Friday, January 30, 2009

Dark Dogma

Over the past several months I have visited many websites, participated in many discussions, and read many articles. In doing this, I have noticed a trend that frankly makes me sad.

I am a fan of science for several reasons, one of which is what is supposed to be an open minded approach to competing theories, such that those theories carry a certain amount logical gravitas. With that said, I am getting tired of the Dark Matter and Dark Energy dogma that seems more like a religious faith based endeavor than a legitimate speculative theory.

Case in point, article after article on this topic is published, yet you see nothing covering the competing theories. The argument is that the competing theories are "hogwash", and don't deserve face time. As far as I'm concerned, Dark Matter/Energy (DME from now on) is also hogwash, because none of it can be proved.

DME was made up to cover the butts of scientists who developed broken equations. There is a significant flaw in the current gravity based model of the universe. Time after time we observe things in the universe that are "unexpected" or "surprising", and time after time I find that the scientific community is more apt to add another invisible element to the baseline, rather than rethink the baseline itself. There are many articles published weekly showing this occurrence, so if you ever have the inclination, you can find this for yourself.

What's more disturbing are that competing theories are laughed at, or constantly scolded for being radical. Yeah, those round earth people were SO lame. And I'm telling you, the sun revolves around the earth. Er. Wait a minute. Get my point? History is littered with radical ideas that, in time, were found to be true. Since when did Astrophysics become so sacrosanct that this reasoning doesn't apply?

I am fascinated by competing theories, because I believe there are truths to be found in all of them. I don't think any one theory holds everything together, but that through looking at different theories, one can find the whole truth, and not just the part that gets you more funding for meaningless or unprovable research. Examples of this are the Electric Universe Theory, which is principally pushed by Wallace Thornhill & Dr. Anthony Peratt and the Unified Field Theory of Nassim Haramein.

Both of these theories are amazing in their approach, and although I'm not a 100% "band wagoner" for either of them, I do find certain parts of their arguments to be very compelling and logical. Where EU falls short is in the mathematical modeling sector, but since Plasma Physics is a relatively new principle discipline, this somewhat makes sense. What they do provide is a lot of visual evidence to support their theory. In many ways, the universe does behave like that of plasma physics experiments. The UFT model of Haramein is loaded with mathematical calculations and proofs, but they have yet to apply a grand scale prediction using their model.

Here is what I love about just these two theories; EU doesn't believe black holes exist and UFT thinks black holes are everywhere, from the micro to the macro scale. I am open minded enough to see the point of view of both of these. Why can't main stream science be the same?

No comments: