Physics, Rogue Science?

About the site author

My name is Roger Brewis, and I live in the Forest of Dean, England. I have worked in a variety of areas, including as lecturer, head of maths, chief examiner and researcher. Since 1996, I have chosen to work part-time, alongside re-examining theoretical physics, which has fascinated me since college.
I have an aptitude for mathematics and physical science that has gained me degrees in diverse subjects and a number of awards, including a first class honours, student of the year at two colleges, and has allowed me to carry out original research at Keele University.
Recently, I served ten years on a regional committee of the Institute of Physics, also editing first one and then two of their regional newsletters. This gave me the opportunity to discuss extensively and improve the critique now before you. For the past fifteen years I have actively sought criticism of the analysis now presented, which has been considerably strengthened thereby. As in every human endeavour, there will likely be errors of detail, but what you read on this site is fundamentally sound.

Physics and mathematics

I have a deep passion for both mathematics and science. I love the elegance and clarity of mathematics, and love science best when I find those qualities in it. Biology has Darwin’s explanation of evolution, Mendel’s demonstration of genetics, and a molecular structure for inheritance that provides the fine detail. The Earth Sciences have plate tectonics. Each has a central core of understanding that binds together a vast range of observation and makes sense of it for ten-year-olds. Physics does not. I have tried to bring that clarity to physics on this site.
I am a puzzler, a problem solver, and also an iconoclast, and all of these aspects come together in my passion for theoretical physics. It has proved to be the most difficult puzzle I have ever tackled, full of detail and complexity, and riddled with error, both blatant and subtle, alongside deliberate misinformation. I am angry with physicists for letting down science so brazenly and comprehensively, but also delighted to have found this ultimate problem-solving challenge.
I started with a good understanding of the nature of both science and mathematics, and the modelling of one by the other, and have hung onto that despite the blandishments of modern physics that suggests that there is another, more metaphysical way, more appropriate to the mysterious fundamentals of existence. This is the antithesis of science – and I have rejected it at every stage. I have honed my earlier understanding from this experience: the comprehensive corruption of effective scientific method is itself instructive.
I came to physics without the standard physics background, and that appears to have been an advantage, as I missed out on years of indoctrination into the destructive dilution of both scientific principle and the methodology of mathematical modelling. If I have provided on this site a coherent analysis of an incoherent subject, then my background and abilities have been adequate to the task.

Alter ego

The analysis reported on this site amounts to a devastating critique of theoretical physics for the past century and currently. This is the central task and purpose of this site. The further analysis of physics has led inexorably, or so it appears, to a plausible alternative.
The deconstruction and detailed re-examination of theory appears to be a unique endeavour, though I am puzzled as to why it has not been attempted before. Because of the deserved disrepute attaching to alternative theorising on physics, I have kept the two endeavours separate as best I can, and have given over the more speculative part of this work, the presentation of an alternative theory, to an alter ego, Esau James.

Comments and contributions

Your comments and contributions are important to me, and important to advancing this debate.
They can be seen and submitted here.
I also welcome contact with dissidents and receptive physicists, so leave your email. It will not be published without your explicit agreement.
I will not censor or shy away from criticisms, indeed I welcome them, but, almost above all else, this site is dedicated to coherence of criticism, argument and debate, so I apologise in advance for my moderating. There are plenty of physics forums if required.
My views on contemporary developments in physics can be found on a sister site,

Return to top of page