Ronald Pearson has provided the mathematics to back up the experiments of Sir William Crookes and Charles Richet. In these experiments, deceased people returned, proving they had survived death.

John Samson is a member of the Society for Psychical Research.

Dear Mr Samson,

The SPR claims to have no corporate policy. I write to you, since I believe you to be one of the more open minded members of the SPR, to prove to you that this claim is false. The corporate policy of the SPR is to support a paradigm of established physics: that mind is mere brain function. The problem of introducing a balancing view is summarised in this open letter. A return to the encouragement of cross-fertilisation between disciplines is proposed for its solution. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

It is very obvious, for example, that James Randi and his CSICOP organisation have support from key members of the SPR, so that a transatlantic alliance exists designed to project only the materialist stance. However, these people are really just puppets. Destroying their act would not win the intellectual war. This is because people in the back room pulling the strings would put up replacements very quickly. To win this war we need to eliminate the root cause of the conflict.

The evidence leads us to suspect certain established physicists, cosmology physicists in particular, are the major string pullers. For example, Perrot-Warwick grants have been awarded from Trinity College, Cambridge to support Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman for paranormal research. These associates of Randi also seem controlled to find "rational explanations" which do not conflict with the current "mind is pure brain function" paradigm of establishment physics. Since the Lucasian chair held by Professor Hawking is at Trinity College, the likelihood of a connection cannot be ruled out. Such parapsychology can hardly be claimed as unbiased research aimed at finding the truth. There is also a religious dimension. In Hawking's Brief History of Time it is stated that he and his group went to the Vatican to give lectures about physics. The Pope then defined his territory and left the rest to them - as if the real reason for his invitation had been to establish demarcation lines. It is also clear from other information that some physicists and theologians are colluding to block the truth. Though poles apart they have common ground: both know they will lose out if paranormal and spiritual realities are proven to be true.

This may seem strange for a religious organisation. However, the Catholic religion was cobbled together at the Council of Nicaea in 325 of the Christian era by priests under duress, The motivation was political and in consequence most of the belief system they produced has no factual basis. In particular by officially making Jesus into Christ the God they had to make everybody else "rest in peace" in the ground awaiting Judgement Day, when all will be resurrected by reconstitution of their old earth bodies.

This is in direct conflict with an overwhelming bulk of evidence, which shows that our immortal minds transfer to another system of matter invisible and untouchable to us (since it operates on a different quantum wavelength). I think this is the main reason the Church has tried to suppress the truth about the real nature of spirituality for so many centuries. So this must be why they are backing the physicists despite the total conflict of view, which exists between the two organisations.

However, it is the physicists nowadays who have the greatest influence. Until alternative theories can become accepted, which support survival and yet demonstrate that there is no real threat to basic scientific principles, all the available evidence will continue to be discredited and rejected, Theorists have been trying for about 70 years to construct their "Theory of Everything". Professor Brian Josephson FRS (physics Nobel Laureate of Cambridge) said in a lecture reported in this quarter's SMN journal that, "The theory of everything has collapsed". So theorists admit to failure. They have failed because they have simply been looking at the problem the wrong way. Worse is a discovery I made in 1991 when I gave a lecture on quantum gravity to the "Cambridge University Students Physics Society" (Stephen Hawking's students). They enthused about the solution I presented. One said,

"We can really understand this: it makes sense".

I asked about their standard courses and the response was universal,

"None of it makes sense. The mathematics comes at us so thick and fast we have no time to really understand what it all means!"

This response suggests physics students are not being taught to understand basic principles. Then some will become professors to transmit the same fog to the next generation. This must be why they are all stuck and anybody like me, from an allied discipline of applied science, sees immediately the dreadful logical errors appearing in peer reviewed scientific publications. These must be caused by lack of basic understanding.

This is where I come in because I have been able to offer solutions to some of the major problems in cosmology which confront them. I do not make myself out to be some kind of walking genius because of this: I have been taught a different perspective with an adequate depth of understanding.

I spotted basic flaws in the "Big Bang" theory in 1984 - which in any case makes the hopelessly false prediction that remote galaxies are accelerating away from us at rates many billions of times greater than is possible. Finding a solution to this led me to tackle the big one - a paradox free theory of quantum gravity able to match all the achievements of relativity theory. Physicists admit relativity (the theory for the large scale of the universe and with speeds up to that of light) is incompatible with quantum theory (concerning the small scale workings of the atom) yet they have been attempting the impossible for over 70 years in trying to match them up. It is not surprising that they have all failed! In fact relativity theory presents the main block to the extension of physics for incorporation of paranormal and spiritual realities.

This is because it is incompatible with the very existence of the "aether" or any other real background medium, such as the "quantum vacuum" essential to quantum physics. But some such medium must exist and forms the spiritual base, according to the solution, which comes up from my own work. Theorists say that a good theory must accurately match experiment and make new predictions by which it might be falsified/verified. They avoid saying that absence of contradiction is also essential. The reason for this omission is obvious: its acceptance would demolish the current paradigm!

