Where Science Went Wrong

The only conclusion concerning measurable physical phenomena that Empirical Science and its precursor philosophy have gotten right since records of knowledge have been kept is that the Earth moves around the sun, and it is only in the last five hundred years that it has willingly accepted this conclusion.

Since that observation, delivered to the world on the deathbed of its proponent Copernicus who feared that its earlier delivery would be contemporary with his untimely death, Empirical Science has promulgated a series of misconceptions concerning measurable and nonmeasurable physical phenomena that, compounded one on top the other, has produced a picture of physical reality so absurd that it would be laughable were it not for the ignorance the picture casts over the human progress for which Empirical Science claims responsibility.

The number of misconceptions is legion, filling every field of knowledge. Where Science Went Wrong includes the major misconceptions surrounding concepts of force and motion. The misperceptions that led to the misconceptions, the pathways to delusion, are set out in detail.

Except for the final chapter, The Nonexistent Neutron, Where Science Went Wrong does not provide answers to the questions about physical reality that underlie each misconception. For empirical praetorians charged with wielding the ultimate shield against scientific apostasy, the plea that what can't be replaced can't be reproached, the answers appear in the f irst six volumes of The Copernican Series.

A NOTE ON SCIENTIFIC COMITY

One of the basic tenets of Empirical Science is said to be the need for intelligent people to sit down calmly and discuss on a reasonable basis and in a respectful manner the issues underlying the vast human enterprise that is the search for knowledge in the universe. Because science claims to underlie all human progress, we are instructed that invective, sarcasm and above all name-calling are to be left at the door of the meeting hall so that all present may participate in the improvement of science and the human condition in a quiet and orderly fashion.

This crock of crap, meant to silence those who don't agree with the consensus, is similar to the incantations mumbled by ancient priests, hands held high, forefingers crossed over tortured sacrifices to ward off evil spirits, evil spirits in science being original thought, the tortured sacrifices the remains of all who disagree with the consensus.

Science regularly refuses space in its journals to ideas that oppose the consensus, editors, in fact, having been known to publish lists of subjects which are off-limits for scientific discussion. Observatory facilities are regularly denied for queries into areas accepted as fact, settled interpretations for observations such as the red shift in light when there is no coherent explanations for what light is to start with.

In the era of big machine science, the big machines are off-limits unless they can be used to prove hypothetical facts that are predicted from scientific facts, hypotheses that have been mistaken for reality.

Worse, students can't get doctorates expounding unorthodox ideas, teachers can't get tenure for expressing nonconsensual hypotheses, and professors, should they oppose the established canon either in class or in print, will be hounded from their posts, lose grants, be kicked out of professional societies, their name blackened, cast from the lists, even banned from open-minded establishments of higher learning.

When practical scientists working in subsidized laboratories uncover information that opposes the consensus, they are smeared in the name of the consensus as being bought, tainted by the commercial interests that underwrite their efforts although all advancements in chemistry and physics from Edison through Rutherford to the present, unless the product of pure happenstance, have been subsidized by commercial (or military) interests. Consensus controlled testing laboratories refuse to certify measurable phenomena that oppose the consensus conclusions about what concepts control our picture of reality in fear of losing accreditation.

Work in areas considered to be unproductive, or settled, that produces results that oppose scientific convention, even when adhering to strict empirical standards as promulgated by the scientific establishment, is made the butt of jokes and derision. Scientific meetings, where results are supposed to be objectively evaluated, become the forum for such infantile invective that the fear of ridicule prevails, forcing some to hold sessions only for the safe few, others to forego communicating results altogether, or even from attempting to obtain results to start with.

The use of scientific comity for protection against criticism of process is equally ludicrous. The two hallmarks of the so-called objective scientific method are jokes. Peer review in an atmosphere where consensus rules is used simply to exclude unorthodox points of few, while specialization turns every group of peers into a miniature in-group, speaking a language only group members understand. As a result, any agreed upon absurdity is acceptable so long as it's presented empirically and its underlying hypotheses don't conflict with basic scientific conclusions about reality, interpretations of fact encoded as law for easy enforcement.

Even more ludicrous is the claim of duplication of experimental results. Not mentioning for a moment that interpretations of fact have nothing to do with the facts they interpret so that how experimental results are viewed rests solely on the consensus opinion as to what those results mean, the only reason to duplicate an experiment is to disprove those that conflict with the consensus. In the era of big machine science, and costly experiments, verification occurs in the experimental design itself, and if the verification doesn't occur in the execution of that design, the experiment is redesigned until verification does occur. There is no question of repeating experiments that reinforce the consensus by appearing to find the results its hypotheses predict. The only experiments that are conducted on a repeated basis are easily performed curiosities whose interpretations can be used to promulgate the scientific consensus and those rigged to debunk experiments that have produced results that oppose the consensus.

