Copyright Ó
1995,1998, 2000,2018 by Brian Fraser.
All Rights Reserved
(updated 6-29-00x+)
last modified 7-1--18
Negative Knowledge
Many years ago I was browsing in a
college book store, looking for three good books on quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is a heavily mathematical theory that deals with the
behavior of things that are very small, such as atoms. The theory
involves bizarre concepts like "matter waves," "quantum tunneling," and
"non-locality." Despite this, it has had many impressive successes, and
because my field of study was chemical engineering, I felt a background
in quantum mechanics could be useful. But good books on the subject
were very hard to find.
As I was reading the preface of one
of the books I had found, I noticed it said something like this: "After
you study the entire book, do all the exercises, and get an ‘A’ in the
course, you will then thoroughly understand why quantum mechanics is
completely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
At that time I was a naive student attending college with
the equally naive intent of getting an education, not just getting a
degree. I was astonished that a science author would say such a thing,
and reread it in disbelief. To say that we do not understand the
universe is one thing. But to say that it is certifiably
incomprehensible in its intrinsic nature is quite another matter. This
made the universe seem downright unfriendly. It was also a betrayal of
the idea of education. I wanted to understand the
universe, not be "educated" in why it was incomprehensible! Was the
author saying that after I took the class and did all that hard work, I
would know less? This seemed to be a kind of
"negative knowledge"—the more I learned, the less I would know. By the
time I graduated, I would be an idiot! J
(Not long after that I dropped out of college.)
As the years went by I encountered more of this negative
knowledge, but with a difference. I was not in college anymore. I was
getting my education and I was in control of it. I
got a feeling of liberation every time I managed to cast off one of
these intellectual power drains. You have seen many such examples in
the pages of this booklet. I would like to share one more with you. It
is about how stars produce energy.
Stellar Power Production
The astronomy textbooks say that stars like our sun produce
energy by a special set of nuclear reactions called "hydrogen burning."
In the notation of science, it looks like this:
1H1 + 1H1 ®
1H2
+ e+ + n
+ energy
1H2 + 1H1 ®
2He3 + g
+ energy
2He3 + 2He3 ®
2He4 + 1H1 + 1H1 + energy
Some explanation of the notation will be helpful. The subscripts
denote atomic number and the superscripts
denote atomic mass. The Greek letters, g
(gamma) and n (nu) are
the symbols for gamma rays and neutrinos, respectively. The e+ stands for the positron.
H1
is the common "protium" isotope of hydrogen. This type of hydrogen is
extremely abundant in the universe and in the sun. H2 is the much less
abundant "deuterium" isotope that is used in the hydrogen bomb. He4 is common helium, and He3 is a very rare isotope
of helium. These equations state that energy can be produced by the
"fusion" of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms (this is not, however, the
particular type of reaction that takes place in the hydrogen bomb).
This scheme was proposed in 1939 and has become widely
accepted for more than half a century. Few scientists would suspect
that it is totally wrong. Nor would most scientists suspect that this
"knowledge" actually decreases our understanding of
the universe. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paper.
Stars do not generate their power by the
conversion of hydrogen into helium.
As explained above, stars such as our sun are thought to
generate their power by converting hydrogen into helium. There are some
blatant problems with this "fact" however:
1. There is no hydrogen in the core of the sun.
The commonly accepted belief is that the sun generates most of its
power by fusing hydrogen into helium in its hot central core. The sun
does contain enormous amounts of hydrogen and helium but there is no
reason to believe that these elements exist in the central core of the
sun. Spectroscopic studies show that there are at least 67 atomic
elements in the sun. This represents a range of atomic mass from 1
(hydrogen) to 238 (uranium). The sun is so hot that all the
chemical/molecular compounds and atomic aggregates break up into single
atoms and exist in the form of gas. Atoms with the highest atomic mass
numbers will therefore gravitate towards the center of the sun. This
will displace lighter elements like hydrogen and helium outward towards
the surface. The central core of the sun will therefore contain
elements that are heavier—indeed much heavier—than
hydrogen and helium (helium itself is four times as massive as
mono-atomic hydrogen)
Critics will point out that hydrogen is 1,000 to 10,000
times more abundant than heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, silicon, sulfur, neon, and iron. In fact all elements beyond
the iron-cobalt-nickel group are very scarce, so only the first 28
elements in the Periodic Table of chemical elements would seem to have
a significant bearing on the structure of the sun. According to the
critics, these elements would just be contaminants in an ocean of
hydrogen and would not be enough to exclude hydrogen from the intensely
hot central region of the sun.
However, the elemental composition of the sun is derived
from spectroscopic studies of its atmosphere. This
does not tell us much about the composition of the interior:
"Spectral lines reveal much about the chemical composition
of the Sun’s outer layers, but they do not hint at the internal
chemical composition of the Sun, which is quite different from the
outer layers." (Understanding the Universe, Philip
Flower, 1990, p.426)
Suppose a truckload of cork balls were to be mixed with the
water in a swimming pool. The corks would eventually come to the
surface where they can be seen. This may leave the impression that the
pool is filled with them, but in fact they are only in the upper couple
of feet. Hydrogen is the lightest of all elements. It will come to the
surface region of the sun just like the corks in the swimming pool.
The central region of the sun is also the region of highest
temperature. The outer layers of the sun may be 5,000-10,000 Kelvins
but the central interior, 15 million Kelvins. Massive atoms like iron,
therefore, not only gravitate to the center, they also get heated up
the hottest. And the hotter the gas, the more volume it takes up. The
iron would be 1000 times hotter than the hydrogen and atom for atom
would take up 1000 times the volume of hydrogen at the cooler
temperatures. This is also true of the other elements heavier than
hydrogen. The fact that these elements are much more massive than
hydrogen, and the fact that they gravitate to the hottest region and
require more "elbow room," both conspire to push the hydrogen to the
cooler outer regions.
In the sun, power is apparently produced in bursts rather
than continuously. The bursts occur in eleven year cycles. This
behavior itself appears to be incompatible with the "hydrogen burning"
hypothesis, which would seem to favor continuous burning.
"Abundances of Trans-Iron Elements in Solar Energetic
Particle Events", Donald V. Reames, Aug, 2000, Astrophysical
Journal, 540:L111–L114, 2000 September 10, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/312886/pdf, http://epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov/don/00HiZ.pdf
Caption: "Illustration of the pre-supernova star in
Cassiopeia A. It’s thought that its layers were “turned inside out”
just before it detonated. (NASA/CXC/M.Weiss)"
The theory used to be that a blue super giant turns
into a red supergiants (somehow) just before the star blows up. Now
the theory is that the star turns inside out (putting the hydrogen on
the surface, where common sense says it is supposed to be,
and the iron at the core, where it is supposed to be) just before it
blows up!
The article states:
One of the most valuable achievements of the recent
NuSTAR findings is having a new set of observed constraints to place on
future models of core-collapse supernovas… which will help provide
answers — and likely new questions — about how stars explode, even
hundreds or thousands of years after they do.
Mass-fractionation enriches light elements and the
lighter isotopes of each element at the solar
surface, making a photosphere that is 91% H and 9% He. However, the
solar interior consists
mostly of seven, even-numbered elements of high nuclear stability - Fe,
O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca.
These elements were made in the deep interior of the supernova that
gave birth to the solar
system 5 billion years ago. They comprise 99% of ordinary
meteorites.
When this empirical power law, defined by
enrichments of light isotopes in the solar wind, was
applied to solar atmospheric abundance, the most abundant elements in
the Sun were found to
be iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), sulfur (S),
magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca)
[p. 283]. These elements all have even atomic numbers, they are made in
the interior of
supernovae, and they are the same seven elements Harkins found
in 1917 to comprise 99% of
ordinary meteorites.
One of the best (and cheapest) "constraints to place on future models"
is plain old common sense
!
