INTRODUCTION

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.

EARNSHAW’S THEOREM

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].

• I have introduced the above note concerning Earnshaw’s Theorem to show that my interest in the aether and its lattice structure of negative charges seated at lattice sites in a background continuum of positive charge has at least penetrated into the pages of that exclusive journal ‘Nature’. Those negative charges are the sub-electrons that will be the subject on my paper dealing with the Wesson constant. However, that comes as a kind of Appendix presented between this Lecture No. 1 and Lecture No. 2, but only after I have added a little light-hearted comment directed at … well, just read it and see!

---

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.

---