Interview with Ron Pearson

Ron Pearson was interviewed in September 2001. Below is a transcript of selected parts of that interview.

---

Since physics is not your discipline, how did you get involved in trying to relate survival of consciousness to physics?

Reading cosmology physics of all things. I spotted some alarming logical errors in the Big Bang theory which should have been spotted by the assessors. I could not therefore understand why the hypothesis had been accepted for publication. I tried to publish critiques but all were rejected. Mostly the rejection letters also showed the assessors lacked a grounding in basic principles. I just went on from there.

How could that lead to the theory of survival?

I realised that some basic grounding had been lost in the teaching of physics and thought I could help to put the theorists back on track. This turned me on to looking at other aspects of physics. The solution to some major problems appeared and these showed that consciousness had to be part of an invisible background medium. This meant it could not be mere brain function postulated by almost every scientist: consciousness had to be a construct of an invisible background medium with the potential to be immortal.

What made you think the physics might be wrong?

Flaws in the logic of the Big Bang also led to false predictions. The worst is known as "The Cosmological Constant". They say that all the matter and energy in the universe appeared from nothing in a blinding flash of creation. But they can find no way of switching off the creative explosion they invented, so this goes on still pushing the galaxies apart at rates billions upon billions of times greater than they know is remotely possible. In my opinion the theory should never have passed peer review until this had been sorted out.

Well how do the theorists deal with this difficulty?

Very simply. They just ignore it altogether even though it totally destroys the validity of all the scenarios they present, including the age of the universe. This they estimate as 12 billion years. It also gives other headaches. For instance astronomers say some stars seem older than the universe.

That seems a remarkable indictment which I think you need to substantiate. I find it difficult to believe that the entire scientific community would condone the acceptance of things which do not even make sense: even to a non-scientist.

I agree. But these problems are still baffling cosmologists. For proof look at a book by Brian Green published in 1999 about the latest craze, "superstrings", expected to provide the physicists holy grail, the theory of everything. The book is called, "The Elegant Universe", written as a popularisation to boost enthusiasm for this theory. It admits on page 225 that the theory is unable to solve the problem of the cosmological constant. He also admits on page 211 that the theory cannot yet provide a single valid prediction able to confront the data followed by, "Is string theory right? We just don't know."

Well that just shows how difficult are the problems they face and maybe you should be praising their courage in tackling them rather than pulling them down.

The last thing I am trying to do is to pull them down. I greatly admire their mathematical expertise. I could see, however, from my own background, that they had lost a vital bit of understanding. I could see what they are doing wrong and wanted to help them back on track.

And could you do that?

The solution which appeared from a commonsense approach, only requiring relatively unsophisticated mathematics had provided a solution to both problems by 1987.

Then why are they still looking for answers?

Because they are running a closed shop and will not allow anyone from allied disciplines to publish critiques of their work or any solutions to their problems. Consequently theorists are still searching in vain for solutions by inappropriate sophisticated mathematics when perfectly satisfactory solutions have existed for years. If you find this hard to believe then visit the website of Dr. Brian Martin which is: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents He is a physicist who has become so disillusioned by the suppressions by his own colleagues that he switched to a study supported by the "Fund for Intellectual Dissent", Box U129 Wollongong University. NSW 2500, Australia. He also says in his book called "Suppression" that there is no hope of publication in any scientific journal unless one has a Ph.D. in physics and writes from a prestigious address, such as a university.

Does that mean you have not achieved a single publication to prove that your work is not all wrong?

No, but I was forced to go to Russia to seek freedom of expression. I had a solution to the gravity problem published in the proceedings of the scientific conference in Russia dated 1991, another concerning the intelligence of the background medium in their proceedings of 1993 and finally an 8 page article of mine was published in the scientific journal, "Frontier Perspectives", The Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University in the USA. It appeared in the Spring/Summer edition of 1997. This was called, "Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon" and so dealt with survival, showing it to be intimately related to creation and a solution to the gravity problem. These were all fully peer-reviewed by physicists and so I consider these justify my contention that the logic is sound.

So now you are bringing gravity into the picture. Why make things so complicated?

Survival is intimately linked to the rest of physics and I found it appeared from a holistic solution which involved several different problems. The other main problem concerned finding a satisfactory theory of gravity compatible with quantum theory.

I thought Einstein had already solved the problem of gravity and that this was fully proven and accepted.

Yes. This is his theory called, "General Relativity". It is fully accepted because it fits in with nearly all the experimental checks made to substantiate its validity. Unfortunately it is incompatible with the existence of any background medium, such as the aether, and something like it has to be accepted to make quantum theory work. In consequence theorists have been stuck for about 70 years trying to match up these two so-called, "pillars of twentieth century achievement". Worse from the viewpoint of survival, relativity blocks the way by not allowing a real background to exist.

How do quantum and relativity theory differ?

Quantum theory explains the fine workings on the small atomic scale of things and is quite different from the large scale mechanics used to describe the motions of large objects. Theorists consider they have all the mechanics of quantum theory tied up nicely for all the forces of nature except gravity. They admit, along with Prof. Stephen Hawking, that these "are inconsistent with one another so one of them must be wrong" (a quote from his book on page 11) but still go on attempting to match them up.

