 Return to Home Page | © Copyright 1995 AD, Robert Lanigan-O'Keeffe, Sydney, Australia. |  Advance to Chapter 2 |
| Table of Contents | Page # |
| Basic requirements. | 1 |
| Introduction to Causal Research. | 1 |
| Education and indoctrination. | 8 |
| Science and Acceptance. | 12 |
| Causal Research and Chemistry. | 14 |
| Nature, Religion and various Gods. | 19 |
| About this work references, and credentials. | 22 |
|
| |
| Attached files | |
| A Game's Importance. | game.htm |
Although many educational experts and scientists attempt to make the sciences interesting and exciting illustrating Nature's marvels and phenomena, students become frustrated by confusing convoluted and contradictory ad hoc theory. The problems that cloud and corrupt scientific explanation originate deep in scientific history when critical errors made by the great scientists entered the sciences, and as on-going problems, retard real scientific advancement. Whether right or wrong, when these philosophers and scientists established the fabric and foundations of modern science, with their acceptance of scientific mysteries and strange exceptions-to-the-rule (through expedience, empirical approximations, and simplification, presenting incomplete descriptions resulting from their inexperience, laxity, and poor observational interpretation), they introduced blatant speculation and false conclusions made without proof, reason, and mechanism.
As these problematic errors evolved within the scientific belief-set, a situation developed that must not only be faced, the entire scientific model (paradigm) must be addressed and corrected, if not superseded to another paradigm that best explains Nature's Universe without mystery, contradiction, or confusion. Unfortunately, because the Scientific Method's causal research stage seeks to find and correct experimental errors based on the tried and apparently true scientific foundations, problematic errors and deluded theory remain hidden, buried by enthusiastic ostention describing as truth, highly predictive invalid stand-alone mathematical arguments.
This work applies the causal research stage to the very scientific foundations examining Nature's mechanical simplicity from the atomic level to the cosmological, crossing and bridging the scientific demarcation boundaries using well-documented scientific principles, exploring Nature's Universe and the sciences, seeking not just truth in the mathematical equations, but more so in terms of explanation and mechanism. Consequently, this work amalgamates all the sciences into one science, Nature's Science, seeking a common mechanism explaining gravity, mechanics, and magnetic radiation, defining all energy and force-forms, with what could only be considered as an upgraded atomic Æther Theory that not only links all matter, it operates universally, affecting all matter at the atomic level producing detectable effects.
During the infancy of each science, lack of knowledge, suitable technology and expedience established terrestrially based speculations and observational illusions as the scientific foundations upon which present-day theory stands. As the fabric of Science took shape confused by observational illusions, unsupported notions, gut feelings, political opinions, peer pressure, fear and superstition, with inadequately prepared researchers accepting the first and most likely scenario explaining and predicting scientific observations, invalid concepts and theory devoid of natural mechanism entered scientific belief-sets.
Although the use of a particular scenario made understanding fairly reasonable, popular acceptance does not prove superstitious beliefs scientifically true, nor does the argument, because science has been using these theories for so long, the theories must be true. Scientific arrogance proves gullibility not truth. When a vital part of a science stands in error, theory working within the framework of that science and built on that error cannot be considered scientific or true, even though such theory may appear mathematically perfect (in giving the correct predictions). Due to the workings of parallel mathematics without mechanism, although accurate predictions based purely on previously obtained calibrated observational results prove a method as a useful tool; accurate predictions do not supply proof to a notion, assumed mechanism, theory, or science, without a full and complete explanation involving a mechanism.
Through indoctrination, based purely on the interpretation of observational evidence and parallel mathematical prediction, scientific fundamentalists promote without adequate mechanism, as scientific truths in an invalid pantology, tendentious and preternatural belief-sets. Rather than describing mechanism, Davy's electrochemical theory and Newton's Laws describe the effects of unknown mechanisms. In giving credence to an element's valency (its apparent chemical bonding power), indoctrinated zealots demand the acceptance of contradictions, scientific mysteries, conditional rule-changes, strange exceptions, and parallel mathematical approximations. In promoting these belief-sets as truth, scientific zealots honour, praise, defend and sycophantically treat the great men of science as scientific gods that came before, maintaining without question, self-confirming tautologies, mistakes, and false opinions, that through blind faith give credence to blatant speculation and conjecture without basis.
As Isaac Newton honoured the Ancient Greek philosophers as having discovered everything, accepting alchemy, astrology, and religion, he proved himself as human with human weaknesses, capable of making mistakes, yet several of his mistakes became accepted into the scientific foundations as truths. In striving for a higher grandeur-set, without superseding old-world thoughts and false-beliefs, without making necessary correction, Einstein's acceptance of Newton's work without question, in promoting the accuracy of thought experiments, without sufficient observational data, without key observational evidence, set Science on a course into the abyss of false science. As his own mistakes extended Newton's errors, along with those made by Descartes, Franklin, Davy, Faraday, Lorentz and Michelson, other academics took his mistakes as truth, creating a parallel Universe of self-delusion, denying key observational evidence. In bending truth to suit prevailing theory these great men of Science effectively superseded the sciences, Nature and God, with invalid theory.
Although Science should be a study of Nature's Universe, Nature defies accepted scientific theory by throwing up exceptions to the accepted scientific beliefs. Irrespective of hard evidence, rather than seeking the truth for such departures, the faithful call on all deviant observations to their precious belief-set preventing research, tagging natural events as exceptions-to-the-rule and scientific mysteries that cannot be explained. With faith supplanting Nature's mindless simplicity, with knowledge compromised, students must accept uncertainty, sophistication, contradiction and chaos in the scientific belief-set to gain accreditation, for no matter how illogical or wrong the theory, the scientific theories must be accepted as a matter of faith.
One must be very sceptical of the sciences when the educational and knowledge sharing processes prevent one from looking, from correcting a problem that challenges scientific credibility, or in explaining the scientific mysteries, else suffer the consequences of scientific rebuttal. If one cares to look, major errors appear in every science. As credibility depends on proof, religious cults seem to have more credibility than much conventional science. As a means to reinforce the sciences through reverse psychology, the scientific community challenges its own scientific credibility, promoting beliefs openly stating that the sciences cannot answer the most fundamental questions about Nature.
Although using invalid theory and flavour-of-the-month notions, Science managed to progress through serendipity, insight and much hard work. (Described as discovery by accident, serendipity involves seeking a specific research result, only to falter and uncover something far more important, something of great value. An example could be, "that while looking for a needle in a haystack, the researcher stumbled and fell on a pot of gold.") The treatment of serendipitous discovery and the scientific method's failures appear throughout this work, because publishers and their scientific referees demand that researchers explain their research, each new insight, using the accepted deluded theory. With this practice extending and strengthening false belief-sets, scientific referees locked the sciences into an unclear and untrue picture of Nature, and as the scientific dogma grew stronger divorcing Nature and God from the picture of matter in the Universe, it ostensively placed Science on a plane above possible repair.
When discussing natural reactions, the failure of humanity's sciences to predict a natural outcome, or the failure to find a scientifically predicted object, does not fail Nature, nor does it place Science above Nature, rather the observations confirm the inappropriate nature and failings of accepted theory. With such a wrong and deluded appreciation of Nature and Science, members of the scientific community, in proving the asserted truth as true, often draw on some fascinating experiments, hijacking genuine observations, citing invalid assumptions to confirm and prove blatant speculation as fact.
Nature's precision stands in direct opposition to the scientific teaching, "order comes from chaos." It becomes very apparent that Nature deceives the unwary. Although suggesting precise natural laws and rules that apply to mindless matter in Nature's Universe, with the scientific aim to determine these Natural Laws, arrogant researchers (using an invalid model of Nature giving credence to historically accepted artificial constructs without mechanism), failed to determine these Laws or to correctly right the basic rules. Through fear and expedience, researchers labelled common natural events and normal reaction products as exceptions-to-the-rule, as scientific mysteries, or as an effect of Nature's unwritten Laws.
As the role of science changed to explain and exploit natural processes for pecuniary and-or political gain, scientific history identifies how such errors remained invisible for so long. Used as a fundamental research tool throughout experimental procedure, in giving Science a degree of credibility, The Scientific Method, should eliminate all errors, however, as educational expedience eroded and oversimplified and truncated most self-testing self-checking fail-safe error detection procedures, in using established experimental designs, educators reduced the Scientific Method to a dangerous five-step empirical form, a method devoid of the causal research stage. Using the 5-step Scientific Method, present-day science students merely confirm the accepted truths being taught, as did their teachers before them, infected by a "knowledge virus", innocently replicating and spreading the accepted mistakes.
In establishing the experimental design, these tried and tested experiments presuppose the scientific foundations as true, because the scientific community wrongfully accept longevity of belief and accurate prediction as the fundamental proof. Although in-error, under the blanket of theory supporting the error as a truth, vast amounts of meaningless empirical evidence produce the illusion that the theory stands up to empirical tests, and therefore, much invalid theory remains "supported" as genuine theory.
Scientifically protected by inappropriate theory, as each knowledge virus spreads, virulently growing stronger, infecting and corrupting scientific knowledge, the virus mutates at junction points where research and serendipitous scientific advancement spawned more errors, replicating and mutating the errors in different forms throughout the sciences. The nature of a knowledge virus being that for an infected science, the scientific method hides the truth because only the invalid scientific truths prove true. Therefore, unless the scientific paradigm changes, no manner of testing could ever challenge, confirm or deny the accepted scientific truth. By factoring experimental results into the accepted truth, presupposing incorrect beliefs as true, the conclusions drawn in subsequent research stages confirm and validate invalid theory.
This identifies a self-confirming logic style called a tautology, as all tests prove the foundation error as a truth. The scientific method fails to detect foundation errors because in every science, all explanation of calibrated observations made and described within the framework of a false scientific belief-set, confirms that belief-set. Invalid experimental observations and calibrations based on deluded theory maintain tendentious theory as scientific truth, while propaganda promotes these outrageous errors as Nature's truths. The worst part being that the sciences turn a blind eye to all things that cannot be explained using the accepted theories, branding them collectively as scientific mysteries, or as exceptions-to-the-rule.
Well before obtaining any research results in the experimental side of the sciences, the experiment must be designed to eliminate and remove irrelevant variables and experimental assumptions. As described throughout other chapters, fundamental to the identification of truth, The Scientific Method defines several research stages, from the point of having the notion (as to what could be happening from a serendipitous or defining observation, to that moment in the final causal research stage when the apparent truth becomes obvious. Owing to the high probability for error in the initial research stages, notions generally prove themselves invalid, while calibrated observational evidence describing a reaction's response to a particular stimulus appears true. However, when an invalid notion becomes the standard for all measurement, testing, observation, explanation, and conclusion, everything derived using, or based on this accepted truth proves the invalid notion true. In presupposing that the observations agree with, and must only be explained within the confines of the accepted theory, within the scientific framework, then all research hides the responsible mechanism.
