Science: a belief system?

Is science reality or is it a manufactured belief system?

“It is a strange thought, but I believe a correct one, that twenty or thirty pages of ideas and information would be capable of turning the present-day world upside down, or even destroying it. I have often tried to conceive of what those pages might contain, but of course I am a prisoner of the present-day world, just as all of you are. We cannot think outside the particular patterns that our brains are conditioned to, or, to be more accurate, we can only think a very little way outside, and then only if we are very original. “
– Fred Hoyle, Of Men and Galaxies

We are all absolutely sure that we know how to think and that it is the right way or even the only possible way to do so. We were taught from an early age what is real and what is “imaginary”, good, bad, happy, sad, we are even taught where to find the most reliable information we need and how to use it. We were taught first by our parents, who went through the same education system, and then at primary school, leading to junior, senior and for many higher education. Our qualifications that enabled us to get our job are as a direct result of this meritocracy that I intend to prove is only a ‘belief system’ and not an absolute be all and end all.

Very few of us even bother to reflect on the lifelong process that appears seamlessly to glue the bricks of our society together. Where did it originate and how reliable is it? are questions seldom asked as it all appears to work – for some anyway, for others not so well. But the trust becomes all but complete when even those at the bottom of the pile will admit that had they absorbed more from the education system they may have fared much better. Well yes, a PhD on your CV may open doors not necessarily scientific, but thats not the point. The last thing we tend ask about it is, “is it is just a belief system to which most subscribe, or something more profound?” Can something that involves us all, be flawed or maybe unreliable and is there room for improvement? Do we need to scrap the whole she-bang and start again? To endorse a failed system is to perpetuate it and reject change.

The question that those who learned critical thinking as part of their education should be asking is, can you think critically about the science-driven education system that taught you critical thinking ?

The fact of the matter is, that most of what we are taught in the various subjects in education is completely controlled by academic science. Everything, with the possible exception of the arts is science based, science driven… think about it. Maths’, English language, cookery, diet, plumbing, computer studies, agriculture, are all done in a ‘scientific manner’ or are guided by a scientific input. Everything has to be done scientifically or it is somehow inefficient and lacking in some respect. The reader is about to see that all of the above is deeply, scientifically, flawed because the underpinning science is flawed and seriously in need of a major overhaul. Also in need of examination and upgrade is the assumption that all of our modern world with its electronic wonders and labour-saving devices that are called ‘science’, but are in fact technology, are thanks to the benevolence of this same academic science and would not exist without its guiding hand. If it should turn out that this is true, then we don’t have a problem, but if it’s not true then the whole basis of our thinking is flawed and we have all been misled by those who educated us. I fear that on examining that which is rarely examined, we will find holes in a science that is filled with things that have no existence in the real natural world and things that are claimed by scientific academics who have no right to them. As we explore this and other pages, we will ask questions about old assumptions and test their validity. If we are to look closely at science, then what better place to start than those who are considered to be ‘the crème de la crème of the scientific crop’, the physicists.

Physics
Until around the 1930’s, the test of the success of any physics theory was always by way of a useful technology that it produced. Most of the electronic technology that we use today was devised in its basic form prior to this date. It is no coincidence that the rise of Albert Einstein’s theories, although they were formulated much earlier, roughly correspond to this date marking a watershed in electronic genius and ingenuity. But we will return to this later. Today there seems to be no need for any physics inspired technology and the physicist is on a wild foray into theoretical realms of imaginary mathematical fantasies that provide jobs for mathematicians and little else. Theories are all-important and the rest of us just foot the bill for the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes‘, not wanting to appear to be ignorant. 1 Too few doubt and ask questions because they fear the largely media-manufactured reputation of the physicist.

At the time of writing I have a magazine before me with a readers-letters-writer complaining about an article in the previous issue of the magazine, that criticises the Large Hadron Collider. It is assumed that such things are above criticism, but it discusses the unlikelihood of it ever producing anything of practical use, whilst comparing it with the grandeur of a medieval cathedral, something built for effect rather than utility. The writer also proudly tells us that “it was CERN that gave us the Internet” – this is a little like saying that it was the Amazon website that gave us TV. The Internet was up and running long before Tim Berners-Lee did whatever it was that he is supposed to have done and this is something that deserves close scrutiny in another blog. Some real supporting evidence to justify the existence of modern physics would be welcome, but don‘t hold your breath, it will not come from physicists who shun reality, their heads buried in the sand of numbers and theory.

