E = mc²

Part 1
A hundred years old but 'c' remains to be shown to be a constant.

Evidence is now to hand that we have been misinterpreting the terms of the equation E=mc²: the mass m is not a variable and the speed of light is not a constant.

Let's start with the initial process of putting together the circumstantial evidence that indicates the universally accepted equation requires revision.

When mathematicians look at the equation E=mc² they get an uneasy queasy feeling and rightly so because nowhere else do they come across a simple field equation where the squared factor is a constant and isn't the adjusting factor. Let us for a moment set aside the convention used in the equation that energy is 'E', mass is 'm' and the speed of light 'c'. So for example if the equation was simply written as x=yz², mathematicians would readily tell you that it was a field equation where y is a constant and z adjusts to take account of any variation in x.

We use such simple field equations every day. When we drive the car, we know from 'The Highway Code' that the breaking distance goes up at the square of the number of times the initial speed has been increased. For example the breaking distance at 20 mph is 6 metres. If the speed is doubled the breaking distance is not 12 metres. The speed's twofold increase is squared, giving a breaking distance of 24 metres. If the speed was increased threefold we would have 6 x 3²= 54 metres. Likewise, in photography the degree of fuzziness of a picture is in proportion to the square of the number of blurred pixels. So where in physics or life in general there is an increasing input to a situation, the result is usually calculated by using a simple field equation.

The traditional special relativistic interpretation of the equation, with mass as a variable and the speed of light as a constant, gives an anomaly that we ought to question. When we are dealing individually with gravity, time and light, we do not use the form that requires the squared factor to be constant but apply the standard field equations with alacrity. We do this knowing that these phenomena all have the characteristic of falling off or weakening at the square of the increase in distance from their source. It is only when we are applying them in common in the same equation that special relativity expects us to stand things on their heads. Is this really likely?

There is a Newtonian field equation that we are all familiar with and which is similar in form. It is F=mA. In this equation F is force, m is mass and A is acceleration in kilometres per second squared. If we imagine the mass m to be that of a rocket ship, then the energy E that is used by the rocket ship will be the same as the work done by the rocket's thrusters, which is Fs where s is the distance over which the work is done. So in this case we can say that E=Fs. If we pick our units so that s equals 1, we can rewrite the equation as E=F or mA=mc². m will cancel out on both sides of the equation, leaving A=c². This means we have on the left of the equation Newtonian acceleration of the rocket ship, represented by 'A' and on the right we have the quantum speed of light 'c²', which cannot be a constant but must increase with the quantum effect of the rocket ship's time being stretched. In other words, on the left we have the acceleration of the rocket ship producing a speed which stretches its time and is expressed in 'metres multiplied by time in seconds squared'. This is matched on the right hand side of the equation by the speed of light being increased by the speed of light for the mass of the rocket ship, when stationary, multiplied by the fractional dilation of time in the rocket ship squared.

The circumstantial evidence seems to indicate that because here on Earth variations in time for an observer are very small and the speed of light is very large, we have been misled into thinking the speed of light is a constant 'c' for all circumstances. In fact it is only a close approximation on the surface of the Earth where variations in the dilation of time are so small that they have an almost immeasurable effect on the speed of light.

Let us now leave the ambit of circumstantial evidence and go for some direct proof.

Part 2.
Cosmic reasons why E=mc² needs revision.

If special relativity is an accurate theory, it must ensure that the equation can be worked equally from right to left as well as left to right. In other words the equation must work equally well when we turn energy into mass as when we turn mass into energy. We will examine this aspect of the equation closely and show that, in order for the universe to exist, special relativity and the equation must be defective in this regard.

We are all aware that the equation works for the making of an atom bomb, so how does it manage this if it is wrong? It is because everything takes place on the surface of the Earth, where time is almost constant. Consequently, on Earth for all practical purposes the speed of light may be regarded as approximately a constant 'c'. For the bomb equation the mass of the Uranium or Plutonium used is just its weight in the Earth's gravity, and the energy is the blast and flash of the bomb, which we know to our cost, takes place on the surface of the Earth. So we have a special set of limiting conditions where the governing time factor is, for all practical bomb making purposes, a constant.

