Podcast # 22: Paradigm in Crisis

Scott:  My name is Scott Paton.  I am talking today with Allan Colston.  He is the author of the book “The Last Days of Tolemac”.  This is a book dealing with prophecy.

For those listeners who may be new to this topic, this Podcast is another in the series “Signs of the Times”.  Hello Allan and welcome to the Podcast.

Hello Scott. Glad to be with you again.

Scott: In our last Podcast, you were talking about the work of the American scientist Thomas Kuhn. Why do you think his work is important in the context of prophecy?

That’s a great question Scott. In answer, I’d like to refer to the 20th century philosopher George Santayana, who once declared: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it“.

Scott: How is that linked with Thomas Kuhn?

Well Scott, as I explain in my book, I believe that the world is about to experience a series of cataclysmic events that have been vividly described in the predictions of ancient prophets.

And what makes Thomas Kuhn’s work so important is that this is not the first time that the world has been afflicted by a global disaster. In fact this has happened many times in the distant past of our planet.

But the reason it is happening again, and the reason why most of us are totally unaware of this fact, and are therefore condemned to be victims of these disasters once again, is exactly as Santayana warned. We have forgotten our past.

We have forgotten our past, not because we no longer have any record of those ancient catastrophic disasters to study and learn from, but because modern historians have deliberately chosen to ignore them.

They have chosen to ignore them for reasons that were clearly set out by Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as I explained in our previous Podcast.

Scott: Perhaps you could go over this again for the benefit of listeners who may not have heard your last Podcast.

Certainly Scott. Just to recap, you will recall that Thomas Kuhn was a Harvard trained scientist. After gaining his Ph.D. in Physics, he changed his discipline of study from Physics to the History and Philosophy of Science.

Based on the research which he outlined in his book, Kuhn claimed that the history of science did not unfold in a simple linear sequence from its earliest beginnings up to the body of scientific knowledge that is taught in our schools and universities today.

Instead, it proceeded by a series of convulsive leaps which Kuhn called scientific revolutions. Each of these revolutions not only changed the way science was practised from that time on, but they also revised the way in which the scientific history of the past was taught.

Kuhn explained that over the course of the last four hundred years, there have been various men of genius who have been able to transform the science of their day, because they were able to explain the world around them in dramatically new ways.

These brilliant pioneers included people like Copernicus, Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, Max Planck and Albert Einstein. They revolutionised the science of their time by introducing radical new paradigms of thought.

According to Kuhn, these paradigms consisted of those beliefs, values, techniques and so on that were shared by the scientific community of that time, and were based on scientific achievements that for a time provided model answers and solutions.

Scott: And how is that linked with the disasters of the past?

Well Scott, as Thomas Kuhn explained, scientific research never takes place in a vacuum. It is always conducted within a particular paradigm of thought. And every scientific paradigm comes with a defined set of boundaries that determine what can and cannot be studied within that paradigm.

So, as Kuhn pointed out, every student who is trained in any scientific discipline today, is taught to accept as scientific truth all those laws, principles and beliefs that make up the current paradigm.

They are not free to pick and choose what to believe and what to reject. In order to qualify for their diplomas or degrees, they have to convince their teachers that they understand and accept the boundaries of the paradigm. If they don’t, they don’t get to graduate.

And the sad part in all of this Scott, is that those educational institutions that ought to be leading the quest for scientific truth, are the very ones that are blocking progress, and preventing the next generation of scientists from clearing away the debris of the past.

Scott: What exactly do you mean Allan?

Well Scott, the problems we are facing today are not unlike those that arose in the early days of science.

Some two thousand years ago, people were guided by the ideas of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, as well as the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, which taught that the sun, the moon and the stars all moved around the earth.

It was not until the invention of the telescope by Galileo in the early 17th century, that it became possible to observe the actual motions of heavenly bodies, and then compare these measurements with the astronomical charts which had held sway for over fifteen hundred years.

