Paradigm lost




For five thousand years or so mankind has lived in awe of the heavens. He has vainly searched the sky and the stars for answers as to why he himself, as well as the stars hanging out there; were even there at all? And within the constraints of still limited comprehensibility, to this day the ardent search continues for any profound significance that might be there for the having.

Many ideas and superstitions crept in as the ages unfolded and eventually the sum of curiosity led to a belief that the earth was flat. Even worse: The idea that the universe moved in an unknown aspect with relation to the earth (which was thought to be its stationary center) prevailed.

Even after Columbus proved that the earth was round, some 'scientists' of the day still clung to the theory that the universe revolved around the earth, and also that the earth was still reckoned by some to be flat. Some poor souls adhere to that belief to this day.

Prior to the acclaimed voyage of that intrepid mariner and some five hundred years ago, there appeared to be a change in the stature of enlightenment when the 'scientific' ideas of the time were virtually turned on their head. Subsequently but slowly it came to be factually determined by the contemporary scientific consensus that the earth was indeed round and not flat, and that the earth actually revolved around the sun after all.

Over the next five hundred years to this very day, men of thought and learning, through intense curiosity and unfathomable intellect, constructed a science of laws and formulas of unforeseeable profundity. This has led to the pre-modern era classical, quantum and astronomical/cosmological physics, chemistry and other branches of science, which have in turn led to the technologies that we enjoy in our everyday lives.

An important and pragmatic conclusion we can draw from this is: Technology follows science with a forward reaching head of steam, and whenever science loses its way or even worse, becomes bogged down in the quagmire of its own arrogance, technology will reach a dynamic limit, lose its momentum and perhaps even (God forbid) advance no further. In light of this possibility, it probably behooves us to resist the urge to rest on our smug laurels and become very open to questioning the failing populist theories instead!

I suggest that we have reached a point in history which is somewhat similar to that other moment five hundred years ago, which we could call a 'moment of truth'. Right at this point we notice the signpost indicating that science has arrived at a crossroad and it has a choice of either clinging stubbornly to its 'known' beliefs, or after deliberating long enough on the fact that things are not quite right really, its scientists might then be prepared to extend the limits of their imaginations to examine other plausible models of the nature of things with a more uncharacteristic curiosity, and begin with some trepidation perhaps a foray down a different road.

This could result in many of them 'reopening the case' and beginning an avid investigation of any theory at all that holds promise. The search should be on to find one that may prove to be a better fit to the observational parameters with which they have to do, even if it means that pet assumptions are to be questioned under threat of abandonment.

As history is our guide, whenever this latter approach has successfully led to a better fit model, (usually with traditionalists being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization), then by the consequential enablement, technology has been seen to take great leaps forward and in general for the betterment of mankind. Things happen so 'fast and furious' these days that it is incumbent upon science and technology to progress side by side so to speak. It would be a foolish person who suggests that science and technology should go their separate ways. That's just not going to happen! However science had better wake up because in case you missed it; technology is in the driver's seat. It is beginning to become obvious that technology is being held back by a science that continually needs to go to the bathroom.

Please don't misunderstand: Science has a promising future and is not short on imagination regarding 'how it all began and where we are headed'. Such curiosity is very human. Most of us have a fascination with the stars, and many are more curious still about what lies beyond. Some people even feel that our salvation either personally or corporeally, lies in or beyond the stars.

It's as though we are earth-bound misfits, in that our sight and imaginations are able to extend to... and beyond the realms we wish to explore but we are constrained by lack of technology from venturing very far at all. Even human space travel within our own solar system appears to be a very daunting challenge. Conversely and paradoxically we don't seem to be able to get deep enough inside an atom to have a good look around either. If we are ever going to progress further then it might just be that we need to understand how it all began to find out how it actually works. ...everything that is.

If progress in the theories we are developing continues to be thwarted by inconsistencies in the ability to marry observations with the commonplace scientific hypothetical thinking, perhaps we should back pedal a little and question the actual assumptions we have been relying upon in the development of the current understanding. This extends pointedly to the subject of origins.

I will with some trepidation suggest; that if mankind wishes to not emulate the last five hundred years and hopefully survive long enough to even have a chance of venturing to the stars and beyond, he may well have to anticipate the rejection of many failed intellectual endeavors in the search for a correlation between mass and gravity; find a unifying connection between cosmology and quantum-ology; embrace new science and take the five hundred year leap!

With regard to all of this, I have to honestly admit that there are many things I simply don't know; but there is a chance that if I can just help to stagger imaginations by my theory which does delve back into origins, someone else might be able to contemplate the impossible, comprehend a little bit further and embark upon relevant experimentation. After all, that has been the nature of genuine science, 'like... forever'!

I still find myself in the position where I have to ask questions such as... What caused time? Or... any other dimension for that matter? What causes the stars to shine, or mass or gravity? Are the latter really intrinsic to matter or not? Especially puzzling are the questions about fundamental particles and the behaviors involved. Some things pertaining especially to magnetism and electrostatic charge, still appear to me to be totally enigmatic and may remain so forever. However I trust you will find that many of those questions are answered and notable problems are solved by the thesis.