And do you agree with this?

I agree that they can never be fitted together but say that a different approach has to be used. My own expertise of engineering is based on Newton's mechanics, including his equation for the force of gravity. These are not applicable, however, when speeds approach those of light. I therefore started by revising this mechanics to make it exact and to my surprise and satisfaction started coming out with predictions matching those of Einstein's relativity. In about a year nearly all the experiments made to establish relativity theory were found to satisfy the new approach just as well. The huge advantages, however, were that, unlike relativity, there were no internal contradictions or incompatibility with quantum theory. One reason was this approach required a background medium to exist which I now call the "i-ther" since it differs from that of other people. All speeds are measured from this instead of the observer as in relativity. It seemed to me therefore that this just had to be the solution.

Why does survival come into this?

The solution to creation meant the i-ther had to consist of a mixture of primary particles, I call "primaries" of two kinds. Some were of positive energy with the rest of a negative kind. They were all dashing about at fantastic speeds continually in collision with one another like molecules of a gas to form a seething mass. I don't want to go into technical details about the meaning of positive and negative except to say that this has nothing to do with electric charge. It turned out, however, that when pairs collided a breeding effect occurred so that each gained energy of its own kind from the void. A new mechanism of creation had appeared spontaneously. It then transpired that when many primaries collided from all directions the opposite occurred. Now we have mutual annihilation. The two effects almost cancelled to leave a universe in a state of ever-accelerating expansion. It was not until 1998, however, that this was confirmed by the astronomical observations made of remote supernovas. The important thing, however, was that the annihilation resulted in the spontaneous formation of a fine grained filamentous network embedded in a fluid of primaries able to flow through the structure. It had all the elements needed from which a type of neural network could evolve. Those made by our scientists have memory and learning capability and so it seemed reasonable to assume that the i-ther could have evolved a primary consciousness. Hence the theory had come out with the prediction that mind must be part of the i-ther: nothing to do with the brain at all.

So now you had diverted from thoughts about the cosmological constant and gravity?

Not at all. The cosmological constant no longer existed so this problem was solved. Also no stars could any longer seem older than the universe since the i-ther now turned out to be indefinitely old. It would have been half the diameter it is now 100 billion years ago, so dwarfing the 12 billion of the Big Bang. But until the i-ther had evolved consciousness, matter and gravity could not exist.

So how do matter and gravity come in?

Both were deliberately created by the conscious intelligence after it had evolved. All it could do, however, was organise the waves, like sound waves in air, which it spontaneously generated. These were the only tools available. So it focused its waves to make transient spikes of density at places organised so that atoms would arise seeming to us like solid objects. As the waves re-expanded moving out, to occupy spheres of ever growing size, they stimulated excess creation leading to a non-uniform density of the i-ther. It was denser the closer to massive objects. The theory of gravity has now become the "quantum wave theory of gravity" since it is entirely dependent on these energy non-uniformities. An important spin off is that a new interpretation for a basic feature of quantum theory had emerged naturally. This is called, "wave-particle duality". Tiny particles behave also as if they are waves and theorists are still puzzling. They usually fall back on the Copenhagen interpretation which has it that everything exists as unresolved waves until observed. Then these collapse into the particles of reality - "The paradox of Schoedinger's cat" highlights its impossibility.

I see now how all these things tie in. We have mind as part of the invisible with matter made from the same stuff. So how do mind and matter relate to each other?

There is this background mind split into fragments by programming information filter-barriers around each. Then each drives its own matter-body via the brain. Then it is easy to see that only matter can be experienced. In this way each sub-mind can gain experience by interacting with other minds only through the intermediary of matter. That matter is all is then experienced as a deliberately contrived illusion.

What happens when we die according to your concept?

Just as our matter systems can be contrived, so can others. These interpenetrate our own just as radio waves all co-exist together. We can only tune into one station at a time and so our minds can similarly only tune in to one matter-system at once. When we slough off our bodies we will therefore find ourselves with another matter overcoat and will be able to experience a different set of physical laws. I call ours a "semi-virtual reality world" because others could be completely virtual. They would build atoms by numbers on a grid alone and without needing to focus real quantum waves.

Now I see how everything fits together and why you had to consider so many aspects. According to this the mind creates matter for its own use. Is that what you are saying and are there any other aspects you think worthy of mention?

Yes. That just about sums up the situation as I see it. There are many other aspects. For example, the quantum wave theory of gravity has thrown up ten new ideas for experiments by which it could be falsified/verified. An interesting speculation is that the gamma ray bursts which are just being found might have an explanation. Nobody has offered one yet to my knowledge. They appear at a rate of about one a day at remote distances but if one occurred anywhere in our galaxy everybody on our planet would be vaporised so the physicists tell us. I think these may well be the births of new galaxies introduced to fill the ever-expanding space. No single big bang could ever have occurred according to this new scenario.  http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/rdp_interview/rdp-interview.html ===================