Much of what I describe in these Internet Web pages will interest anyone who has tried to follow the developments in cosmology and physical science during the course of the 20th century. This has been 'Einstein's century' in the sense that physicists have flocked like sheep to follow the thought paths of one man, Albert Einstein. He took us into an imaginary world of so-called 'four-space' or 'space-time'. This is a world which has to be seen as virtual reality, in which time is intermeshed with the three dimensions of space in a make-belief vision that has become a drug to which the modern physicist has become addicted.
At this time of writing, 1997, there are signs that Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity are about to go out-of- fashion. They have led us nowhere beyond the point reached by Einstein in 1916 on a trail which became a dead end at that time. There were then so many unsolved mysteries in the realm of gravitation and the electrodynamics of interacting electrical particles, the field explored by Einstein, but they have not been solved by his methods. Einstein never did understand the unifying link by which the force of gravitation can be explained in terms of electromagnetism.
If you, the reader, are a student of physics, then I ask you to look through your physics textbooks, meaning those recommended as part of your orthodox curriculum. Can you find anything which tells you how to calculate the value of the Constant of Gravitation G in terms of the physical constants we associate with the electrical properties of matter? If you can, please draw it to my attention.
Possibly you may also find that Einstein's theory is not discussed in your textbooks, because it is deemed too advanced for your range of study. You will, however, know, as common knowledge, that you are expected to regard Einstein as a genius by recognizing the formula E=Mc2. Please do not think I am saying that this formula has no validity. Instead, do appreciate that there is history in science and that what I am saying is that the equivalence of mass and energy, as represented by the equation, was not discovered by Einstein. The conversion of the Sun's mass into energy which could be radiated into space was a theoretical proposition mooted by British scientists in the journal 'Nature' and in at least one textbook before the Einstein decade (1905-1916) even began. J.J. Thomson discovered the electron and he went on to develop electron theory, arguing that the electromagnetic momentum augmented the mass-energy of the electron so as to preclude the electron from ever exceeding the speed of light. That was still in the 19th century.
No, all I am saying in attacking Einstein's theory is that there is a viable alternative and that Einstein's theory is erroneous in its very foundations. It requires the time dimension to be merged into the dimensions of space to create a distorted mathematical illusion of reality. That is an absurd notion. We move in space that is three-dimensional and it is the passage of time that allows us to reposition ourselves in that three-dimensional world. This involves four dimensions, but not four 'space-time' dimensions as those who teach physics today would have you believe.
It could well take another 20 years or so before the alternative physical theory will eventually come to replace Einstein's doctrines. That alternative theory does exist. It was developed during the years 1955-1975, with gravitation succumbing to final solution midway through this period. The new theory is all-embracing. It extends into the quantum world and it does include that derivation G I have just mentioned. So my vision for the year 2020 is that teachers will by then realize that all of the long-standing mystery of gravitation has been put right in the world of physics. Cosmological science will also have been revolutionized by eradicating the Big Bang hypothesis of creation. The universe will no longer be seen as expanding at close to the speed of light and enough will be understood about gravitation to declare unambiguously that Black Holes are an impossibility.
If you think these are empty words and are impatient about reading on without some assurance that there is substance in what I say, then note the following reference and look up the paper at a university library. It is paper authored by Dr.D.M. Eagles entitled:'A Comparison of Results of Various Theories for Four Fundamental Constants of Physics' and it was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, v. 15, pp. 265-270 (1976). Dr. Eagles was engaged on research at the Australian Government's CSIRO National Measurement Laboratory at the time he wrote that paper.
The abstract of this paper reads: 'A comparison is made of theoretical values of various authors for the fine-structure constant, for the proton-electron and muon-electron mass ratios, and for the gravitational constant. It is shown that a lattice ether theory developed by Aspden gives the best overall agreement with experiment.'