"Fools are put in
many high positions"
Ecclesiastes 10:6
2. The conversion of hydrogen into helium requires
very improbable atomic transformations:
"It happens that the proton-proton chain, very important in
the sun, begins with a most improbable event: the collision of two
protons resulting in the formation of . . . the heavy isotope of
hydrogen called deuterium. Usually the formation of
a compound nucleus of two protons simply breaks up into two protons
again, rather than ejecting a positron and turning into a deuteron, and
very many compound nuclei must form to produce appreciable amounts of
deuterium. But even at the high temperatures of stellar interiors . . .
it is extremely hard for two positively charged nuclei to come together
to undergo any kind of reaction. . . . One might not expect nuclear
reactions to occur at all in stars." (Exploration of the
Universe, George Ogden Abell, D. Morrison, S.C. Wolff, 5th
edition, 1987, p. 520.)
Reread that a few times. Do nuclear reactions of "any kind"
that produce "appreciable amounts" of the right kind of atoms sound
very likely at stellar temperatures? How would stars that are even
cooler than the sun power themselves? (I respect this textbook,
incidentally, as one of the more honest ones in the field of astronomy)
The overall equation here is that of a very stable isotope
of hydrogen converting itself into a very stable isotope of helium by a
very improbable route. Nature simply does not work this way.
Even if the deuterium could be produced by quantum
tunneling, it must combine with ordinary hydrogen to produce helium-3.
Natural helium has a composition of 99.99986% He4
and 0.00014% He3.
If the reaction went this way, there should be much more He3 around.
Furthermore, two atoms of rare He3
would have to find each other in the vast volumes of hydrogen and He4 and combine
to produce one atom of He4
and two atoms of ordinary hydrogen. I think it is clear that the only
thing that can drive an equation like this is the need physicists feel
to offer some kind of explanation for the origin of stellar power!
3. Stars can produce enormous bursts of energy extremely
rapidly.
An entire star—which may be a couple million miles in
diameter—can blow itself to pieces in a stupendous explosion called a
"supernova."
"Briefly outshining its home galaxy, the explosion, known
as a type 1a supernova, unleashes the equivalent of 1028
megatons of TNT—enough energy to destroy an entire solar system."
(Science News, August 15, 2009, p. 22)
During a supernova explosion the
material ejected can move outward at initial speeds as high as 10,000
to 20,000 km/sec (at least a couple thousand times faster than a
detonation wave in a high explosive like TNT). This kind of energy
production cannot be based on improbable meetings of widely separated
rare isotopes which combine through improbable nuclear reactions.
Rather, there is quick energy here in abundance! The commonly accepted
power process and its relatives cannot account for it.
Source: NASA Chandra
capt_photo_1266481592692-1-0.jpg
(Apparently planets and asteroids form from big chunks of material blasted out by supernovae; meterorite chunks show evidence of slow cooling in a zero g environment. These are NOT conglomerations of dust!)
Another problem is that the explosion of a star is believed
to occur when the conventional fuel is all used up:
"It is our present understanding that the supernova
explosion happens at the end of the stellar evolution and therefore
most of the nuclear energy has been used up already. There must be
another energy source." (Introduction to Stellar Astrophysics,
Volume 1, Erika Böhm-Vitense, 1989 (Cambridge), p. 179)
This other energy source, known as "gravitational collapse,"
turns out to be another myth of modern stellar astrophysics (one which
I will not pursue in this paper). It is enough to realize that a power
source that can blow up a star can also power it in the steady state
for a long time.
It is worth noting that the production of steady state power
is itself a problem. Blue supergiants—stars that have 50 to 100 times
the mass of the sun—shine with luminosities a million times greater
than the sun. The commonly accepted power processes cannot account for
the power output of blue super giants like Rigel (the brightest star in
the constellation Orion).
Related: "Odd star explodes again and again Years-long supernova may be iPTF14hls' third outburst" , Lisa Grossman, Science News December 9, 2017, p.8 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTF14hls
4. The neutrino flux from the sun is much less than
expected.
According to the Standard Solar Model there are several
neutrino producing nuclear reactions in the sun. The neutrino flux at
the earth's surface should be about 66 billion/cm2/sec.
A very small proportion of these should be detectable. The standard
theories predict that a chlorine 37 type of detector should see a flux
of 7.9 ± 2.6 Solar
Neutrino Units (SNU), but the actual results have been about 2.1 ± 0.3 SNU. Overall, experiments
of differing experimental design and more than 25 years of observation
and refinements have detected less than one-third to
one half the expected number of neutrinos. This has left astronomers in
quite a quandary:
"Any modifications of the solar
model . . . would have profound implications for astronomy. The only
direct signal of the stellar nuclear reactions predicted by the
standard model is the neutrino flux from the sun. The problem is, the
prediction seems to be wrong." (Scientific American, May 1990, p.56;
see also Sky & Telescope, "Closing in on the Solar-Neutrino
Problem", Daniel Fischer, October, 1992, p. 378)
I’ll have more to say about neutrinos later in this paper.
5. A
supernova explosion reveals the interior composition to be high in
elements heavier than hydrogen.
During a supernova explosion, the "outrushing gas has a
higher abundance of such . . . elements as silicon, sulfur, argon, and
calcium than does the sun. In Type I, but not in Type II, supernovae,
the abundances of nickel, iron, and cobalt are also abnormally high".
(Abell, op. cit., p. 567)
I suspect two things here. One is that the elemental
composition of the sun, instead of being almost entirely hydrogen, is
proportionally more like that of all the planets combined, with an
extra abundance of hydrogen and helium, especially in the outer
observable regions. Another is that when stars blow up, their
composition is mainly that of all elements from hydrogen to the
iron-cobalt-nickel group and relatively little else (in terms of
percentages).
The idea that stellar power is not
generated by any of the commonly accepted reaction chains has another
consequence, namely that our beliefs about stellar ages will be wrong.
Stellar ages are inferred from our beliefs that stars derive
their power from converting hydrogen into helium. If our beliefs about
this process are erroneous, then stellar ages will have to be revised.
Generally this will mean that what are currently believed to be old
stars are actually young, and that the young stars are actually old.
Because of the implications of this, our views on the evolution of the
universe must also change drastically.
Principles outlined in a previous article, Advanced
Stellar Propulsion Systems, give us reason to believe that
the age of a stellar system will correlate directly with the total mass
of that system. A binary star system would be older than a single star.
A globular cluster (currently viewed as "very old") would be regarded
as much younger than a spiral arm galaxy. The oldest star systems would
be the giant spheroidal galaxies like the one in M87.
Mainstream scientists are now beginning to realize that
stars may be older than galaxies. (Science
News April 15, 1995, Vol 147, No. 15, p. 230 "Keck finding: Did stars
predate galaxies?") They are also perplexed by evidence
that the universe appears to be younger than the
oldest stars in the universe. Again, these problems originate largely
because of misunderstandings about the true mechanism of stellar power,
as well as their belief in the "Big Bang" origin of the universe. (Science News 10/8, 10/22, 10/29 (1994) V146, Nos.
15,17,18, pp. 232-234, 265, 278; 9/9/95 V148. No. 11, p. 166).
"Dr. Tesla disclosed that he
has lately perfected instruments which flatly disprove the present
theory of the high physicists that the sun is destined to burn itself
out until it is a cold cinder floating in space. Dr. Tesla stated that
he is able to show that all the suns in the universe are constantly
growing in mass and heat, so that the ultimate fate of each is
explosion." http://www.electricitybook.com/tesla-death-ray/
An Alternative Theory of Stellar Power
Stars obviously generate power. But how do they do it? Here
is what the facts suggest to me:
1. Heavy elements gravitate to the center of a star.
2. The center is the hottest part of the star.
3. Heavy elements are probably less stable thermally than
lighter elements.