De-mystifier: The Large hadron Collider
Wiki tells us surprisingly: “A particle accelerator [Like the LHC] is a device that uses electric fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams. An ordinary CRT (cathode ray tube) television set is a simple form of accelerator. There are two basic types: electrostatic and oscillating field.” 2  The television cathode ray tube (CRT) is the old glass type used in pre flat screen TV. The particle accelerator is a development of the old TV tube and not vice-versa. This in turn, is a development of the original Crookes Tube, invented by William Crookes, (1832-1919). He, being a chemist and psychical researcher and not an academic physicist, was an amateur physicist. If you ask any physicist today they will call him a tinkerer, a derogatory remark suggesting a lack of skill in theory. The amateur physicist no longer exists, today he would be considered an outsider, unqualified, a pseudo-scientist. Being a researcher in spiritualism compounds Crooke’s crimes against science, confirms his unscientific status, but science is unable to deny his genius as the inventor of the original particle accelerator.

And so we have ‘The Large Hadron Collider’ (LHC), the very pinnacle of scientific achievement that is based on the work of a ‘pseudo-scientist’ who spoke to the departed and embraced the physical theory of ether, something that has been debunked for a hundred years by what we now know as modern science. The likelihood of cognitive dissonance among physicists is quite high as none of this has been satisfactorily resolved. We all spend our lives living happily alongside working technology that is based on taboo and debunked science, the majority of which was conceived and invented a hundred or more years ago in an explosion of mostly amateur brilliance. The technology has improved but not the science and it is against this background of confusion and perplexity within a science that underpins our education, our lives and our society that we continue our examination.

What follows is claimed to be proof that the path that physics is following is a worthwhile pursuit. The quantities measured are so infinitesimally small that the whole thing stretches credulity to its innermost limits. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent (E=mc2) and the experiment attempts to show that this is true, but as we will see later, nature has other ideas. Don’t worry if you don’t understand the following you are not alone, and all will be explained.

E=mc2 passes tough MIT test
“The mass loss was obtained at MIT by measuring the difference between the mass of the nucleus before the emission of a gamma ray and after. The mass difference was measured by comparing the cyclotron orbit frequencies of two single molecules trapped in a strong magnetic field for several weeks. Pritchard notes that the mass of the nucleus is about 4,000 times larger than the much smaller mass difference. As a result, “determining the mass difference requires the individual masses to be measured with the incredible accuracy of one part in 100 billion — equivalent to measuring the distance from Boston to Los Angeles to within the width of a human hair!”
Despite the results of the current test of E=mc2, Pritchard said, “This doesn’t mean it has been proven to be completely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete.” 3 What he is saying is that some other physicist will prove him wrong.

There are those who take the word of physicists without question and there are those who don’t. It is at this point that we are all supposed to say, ‘err, OK!’, and leave with heads spinning and slightly bowed, but it is really all meaningless gobbledegook. It is meant to make physicists look smart and the rest of us poor pleb’s appear to be idiots. Physics and modern art are much the same, depending on a plausible-sounding story to evoke a seeming reality. Don’t be fooled!

The c in E=mc2 refers to the speed of light, a statistical measurement taken from a string of differing results. The speed element 299792458 metres per second’ is dependent on time, (the second) something never actually proven to exist by any scientific standard, that is nothing more than a convenient idea…our first hole in what will become a Swiss cheese of a science of unreality that measures things that do not exist, with incredible exactitude.

Why is it seemingly so easy for so many to laugh at the UFO phenomenon witnessed by millions? Yet, they take seriously the ever more fantastical claims of physicists, things too far away or too small or too large, even universal, to see, the black holes, dark matter, dark energy, the ‘one part in 100 billion’ MIT test, observed by no one?
Does it have any connection with reality?

Is Time Real?
The concept of time as something we move in or through is crucial to the survival of physics as a bona fide scientific discipline, but there never has been a scintilla of evidence to show that time even exists. The speed of light for example, depends on time and without time as an entity it becomes a meaningless and inconstant number.

Wiki tells us that: “Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. A simple definition states that “time is what clocks measure”.4
And so, a strong argument can be made in support of the idea that time does not exist, except in the form of numbers, measurements and movements made by the fingers or digits of a clock.

History of Time
Time was originally measured by the rotation of the Earth, day/night being its simplest and earliest terms. Ancient astronomers (the term is used because time is an observation of the heavenly bodies) made ever more subtle measurements – years, months (by the Moon), hours, minutes, and seconds. Observations of the Sun’s position on the horizon gave us years and this was divided into twelve months and the months into seven day weeks. All of this based upon the angles of the Earth’s rotation and the angles of the Earth’s position with regard to its orbit about the Sun and the phases of the moon.
Time was originally the movement of the Earth with reference to its surrounding Solar System bodies.
Time can therefore be described as movement.
There is nothing, scientific or philosophical, that can logically refute this view.