And what astronomers of that time discovered, is that the more observations that were made, the more differences were found between what was expected from the charts, and what was actually observed.

The reactions of the astronomers of that time, however, were exactly as Thomas Kuhn predicted. Initially, they clung to the established model, and tried to fit these new observations into existing theory by means of increasingly complicated adjustments, which they called “epicycles”.

Over time the accepted cosmological theory became increasingly burdened by these anomalies. It was only when Copernicus realised that it was the earth that travelled around the sun, rather than the other way around, that all these discrepancies were satisfactorily resolved.

The entire Ptolemaic system of astronomy was then replaced by the Copernican theory. In other words, a new scientific paradigm was born, which then governed scientific research from that time on, until it in turn was replaced by the theory of the Big Bang.

Scott: So Allan, what can you tell us about the Big Bang theory?

Well Scott, the paradigm that determines our understanding of the universe today is the theory of the Big Bang. This is a theory has come to be accepted by most of the scientific community, and it serves as the foundation for all the other disciplines of science.

According to this theory, all the matter and energy that now fills the universe is the result of a primordial explosion that occurred some 14 billion years ago, and that everything we see in the sky today is a consequence of that original explosion.

The majority of the atoms created in that initial blast were thought to be hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these initial elements later coalesced through the force of gravity to form all the stars and galaxies that exist today.

It was the American astronomer Edwin Hubble who pioneered the idea of an expanding universe, by using the spectrographic change in the redshift of light to show that the farther away a galaxy was from earth, the faster it was travelling away from the earth.

Our solar system, together with its orbiting planets, was thought to have been formed some four and a half billion years ago, as a result of the gravitational collapse of a large molecular cloud of dust and elementary particles.

Being at the centre of this gravitational collapse, the sun became increasingly hot and dense until it reached a point when a process of thermonuclear fusion spontaneously occurred. It was this process of nuclear fusion, converting hydrogen nuclei into helium, that was considered to be the source of its heat and light.

According to existing theory, it is believed that most of the stars in our galaxy were formed by a similar process. And as a result of this nuclear reaction at its core, our sun has a corona that emits a stream of charged particles called the solar wind.

The Big Bang theory is based on two major assumptions. One is that the universe is homogeneous, meaning that it is uniform in its content. And the other is that the same physical laws of nature that govern life on the earth, apply equally to all the other parts of the universe.

But the problem that we face today Scott, is that the paradigm of the Big Bang is in crisis. It is in crisis because more and more new discoveries are being made that are in conflict with fundamental theory, and current theory can no longer explain these embarrassing facts.

Scott: Can you give us some examples?

Certainly Scott. As I have already mentioned in earlier Blogposts, the first major challenge to the theory of the Big Bang occurred in 1950, with the publication of a book by a Russian Jew by the name of Immanuel Velikovsky.

His book was called Worlds in Collision, and it exploded upon the world of science with a force comparable to the nuclear blast that had occurred at Hiroshima just a few years earlier.

Velikovsky astounded the world of cosmology with his theory that Venus had originally been expelled from the planet Jupiter, and subsequently had violent interactions with the earth and then Mars, before settling into its present orbit around the sun.

But what was even more outrageous, from the point of view of conventional science, was his claim that all this had taken place just a few thousand years before, within the experience of those who were living on the earth at that time.

This was not a theory that was based on mere supposition, like the speculative theory of evolution advanced by Chares Darwin some hundred years before. Instead it was the product of ten years of detailed research that ultimately filled numerous other books.

Velikovsky was a man of such towering intellectual ability, and blessed with the ability to evaluate data across so many different scientific disciplines, that he will undoubtedly be ranked in time among the greatest analytical minds in the history of humanity.

For example, the prevailing view of the universe at that time, was that it consisted of innumerable objects like stars and galaxies, that moved through vast regions of empty space guided solely by the force of gravity.

Velikovsky was the first person to challenge this view, by contending that the earth was electrically charged, and that it had a magnetosphere which extended out as far as the moon. This was later validated when scientists were able to launch satellites into space.