From the earliest days of modern Science, because several virulent knowledge viruses independently attacked the infant sciences spawning indoctrination, confusion and complexity reigned supreme, through invalid mechanisms and concepts involving chaos, uncertainty, and unknown dimensions. The obvious indicators of a knowledge virus being present in a science can be any of the following;
For the moment, in abandoning the accepted scientific paradigm, placing measurement standards to one side, with all available knowledge detailing the scientific mysteries, working with the idea that only with the application of the correct mechanism, that only the correct paradigm explains away all exceptions and scientific mysteries, Nature must reveal from the fundamental mechanism, natural calibration standards, which can then be related through mathematical processing to humanity's convenient measurement standards, giving the standard a natural foundation. Although this may seem difficult, one must care to look, must know what to look for, must know how to look, and be prepared to make the necessary corrections. In pursuit of this, each science must be examined with the inquisitive eye of a child and the maturity of an adult, with present day knowledge, asking Nature and the sciences the most basic questions. The researcher's role begins by tracing known errors and scientific mysteries through scientific history to their respective entry points, identifying various junction points, questioning the theory that came before, for only at the error-trail's entry point can the researcher consider making the necessary corrections. Scientific errors entered the sciences through backdoors, often at junction points. In many situations, the answers exist in the reaction's formula, with the use of necessary constants needed to make the predictive answer meaningful.
Rather than theory giving the means to make accurate predictions, the lack of theory, technology, and knowledge forced researchers into explaining particular observational measurements without mechanism. As an example of an error-trail starting point, like so many other Nineteenth Century researchers, Lorentz used best-fit trial-and-error mathematical manipulations to find a near-enough-approximation predicting observational results. Without any real understanding of the responsible mechanism, without realising major errors in electrical theory, in blindly accepting parallel mathematical models, Lorentz proposed a bold and preternatural speculation as Nature's mechanism. With Einstein amalgamating this error with many fanciful ad hoc theories, in developing a series of parallel mathematical approximations, his innocent acceptance of errors made by those who came before, established an error-trail junction point where a knowledge virus mutated and branched the belief-set. Equally, as Einstein's relativity theories established other junction points on the errors made by Lorentz, Faraday, Newton, Michelson and Morley, then irrespective of the semi-accurate predictions made, in carrying fundamental errors that infected and contaminated knowledge, delinquent theory spawned from each junction point strengthened his tendentious theory.
With the idea of determining an error's entry point, which of the following could be cited as the source of a virulent knowledge virus affecting present-day scientific beliefs?
The cost of any repair to the scientific paradigm involves changing out all explanation, removing and superseding tendentious science found in atomic physics, biology, geology, and medicine, industrial and geographical texts, to horticulture, gardening books and to all Chemistry and Physics reference works. One must expect far greater costs with culture shock, as educational systems meltdown, with educators, referees and students, reviewing status, position, credentials, replacing reference books with suitable material, altering the teaching syllabus, and in seeking funding.
With uncertainty promoted as establishing scientific exactness and precision making a mockery of the sciences, the number of problems and mysteries found when researching a few hundred years of scientific acceptance, identifies two principle invalid scientific models, based on observational illusions and unproven notions, where best-fit parallel mathematics and speculation describing physical illusions removes all natural processes. Far too many exceptions to the adopted rules and laws appear in Chemistry's data tables; rules that only allow agreement with electrochemical theory. Equally, far too many exceptions appear in Physics where the concepts of linear physics and potential energy describing ", normal motion and relative environmental position, in considering relative motion fail to consider true motion and-or position on this rotating-orbiting spheroidal planet Earth, a planet moving inside a moving galaxy within a three-dimensional Universe. Although scientific integrity supposedly comes from truth, when the scientific truths fail, scientific integrity vaporises when, rather than making necessary correction universally, the scientific community ignores the evidence, rejecting all experimental observations that disprove or would correct the scientific foundations. In branding some event as an exception or scientific mystery, in stating, "Do not look here!" the scientific community conveniently puts the evidence to one side, perhaps in the too-hard box on the bottom shelf to be forgotten until next time.
The problem of basing two principle sciences (Physics and Chemistry) on an incorrect paradigm so great that almost everything ever taught as scientific theory must be considered as invalid and wrong. Any attempt to isolate, correct and fix the scientific problems, restoring Nature to its position in the Universe with the scientific theory being one with Nature, although requiring urgent action, involves a long and costly process that may take over a hundred years. Although scientific amputation may be the only viable option to eradicate each virulent knowledge virus, scientific inertia may be so great that this work's aim "to detect, identify, promote, and exterminate several cancerous knowledge viruses," may not be realised for a thousand years.
Although correcting the sciences would restore scientific credibility, in giving complete explanation to Nature's Universe and Nature's Science, as one system where the science describes natural events and effects as natural expectations, replacing invalid theory with theory that works in every situation, without contradiction, exception or mystery, accurate predictions only become possible when concisely explaining Nature mathematically from a mechanical standpoint. As described in Chapter 6, this involves invoking an atomic mechanism's 7-layer response-reaction to a given three-dimensional stimulus producing various signals-of-change influencing neighbouring matter, producing further 7-layer responses.
In fulfilling this work's aims, the conclusion must provide each scientific faculty with an alternative but common model, an atomic mechanism where processes and modules link the sciences into Nature, providing suitable replacement theory that works in every situation, in every condition. For the sciences to progress, the change-out must be complete, either by scrapping existing theory and replacing it, as in "start again", or by explaining existing theory and the measurement standards through observational illusions, where the replacement theory describes various natural processes, where a mechanism's response creates a physical illusion manifesting itself as valency, charge, or a force-form. Unfortunately, with much delinquent theory built on error describing preternatural mystical processes, as foolhardy excursions, entire branches of the sciences must be abandoned and all events and effects described by each branch totally replaced by theory describing all natural processes and reactions from a common mechanism.
Due to the principle of error, a great deal of conventional theory fails even the most basic test. (The mathematical principle of error states, once an error enters a calculation, all calculations after that point become an extension of the error.) Although maintaining a failed paradigm encompassing major scientific failings and mysteries, researchers and the scientific community must urgently look towards another paradigm, that (without exception) best explains Nature's Universe. Proof of the replacement theory comes not from longevity of belief, nor from prediction, but from the Scientific Method demanding in this causal research stage that researchers throw every known observation, exception and expectation at the paradigm, in an attempt to fail and collapse the paradigm, or to give complete and accurate explanation. The effect of paradigm failure occurs when the paradigm spontaneously produces scientific mysteries and speculation that cannot be explained, or it predicts objects and events that cannot naturally occur. Irrespective of cost, the failure to accept the more correct paradigm must be seen as a crime against humanity and science, terminating qualifications.
Because causal research examines a scientific paradigm's failure points, in seeking better ways to explain exceptions, scientific mysteries and much day-to-day rule-bending science, the replacement paradigm must describe everything as natural expectations. As causal research must trial different explanations against the currently accepted suspect theories, problems occur at the upper and lower resolution or perception points, in not being able to rationalise objects beyond humanity's observational limits, be they extremely small and below sub-atomic, or far into the distant Universe where things fade to black. At this point, only two intrinsic scientific mysteries logically exist, concerning the regions beyond the observable universe; matter smaller than the lowest resolution limit, and distant objects that exist beyond the visual limits of detection. Once confirmed as the most obvious paradigm, as the most logical natural answer, the scientific method demands not just universal acceptance, it demands absolute and instant supersession of all theory, reference texts and explanation.
Just as probability-theory eventually led to the theory of evolution, whether by accident with chaos producing order, order producing chaos, evolution, or intelligent design, forced evolutionary processes and rational argument leads to identifying Nature's truths. As causal research invokes the viral eradication process, it becomes necessary to challenge the credibility of many acclaimed and honoured scientific icons. Although these mortals deserve praise for major scientific advancement, as humans, many made stupid mistakes that entered the sciences. Some of them assumed far too much far too early, introducing monumental blunders by drawing conclusions during the explorative research stage. Unfortunately, because present-day knowledge and technology permits scrutiny and reveals Nature's very mechanism, great care must be taken and much wisdom exercised owing to the potential threat of a massive knowledge avalanche ending Science by terminating humanity.
As indoctrination factors firmly establish the foundations of life-long beliefs, educators mould the student's mind. The classic examples of learning by rote include, learning languages (vocabulary, the alphabet, spelling, poetry, and literature), to mathematics, geometry, and science (counting, the times tables, theorems, definitions, laws, rules, formula, procedures and methods). Advertisers use mass-marketing techniques to promote one product over another, through catch-phrases, slogans, jingles, and in-your-face repetition of the message on every available communications format.
Religions promote specific God heads through catechism responses and learning the Holy Scriptures seeking answers to questions about life and death, morality, mortality, and the reasons for life (through various belief-systems, commandments, theologies, and dogma). Cults use similar emotive indoctrination techniques preaching anti-science, superstitions, mysticism, creationism, extra-terrestrial encounters to divine intervention and intelligent design. Unfortunately, in secular and political cultures, fanatical zealots dogmatically take emotive indoctrination to an extreme level, moulding at phrase level, dangerous and invalid life-long belief-systems for the glory of country, political party, or Godhead. Unfortunately, indoctrinated zealots who honestly impose the accepted teachings, censor and mould available knowledge through twisted logic, deception and false promises contained in the accepted belief-set. Such groups honour the authors of the accepted truth with saintly reverence and adulation, as messengers and great heroes, just as they praise those who sacrificed their existence, become sanctified as martyrs to the cause, as great heroes, and as saints. Zealots often fail to recognise the fact that these authors, as humans with human weaknesses made mistakes, and that their beliefs which stem from man's hand, yet taught as the sacred teachings, impact on the beliefs held as unquestionable, with words that may be wrong, deluded and immoral.
As students become educators, peer pressure, fear, and community attitudes impose the "it-must-be-done-this-way" attitude, to reinforce and maintain indoctrination throughout the community. A sorry state exists when zealots assert as fact, mischievous statements and the invalid interpretations of spurious quotes and phrases contained within the accepted belief-set, to create hatred, vilification and discrimination through false-beliefs promoting great potential rewards in this, or in the next life. Fundamentalism stands as the most evil word in current usage because the indoctrinated close the mind to everything but the accepted belief-set (written by man yet attributed to a greater power). In placing proof on out-of-context phrases and passages taken from human works, many followers of the accepted truth develop and promote untrue paranoid beliefs, playing on common emotions to incite unthinking emotional responses. In the same breath, Nationalism takes second place, promoting a divisive us-against-them mentality. Little do God-fearing religious or political zealots realise the evil and harm they create in the name of some deluded cause, an invalid belief, or false-God. Throughout humanity's sordid history, the terrible consequences of man's follies appear, especially when nationalism, (or some other "ism") merges with fundamentalism in a community or nation.
History clearly shows how the British Empire grew so powerful through divide and conquer techniques, splitting communities to obtain political advantage and economic control. Unfortunately, history also shows the long-term ramifications of such activities with the British inspired division passing from generation to generation causing much animosity (even today) between neighbours, states and countries, with divisions based on class, colour, politics, culture and religion.