Dictionary
MINUTE
“n. Abbr. min.
1. A unit of time equal to one sixtieth of an hour, or 60 seconds.
2. A unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth of a degree, or 60 seconds. Also called minute of arc.”5
SECOND
n. Abbr. sec.
1. A unit of time equal to one sixtieth of a minute.
2. A brief interval of time; a moment. See Synonyms at moment.
3. Abbr. s Mathematics A unit of angular measure equal to one sixtieth of a minute.” 6
It’s no accident that the terms for time and movement through angles are alike.

Arc minute, Arc second
“A minute of arc, arc minute, or minute arc (MOA), is a unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth (1/60) of one degree. In turn, a second of arc or arc second is one sixtieth (1/60) of one minute of arc. Since one degree is defined as one three hundred and sixtieth (1/360) of a rotation, 1 minute of arc is 1/21,600 of the same. It is used in those fields which require a unit for the expression of small angles, such as astronomy, navigation and marksmanship.” 7
This is no different to the method used for time measurement and so time and movement are the same thing. Time is movement!

Wiki: “The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of “container” that events and objects “move through”, nor to any entity that “flows”, but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.” 8

An overwhelming case can be made that time has no objective existence, does not exist and that its only reality is derived from the mathematical, angular, measurements of the movements of Solar System bodies.

If we say that time is movement, then something like the speed of light comes out as: Light travels 186,000 miles while the Earth’s rotation moves through an angle that represents one second or 1/86,400th of 360 degrees or 0.0041666 degrees of a day and night (or of one complete Earth rotation). We are comparing a linear movement with an angular movement.
Many just do not understand this alternative position or refuse to try, due to the influence of science-based education and the need for a measurable time-scale to support scientific theory. Time is movement and there is nothing else in nature that can represent it. 9

The writer does not subscribe to the idea of the abandonment of time, which is a useful concept to get us to work on time in the morning. It’s fine as long as the reader understands that time does not exist in any way or form suggested by the metaphysical claims of academic scientific physics. It is a Santa Clause that gets the kids to sleep on Christmas Eve, the tooth fairy.

Atomic Clocks
“In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an experiment to test time dilation. They made airline flights around the world in both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four caesium beam atomic clocks. When they returned and compared their clocks with the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had gained about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground based clock.”

“Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium (Atomic) Clock, wrote to Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC ‘confirmation’ of relativity to stand.”

Essen is obviously not one of the inner sanctum of faceless, nameless and enlightened physicists who understand the perfect scam; the magical, metaphysical production of infinitesimally small or large, incredibly, ‘accurate’ numbers from numbers that are statistically generated.
Every clock depends on a tick/tock, be it by pendulum, spring escapement or quartz crystal, to keep time, and the more accurate the tick, the more accurate the clock. The atomic clock has an extremely accurate tick/tock synchronised with the Caesium 133 atom.

Unfortunately, it is necessary to establish the length of a second before one can calibrate an atomic clock. In other words, the Caesium 133 atom used in the clock does not oblige by giving a tick/tock that is an exact match to, or fraction of a second. And so the standard second has to be determined beforehand to calibrate the atomic clock. No magical second appears in the clock itself. This is done by returning to the original method, ancient and hoary with age, the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars and the second obtained by the angle of Earth’s rotation is called ‘ephemeris time’.
By convention, the standard seasonal year is taken to be A.D. 1900 and to contain 31,556,925.9747 seconds of ephemeris time. In 1984 ephemeris time was renamed terrestrial dynamical time (TDT or TT); also created was barycentric dynamical time (TDB), which is based on the orbital motion of the sun, moon, and planets. For most purposes they can be considered identical, since they differ by only milliseconds, and often therefore are referred to simply as dynamical time.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/ephemeris+time#ixzz1VOnGughB

The Earth’s rotation and orbit varies, and we are told that this is inadequate for the purposes of atomic timing and so atomic time is based on the second of the year 1900, but this is not in accord with the Earth’s position at the present time. The time given by atomic clocks is unsuitable for measuring anything on Earth because it measures time as it was in 1900 and would need to be calibrated for today’s second. The writer is not quite sure where this leaves us, apart from having a meaningless atomic time-scale and a headache.
The Stanford University website admits: “…Finally, as Einstein noted “Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist” which is a view also expressed in 900 AD by the Arabic physicist Ikhwan al-Sufa, “Space is a form abstracted from matter and exists only in consciousness”.”

