to become (W/W_o)RcosA+r. The metric at radius R is displaced from the central axis by the radial amount (W/W_o)RcosA.

To convert this into an electrical condition we assign the metric a uniform charge density s which is normally exactly balanced by background charge density -s. Only one of these is associated with the spin elements of the metric. It then follows that the displacement by the radial proportionality factor (W/W_o)cosA will imply a uniform induction of charge density of magnitude W(2s/W_o)cosA to develop in that metric.

If we write the Sun's charge in (1) as a charge density (G)^1/2d_s, where d_s is the mean mass density of the Sun, the metric will rotate exactly to neutralize this. If the Sun shares this state of motion its primordial angular velocity before ejecting the planets becomes:

(W_o/2s) is, of course, a fundamental property of the space-time metric. It offers interesting prospect for future quantitative correlation of the lattice structure of the field medium and the large scale cosmological phenomena.

The significance of the above analysis is that during the transitional period when the primordial Sun had its positive charge the coextensive space-time metric reacted by deploying angular momentum from its otherwise invisible spin world and developed a rotation shared by the Sun, which cancelled the charge in the body of the Sun and transferred it by displacement as a metric charge near the Sun's surface. When the neutralizing electrons arrived they took up positions at the Sun's surface cancelling this displaced metric charge, but the Sun and its coextensive space-time metric retained the state of rotation.

Such a model of the Sun affords an explanation of the induction of its magnetic field. It is beyond the scope of this paper, but we mention that the Schuster-Wilson hypothesis as discussed by Blackett [8] reqiures a neutralized electric charge exactly as given by (1) to produce a magnetic moment as if it were not neutralized. There was excitement in finding that the hypothesis worked for the Earth, the Sun and the star 78 Virginis, but the hypothesis really had no basis and was discounted when research showed that the Earth's field was of the form of a central dipole. In fact, both of these objections are met by the space-time metric proposal by noting that the metric neutralizes electric charge but does not develop a magnetic field inasmuch as it constitutes the frame of reference (an inertial frame) for such fields. Also, the magnetic moment comprises a positive core component and a double negative component owing to the surface electron population and this combined system gives what is an apparent dipole field.

Of greater interest here is the scope for understanding the creation of the planetary system. The Sun formed centrally in its own space domain but the accreted matter would retain its momentum. Eventually, therefore, the Sun would move across the boundaries of its own space domain and enter an adjacent domain in which the isospin vector has a different direction. The effect upon the charge balance is then quite dramatic. Imagine that A=0 in the initial domain and that A=180^o in the adjacent domain. A traversal of the boundary will cause the polarity of the displaced metric charge to reverse. Instead of neutralizing the Sun's positive core charge it will now act to double the charge in the body of the Sun so that 2G^1/2M_s will act on the electron charge -G^1/2M_s. M_s is the Sun's mass.

Such an electrical condition in a rotating system is conducive to a diamagnetic reaction effect which transfers angular momentum to the outer regions of the body. This results in a quasi-equilibrium between the electrical forces and the centrifugal forces on the surface substance, given by:

Put H_p as the angular momentum acquired by the electron-populated outer substance of mass M_p moving at angular velocity W_p about the Sun's radius R_s. Then (3) can be written in the modified form:

This state only holds for a limited time because the core charge will be neutralized by discharge processes as the surplus electron population transfers from the surface to the body of the Sun to balance the inverted polarity of the rotating metric of the changed domain environment. Then, the substance of mass M_p will move away from the Sun to break up into planets which settle eventually in orbits controlled by normal gravitation. Since the angular momentum of a planet of mass M' in orbit about the Sun at radius R' is M'(GM_sR')^1/2, we can write:

The summation applies to all the planets formed at the first traversal of a domain boundary. This no doubt includes all planets in the solar system, because almost all the Sun's initial angular momentum would be transferred to the surface at the first boundary encounter. There would be insufficient rotation of the Sun to sustain the angular momentum needs of equation (4) at a second boundary crossing.

We can, therefore, combine (4) and (5) and apply it to the data for the solar system to verify the resulting formulation:

If this equation holds for the solar system, then this theory of creation is supported. From the following data tabulated in Earth units we find that the summation of M' is 447 and the summation of M'(R')^1/2 is 1179.

	Planet       M'	    R'  	M'(R')1/2
	Mercury    0.05	  0.387	        0.03
	Venus      0.82	  0.723	        0.69
	Earth      1.00	   1.00	        1.00
	Mars       0.11	   1.52	        0.135
	Jupiter   317.8	   5.20	      724.6
	Saturn     95.2	   9.54	      294.1
	Uranus     14.5	  19.18	       63.5
	Neptune    17.2	  30.07	       94.3
	Pluto      0.11   39.44         0.691

These values cannot be expected to have changed since the solar system was created. We find from (6) that M_sR_s is 1,555 at creation. M_s can have changed only a little from its original value and so is known to be 332.800 and R_s today (in astronomical units) is 1/224. M_sR_s is 1,486 from this, a value in extremely close agreement with the theoretical value. Exact agreement could not be expected, because the planetary material would become isolated from the Sun only after reaching a height above the Sun's visible surface commensurate with the normal surface eruptions. The small discrepancy of 4.6% can therefore be explained in terms of the mean height of solar flares, taken together with the increase of R_s due to the solar oblateness accompanying the much higher primordial solar spin state.

It is submitted that a viable account of the creation of the solar system has been presented. It is realised that the proposed existence of space domains commensurate in numbers with the stars and defining the local range of gravitation might upset some cosmological theories, especially those based on the Mach Principle. However, a theory for the creation of the solar system which provides verifiable equations should take precedence. Furthermore, there is an experimental avenue for verifying the theory. There is a case for arguing a limited application of the Mach Principle to the extent that it affects the mass of an electron in proportion to the local gravitational potential. The mass in spin is not affected and so the gravitational potential might become measurable from otherwise inexplicable discrepancies in the measurement of the electron g-factor. Aspden [9,10] has shown that almost all of the discrepancy is accounted for in terms of a gravitational potential equal to that of the solar system. These experiments are of such precision that the small changes in gravitational potential arising from the Earth's elliptical motion about the Sun could soon be detected. Experimental electron electrodynamics promise, therefore, the possibility of unravelling the mysteries of our creation and confirming that G did change from 0 to its present value to initiate that event.

1. J. Goldstone, Il Nuovo Cimento, 19, 154 (1961).
2. P. R. Phillips, Physical Review, 146, 966 (1966).
3. H. Biritz, Il Nuovo Cimento, 47A, 709 (1967).
4. H. P. Durr, Proceedings of the 1967 International Conference on Particles and Fields, Interscience Publishers, p. 328.
5. Breit, ibid, p. 340.
6. V. F. Weisskopf, Physics Today,34 tLI1, 71 (1981).
7. C. Rebbi, Scientific American, 248, 36 (February, 1983).
8. P. M. S. Blackett, Nature, 159, 658 (1947).
9. H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 32, 114 (1981).
10. H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 37, 169 (1983).