Many organizations use other dynamic indoctrination forms to satisfy political, commercial and military agendas, where repetitive games and education systems train young people to deceive, debase, disenfranchise, discriminate, vilify, or kill others without conscience. As these mind-games rob the student of all free-thought, making abhorrent behavioural attitudes and heinous acts extensions to the game, as part of normal life, altering conscience and the decision making process, students and community leaders fail to realise the long-term ramifications of such indoctrination. Please examine the attached file, "A Game's importance" for more information linking the workings of mindless matter to cultural situations.
Violent computer games do much the same, when the object of the game rewards players with the greatest number of kills. Repeatedly, the mind states the message, "kill and win". In killing more than anyone else, in reaching the game's conclusion, the player earns the reward of being the greatest warrior, a champion in one's own mind. Such egocentric induced messages alter one's reality, anaesthetising the mind to a point where violence, killing and death become the norm, giving the player a false sense of mortality. One could consider violent movies and violent books far more insidious, in making the individual a witness or part of the action. In degrading reality and life, while exploring various methods to injure, rape, torture and kill others, they provide some individuals with the necessary tools to exploit, develop and copy the crimes of the work's creator.
When communities go to war, the catch phrase, "God is on our side," regularly appears. Irrespective of the blessing given to warring troops; casualties occur; people die, and although a victory may occur, both sides suffer the consequences. Warfare creates so many innocent victims, from families, to wildlife and the environment. The ramifications only become obvious after the event, for when one stands away from the crowd of petty politics, warfare's futility becomes evident, proving that "God is on no-one's side."
As a predatory trait, warfare occurs between groups of predatory animals, including humans, ants, bees, termites, grass hoppers, birds, snails, sharks, cats and dogs. However, in the animal kingdom serving basic survival needs, survivors eat the casualties. Although humanity claims to be above the animals, warfare wastes many valuable resources, indiscriminately polluting the environment. Many historical accounts state, "Rivers ran red with blood as corpses drifted down stream." The spiral continues because the survivors demand revenge or compensation. No matter the outcome, all those concerned must re-build shattered lives. Irrespective of side, although only the war's survivors win a war, warfare may produce rapid changes in both science and technology, however such developments rarely consider long-term costs or consequences. With Science pressed into developing more powerful weapons, equipment and tools, great achievements often form environmental disasters. The atomic bomb's development stands as a classic story of warfare's unknown consequences, where researchers risked everything, gambling the entire planet, for they could not predict the reaction's final outcome, or whether the atomic chain reaction would ever stop. Since that first explosion, the benefits of atomic energy, although very costly, out-weigh the tragic losses incurred. Atomic energy needs to be respected, not feared, persecuted, vandalised, or used in warfare.
Fortunately, natural disasters and conventional warfare reduce the planet's human population. Because the wars that took place during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries decreased the number of breeding pairs, reducing the planet's greatest predatory species (homosapiens), the diminished population's consumption rate extended the natural resources exhaustion point. Although not too late to fix the problems, a point of no return fast approaches with ignorant religious leaders encouraging exploitation and population growth before future concern. Indoctrinated people seem to show little respect for tomorrow, for the future of this living planet, the Earth, for their grandchildren's grandchildren, devouring natural resources to the extinction point. With changing perception turning to the environment, humanity must fix many problems, or witness the civilizations collapse and probable extinction as this planet fails to support humanity.
When viewed from Jupiter as a little speck of dark matter in the Universe, as the home to the only known life, various political and religious belief-sets give this race of intelligent predatory animals (homosapiens) the right to destroy and contaminate the Earth. Unfortunately, because almost every man-made religion and political party has its fundamentalist core, where believers misquote and misdirect others using humanity's written words, deceptive word use gives them clear conscience to validate and commit heinous acts of violence against others and the environment. Although written in some holy works that, "God sanctifies human life", and "thou shalt not kill", in misquoting other passages the zealots validate, "all non-believers must die." So many persecuted, so many deprived of education, so many discriminated and vilified, so many cultures enslaved, so much destroyed through greed, so much blood spilt in the name of false-gods made in the image of Man, all these problems arising from religious zeal and fervour generated by an indoctrination feedback situation, when a community fearing the spread of knowledge and truth lost-control to unthinking brain-washing indoctrination and zealotism.
One could simply examine the history of Christianity, Islam, Britain, Germany, Russia, Israel, Japan, the United States, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand, to see terrible atrocities spawned from indoctrination feedback generating self-righteousness, arrogance, greed, depravity, indifference and revenge. As misogynist and violent cultures emerged treating MAN as the central most important civilized character, presuming mankind's place above the scheme of things, locating civilised MAN at the centre of The Universe, calling on false gods made in the image of MAN, or false ideologies, with indoctrination and emotive prevarication establishing egocentric notions serving the civilised community, or the accepted man-made religion, denying community members (with different beliefs, class, skin colour, heritage, strength, health, or gender) basic rights, premeditated repression through discrimination, vilification, slavery, oppression, torture, terrorism, repression and genocide, introduced a far more powerful and sinister pernicious indoctrination form.
Through violent acts invalidating the indoctrinated zealot's entire belief-system, victims established pernicious indoctrination; an extremely long-held belief-system opposed to the accepted dogmatic oppressive beliefs. Passed down from parent to child, an internal feedback situation moulds family traditions, reinforcing the anger for generations to come, making the events of the past impossible to forgive or forget. Although a community may realise the errors of the past and attempt to right the wrongs, the back-lash of pernicious indoctrination surfaces, demanding and invoking revengeful compensation concepts, which in overcorrecting for all previous hurt, creates new victims and more pernicious indoctrination.
By illustrating indoctrination's worst side affecting community attitudes, indoctrination techniques must be carefully applied with checks and balances due to the high potential of producing long term damage, generating invalid belief-sets that could enter a feedback condition. Without suitable preventative measures, as illustrated in recent times, with pre-World War I British Imperialism dividing the Middle East into several factions, the problem of cultural hatred becomes one of mind-numbing fundamentalism, with present day nations accepting a fundamentalist belief-system, discriminating and destroying their own cultural heritage in a self-destructive cultural meltdown.
Although the sciences began using beneficial indoctrination architectures to infuse in the student's mind safety aspects, the scientific method, procedures, and theory, educators innocently began using the scientific method to alter perception, with poorly explained experiments creating an invalid and false appreciation of Nature, describing the Universe through bad science, deluded theory and contradiction, with rules that lack rigidity, and exceptions that change steadfast rules. Scientific indoctrination's beneficial side came when early researchers realised that a little of this and a little bit of that, could cause serious injury, destroy the entire neighbourhood, or kill everyone in a district, for safety reasons Chemistry adopted indoctrination techniques demanding safe material handling procedures. Rather than locking scientific indoctrination into the Scientific Method (in testing, confirming, and correcting scientific education), in demanding adherence to the rules and procedures, educators locked The Scientific Method into the belief-system promoting without question scientific foundations based on scientific mysteries, maintaining deluded scientific theory without question.
With the Scientific Method's fail-safe error checking procedures removed from the education system, indoctrination led to scientific arrogance and an inertia resisting all change, with pernicious indoctrination establishing anti-scientific belief-sets, that may or may not be true. Since the statement, "it has always been done this way, will continue to be done this way, for the theory cannot be changed, unless you can come up with a better theory that explains things differently", identifies dogmatic indoctrination, in placing the onus of change or compliance on the ignorant student, with fear inspiring a life-long dogmatic adherence to the rule, in establishing a fixed mind-set of non-correction, the student's unwitting acceptance copies the knowledge virus preventing the student ever questioning scientific credibility. Therefore, in refusing to impose the scientific method's causal research requirements, any theory that attempts to correct existing theory must be considered as pernicious and invalid.
When educators teach a subject with critical doubts, refusing to accept responsibility for the scientific truths being taught, this fact alone challenges scientific credibility and integrity. In cautiously describing the Scientific Method, Albert Einstein affirmed that although 10,000 experiments may prove a theory... one experiment could change Science forever. However, when scientific inertia and the it-must-be-done-this-way attitude forces the scientific community into ignoring all experimental proofs that could discredit a scientific foundation, one must question scientific integrity (which supposedly identifies the truth). In maintaining reputation, status and position, dogmatic beliefs produce a closed conditional mind-set censoring all new knowledge. While demanding scientific honesty, although preaching change as possible, the fear of change negated anything that challenged the established belief-set and promoted falsehoods claimed as the strength of knowledge. Because people do not want to accept the responsibility for costly change, or suspicious theory, they typically adopt a follow-the-leader mentality, giving responsibility to someone else, someone in authority, protecting the self from blame, by citing that individual's work as the primary reference.
With responsibility for the mistake cast elsewhere, the fundamental problem of maintaining and advancing the sciences transferred to future educators, but then the locked mind-set that purports seeking a better way prevents the acceptance of any theory that explains things differently. Unfortunately, many notions and beliefs, such as electrochemical bonding, taught as truth but paraphrased with uncertainty and veiled apologies for the theory's failings, (such as, "the theory has its strengths and its weaknesses," or "the theory must be accepted until something better comes along") identifies theory devoid of truth, devoid of strength. However, as students with youthful enthusiasm seeking to discover a better way, to find the scientific pantology, and solutions to the scientific mysteries, they soon experienced the anguish, frustration and pain resulting from scientific rebuttal, rejection and forced compliance.
The impact of accepting poor scientific beliefs through faith, involving complexity, confusion, mysteries and uncertainty, led some students to abandon the sciences, while others (blinded by the opportunity) became scientific zealots preaching and defending diverse and specialised belief-veins without understanding the big picture of Nature's Universe, or without considering the dogma accepted by other scientific branches. As scientific arrogance and specialisation fragmented the sciences, the remark, "the process works but defies conventional theory," identifies a dogmatic belief-set with feeble attempts to explain natural processes. After walking away from one's ambition, many disillusioned students identified science as an egocentric dogmatic religion, a boy's club without Godhead or reward system, with its sacred institutions, saints, bishops, priests and brethren preaching the scriptures of false-gods, of false science.
Almost everyone interested in the sciences began their education with the excitement of youth. Most had this fascination crushed by indoctrination, frustration, and workload. Merely to get through the volume of required knowledge, expedience became an educational tool producing blind acceptance for much unfounded confronting and illogical speculation, involving self-proving contradictory and convoluted theory, copious exceptions, and complex concepts with vague explanations. After devoting much time and effort preparing for a science career, learning everything possible, questions must be asked and solutions found when students suddenly develop an acceptance problem rejecting scientific validity, abandoning the science course, setting new ambitions, or when so disappointed take their own life. Rather than academics considering the high dropout rate, self-mutilation, and suicide as a problem, in failing to realise something amiss, educational vilification hid the problems, treating the disillusioned frustrated student as the cause. One chemist defended scientific education stating, "the dropout-rate is typical of all Science faculties; students fail because they set their goals to high, were not prepared to work, learn or conform." In casting blame on an unfortunate student, that pathetic statement identifies a closed-mind approach to a problem of great magnitude. All course dropouts must be considered as a tragedy, not just for the individual, but also as a loss to the world.