Seemingly, Einstein and Ikhwan al-Sufa together have demolished the concept of space/time with the blessing of Stanford University and obviously they know that time is just a mode of thinking.
The writer would like, at this point, to ask how a theory of space-time physical properties can possibly be constructed from the “modes in which we think” or something that “exists only in consciousness”, and how such an idea finds a place in a materialistic, mathematical, evidence based, empirical science?A mathematical quantity needs to be represented by something tangible and material to fulfill the claims of modern science.

“One of the greatest mysteries in science is the distinction between the past and the future. At a subatomic level, neither the old ideas of classical mechanics nor the modern theory of quantum mechanics distinguish between the past and the future” John Gribbin 10

The reasoning on the webpage at the link below ‘What is Time?’ 11 depends on a not unusual, illogical, circular argument so common in academic science: That the premise (time exists) is assumed to be true in the complete absence of any supporting evidence.
Evidence is carefully chosen in support of the ‘attributes’ of something with no proven existence.
The attributes take on a pseudo-life of their own while never proving the existence of the premise.
If there is no direct testable evidence in support of the reality of time then all arguments are untested, untestable and invalid.

It’s important to distinguish between an attribute (given qualities) and a property (inherent properties) of time as time has no properties apart from those ascribed.

Quote with my observations added from the link: What is Time?
“In order to investigate the nature of time it may help to break it down into four main questions.
1) How does time flow? (‘Flow’ is an assumed attribute unobserved and unobservable)
2) Does time flow in only one direction? (‘Direction’ is an attribute of the attribute ‘flow’)
3) Is there a constant ‘Universal’ time? (‘Universal’ is an assumed attribute.)
4) Is time a ‘real’ dimension?” (It is assumed to be so or physics falls flat on its face.) 12

Time has no properties that can be demonstrated in a lab.
The phrase ‘the fabric of time’ is a contradiction because time cannot be described as a fabric, being something beyond the material, in fact insubstantial, not substance, not fabric, not real in any empirical scientific sense.

The work of Professor Stephen Hawking relies heavily on the time concept and I wrote to him recently asking for his comments after being invited to do so on his website.
His reply, or one written for him:
“He very much regrets that due to the severe limitations he works under, and the enormous number of requests he receives, he is unable to compose a reply to every message, and we do not have the resources to deal with many of the specific scientific enquiries and theories we receive.”
Not even, “Is time real”? Could it be that he has no answer? He would be without a job were he to agree. And so, I must assume he only replies to true believers who hang on his every word and do no thinking of their own.
I challenge any physicist to prove empirically that time exists as an entity, a container, or something within which we or even the universe exists. Failure to do so can only portray the work of Hawking and even that of Einstein as merely metaphysical folderol, a fantasy.

Light speed
“In 1973 the speed of light was measured by Evanson et al at 299,792.4574 +- .001 and then in 1983 it was tied to the meter length at 299,792.4575 for the sake of convenience and because so many differing results were being obtained.”
The speed of light was measured by so many scientists, all obtaining different results, that it would be tedious to list them all. 13 It was finally agreed to represent the speed of light with a statistical value. We can see that measuring “E=mc2 to one part in 100 billion, equivalent to “measuring the distance from Boston to Los Angeles to within the width of a human hair!” is more than a little fanciful when the value of c is not known to any such accuracy and the certainty that the time element in the speed of c is no more than a fantasy.

Relativity and Arthur Eddington
When told that only three men in the world understood Relativity, Arthur Eddington is said to have asked, “I wonder who is the third”? He was a bit of a wag. Einstein later remarked, that after the mathematicians had gotten a hold on his theories he did not understand them himself. And so, we seem to have been left with Eddington alone who understood, and when he died he took the secret with him. The physicists of today are still not in agreement as to what Einstein had to say and the meaning of the mathematics.

In the far distant past, it must have been obvious to most that the Sun travels around the Earth. But, at some point in history, due to problems with astronomical observations, it was agreed by most that the Earth and the planets did indeed orbit around the Sun; it made calculations and understanding so much easier and it was logically acceptable. This is an example of something not immediately, intuitively obvious, becoming accepted as factual and literal.
Compare Relativity Theory: something that is still disputed among the “experts” even after a hundred years of continuous study. Claimed at the outset, first by Eddington and later by others, to be counter-intuitive and ‘only accessible to those few who understand’. We are still waiting to be told who they are, because they disagree with one-another. Some of us have the feeling that we are being led up the garden path – by something not intuitively correct and not logically acceptable, making understanding more complex or seemingly impossible. The plain fact presents itself, that the physicists are incapable of explaining just how it all works to the rest of us because they are unsure of how it works and don’t agree among themselves. Becoming a physicist does not endow one with superhuman qualities and a request for an explanation to those non-physicists with equal intelligence is not unreasonable after a hundred years of study.