The major issue of interest to you is that my solution led on to, at least, a skeleton theory of everything showing how the universe is spiritually based. Yet even the way this base is constructed (from two opposite kinds of complementary forms of energy) can be synthesised by mathematical analysis. It shows that things like psychokinesis, telepathy, mediumship, OBE's and survival of bodily death can be all explained as a part of physics: as real effects. They cannot be "explained away" as Blackmore, Wiseman and Randi have been commissioned to attempt.

The SPR seems to have been manipulated by physicists for years, its aims subverted in attempts to prove these effects the result of fraud, coincidence or delusion. In 1996 I attended the SPR annual conference and, to my surprise, found it had been organised by a cosmology physicist, Dr Bernard Carr. The recent SMN journal shows he favours the "Anthropic Principle" to explain the fine tuning of the universe. This is pure establishment physics which denies the existence of anything paranormal or spiritual. So why is such a man called in to organise an SPR conference?

I had previously sent in an article summarising my theory of everything, showing how a spiritual base could work physically. This should have been just the thing needed by the SPR since it lacks the physical theory required to properly explain its published observations. It had first been rejected by Dr Beloff on grounds that they had nobody who could assess it. So I said Professor Archie Roy, their president of the previous year, being an astrophysicist, would be perfectly capable. His rejection letter, months later, gave the reason that its assessment would take him too long and that frankly he had other things to do. The pamphlet referenced below is almost identical with that paper and formed the basis of an article Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon published in 1997 in the scientific journal, Frontier Perspectives after full peer review by a physicist. This suggests the approach is sound!

The tragedy is that some people make out their wills to the SPR, to promote research: to discover if there is any substance in the paranormal and the survival hypothesis. They do not know that their money is likely to be subverted to only promote the case against survival.

At the 1996 SPR conference I had asked Dr. Bernard Carr (now Professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University) why it was that all my submissions were rejected despite the fact that no assessor had been able to find any flaw in the logic. He answered,

"You are well known in Cosmology circles: as a Maverick! No journal is ever going to publish any of your work."

He was telling me they had all been told to reject anything I sent. I also have a letter from Dr Maddox, then editor of the prestigious journal, "Nature", saying it was an editorial decision that they would never publish any of my articles even though they might be perfectly sound.

I have also been invited on TV to balance Blackmore or Wiseman and give scientific support for survival on at least 12 occasions, only to be dumped at the last minute. On ringing in to find out why, the answer has always been the same.

"We would love to have you on", the presenters always said, "but orders have come from above that you are not to be permitted under any circumstances".

This implies the media are also under the thumb of the established physicists. This is all to give you some idea of the strength of the forces ranged against any advancement of physics which could embarrass top people.

It is also becoming very clear that many professional electrical and mechanical engineers are becoming aware of the sad situation, which has evolved though nobody is to blame. It has resulted from such increasing sophistication of mathematics at the cutting edge of physics that simple solutions are just missed. The solution is to allow these applied sciences to contribute and bring back the required whiff of common sense.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Ronald D. Pearson

CORRUPTION AT THE TOP ON A SCALE THAT BEGGARS THE MIND

Professor Bernard Carr and the committee of the Society for Psychical Research rejected Ronald Pearson's scientific paper that he had prepared for the 23rd International Conference of the SPR to be held in St. Chad's College, at the University of Durham between Friday 3rd September and Sunday 5th September 1999.

They have also rejected Michael Roll's paper "A Rational Scientific Explanation For So-Called Psychic Phenomena"

These papers present the scientific case for a separate mind and brain - survival after death. They balance the case being put forward by the parapsychologists that the mind and brain are the same - that death is the end of everything.

This proves the SPR does have a corporate opinion, to make sure the public never find out that so-called psychic phenomena are in fact a branch of subatomic physics.

Ronald D. Pearson BSc (Eng) (Hons. London Ext.) in this published letter to John Samson sets out very clearly how and why revolutionary discoveries in subatomic physics are being deliberately blocked from even coming to the attention of the public for them to accept or reject as the case may be.

REFERENCE

Milton, Richard. "Forbidden Science" 1994 (Fourth Estate Ltd.) This book shows how every great scientific discovery has been fought against by powerful people protecting their reputations.

ISBN 1 85702 302 1

JAMES RANDI: PSYCHIC INVESTIGATOR - Letter to Michael Roll from journalist Garry Bushell, written in 1991, and an article mentioning how James "The Amazing" Randi cut from his TV broadcast challenges made by astrophysicist Sam Nicholls

SPR President Responds - Letter from Bernard Carr, written on March 17, 2001, on the subject of censorship and the Society for Psychical Research.

A Critique of Susan Blackmore's Dying to Live and her Dying Brain Hypothesis - an article by Greg Stone

"Consciousness as a Sub-quantum Phenomenon" - Ronald Pearson's paper

Published in the journal Frontier Perspectives, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Volume 6. No. 2, Spring/Summer 1997 (pp70-78). ISSN: 1062-4767

Publications by Ron Pearson

A Rational Scientific Explanation for So-called Psychic Phenomena - by Michael Roll