Just as Chemistry's problems stem from recent mistakes, made around 1810 AD, virulent infections began spreading in Physics from before 1700 AD, attacking and mutating scientific knowledge. By far the worst case comes from the interpretation of Newton's empirical laws of gravitation. Although Potential Energy supposedly increases with height, any examination of gravity, and Newton's equations, identifies the fact that gravitational potential difference increases with height, while gravitational potential energy decreases with increasing height! To some this reversal may appear purely as a semantic exercise, however, in reversing the mathematics, it gives Physics accurate predictions by superseding much deluded conventional Physics. As Albert Einstein based both relativity theories on the potential energy error, as theories of gravity, light, energy and time, the principle of error invalidates his theory and all its theoretical predictions. Identifying these problems opens the door to a grand re-think and re-write of all invalid science.
In proposing two distinct theories, the General Theory and the Special Theory, Einstein created a monumental problem. One theory states that because the photon has energy, it has mass, and therefore light speed changes with gravity; the other defines light's speed as fixed and finite in a vacuum irrespective of all conditions including gravity, but then allows different light speeds in non-vacuo. In direct contradiction to this contradiction, Quantum theory defines a mass-less, dimension-less particle affecting matter, that travels at a fixed and finite speed, existing simultaneously in parallel universes. To throw a spanner into the works, although these theories state "in vacuo", terrestrial observations and measurements show such statements of fact as hypothetical situations without basis. The sciences have not yet proven such theory in the intergalactic vacuum.
To understand why Einstein backed both sides, and then to rationalise where the notion of light's finite and absolute speed originated requires researching several sources, perhaps through 350 years of infected Science to each error's entry point, from the development of Einstein's relativity theories and Quantum theory, to Davy, Young, Newton and Descartes. With blind acceptance presenting the sciences with three contradictory theories, treated as unquestionable beliefs, when scientific academics discuss various issues, they wear whatever hat best serves their purpose at the time, to win an argument, or to provide an event's description that other photon theories cannot supply. Logic decrees that when faced with a contradiction, one argument could be true, or that all arguments must be false. When causal research illuminates the propagation mechanism behind light, Hubble's Law, Universal expansion, and all photon theories become rather dark scientific aberrations.
Error realization leads to many wonderful questions that isolate and demystify all but two scientific mysteries. In giving matter a natural mechanism, all scientific exceptions become an expectation of this common mechanism, as do the processes responsible for energy propagation, across the magnetic spectrum, to gravity, mechanical, electrical and chemical energy. Although the stock standard answer to questions concerning anything travelling faster than light denies everything known that travels faster than light, including Gamma radiation, the causal researcher must review the scientific beliefs that once stated "the sound barrier cannot be broken," and then before that, "humans cannot travel faster than 45 miles per hour owing to the air evacuating the lungs." Many stupid mistakes came from invalid theory, political agenda, religious dogma, and scientific arrogance protecting grants, status and position before defending a theory's integrity. A classic example being the telegraph company sponsored pecuniary scientific community attacking Marconni, refuting the ability of the wireless to transmit and receive more than one wireless signal. Marconni turned the tables on the scientific community's delinquent theories, designing and supplying to his customers a tuneable radio transmission and reception system, allowing simultaneous independent transmissions on many frequencies, with frequency selective receivers detecting discrete transmission sources.
To pinpoint that moment in time when the divorce proceedings began, one simply needs to trace the growth and evolution of each science. In Physics, Einstein's theories of relativity and those of Quantum mechanics stand as junction points, with contradictions stemming from silly mistakes made 300 years ago during the infancy of Physics, and 200 years ago during Chemistry's infancy. Although Galileo empirically determined the initial equations of motion and gravity, Sir Isaac Newton received the credit for these laws, having made a few fundamental alterations linking them together through empirical mathematics, but he did so without giving gravity mechanism, and in so doing placed gravity in the scientific mystery category. Inadvertently Newton introduced a very nasty knowledge virus that spread through the sciences giving various factions the mechanism to adopt and promote blatant contradictions, invalid speculation and empirical parallel mathematical approximations. As the causal researcher's investigation eliminates these errors and questions both science and Nature, the responsible mechanism for energy propagation and gravity becomes evident, explaining so much more.
Piece-meal attempts to resolve Nature's responsible mechanism suffered through contradictory educational beliefs, cross faculty plagiarism, and scientific inertia. As individual faculties grew and evolved from several distinct sources, with delinquent concepts and theory crossing the scientific demarcation barriers, the sciences divorced themselves from Nature. To some, the leaderless scientific community could be considered as a huge battlefield, with numerous camps of scientists and researchers scattered all about, some in educational institutions, others in business camps, with some building strong alliances. With so many interested parties preciously protecting and defending their territorial patch, their part, holding on to precious beliefs preventing change, they fail to realise the damage their contradictory beliefs inflict on the community and the environment. In taking this analogy to the next stage, as spies meander between the camps, stealing ideas and swapping plans, developing an expertise of each science, some notice that the pieces belong to a map of Nature's Universe. In piling all the map pieces on a table, as an enormous jigsaw puzzle, as the spies fit pieces together, they find and remove duplicate pieces, identifying common links that join diverse camps, they fail to realise that other apparently genuine pieces merely fill in the gaps with artistic non-genuine pattern joining exercises. Although a common map of Nature's science slowly formed through serendipity, the confused and inappropriate picture of Nature maintained by the non-unified faculties, in adding non-genuine pieces, distorted the map. Rather than finding specific demarcation barriers, the distorted map revealed a single but distorted belief system.
One of the first arguments that causal research must adopt concerns Nature's mechanical answer, because common reactions under the same conditions produce common and consistent results, where simple natural reactions (in Physics and Chemistry) occur that defy elaborate theory, the responsible mechanism must either be, very simple and natural, or very complex and artificial. To isolate the truth, just as Nature defies all sophisticated and elaborate theory as possible mechanisms, (especially explanations calling on uncertainty and chaos, exception and chemical property look-up tables, complex memory and library functions, to those involving parallel universes that few academics understand or comprehend), the causal researcher must opt for a simple approach, asking simple questions, seeking simple answers defining Nature's mechanism. Because the formation of molecules and energy transfer within matter involves atomic processes, the causal researcher must consider ALL molecular and physical response reactions at the atomic level, as atomic in origin, as sequential atomic response reaction events affecting and influencing the local atomic environment.
The scientific method warns against errors entering every research stage, with the possibility of error so high during the early stages, from the problem arousal stage when researchers begin contemplating a notion, great care must be exercised in removing all errors, for once any error enters the procedure affecting the conclusion, it invalidates the conclusion, with the scientific method demanding restarting the entire research from the error's entry point. In normal experimental testing, before explorative tests begin, the researcher must calibrate the apparatus against some standard, which for new ground often means establishing the standard. As described in other chapters, a more accurate hypothesis develops after the experimental design stage during the explorative research stage; however, preconceived beliefs may challenge experimental results and affect the scenario's truth. With early researchers exploring in the dark, with limited knowledge based on speculation and terrestrial effects, with the atom considered as indivisible, with available research tools limited by extremely primitive technology, with the researcher designing and building their own measurement tools and experimental apparatus that may or may not be suitable, with researchers establishing convenient personal calibration standards using tentative in-house measurement scales, scientific procedures failed to remove many basic human errors and invalid assumptions.
Scientific history identifies the introduction of some amazingly sophisticated and complex speculation, which without substantial proof became the principle scientific theories, and the source of subsequent mutant theory at several important junction points. Begun innocently by Faraday's innocent remark so long ago, and maintained by chemical educators, the electrochemical knowledge virus spread at an alarming rate, replicating itself as it infected all the sciences, spawning mutant theory. With Sir Humphrey Davy attempting to explain the nature of chemical bonding, in an idle conversational moment he asked his assistant Michael Faraday to reconcile the strange relationship between chemical reactions with the noted phenomena of electricity produced in a chemical bath. As an earthy person able to simplify complex concepts, Faraday remarked, the reactions could be electrochemical in nature. As this made perfect sense to Davy, without any proof, he ran with the concept, but in so doing his gut-feeling infected Chemistry with a false belief-set.
In the main, most terminology and the assumed processes used today describing electrolysis and chemical bath reactions come from Michael Faraday's quantitative analysis in the 1830's, with his opinions and interpretations enunciating the "Laws" of Electrolysis. In a course of experiments designed to determine the amount of electricity required to deposit a unit of mass on a material during electroplating, he found that the mass moved depended on the applied electrical current during a time frame. From this he ascertained an empirical relationship identifying the electrical charge needed to shift a unit mass of any material as 96,500 Coulombs. Since Faraday did not understand or have knowledge of the actual atomic processes taking place, he re-introduced the term electron (from the Greek work for Amber, the first known substance to attract small pieces of paper after being rubbed with a fur), and that each electron (as he assumed it to be) as carrying an electrical charge of 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs. At the time, the scientific community paid little attention to this discrete electrical charge for no one seemed ready for such ideas, as they seem irrelevant to the application, though his observational revelations were soon put to work establishing the electroplating industry. Some 70-years later, Plank faced the same objections when he suggested a similar idea, that all energy, heat and light could be described through discrete quantities. Looking back to that day when scientific beliefs separated heat and light as unique energies, it could easily be said that since Plank used electrical measurements to reach this deduction, then the deduction could be invalid owing to the electrical resolution limit quantising the measurement scale.
Although electrochemical behaviour stands as an indicator of molecular processes taking place, as a direct consequence of Franklin generating deluded theory with his electrostatic observations, and with Davy's confused and deluded chemical bonding theory entering Faraday's electrochemical and magnetic explanations without proof, in accepting electrical reaction effects as the responsible mechanism, independent self-confirming knowledge viruses spread at an alarming rate throughout the sciences; with each virus mutating, replicating, extending and reinforcing these parent theories. Unfortunately, as Davy's chemical procedure teaches the experimental method demanding adherence to the rule, despite so much evidence dispelling Davy's visceral chemical model and Faraday's earthy analogies, indoctrination techniques actively concealed the actual mechanism responsible for the electrochemical effect as theories generated by false observational illusions.
According to Chemistry, the fundamental belief states that electrochemistry drives all chemical reactions. If successfully shown that this error trail started with Faraday's innocent remark and that, suppose magnetic bonds apply throughout Nature's Universe, then an entire science, Chemistry, stands in an error-state until fixed. Because this proposal fails all presently accepted chemical explanation, then, if true, enormous and costly problems surface because all chemical reactions must be explained and defined differently, through magneto-chemical bonding. The problems extend to all theory and kindred explanations found throughout the other sciences that came from innocently accepting electrochemistry and electron-exchange as the mechanism for chemical bonding. Since Faraday's electrochemical notion became theory based on a gut-feeling, without suitable experimental testing, error-checking and error-removal, with the entry point's position challenging all chemical theory based-on, or built-on, that theory, concerned researchers must begin a salvage process, correcting existing theory.