Scott: Have any other people challenged the fundamental ideas of the Big Bang?

Yes Scott they have. For example in1966, the American astronomer Halton Arp published a book titled Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which challenged Hubble’s Law, the traditional interpretation of the redshift of light, and the very idea of an expanding universe.

Then there was the Scottish astrophysicist Charles Bruce, who noted that the sun’s photosphere, which is the visible surface of the sun, had the same appearance and temperature, as well as the spectrum, of an electric arc.

He challenged the accepted solar theory of that time by contending that the sun looked like an electric arc, and had the same characteristics as an electrical arc, because it was an electric arc.

According to Bruce, the sun was an electrical body, and the source of its heat and light was the result of electromagnetic radiation, rather than the product of a thermonuclear reaction.

His work also went on to resolve the conundrum of why temperatures measured on the surface of the sun were hundreds of times cooler than those recorded in the Corona, which is the opposite of what conventional theory requires.

Also, once the space age began, allowing scientists to launch telescopic satellites and other space probes that were equipped to analyse and evaluate distant objects in ever more detail, a flood of new data emerged.

And it is this new data that has proved to be so embarrassing to science, and so troubling to those scientists trained to think within the paradigm of the Big Bang.

And then there are the problems that modern astronomers are having in trying to understand and explain what is happening inside asteroids and comets.

Scott:  What sorts of problems?

Well Scott, as I discussed in my post titled “The Electric Comet”, most astronomers today still believe in the theory of Fred Whipple, who considered comets to be little more that “dirty snowballs”, consisting primarily of ice and dirt.

But that is not what the latest space probes have found. Scientists have now been able to examine the constituents of five different comets in close detail, and in every single case there has been no evidence of surface ice.

On top of that, comets have been found to exhibit behaviour which defies accepted theory. For example, the Comas which form around the nuclei of comets, suddenly flare up for no apparent reason, even in deep space. This happened to Halley’s comet in 1991 and comet Hale-Bopp in 1997.

Then there are other cases where comets have suddenly exploded and disintegrated into pieces, often at vast distances from the sun. This happened to comet Linear in 1999 and to comet Elenin in 2011. Some comets have even been found to emit X-rays under certain conditions.

It is not possible in a short Podcast like this to do more than highlight a few of the strange features of cometary behaviour that have puzzled astronomers in recent years. But let me just say Scott, that these are just a fraction of the many anomalies that have been observed.

In fact, a growing band of scientists have gathered together over the last few decades, under the banner of the Thunderbolts Group, based in Portland, Oregon. Their goal is not only to expose the shortcomings of existing theory, but also to offer in its place an entirely new view of the universe.

They call this new paradigm the “Electric Universe”. It is based on the thesis that the fundamental force that created and sustains the universe is not gravity, as Newton and Einstein believed, but electromagnetism.

Those interested in learning more about this new paradigm, and the reasons why the theory of the Big Bang is no longer tenable as viable scientific truth, should have a look at their website at thunderbolts.info.

However, despite the fact that research conducted by members of the Thunderbolts Group has opened up new vistas in our understanding of the universe, there seems little chance that the theory of the “Electric Universe” will succeed in replacing the old paradigm of the Big Bang, either within the span of our own lifetimes, or of theirs.

Scott; Why do you feel that way Allan?

Well Scott, Thomas Kuhn explained the reason why in his book. He pointed out that it generally takes many generations before a new scientific paradigm succeeds in overthrowing its predecessor.

Max Planck, who can himself be considered the founder of a new scientific revolution with his pioneering role in the development of “Quantum Mechanics”, went to the heart of the problem when he wrote:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.

His point was that scientists who are trained to view the universe in a certain way, continue to cling to that particular cast of mind despite increasing evidence to the contrary, especially when their status and careers have been built upon that paradigm of thought.