The reason that Empirical Science needs to defend to the death the delusional concepts it creates is that, like religion, it is based on a set of revealed truths, laws, which have to be believed before one can become a participant in, and be protected by, the resulting belief system and benefit from the structure that has been crafted around it.

The core delusional concept of Empirical Science is the belief that concepts can be proven to be fact by hoking up some sort of methodology, basing the belief, for heaven's sake, on the ancient practice of casting a star speckled, robed arm to the sky, mumbling some incoherent incantations, and claiming to be able to predict the future by reference to the lights in the firmament.

The delusion underlying a process that claims as fact beliefs that predict other facts and then calls the method scientific is self-evident.

Because facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs, producing a procedure that turns beliefs into facts involves all sorts of mumbo jumbo created to confuse nonbelievers, impress them as to the superior knowledge status of the believers, and as a result, gull the nonbelievers into forking over additional funding to support the believers' lifestyles while the believers sit around basking in the glory, the elegance, The Truth of their beliefs. Cries for funding basic research serve only to perpetuate the scam, implying a vast body of omnipotent scientific knowledge out of the public eye that is responsible for technological advancement, the claim that the pile of delusional concepts, occult beliefs such as gravity as a property of matter for why released objects move, angular momentum as conserved in closed systems for why planets rotate or swirling masses of condensing gas for why planets orbit, are responsible for microwave ovens and television sets.

When the obvious misconceptions are questioned by the public, the things of science fiction like black holes, antimatter, space warps, wormholes or time travel, or the things beyond science fiction like strings, singularities, supersymmetry, supergravity, electroweak forces and quantum chromodynamics with its top and bottom quarks, Empirical Science falls back on its methodology, claiming "We didn't think these profound observations up, our objective methodology led us to them inexorably!" -- the claim, espoused by Empirical Science's religious twin that "the Lord works in mysterious ways!"

As noted in the first chapter of the first volume of The Copernican Series, not even the ultimate authority can turn a belief into a fact, and a scientific community that believes its beliefs to be facts will be living a delusion, an accurate statement of current scientific thought.

As the volumes of The Copernican Series illustrate, the only authority is the authority of ideas to actually explain on a consistent basis how facts in reality work together to produce the reality in which we find ourselves.

Currently, science has no ideas that explain facts coherently, and none of the ideas that explain some of the facts reasonably well are consistent with one another.

As a result we have a blustering old science with its silly beliefs and gross misconceptions protecting itself with the shield of comity.

COMMENTS ON THE MATERIAL
Especially in the first four chapters dealing with force and motion, and the fifth chapter, dealing with the scientific procedure derived from the erroneous belief that questions of force and motion had been resolved, but generally throughout Where Science Went Wrong, there are various depictions of the facts surrounding Galileo's claim that he proved that mathematics could turn beliefs into facts and Newton's claim that he had demonstrated the source of the force that make objects fall.

That's because these two pivotal points are where science went wrong!

What appears, at first glance, to be duplications of explanation are not when the context of the explanations is taken into consideration. The mass/gravity concept is an interrelated group of misconceptions that has to be peeled like an onion, one layer at a time, until it can be laid bare as a mistake of process.

And that is how this, the seventh volume of The Copernican Series differs from the first six volumes. The dominate theories about reality that are, today, accepted as fact, are not worth much explication because, priding themselves on being counterintuitive and basing their validity on the nonexistence of a mind capable of both reason and rational analysis, they make little attempt to address the immediate questions about how physical reality operates, the answers to which are of utmost importance if we are to extend our range of survivability in that physical reality. The real questions that concern us, or at least should concern us, what is energy, what causes motion, have long since been abandoned in favor of nonanswers that use words as a substitute for comprehension.

The task of explaining not only how physical reality operates, but how we can know that we are actually finding out how physical reality operates, how the mind forms pictures of that reality and how the pictures the mind forms relate to reality, required a lot of ink without wasting more ink on subject matter that can be readily found in comic books, easy readers and on television.