As an inspired notion, Davy's electrochemical theory must be viewed as an exercise in empirical parallel mathematics that generally works within reason with some accuracy, as an indicator, but not as the mechanism, since so many exceptions-to-the-rule exist. Using this indicator made explanation easy, but as a mathematical explanation, its dismal failures and the need to consult look-up tables deny electrochemical theory the mechanism responsible for chemical bonding. To be fair, Davy, Faraday, and many subsequent researchers did not possess today's technology or the immense knowledge gleaned experimentally since that time, so they assumed far too much about matter, force-fitting the experimental observations into this artificial theory. In other sections that recapitulate and expand on these factual accounts, serious scientific errors invalidate many of these early conclusions.
Although the atomic mechanism stands as fundamental to Nature's science, responsible for all chemical reactions, the accepted atomic model's fascinating history reveals how the fixed electrochemical mind-set altered its development. For building molecular explanations describing molecular and crystal structures, Dalton suggested using tiny balls of differing radii representing indivisible atoms. In today's version, with common sized balls related to the element's atomic mass, Chemistry obtained the means to model almost every molecule, identifying precise three-dimensional angular bonding positions, in replicating an element's known properties, with differing bond lengths and bond types, in various lattice structures. Although the use of springs to represent chemical bonds in a solid gave Physics the explanation of sound and mechanical energy propagation, despite Physics addressing the problem of sound propagation within a fluid (air or water), chemical interconnection bonds between stand-alone molecules giving these mediums a crystalline structure, both Physics and Chemistry fail to realise the fact that when a solid body moves through a fluid, these interconnection bonds chemically react as chemical bonds breaking and making.
History recounts that around 1905-06, J.J. Thomson extended Dalton's atomic model, proposing a neutrally charged ball composed of equal numbers of positive and negative particles. Without any understanding of the atomic mechanism, of matter and charge propagation, academics debated the validity of Thomson's model calling on convenient terrestrial observational illusions to deny its validity. Some argued that, as shorting-out a wet cell chemical battery produces an explosion, then, when charges neutralise the atom must explode. The profound implications of this terrestrially based argument applied to an atomic process seemed to invalidate such a concept. A year later, to keep positive and negative charges apart, Niels Bohr suggested a solar system like atomic model with negatively charged electrons orbiting a central positively charged nucleus. On paper, Bohr's static two-dimensional model appeared quite fascinating, and to many academics stood as the only contender explaining electrochemical activity. Still, the scientific community demanded experimental proof for this illogical and awkward model.
In 1912, Sir Earnest Rutherford made the first real attempt to physically resolve the atomic structure without using any magnification system. As part of his education, he accepted pre-conditioned beliefs about matter and the structure of metals, for these beliefs appeared true at the time and in agreement with several important observations. These beliefs fashioned his experimental conclusions about the atom's shape, structure, and size. At the time, chemical beliefs defined the atom as an indivisible structure. With Rutherford's blind acceptance of Bohr's orbiting electron concept, and the need to maintain Chemistry's electrochemical credibility, in providing experimental proof without suitable mechanism, Rutherford's atomic theory created a series of scientific mysteries and contradictions at loggerheads with both electrical and orbital theory.
Unfortunately, with Bohr's speculation, due to the lack of suitable knowledge without any real evidence at the time describing the chemical reactions taking place producing wet cell battery explosions, let alone any explanation describing almost transparent thin-metal structures, the Rutherford experiment created a scientific disaster. In Rutherford's experiment, large positively charged alpha-particles (each an electron stripped Helium atom) bombarded and, in the main passed directly through a thin-metal foil, undeflected. Statistical analysis of alpha-particle deflections seemed to support Bohr's atomic model, with Rutherford proposing three conclusions giving the atom density, size and a solar system like structure.
As simple as the experiment appears, interpretation demands knowing how to look, where to look, what to look for and finally, knowing how to translate the observations. Because Rutherford did not, and even today few academics do, his analysis stands above Nature, because Rutherford's analysis proved greater than Chemistry, in dispensing with Chemistry's myth concerning the atom's indivisibility. As the popular press promoted Rutherford's story as shattering Chemistry's indestructible atom, the scientific community honoured and instantly accepted Rutherford's conclusions, despite involving his acceptance of Bohr's preternatural concepts. Although Rutherford attempted to experimentally disclose and removed many assumptions, far to many highly dubious and poor assumptions remained in his asserted truths, where pre-existing beliefs in Bohr's model and in accepting electrochemical theory, his beliefs contaminated and moulded his conclusions. The marriage of electrochemistry and the orbiting electron atomic model produced many self-substantiating delusions that entered every science with tragic ramifications.
Due to the atomic model's disparity with the real world, the predictive ability of Rutherford's model became a scientific nightmare. Once drawn in three dimensions and animated, the Rutherford atomic model breaks every Law of Physics, failing the most basic tests, to diagrammatically explain a simple molecule, simple molecular formation, and the ionisation of Hydrogen. Failures occur because nuclear-centric atoms in a molecule do not orbit the common centre of mass. Under this theory, crystalline and solid structures do not exist; chemical bonds involve mysticism; ionisation involves divine guidance. The lack of a suitable three-dimensional mechanism prevented Chemistry superseding much to the Rutherford atom.
Unfortunately, with the adoption of this preternatural atomic model into the evolving chemical paradigm, it created more mysteries, and a picture so convoluted and complex, explanation for the workings of large atoms and complex molecules became impossible. As the Rutherford atom failed so badly, it flung the door wide open for anyone wishing to prove deluded speculation, building mathematically perfect parallel theories on the unsteady foundations of uncertainty and illusion. After working for a year with Thomson gaining valuable knowledge, and then with Rutherford, in defence of Rutherford's atom, in 1913, Bohr published a paper that served to kick-start Quantum Theory, describing in three-dimensions the orbiting electron atomic model. As Bohr examined the problem, he realised a previously unseen link between atomic weight and the naturally occurring chemical elements, redesigning the Periodic Table. From this came Bohr's electron shell model of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements.
The aesthetic appeal of the Lithium atom won over many people, becoming the chief symbol for atomic energy. Science accepted Rutherford's preternatural atomic model even though its nucleus-centric construction and electron orbital theory breaches every law of Physics. With realisation that this model failed even the most basic questions and could not explain molecules, general acceptance drove many basic materials and their properties (such as molecular structure, bond angles, magnetism, gravity and electrostatics) into the realm of the scientific mystery, demanding faith and belief. Because Dalton's model explains molecules and crystals, where precision, alignment and placement exist (something the orbiting electron model cannot predict), Chemistry maintained Dalton's atomic theory, alongside Thomson's model, giving the atom four different interpretations. Logically, only one interpretation must be true or perhaps partially correct, or, in the worst case, all four models must be wrong.
Causal research should have been applied from this point, for in this situation, such research may have identified the fact that many accepted scientific mysteries originated from Rutherford's observational illusions and diagnostic errors, but at that time the technology needed to atomically view thin-metal foils did not exist. Although accepted by many as giving conclusive results based on Davy's model and Bohr's atomic model, Rutherford's explorative research gave indicative results without suitable proof, and so would be best described today as an academic exercise without basis. Almost 70-years passed before technology reached the resolution limit needed to atomically view thin-metal structures and matter's atomic properties, but then despite hard evidence, things didn't change. Although Rutherford's analysis disproved the atom's indivisibility, in reviewing present day facts showing his acceptance of Bohr's atomic model during the explorative research stage, and his invalid metallurgical assumptions, causal research must negate and invalidate Rutherford's three-conclusions. As Chemistry failed to invoke causal research, Chemistry and Quantum theorists breached the Scientific Method, promoting a deception as truth.
In 1912 CE, the Rutherford atom appeared rather fantastic on paper, artistic and very impressive, because it used a two dimensional system of diagrammatic notation that made explanation simple and effective, fitting snugly into the fabric of a deluded Chemistry. When the World went to War in 1913 CE, far too many awkward questions demanding answers remained unanswered; answers that defied Rutherford's model. Correctly, Rutherford and many others (including Thomson and Bohr) argued that a third neutral particle must exist within the atomic structure, a particle that gives an element its true atomic mass, a mysterious particle that defied detection.
In explaining the atom's strange missing mass, identifying the neutron, Bohr and Chadwick added the neutron to the atomic nucleus. As the number of neutral particles needed in each element increased above the increasing atomic number, the atomic number anomaly gave rise to a series of peculiar questions dealing with the nuclear structure that none of the existing orbiting electron atomic model addressed. By describing the electron cloud atomic model, through Davy's electrochemical theory, with researchers more concerned with Bohr's outer electron orbitales needed for chemical bonding, researchers didn't bother to examine the highly compact nuclear core. As a consequence, simple chemical bonding became a scientific mystery because the protective orbiting electron clouds must prevent chemical reactions from ever taking place. Even today, with the electron cloud atomic model, far too many basic questions remain unanswered.
Around 1920 CE, a team of physicists and chemists began devising theoretical modifications allowing prediction, seeking answers to the most basic questions, testing every known element to explain molecular structures. Without proof, as Neils Bohr's paper created an outrageous mathematical theory that seemed to work, in a face-saving exercise, with few rules, with little or no restrictions, without involving the scientific method or any experimental proof, Quantum Theory emerged with the philosophies, "we will never know the truth", and "if-it-fits-use-it". Suddenly, all manner of theory, parallel mathematical approximations, data tables, dreams and imaginings, entered Atomic Physics explaining-away difficult atomic and molecular problems. With the birth of Quantum theory, any hair-brained idle idea became accepted as fact, with scientific plagiarists hijacking genuine observations to prove their convictions. If any sequence of numbers happened to coincidentally fit the observational results, then Quantum Mechanics adopted that sequence as the answer.
Without suitable technology, since so many notions and concepts could not be experimentally tested, Quantum mechanics grew rapidly because one could make things so, describing the Universe as one would like the Universe to be, as a God making the Universe work. Without the necessary scientific controls or proofs, Quantum theory took unproven speculation and complex theory in describing and hijacking known observations. As illustrated in other sections of this work, it did not take very long for this sub-branch to enter an out-of-control-condition, appealing to one's higher consciousness and religious convictions, plagiarising and hijacking genuine observations in providing proof for invalid tendentious theory. As Quantum Theory challenged Nature, Science and God, using the vagueness of uncertainty with the inexactness of electron sub-orbitales, placing multi-dimensional parallel universe theory above Nature, gross speculation became fact when thought aberrations introduced delinquent theory, calling on sophistication, chaos and uncertainty, with the science preaching complex convoluted contradictory theory as the natural answer.