“COLLOQUIUM ON PATHOLOGICAL (Mad) SCIENCE by Irving Langmuir (1881- 1957)
Symptoms of Pathological Science:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.” 14

Chemist and physicist Irving Langmuir was the inventor of the term Pathological Science in 1953, now applied to anything that a particular scientist or group of scientists find inconvenient in the face of the prevailing paradigm. In other words, anything that contradicts the word of an academic scientist or evidence that a scientific theory is wrong is madness. If you keep on repeating this, it takes on a life of its own. This must be the most supreme example of unashamed arrogance in the history of the world. 15 16 It must have been at this point (in the 1950’s), when science realised that it was very good at doing something – namely, debunking ideas that come from outside of the fraternity with words like pathological and pseudo-science. Charles Fort commented years earlier that science must make the ideas of outsiders seem unreal in order to make its own ideas seem more real – a kind of universal law, or an exchange if you will?

At least five of the six symptoms given by Langmuir can be applied to the MIT measurements above and the same applies to the general and special relativity theories themselves. Madness (pathology) it seems, is relative.

Is the claim that mass is converted into energy in the form of radioactivity true? 17
Science has always taken it for granted that the decay of radioactive material proceeds at a fixed rate and that this is so reliable that it can be used to fix the dates of paleontological artefacts (rock dating). Again, a universal, but unproven, time-scale.

The following articles look at a more realistic experiment than the MIT test above, with surprising results. I’ve been told by scientists that the Eckhard Dieter Falkenberg paper below cannot be verified, but even so, if someone else did this experiment it would be worthy of further attention. And then, I found the Russian paper and more recently a third and then a fourth, all relating to the same doubt about atomic theory…
What is quite amazing about these findings is that they also seem to lend themselves to an, as yet, unsuspected power source and the possibility of energy generation, something that seems to have become anathema to the modern science of physics.

Science likes to give the impression that it knows all there is to know about energy and further that no unknown energy is possible. It follows that, if there were to be an unknown energy source, science would be without any means of detection because it does not possess alternative energy detectors. It maintains this stance, and this has the effect of blocking any possible new energy discovery with a by-default denial. According to the information below, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that if the energy of radioactive elements (that drives atomic reactors) is the result of cosmic rays, then there is a potential to tap that same energy in other ways.

Nikola Tesla
After almost one hundred years science has failed to catch-up with Nikola Tesla who predicted these things. Speaking of cosmic rays in 1931, Tesla said: “I have satisfied myself that the [cosmic] rays are not generated by the formation of new matter in space, a process which would be like water running up a hill. Nor do they come to any appreciable amount from the stars. According to my investigations the sun emits a radiation of such penetrative power that it is virtually impossible to absorb it in lead or other substances. … This ray, which I call the primary solar ray, gives rise to a secondary radiation by impact against the cosmic dust scattered through space. It is the secondary radiation which now is commonly called the cosmic ray, and comes, of course, equally from all directions in space. [The article continues: The phenomena of radioactivity are not the result of forces within the radioactive substances but are caused by this ray emitted by the sun. If radium could be screened effectively against this ray it would cease to be radioactive, he said.] ” 18 — Nikola Tesla

Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001 32
Radioactive Decay Caused by Neutrinos?
Eckhard Dieter Falkenberg
Uhldingen, Germany
“The result of a long-term experiment is presented and discussed. The experiment aimed at testing the hypothesis that radioactive b-decay might be caused by the omnipresent neutrino flux coming from the sun and other sources, by trying to find a positive correlation between the decay rate of tritium and the annually varying solar neutrino flux, due to the annually changing distance from sun to earth.” 19

What was found during this quite long-term experiment was that the ‘radioactive b-decay’ varied according to the time of year – it was seasonal, at odds with the prevailing atomic theory that tritium and other radioactive substances are unaffected by outside influences and decay according to a universal time-scale.
The assumption that the variation is due to annually varying neutrino flux is just that, an assumption on the part of the experimenter. The word neutrino was not used in Tesla’s day and is an assumption by the experimenter.

