Letter on M Theory
To
the BBC from
Michael J. Zabrana
17
May 2005
Dear Sirs,
Having
watched your recent “M theory” programme I was so bemused by
its content that I simply had to watch it yet again several
times to assure myself that I actually had heard every bit
of it aright. It purports that “M” in this theory stands for
Magic, Membranes, or MAD… Perhaps I could suggest a few
other titles for it - Mock-Up, Misrepresentation,
Malpractice, Marijuana Inspired, Misbegotten and Meant to
Keep the Scientists shown in your Programme Employed – just
for starters. Let me be quite explicit regarding my claim
that this theory came about mainly for the reasons of
regular monthly income, secure employment, and the
individual careers of these people. All one has to do to
come to this conclusion is to listen well to their own
comments, which are now recorded by the BBC for as long as
we exist. They themselves point to this fact through their
own comments and only someone who does not possess the
ability to listen, or comprehend will not get this point. It
is also amazing that the scientific community, who for the
main part, ridicule any kind of magic, clairvoyance, life
after death, and point at all times towards the
improvability of religion can begin with quantum physics,
continue to 5 completely different string theories and now
progress to the 11th dimension to justify every bit of the
nonsense they produced so far – without satisfactorily
proving dimensions 5-10, and still continue to be paid for
their “magnificent” efforts. The supposed proof by
mathematics of the “M theory” is a very simple calculation
indeed – if you have several unexplained and conflicting
results, all you have to do is to look for a common maths
denominator and give it a name. After all as it does not
exist, no one can say that the denominator does not have the
desired value.
Anyone is
welcome to look carefully at the basis of the argument –
Gravity! This force, known to most at least in the terms of
Earth’s Gravity, is a force created (most likely) as a
result of the centrifugal force exerted by the molten metal
core of the Earth rotating. An extremely simple experiment
can be performed by weighing, exactly, an object of for
instance 100kg, at sea level, in the deepest mine and in
various stages on its way to the Space. Guess what? The
closer you get to the centre of the Earth the heavier it is,
and vice versa. This suggests - quite strongly, that the
source of Earth’s Gravity is at its core – not originating
in the 11th dimension, on another membrane, or in a parallel
universe, thus “so weak”, when it finally reaches us.
Similarly, the other main Gravity source known to us is that
of our own Sun, created likely in the same fashion. Using
these provable doctrines one must conclude by the use of
logic, that our own Universe also has a centre of Gravity
located at its centre where the Universe’s own Gravity is
created by a totally different object – more than likely a
Black Hole. Has anyone of the eminent scientists actually
bothered calculating that actual force, our distance from
it, and thus its resultant effect on our Sun, our Planet,
us, and each individual subatomic particle of matter on
Earth? I guess not! Furthermore, let it be stated with
absolute clarity that every object in our Universe, and
everywhere else in the Space, is affected variously
depending upon their mass and position by a multitude of
interacting Gravitational forces, of different strengths,
originating from various points within our own Universe, all
other Universes, and Cosmos. In effect, it may be stated
with reasonable measure of security that Gravity is a
composite resultant force consisting of multitude of
individual Gravitational forces with different origins,
which either magnifies, or decreases, and changes direction
under way in relation to a specific given point in Cosmos.
In addition, the weakness of the most noticeable part of
Gravity we perceive here on Earth can also be explained away
easily by an example of a “Tug of War”. One side of course
representing the Sun’s Gravity, the other the Earth’s own
Gravity.
Moreover
the same Gravity “weakness”, as computed here on Earth may
just be also affected by the fact that we are simply nowhere
near the centre of our own Universe… Shocking, but most
likely correct. Please do not misunderstand this pamphlet,
as it is not intended to deny, or contradict the existence
of parallel universes and other dimensions beyond the
already acknowledged four. It merely suggests that before
the BBC makes TV programmes and shows them to the general
public, using convincing graphics as an illustration tool,
it may be an idea to ensure that the theories projected have
at least a minimum of logical substance. After all, the
string theory(ies) cannot be shown as sound science, based
on fact, without resorting to yet other improvable measures
and this rather silly ‘M doctrine’ has no other real meaning
than to lend both the so far opposing sides of the argument
somewhat more substance than they deserve along with trying
to ensure that all the perpetrators stay gainfully employed.