Quantum Mechanics began to evolve with researchers attempting to force-fit Nature's precision into their scientific beliefs, with delinquent theory establishing so many conflicting views, that the simple explanation for chemical bonds remained hidden. In placing as much as possible in the realms of mysticism and hocus-pocus, the Uncertainty Principle mis-directed Atomic Physics into hitherto unknown realms of faith, dogma and belief. All phenomena associated with matter and energy being explained by Quantum Theory, through chaos, uncertainty and complexity, giving the electron orbitales the mechanism to quantise energy. As Quantum theory journeyed off on a tangent, totally denying Nature's simplicity, through sophisticated complexity and "the emperor's new clothes" syndrome, propaganda, indoctrination, confusion and gullibility gave Quantum Physics credibility.
To any causal researcher, observations, mathematics, and theory based on uncertainty must be considered as unscientific, invalid, and worthless because in this stage, the scientific method demands certainty and precision. Only Nature's certain truths entertain the Sciences. No matter how perfect the mathematics, no matter how strong the mind-set, when errors exist in the very scientific foundations, amputation that may save the Science may topple the science.
In explaining Nature's most elementary truths, use of the word "uncertainty" in disregarding all mechanism, allowed mathematical complexity to extend, shape and distort the sciences. In hiding the mechanism with tendentious theory, exceptions to the rules introduced contradiction, where convoluted self-proving theory dominated the sciences preventing normal advancement. Eventually, science progressed through serendipity and much hard work, through trial-and-error research methods, reaching a technological point that allowed scientific repairs. As causal research seeks to find and correct fundamental mistakes and errors, it becomes obvious that the atomic mechanism itself must replace uncertainty, with certainty defined by Nature's mechanical precision and order. With the correct atomic mechanism, as Science links fully with Nature's Universe, every natural event produces natural expectations.
Causal research must not force Nature to agree with Science, rather Science must intimately link matter within Nature's framework, in explaining Nature's workings. Simple proofs confirm that without exception, every event perceived in Nature involves matter's response reactions producing expectations at the atomic level, irrespective of an event's magnitude, or the cumulative energy released or consumed. As misguided indoctrination and complacency escalated the complexity of Chemistry and indoctrination setting the basis of belief, it appears almost impossible to stop, pay attention, find, and repair the foundation errors.
As many currently accepted scientific beliefs cannot be proven absolutely true in Nature's Universe, simple questions about matter's interactions focus on Nature's very hub, the atom. Moving within Nature's three-dimensional Universe, as the atomic mechanism responds to position, rotation, other motion and to nearby matter, giving everything in Nature a logical explanation, purpose and being, rather than accepting the scientific view describing chemical and atomic behaviour through temperature, pressure, and volume using artificial scales defined by standard measurement systems, causal research must prove these standards as real from just internal atomic activity and proximity. In superseding a deluded view of the Universe, Davy's untested unproven belief-set, as the proposed changes describe a greatly modified atomic model providing the mechanism capable of explaining all chemical bonding and energy propagation, in changing the perception of Nature's Universe, then such descriptions must enhance scientific knowledge furthering scientific advancement while making understanding of Nature simple.
With the application of mechanism shifting the scientific paradigm, intimately connecting mechanism to the sciences, into Nature's science, realisation relocates humanity's illusion of chaos and uncertainty to replication of mechanical simplicity, where complexity comes from the number of events and reaction sequences simultaneously taking place. Uncertainty appears with attempts to accurately measure the cumulative reaction effects of numerous reactions at different reaction stages, using technology that does not accurately measure individual reaction steps. In removing scientific errors and demarcation barriers, amalgamating Chemistry and Metallurgy, the paradigm change links Atomic Physics to the applied sciences (Physics, Geology, Astronomy, Biology, et cetera) through a common paradigm without faculty or branch dependent definitions.
Although the overall picture of a terrestrially observed event may appear very complex, as the appreciation changes, explanations and predictions become quite natural at the most basic level, where simple process reactions involving mindless matter, produce sequential response reactions. In this way, the complex and confused terrestrial view of worldwide weather systems hides the processes taking place. From wind currents producing complex air cells and boundary zones where storms occur, the complexities underlying the explanation describes mechanical processes working at the atomic level, linking atoms and molecules together, allowing condensation, precipitation and mass movement. When taken one step at a time, as sequential interacting processes, secondary events and observational illusions become apparent. Rather than involving a sophisticated explanation that few can understand, Nature becomes extremely simple, building complexity and apparent ordered chaos from the event's magnitude. Increasing the number of atomic events increases the number of response reactions and the apparent complexity.
In the Judeo-Christian religions, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, but failed to give mankind the Laws of Nature. With their belief-set pointing out that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, being cast out of their Utopian world, becoming mortal to live and die, this trivial story gave church members the justification to take control and persecute anyone who taught knowledge, for knowledge stands as a threat to those who disseminate false knowledge. As Science evolved, through the use of the scientific method, The Church lost control of knowledge. Even today, from governments to media barons, business and religious leaders, megalomaniacs who seek to control a community, state, country, or the world, impose restrictions on the spread of knowledge and truth.
Religious texts require an analytical causal research approach, asking logical and simple questions of these works, because zealots misrepresent and apply false interpretation to the written words, taking quotes at phrase level in an attempt to control one's knowledge and self. These works generally contain philosophies and words of encouragement giving the guidance needed in day-to-day life, just as do other "bibles" used in business, politics, science and industry containing procedures, advice and the accepted truths. Irrespective of source, written words generally convey a highly edited basic message, the meaning of which depends on the reader's interpretation of the author's synopsis, but then the reader can change the entire meaning through intonation, accent, emotion, pauses, additions and omissions. When a zealot takes quotes from some work at phrase level, they wrong the author and in losing or changing meaning through deceptive means, which in destroying the vital message being conveyed they insult and degrade others by attacking knowledge and dignity.
Unfortunately, present day religious zealots indoctrinate the general community with false claims twisting scientific facts. In proving The Bible as a factual account, chronicling Earth's History from its Genesis in 4004 BC at Midday, Greenwich Mean Time, through negative psychology Christian fundamentalists consider the scientific community's 4.2 thousand million year estimate for the Earth's age as wrong. Based on the amount of meteor dust that descends daily onto this planet, with considerable license and mathematical manipulation, avoiding the Earth's geology, geography, meteorology, and biodiversity, they mock scientific beliefs by categorically stating, "the dust must fill the oceans and bury the Earth to a depth of 50m." Creationists do not consider the Earth as a growing body, the world's loess deposits, with erosion and rain washing away the dust, the formation of delta deposits and sedimentary rocks, chemical activity, changing soil conditions, continental drift, mud in the ocean trenches, geosynclines, changing sea levels, meteor dust captured in snow and polar caps, or Nature's other recycling mechanisms.
The use of Science by creationists should be considered as an insult to any thinking person, as a flagrant distortion of facts used to sell discrimination and dogma to a gullible and unthinking public. People do not want to test such claims when put at risk of being branded un-Christian or a heretic. In preaching hatred, such educators fail to teach the word of the all-caring God, which they claim to represent. Many creationists should be considered as cheap con-merchants, attempting to obtain money through blatant deception, misrepresentation and fear. When anyone sells a product using as part of the advertising spiel, words to the effect of "scientific tests prove...", one should be very sceptical, demanding copies of all research documentation before purchasing the product.
As mentioned in passing, amazing parallels appear between the sciences and religions, with high-priests and dogmas, theologies and churches, worshippers and belief sets, etc. The messages differ, however the modus operandi of most zealots remains almost identical. Owing to humanity's inherent nature to centre the Universe at the self, a clash exists between science and religions because both fail to realise the grand picture of Nature's Universe. No matter how one divides the sciences with artificial demarcations, as science remains mankind's study of Nature, it must involve all the sciences as one science. In communicating ideas and concepts, diagrams, mathematics and common languages convey the explanation and the necessary message. Just as zealots deceive with languages, so can the sciences deceive with diagrams and empirical mathematics removing mechanism. In exercising care and attention to detail, some very good tricks, procedures, and techniques assist the causal researcher translating mathematics and equations into something meaningful, giving the mathematics mechanism in Nature's Universe. A complete picture of natural events appears with mechanism driving explanation, understanding, comprehension, and fascination.
Although understanding the written word presents half the picture, an associated mathematical description, or an equation, may or may not be true. Because the education system crippled many great thinkers, instilling a life-long dislike for Physics, Chemistry, or Mathematics, this work invokes the use of mathematics and chemical equations, but only when necessary. As a means to work around such problems, to relieve the stress that such negative and poor education introduced, simple tricks appear throughout this work. Rather than merely stating an equation as the answer, the equation becomes part of the explanation or sentence giving the equation meaning. Such discussion may revoke the validity of the equation. For instance, that most popular equation E = m c2, although promoted by many as the universal answer to everything, claimed as Einstein's equation of relativity giving mass and energy direct equivalence, the equation stands as a scientific misnomer, an empirical approximation without mechanism, an equation based on several very serious errors, an equation that when correctly explained defies Nature, the thermodynamic laws and enthalpy. Due to the errors on which Einstein based his relativity theories, this equation and all subsequent theory spawned from accepting indoctrination and the flavour-of-the-month theory, must be put to one-side until a natural answer appears.
As simple as the equation above appears, in supposedly giving the relationship between energy and mass, an onerous task faces causal research due to the blunders generated by propaganda, indoctrination and popular acceptance, for without understanding the nature of tendentious theory, ignorant acceptance creates immense emotional problems. Although disproving the energy relationship takes but a few seconds, correction could take a thousand years; so vicious the nature of ostensive propaganda preaching tendentious theory. In the process, the causal researcher must consider other theories of relativity, as possible replacements, such as those produced by Dewey B. Larson, or Benjamin Whorf, but like so many others, these authors based their concept on the accepted scientific theories, without invoking causal research.
Due to Mr. Webster's Americanisation of The English Dictionary, in deflating the billion from 1 million million to 1,000 million, poor use of The Imperial and American standards produced confusion throughout Astronomy, politics and business communities. As light travels 186,000 miles a second, then in a year of 31,557,600 seconds, unobstructed light travels 5,869,713,600,000 miles, give or take a bit. People, including the Australian Treasurer, get confused with the billion's value, grossly inflating values through incorrect usage, or in creating confusion swapping values in a single sentence, ("as light travels six billion miles a year (Imperial), the most distant object being 15 billion light years away (American)..." As a point of contention, the British or Imperial "billion" used in this work and in throughout most British speaking countries (including Australia) being a tad larger than the devalued American "billion"
Around 1920, along with others at the time, Hubble noted a strange shift in the spectra of odd-looking spiral and disk like nebular. Correctly, Hubble initially related the degree of red-shift to an object's distance from the Earth, but he incorrectly related the red shift to the Doppler effect adding the words, "the greater the acceleration away!" With this he established the fundamental concept of the Big Bang, in the very first of the expanding Universe Theories. In accepting Hubble's evidence for an expanding Universe concept, Albert Einstein changed his theory of relativity, altering the gravitational concept.