Previously… Summer 2000
21st Century Science & Technology – Russian Discovery Challenges Existence of Absolute Time by Jonathan Tennenbaum
“Russian scientists discover unexpected regularities in radioactive decay, linked to astronomical cycles…”
(There is certainly an element of taboo Astrology here that will bolster the sceptics case for more exclusion based on prejudice.)
“…Moreover, these periodical changes correlate with the changes in our solar system, and possibly in our universe. To evaluate properly this phenomenon we first ought to understand the cause and mechanism of the first phenomenon.”
The authors do not suggest any explanation of the phenomena discussed, and make no hypotheses concerning their possible mechanisms, and quite rightly so! The reader must start thinking on his own, which certainly is the main intent of this publication.” 20

And recently…this effect has become so ‘in your face’ to physicists that what seems to be a damage limitation process has been initiated. I predict that tame researchers will produce null results in equal numbers to those with positive results and the whole thing will be waved away, not unlike the fuss about cold fusion – time will tell?

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?
Analysis by Ian O’Neill
Wed Aug 25, 2010 02:21 PM ET, discovery.com
“But what if a well-known — and apparently constant — characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?
This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with “constant” decay rates — these values aren’t supposed to change.
School textbooks teach us this from an early age.
This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.” 21

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
This story is from the Aug. 23, 2010 issue of Stanford Report
“When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics… Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the caesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.”” 22

The writer at the following link heaps negativity upon the very idea that something could possibly be amiss with physics theory and then congratulates Fischbach for his audacity. This is called ‘playing it safe’. Not exactly the free spirit of exploration – more to do with the usual navel contemplating, inward looking attitude that has become so common in scientific circles…fear of ridicule by peers and a general reluctance to show enthusiasm for anything new. 23

“The Sun Influences the Decay of Radioactive Elements”
“Researchers at the Purdue University now contest the idea that the constant exists, basing their claim on a series of experiments which show the existence of disagreements in the measured decay rates of various radioactive isotopes.
The new data, proposed by Purdue physics professor Ephraim Fischbach, was tested and confirmed by teams at the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute, in Germany,
These two labs also found that small seasonal variations existed in the decay rates of the chemical elements silicon-32 and radium-226.
Researchers here found that decay rates during the summer season were slightly faster than those present during winter.” 24

Heat and Radioactivity history
This, it seems is not new to science by swept under the carpet: “Thirty years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler was searching for a compound which could protect Geiger-Mueller tubes from damage when they are first ionised. He found the compound, which became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium. He also discovered that as the mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined sharply. No process known to physics could account for such a baffling phenomenon: radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. Nevertheless, as the temperature increased from 115C to 160C, the emission of beta particles fell by 28%.” 25 This has been swept under the scientific carpet for thirty years.

Something not quite right with the atomic theory?
The theory of radioactivity is assumed to be true – it has to be – but no one has bothered to check. A clean power source has been waiting to be researched for a hundred years and not one of our brave scientists has dared to look beyond the wall erected by those who receive funding from the ‘interests’ who provide support for non-research.
I must admit that all of this was a surprise as I always assumed that someone, some scientist,  had surely checked it out. But apparently not, the radioactivity, always assumed to be bits of the radioactive material, would make those materials lighter. But it seems that the radioactivity is as a direct result of cosmic rays that vary according to the date.

I asked a scientist about this and he told me that science is unconcerned because the effect is so small. The problem as I see it, is that the atomic theory used by science is completely wrong. The radioactive dating is wrong and the age of rocks, the earth, the moon and the solar system is wrong. What ever became of scientific accuracy?

Gravity
Newton’s First Law
The continuing theme that science makes it up as it goes along and ignores nature, is evident in the following:
First we have NASA, and one would think that they would know how things move in space when considering Newton’s First Law:
“Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.” 26

A cursory glance at a kid’s popular science book will show that things in space certainly do not move in a straight line. Everything out there moves in an orbit and everything orbits something else. The only possible place where this is likely not to apply is outside of the universe, where no one even knows if the laws of physics (whatever they are), apply. At any point within the universe, an object is subjected to the forces of the surrounding universe and will describe an orbit.

