Groping In The Deep Dark

From the April 09, 2013 eNews issue
Visit Koinonia House for a FREE subscription


It has been observed that science is no longer Science. This rather shocking statement seems very radical and inflammatory, but while it may be inflammatory, it isn’t radical.

Over the last several decades, science has taken a grand turn. In the early years of science, there was an understanding that one had to be a rigorous slave to the systematic requirements of discovery. To "know" anything it had to be measured and tested, and then retested.

Conclusions could only be drawn from what was ascertained, not only from testing but from the duplication of the results by independent sources. This would inhibit emotional and political biases from sneaking into the pool of what was understood as Truth at the time. Even then it was understood that one piece of new data could turn over their perspective in any given area, or possibly their entire world view.

As measuring devises became more and more precise, more and more was discovered to be either outright wrong, or at least suspect. There was a certain humility built into the system. Somewhere in time, science changed from being an area of discovering to a religion dedicated to proving its dogma. Whether this was a result of cross-contamination from the involvement of the church, or a reaction to the realization that the universe (and consequently the data in it) was much more vast than anticipated, science drifted away from "theorizing-and-then-proving" to "proving-the-theory."

This may seem like a minor point, but it is one which can violate the very definition of science itself. SCIENCE requires conclusions to be drawn from hard (provable, see it to believe it) data. Now theories can be treated as if they are Laws. Then the task is to disprove the theory. No longer is hard data required—only consensus of the majority, the most influential, most political or wealthiest.

This is present in our everyday discussions. Do we ever discuss the "Law of Evolution"? Even its proponents still refer to it as the "Theory of Evolution" while they militantly assure you that it is absolutely the foundational Truth. Any data that threatens any of its dogmas is attacked with accusations of biased, uneducated "opinions." This is the true dominant religion of our time.

Science is a system, and as with all systems, the systems can be in error without the parts, for the most part, having some devious agenda. Most scientists are well-meaning, hard-working, dedicated technicians. But, much like the persecutions that took place when rigorous science first started drawing conclusions that threatened the prevailing dogma, those trying to adhere to a conservative definition of science are being vilified, isolated and condemned within their disciplines.

96% of the Universe
There has been a problem for some time with the mathematics of the universe. For all to work within the current "theories" of a gravitational Universe there is a factor that is off by 96%. All of the visible matter in the Universe amounts to approximately 4% of what the math tells us should be there. With such a large discrepancy, there are two possible obvious explanations:

1) the missing 96% is there but can’t be seen, or

2) the underlying presuppositions of the math are wrong.

Of course, we are told that the most likely explanation is that this 96% consists of "dark matter" (you can’t see it or measure it). And so, in a worldwide effort involving billions of dollars (and Euros, Yen, etc.) there has been a frantic attempt to find this unseen mass. After all the time and money spent, there really hasn’t been much in the way of hard data proof revealed. With the pressures of failure looming, they are now looking for secondary "effects" or by-product particles.

About a year and a half ago, an "antimatter" (positron) detector in space started its search. Just this week the first results were released with excitement and hesitation. The excitement was that positrons were actually detected. The disappointment was that there is no fundamental understanding of the various sources of positrons.

It is "theorized" that when dark matter particles collide, one of the resultant effects is the release of positrons. The difficulty is that Pulsars, a rotating super-dense star, emits positrons also. Our understanding of this release by pulsars is not fully understood.

The only conclusion to be drawn so far is that there are positrons in space (which we already knew). The space-based detector has proved more sensitive than their terrestrial counterparts. But with no ground zero calculation on the "normal" background resulting from other sources, there is no hope of drawing any concrete conclusion on the existence of dark matter.

Since we know that Pulsars emit positrons, it is more likely that they are the sources of the positrons recently detected. Since there is no evidence for dark matter, there must be another explanation in which the mathematics actually works.

Of course there are other "theories" that could explain this mathematical discrepancy, but that would involve giving up some of our most engrained accepted "theories," such as a gravitational-dependent universe, black holes (which have never really been seen, you know), fusion cycle in the stars, etc.

As with all revolutions in science, it takes at least 50 years to discard one paradigm for a new one. There is always great social upheaval involved. Scientific edifices fall and others are raised up. As we build one "theory" on top of another, we are crawling further out on the limb.

Be discerning about what you believe is true.

Related References
• Space-Station Experiment Deepens Antimatter Enigma - Nature

• Dark Matter - Wikipedia
• The Dark Side of Matter - Euronews