Present day astronomers use Hubble's observations and Einstein's Special relativity in measuring distances, identifying distant objects fifteen thousand million light years away in every direction, giving an estimated age for the Universe of around fifteen thousand million years. Without proof or logical consideration, the measuring techniques involve accepting a fallacy, this age estimation being an observational illusion, for the theory returns the Earth to the physical centre of the Universe. Chapter 12 describes this error as the simple line of sight geometry used by astronomers in describing the Universe throws a spanner into every cosmological theory including the 15-separate and unique Big Bang Theories. When authorities claim some observation or event as proof of the Big Bang theory, ALWAYS ask the question "Which Big Bang theory?"
Geologists first challenged Hubble's original universe age estimation when dated from the Earth's oldest known rocks, revealing the Earth as 4.2 to 5.5 thousand million years old, and therefore much older than Hubble's estimation. With this, Hubble revised his constant to make the Universe seven thousand million years old, for this figure seemed to be the apparent age of the Milky Way, based on extremely scanty evidence. As larger telescopes came on-line, pushing the visual limit deeper into the Universe and further back in time, Hubble's constant took a hammering being revised six or more times since 1950, pushing the age to the observational limit. Due to conflicting evidence from different techniques, from 1990, Science began accepting two different values for one constant, giving the Universe an age of somewhere between 13 and 15 thousand million years. So much for a constant?
To get around the intrinsic problems caused by accepting 15 different Big Bang Theories and claimed as one, cosmologists use Einstein's relativity theories, the General and the Special, to bend time and space, through curved space to challenge line of sight observations. To explain away the local galactic neighbourhood and The Milky Way's motion, to maintain credibility cosmology introduced convoluted concepts speculating on a mysterious unseen close gravitational body deemed "The Great Attractor".
With the terrestrial view of the Universe limited to the most distant object's absolute brightness, the inter-galactic medium's transparency and mankind's egotism, religion and technology, the larger the telescope, the greater the distance and time taken for light to reach the Earth, the older the Universe appears. As larger telescopes push the observable distance further, even with the largest telescope, the Universe seems to fade-out, far short of infinity. Even at this amazing distance, observations in almost every direction reveal that over 15,000 million years ago, fully formed distant galaxies existed at those locations. In promoting as fact, the radius of the observable universe as 15,000 million light years, the age must be vastly greater than cosmology's trivial speculation, because those objects already existed, evolved and aged. In giving the visual Universe a diameter of 30,000 million light years, to place the centre of any hypothetical Big Bang within this sphere, or in categorically stating an age of 15,000 million years negates the formation of all such galaxies in all directions. So much for scientific credibility when the National News serves up such distorted reports giving cosmology's latest short-sighted distance and age, with new observations claiming proof of "THE Big Bang. Such distant objects identify a technological observation limit, not an age.
Chapter 12 examines in more detail this appalling affair where cosmology hijacked genuine red-shift observations to deceive the community, to prove without proof, claiming the linear red shift relationship with distance proves Hubble's expanding Universe theory and all 14 other Big Bang theories, claimed as a single Big Bang theory, each with contradictory origins and sophisticated convoluted explanations. About 400 years ago, Copernicus and Galileo faced the wrath of the Church, by correctly displacing the Earth's position from the centre of the Universe. With the Herschel's realising the Solar System's position in the Milky Way Galaxy, Hubble positioned the Solar System well along a spiral arm. However, to bring the Earth back to the centre of the Universe, present day cosmology promotes as true, a total deception pandering to humanity's egocentric religious beliefs, and in the process, their sheer arrogance for observational astronomy destroys their scientific credibility. The geometric failure of Hubble's relationship, even for the Earth placed at the very centre of an expanding explosion reveals something far more interesting about Light itself. When placing the Earth anywhere else in such an expansion, within a Universe 100 times larger, the Laws of Trigonometry invalidate all 15 Big Bang Theories. All 15 Big Bang Theories reveal major faults and all fail even the most basic tests.
Hubble's woeful calculations originally gave the Universe an age of just 1,800 million years. Because Hubble identified Galaxies as objects similar to The Milky Way, existing far off into the Universe, being the first in this new field of research, his theories set the standards, and "the apparent truth". However, any three-dimensional (3-D) examination of these galactic objects reveals something far more interesting, something absolutely unexpected. Due to scientific indoctrination producing a closed mind-set, blocking acceptance, almost every astronomer accepts the misguided notion that such distant objects lack the necessary parallax required for perspective viewing. In this work, a mapmaker's simple trick turns far off distant galaxies in to the most beautiful 3-D objects, and with this wonderful view, the perspective changes the Universe.
During the course of writing this work, an academic asked, "What qualifications do you have to write such a work?" Readers of this work should question that academic's motives, especially since the work challenges scientific credibility and in some instances, qualifications, status, and funding. In this situation taking on the "Devil's Advocate" role, the scientific method prevents causal researchers taking the advantage of credibility obtained from the old school tie, College or University clothing labels, or letters written after one's name, for such could be misconstrued as bias. The author's credibility and qualifications come from the reader's thoughts, initiative and deeds, in testing the work's contents, in seeking change, in demanding change. If the reader's action proves just one argument contained in this work as scientifically valid, removing a scientific mystery, replacing a precious long-held false scientific belief, the action must advance the science, and challenge all kindred scientific theory.
As humans with human weaknesses failed to find someone with suitable analytical knowledge, equipment and time, to test, confirm, or deny suggested theory, numerous research errors entered the sciences with tragic results. Many years later when realisation dawns that things do not behave as described by the accepted scientific theory, others invoke the causal research stage looking for better answers. In the past, fearing scientific or community retribution, a few (amongst many) that attempted real change include Gilbert, Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, Davy, Faraday and Maxwell. The Internet shows many more recent attempts to fix the scientific errors, but generally these repairs shore the upper scientific levels when the faults extend through the structure to the crumbling foundations. To suggest change, to fight the entire scientific community proving change necessary, to risk a major credibility attack, to become perhaps the most hated individual in scientific history, one must be either very courageous or a fool. With indoctrination and propaganda placing science above Nature, in denying the individual free speech and freedom of belief, it appears that only retired scientists attempt to resolve the scientific mysteries, while contracted younger scientists extend the indoctrinated beliefs.
Some individuals succeeded in promoting change during their time on this planet, making tremendous advances. Others effected change many years later, however, those who extended the accepted theory added to the problems. Many attempts to make correction failed, but then, some found better answers. Rather than being scientifically destructive, attacking the great scientists, their reputation and theories, this work's aim establishes the basis of change, restoring the sciences into Nature's Universe, revealing a natural scheme-of-things, and hopefully the necessary fixes needed to make repairs to those areas tagged by causal research as invalid. Only the reader can make such repairs, by sharing this work with others, testing, confirming or denying the author's work while questioning the accepted scientific beliefs through valid and simple questions, seeking valid and simple answers, suggesting or implementing necessary change.
Before the reader initiates any incredulous action, perhaps in praising the work as one solving the scientific mysteries, or calling it "the theory of everything", acceptance of this work's contents demands honestly challenging the validity of both this work and the sciences, testing the suitability of various claims, theories and beliefs, removing preconceived beliefs, speculation, conjecture, mysticism and supposition. In accordance with the scientific method's demands, a failure in the scientific foundations must revert the science to the error's entry point, whereupon the scientific community must work as one, repairing and restoring each affected science. Exactly the same checks must apply to this work as future researchers examine the validity of each suggested fix and repair, owing to the possibility that through preconditioned acceptance, the author's proposed changes include delinquent notions and false beliefs, that if accepted may spawn greater errors and remain hidden for centuries. This possibility does not give academics the right to deceive the community, maintaining known errors promoting seriously flawed sciences as above Nature, by attacking the author, stating that "since the author got that one wrong, it all must be wrong." The problem becomes, "if the author correctly identifies one problem and supplies the correct fix removing a scientific mystery, then the sciences must be corrected."
With the aim to advance the sciences, the causal research refinement process seeks hidden gems that explain and reinforce, or correct and supersede specific empirical explanations. Anything new that gives humanity a better understanding of Nature's Universe, perhaps removing and explaining a scientific mystery through scientific means, must be a bonus. Refinement demands causal researchers compare and contrast various theories, even those suggested by cranks, scientific zealots, crackpots, hot-heads, and heretics; even those which when applied supersede and change-out the scientific paradigm. Unfortunately, with scientific publishers and science managers not interested in reporting anything that disagrees with mainstream beliefs, it becomes extremely difficult to honestly report results and conclusions.
The causal researcher must be astute and wary of both pseudo and would-be scientific managers maintaining the status quo. In presenting arguments that reinforce self-acceptance, negating logic, reason and change, scientific zealots promote and defend a self-confirming deluded belief-set with twisted arguments and indoctrination techniques. Some emphatically state, "as scientific theory cannot be fully proven, then, being unproven and incomplete does not make the theory wrong, especially when empirical tests support the theory empirically." With this logic, they deny all but the accepted empirical theory.
In the process of preserving the status quo, zealots openly brand alternate theory as dangerous and unsupported nonsense. Although empirical theory predicts experimental results from observational effects without mechanism, when the alternate theory explains those observations allowing prediction, with suitable mechanism producing the same predictive answers, zealots amuse themselves accusing researchers of crankism and crackpotism. Under the guise of proper scientific scrutiny, scientific zealots win credibility and respect through persistent and relentless attacks on causal researchers. Well before examining the work and its merits, they personally attack the researcher to achieve an emotional outburst, with mocking, taunts, deliberate misrepresentations, misquotes, phrase level misinterpretation, insults, and threats. In cheapening the sciences, the zealot's unscientific behaviour targets the researcher's rebuttals, education, family and supporters. When the zealot finally arouses the researcher's anger, any emotive response becomes a credibility issue that the zealot uses, not only in branding the researcher as a hot-headed crackpot, but in sidetracking scientific scrutiny negating all genuine research conclusions. A causal researcher gains credibility when compassionately rising above the zealot's gutter level mentality.
Educators, causal researchers and students must challenge all conclusions and theories drawn from mathematical short-cuts, empirical approximations, and parallel mathematical solutions, especially when observational effects predict observational outcomes. Although promoted as true in Nature, theory built on mathematical coincidence must be considered as wrong, deluded, and perhaps, unscientific. The scientific method demands asking questions of all research devoid of natural causes, processes, a mechanism, and proof, questioning the atomic model, available knowledge, assumptions, assertions, and speculation, calibration, measurement, suitable equipment, and technological resolution, propaganda, indoctrination, and the scientific community's modus operandi.