4. If atomic power could be generated by simple, direct,
purely thermal degradation of heavy elements, this would account for
the extremely quick and energetic burst of power seen in supernova. It
would also be a process abundant in steady state power because there
are a lot of elements between iron (element number 26) and the end of
the Periodic Table (position number 118). Heavy elements are actually
rather scarce, but this is consistent with the idea that such elements
are burned up in the stars. And such a thermal process would not
directly produce neutrinos.
The picture that develops here is that heavy elements must
be produced in the vast volumes of interstellar space and that the
production process is low in kinetic energy. These elements are then
gradually pulled into a star by gravitation. The thermal energy of the
star causes them to decrease in atomic number and release a great deal
of energy in the form of gamma rays. (I call this process "thermal
reversion.") The heavy elements lose mass and are swept downwards in
the Periodic Table towards the iron-cobalt-nickel group. These three
elements are especially stable, very abundant, and concentrate in the
center of the star in very large quantities. If the thermal energy of
the star ever gets great enough to revert this group—as it would in
massive blue supergiants—the star will quickly generate far more power
than its structure can handle and the entire star will instantly
explode. It will be no surprise that supernovae spectra show abnormally
high abundances of "nickel, iron, and cobalt" just as mentioned above.
The idea that heavy elements are produced
in interstellar space will not receive an enthusiastic welcome by
astronomers. But it would explain a couple of perplexing problems.
First, there are "peculiar A stars" that show unusually strong spectral
lines of yttrium, silicon, strontium, chromium, europium, and other
"rare earth" metals:
"Spectrum analysis indicates abundances which are increased
by factors of up to 1000 for the rare earth elements. Astronomers found
it hard to believe that the rare earth elements, especially, should be
enhanced by such large factors in these stars. . . . There is also the
peculiar observation that the enhancement of line strengths depends on
the effective temperature of the stars. For the hotter stars, we see
strong Si lines; the cooler stars have strong Eu, Sr, and Cr lines"
(Böhm-Vitense, op. cit., pp. 128, 135)
The main problem here is that, according to current theory,
high abundances of heavy elements are not expected
to be found in the atmospheres of cool stars. The
existence of barium-rich and mercury-rich stars present similar
difficulties. These problems disappear however, if these heavy elements
are produced in interstellar space and are actually on their way in
to the star instead of being boiled up from the stellar interior. (See
also Przybylski's Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski's_star
; Afterthought: this star might not be a good example of
this hypothesis; this star pulsates in a way suggestive of
gravitational adjustments; it could be an "inverse star" (my own term)
where heavy elements gravitate towards the surface
instead of the center. Such a star will eventually normalize.)
This unexpected distribution also seems to show up in the
Sun's corona:
2.1 Three fold
overabundance of detected metals
One fact of particular interest to
us here is that most detected metals, particularly sodium, magnesium,
aluminum, iron and nickel, seem to be about 3 times more abundant in
the corona
and solar winds than in the photosphere ([1], p. 31,
Table 1.2)! Current instrument sensitivity prevents being as
affirmative for the other elements, so we do not have much data on
their relative abundance status with respect to the photosphere. ( "The
Corona Effect", Andre
Michaud, http://wbabin.net/ntham/michaud6.pdf
)
Second, the element technetium has been detected in S, M,
and N type stars. In so far as we can determine, technetium does not
occur naturally on earth. It is produced here artificially in atomic
reactors and cyclotrons, hence its name. It is radioactive and has a
half-life of "only" about 4.2 million years. If it is produced in the
supposed "nuclear furnace" in the interior of a star, this half-life is
too short for it to reach the star’s atmosphere where it can be seen in
stellar spectra. So what produces this unstable element?
Again, the explanation is that whatever process produces the
other heavy elements can produce this one just as well. Production is
not the problem; it is the instability of the technetium atom. The
implication is that the technetium in interstellar space must be more
stable than the technetium near the star. Yet radioactive half-lives
are remarkably constant and are not affected by changes in temperature,
pressure, electric fields, gravity, etc. Why would technetium, or even
the transuranium elements, be any more stable in interstellar space
than here on earth?
Some insights
about atomic stability can be gleaned from the Periodic Table of
chemical elements. (The Periodic Table is that big chart of chemical
symbols that is customarily displayed in chemistry and physics
classrooms.) The periodicity in this table implies that there should be
118 elements. But elements 93 to 118 (the transuranium elements) are
all unstable and do not occur naturally in the terrestrial environment.
They decay radioactively primarily by mass ejection (alpha particle
emission and spontaneous fission), implying that they are too massive
for local stability. Note that the mass limit implied by the Periodic
table is 2 x 118 or 236. It is thus no coincidence that all atoms that
have a mass near or above 236 are radioactive and decay into elements
that have less mass.
But if the Periodic table has a mass limit of 2 x 118, then
element number 92 (uranium) "should" have a mass of 2 x 92 or 184. The
mass of its most common isotope is actually 238. What accounts for this
"excess mass" of 54 atomic mass units? Also, elements in the middle of
the Periodic Table have excess mass. Are they also unstable?
Atomic stability is related to both mass and atomic number.
When an atom has too much overall mass (mass above 236), it undergoes
alpha (a ) decay. Alpha
emission causes an atom to decrease by four units of atomic mass and to
decrease by two in atomic number. For example, uranium decays into
thorium by alpha emission: 92U235 ®
90Th231 ( the subscripts denote atomic number and the
superscripts denote atomic mass).
When an atom has too little or too much mass in relation to
atomic number, it will undergo one of two types of beta (b ) decay. This type of
radioactive decay has no effect on mass but causes the atomic number to
increase or decrease. Iodine (element 53), for example, has isotopic
masses ranging from 110 to 140. The natural isotope is 127 which is
about midway (125) in this range. The lower mass
isotopes decay by b + (positron emission) thereby causing
a decrease in atomic number (53I110
® 52Te110). The higher
mass isotopes decay by b
- (electron emission)
thereby causing an increase in atomic number (53I140
® 54Xe140). The so-called
"daughter" isotopes may themselves be unstable and the process may
repeat several more times (a so-called "decay chain").
Each type of atom thus has a zone of stability for the
relationship between atomic mass and atomic number. Radioactive decay
attempts to move the atom to some combination that is more nearly in
the middle of this zone. For technetium (and promethium) this zone is
very narrow, but technetium should have at least one inherently stable
isotope. However, the center of the zone of stability is not simply
twice the atomic number. Iodine, for instance, "should" have a mass of
2 x 53 (106) and this should be the center of its zone of stability.
But as explained above, the most stable isotope has a mass of 127.
Something has caused the mass of this atom to increase, and something
has also displaced the center of the stability zone upwards. The same
is true for most other atoms in the Periodic Table.
My beliefs about what causes this are strongly influenced by
my studies in "scriptural physics." Consider what the Bible has to say
about the literal physical heavens:
From Heb 1:10-12, (NKJV):
You,
LORD, in the beginning
laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the
work of Your hands.
They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.
From Ps 102:25-26 (NIV):
Your years go on through all
generations.
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.
But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
From Isaiah 51:6, (NKJV):
Lift up your eyes to the
heavens,
And look on the earth beneath.
For the heavens will vanish away like smoke,
The earth will grow old like a garment,
And those who dwell in it will die in like manner;
But My salvation will be forever,
And My righteousness will not be abolished."
If someone asked me "How are
heaven and earth like a garment?", I would never have guessed that they
are alike in that they both grow old and wear out! What a comparison! I
have no doubt that the followers of Jesus were just as dumbfounded by
his strange talk that "Heaven and earth shall perish".
