Pearson's Theory

[Johnyjohn]

Hello,

I read that Ronald Pearson created the Theory of Everything. Is this true? Is his explantions mathematically correct? Does it hold rationaly and logically?

If you want to, check the website: www.survivalafterdeath.org

I would like if you could prove or disprove this theory by using the extended Newtonian Theory and updated Relativity Theory. You can check these at the website.

Thanks for your response,

John

[ahrkron]

The website is apparently down for now, but I feel quite suspicious about the fact that, from what you post, his alleged ToE depends upon a modified Newtonian mechanics and a modified version of relativity. I'd bet there is not much to his claims.

[ahrkron]

The following is a quote from Pearson, taken from the website of the "Campaign for philosophical freedom":
I will summarise my own final solution which gives mostly the same end equations as general relativity, eliminates the difficulty of the cosmological constant and then shows how an ultimate immortal consciousness must exist as part of an invisible background medium.
Quite revealing, I would say.

[LURCH]

Yea, I thought the the web address (survival after death dot com?!) was revealing enough. Does his theory echo, do you think?

[Johnyjohn]

Hello,

Could anyone please elaborate on the subject and debunk if necessary. This theory has confused me. What are your thoughts on this matter? can you solve the paradoxes with this theory?

Regards,

John

[Eh]

Pearson is just another crank who, without any education or understanding of physics, is on a mission to the solve the problems of modern cosmology. The only difference here is that Pearson adds new age silliness to the mix.

[Erck]

Johnyjohn... you buying into this stuff... or are you his agent?

[Johnyjohn]

Hello,

I'm not his agent, I'm just confused by this theory and would like to know if this theory actually works or not. Does the math of this theory hold? Could someone debunk this theory please?

Regards,

John

[selfAdjoint]

Hello,

I'm not his agent, I'm just confused by this theory and would like to know if this theory actually works or not. Does the math of this theory hold? Could someone debunk this theory please?

Regards,

John

Well, we can't do that if we can't see it, and your link still doesn't work. Have you got another?

[Johnyjohn]

Hello,

the website is www.survivalafterdeath.org

I accidentally wrote .com instead of .org , sorry about that.

John

[Erck]

Could you post a link that just has his theory?

[selfAdjoint]

Hello,

the website is www.survivalafterdeath.org

I accidentally wrote .com instead of .org , sorry about that.

John

I checked several of the tabs on the site and read carefully what he wrote, but all that is here is hand waving. For example consider his discription of the clock running slow in a gravity field. He says this is not because of Einstein's metric but because the value of c is less in a gravity field. Not just that light moves slower but that the actual value of c that comes into the equations is less. But this is in contradiction to lots of experimental evidence showing that the metric can produce numbers that check out. In contrast he claims experimental support but only seems to consider a few isolated cases. If we can see his math we can critique it. It doesn't look too hard because his Newton with variable c would be easy to refute (notice that there is a real nonstandard Newton theory call MOND, which features not a variable c but a variable strength of gravity, and which is offered as an alternative to dark energy as an explanation of the accelerated expansion of the universe).