Celtic Lines

Celtic Lines   we know the way

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