The dogma is forced into young minds at an early age:
physicsforkids.com: “You can see good examples of this idea when you see video footage of astronauts. Have you ever noticed that their tools float? They can just place them in space and they stay in one place. There is no interfering force to cause this situation to change. The same is true when they throw objects for the camera. Those objects move in a straight line. If they threw something when doing a space walk, that object would continue moving in the same direction and with the same speed unless interfered with; for example, if a planet’s gravity pulled on it (Note: This is a really simple way of describing a big idea. You will learn all the real details – and math – when you start taking more advanced classes in physics.).” 27

The tools that float are moving with the spacecraft in orbit and a planet’s gravity is pulling on them. They will not “continue moving in the same direction” when thrown”, because they will orbit the Earth. Learning “all the real details” is apparently not an option. All of this is not meant to prove that Newton was wrong – yet, just that he has been misinterpreted by modern academic science. He said that an object will move with a uniform motion; a uniform motion is an orbit and any calculation based on a straight line is likely to be wrong.
This is not new, see Wiki: “Buridan also maintained that impetus (inertia) could be not only linear, but also circular in nature, causing objects (such as celestial bodies) to move in a circle.” 28
Inertia was once thought to be a property of matter, but this was dropped by modern science, although science does accept that empty space has properties since Albert Einstein.

“Every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, except insofar as it doesn’t.” The mystical Arthur Eddington again.

“Newton never succeeded in his proof of universal gravitation. Subsequent attempts by his intellectual heirs had to be abandoned when the orbits of planets were found to present greater discrepancies than existed with Newton’s use of the Moon’s orbit. The failure has left an unproven proposition at the heart of modern science. Instead of abandoning a failed hypothesis, however, science now assumes Newton’s universal gravitation as fact. Science then uses this to predict the mass of planets and stars, predictive facts that are not independently verifiable, perpetuating a proposition that has never been, and never can be tested. Newton’s ideas that white light is made up of all colours and that colours are specific wavelengths that emerge from the prism in descending order are propositions -like mass/gravity- as incapable of proof today as they were in his day.
The British Empire Newton helped create collapsed in the twentieth century but Newton’s ideas-which Montagu promoted as infallible in order to establish the monetary basis of empire and which Newton viciously perpetuated by bludgeoning all dissent, remain both omnipresent and baseless-the invisible, unquestioned, and ultimately non-existent pillars upon which all scientific thought rests.”
“Newton, Alchemy, and the rise of the British Empire”,
“The mystical foundation of empirical science”.
Peter Bros

Newton’s gravitation theory did not work and during his lifetime, it failed to plot the position of the Moon. Contemporary astronomers told him so and they disregarded his work, preferring the older and more reliable methods. However, such was his influence at the Royal Society, that his laws of universal gravitation were ‘enforced’ and remain to this day.
There are still problems:
“Around the late 19th century, astronomers began to notice that Newton’s law did not perfectly account for observed gravitational phenomena in our solar system, notably in the case of Mercury’s orbit. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, published in 1915, resolved the issue of Mercury’s orbit, but it has since been found to be incomplete as well, as it cannot account for phenomena described in quantum mechanics.” 29

Einstein’s answer to the perihelion advance of Mercury has been challenged and the effect attributed to the non-spherical shape of the Sun and various other causes, not least that he was not the first to suggest the theory…

“…using only Newtonian gravitation plus the reasonable assumption that gravity propagates at light-speed, (Paul) Gerber calculated the correct result. Given that classical mechanics can fully account for the missing precession, in what way can we say that the precession proves GR theory instead of Gerbers calculation? Here there is no need for the relativity calculation. It is also important to note that Gerbers paper was published 17 years before the GR papers and thus developed independently of GR.” 30

It’s all a bit of a mess and, as we can see from the link below, direct measurement is still the most reliable method to determine the position of the Moon (and presumably the rest of the Solar System planets) in its orbit.
“The most significant improvement of position observations of the moon have been the lunar laser ranging measurements, obtained using earth-bound lasers and special retro-reflectors placed on the surface of the moon.” 31 32

In a recent exchange with a senior physicist, the author of these pages was accused of criticising theoretical physics as if it were ‘the application of physics’, something he rightly thought to be quite different. This would be fine if there were anything new to apply, but the only applications that I personally can think of are applications of physics that are a hundred years old. I throw out a challenge to all of those who swoon in admiration of science, to name me one new concept that led to something useful – (not a development of and old one) – that is the result of modern physics and scientific method and has been newly discovered in the last twenty years and then another in the last thirty years. I know of none, although I have searched in my own disbelief that such a thing could possibly be true – but it seems to me that it is true.