(Mat 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17, 21:33)
These scriptures refer to the ordinary created heavens, the
work of God’s hands. They are contrasting the idea of God’s utter
permanence and unchangability with the impermanence of his own physical
creation, the heavens and the earth. Things which are very long lived
from our standpoint, are in fact impermanent and transitory from God’s
standpoint. The language here is that of created things becoming old,
being changed, wearing out, passing on, passing through, completing
their turn, being altered, being dispersed (not necessarily being
destroyed outright). Age and "wear and tear" are thus built-in, major
features of this physical universe. (See also Job 13:28, Isaiah 34:4)
How would we recognize the existence of old, worn out
matter? The oldest matter should be in the same location as the oldest
stars. As mentioned above, the age of a stellar system will correlate
directly with the total mass of that system. Therefore the oldest stars
will be found in large, tightly wound spiral galaxies or in the
supermassive giant spheroidal galaxies. Further, the oldest regions of
these galaxies will be their central cores. These galactic cores should
therefore be undergoing processes that are capable of dispersing matter
into space much like Isaiah’s firewood was dispersed "like smoke" blown
away by the wind.
Such "active galaxies" are in fact well-known to
astronomers. M87 and Centaurus A (NGC 5128) are dramatic examples. The
Seyfert galaxies and N-galaxies are probably close relatives.
(Astronomers do not attribute this energetic activity to age, however.
They instead attribute it to "blackholes"—another myth of modern
stellar astrophysics.)
Asserting that old matter is ‘somewhere in a galaxy’ does
not locate it very specifically. Is it in stars? Interstellar gas
clouds? Planets? The references in the Bible refer to both the heavens
and the earth. The Milky Way galaxy in which our earth resides is one
of moderate size and therefore one of moderate age. Apparently some
examples of this old, worn out matter must be "on the earth"—in the
dirt that we stand on. An aging clock would have to be concealed in
something that can experience the passage of a great deal of time. Only
atoms have lifetimes anywhere near long enough, and are complex enough
to accommodate a clock. Isaiah’s "earth beneath" and ‘the heavens
above’ are constructed of atoms, and so the clock—the "wear and tear
recorder"—is probably in atoms. As already explained, it is evidently
related to the phenomenon of excess mass. The effect shows up most
clearly in the heavier two-thirds of the Periodic Table (elements
heavier than the iron-cobalt-nickel group). It does not appear to be a
random effect because the square of the atomic number divided by the
excess mass is approximately constant for a wide range of elements.
1-16-2012
Sidebar. This might be relevant information:
"For example, if accelerated
radioisotope decay occurred, then alpha-decaying radioisotopes would
yield older isochron "ages" than beta-decaying radioisotopes, which is
exactly the pattern in the Brahma amphibolites. . . . Because the
different radioisotopes are dating the same geologic event, to have
produced different "dates" has to mean that the parent radioisotopes
have decayed at different rates over the same time period. In other
words, the decay of the parent radioisotopes was accelerated by
different amounts, the decay of those yielding older "ages" (the
alpha-decayers) having been accelerated more. Obviously, if
radioisotope decay was accelerated, say during the Genesis Flood, then
the radioisotope decay "clocks" could never be relied upon to "date"
rocks as many millions of years old. To the contrary, the rocks could
still only be a few thousand years old." ("Radioisotope Dating of Grand
Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology" by
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. , http://www.icr.org/article/42/
)
Note the reference
to alpha decayers having been subjected to an accelerated radioactive
decay. This could happen if some process abruptly "induced" the total
mass of each of the then presumably existing elements 93 to 118 above
the 236 stability limit. These elements would decay by alpha emission
(mass ejection) and effectively disappear from the natural
environment. See also Adventures
in Energy Destruction .
If old, worn out, unstable atoms exist, then "young" stable
atoms must exist too. For the case at hand, this means there must be
such a thing as both young and old technetium atoms. The young
technetium atoms would be stable (non-radioactive) and this would allow
them to be produced in the vast volumes of interstellar and
intergalactic space and much later be pulled into a star under the
influence of gravitation. As they enter the star’s environment, they
emit their telltale spectral lines. The technetium problem is therefore
resolved by the concept of atomic age.
We will, of course, be interested in knowing what makes this
aging clock tick. Electric clocks have to be plugged into a power
source to record time. An hourglass requires a gravitational field to
operate. A sunbather requires ultraviolet rays to record time in the
form of a sunburn. In a similar vein, if atoms record age by an
increase in mass, then what causes the mass increase? What keeps the
wear and tear recorder ticking away for billions of years? (Imagine
designing something that had to run this long!)
One clear candidate is the all-pervasive flux of neutrinos.
The universe is full of neutrinos much like it is full of starlight.
Like atoms, neutrinos are also stable and presumably possess enormous
lifetimes. Further, they interact so extremely weakly with matter that
most of them will pass right through the earth (and even stars) as
though nothing were in their path. Additionally, the neutrino flux is
much higher near a star than in interstellar space. These
characteristics are exactly those required to drive a long-period
atomic aging mechanism. ("About 7 percent
fewer solar neutrinos hit detectors when Earth is furthest from the
sun, compared with when it's closest, says Arthur B. McDonald, director
of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Ontario." Science News, Vol 160,
No. 8, August 25, 2001, p. 115 http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/physics_bedrock_cracks.html
)
Unfortunately, we do not know much about neutrinos. They are
extremely hard to study even though they are very plentiful. They are
believed to be massless. The exact mechanism by which they would build
up excess atomic mass is unknown, but as implied by a previous article,
Advanced Stellar Propulsion Systems, the mass
increment must come from the space/time ratio that constitutes the
neutrino itself, or the space/time that constitutes its motion, or
both. These ratios are apparently not operative in the three
space/time dimensions required for something to be recognized as
gravitational mass. The mass increment of the neutrino would therefore
be only potential until it can be associated with, or trapped by an
atom. Also, the build up of excess mass and the build up of normal mass
probably result from two different physical processes.
If radioactive half-lives can be affected by the presence or
absence of neutrinos, then chronological ages, as currently determined
by radioactive dating methods, will all be questionable. (See also Brian Fraser's Adventures in Energy
Destruction for more insights about a process that can affect
radioactive decay rates.)
Update 11-27-08: Researchers believe they have seen
variations in the radioactive decay rates of silicon 32, chlorine 36,
manganese 54,radium
226, and possibly plutonium 238. The variations are typically a few
tenths of one percent and seem to correlate with the yearly variations
in Earth-Sun distance. The scattered quotes below are from "Half-Life
(more or less)", by Davide Castelvecchi, Science News, Nov 22, 2008, p.
20-23:
" . . . when researchers suggested
in August that the sun causes variations in the decay rates of isotopes
of silicon, chlorine, radium, and manganese, the physics community
reacted with curiosity, but mostly with skepticism."
"Both experiments had lasted
several years, and both had seen seasonal variations of a few tenths of
a percent in the decay rates of the respective isotopes."
"In those experiments, the decay
rate changes may have been related to Earth's orbit around the sun, the
Purdue teams says. In the Northern Hemisphere, Earth is closer to the
sun in the winter than in the summer. So the sun may have been
affecting the rate of decay, possibly through some physical mechanism
that had never before been observed."
"The closer to the sun, the denser
the shower of neutrinos."
"If the results are confirmed, and
nuclear decay is not immutable, perhaps physicists could find a way to
speed it up to help get rid of waste from nuclear power plants." (See
Adventures in Energy
Destruction for more on this topic)
"About
7 percent fewer solar neutrinos
hit detectors when Earth is furthest from the sun, compared with when
it's closest, says
Arthur B. McDonald, director of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in
Ontario." Science
News, Vol 160, No. 8, August 25, 2001, p. 115
See
"Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun
Distance", J. H. Jenkins, et al.
Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
Fix the Thinking, Not Just the Theory
One fallacy that I have repeatedly warned about in this
series of science articles is that of a key premise or "fact" being
wrong, and much "scientific knowledge" thereafter being derived from
this faulty premise or set of facts. Astronomer Halton Arp, in
defending his controversial views about quasars and redshifts,
encountered this same problem and offered this insight:
"Finally , in response to the authority problem presented by
many professional scientists who have an awesome amount of scientific
knowledge and competence, I can only say this: it may sometimes be that
not to know one thing that is wrong could be more important than
knowing a hundred things that are right." (Quasars, Redshifts
and Controversies, Halton Arp, 1987, p. 179)
The way in which modern science has handled these issues
reminds me of the story about the farmer and his high-jumping cow. "My
cow jumped over the moon," the farmer states matter-of-factly. But how
did the cow escape earth’s gravity? What did the cow breathe when it
was up there? Why didn’t it burn up on re-entry? "Those are just
theoretical problems," says the farmer. "We don’t understand those
theoretical details very much. The fact
is that the cow jumped over the moon. I am kind of embarrassed to prove
this to people, so I just admit that it is true!"
If we accept this—that cows can jump over the moon and return to earth
intact—then vast new possibilities and opportunities for the entire
human race open up before us. These possibilities will all seem
reasonable, provided we accept the key premise about this one
high jumping cow!
When we find that our conclusions are getting ever more
ridiculous and problematic, we especially need to reexamine our facts.
We need to find out which facts are really facts and which facts only
look like facts. And we can apply the principle, as many physicists
would, that "The kind of thinking that got us into this mess is not the
kind of thinking that can get us out of it." Indeed, if people were
good at separating fact from fiction, and in spotting the mental ruts
they get into, we would have a much different society, as well as much
different science.
"In
questions of science the
authority of a thousand is
not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
--Galileo
Another Route to Clean,
Safe, Abundant Atomic Power
The promise of atomic power has been with us for many
decades but historically it has proven to be more "pain" than promise.
But the realization that stars power themselves by thermal reversion of
heavy elements (elements with atomic weights higher than that of iron)
offers another possible route to producing clean and safe atomic power.
Thermal reversion should be clean and safe because it does
not generate neutrons and requires only ounce quantities of stable,
readily available fuel. In contrast, a conventional "nuclear reactor"
requires tons of hard-to-obtain, unstable elements such as uranium, and
produces tons of radioactive by-products with a wide range of
half-lives, and tons of obsolete, radioactive machinery.
A pilot sized, pulsed reactor operating on the reversion
principle would heat a microgram of a heavy element to 1013 Kelvins for
at least 10-16
seconds (fantastically hot for an extremely short time). The atoms that
undergo reversion would give up two atomic mass units, decrease one
unit in atomic number, and emit two gamma ray photons with a total
energy of about 1.8 GeV per atom. An unwanted side-effect of this
extremely energetic reaction would be the initiation of a radioactive
decay sequence. But the initial heavy element fuel could be chosen such
that the intermediate radioactive products would have short half-lives
and transform into a stable element through beta decay. (Decay
sequences that produce neutrons or alpha particles should be avoided by
the designer.) Two examples:
1. Lead 208 would revert to
thallium 206. This form of thallium has a half-life of 4.2 minutes and
will decay into lead 206 by b -
emission. Both lead 208 and 206 are very common, stable,
non-radioactive isotopes. (The lead you get at your local plumbing shop
is 52% lead 208, 24% lead 206, and 22% lead 207.)
2. Mercury 199 would revert directly to gold 197 without
producing intermediate radioisotopes. Gold 197 is the common gold used
in jewelry. Mercury 199 comprises 17% of the ordinary elemental mercury
found in thermometers.
In principle this type of reactor creates no radioactive
waste. In its perfected form, it could "obviate" J the radioactive waste
problem.
Economically creating a tiny environment that has the
radiative and kinetic properties of 1013
Kelvins would be quite an engineering challenge. But these energies are
within reach of desktop petawatt lasers. They are also within range of
modern 200-300 MeV heavy ion accelerators. The latter are not small
machines, but could be made 1000 times smaller, more efficient, and
cheaper by adapting superconducting RF quadrupole technologies to laser
frequencies. Another promising technology is laser driven wakefield
accelerators which could give accelerations as high as 1 TeV per meter. (R&D Magazine, April 1993, p. 54-58)
There are undoubtedly all sorts of ways of reaching these
energies. I do not have the time, resources, or background to begin to
sort them out. I can only purport to find the right
questions, and hope that others more qualified and better
equipped than I am will find the answers. In any case, the possibility
of producing atomic energy by thermal reversion of heavy elements can
certainly be investigated with equipment available to scientists today.
Those who are skeptical of such possibilities should keep in
mind that mainstream physicists have themselves contemplated generating
atomic power cheaply and safely through simple means. One area of
recent interest is the production of hydrogen fusion in a "single
bubble sonoluminescence chamber." These devices consist of a couple of
ultrasonic speakers and a container of water. There is evidence that
they can produce temperatures in a tiny bubble that could be as high as
several million Kelvin. This has favorable implications for inexpensive
atomic power:
"Conditions might be sufficient to combine atoms of the
hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, yielding helium nuclei and
energy. The reaction would also produce neutrons, which researchers
look for as a sign that fusion is occurring. . . . Using fusion as a
power source remains a major goal of modern physics. . . . Doing it in
the laboratory at a cost of only a couple of thousand dollars seems
almost beyond belief." (Science News, Vol. 147, No. 17, April 29, 1995,
"Inferno in a Bubble," pp. 266-267)
I believe that there are lots of good gifts tucked away in
the Periodic Table of chemical elements, and that these gifts are more
likely to be harvested by a thoughtful combination of inexpensive
technologies than by the inconceivably expensive government science
projects. Our conceptual understanding of atomic physics is still
rather primitive and I believe that accurate theoretical concepts will
produce huge and rapid advances in the field of atomic power. (my
current favorite is the Papp inert gas engine and its recent variants.
See: ../qm/issues.html#PappEngine
.)
Social Consequences
As you read and ponder this article you will probably come
to the following realizations:
"Scientifically proven fact" may not be as factual as
most of us think.
Beliefs that are "proven beyond question" are worth
reexamining periodically.
It is sometimes necessary to circumvent "the system" and
use the backdoors when the front doors don’t work.
The non-expert can make meaningful contributions in
almost any field of endeavor.
The efforts of one person can make
a big difference.
With sufficient effort and will, any individual can rise
above the predominate culture.
Knowing cannot substitute for doing. Action,
even in the face of overwhelming odds, is required.
Things are frequently "impossible" because we merely
think they are.
Examples, especially examples in people, can have a
powerful and lasting effect, for better or for worse.
I call these items "strategic principles," and this list is
a merely a sample.
This paper was originally intended to illustrate the concept
of "stealth values" and "value practice." The premise is that values
can be taught through a medium that seemingly has nothing to do with
values per se. The priniciples and values are not explicitly taught.
They are supposed to rub off on you as you read and contemplate this
paper on atomic power. You may not even realize the extent to which
this happens. Or that some of the principles and values you learn in
physics become part of your inner nature and affect how you relate to
your neighbors and marriage mate. If
you want to "teach values" find a vehicle that is "fun" for your target
audience. If people enjoy it, they will continue to participate. But
think out the values carefully.
One stealthy strategic principle keeps showing up in my
articles on physics. Have you gradually become aware of it? It is simplicity.
The idea that the atom is the nucleus instead of has
a nucleus can make atomic physics a lot simpler conceptually. (See An
Atom or a Nucleus?) Have you ever wondered why and
how gravity operates? The best scientific minds have tried
unsuccessfully to explain the origins of gravitation for hundreds of
years. But the answer is startlingly simple and liberating. (SeeAdvanced Stellar Propulsion
Systems) Simplicity is very useful in our
society and propagates very well. Eventually, I hope to present ideas
that will substantially simplify heavily mathematical and "conceptually
impossible" branches of physics like quantum mechanics. And
you can be sure I will have fun doing it!
I am convinced that there is a need for my efforts
and insights in this narrow field. George Gamow, a noted physicist,
contrasted the startling progress in physics during the first three
decades of this century with progress during the next three decades:
"We are still waiting for a breakthrough in the solid wall
of difficulties which prevent us from understanding the very existence
of elementary particles, their masses, charges, magnetic moments, and
interactions. There is hardly any doubt that when such a breakthrough
is achieved, it will involve concepts that will be as different from
those of today as today’s concepts are different from those of
classical physics. . . .