They naturally resent the presence of intruders in their secure domain, and are prepared to resort to any action, whether moral or otherwise, in order to hold their ground against the actions of those who would usurp their authority.

The problem that confronts supporters of the “Electric Universe” theory today, is not that their conclusions are invalid, but that the bastions of the Big Bang paradigm remain entrenched within all the established educational institutions of the world.

Until such time as converts to the electrical paradigm come to hold positions of power within the Halls of Academe, and textbooks are rewritten to enable new generations of students to adopt a new way of thinking, the old ideas will continue to prevail.

Besides, believers in the Big Bang have a new weapon in their arsenal with which to repel the assaults of the revolutionaries.

Scott: What is that Allan?

It is a weapon of stunning simplicity, and one that on the face of it seems eminently sensible and scientific. It is called the “Peer Review” system.

Every graduate in every discipline of science who seeks to advance his or her career, is quickly made aware of the fundamental reality of modern science. It is the axiom: “Publish or Perish”.

No matter what avenue of science graduates choose to pursue, their future success depends on their ability to conduct original research, and then to publicise their research in officially recognised journals.

They have do this to gain recognition within their particular field of endeavour, and thereby attract the funding which will ensure their future security within their chosen profession.

But as there are many more people submitting material for publication than there is space available within these scientific journals, editors submit these articles first to referees who have established positions of authority within that scientific discipline.

In this way they ensure that only the best work gets to see the light of day. It also spares them the need to defend their choices, as responsibility for deciding what to publish and what to reject rests with these outside referees.

At first glance, this system of submitting new research papers to a jury of their peers before acceptance for publication, may seem like a perfectly valid form of objective review.

The problem which many scientists who operate on the fringes of conventional science face today Scott, is that it is this very peer review system that effectively blocks them, and prevents their work from gaining wider recognition.

Scott: Why do you say that the Peer Review system blocks progress?

Well Scott, what happened to Halton Arp is a perfect case in point. As I mentioned earlier, Halton Arp was the first person to notice something unusual about the location and dispersal of quasi-stellar objects known as “Quasars”.

He noticed that these quasars weren’t evenly spread across the sky, but tended to be found in positions of small angular separation from certain galaxies, which suggested that they were in some way related to these galaxies.

From these observations, Arp hypothesized that quasars were actually local objects that were ejected from the core of active galactic nuclei. This was a conclusion that went against all of the accepted cosmological thinking of the time.

Arp set to work to publish his findings by submitting a paper to the “Astrophysical Journal”, which was the leading publication in its field. Somewhat naively perhaps, Arp hoped that his unusual discovery might attract the acclamation of his peers.

What actually happened, however, was yet another travesty in the long, sad saga of science, in silencing those researchers who have the temerity to challenge the entrenched ideas of the current scientific paradigm.

The editor of the “Astrophysical Journal” at that time was S. Chandrasekhar, an accomplished Indian-American astrophysicist who subsequently became a co-winner of the Nobel prize for Physics.

As Arp was later to find out, Chandrasekhar never bothered to send his research paper to anyone else for evaluation. Instead, he returned it to the Director of the Institute where Arp worked, with the words “This exceeds my imagination” scrawled across the top of the paper.

Halton Arp was told to find another line of research, and when he chose not to do so, he was denied further access to the Palomar Observatory. He lost his job at the Carnegie Institute and was obliged to leave the United States and move to Germany.

There is obviously so much more that could be said on the subject, but I think I have made my point. In my next Podcast Scott, I want to discuss some of the other anomalies in our present scientific paradigm, and in particular the farce that has become known as the Theory of Evolution.

Scott: Thanks Allan. This has been another remarkable analysis of the way the history of science has developed over the last few centuries.

You have been listening to Allan Colston, author of the book “The Last Days of Tolemac”.  Do join us for our next Podcast in the series titled “Signs of the Times”.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 at 1:52 pm and is filed under AUDIO, Signs in the Sky, Signs of the Times. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments and pings are closed.