We do not encounter a problem until we come to work the equation in the opposite direction, that is to say, from left to right by putting energy 'E' into the system containing the mass 'm'. It is well established that in such circumstances time dilates or stretches and does not remain a constant. Let us examine this change in time by imagining the mass to be a rocket ship and the energy to be that of the rocket thrust. Applying special relativity to the problem we are told that two things happen: time on the rocket ship will dilate and the mass of the rocket ship will increase. Curiously, time dilation does not figure at all in the special relativistic interpretation of the equation. We are left solely with the increase in mass. The theory of special relativity therefore inevitably leads us to conclude that the rocket should, if it uses a vast amount of energy over a sustained period, reach a point where the mass of the rocket ship becomes so great for its limited size that it turns into a black hole. Now we know this doesn't happen in real life because otherwise all fast moving matter particles in the universe would become black holes and start to pull in the matter around them. Likewise, particle accelerators such as that at CERN would run the risk of creating bench top black holes.

In the past some scientists have simply not acknowledged the problem, while others say that the increase in mass is passive only. By passive they mean that the increase is merely of inertial mass, so that it is heavier and harder to push. The flaw in such reasoning is fundamental to mathematics: it is that an equation must be capable of being worked equally in both directions. When the equation is worked from right to left, -in the direction of the bomb's blast, -the loss of mass is in both the gravitational and inertial forms. Working the equation in the opposite direction must give back mass with exactly the same characteristics, that is to say, with the same gravitational and inertial mass. The form of the equation does not allow for passive mass to be returned instead of proper mass. Furthermore, there is no form of matter known to science that has different amounts of gravitational and inertial mass to fill the bill.

In order for the universe to have formed in the first place, there is an elemental requirement for the equation to be resolved by an alternative method that allows for some form of passive effect other than an increase in inertial mass. This somewhat compelling reason is derived from the fact that gravity would otherwise cause a run away reaction that would be in breach of the law of the conservation of energy and would turn all matter into black holes.

To convince yourself of this, imagine two planets near each other. Now let us apply special relativity. Each planet will be in the gravitational field of the other. This means that each planet will impart gravitational energy to the other, thereby supposedly increasing the other's mass and gravitational effect. Such an effect would lead to the impossible creation of gravitational energy between the two planets. The gravitational energy would spiral upwards without limit, rapidly causing the planets to turn into black holes. This would be the case with all matter throughout the universe. The alternative is to apply the 'Tempo field theory'. This allows for the required passive effect by accounting for the speed of light for the mass to increase as its time dilates. It changes the equation to E=mV², where m is a constant mass and V is the variable speed of light. Mathematicians will immediately recognize this as a more acceptable form of field equation. So instead of the mass going up and the speed of light remaining constant, we have the mass remaining constant and the speed of light going up. It keeps the symmetry of the equation, with the same numerical solution but completely alters our concept of, and values for, its constituent parts. The changed concept fortunately allows for the universe as we see it.

This fortunate outcome prompts us to prove directly and without further delay, that mass is a constant.

Part 3.
Why mass is a constant.

Let us prove by means of a thought experiment that the mass of an object does not go up if its energy of motion, that is to say, its kinetic energy, goes up. We will see that the apparent increase in inertial mass is merely an illusion caused by the difference in time dilation between the Earth and the moving object.

For this thought experiment imagine that you are an engineer who makes spaceships. One day you are approached by a customer who wants a spaceship that will attain a stipulated speed after one hour of acceleration. The speed is a substantial proportion of the speed of light, so that time dilation will occur. You tell him that this is no problem, as you have been working on a new engine that should do the trick. The new engine works at a constant rate. It delivers ten pulses of thrust a second, no more and no less. It even has an indicator light to show that it is running sweetly. Each pulse uses a thimble full of fuel. After one minute a gallon of fuel is used, so after an hour sixty gallons are used, which should get the spaceship up to speed. A special transparent fuel tank is fixed to the outside of the spaceship so you can see exactly what is going on. You realize here, that the engine and fuel consumption that you have designed, make a perfect onboard clock. This clock system will show you exactly how much time has passed in the spaceship, at the rate of ten 'thimblefuls' to the second, one gallon to the minute and sixty gallons to the hour.

You complete the spaceship and arrange with your pilot for a test fly-past. When the pilot has the spaceship in position in space you give him, from your observation room, a countdown to start. You also synchronize your stopwatch with the start of the engine. You now feel free to go and have a cup of tea, as you will not have to look again through your telescope at the spaceship for an hour.