As the originator of this alternative theory, what I have to say in these pages is my own personal record. It is a series of lectures, that could form the basis of what can be taught in universities to students of physics in lieu of Einstein's theory. As I am 69 years of age in this year 1997, you will understand why I have headed this introduction '2020 VISION'. In my remaining years there is little more that I can do to arouse the awareness of the scientific community on this matter. The theory in its full detail does exist. It exists in spite of the unwillingness, indeed the intolerance, of editors and referees of scientific journals, when confronted with the suggestion that Einstein's way is not the path which mother Nature follows. I can but hope that common sense will prevail in the end, as I try to present to you my vision of things to come by the year 2020.
Should you wonder why I am writing this at all, then my excuse is that I earned my living, not as a teacher nor as a researcher but rather in the corporate world centred on technological development, but that did not preclude me from being inspired by my early training in physics. I spent most of my working career with IBM at a time when the company motto THINK intruded upon our peace of mind. I took it to heart. I have always enjoyed the intellectual challenges posed by physical science. It has become my hobby and my obsession. I have been fortunate in my discoveries, my methods always being to heed reports of experimental anomalies that lay as obstacles on my chosen path. I searched for error of interpretation in what others had come to accept without question. My reward has been the fascinating findings that I will report again in the pages which now follow. I say 'again' because, here and there, in a piecemeal fashion, the substantive scientific elements of my discourse are all of record somewhere in the science literature. This Internet account aims to bring everything into perspective so as to facilitate the efforts of anyone seeking to collate my recorded research findings.
If you, the reader, can find interest in what I say and if, perchance, you are likely eventually to become one of those who teach physics in the year 2020, then I urge you to make your own copy of what I shall be writing in these lectures and keep it for future reference. Perhaps you will be able to incorporate my findings into your own teaching and build further on what I say to become one of those who lead the physics revolution of the 21st century.
If you are a student then what I say in these pages might even inspire you to put certain questions to your tutors now. How they respond should tell you how good they are at their job, which, do remember, is to equip you to face a future amidst a forum of ever-evolving science. You must not end your studies believing that, had you paid more attention, you, like your tutors, would know all the answers. No, you must end your studies knowing enough to be able to find your own way in a jungle where there are discoveries yet to be made. If your teacher can point you towards unexplored territory or poorly-mapped territory that has only supposedly been explored, then that teacher warrants respect. If your teacher tells you that you must not venture into certain territory, because it is forbidden, then beware of false doctrine and, secretly if necessary, do have the courage to resolve to explore some part of that territory very carefully yourself.
To conclude this introductory section I will indulge in a little anecdotal history that you will see as relevant to what I have just said. In the early days, following publication of my 1966 book 'The Theory of Gravitation', I was visited in my home by a young student named Paul Wesson. He was interested in tectonic plates and the evolution of the Earth, which meant that cosmology, gravitation and geomagnetism were very much on his mind. Furthermore, he had in some way impressed the Astronomer Royal of the time, which I suspect may have helped him in later years to secure publication of a very extensive dissertation in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society even though he was still in an early phase of his academic education.
The article was entitled: 'The Implications for Geophysics of Modern Cosmologies in which G is Variable' and it was published in v. 14 of that journal between pp. 9-64 in 1973. It was a very long scientific paper. If you, the reader, are interested in cosmological questions and you are approaching the subject more as a student with an open mind then I suggest you also look up that paper in your university library.
Early in that paper you will see mention of my name and I quote below the few
words that Wesson wrote about my work:
'The origin of geomagnetism as a cosmological problem is in a confused state, the only really connected account being that of Aspden (1966), whose theory of gravitation suffers from serious conceptual defects as viewed by present-day standards: the theory as a whole and hence the magnetic field aspect of it lacks adherents.'
Paul Wesson was impressed by what I had to say about my theory at that meeting in my home, so much so that he included the above words in his formal up-to-date review of cosmology as it stood in 1973. Note that he inferred that the conceptual defects of my theory were not such that they would have troubled a 19th century scientist. They are conceptual difficulties arising only because the 20th century cosmologist has decided there is no aether and so any theory that has aether as its foundation is deemed defective, by definition, whatever its merits!