However, the limitation of this approach resulted in a lot of explanations left standing that are taken blindly as proof for things that have no basis in reality. Even though providing a mechanical explanation for Young's two-slit experiment is alone sufficient to knock the underpinning s out of quantum mechanics, and the failure of interference patterns to prove that light is a wave explains the nonresults of the nineteenth century Michelson and Morley experiment, thereby negating ruminations based on the so-called Fitzgerald contraction, the predecessor, whether acknowledged or not, of relativity, these two dominant twentieth century belief systems have converged to produce a preposterous picture of the nature of matter as a result of the discovery of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is such an anomaly in the orderly development of any technology that the window it produces on the nature of matter should not be shaded by unfounded theories that do not account for the nature of energy and use words as substitutes for comprehending force and motion.

The experiments that led to the production of nuclear energy provide vast amounts of information and that information needs to be put in context.

However, it's a chapter's worth, not a book's worth.

The failure to understand the nature of energy, though, and the resulting failure to explain force and motion are precisely the reason we live in a bubble of ignorance dealing with physical reality.

As a result, the subject of the nonexistent neutron, the neutron being the word used as a substitute for understanding nuclear energy, makes an ideal conclusion to a volume on how that bubble came to exist, how we came to live with the delusion that we know everything when we know absolutely nothing.

Trying to burst a bubble that no one recognizes exists presented an interesting challenge. Like a tangled ball of string, it's hard to unravel a bubble of unfounded beliefs when its core, the theory around which the ad hoc threads of thought are tangled, is uncritically accepted as a statement of factual reality. When discrepancies in the core belief are uncovered, interpretations are woven out of thin air and another layer added to the ball making it increasingly difficult to get at what the actual nature of reality is.

For instance, relating the red shift of stellar spectra to distance might well be a fun notion so long as one keeps in mind that the physical basis of the red shift is unknown, that it is impossible to visualize how multiple waves of light can travel together, that we have no way of knowing whether the red or blue wavelengths are the shorter wavelengths, that there is no physical evidence for a medium through which light can travel and therefore no basis to analogize light to a train whistle blowing in the wind that would therefore shift, that with no medium there is no physical basis for claiming light to be a wave and thus capable of shifting, and that, with light being an imponderable, there's nothing to shift!

It might be a fun notion so long as it remains a notion.

However, when the abysmal ignorance about the light that gives rise to the red shift is further obscured by the conclusion that the universe is expanding because the magnitude of the red shift is proportional to distance, the fun notion becomes a search for proof that the universe is expanding.

In search of the proof that the universe, space, nothing, is actually expanding, an additional layer of string is added to the ball by dreaming up the fantasy that if the universe is expanding, and the universe is made up of all those fiery stars, then the universe must be the result of an explosion, fire being the result of explosions on Earth.

Moving rapidly from fantasy to fact, we have replaced an ignorant interpretation of light with a big explosion, something we are all aware of in physical reality. We mistake the reality we know for the fantasy we have made up.

What do explosions produce but light, and while light is an imponderable, explosions also produce energy, radiation , the empirical definition of which is rays of energy, rays being what come out of the center of something, with all explosions having centers.

And because the universe is the only thing around, the radiation produced by the explosion has nowhere to go so it must still be around, existing as a remnant, the background radiation left over from the explosion.

Not knowing anything about the nature of energy, we don't have to concern ourselves with how this background radiation can be left over as a remnant from some sort of explosion that now creates matter rather than, as an explosion does on Earth, destroys matter. As a reult, the validity of the ball of string, now no longer a bubble, but a reality, can actually be verified by finding the background radiation that is left over from the universe exploding into existence.

And, with only one universe and one explosion, the background radiation would be left over uniformly everywhere.

When the radio telescope was invented, it was found that it picked up a background static of about three percent no matter in which direction the dish antennae of the radio telescope was pointed. A little bit of mathematical prestidigitation quickly demonstrated that three percent would be the exact amount of background radiation that would have been left over from the explosion, now a Big Bang, that brought the universe into existence.

One completed ball of string!

But science proceeds as a result of brilliant observations and someone observed that while the remnant of the Big Bang, the background radiation, was thought to be uniformly distributed throughout the universe, the visible remnants of the Big Bang, the galaxies, were not.

Thus, there was something wrong with the ball of string. It was in danger of becoming a big ball of gas!

Unless the background radiation isn't uniformly distributed after all.

The only way to find out whether the background radiation was uniformly distributed or not was to get closer to it by sending a rocket to measure it above the atmosphere, the assumption being that uneven radiation in space was being uniformly distributed by passing through the atmosphere (unlike starlight, which is uniform until it passes through the atmosphere after which it becomes uneven, twinkling starlight!)

The COBE satellite was launched to determine if the background radiation was indeed uniformly distributed throughout the universe. Finding that it wasn't, that there were actually ripples in the cosmos, whatever the cosmos is, the interpretation of the red shift as related to distance was considered proven beyond a shadow of doubt, a perfect ball of string.