When the hour is almost up, you return to the telescope which has a speed gauge attached and to your horror see that the spaceship is not going fast enough. The hour is up on your stopwatch and the indicator light is burning brightly, but the speed is not attained. Your apprentice, who is a smart chap and has attended college, says he has read about this. He tells you that in the theory of special relativity the mass of the spaceship goes up as its speed and kinetic energy goes up. According to that theory the increased inertial mass makes it harder for the engine to push and accelerate the spaceship. He says that no doubt that will be the reason why it isn't going as fast as set out in your specifications. You yell something about this being a right time to tell you as you put your eye back to the telescope. You then let out a whoop of joy, as you see that there are still two gallons of fuel remaining in the fuel tank. You remember that the fuel system is also an accurate onboard clock. An hour has passed on Earth but clearly because two gallons of fuel have not yet been used, only fifty-eight minutes has passed on the spaceship. You recall that time is dilated on the fast moving spaceship. The spaceship is going at exactly the right speed for a fifty-eight Earth minute period of acceleration.

It is clear to you that when the remaining two gallons of chemical energy are converted into additional kinetic energy for the spaceship, it will be up to speed, and a spaceship hour will then have passed. You assure your apprentice that the mass could not have gone up, or all the fuel would have been used to overcome the increase in inertial mass to achieve the slower speed. It is just a matter of letting an hour pass in the spaceship, equal to an hour and a few minutes on Earth. It must be noted that the spaceship's speed is being measured by you relative to Earth time.

So in conclusion we can state that the mass of the spaceship remains constant. We have ascertained that it is the difference in time dilations as between the spaceship and the Earth that creates the illusion on Earth that the spaceship's mass is going up, making it more difficult to accelerate.

Having shown mass to be a constant, there is now the pressing need to show the speed of light to be a variable.

Part 4.
A proof that the speed of light is a variable.

This thought experiment is submitted to demonstrate by the use of conventional physics that the speed of light varies relative to the time dilation of the observer. It is based on the well proven fact that time contracts the further one gets from the mass of the Earth. So if two atomic clocks, one at the top of a high tower and the other at the bottom, are left to run for a sufficient interval, they will gradually diverge in the amount of time they record. The clock at the bottom of the tower, being closer to the Earth is in a more dilated time domain. It will run slower than the one at the top, which is in a more contracted time domain.

The intention is to send a pulse of light on a long enough and slow enough trip so as to be able to accurately measure its duration and thereby its speed. For the purposes of comparison the process will be replicated exactly in three different time dilations. Each light experiment will be entirely within one time domain with the same constant wavelength for the light.

So let us begin by borrowing a very tall skyscraper building or at least three floors of it, one at the top, one at the bottom and the third exactly halfway between them. On each floor we build a chamber so that the same conditions can be maintained at each level, such as pressure and temperature. In each chamber we place an identical drum on which is wound a very long optical fibre each of exactly the same specification and length. A powerful laser lamp and atomic clock are connected to each of the optic fibres, in such a way as to allow a pulse of laser light to switch on the atomic clock as it starts off down the optic fibre and to switch it off again when it reaches the end. So the atomic clocks (I shall now merely refer to them as clocks) are acting as simple stopwatches, giving the travel time of the pulse of laser light down the identical length of the three optical fibres. We have the advantage of the travel time of the pulses of laser light being longer in the glass fibre than in a vacuum. Although light is slower in the optical fibre than in a vacuum, the speed is inherently the same in all three optical fibres, given that conditions for each are the same.

This being a thought experiment and price being no object, it can be arranged for an extra two clocks to be placed on the middle floor. These clocks can be started and stopped, one in unison with the top clock and the other in unison with the bottom clock. These two extra clocks can be external to the chamber.

Now let an observer operate the system on the three levels, by pressing the control button on the middle floor. It must be the case that the clock in the chamber there plus the two external clocks, being at the same level, will show the same time interval for the pulses of laser light to travel down the three fibres. This is required in order to comply with the accepted principle that, an observer must measure all light to travel at the same speed. However, when he goes up to the top floor to check the clock there, he will find that because of the contracted time at the more elevated level, that clock will show a longer time duration for the passage of the pulse of light. So at that level's more contracted time, the speed of light is slower than the observer measured at the middle floor. On the other hand, when he checks the clock on the bottom floor, he will find that it shows a shorter interval of time, due to the greater dilation of time at that level, making the speed of light faster there.

The experiment is now carried out from the top floor, the observer having first taken the two extra external clocks up there, but now with one connected to the clock on the middle floor and the other to the clock on the bottom floor. The observer will find that the two external clocks will agree with the clock in the top chamber. While the clocks in the chambers on the lower levels will still each show the same time as in the first experiment.