This reference to Paul Wesson's 1973 account should show that my theory, even as it stood in its published form in 1966, was not hidden from view. The fact that it has been ignored by cosmologists who really do still seek to understand geomagnetism and gravitation must therefore be regarded as deliberate and wilful. An intelligent academic society should, I submit, have been prepared to put on record their evaluation of what I had to say about geomagnetism and gravitation, rather than simply ignoring the case I had to offer. If something that is new in theoretical physics is presented for consideration but is deemed to be wrong, then, particularly if it has survived peer review scrutiny to reach publication in a recognized scientific journal, the scientific community should point to the errors.
I can say, incidentally, that when I did one day falter in making a proposal for an optical experiment, it was only a matter of months before I saw that someone had published a paper pointing out the flaw. It was a flaw that was easily rectified and I was glad to be corrected. Concerning my theory of gravitation, however, I have never been challenged. My theory 'lacks adherents', meaning that it still lies in no-man's land, waiting for the aether wind to blow one way or the other in an arena in which four-space cosmologists see themselves as the only gladiators.
However, concerning Paul Wesson, these latter comments are not why I mention his name here. Shortly after his visit to see me he told me that he would be going to Cambridge and that he had requested that his Ph.D. research subject would be the in-depth study of the theory of gravitation that I was advocating. His feedback to me was that his tutor-to-be had declared point blank that under no circumstances could he indulge in research specifically related to my work.
Inevitably, of course, Paul Wesson, had to conform and become merged into the conventional academic community. I see that he became a Professor at a Canadian university and I wonder if he remembers much of what I had to say about gravitation and the aether. However, I can say that I was very interested when something he published in Physical Review. D23 (8), pp. 1703-1704 (1981) came to my attention. The paper was entitled: 'Clue to the Unification of Gravitation and Particle Physics'. He had discovered a new constant in astrophysics, one which could stand alongside the Hubble constant for its importance. Ask yourself, have you heard of the Wesson constant? If not, perhaps his discovery is also destined to be lost in the archives, just as my discoveries have been buried in the no-man's land of science. For my part, I was not prepared to sit by and watch and so I wrote the paper on the sub-electron which I shall reproduce shortly in these Web pages. I have had to dig it out from its grave, but you ought to find it interesting.
Incidentally, the 'sub-electron' is a name I used to describe the most degenerate form that an aether charge can assume. Note that all fundamental charged particles of matter have a charge equal in magnitude to that of the electron, so is it not logical that discrete charge components of the aether should be a degenerate state of the electron? Before coming to that paper I wrote on the Wesson constant, I want next to introduce an item of mine that was published in the journal 'Nature', to reveal a little of the flavour of what my theory has to offer.
The following text by H. Aspden is an item of Correspondence published in Nature, v. 319, 2nd January 1986 at p. 8.
This theorem is not often mentioned in scientific journals. It denies the possibility that an electric charge can be held stable solely under the electrostatic influence of other electric charge. It was used in a recent letter [Nature v. 317, p. 208; 1985] to refute a case put earlier by Berezin [Nature, v. 315, p.104; 1985]. It is as well to keep in mind that the Reverend Samuel Earnshaw developed his theorem with an eye to the constitution of the aether as a medium comprising a structured system of electric charges, separated by what, presumably, would be regarded as a truly void state of the vacuum. The theorem fails if the charges permeate a charge plenum or continuum having a charge density, because displacement can then be subject to a linear restoring force rate, owing to interaction with this continuum.
