This study has been submitted to Reviews of Modern Physics (RMP) in October 1999 and was found unsuitable for that journal in the following month for reasons discussed below and in a separate page. According to a correspondence dated July 2000 Nova Science Publishers need six (6) referees for submittal as a monograph (of course due to the fundamental nature of the matter). Anybody who can be considered qualified is urged to contact me at

Why publishing via the Web?

 1. The unsuccessful RMP submittal

 The study has been submitted to Reviews of Modern Physics (RMP), but was turned away. (See the Correspondence page for details.) RMP first invoked a supposed lack of quantitative evaluation (with no details whatsoever); then, when this position manifestly could not be sustained in light of the specific quantitative analyses that are indeed provided, RMP's official purpose as a review journal was used, a purpose which is known to not always be followed in practice as I explained in my reply.

As a description of new theories the study cannot also be published in the primary research literature because it cannot provide a full formalism (as has become "de rigueur" in modern times -- the philosophy behind this matter is discussed in the study), due to the fact Mathematics itself requires more work in order to be applied, and the study specifically addresses this issue. I am presenting an essentially conceptual study, and publication as a monograph then appears to be the only alternative provided "enough" independent evaluations are done.

 2. The "extraordinary" science aspect

 Being "extraordinary" science, as Thomas Kuhn called any work "assuming that the scientific community (or any part of it) does not know what the world is like," the work I am presenting here must receive a tacit backup from well-known personalities in order to be considered even for review by the scientific community. Otherwise, it will be turned away as "overly speculative" (as the moderator of the sci.physics.research usenet newsgroup did - see below) or for other reasons which have nothing to do with the scientific value of the content (as RMP did). The study questions the established meaning of certain experimental data, and this by showing that this meaning cannot explain all the data. The scientific journal review system then appears unwilling under these circumstances to consider the study, including Appendix A found in the first phase even though I propose there to have additional experiments done to find out which meaning is right, thus in effect building a strong critique of the recent literature, right within RMP's purpose. I have included the biophysics phase specifically to provide more areas where the proposed world view can have additional experimental corroboration or falsification.

  3. The fundamental scope of the work

My theory and the nature of the proposed corroborating experiments in effect advance that a correct "Theory of Everything" is not possible based upon what is understood about our physical reality by the present community of Physicists. The key missing element to build such a theory is the origin and nature of space, a subject which requires a conceptual analysis, with little help from present mathematics, and thus is inherently controversial. We have yet to reach far enough distances in Astronomy and we have yet to make the decisive experiments in the Life Sciences to identify this true nature. We have gone into studying the chemistry of Life only recently (50 years ago) in the history of Science, and the key results are not yet in. This is the case especially about embryo development where we see the chemical elements of Life putting themselves together, and yet we have no idea how at the level of the whole organism. We know the components but we don't know what makes them into a whole entity. No wonder, the knowledge we use to study Life is itself based upon the Physics of the previous centuries, which itself is only about a dead world. Knowing the a priori physical differences of Life versus the rest of physical reality, this knowledge has all the chances to be fundamentally incomplete. Our present preconceptions are not something to be surprised about: Before we had a telescope we could not clearly see the true nature and behavior of our nearby cosmos, a non-living machine. Before we had an electron microscope we could not clearly see the true nature and behavior of the components making up living materials. From the history of the prior preconceptions on our cosmos, we know that it will take a long while at the scale of Human history for concepts to change as a result of what is being seen in Life.

Why is this study not "overly speculative"?

 alt.sci.astro, alt.sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics, sci.physics.research, sci.astro, sci.research, sci.philosophy.tech, sci.math, sci.bio.microbiology

 On 11/17/1999 sci.physics.research rejected my post as "overly speculative." I have replied that the intent of that post was to bring interested parties to perform new experiments in astrophysics which would either confirm or deny the meaning attached to the data recently collected via supernovae surveys per Appendix A of phase 1. Thus, by being an experiment specifier, the study could not be "overly speculative," at least not more than

(1) accepted astrophysical theories which postulate large amounts of "dark energy" in this universe in order to explain recent astronomical results (and maintain the universal expansion theory), an energy which has never been experimentally observed in the long history of Physics,

(2) the "Dark Matter" Hypothesis which after 20 years of frantic search has yet to find a direct experimental confirmation, and

(3) biophysical theories which to this day postulate that classical statistical mechanics can explain the complex whole entities called "living organisms," while this mechanics does not apply in general (the order found in Life is just too great - Life fights disorder instead), and thus to this day there is no physical causal explanation for the basic functions of such entities.

Of course, there was no reply.

 All theories are speculative until they can have an overwhelming corroboration via a set of decisive experiments. This process of corroboration has been followed since Galileo (and many scientists such as Faraday did the experiments themselves as convincing people to do them is so difficult -- I cannot do like Faraday, which is my real problem). Of course, experiments cannot prove theories, they can only corroborate them and/or find their limitations, such as observing the perihelion motion of Mercury for Newton's theory. But a pure speculation cannot be corroborated that way, and all theories may have limitations. Finding experiments to identify such limitations in the case of present theories is the goal of this study, and thus it is not a pure speculation, or a philosophy. It identifies a replacement theory which can be overwhelmingly corroborated -- by definition, a scientific theory. However, a plethora of pure speculations can be found on the Web, and in particular in the "Webrings," which do not help sorting the matters out. It will be up to the reader to judge while waiting for experimental results.

One Last Remark