To fully complete the experiment he now repeats it at the bottom level, taking the two external clocks there and connecting one to the top clock and the other to the middle clock. He will now find that the two external clocks will agree with the clock in the bottom chamber, on the duration of the travel time for the three pulses of light. The other two clocks, in the chambers at the two higher levels, will continue to show the times as in the first experiment.

It is therefore the case that the higher up the skyscraper we go the more contracted becomes our time and the slower becomes the speed of 'all' light. This demonstrates that it is the time domain of the observer that governs the measurement of the speed of light, and that it is not an absolute constant of 300,000 kilometres a second.

Part 5.
Time and the conservation of energy and mass.

We saw in Part 1 that the increase of energy induced in a mass should be mathematically resolvable by a simple field equation. The equation E =mc² would be in the appropriate form, if the speed of light was not the constant 'c', thereby allowing the mass 'm' to be a constant. The equation is not given the appropriate values for its parts. The mass is said to be a variable and the speed of light a constant, whereas, it would normally be the other way around. This changes the equation to E=mV², where 'V' is the variable speed of light and allows mass to obey what we know as the law of the conservation of mass.

As we saw in Part 2, the equation when resolved by special relativity gives rise to insurmountable difficulties. For example the increase in gravitational mass would breach the conservation law and prevent the universe from forming, by turning all matter into black holes.

If the increase is in inertial mass only, there is no such 'stuff' known to science. If there was, matter would free-fall in an entirely different way. Instead of an object falling with uniform acceleration, its acceleration would gradually fall off as its kinetic energy increased, due to the retarding effect of its increased inertia. Its landing speed would therefore, be slower than we experience in real life.

Furthermore, if energy is to be used to increase the kinetic energy of the object as well as to increase its mass energy, we once again run into difficulties with the law of the conservation of energy. Under that law energy cannot be created yet we are supposedly using one input of thrust energy to simultaneously increase the object's kinetic energy and its mass energy. The same energy cannot be used twice over, to increase both the object's speed and its mass. For example, contrast where an equal amount of radiation energy is used on the object instead of kinetic energy. In special relativity the radiation energy would be expected to increase the objects mass by the same amount as with the kinetic energy but not affect its speed.

In Part 3 we showed by a thought experiment that mass was indeed a constant. The increase being an illusion, due to the time difference between the Earth and the fast moving spaceship.

In Part 4 we clinched the matter by showing that the speed of light is a variable relative to the observer's time dilation.

The evidence produced places the matter beyond doubt. So what is it that the scientists at CERN are measuring when they smash subatomic particles into each other? I submit they are measuring the effects of dilated time on the smaller particles that fly off on impact. Their rate of acceleration away from the impact is commensurate with their apparent mass. While the use of apparent mass is not the correct qualitative concept, it proved in the past to be a useful tool for scientists as it gave the correct quantitative amount of kinetic energy, as measured in Earth time and speed. However, its danger lies in the expectation of being able to use it to extrapolate other situations and conditions, as the probability is they cannot exist.

Part 6.
E=mc² - Its Origin and Consequences.

For several decades vast amounts of research, time and money have gone into smashing subatomic particles into each other, using huge particle accelerators. They are looking for new matter, relying on the principles enshrined in the formula E=mc². As particle accelerators become more and more powerful, the experimental scientists have theorized that they are getting closer to conditions that existed at the big bang. Their calculations using E=mc², where m is mass and a variable and the speed of light c is a constant, so readily accords with their observations that they accept their results without question. Indeed, the view has been expressed by science commentators, that these experimental technicians are so used to their results being mathematically correct, they have stopped questioning the original concepts set out in the 1905 paper by Albert Einstein. This is very remiss, as I submit that despite the mathematical accuracy of their results, the concepts contained in the 1905 Paper, the foundation of all their experiments, is causing them to form a misguided view of cosmology, particularly the big bang.

It may seem disrespectful to doubt or query special relativity and its short postscript Paper but it is excusable if you wish to understand the universe we live in, which necessitates proffering the right questions to obtain the right answers.

We need to go back over a hundred years to when, as an afterthought to his theory of special relativity, Einstein wrote the paper on whether the inertia of an object depends upon its energy content. A few months after first publishing his relativity theory Einstein discovered something that particularly intrigued him, the apparent relation between mass and energy. In many text books Einstein's interest is expressed as being in inertial mass only. However, we can see from the letter he wrote to his good friend, the mathematician Conrad Habicht, during the summer of 1905, that he had mass in its fullest sense in mind.

