Help to keep this website
running by clicking on
the Donate button above.
Einstein's Revolution
Remarkable confirmation, from serious scientists and researchers around the World, of my early conclusions about the memory of water (significant to many things from anti gravity to miracles)
For those with the interest and patience to read all, or at least parts of Chapter 17 (in pdf format)
of my autobiography, I offer:
Scientific evidence, amply supported by various sources of anecdotal evidence, demonstrating the existence and nature of the spiritual realm and a creative universal intelligence (God - or whichever word you prefer for this).
A God given new interpretation of Relativity that is simple to follow, ultimately led to the above, and means that Einstein was right to believe that the “holy grail” of physics, a unified field theory, would ultimately prove “beautifully simple”, and right in the belief that some claim for him that “God is the universe”.
On 1, I recommend the reader to start at page 71, though those with the time and patience to
read the whole 105 pages will find much information that will astonish, and much to convince you
of the likely veracity of my claim of Divine guidance. This includes much experimental and
observational evidence and computer simulations supporting many of the diverse predictions of
my theories, and even links subjects as unlikely as homeopathy and anti-gravity. It would also
help in the quick understanding of what Velikovsky said about Venus to read pages 145 & 146
of whole autobiography.
On 2, an understanding of this should help many to cope with likely future events, in which very
large numbers of humanity may face devastation and death on a scale unseen for thousands of
years, and in coming to terms with the realisation (as clearly demonstrated in my second paper)
that we are far from being the most intelligent creatures in the universe, or the planet!
On 3, in early April, 2006, I submitted a paper for consideration at the 13th annual conference of
the NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance) in Tulsa, in association with the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, based on my book, which suggests many answers to the mysteries
and enigmas of physics. Many favourable comments received are included in Appendix 1 of a
report I compiled in late 2006, having realised the significance of latent heat to Jim Hansen's
warnings on climate change and found evidence of the suppression of anti-gravity and new
energy technologies. The most significant of these comments are included in Chapter 17 of my
autobiography, but the report goes into much more detail on the evidence confirming my view of
anti-gravity, as further verified by evidence relating to alien technology in my second paper (see
below). More recently I received the following very encouraging comment from Dr. Ezzat G.
Bakhoum, University of West Florida:
Your paper is full of good ideas! I really like it. I
also agree with you that mass is related to spin.

