Feynman once said that if mathematics were to be taken out of physics then it would only be set back by one week. We know he was -speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek- and referring to the creation week. By way of a strange irony however; it could turn out - - that those few words may have held an inadvertent admission of a possibility we might not otherwise see. Did a slip of the tongue -by someone in the know- suggest that mathematics -in some sense- is able to be removed from physics? How can that be? You may well ask; so consider this:---

That world renowned spokesman for all things physics -Michio Kaku- made a statement in regard to relativity--- He sagely informed us all. "If there's one data point out of place then we'd have to throw the whole thing out." Now that's really an admission of ditto! The 'whole thing' he's talking about is much of the mathematics.

Well unfortunately Mick--- there are many -conveniently ignored- data points out of place but here's a modern example you should take notice of perhaps. I.e. it was a gravitational anomaly first noticed during a fly-by of earth by a Galileo spacecraft. You may not be aware of that because NASA probably tried to keep the lid on that as much as possible*. Unfortunately that little problem didn't just go away because it has been noticed by others during other satellite passes.

*Some of the reports were amended at a much later date that other flybys didn't exhibit the same anomalies. Is there an agenda here?


So the cat's out of the bag. The relativistic GTR mathematical geodesic is not supported by the facts! However it would probably be foolish of me to hold my breath regarding the stated promise hey Mick!? I guess in the end, the mathematics will have to be wrenched from some cold dead hands LOL.

Let's take a little look at the maths utilized in physics. The math used to describe the classical physics is fairly OK but when it comes to describing a universe of order in chaos,    the mathematics used by modern physics to 'corral' the universe is very exacting as we might expect but ironically it turns out to be all too simplistic.

Unfortunately it's the chaos bit that comes back to bite you every time otherwise we could all go for a quantum mechanics theory like this and understand nothing really. I will also be demonstrating that gravity and magnetism have little in common. The mathematics used for quantum mechanics and geodesics -while it remains apt for the general description of the universal order- can't always describe the chaos and while it can describe symmetry breaking that actually occurs it can't describe the asymmetries and the resulting distortions -which apply in reality- to the pure mathematical model*. That's bad enough itself -and tends to suggest to the astute that such models can't truly be representative of reality- but when math is purported to actually be the cause of any phenomenon in the universe--- then my friends I'm declaring that someone has overstepped their bounds.

*This is not just referring to mathematical patterns but also to the data. E.g Light needs to have momentum so it can have mass. Yet any mass it might be declared to possess doesn't cause any typical inertial affects and it also exhibits anomalous mass/energy statistics upon emission and reception. Wave particle duality doesn't help that at all.

That's exactly what's happened and the fitting of mathematics to describe every part of physics; to both the classical as expected -as well as the questionable math of the weird- has indeed occurred. This latter weirdness is the disposable math which was unwittingly alluded to by Feynman and -on top of other illogically problematic aspects of such math in physics- this overreach can most especially be seen with regard to general relativity where the mathematical space time warped geodesic is widely accepted to be the actual cause of the gravity.

Those little 'problems of logic' I speak of have been recognized by others as the intrinsic threat to the paradigm that they are.  So now -by way of a flurry of knee jerk responses- we find other wild postulations in circulation--- most of which -by the way- also don't concur with the laws of physics. Those that do; usually feature unsupported assumptions in other theoretical aspects. All of these I have summarily executed in the pages of the thesis.


Therefore if it could be proved that there is a chaotic phenomenon -in the universal space- which causes a strong equivalence principle violation within the GR geodesic itself; then that would be proof of the invalidity of geodesics full stop! We'd all have to agree that because it has been demonstrated that the complex mathematical geodesic which supposedly represents the truth doesn't predict the provable anomaly. Then by simple logic we should all see that it CANNOT be declared to be able to CAUSE the gravity after all. It can only describe it mathematically. So Einstein's (Lorentz?) simplistic and orderly mathematics doesn't fit with reality! Enter; chaos. It will be introduced in the following assertation*. The challenge here is pretty standard. Argue the point of the premise and test the veracity of the claim.

*Presented in the body of the thesis. This geodesic problem also spells trouble for Newton's inverse square law gravity Big G fudge.


I care not to attempt to usurp such greats as Newton and Einstein. They were brilliant physicists and I can understand such sheer brilliance being mired at times in mental anguish; especially during the throes of struggling with the creation of their mind bending theories and equations. I often have 'melt downs' over the concepts of what many wrongly believe to be simple high school science myself. Indeed -with regard to the concepts being espoused by those two gentlemen- it's all truly far from that, and to be fair; the conceptual nightmare to be faced upon truly analyzing such things would have been even worse for Newton in his day, especially. Newton once complained. "It maketh my head to hurt." I'll bet!

Only in a small way can I empathize, and I give that ode to those two pioneers of science who have paved the way forward. But forward might only remain a reality if we recognize that progress often only follows complete paradigm shifts in thinking.

I imagine Columbus--- supposedly so sure of the logic of his convictions yet probably having to fight back self doubts in the face of an overwhelming consensus of paradigm lock. In the end he kept going regardless, determined to prove his theory--- and while my thesis is no Santa Maria and I'm no Columbus, Galileo or Luther. If I can ever fight my way through the peer-school barbed wire barricade to it; I will nail my thesis to the door of "the church" and cry out to the dark night of deaf ears. "The universe is not warped, it's straight. Time is an absolute which can't be bent! Faster than light is a possibility! Mathematics can't cause a force!  Entropy can't either! Wave function is irrational. Quantum mechanics is lunacy and The Emperor is naked! Only the human mind is capable of being 'warped' enough to entertain such notions."

