''Both in theory and practice the human mind consistently has the perverse inclination to take the wrong road, although Nature constantly demonstrates the right way with countless reiterations and allusions.’’
Viktor Schauberger, The Natural Movement of Water over the Earth's Surface, 1931
''Something is wrong with science - fundamentally wrong. Theories just keep getting stranger and stranger.
Take for example, my own professional field: astronomy. To the extent that you are already with the three theories that follow, try to think about how they would impress you if you were just now hearing about them for the first time, without knowing any of the supporting background.
The Bing Bang theory is the accepted model for the origin of the universe. This theory requires us to accept the following: time and space have not always existed; both began a finite time ago; and both the age and size of the present universe are finite; also that all matter and energy in the entire universe were contained in a infinitesimal point at the ‘beginning’; that for some unknown reason it all exploded; that space and time themselves expanded out of that explosion; that at first space expanded faster than the speed of light; that the explosion was so uniform it emitted an almost perfectly uniform radiation everywhere; and the same explosion was non-uniform enough to create the observed, quite irregular matter distribution in the universe; that the chaos from the explosion eventually organized himself into the structures presently seen in the universe, contrary of the principle of entropy (which basically states that you shouldn’t get order out of chaos); that all matter in the universe expands away from all other matter as space itself continues to expand, although there is no center; that the expansion of space itself occurs between all galactic clusters and larger structures, but does not occur at all on scales as small as individual galaxies or the solar system; that vast assemblies of galaxies stream through space together relative to other assemblies; and that immense voids separate immense walls of galaxies, all condensed from the same explosion.
Gravity is accepted as the principal force operating on the scale of the observable universe. This force is always attractive, never repulsive; it causes every particle of matter in the universe to attract every other particle over an unlimited range; it is capable of warping space and time near masses; it appears to act instantly and without lighttime delay, while somehow its wave form propagates only at the speed of light; gravity does not lose strength as the universe expands; it is weaker than the other fundamental forces of nature by 20-40 orders of magnitude, yet has unlimited (infinite) strength when matter collapses far enough; and gravity has resisted all efforts to link it with the other fundamental forces.
The Oort Cloud is the accepted model for the origin of comets. According to the interpretation of comet observations, this cloud of comets is located at about 1000 times the distance of Pluto from the Sun within a volume large enough to hold all stars in all visible galaxies in the universe without touching; passing galactic stars plunge through this ‘cloud’ from time to time; it requires about 10,000,000 years for an average comet within the cloud to orbit the Sun; the cloud gets wiped out occasionally by passing giant molecular clouds and must then be replenished; yet it currently contains about 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) comets a kilometer or larger in diameter, each with an average separation of about 1,000,000,000 (one billion) kilometers from its nearest comet; and has an average space density for the whole cloud of about 0.001 hydrogen atom per cubic meter.
Now astronomers have excellent reasons for accepting these intrinsically amazing theories with all these seemingly improbable properties. As a professional astronomer myself, I am familiar with those reasons. Looking at the observational data upon which these theories are based, it is difficult to see much room for argument. In many cases, the reasoning seems compelling, however strange the conclusions which result. At the time I was taught these theories, I too, accepted them, with few reservations.
But events in my life caused me to start questioning my goals and the correctness of everything I had learned…
I particularly noted a regular practice of not re-examining the fundamental assumptions underlying a theory once it gained ‘accepted’ status, almost no matter how incompatible some new observation or experiment might be. And I saw powerful vested interests in a ‘status quo’ develop around certain accepted theories.
It gradually become clear that a lot of people had a lot to lose if an accepted theory or practice were challenged: the authors of the original theory, whose names had become well-known; all those who published papers which reference or depend on the theory; journal editors and referees who have made decisions or criticized other works based on a theory; funding agencies which have paid for research which pre-supposes a theory; instrument builders and experiment designers who spend career time testing ideas which spring from a theory; journalists and writers whose publications have featured and promoted a theory; teachers and interested members of the public who have learned a theory, been impressed by the wonder of it, and who have no wish to have to teach or learn a new theory; and students, who need to find a job in their field of training.
It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity. Even when it is not effective directly, it is usually successful at ensuring that the contrary person or idea gains few allies, and remains isolated. In short, those who may suspect the need for a radical change in an accepted theory have no interests or motivations as strong as those supporting the status quo. And these people usually lack the background and confidence to challenge the ‘recognized experts’ in the field who defend their own theories.''
Tom Van Flandern, Preface to Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets, 1993
See also a brilliant article by Tom Van Flandern, The Exploded Planet Hypothesis:
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki23.htm
Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1993; 1st Edition; xxxvii, 428 p., index, softcover book; inscribed and signed by Tom Van Flandern; fine condition.
Price: USD 1,200,000.00