All the best,

Ezzat G. Bakhoum
In the preface to the fifteenth edition of his book intended to explain the special and general
theories of relativity to the reasonably educated general public, Albert Einstein warns that despite
the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader is
required, which from my own efforts to understand it as a student of maths, physics and
engineering at Brooklands and West Ham Colleges in the early 1960's (with just limited success
at that time), I can personally attest to. My own book on relativity is of similar size, but hopefully
much, much easier to understand, even to those with only a very basic interest and understanding
of science. But such people are even more likely to have persistence and patience rewarded by
reading Chapter 17 (in pdf format) of my autobiography, which simply explains the validity of the
ideas put forward in my first book, and contains much information of huge significance to the
future of science, religion and the future of all humanity.
The Special Theory of Reality, published in Ebook form in 2004 and paperback in 2005,
suggested that relativity has been universally misinterpreted, with time, energy, mass and space,
including space-time, still not properly understood. My interpretation led to a much simpler and
more logical view based on three simple postulates:
Mass is spin
Spin results in curved paths
The universe is rotating
This makes sense of changing dimensions and, in particular, increasing values of pi in rotating
bodies, and together with my clarification of the nature of time, removes the paradoxes of
relativity and the ludicrous suggestion that completely empty space can be curved.
Since the conference, I have been made aware of considerable further evidence verifying my
view of mass and anti-gravity. This includes the experiments carried out by the late Bruce
DePalma and others with spinning balls and gyros that appear to verify my first postulate. It also
includes the amazing demonstrations with gyroscopes of the late Professor Eric Laithwaite (that I
now recall seeing in the early 1970’s when I was a town planner with only casual interest in
physics, but had forgotten the details of), which verify the polarity of the inertial effects of spin
implicit in my theory and the exchangeability of angular and linear momentum, upon which my
explanations of radiation and force carrying particles depend.
It has to be noted, however, that in the absence of my theory, DePalma was hesitant about
concluding that variable inertial mass was possible without breaching the law of conservation of
mass and energy, whereas with my theory the true nature of mass/energy equivalence can be
shown to accord with Richard A. Mould’s interpretation in Basic Relativity. It appears to me that
DePalma may have missed the fact that energy is added in imparting spin to the balls.
All this is analysed in my second paper as submitted in March as an in absentia submission to
the 14th annual conference of the NPA held at the University of Connecticut, Storrs in May 2007.
This paper also analyses various quotes of Einstein to demonstrate that he clearly envisaged
more than one type of gravitational field, and contains evidence of the greatest realization in the
history of modern science: long term alien presence and use of anti-gravity technology and the
probable human development of such technology in the 20th century.
There is already evidence from WMAP to suggest that my third postulate may be correct (see
“Axis of Evil”) and experiments are planned, which may clarify this.
I am confident of my second postulate, not only because it makes sense of relativity and
together with the first postulate provides a simple definition of quantum general relativity that
explains the very nature of quantum mechanics and aspects of string theory, but because it
enabled me to independently predict helicity in neutrinos and anti-neutrinos before I knew that
this had been discovered about half a century before (M. Goldhaber and co-workers 1958).
I also predicted that neutrinos can have mass, which has recently also been confirmed. I am,
therefore, astonished that so few appear to have realised that spirals of neutrinos and opposite
handed spirals of anti-neutrinos can exert forces, although I was not alone at the conference
(2006 and again in 2007) in suggesting neutrinos as the explanation for gravity (Einstein's
“pure gravitational field”).
My book provides evidence to suggest that anti-gravity has to be possible, as verified by the
evidence contained in my second paper (see also, which has
enormous consequences for the future of mankind and the current prospect of disastrous
climate change. The failure of mainstream science, the press and the media to take notice of
this claim may well go down as the greatest folly of the early 21st century. Explanations for
other paranormal phenomena are also suggested.
And recently (October/November 2006) I have discovered evidence that appears to further
corroborate, not only the possibility of antigravity, but the two key factors that I suggested to Tim
Ventura some months ago might hasten its realisation. Shortly after, I discovered evidence
supporting my own view that cold fusion may be possible and perhaps related to the above
evidence concerning anti-gravity. With all of this, however, lies the implication that some
governments and those people with vested interest, and even perhaps unwittingly, the Church
and Academia, have delayed the realisation of such technology, in the case of anti-gravity, for
about half a century.
I had been drawing the attention of several MPs to my Report on the possible validity of this as it
applies to anti-gravity. As a result I have been invited to submit my report to David Cameron’s
recently set up Quality of Life Policy Group which I have done, but my Submission to the Quality
of Life Policy Group also analyses the possibility of cold fusion, but omits the lengthy
appendices. Regrettably the way that many MPs have failed to take any action on the evidence I
have submitted confirming cold fusion as reality and anti-gravity as strong possibility, and have
not included my submission despite the dire warnings of the IPCC forth report, confirms my
fears that the addiction to fossil fuels is preventing logical thought.  I have put all my findings on
climate change in a comprehensive statement that, in particular, analyses the feedbacks that
governments wished to exclude from the IPCC 4th report, and demonstrates ways that global
dimming can contribute to higher levels of CO2.
I am very confident that my theory is correct, personally, because I know that it stems from divine
revelation, but scientifically, because it provides a great many answers, as have been listed
below on this website for some time (see below), which are now expanded to explain much in the
solar system and galaxies in Part 2 of my first paper. These later explanations stemmed from
development of David Hardy’s theory of Genesis Continuous (as it pertains to the solar system),
which appears to me to be far more likely than the nebular hypothesis.
My suggestion that particles are comprised of rings, was also suggested by others at the NPA
conference who were able to provide mathematical justification, such as Russian Professor
Phillip Kanarev, who also demonstrates mathematically my recent conclusion that there is no
electron orbit of the nucleus, which followed from my explanation of exclusion principle, and
enabled me to provide a possible answer to Professor Kanarev’s query regarding the sharing
of electrons. My spirals can pass through my gyroscopic concept of the electron, thus linking
proton to proton, but clearly only if there is no orbit. Instead I suspect that the electron oscillates
in a central region between protons, as spirals (bosons) are exchanged in bursts as outer rings
gain and lose containment. This retains wave-like motion and fits best with the Born
I consider that a unified field theory based on particles, in which General Relativity applies at the
smallest level is thus possible. It depends on mass reducing with velocity in the case of radiation or
other cases where translation occurs at the expense of rotational energy. This departure from
Einstein’s view, which remains entirely consistent with the best held views of the mass/energy
relationship, and with conservation of both, leads to the possibility of tiny, fast-spinning particles
(neutrinos or maybe smaller particles) forming rings and helixes, which not only provide de
Broglie's accompanying wave and the internal structure of the photon and other particles, they
provide a screw-in mechanism to explain local gravitational field, interaction to explain charge and
magnetic field, and linking rings to explain the strong and weak nuclear forces, the latter assisted
by bosons I think (also spirals).
This means that spin, orbit and translation of tiny particles mimics the action of a wave and,
although it is forty years since I did maths anywhere near the level required, I do have reason to
suspect that this can be confirmed using the Navier/Stokes equations.