Although refinement may give credibility to specific concepts and theories, the refinement process does not necessarily give credence to a particular author's entire work, because humans with human weaknesses do make mistakes (especially researchers holding onto pre-existing beliefs, notions, security, status and grants) - (examples; Kepler's Music of the Spheres and Newton's Alchemy). Scientific history reveals many other examples where during subsequent research, errors in an authority's original work (and cited as suitable reference material) not only affected the drawn conclusions, the introduced errors enter the sciences creating havoc. Examples include,
When identified as virally infected tendentious theory, rather than accepting that theory and working around known errors, the scientific method demands treating the theory as if, in a quarantine, with the research focussing on detecting the infection's cause, and while supplanting ignorance with knowledge, in treating the symptoms, the researcher must search for other infections that the infected parent theory produced. As diagnostic error tracing reveals self-confirming error trails, the identification of junction points begins the mapping process, tracing an entire error tree spawned by an invalid notion or noumenon. Only with this map can a causal researcher suggest the repair, removal, and supersession to more appropriate theory. A more significant problem becomes apparent when arrogance and inertia prevent necessary correction. At an alarming rate, because inertia leads to contradictions and divergence between scientific branches, unchecked errors in one branch may reinforce and mutate delinquent theory re-infecting corrected theory.
Electrical theory reveals a prime example of an error tree, where as a matter of respect for Benjamin Franklin's scientific and political achievements, authorities promote and defend superseded theory. As technological change occurred so rapidly, when finally identified as in-error, rather than fixing the errors, as consensus of opinion nurtured the infection, the scientific community breached the Scientific Method. Well before the errors, mistakes and necessary corrections became evident, several virulent infections jumped scientific demarcation barriers, and without total correction still appear in the scientific branches as the working explanation and responsible mechanism.
Because empirical mathematical descriptions concern physical effects, and correctly use those effects to make predictions, as the true electric field description remained a scientific mystery, invalid theory and observational effects spawned more delinquent theory. Although Chapter 6 describes the electric field as a 7-layer model failure effect forming a molecular alignment field, the causal researcher must carefully examine the evidence leading to this conclusion, simply because such a paradigm supersession incorporating Nature's 7-layer model, in absolute time, the magneto-mechanical atomic model, the principles of Nature's BEING, and the AD 2000 Æther Theory, must create enormous ramifications affecting all the sciences, giving explanation to and correcting empirical theory. Due to the proposed alternate theory's divergence with the general acceptance of "electrical charge" and conventional electrical theory, this work uses and qualifies charge and charged conditions at the local level, where local refers to the actions and response reaction of immediately neighbouring atoms and molecule's, within a molecular or crystalline matrix irrespective of matter's form. (eg. Within a Calcium Carbonate molecule, Carbon's immediate local neighbours include both Calcium and Oxygen, however within a block of limestone, marble, or calcite, Calcium Carbonate's local neighbours include water molecules and other Calcium Carbonate molecules.)
Academics claim credibility, scientific integrity and advantage, from the enormous volume of scientific works, magazines, and papers, describing accepted theory, with predictive tools giving the scientific community great strength, resilience, protection and inertia resisting change. Armed with just one work describing research findings, when causal research fully and suddenly explains the same mass of knowledge with but one mechanism producing various process reactions, the grieving process creates many problems. In overcoming an overwhelming sensation of loss and grief, holding back the tears, in suppressing great frustration, anger and fear, the causal researcher must display extraordinary courage in calmly directing the leader-less multinucleated scientific community to make the necessary corrections to re-write the lot. Irrespective of the evidence proving beyond doubt that major scientific errors invalidate theoretical science, so fearful of change, academics in the scientific community, band together defending precious ignorance, to preserve the status quo at all cost, meeting such direction with intolerant hostility, attacking the individual and the research with every weapon in the arrogant scientific community's arsenal of dirty tricks and gutter politics.
When Darwin penned "The Origin of Species", developing The Theory of Evolution, Alfred Wallace summarised the work in a single phrase that became the centre piece describing the evolutionary theory, "survival of the fittest." When first expounded, Darwin experienced enormous scientific and community rebuttal. Many quarters attacked the work, including fundamentalist Christians. Rather than working around evolutionary facts giving interpretation to the scriptures, misguided zealots took the scriptures at word level and deliberately distorted scientific evidence preaching "Creationism", with God taking precisely 7-days to make the World (and mankind).
Apart from the fact that creationists misquote the scriptures to control people, the 24 hour day did not exist until recent times 300 years ago, not 4.2 thousand million years ago, let alone the fact that only in recent times did languages contain words defining epochs and geological periods. Indoctrination led to more recent attacks, with elected Christian fundamentalists wanting to keep the masses ignorant, changed state and federal laws preventing educators teaching evolution, and-or creating laws forcing a state's education system to promote the Christian "Intelligent Design" belief-set, as superior to Darwin's evolutionary theory. Oddly, these zealots ignore all other equally credible life originating theories, including "Erich Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods?" suggesting extraterrestrial intervention, and other works that attribute life to Martian origins that reaching the Earth in a meteorite. This identifies yet another situation where dogmatic educational indoctrination establishes and reinforces false-beliefs throughout a deliberately maintained ignorant community, imposing laws that promote and protect fundamentalism above the truths of Nature and God, for political and pecuniary gain. Rather than using the sciences to appreciate God's creation, power crazed self-righteous religious zealots and fundamentalists use ignorance and anti-science to tear the community apart through hatred and fear in pursuit of personal agenda.
With full realisation that when applied to this work, "survival of the fittest", as scientific zealotism denies all correction, all repairs, and fundamentalism denies all free speech, all other beliefs, all natural justice, this work should divorce all existing theoretical science, establishing the foundation on which humanity can build and develop a complete understanding of Nature's Universe, as Nature's Science without artificial demarcation barriers that split the community. In such a supersession, in changing out the sciences, in describing Nature's Universe through a paradigm defining mechanism and natural atomic processes, the role of Nature's Science becomes one encouraging an open appreciation of Nature's Universe, by correctly applying natural laws to explain and defend the environment. Because the scientific faculties require weight of support before accepting the changes offered in this work, the author encourages a proper scientific approach, for readers to debate, challenge and test the call for change, comparing beliefs, to confirm, deny or correct the work, the sciences, and one's belief-set, thereby advancing science and knowledge.
When researchers apply the correct scientific approach to problem solving, as readers experience realisation and wonderment, any treasure released from this work may inspire a knowledge avalanche to the point of overflow, affecting massive change throughout the scientific and general communities. Rather than stating the obvious conclusions without proof, giving deep and meaningful explanation to Nature's Universe without cause, this work progressively examines complex but simple problems, tracing error trails to their sources. Through a system's approach detailing Nature's mechanism from the atomic level, simple and logical explanations appear, where matter's responses influence events perceived in the terrestrial and galactic levels. However, caution and proper controls must be exercised, for with knowledge and understanding comes enormous responsibility, else the future suffers from the mistakes of today.
When Alfred Noble said, "disarmament will only occur when a weapon comes along that is so powerful it will destroy an entire army or the planet," although the keys needed to make such a weapon exist in this work, it would be irresponsible to give them further mention or instruction. No-known material could contain the reaction, for once initiated, in that one moment, vaporising humanity's problems, the effects of such an ultimate doomsday weapon would be seen across the Universe as an iron rich star appears for a fleeting few weeks, slowly fading into the eternal night, leaving the Solar System with one less planet. One must carefully weigh up the personal agenda of those irresponsible enough to suggest making such a weapon to protect the Earth from rogue asteroids, for this motivation shows a limited, inconsiderate and egotistical view of Nature, insulting human intelligence.
Rogue asteroids may become a valuable resource that could satisfy mankind's future needs. It becomes necessary to investigate cleaner methods of disposal and storage. Although Nature recycles everything, humanity's military, political and commercial cultures live for today, mindlessly polluting the air, water, oceans and soils, the action of destroying rogue asteroids with nuclear devices would pollute the Earth and Solar System with radioactive debris. Very few people realise that in Nature today's waste becomes tomorrow's resource. Mankind's egotism and the destruction of today means gloom for tomorrow. From the rate of environmental decline, a mere handful of statesmen realise that because authorities and people care only for today, or how much things cost, unless re-directed, the indoctrinated civilised path leads to a death spiral to ignorant self-destruction without tomorrow. Underlying this work, one simple message, "To change one's beliefs and perception of the Universe today, changes the Universe forever, for the betterment of all."
Special thanks must be given to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and their science outreach project, The Lab, in giving permission to link this work to video files of the late Professor Julius Sumner Miller, showing his experiments and thought provoking programmes. This links directly to the ABC Science site, Why is it so? and only accesses the Windows Media Player broadband and dial-up options.
On this journey of scientific discovery, as keys unlock doors, key-facts appear, each telling an important story, describing small compartments in Nature, progressively opening the doorway to a full and complete understanding of Nature's Universe. Using causal research techniques, student should use this knowledge wisely, for no amount of education can prepare or predict what one may find on this tour or what pathway opens. This exciting path explores the depths of scientific knowledge. Only the reader who travels along the entire path can be considered impartial. Please enjoy the tour.
------------------------ END CHAPTER ONE
---------------------
original size 11,440 words
VERSION 8, Revision 3, April, 2007 ... 18,345 words
NATURE, RELIGION AND THE VARIOUS GODS
With humanity so pre-occupied with origins, humanity may never realise the truth about the Universe. Despite most religions giving credit to a God making the Universe and the World, scientific rationale enforces the belief that the Universe began, must end and exist in a finite volume. When one asks questions concerning the size, age, or origin of the Universe, the only human answer must be "only God knows." Because the Universe predates humanity by a mighty long time, only fools give credit for the Universe and the Natural Laws to mortals like Newton, Einstein, Davy, Faraday, Hubble, or Hawking. Equally, fools give credit to false gods. No matter what term mankind uses in describing or naming God, no religion owns God, nor does any religion represent God when believers discriminate against other religions, believers, or the environment. In whatever form, God exists beyond the Universe, and as synonymous with Nature, the Universe and all things in it must be part of creation, irrespective of one's beliefs or conviction.
American... a one with 9 zeroes after it, 109 or 1,000, 000,000, a thousand million
With the light year described Imperially as, 6 billion miles, or using the lesser American scale, 6,000 billion, then as one looks passed the Sun's nearest stellar neighbour (4 light years away), with fainter objects being generally further away, the view shows progressively older stars, and records the positions of those stars and galaxies at that time when the light actually left the source. In accordance with the Inverse Square Law, light's intensity reduces with distance travelled.
ABOUT THIS WORK, REFERENCES, AND CREDENTIALS
Consequently, researchers must be particularly vigilant when citing reference material where errors occur, and-or where conclusions based on empirical mathematical deduction, unconfirmed beliefs, or speculations appear. Although from apparently diverse fields, tracing these three examples to a single source, reveals that the errors stem from a common point resulting from the interaction of two error entry points.
As your guide,
I am Robert Lanigan-O'Keeffe,
and on behalf of Nature's Science
would like to welcome you,
to Nature's Universe. 
VERSION 8, Revision 1, September, 2005 ... 15,500 words
Return to
Home Page© Copyright 1995 AD, Robert Lanigan-O'Keeffe, Sydney, Australia.
Not for copying, publication or distribution without permission.
Changing the Universe, Introducing The AD 2000 Æther Theory.
Advance to
Chapter 2