Unfortunately the status quo seems to be caught in the self spun web of the elitist's imagined modernist sophistry. "I think therefore I am right" replaces "I think therefore I am"! Yes we often do well even when we stretch and bend our imaginations just to impress each other. But -whatever the reason for our endeavours- let's keep ourselves aware of the signs of lunacy and futility and not continue down -what might very well turn out to be- wrong paths without deference to other possibilities, especially when it's becoming more obvious as time goes by, that the current path in physics is not leading to the holy grail at all--- and most of all understand that the first sign of madness is to keep doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result!

 I don't mind if I'm wrong. I'm thinking and putting deniable predictions out there and there are many more which are openly presented for refutation and denial by the consensus??? ---presented within the body of the OFF LINE thesis.

With the immortal words of Richard Dawkins egging me on -and I  quote--- "If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton?--- Of course we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake!"

Ignoring the 'new Newton' stuff and the faint hint of arrogance and smug sarcasm in the statement, I'm fully intent on putting the proof of G-theory out there for denial, but first of all I must present all of the featured deconstructionist assertations for refutation and critique. Of course within that process there arises a threat to the status quo by the possible beginnings of reconstruction to a new paradigm with newly discovered underpinnings of a science which are extremely supportive of the facts. To that concern I answer--- "Don't worry. This won't ruin your career. The new text books, experiments and discoveries envisioned ahead will keep your back pocket bulging!"

So now all that's left is to test the existence of rationality by prodding it with a spanner in the works right up front--- I.e. "G-theory turns out to be a natural fit to the Genesis account of creation. It predicts a viable mechanics of causality which -by extension from the theory- even allows that light--- no requires that light--- a stupendous quantity of it--- was the very first evidence of the new universe, even before any stars began to burn!"

I might ask--- How is it rationally possible to consider creation by a 'big bang' with an impossibly sudden shift to a painstakingly slow crawl of events? That seems to be a truly ludicrous opinion! In spite of that no allowance is given for the idea of significant creation events occurring over time periods of days. If the 'big bang' is thought to have occurred all over the universe at once then the problem of short duration events becomes even more exacerbated. I won't even mention the query of how long it took for all the matter to reach to the outer edge of the universe travelling at--- what speed did you say? These thoughts are not 'straw men' put up to prove a religious view. Such things are all just opinions unless predictable by a scientifically viable theory.

The idea that we are all still in the dark with regard to full knowledge (regardless of personal opinions of our own educational, intellectual or peer status) must be well kept, otherwise reason can easily become captive to the our felt opinions. As Pope Benedict XVI has proposed, and I paraphrase--- "Reason and religion should not be incompatible. You can't go around ignoring the spiritual awareness of billions of people and smugly suggest that only atheists can do science."

Religion poses no threat to science! That sort of thinking is just the cold leftovers of nineteenth century pseudo-intellectualism where the new found 'reason' was going to trump 'myth'--- and such an arcane portrayal is still being pedalled by -what I can only suspect to be- pocket book opportunists. Science should be accepted on its merits and not on its scientist's views of origins, and I'm not even going to offer an opinion regarding evolution because this opinion piece is all about physics.

I offer a theory to be judged on its merits and if I turn out to be wrong then I'm wrong and my thesis will never have to see the light of day. If however I'm considered to have presented useful thought provoking essays and evidences -initially in the de-reconstruction presented on this website- in that the objections and proofs can't be easily refuted and the only logical deduction is that there might actually be something to what I'm presenting, then I suggest if you don't owe me the opportunity of presenting my thesis to the academy you at the very least owe it to yourselves.

If I wanted peer review, well I guess I'd have to go down to the nearest preschool or something; that's about where I sit on the academic scale compared to the likes of a Distinguished Professor!

Academic status is able to be trumped by having vigorously presented logical assertations become the subject of popular intrigue in the community of ideas. Having said that it still stands that assessing any iconoclastic presentation such as G-theory requires that rational minds become engaged and for agendas and prides to be pocketed--- not an easy ask when so much historical blood lies spilled on this battlefield of ideas, where prized possessions of knowledge are often protected with extreme prejudice.

Every war has a winner and sometimes it's the magnificently wrong. Be that as it may--- the magnificence of right or wrong is only to be declared in the future. How can it be that the future of the human race may be balanced on the knife edge of something as benign as an idea? Why is science a subjectivism and not a fact? Answer: Because the very notions of fact are based on reason which is not an empirical pursuit because reason in turn is based on knowledge which is just rationalized (human consensually processed) data.

The way out of such a dilemma might seem to be almost impossible. This is only because we are not the knowledge 'gods' we might think. Compared to the 'perfect' knowledge--- ours might stink. So It becomes absolutely necessary for us to determine to rationalize with logic rather than reason--- to be logical rather than flat out gullible. Yes -to your wonderment- philosophy is the driver behind science whether we like it or not. Note: Refer to the 'Philosophy of New Physics page.

In light of that I can certainly understand the generalized skepticism of the likes of Richard Dawkins but without being held dogmatically captive to some serious agenda--- accompanied by the typical 'inherent failure to rationalize', not one of us would be denigrating new theories -like Mr. Dawkins has- before they are even submitted. Some people are 'up themselves' but of course no theory is 'absolutely' or maybe even 'nearly' correct but from each theory, physics may be able to takeaway some element of the truth until one day the penny drops, and consensus fully agrees that the key has likely been found.

If the agenda going forward became open to assessing with a mind to deny and refute specifics for the sake of the 'scientific truth'--- then that would be open and legitimate criticism. Let's keep that brush of critique fine and scalpel-like. Please be my guest and deny away.

RUSSELL K BONNEY                 21/01/2013