"One more consequence of the Paper on electrodynamics has also occurred to me. The principle of relativity, in conjunction with Maxwell's equations, requires that mass be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body; light carries mass with it. A noticeable decrease of mass should occur in the case of radium. The argument is amusing and seductive; but for all I know the Lord might be laughing over it and leading me around by the nose".

Clearly from this letter Einstein had no doubt that mass included gravitational mass as well as inertial mass, certainly when considering energy being derived from mass. What therefore, is the difference between the two notions of mass? Why the change from mass that includes both gravitational and inertial mass, to just inertial mass? The answer to this quandary lies in the findings set out in Parts 3 and 4 above, that the mass 'm' is a constant and that the speed of light increases with time dilation. These findings can be further proved by a little rearranging of the equation E=mc² , cross validating those earlier results. To do this, let us take out of the equation what we understand may be wrong and substitute what we definitely know to be right. In other words, remove c² and substitute time dilation. We can do this in total safety, because it is well established common ground that if the energy E of a mass m, is increased the time of the mass is proportionally dilated. This enables the equation to now be written, E α mT² (where α represents 'proportional to'), where T is the dilated time of the mass m. It can now be seen, that if there is an increase in energy E there will be a proportional increase in time T, resulting in a constant coefficient of proportionality. This gives E/T² α m. E/T² being a coefficient of proportionality, makes 'm' a constant. If the equation is to have any meaning, then for 'm' to be a constant and the time dilation 'T' to vary, the speed of light cannot also be a constant. Relative to the mass, the speed of light must vary in proportion to its time dilation. The speed of light indicates or is a measure of, the time dilation enjoyed by the measurer. This is a further confirmation that the speed of light is a variable, increasing with time dilation.

What then is c² doing in the equation in the first place? How is it that, notwithstanding a constant for the speed of light, in general terms, is wrong, it has been regarded as correct for over a hundred years? It is because the coefficient of proportionality as between the speed of light and time dilation, makes the speed of light an accurate measure of time dilation and it is time dilation that is the essential element in the formula. 300,000 kilometres a second, or 'c', for the speed of light, is near enough right for our mean average time dilation. 'c' just happens to be the approximate speed of light for the average time dilation here on Earth. Consequently, all processes that involve energy being derived from mass, that take place on the surface of the Earth, can be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy, using c². This is how we were able to calculate the power of the atom bomb. However, processes that are in the opposite direction, that is to say, those that require energy to be infused into a mass, will cause the time of that mass to be dilated to a greater degree than the Earth's norm. There is a predictable increase in the speed of light for such energized mass, commensurate with this time dilation. Formerly in the equation, because the speed of light has been kept as the constant 'c', despite the energy E increasing, there resulted an excess of mass 'm'. This excess mass has to be passive, that is to say, without gravitational effect and was misinterpreted as an apparent increase in inertial mass, instead of merely a dilation of its time, (see Paper on Thermodynamics and Entropy). It is this misinterpretation that has caused the shift from total mass to inertial mass, notwithstanding there is no known matter that has inertial mass alone, without gravitational effect. Such inconsistencies were regarded as a small price to pay, when fudging things, to get the arithmetic right. We now have the answer to why there is an impossible dichotomy of mass, within the same equation. When energy is taken from matter, the mass is both inertial and gravitational, but when energy is given back to matter, the mistaken notional increase in mass can be inertial only.

I suggest that Einstein was led by the nose as he puts it but he was not alone in this, he has been accompanied by most cosmologists ever since.

It must be remembered that special relativity required the speed of all light to be 300,000 kilometres a second. This misconception, prompted Einstein to consider all forms of energy to be associated with inertial mass but as we have seen this is just an illusion. All our avenues of enquiry indicate that mass is a constant and only time alters. We have to make the change from the notion that all energy is associated with mass, to the simple truth that all energy is associated with the dilation, that is to say, stretching, of time. It is the stretching or shrinking of time that alters the speed of light by increasing or decreasing its frequency, (why the frequency goes up and not down in stretched time as one might otherwise expect, is explained in the Tempo field theory), (see Part 4). The effect of the frequency of light increasing in a person's stretched time, is to increase pro-rata the speed of light for him, making it impossible for him to outrun light, but enabling him to travel at any speed without limit. The reason that this had not been picked up on by Einstein and his contemporaries, is that their reasoning relies on the work of James Clerk Maxwell which was dated 1864, long before the stretching of time was thought of. Scientists were therefore obliged to establish an apparent connection as between energy and inertial mass, in particular for those processes involving the emission of electromagnetic radiation, by systems, such as the Sun or a star.