After the thirty fat years in the beginning of the present
century, we are now dragging through the lean and infertile years, and
looking for better luck in the years to come. . . . In spite of all the
efforts of the old-timers . . . theoretical physics has made very
little progress during the last three decades, as compared with the
three previous decades. . . . Let us hope that in a decade or two, or
at least, just before the beginning of the twenty first-century, the
present meager years of theoretical physics will come to an end in a
burst of entirely new revolutionary ideas similar to those which
heralded the beginning of the twentieth century." (Thirty
Years that Shook Physics, Dr. George Gamow, 1966, pp.
4-5,162-163; 155)
The ingredients for that revolution in physics are now at
hand. And lest our knowledge of physics outrun the ability of our
culture to handle it constructively, we need a revolution in social
thought to go with it!
Seeing
Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
(Halton Arp, 1998)
This is a new book by Dr. Halton
Arp, a maverick professional astronomer who has for decades been
pointing out glaring inconsistencies and problems with the
current theories of institutional astronomy and astrophysics. Arp
received his bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.
D. from the California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude.
He states one of the major aims of this book: ". . . one must
fundamentally change the structure of academic science. Communication
must be directly to fellow researchers and the public with no
possibility of censorship. This is the major aim of this book." (p. 245)
And true to his purpose, the
book is full data from astronomy that will turn the current paradigms
upside down. It also has a lot of quotables about Academia. Watch for
the theme of Negative Knowledge in the following excerpts (which are by
no means exhaustive):
"The current beliefs are the
crowning achievement of our research and learning institutions, and if
they are so completely wrong—and have been for so long in the face of
glaring evidence to the contrary—then we must consider whether there
has been an overwhelming breakdown in our academic system. If so, we
must find out what went wrong and whether it is possible to fix it."
(p. 2)
"Scientists, particularly at
the most prestigious institutions, regularly suppress and ridicule
findings which contradict their current theories and assumptions. . . .
astronomers now feel compelled to fit the observations to the theory
and not vice versa" (p. 12)
". . . it is a clear case of
falsifying data for personal advantage—a violation of the primary ethic
of science." (p. 15)
"As we will have occasion to
mention a number of times during this book, amateurs have a much better
grasp of the realities of astronomy because they really look
at pictures of galaxies and stars. Professionals start
out with a theory and only see those details which can be interpreted
in terms of that theory." (p. 23)
"The reason we have not had
any useful progress is that astronomers don't even look at their own
observations." (p. 282; see also 135, 239, 246)
"I thought it would be routine
to publish in the journal which was carrying most of the European X-ray
results of archival value. How wrong I was! The referee's report came
back accusing me of "manipulating the data" and trying to claim an
association of quasars with galaxies, which has "long ago been
disproved." The editor forwarded these comments and rejected the paper
on the ground that he saw no need to reopen the debate. The
extraordinary aspect was that four papers in addition to my own had
just appeared in the same journal giving strong additional evidence for
just such associations! The figures appear here [in Arp's book] for the
first time, and the tabular X-ray data is still unpublished." (p. 47)
"I gloomily came to the ironic
conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and
give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely
wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality."
(p. 131)
"Jubilation that the paper was
finally published has to be tempered with the cold experience that much
fewer than 1/3 of the referees in this field are objective." (p. 83 )
"Refereeing, or "peer review"
as it is rather pompously called, is now unworkable. It has
increasingly shown that it lets in the bad papers and excludes the good
ones, exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. . .
. Many reports read like an emotional session of
psychotherapy—manipulative, sly, insulting, arrogant and above all angry.
A sample of these should be published because it would allow people to
evaluate the objectivity of the information they are being allowed to
read. Their best use would be to enliven the ends of controversial
articles with short replies from the authors." (p. 270, 271; see also
47, 83, 19, 101, 244)
"Astrophysical
Journal Letters is the normal journal for publishing new
observations from the Hubble Space Telescope. The telescope cost
billions of dollars of public funds. The vast majority of page charges
which pay for the publication of the journal come from government
supported contracts. The overriding, first directive of the editor is
to communicate important new astronomical results. If the editorial
process violates its primary responsibility, it misuses public funds."
(p. 175)
"Everyone must make
up their own mind on the basis of the evidence and the experts should
not be allowed to control the presentation." (p. 274)
"The mission of academia
should be to explore—not to perpetuate myth and superstition." (p. 257
"Investigative journalism so
far as science is concerned is clearly dead in the water." (p. 260)
". . . it is well
justified today that people view institutional claims with skepticism
and even hostility. And it is important to always keep in mind who have
the vested interests and what they have to gain. (p. 261)
"When I was faced with a
directive to renounce observations of new phenomena, I chose early
retirement." (p. 275)
"If the data is hijacked at
the last moment by a group with a need to control beliefs, the whole
enterprise is a failure. (p. 275)
"One lesson from all of this,
which seems obvious, is that scientists have to be absolutely honest
and straightforward with the public, the people who are paying their
salary. Their primary moral obligation is to report the facts and make
available a range of interpretations. They have no paternalistic excuse
to guard the public from "misunderstandings" or "alarm." If they cannot
explain a matter so that a non-specialist can understand it, they don't
understand it themselves and they should not cover up this important
situation." (p. 266)
Please re-read the last couple of citations and then compare
them with this one that I found in the Perspectives section of the
Scottsdale Tribune:
"To assert that a supposed process whose very origins, and
whose fundamental mechanisms, remain the subject of intense speculation
by the brightest minds of science is an established, incontrovertible
fact—and to then dismiss the legitimate questions that assertion
raises—is not education. It is indoctrination."
It might come as a surprise, but
this is a quote from an article about human evolution, not
astronomy ("Evolution's
Holy Grail grows ever more elusive", by Gary Nelson, in the Scottsdale
Tribune, June 18, 2000, page F4).
Furthermore, I do not regard the issues raised by either of
these writers as unusual. As history has shown repeatedly,
this is simply the way institutionalized science works. As Arp
reflects, "Astronomy is not so much a science as a series of scandals."
(p. 64) The same is true about most any other kind of
institutionalized science. Overall, it offers a lot that is good, but
the good is freely mixed in with a lot of other "science"
that is worthless, misleading, and outright destructive to
our society. King Solomon described it succinctly: "Fools are put in
many high positions." (Ecclesiastes 10:6, NIV)
It is our own tax dollars that
support the suppression of data and the breakdown of the
scientific process. This case hits close to home with me
because I live in Arizona, and Arizona is informally known as "the
astronomy capital of the world." So when I read the newspaper article
about evolution, I whipped off an email thanking the writer, and just
for good measure, pointed out that the same kind of problems occur in
astronomy. I (of course) pasted Arp's comments about Academia into the
email. I also expressed my view that the professional astronomy
community ought to be required to answer all of Arp's serious charges
or face cuts in public funding. People who are doing this kind of
damage to science should not be allowed to play with such expensive
toys, nor have a tax supported forum to infect the public with such
blatant rubbish!
If these charges ever see
newsprint, I am sure the high priests of the reigning
paradigm will respond with another blast of DOGMA,
all carefully worded to please and reassure the ignorant public, who
are expected to do the prescribed number of genuflections during their
apologetic retreat. But once alerted, the public is not so
easily fooled. And as Arp points out, experienced amateur astronomers
can see right through this kind of scam because they look at
the evidence. And I am sure there are professional
astronomers who, like Arp, will speak their minds about the suppressive
environment and the childish innuendos made by "professionals" on
refereed papers.
"Fools are put in many
high positions"
Ecclesiastes 10:6
"The wisdom of this world
is foolishness before God"
1 Corinthians 3:19
". . .and men loved the
darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not
come to the light,
lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices
the truth comes to the light,
that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought
in God."