I am heartened by the fact that some stuff we get wrong, but we usually learn from our mistakes and move on. If that continues to be the case then we can hopefully expand our knowledge of the natural universe which should also lead to a greater expansion of technological innovation.

Apart from the famous four*, the greatest enigmas of all facing science are those regarding the questions of force, gravity, mass and energy. We think we know what causes some forces but there are basic forces in the universe, the origins of which couldn't hitherto be explained. Any attempt to discover how the free constants in the standard model are distributed in nature is not likely to succeed because the deed is done, never to be repeated. However I will consider that the fine constant is a pre-universe 'cosmean' constant and is a component of the available energy in all bound matter regardless of the temperature, state or location.

*This you don't need to worry about unless you are a physicist in the throes of attempting the impossible feat of unifying quantum physics and geodesics.


In the thesis I have presumed to explain the fundamental cause of mass, gravity and the energy-force relationships between objects in motion, but in common with all of science I just can't explain the inexplicable and my attempts at analyzing these things as well as rethinking the relationship between matter, mass and energy may at first appear ridiculous, (or at least one might hope) novel, but perhaps and hopefully, intriguing and helpful in the end.

Some other questions which need answers are about the other 'four' fundamental forces (not the four enigmas): What causes charge and magnetism or for that matter, strong and weak nuclear forces at the micro level? The imagination becomes almost powerless in the face of seemingly inexplicable problems such as: If an object has no mass then it should be able to be instantaneously accelerated to infinite velocity without the expenditure of any energy* and therefore just by the force of 'thought'! So in view of this conundrum: If a particle is believed to have no mass, is it therefore a virtual particle? Will we ever actually and objectively know the answers? The trite answer to such a question would be 'I doubt it'. But I say to you all "Whatever you do keep searching". In the meantime I will provide my theoretical answers to these questions and many more.

*The confounding converse of this is that a massless object would have zero energy and be unable to move or do any work. That includes any massless virtual particles; by both E=mc2 and f=ma.


I am now going to make the astounding and probably impertinent statement: "Every particle down to but (not including) the lowest fundamental generational level is conditionally able to exhibit mass." I will ameliorate that statement somewhat by promising that I intend to show why some particles exhibit zero rest mass and energy even though they can exhibit some degree of inertial but not gravitational mass. (What the..?)

Whenever a new approach to scientific theory is attempted, and especially if the title pages (as is the case with this book) seem to suggest, that the writer might be purporting to solve all the problems of science per se; curiosity may initially be like the proverbial 'bull at the gate' but the serious doubts one would expect to immediately arise in the readers mind will likely be more akin to the actions of a rancher on the other side with a humongous 'cattle prod'.

The first suspicious objections will probably elicit immediate adhominem questions like: Is this writer a nut? And is this going to be just another 'tick off' in a tiresome parade of pseudo-scientific ramblings? In a short answer I will respectfully declare an emphatic no!

It would be safe to say, that almost all physicists and chemists are aware of the disparity between the laws of classical physics and the behavior attributed to particles in some highly regarded models of quantum physics. The two sometimes seem to be totally incompatible, even to the extent that they even seem to belong to two different universes.

There are many relativistic-multi-dimensional and other intellectually stupendous theories out there attempting to address this problem. By way of contrast and in what I believe to be a successful attempt to marry both macro and micro science in a fairly harmonious union I have arrived at (surprise, surprise) a scalar unification theory, which unlike pseudoscience doesn't promote any kind of alien super science, or fanciful suppositions of the existence of parallel reality universes, or for that matter, any otherworldly metaphysical pandemonium.

Therefore as far as the causation of origins is concerned I will not engage in any address at all, because that’s another subject. The fact remains though that there are many arguments regarding origins that by my theory I have simply pushed back further in time and hyperspace and for that matter, maybe even dimensionally sideways.

The theory being presented in the thesis is a fledgling yet as broad based and sufficiently comprehensive overview that my 'written word' will allow. This is all with few visual representations, and also with a paucity of pageant equations (which quite frankly) I will have to leave up to true physicists and mathematicians. Thankfully most relativistic formulas are redundant for the purpose of this presentation, and I have tried to balance the need to make the thesis readable and comprehensible against writing the 'squillions' of pages that such a view could entail if not condensed.

Please resist the temptation to reject this theory out of hand as just another 'mish mash' of otherworldly pseudoscience. This thesis is presented as a serious scientific approach to the end of correlating current scientific observation into a viable whole. Except for the 'cosmea' (pre-universe) which I postulate mostly collapsed at the relevant dimensions of space into the cosmo-universe in which we find our existence, I reject multi or parallel reality/physical universalism until proofs or theories are forthcoming that have credible application and plausible models, and which are also able to connect the arms of physics. I hereby begin with a skeleton of an overview. Note: For an expansion on this theme please refer to the 'Extracts from WTHHTP' page.