We have now come to accept that the vacuum medium does have some rather special characteristics and a possible structure, so it is not unlikely that it comprises electric charges permeating a charge plenum, notwithstanding the Earnshaw theorem. If this is the case, then the theorem cannot even be applied without some reservation when considering the mutual stability of charge in matter. The support for the structured vacuum is enhanced by the theoretical derivation of the fine-structure constant in terms of the geometrical features of an electrical charge system neutralized by a charge continuum. A value of the fine-structure constant in matching accord with its measurement at the level of one part in ten million has recently been reported from such analysis [Phys. Lett., 110A, 113; 1985].
To bring a little light relief into these lectures I should like, at the outset, to refer to something I read recently in a book I purchased at an airport bookstore when traveling on vacation. It was a Bantam Books 1995 edition of Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' which had the sub-title 'From the Big Bang to Black Holes'. The book was billed on its own cover as 'The record-breaking bestseller now in paperback'.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that Stephen Hawking was said to hold Newton's chair as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge and to be 'widely considered to be the greatest scientific thinker since Newton and Einstein', I hold my ground in declaring that it is nonsense to believe in the Big Bang and the existence of Black Holes. I will give my reasons presently when I come to discuss how gravitation affects the formation of stars. What struck me with some force, when I read the text I have quoted in the paragraph above, was the opening sentence that introduced the bibliographic note about Stephen Hawking on page 221 of his book. It read: 'Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford in 1942, exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo'.
Was this a suggestion that the spirit of Galileo has been reincarnated in the body of Stephen Hawking? Am I supposed to believe from this that Stephen Hawking was destined from birth to be a scientist ranking with Galileo, Newton and Einstein owing to some divine intervention? No doubt some readers may believe there may be something in such a claim, especially if they happen to read elsewhere that Einstein was born in 1876, the very year in which the famous scientist Clerk Maxwell died.
Students of physics or mature philosophers alike should then ponder on how it is that the time lapse involved in such reincarnation is measured in centuries. The Earth makes 100 revolutions in a century. If the reincarnation is an act of God, why is it that God counts, as we have done, in the decimal system, rather than the binary logic as now used in computers, and refers to a 'clock' which takes it time from but one planet of a star amongst countless billions of stars in God's universe?
No, this 300 year time lapse between Galileo's death and Hawking's birth, is mere journalistic nonsense. It is exploitation by enterprise aimed at striking awe in a public ready to believe anything that is branded as science. I simply find it amusing and say that one really must judge a scientist on his merits and not on such notions about time of birth. However, just in case there are those who do want to believe in the reincarnation of scientific spirit with gaps measured in centuries, then I do not want to miss out in commanding attention myself. As author of these lectures, I should be accorded special attention, because I was born in 1927, whereas Isaac Newton died in 1727. Moreover, I first felt my inspiration concerning my theory of gravitation when I spent my three years of Ph.D. work as a Research Student at Trinity College, Cambridge. Trinity must surely have been haunted by Newton's spirit, because that was his college!
Of course, it may be that the word 'exactly' in the quoted reference to the 300 year connection between Galileo and Hawking meant the very day and month as well as the tricentennial year. In that case I can offer no matching competition, save to say that, if I were in charge of reincarnating a spirit, I would make the date of conception the anniversary date, because the biological separation of mother and child should follow without spiritual intervention after the clock has been set running by that act of conception.
In the latter case, then I can even make a better claim to spiritual reincarnation than can Stephen Hawking, because Newton died on March 20th and I was born on December 12th, 200 years, eight months and three weeks after Newton died. March 20th also features in my case history, in being the date in the year in which I was married in Cambridge and the date on which I received my Cambridge Ph.D. degree.
That said, I really think that if Newton's spirit played any role at all in inspiring me towards scientific achievement, it was a role he played with all the other students at Trinity College. Apart from his statue in the College Chapel, there was his penetrating stare as he looked down upon us from his portrait during the three or so years of taking our meals in the College Hall.
I therefore end these remarks by reserving the right we can all share of being able to criticize Stephen Hawking's authority on the subject of gravitation and as an advocate of Black Holes and their effect on electrons and positrons in space.