John 3:19-21
__________
But to me, Seeing Red
is about much more than the troubles endemic to institutionalized
science. This book, and Arp's previous book (Quasars,
Redshifts, and Controversies, 1987) have helped me a great
deal in understanding the meaning of statements in the Bible about how
the heavens "wear out like a garment." This was discussed briefly in
the Advanced Atomic Energy Converters article (above) in connection
with active galaxies and neutrinos. Much more can be said about this
now and I hope to eventually write something on this most fascinating
topic.
Apart from Anonymity as
a New Principle in the decision on funding, there should be a percent
of all research funds which are reserved for out of the paradigm (i.e.,
really original) research proposals. . . . Fundamental research can
only be done if government funds are given. At present there is no
mechanism by which ideas which are regarded as impossible on the
(always temporary) theories of the day can be funded.13
HOW TO DECIDE THE
VALIDITY OF “ANOMALOUS FINDINGS?”
At
present the attitude towards paradigm-inconsistent findings is
automatically to reject them, with anger, insisting that they are due
to sloppy experiments or fraud. That is dangerous, for it may keep
alive a horse which should be led out to pasture. Science is a
changing, developing body. The key to progress is to find experimental
anomalies to the present view and investigate them . . . . How to prove
that anomalous findings are not indeed experimental trash? One has
immediately to fund two independent investigations to find out! To
obtain absolute independence one should keep the identity of the two
groups hidden from each other and perhaps one group should be in
another country (research costs in Russia (bloated with an excess of
scientists) are a small fraction of those here).
html
Prelim 6/00b
Suppression
of the Scientific Process
"Any contradiction between a particular scientific notion
and the facts of experience will be explained by other scientific
notions; there is a ready reserve of possible scientific hypotheses
available to explain any conceivable event. Secured by its circularity
and defended further by its epicyclical reserves, science may deny, or
at least cast aside as of no scientific interest, whole ranges of
experience which to the unscientific mind appear both massive and
vital. . . . Scientists were satisfied with speaking of the 'anomalies
of strong electrolytes', without doubting for a moment their behavior
was in fact governed by the law that they failed to obey. . . .
Contradictions to current scientific conceptions are often disposed of
by calling them 'anomalies'; this is the handiest assumption in the
epicyclical reserve of any theory." (Personal
Knowledge, Michael Polanyi, 1962, p. 293)
_____
‘Science
today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that
are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today,
you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down.’
(A quote from Sir Fred Hoyle in Horgan, J., 1995, Profile: Fred Hoyle.
Scientific American 272(3):24–25.)
_____
"But in current mainstream science, the
opposite occurs with disturbing regularity. Anomalous evidence is first
ignored, then ridiculed, and if that fails, its author attacked.
Scientific conferences will not admit it to be presented, scientific
journals will refuse to publish it, and fellow scientists know better
than to express solidarity with an unorthodox colleague. In today's
scientific world, the cards are just stacked too heavily against true
scientific breakthroughs. Too many careers are at stake, too many
vested interests are involved for any truly revolutionary advancement
in science to take place any more. All too often, scientific truth is
determined by the authority of experts and textbooks, not by logic and
reason." ("The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics", Rochus
Börner, Ph.D., (2004) http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_supr.htmhttp://inthesenewtimes.com/2010/10/05/the-suppression-of-inconvenient-facts-in-physics/
_____
“. . . medical, economic, and business-management
researchers themselves have studied the reliability of published
research and concluded that most of it is flawed, exaggerated, or just
plain wrong. No wonder: scientists and other top-shelf experts are
often highly biased, shockingly sloppy, and in a surprising number of
cases outright frauds—and I’m relying on formal studies of these
problems when I make these claims. Medical researchers, for example,
have noted that about two thirds of the findings published in top
medical journals end up being contradicted. . . . When economists
looked at a range of papers published in major economics journals a
while ago, they estimated that the wrongness rate of the findings was
essentially 100 percent. . . . Surveys of these fields reveal that
fraud, careerism, mismeasurement, suppression of data, lousy analysis,
politics, poor self-policing, and many other serious shortcomings are
fairly widespread even among the most respected researchers and
institutions.” (“The Case Against Experts Why advice from the
pros can leave us hanging.", David H. Freedman, June 24,
2010, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/24/the-case-against-experts.html
)
_____
"First, the facts show, I think
beyond question, that the traditional proud claim of Science that it
acknowledges the absolute authority of experience (i.e. observation and
experiment) and reason over all theories, hypotheses, prejudices,
expectations or probabilities, however apparently firmly established,
can no longer be upheld. The devotion to truth at all costs has
gradually given place — largely unconsciously, I believe, but still
undeniably — to the blind pursuit of the superficially plausible; the
direction towards the most seductive, in which advance has been
easiest, has been taken without regard to preservation of contact with
the base, which is the truth of experience and reason; the verdict of
those authorities falls on deaf ears . . . . mathematics has been
transformed from the servant of experience into its master, and instead
of enabling the full implications and potentialities of the facts of
experience to be realised and amplified, it has been held necessarily
to symbolise truths which are in fact) sheer impossibilities but are
presented to the layman as discoveries) which, though they appear to
him absurd, are nevertheless true because mathematical inventions,
which he cannot understand require them. The situation is precisely
equivalent to that in which the zoologist assured the astonished
spectator of the giraffe that if he understood anatomy he would know
that such a creature was impossible — except that, in physical science,
the layman usually believes what he is told and, unless he is
enlightened in time, will be the victim of the consequences. . . . It
is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed
superiority to Theology, for example — in the abandoning of dogma and
the granting of absolute freedom to criticism — the positions are now
reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity,
while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless
Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever). Unless
scientists can be awakened to the situation into which they have
lapsed, the future of science and civilisation is black indeed." (Science At the Crossroads
, Herbert Dingle (1972) p.4-5 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
)
_____
"This
book is dedicated to a large audience of researchers: scientists,
engineers, professors and students wise enough to keep a critical look
whenever confronted to the chilling dogmas of contemporary physics. . .
. After decades of work, the author is intimately convinced that we
have not even began to touch upon the surface of things, nor even began
to unveil the true secrets of Nature. To put it more plainly:
everything has to be started all over again. Indeed, a number of well
known physicists criticized certain aspects of contemporary physics.
The great majority of their criticisms has systematically been silenced
by some sort of censorship system empowered, if not
institutionalized, within the scientific community itself. This
statement may surprise those of the readers who still ignore how the
system of anonymous referees, as it is being used by scientific journal
and magazines, operates and negates every attempt to dismiss or
criticise today's mainstream physics and
models." ( Advanced
Electromagnetism and Vacuum Physics, Patrick Cornille (2003)
p. 1)
_____
"American and British history is riddled
with examples of valid research and inventions which have been
suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This
has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather
than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure
of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and
furthers consensus-seeking." ("Cognitive Processes
and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas" J. Sacherman (1997) http://amasci.com/supress1.html
)
_____
"For
several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual
market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of
understanding how the world works. Nowadays it’s a corporate enterprise
where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting
at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge
monopolies." ("Suppression of Science Within
Science", Henry Bauer http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
)
_____
"Science has seldom lived up to its
ideal as an open, disinterested enquiry into nature, as any scientist
who has ever tried to publish genuinely new ideas or findings in the
‘peer-reviewed’ scientific journals will know too well. Nobel Laureate
Hans Krebs’ discovery of the metabolic cycle that would eventually bear
his name was rejected from the journal Nature. . . .
In the course of liberating itself from
the Church, the scientific establishment has inherited many of the
trappings of fundamentalist religion. There can be but One True
Science, and everything else tends to be treated as nonsense or heresy.
