Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds


      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 2   Must Read 1   Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It


- Advertisement -
No one person an keep pace with all the new inventions. Technologies are emerging and, like a living thing, this vast body is freeing itself to become a tangible force. With unequalled precision, new instruments allow scientists to take pictures of distant constellations, even at the moment of their birth. And with a breathtaking impertinence, some have even undressed the hidden secrets of matter. Very recently, they have managed to photograph the shadowy outlines of the atom itself.

Such miracles of technology were initiated into science by an astonishing revolution in thinking spearheaded by Sir Isaac Newton. At the turn of the 18th Century Sir Isaac was challenged to describe gravity, the thing itself. He famously answered "I do not hypothesise'. It's an extraordinary statement. He lived in a time where science was not based on experimental evidence but rather on a rich tradition of conjecture. Respectable clergy speculated on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. Most thought the world was flat. Rank poisons, such as mercury, were freely prescribed to an unwitting public. And plagues were attributed to an Act of God.

All wrong. This mindset, this arbitrary use of assumption, seems strange to us. We live in an age where science looks for facts. So it is that scientists slowly and painfully establish their arguments based on carefully measured experimental data in support of carefully considered principles and precedents. And these are established within the tried and tested boundaries prescribed by our Thermodynamic Laws.

But we also live in an age where a new force has emerged that confounds those Thermodynamic constraints. It has been acknowledged by highly esteemed astrophysicists, such as Richard Ellis and Sean Caroll from Caltech. It has been predicted by a host of string theorists through extraordinary gymnastics in mathematics that appear arcane even to credentialed experts in the art. And latterly it has crashed through the energy barrier in a plethora of experiments that are transparently and widely recorded through open source technology.

Historically we are at a tipping point where the need for new and clean energy sources runs hand in hand with this extraordinary discovery. The evidence is that we need to "clean up' our profligate energy usage and this is now an urgent requirement. But the good news is that Nature has given us the means to do this. Apparently there is a ready made limitless source of this energy out there, empirically established, that will help us do this. It has been termed a dark force and is considered to be founded on dark matter. And its existence has been determined by the curious properties of a hidden particle that entirely defies detection -except through default and, with the help of Hubble's broad vision of the universe. It can be measured through the art of gravitational lensing. And, more to the point it exists everywhere.

It is impossible to determine the "thing' that changes our perspective on things physical. It is my opinion that the group mind, the global range of collective consciousness, is subject to evolutionary forces as subtly yet as measurably evident as any Darwinian principle. It is unfettered by the rhythms of logic and somehow carries its argument only in the wake of its adaptive corrections. Dinosaurs, those heaviest of creatures are given wings. And in a similar way, man, who is otherwise anchored by gravitational forces, is able to master the skies.

But as in any adaptive process, there is much questioning, rank disbelief, anger, confrontation and even outright dismissal. The fundamental questions here conflict with more generalized requirements. What causes that breach in conventional understanding that force us to rethink our arguments? And more to the point. Where is this energy source that is claimed to be apparent in a ground swell of experiments and from a broad range of experimentalists, to substantiate such incredible claims?

- Advertisement -

Well, my proposal is that this is the same force that is identified by our acknowledged experts in the field. The same thing that binds our galaxies into an identifiable form is the same thing that binds all atoms. Look around you. The computer that you are reading, the kettle that boils your water, the rocks in the garden, the stones, sticks, bricks, wood every identifiable object that holds a shape in a three dimensional field, that object is bound by the very same thing that prevents our galaxies from unraveling. The thing itself is simply a collection of atoms all of which can be weighed and measured. But holding that together is another force outside the atomic structure, that arranges those atoms into their least disrupted state. It distributes the atoms and their charges in a way that best balances that object, or that amalgam's charge.

In other words everything that is measurable that has a three dimensional value also carries with it a hidden source of particles that operate as a field and they are entirely extraneous to the atomic structure that they hold and arrange and move as required. That's a really wide, a sweeping, a broad brushstroke summary of the force that I propose may be the source of the measurable energy evident in so many claims. And this may all be conclusively proven in our open source paper that was submitted to the IEEE.

If this argument ever carries academic endorsement then we will, indeed tip over the constraints that have been historically and critically required. Energy, the thing itself, will have been identified. And, with the skills and disciplines and sheer artistry available in mainstream science, I am satisfied that the logic of this will eventually be incorporated into mainstream thinking. But, as ever, it will "come to pass', only in the wake of the evidence.

But to get there, it is first required that our academics be made aware of this ground swell of evidence that is brought forward by our open source community. And this cannot be done until the reviewed papers are freed from a kind of editorial censorship which has been wrested and usurped by an editorial minority. My question is by what right are these appointed arbiters of matters scientific entitled to withhold information from their readers and from the world at large. I question such assumed rights to determine the validity of experimental evidence. I challenge their right to dismiss or even question experimental evidence. As I have stated, ad nauseam, science is determined by experimental evidence. And theories must give way to established facts.

- Advertisement -


I am a dilettante with passionate interests in physics, art and literature. The last decade I have been engrossed in a magnetic field model development that may prove a unifying principle. I have a wide interest in open source research and (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)



The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The theories presented in this article are highly ... by Scott Baker on Tuesday, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:08:20 PM
You tell 'em Rose. Great article. Welcome to OEN!!... by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) on Wednesday, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:20:48 PM