This idea then provides answers to many of the long-standing mysteries and enigmas of physics.
These are "how and why" answers which are easy to visualise. They include the following:-
How and why light manifests as both particles and waves;
why the speed of light appears the same to all observers;
how radiation is actually released;
how frequencies are perceived;
how and why EM field is at right angles to EMR;
how polarisation works exactly;
how spin 1/2 operates;
why so many types of quark are possible;
why the force linking quarks increases with separation;
how particles split to form new ones;
how gamma radiation is so damaging;
how and why high energy particles give off high energy radiation;
how and why mass is lost with radiation;
why radiation travels in straight lines;
how neutrons can become protons;
how charge operates;
how exclusion principle operates;
how particles split and recombine.
Just how a logical examination of fundamentals such as time, energy and mass led to these
explanations is explained in The Special Theory of Reality by Robert F. Beck, published in
November 2004 by Einstein's Revolution as an ebook with Mobipocket and in paperback form
with Spire Publishing.
This book goes on to suggest alternatives to the Big Bang and possible explanations to
paranormal phenomena. It suggests that black (or rather grey) holes could be the source of
background microwave radiation. This is something I have been suggesting since early 2004
and there may now be observational evidence in support of it. An article in New Scientist (16
October 2004, p11) tells me that NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has
detected a surplus of microwaves coming from the centre of the Galaxy where, of course, there
is thought to be a black hole. Apparently these microwaves are typical of those generated when
high energy electrons and positrons spiral around magnetic fields, which immediately made me
think of Stephen Hawking's description of supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies
(The Illustrated Brief History of Time-updated and expanded edition, page 125).
My theory then suggests two alternative explanations for red shift other than expansion, which
then becomes an illusion. In Appendix 6, which cannot appear in the ebook for technical
reasons, I analyse the whole question of observation of expansion in drawings based on
various scenarios, and conclude that actual expansion could not be observed as we are led to
believe. If my analysis is correct, this throws considerable doubt on the validity of Big Bang
theory. I have decided, therefore, to make it freely available on this website and I welcome all
comment upon it, as indeed I welcome comment on any of the ideas contained in my book.
There is further observational evidence which throws doubt on the Big Bang. Stephen
Battersby, reporting on the American Astronomical Society meeting in Atlanta Georgia in
January 2004(New Scientist 17 Jan 2004, p.14), drew attention to observations showing that
galaxies in the "early" Universe look unexpectedly mature, very much like our own; and
superclusters were observed where they should not have had time to form.

There also may be observational evidence in support of my theory of gravitation. On 27th
November 2004 it was revealed in an article entitled "Shadow over Gravity" that observations
carried out way back in the fifties, and repeated since, which I and many others probably, have
been blissfully unaware, suggest very strongly that Relativity is not able to answer all questions
about gravity. This relates to the effect on Foucault's pendulum of eclipses. My interpretation of
Relativity does not accept that there are no gravitational forces, but suggests that Einstein's
"pure gravitational field" has to be a real force caused by the interaction of real particles.

I suggest that neutrinos, can have a fundamental component of mass due only to spin. Thus, in
the "screw-in" action of helixes comprised of many neutrinos, momentum can be exchanged.
What else but a screw can pull in the opposite direction to motion? So between any two bodies
there is a constant two-way exchange of particles, which maintains the numbers of such
particles and their rotational and orbital KE within quarks. My theory then actually predicts that
anything which prevents or effects such two-way exchange must have consequences for local
gravitational field. The moon is unlikely to block gravitational "waves" completely but may well
have some diminishing or focusing effect. There could, therefore, be two effects on the
apparatus: one caused by a very localised change in the Earth's gravitational field, and a direct
effect on the apparatus of the changes in both the Sun's and the Moon's locally directed field.

Many explanations follow from this interdependence of gravitational fields as set out in my

And many other confirmations are contained in Chapter 17 (in pdf format) of my autobiography,
with more detailed development of my theories in Appendix 4, which contains a long list of my
predictions for which there is evidence or strong verification (page 19). Note that most recently,
NASA has confirmed the evidence that has been accumulating of water on Mars now and in
substantial volumes in liquid form in the past.
Document summarising the verifications of my theories about light can be found here.
Black Holes
Verification that stars can form from material ejected by black holes can be found here.
Verification that Mars could have spiraled out can be found in evidence of past oceans such as this and in Wayne Herschel's analysis of pyramid like structures in Cydonia to be found in this youtube video
On 23rd Sept. 2011, Dario Autiero of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Lyon, France, a member of the OPERA collaboration, announced that after spending three years chasing down every source of error they could imagine, it appeared that neutrinos had indeed completed the 730 Km journey between CERN and the OPERA detector at the Gran Sasso lab near L'Aquila, Italy, 60 nanoseconds earlier than light speed.
See the Science Daily article
here and New Scientist 1 October 2011, p.6

My prediction that neutrinos could sometimes travel faster than c was made clear in my second NPA paper (link on Theories page).  See pages 4&5 first.