Within the past 50 years, the suppression of dissent has plumbed new
depths, as the scientific establishment is increasingly getting into
bed with big business. At first, it was mostly physics and chemistry,
now it is pre-eminently biology. And as corporations are growing bigger
and more powerful, so the suppression of scientific dissent is becoming
more sophisticated, insidious and extensive. As the scientific and the
political mainstream have both come to identify with corporate aims, so
their established power structures are brought to bear on squashing
scientific dissent and engineering consensus."
("The New Thought Police – Suppressing Dissent in Science", Mae-Wan Ho,
Jonathan Mathews http://www.psrast.org/thoughtpolice.htm
)
_____
"The results of this suppression of
creativity are not limited to the world of grant-funded research. The
same leadership that fosters the status quo in research also affects
the classroom. A university education is supposed to teach students how
to think critically. However, that goal has been set aside in many of
our classrooms, being traded for the less ambitious goal of memorizing
facts. Curiously, when the rote memorization is emphasized, creative
students are often penalized. Multiple-choice exams are the standard
for testing a student’s ability to memorize facts, and creative
students are usually not adept at guessing what a test writer is
thinking. They are much better at solving problems, generating
hypotheses, designing protocols, and developing a deep understanding of
their discipline—all key aspects of good critical thinkers and
professionals in science. By rewarding those students who accept the
current facts as gospel, rather than skills that are likely to lead to
the creation of knew knowledge, universities are stifling the next
generation of scientists." ("Opinion: Academia Suppresses Creativity",
Fred Southwick (2012) http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32077/title/Opinion--Academia-Suppresses-Creativity/
)
_____
"When science’s self-correctiveness
fails, the cost is enormous because error compounds itself.
“Surprising” discoveries are noted, but scientists continue seeking
explanations within the frameworks of old models long after those
models should have been discarded. This not only leads theoretical
science into a deeper and deeper state of crisis, it comes at a
significant cost to the taxpayer and is ultimately a betrayal of the
public’s trust. Models that fail need to be dispelled of, all
of the assumptions from which they’ve arisen must be questioned, and
alternatives must be examined, considered and tested."
("Does Science Admit When it’s Wrong?", B.
Talbott (Nov. 2012) http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11/26/does-science-admit-when-its-wrong/
Why too much evidence can be a bad thing
"In a new paper to be published in The Proceedings of The Royal Society A,
a team of researchers, Lachlan J. Gunn, et al., from Australia and
France has further investigated this idea, which they call the "paradox
of unanimity." "If
many independent witnesses unanimously testify to the identity of a
suspect of a crime, we assume they cannot all be wrong," coauthor Derek
Abbott, a physicist and electronic engineer at The University of
Adelaide, Australia, told Phys.org. "Unanimity is often assumed to be
reliable. However, it turns out that the probability of a large number
of people all agreeing is small, so our confidence in unanimity is
ill-founded. This 'paradox of unanimity' shows that often we are far
less certain than we think." . . . The researchers demonstrated
the paradox in the case of a modern-day police line-up, in which
witnesses try to identify the suspect out of a line-up of several
people. The researchers showed that, as the group of unanimously
agreeing witnesses increases, the chance of them being correct
decreases until it is no better than a random guess." "Why too much evidence can be a bad thing" http://phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html
"
“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who
made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules.
. . .this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of
biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last
week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the
idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our
greatest human creations."
First, consider a few offhand rules
for population manegement and control used by governments:
1. Keep them fearful.
The government knows what is really going on. AND ITS REALLY BAD! Only
the government can protect you from the boogeymen. Don't listen to
those other guys. They are well-meaning but misinformed people. They
just don't know any better. Or maybe they are drunk, popping LSD,
smoking pot, etc.
2. Keep them
ignorant. Don't give them the information they need to
make informed decisions, or even hint that such information exists.
Tell them how to influence people by using emotion instead of facts,
reason, and logic. Don't address the issues. Point out who is right,
who is wrong, who is smart, who is stupid, who is wise, who is a
crackpot. After all, it is all about PEOPLE isn't it? Add plenty of
snarky wisecracks, insults and name-calling. Call it a "true science
forum".
3. Keep them
confused. Have the experts offer differing and
contradictory opinions. What is "incontrovertible truth" today (that
any REASONABLE person would accept) is "false" or "outdated" tomorrow.
4. Keep them
distracted. Give them "bread and circus" like the Romans
did. "News" is who won the football game or what moviestar is wearing a
different colored bra.
Now read about some unfamiliar,
emotionally loaded issue, preferably one that you may already have a
vague opinion about. I suggest:
Abstract:
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties,
unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes
cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of
oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related,
inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to
have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in
limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke
and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.
Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly
advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered
with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of
the present invention.
Assignee:The United States of America as
represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington,
DC)
"Hypothesis:
conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum
disorders", Med
Hypotheses. 2011 Dec;77(6):940-7. doi:
10.1016/j.mehy.2011.08.019. Epub 2011 Oct 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250
"Hepatitis
B
vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS1997-2002",
J
Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77.
doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
"Neurodevelopmental
disorders following thimerosal-containing childhood
immunizations: a
follow-up analysis." Int
J Toxicol. 2004 Nov-Dec;23(6):369-76. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15764492
"Administration
of thimerosal to infant rats increases overflow of glutamate
and aspartate
in the prefrontal cortex: protective role of dehydroepiandrosterone
sulfate." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015977
"In contrast,
vaccination led to a
40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of
mice. Though the mechanism behind this increased colonization was not
specifically elucidated, it is speculated to involve specific immune
responses skewed or dampened by the acellular vaccine, including
cytokine and antibody production during infection. Despite this vaccine
being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary
childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be
contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the
last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection. Highlighting the
extreme consideration that should be exercised in future vaccine
development, this work supports the use of vaccines that also target B.
parapertussis as a potentially more efficient way to battle whooping
cough. "
Straight-faced lies in congressional testimony by CDC official (Dr. Anne Schuchat) about vaccines and autism.Compare
the content of the above abstracts from accredited, peer
reviewed journals with the testimony shown in this video: http://youtu.be/k9XRbjOQDvY?t=72
Non-Mainstream
Views of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Beyond Einstein: non-local physics
by Brian Fraser (2015) Corrects some misconceptions
about
Special and General Relativity. SR and GR are specifically "local"
theories and cannot adequately treat "non-local" phenomena.
"The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 . . . actually did
not give the result required by relativity! It admittedly substantiated
its authors' claim that the relative motion of the earth and the
'ether' did not exceed a quarter of the earth's orbital velocity. But
the actually observed effect was not negligible; or has, at any rate,
not been proved negligible up to this day. The presence of a positive
effect . . . was pointed out . . . as
corresponding to an 'ether-drift' of eight to nine kilometres per
second. Moreover, an effect of the same magnitude was reproduced by D.
C. Miller and his collaborators in a long series of experiments
extending from 1902 to 1926, in which they repeated the
Michelson-Morley experiment with new, more accurate apparatus, many
thousands of times. . . . The experience of D. C. Miller demonstrates
quite plainly the hollowness of the assertion that science is simply
based on experiments which anybody can repeat at will."
[i.e.: the experiment was repeated but "science" simply ignored the
result -BF] (Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi,
1962, p. 12-13)
Andromeda
and our Milky Way may have been
ejected from M87
(this article has not been written and is not
scheduled)
"In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
unverified references and possible source material:
Sky and Telescope:
Arp,
Halton:
book
review, 55:64.
The Crucial Assumption about Redshifts, 75:42. letter,
70:100;
75:462;
Vol 85 No 2, p. 6;
Vol 87, No 3, p. 9.
On the Origin of Arms in Spiral Galaxies, 38:385.
Related Galaxies with Different Redshifts? 65:307.
Arp, Halton C., and David L. Block, The Myth of Overgrown Spirals,
81:373.
Arp, Halton C., Geoffrey Burbidge, and Adelaide Hewitt, letter, 90:2:9.
Cold Fusion,
Remediation of Radioactive Waste, etc
You might also want to read my comments about Cold Fusion.
