0.9k
1.1k
788
404
1kBy now most of our readers know that we are concerned about the direction science is taking.
Due to advancements in observational technologies, the scientific establishment has discovered inconsistencies with many of the presently accepted theoretical models. These inconsistencies may be due to omissions but as more and more are found one has to wonder about the validity of the assumptions they are based on.
For example, there does not appear to be a way of integrating the recently discovered force opposing gravity called Dark Energy into current theoretical models even though, since its discovery in 1998, some of the brightest minds in the scientific community have tried.
Does anyone else think we may be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?
There are several historical precedents that would appear to support this conclusion.
One of these can be found in the 15 hundreds when the scientific establishment believed the earth was the center of the entire universe. Using a theoretical model based on this assumption, they were able to accurately predict the position of the observable planets.
However, as observational technologies advanced and more planets were discovered, the equations required to predict their positions became more and more complex.
Even when Galileo directly observed the orbits of Jupiter’s moons were centered on Jupiter and not the earth, many in the scientific establishment did not accept it. They continued to ignore the direct observational evidence that it was not and derived more complex equations, which could accurately predict the position of the planets, including Jupiter’s moons based on the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe.
What is so troubling is that they were able to succeed for a quite a while even though they had direct observational proof that the theoretical basis for it was wrong. This resulted in delaying scientific progress and new theories because they reasoned, “Why should we explore new theories when the old ones still could explain most observations regarding the universe?â€
Does anyone else feel that something very similar may be occurring today?
There are observations, other than the one mentioned earlier regarding Dark Energy that also suggest that there might be a flaw in the foundation of modern theories.
For example, as was pointed out in the article “Dark Matter and the Pioneer anomalies” Nov.19, 2007 the anomalous accelerations NASA has observed in its deep space probes appear to be inconsistent with the fundamental structure of the currently accepted theoretical models. In the New scientist article, “Flybys may be key to Pioneer anomaly“ it was even suggested that these observations may possibly (be) pointing towards new physicsâ€.
However, many of today’s scientists are not willing to consider that possibility because, similar to fifteenth century scientists they point out the equations based on the present theoretical models can still make extremely accurate predictions of almost all the observable properties of the universe except, as was mentioned earlier the observations of Dark Energy and the anomalous accelerations of NASA’s space probes.
We have shown throughout this blog that one can theoretically predict the observations mentioned above, the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass and relativistic properties of space, time and in terms of existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time.
For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct, 4, 2007 showed that one can explain and predict the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of a resonant system or “structure” generated by a matter wave in a continuous non-quantized form of mass moving on a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Additionally, the article “Why Space-time?” Sept 27, 2007 showed that one can make predictions identical to those made by Both the General and Special theories of Relativity in terms of a curvature in a “surface of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension instead of curvature in four dimensional space-time manifold.
However, the article “Dark energy: the cosmological constant” Jan. 15 , 2009 showed one can also explain and predict the casualty of dark energy if one defines gravity as was done article “Gravity in four spatial dimensions” Dec 15, 2007 in terms of a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
As mentioned earlier the article “Dark Matter and the Pioneer anomalies†showed one could explain and predict the anomalous accelerations NASA has observed in its deep space probes in terms of the “drag” generated by the existence of the continuous non-quantized form of energy/mass that defined its quantum mechanical properties in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?.”
These articles show that one can logically and consistently interpret a broader range of observational data by assuming the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of energy/mass and four spatial dimension instead of four dimensional space time.
Could history be repeating itself?
In other words is it possible similar to fifteen-century physicists, modem physicists are ignoring the direct observational evidence contradicting their current paradigms and continue to derive more complex equations to make their square theories fit into a round environment.
Later Jeff
Copyright 2009 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
0.9k1.1k7884041k