|
Ronald Pearson responds to the Society of Psychical
Research and talks of progress made in America
PROFESSOR
Bernard Carr must be faced with a most difficult
task in trying to satisfy the opposing factions of the SPR and he has my
sympathies. His statement that he has never branded me a maverick or made
any public statement of his opinion about my theories is also true. Some
clarification is needed, however, so I feel it necessary to say how this
arose. He did indeed permit me a twenty minute presentation at the SPR
conference of 1996 and I appreciate this. During lunch I managed to seek
him out to see if he, as a cosmologist, could give me any idea why all the
papers I had submitted to scientific journals, in an attempt to help solve
outstanding problems in cosmology, had all been rejected, despite no
assessor being able to find a single flaw in the logic.
I can remember his answer very clearly. Indeed I wrote it
down and it was: "You are well known in cosmology circles: as a
Maverick! No journal is ever going to publish any of your work". It
was a personal reply to my question and not a public statement. I also
appreciate his frankness: I was not seeking palliatives. Furthermore he
was not branding me personally but only telling me the consensus opinion
of his colleagues.
Of interest to Psychic News, however, is that the paper
which had been rejected by both the 'Journal of Consciousness Studies' and
the SPR was finally accepted and published by 'Frontier Perspectives'
Spring/Summer 1997 issue under the title, 'Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum
Phenomenon'. This scientific journal is run by Temple University in the
USA. The Editor, Nancy Kolenda, called it "A distinguished
paper" and said she felt it would be an honour if I submitted future
papers.
It started by providing a solution to a 16 year old
problem which arose from the theorists inability to find a way of
switching off their 'Big Bang' and called, the 'Cosmological Constant'.
This then led to a theory showing that mind was part of a background
medium having the potential to be immortal. It ties in physics with the
knowledge of people who read PN and should have been just the kind of
publication which the SPR needs. But physicists insist mind = brain, full
stop.
It has become very clear that physicists have been
secretly operating a 'closed shop' for many years and this is still
stifling much needed progress. You don't believe me? Then log onto the
website of Dr. Brian Martin, a physicist who has become so disillusioned
that he has switched to a study of suppression by people of his own
discipline. He alleges that it is pointless to present any paper,
regardless of merit, unless one has a PhD in physics and is able to write
from a prestigious address, such as a university. But they never admit
this is their policy.
The result is that theorists are still struggling with
problems for which solutions have been available for years. For example,
Brian Greene in his book, 'The Elegant Universe' published in 1999, is
making an enthusiastic attempt to explain 'superstring-theory': the
present spearhead of mainstream physics. On page 225 he admits that they
are still unable to solve the problem of the Cosmological Constant and
also states on page 211... 'physicists have not as yet been able to make
predictions with the precision necessary to confront experimental data',
followed by, 'Is string theory right? We just don't know.' This theory is
incompatible with the existence of any background medium and so cannot
accept the survival of mind. So theorists make every effort to discredit
any evidence which could injure their paradigms.
If the SPR is to throw off the impression it has been
subverted by infiltration to down-play survival, then Professor Carr is
going to have to prove himself a very strong leader. I do not envy his
task and it is my hope he will rise to the challenge.
Dr. Brian Martin author of 'Suppression Stories' &
Fund for Intellectual Dissent, Box U129 Wollongong University NSW2500,
Australia. www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents
*
Please note that the ISS does not necessarily endorse the views above. They are
merely presented for the reader to consider.
|