Whereas it may be stated that the, so far theoretical
existence, of other dimensions may well be correct.
Considering every scientist’s knowledge of the existence of
black holes and their feeding on matter, one must state that
even this matter, (just like any other matter), does not
disappear, or end up as Singularity, as some other eminent
scientists suggest. While we cannot be yet certain where
this matter actually ends up, as it is possibly always in a
different location, a black hole is highly unlikely to have
a knot in the end/s – so, it conceivably acts as a matter
interchange facility between
our,
(and any other), galaxy to another destination in Cosmos.
Rather obviously, causing destruction in one location, and
supplying the basis for creation in another – Matter!
The
presentations in your programme gave much ‘weight’ to the
existence of Singularity – one theory, or relationship, that
is meant to provide the stage before last on the path to
finding the Law of Everything. Really nice, perhaps even
possible, but without the proof and observations that would
allow the answer to apply to all the relevant sciences –
Physics, Chemistry, and Biology – that show their total
interdependence in everyday things like the human body.
Anyone is possibly safer retreating behind the ancient
theory of singularity stating that God created everything!
After all, when I was at school, (quite some time ago), all
the eminent physicists believed that the Earth was a piece
of the Sun that had broken off and slowly cooled down – they
too were paid for putting this in text books and discussing
how creation begun.
Good
scientific practice usually starts with observation, and
many decent programmes are shown by the BBC demonstrating
the observations of rather exquisite, top level scientists
with respect to happenings in our Universe, and elsewhere.
One of my own observations, as a result of the data provided
is that there is an identical appearance, on a much
different scale of course, between the shape, general
behaviour, and movements of Galaxies and the irregular
climate patterns on a weather map, considering particularly
the conditions represented by hurricanes, cyclones, and
tornados. With the latter resembling very closely Black
Holes. Science is practical and has no need to overwork
itself. One can easily observe repetition of macrocosmic
events in everyday events, in our world, and it is believed
that this will eventually lead to the desired breakthrough
by those who are ready to seek true answers.
The reason
that I feel rather strongly about this sort of improvable
rubbish, presented by the BBC to open public as advances in
Physics, is that this can set real progress back by many
years because young, potential physicists, who will hear
these theories portrayed with the help of BBC media tools
almost as facts may actually stop looking for the real
answers, and decide instead to get on the same bandwagon on
the road to nowhere. In effect, it is a bit like a policeman
who arrests the nearest person to a murder crime scene and
without proving their guilt, fits up the evidence, which
allows the real murderer to escape justice. That ‘evidence’
is then presented as proof, just like in this case! While it
is without question that the physicists shown in your
programme presenting the ‘M theory’ certainly possess
excellent education and likely are capable of making real
headway it is a pity that they do not encumber themselves
with a responsibility for backing up claims with real
evidence so as not to mislead at least their own students.
One of the basic laws of the Universe is that nothing can be
created, or destroyed, from nothing. If matter exists, it
can be merely transformed in state and ‘reborn’ in different
time, and place. Think about it, a pearl comes from
secretion and dirt, nothing grown without energy, usually
supplied as food. If you want to make a sand castle you need
the grains of sand. If you clear up, very carefully after a
large explosion you will have exactly as much matter as you
had before the explosion providing that you scientifically
measure the residues and gaseous changes along with the
general rubble.
To achieve
true progress in Physics, it is suggested that theories
should certainly be welcomed, yet none financially rewarded,
even through a monthly wage, or continued employment, until
proof is provided. Proven by experiments, not justified by
supposed maths, or reference to magic – (the domain of David
Copperfield and other magicians).
It would be appreciated, if the BBC forwards a copy of this
letter to the scientists concerned to give them fair
opportunity to respond, should they wish to do so. It is not
my intention to speak behind someone’s back or tarnish
anyone’s integrity, without giving those concerned the
appropriate chance to defend their standpoint. Permission is
hereby given for the BBC to publish, or in any other way
use, the contents of this document within context.
Yours
Sincerely,
Michael J.
Zabrana
TOP