Parallel and equally unbelievable to me although probably part of the same phenomenon is that of new motor vehicles, and how marketing describes them as so much more advanced than last years model. As an engineer, the author knows that cars have not changed in their basics in almost a hundred years – just like physics, but everyone thinks that they have, just like physics.
There are changes of a cosmetic, electronic and safety nature, agreed, but an engineering drawing of a 1920’s car engine is strikingly similar to one of today. The same applies to gearbox, clutch, brakes and transmission all invented a hundred years ago or more. Science also cashes-in on the marketing/advertising industry that seems to be the only activity with any new ideas; I have nothing but admiration for advertisers. We must also not forget the evergreen Hollywood “Scientist Saves the World” scenario. I know of no example of this actually happening although I can point to one or two disasters.
‘The new lab’ will do so much more than the old one’, as will the new LHC do more than those that went before – “may help scientists to understand the creation of the universe” or may not – it’s all advertising and little ever transpires that is of any practical use. Practical utility is something that theoretical science retreats further from with every passing year.

And so, there is no modern applied physics because there is nothing new to apply; just jam tomorrow, pie-in-the-sky, advertising hype. A kind of hypnotism that causes us to see scientific advances when they are only promises and speculation. Scientific ‘presentism’ is responsible for these misconceptions where everything under the Sun is attributable to recent, modern, academic, scientific research and even relatively modern history is treated as if it were a time of dark ignorance. A modern history that includes the things for which today’s academic science takes undeserved credit.

“physics is the only subject in the university curriculum in which the first year’s study rarely gets beyond what was known in 1900.” 33

The GPS Problem
It’s a popular misconception that Einstein’s theories have been proven many times. The in-vogue idea being, that the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) is a living proof that relativity is a real effect. Every so called proof has historically been riven with controversy and GPS is no exception. Some physicists were sure that GPS would not work because of relativistic effects, others now insist that it’s because of relativistic effects that it does work. What this seems to show is that they are just as much in the dark as the rest of us?
For more on this: Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell
….”To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein.” (It appears that since making this statement van Flandern has been silenced.)
The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different “reference frame,” everything still works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and it’s not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen.”

Dingle’s Question:
“University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.
Dingle’s Question was this: “Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: “Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.”

The problem has not gone away. Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992). “[T]he fact that each observer sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be put back together side by side at two different times.” But clocks in constant relative motion in a straight line ” ( that non existent straight line again) can be brought together only once, at the moment they pass.” So the theory is protected from its own internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a theory be said to be scientific?”
http://ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/
Again, the absurdities of relativity theory are apparent, but we are told that we mere mortals are incapable of unravelling the Gordian knot that is relativity theory.
As can be seen above, an “official answer” can never be disproved and the emperor can never be accused of having no clothes. Science continues in its blissfully illogical inscrutability; naked.
The early decades of the twentieth century saw the rise of modern physics with the introduction of Albert Einstein’s theories. By the thirties physics had come to be seen as so esoteric as to be considered beyond the grasp of the average person. Physicists were elevated to a godlike status by the popular press who also promised a modern scientific, technological, utopia where work was relegated to history. Unfortunately none of this came to pass and the only technology attributable to Einstein was the atomic bomb, something well on its way into production by the Nazis who had also banned Jewish science.
However, the reputation of physicists remained, as it does to this day and they were in a position to debunk any technology they considered not to be aligned with modern theory. The problem with this is that all of our modern technological wonders have their roots in a time when ether theory was dominant. Radio, television and the main basic components that make computers possible can all be traced back to the 1930’s or before.

Since the 1930’s we have had a steady drip of what is assumed to be new technology that is also assumed to be thanks to modern science. We will look at this in more detail in the technology chapters where technology can be seen in a chronological order. Science, in this case physics, since the thirties, has been theorising on anything but new technology.

All of this was a gift to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Electrical power generation and distribution have not changed in a hundred years, in fact not since Tesla’s attempt to introduce cheap loss-less distribution of power has there been any suggestion of an improvement. The main components of cars and other petrol or diesel vehicles are all but identical to those of 1920, engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and brakes are just variations on a very old theme.
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011/01/18/nothing-new-7-modern-car-technologies-actually-100-years-old/
anythingaboutcars.com:
“1920s cars saw many technical advances that improved the functions of the automobile. Many of the automobile innovations that we assume of as being modern were in fact introduced in (or before) the 1920’s. For example, electric powered cars, front wheel drive, four wheel drive, and even hybrid fuel/electric cars.”
http://www.anythingaboutcars.com/1920scars.html
Electric Vehicles
theengineer.co.uk:
“The first electric vehicles were developed more or less hand in hand with the first oil powered vehicles. Indeed, the first fleet of electric taxis were introduced in New York in 1897, while the first gasoline-electric hybrid car was launched by Chicago’s Wood Motor company in 1917.”
Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/comment/nothing-new-under-the-sun/1001526.article#ixzz1Jdip0Ak9