If we explain this in graphic terms, we can readily see why it needs to be set aside. For example, if a pilot of a fast moving spaceship was approaching a star like our Sun, he would be entitled under special relativity to consider himself to be stationary and the star to be rushing towards him. Special relativity goes on to argue that, because of the star's increase in speed, its kinetic energy goes up, causing its mass and time dilation to increase. By virtue of this increase in mass and time, the rate at which mass-energy is given off, in the form of light, is also required to increase. So special relativity holds that the mass of the star and therefore the rate of emission of its energy, are relative to the time dilation of an observer. This straight jacketing effect of mass being associated with the rate of emission of light, (see Einstein's letter to Habicht above), is a consequence of special relativity requiring the speed of light to be a constant. Despite the fact that this association is a complete impossibility it has been fundamental to the thinking behind E=mc² for the past hundred years.

I submit that in addition to the reasoning given above, it can be shown to be impossible because it does not allow all observers throughout the universe, to experience events on the star, at the same instant. This can be illustrated by an effective if somewhat extreme example. Let the star be destined to blow up when it has lost all its mass. All observers, being equidistant from it, would be simultaneously and instantaneously killed. Special relativity would require them to be killed at different intervals, depending on their time dilations. Such an outcome is clearly a nonsense. The reason being that special relativity inadvertently creates for all observers, a constant as between the star's mass and its rate of energy loss. In other words, the more massive the star is for an observer, the greater the outflow of energy must be, (a problem not encountered in the Tempo field theory, where mass is a constant). This means that if the energy out flow of a star was such as to reduce the star's mass to zero in a given period, say a year, then every observer in the universe would see the star disappear in one year. Perversely this result would be regardless of their respective time dilations. Such a constant is therefore, insupportable.

Staying with the exploding star for clarification. Let a fast moving observer's time be stretched to twice that of his slower neighbour. With this implausible constant in place, they would both, in their differently stretched out years, experience the star's demise after a year. The dilemma simply is, if the star's mass-energy runs out in one year causing an explosion, which year end would the star choose to blow up on, the stretched one or the short one? To the star and the rest of the universe, they are two separate and irreconcilable periods.

In an orderly universe you plainly cannot have mass and thereby the action of gravity, depending on who is looking at the star, as required under the equation E=mc². If you did, every passing fast moving sub-atomic particle, might become gravitationally massive enough to cause the collapse of entire galaxies. The slowing of clocks independent of any increase in mass as described in the Tempo field theory, saves us from annihilation or more accurately from the undoing of physics. We are saved from high-speed objects wreaking havoc wherever they go, precisely because they merely dilate their time. The stretching of time increases the speed of light for them and makes their clocks run slow but does not increase the strength of their gravitational field.

A further example comes readily to hand, showing why change is overdue. As we know, special relativity has the speed of light a constant despite an observer's time becoming stretched. In order to achieve this, the theory is obliged to compensate by making mass and gravitational effect vary. Accordingly, special relativity would have us believe, that if a fast moving astronaut with stretched time, sees the Sun's mass doubled, he would also see the Earth rushing twice as fast around it, - once every six months. This was thought to keep things in perfect equilibrium. Despite the Sun's apparent increase in mass and strengthened gravitational field, the extra speed would maintain the Earth in its orbit and prevent it from being drawn into the Sun. This however, is revealed as a misconception, when one remembers that the mass of the Earth would also double. The arithmetical result would be that the gravitational attraction would go up fourfold but the opposite centrifugal force on the Earth would go up eightfold. The mathematics were wrong but even when corrected for the result would be equally catastrophic. Instead of being pulled into the Sun, the eightfold increase in the centrifugal force would throw the Earth off into outer space. On the other hand, in the Tempo field theory, things are perfectly balanced. In that theory, there is no increase in mass, only a fourfold increase in the Earth's centrifugal force due to its greater orbital speed. The centrifugal force is countered by an equal quantum gravitational effect, which is passive and does not have a field value, (for more information on quantum gravity see Time -The Hidden Dimensions of The Missing Physics and the Paper on quantum Gravity). All in all, it is to be hoped that when the Large Hadron Collider is switched on at CERN in 2008, scientists will approach their findings, with a more questioning attitude and adopt the revised formula E=mV². In any event, the Tempo field theory predicts that their search for the elusive Higgs Boson will be fruitless, as it is not required in the quantum gravity explanation provided by it.