Gravity Chapter
1 continued
Scientists have no idea as to what this force is and how it is transmitted,
and some eminent theoretical physicists now say that there will be
no solution provided to the problem of gravity for decades. As an explanation
of gravity is essential for any Universal Theory of Matter, this failure
means that eminent physicists are similarly pessimistic about the formulation
of such a theory.
These questions are not merely of academic interest, as
for example, general misconceptions as to the true nature of the
interaction of the earth and its atmosphere with that of the solar
system, when combined with ignorance of the effects of man’s interference
with this structure, could have catastrophic consequences for the
future of the human species.
Governments around the world have made huge investments
in science during this time. For example, after years of work by
hundreds of theoretical physicists around the world and extremely
expensive experiments carried out by technicians using high-energy
particle accelerators, the sub-atomic particle the top, or the large,
quark was identified in 1993. But did this knowledge lead, or will
it ultimately lead, for example to any new medicines - or any new
materials that could be used for new products and technologies -
or to a better understanding of the basic forces of nature?
The answer is to all these is that this knowledge has produced
absolutely nothing of practical value to mankind. But mankind, and
particularly the taxpayers in the developed countries, paid for this
knowledge at a cost to them of billions.
A current example of this type of investment is a space
probe under construction to try and find ‘gravity waves’ in outer
space, and this is just a small proportion of the vast expenditure
on similar pure science projects in space.
Again, whether these gravity waves are discovered or not,
there will be absolutely no benefit to humankind, apart of course
to the physicists who will analyse the results, and indulge in a
further round of mathematical and mental speculation and theorising
and then ask subservient governments for additional funding for further
costly experiments.
The applied sciences, engineering and technology are advancing,
but what, of practical benefit to mankind, has pure science produced
in return for the investment in their projects in the last century?
Some will say that the involvement in the development of nuclear
weapons has been a benefit, but they would be in a small minority,
perhaps a larger proportion of mankind (but certainly not a majority)
would list nuclear power generation as an advantage.
Others may suggest that space exploration, (the moon voyages,
the space stations, etc.) is an example of a successful application
of scientific investment, but, apart from some advances in materials
technology, it again can be asked what practical benefit has arisen
from the enormous expenditure involved?
At one extreme theoretical physicists promote theories
about the universe and its origins, “The Big Bang”, “Black Holes”,
‘Event Horizons’ “Curved Space-Time” and at the other extreme are
carrying out research into sub-atomic particles using hugely expensive
apparatus such as particle accelerators.
Of what practical use are these astronomical concepts and
the research into sub-atomic particles to the human race when these
do not provide mankind generally with an understanding of the simple,
and fundamentally important forces that affect our daily lives?
Pure science has produced little of practical value in
50 years and with some eminent theoretical physicists reverting to
creationist ideas (which is in itself perhaps an indictment of science
and the scientific method), it appears that science is at an impasse.
It is time for the general public to ask, and for science
to ask itself, why these basic questions have not been answered.
In 1901 the chemist Ira Ramsden made the comment as follows:
– ‘Any theory which is in accordance with the
facts and leads to the discovery of new facts is of value, whether
it should eventually prove to be true or false. At the same time
a false theory may do much harm, as it may lead men to misinterpret
the facts which they observe, and thus retard progress.’
Current atomic theory is based upon theories outlined over
2500 years ago by Greek philosophers; these ideas were resurrected
in the Renaissance, and during the 1800s a kinetic atomic theory
was developed based on these concepts. In the early 1900s Quantum
and relativity theories were presented, and these theories were based
upon the prior assumptions of kinetic atomic theory.
Today after 300 years of Newton’s Laws of Gravitation,
after 200 years of kinetic atomic theory and 100 years of Quantum
Theory and mechanics, science is going nowhere and there is a general
sense of pessimism, as evidenced by the titles of books such as ‘The
End of Science’, and an increasing number of scientists are abandoning
rationality and returning to creationist ideas.
They seem preoccupied with on the one hand trying to identify
various sub-atomic particles, and on the other, an astronomic perspective,
while the forces of nature that directly and indirectly affect us
are still unexplained, including such basic forces such as convection,
conduction, magnetism, etc.
Light is paradoxically and blithely described as being
both a wave and a particle, and the nature and the means of the transmission
of other forms of radiant energy such as heat, ultraviolet etc. are
still a mystery.
These local forces of nature are fundamentally important
to our understanding of life on earth and of the influence of man on
our local environment, for example with respect to climate change.
Pure science (but by no means technology and applied science)
is at a dead end and when a path is taken that leads to a dead end,
there is often only one way forward, and that is backward, to find
the point where the wrong direction was chosen. To do this we have
to have a brief look back at the history and the development of atomic
theory.
First as we will be considering scientific issues and,
as one definition of ‘science’ that is applied is that it is “the
organization of objectively verifiable sense experience”, it is necessary
to ensure that we start from a common understanding, or base, of
reality for us as humans, in other words the real world as perceived
by our senses that are stimulated by the natural forces such as light
and heat that we are seeking to understand.
Chapter 2 >
Back to Gravity Contents >
|