Of course, there are current nuclear processes going on inside the Earth which presumably produce the same radiation that would be left over from the Big Bang. No matter which way the dish of the radio telescope was pointed to pick up a uniform three percent radiation, the dish's backside would be receiving the steady flow of radiation from the surface of the Earth.

And when the COBE satellite is sent on the other side of the atmosphere, the atmosphere would serve to disrupt the regular measurement of this radiation turning its uniform measurement irregular!

But then if reality were considered, the measurement of the radiation couldn't be used to justify the belief in the Big Bang, Empirical Science's creation myth!

The failure to understand energy, the source of force and motion, nullifies all conclusions related to force and motion, and specifically the imaginary movement the Big Bang was manufactured to explain.

When we wrap our ignorance up into balls of string which grow larger and larger as ad hoc explanations are strung together, we lose the ability to question our basic ignorance, accepting ignorance, nonknowledge, the lack of any coherent explanation as a shining ball of gas, the most perfect and precise of explanations.

The use of atomic clocks to prove relativity's contraction of time is the pre-eminent example of a physical effect based totally on the nature of energy being interpreted with a total ignorance of energy, here that the energy even exists. If we don't know that the Earth is an emitter, that it is producing a constant outflow of energy, the same outflow that is mistaken as the background radiation proving the Big Bang, and that that outflow produces a field in which matter exists, we have no knowledge that the field in which the atomic clock exists controls the rate at which the atomic clock itself emits, the rate of emission being the clock's measurement of time.

When the atomic clock is on the ground, it is in the field of temperature that exists at the surface of the Earth. Just like a piece of tin glows hot in accordance with how close it is to the fire, so to do atomic emitters emit in accordance with the field that they occupy.

As the Earth's emission field expands out and away from its surface, it diminishes, just as gravity is measured to diminish, inversely with the square of the distance from the surface of the Earth.

Thus, the field several hundred miles above the Earth is substantially less than the field at the surface of the Earth, and the rate of emission of the atomic matter that makes up the clock is substantially less. With the rate of emission reduced, the time the emissions measure appears to slow down.

But, because we believe that time slows down as speed increases, we interpret the reduction in the rate of emissions of the atomic clock as a result of the increased speed of the vehicle carrying the clock rather than the reduced field the clock occupies, because not knowing anything about energy, we aren't even aware of the field, let alone its reduction, or how matter acts when a field is reduced.

The mistake involving the creation of the nonexistent neutron outlined in the last chapter of Where Science Went Wrong highlights the extent to which the lack of awareness of the nature of energy can sink us further and further into an ignorance that can only lead to our demise.

When we don't ask the correct questions, we cannot expect to get correct answers. The failure to phrase questions about physical reality correctly led to the Galilean confusion, it led to the Newtonian confusion and it has led to our own confusion.

But with respect to energy, and its effects, no one has even asked the question!

The question has always been, what makes things move?

No one has asked the question because the cause of motion, and thus momentum, and thus force has been assumed away, whether it is the motion of the nonexistent neutron or the motion of the planets.

By assuming away motion, we have reversed reality, looking for energy where it does not exist and ignoring energy where it does exist.

This reversal of reality is at the basis of The Copernican Series.

Copernicus, who Empirical Science claims uncovered no scientific fact, reversed reality, providing a clear picture of the solar system by placing the Earth orbiting the sun, showing in the process how the planets move with respect to the sun.

The Copernican Series uncovers no scientific fact. It merely requires that current motion require current force and explains what that current force is and how it produces current motion, showing in the process how the solar system moves with respect to the galaxy.

The error Copernicus corrected dealt with the vision of our position in the universe.

The error with respect to motion deals with our continued presence in the universe, whether we continue to believe that our names, our strings of words, our mindless laws define the universe, or whether we can ask the simple questions that will allow us to understand how the universe operates.

Thinking we know everything when we know nothing may elevate our status from that of savages to that of noble savages, but being totally ignorant of the nature of reality, we remain savages nonetheless.

When we look back on the simple shift in the point of view brought on by Copernicus , we can, with printing still in its infancy, identify few protagonists whose steadfast belief in unreality turned them into laughing stocks. Today, with preposterous absurdities being the substance of tabloids, science columns in the daily papers, trade and association journals and most of all, of the esteemed annals of the various learned societies, the subtle change in point of view, from saying nothing moves something to finding something moves something, will provide identifiable sources of amusement for years to come.