Pyramid Science

This is for researching science-based articles and the contents are for personal use although a wider potential interest is possible and so they are left here to view. No medical advice is given and a qualified medical practitioner should be consulted if any concerns are raised. Comments have been disabled, but any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

An Alternative Theory - Introduction (abstracted)

The following article cannot be verified and is simply some ideas that have evolved. Such argument can never be substantiated. Certainly, not at the moment. There are some questions that are never asked and everything remains a mystery (2016).

Perhaps a little less of a mystery?

To imagine a complete answer is unrealistic, but to strive for answers is reasonable. The model works and is self-consistent and I am aware this proves nothing. It may be wrong, but the 'Real World' is not. I do not wish to disprove or persuade, but only to provide an alternative view.
  • It is important to retain an open mind and consider the concept as a whole. I welcome any attempt to de-bunk these ideas if creative and realistic argument is used and the only request I make is that one question is considered: why do I accept the consensus theory without challenge? This is just one alternative and there are potentially others.

No accepted and testable physical law is (knowingly) contravened

We all stand on the shoulders of giants – it's called progress.

To be published


Moon mass is transferred to Earth so the conservation of momentum means Moon slows and Earth speeds up – there will be a consequential change to orbital distances from The Sun (an ordinary star). Moon could originate from close to The Sun and a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) is implicated. A captured rogue planet is possible and as a planet, its appearance is like Mercury. The planets Moon and Earth are both near the ecliptic plane, so the (CME) is the most likely origin. Bubbling rock matter was the possible reason for the 'craters'. Not a bombardment 'from above', but a rising 'from below'. The heat from the Sun is considerable. Mars is known as the Red Planet and iron oxide (rust) suggests water and oxygen were present at one stage even though the planet is currently dry. An abiogenic formation of crude oil (temperature and pressure) is considered. A reason diamond (an allotrope of carbon) can also be formed.

An Alternative Theory

Why is it that Earth is the only known location to have life and much of it advanced and highly sophisticated? The only location in the known Universe that has any life and it's teeming with millions of different lifeforms.

Remarkable or unsurprising?

I have no intention of challenging other concepts, but blend features of accepted theories with other interpretations and pose further questions. The result should be a more powerful argument with less conflict. It would be unrealistic for there to be no gaps and force fitting plugs into these gaps is not in my remit. A jigsaw that has been incorrectly assembled can never be closed properly though a theory need not be entirely wrong for adjustments to be made to effect closure. The base of a pyramid should have the largest area and should take the most time to complete. This ensures a stable foundation on which to build. If there are no errors, the pyramid can then be completed. One thing is certain: there is a solution. Everything exists. One caveat: two (or more) mechanisms could be occurring. And at the same time.
The concept of hypothesis and theory converting into fact is a curious one. An idea can be fielded and supporting observation only noted, yet at some particular moment, the hypothesis becomes a concrete fact to which every later 'theory' will be referenced. If the new theory does not fit with the established ‘fact’, then the new idea can be rejected. A consensus of scientific opinion appears to be a pivotal moment where everything changes, such as Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory. All knowledge then points to these rock-solid ‘facts’. Failure to acknowledge alternatives can never be deemed a scientific attitude, but if the mechanism by which the theory works is shown to be incorrect only then can a theory be rejected. But even this relies on unchallenged ‘fact’ being correct. Evidence that supports a hypothesis can strengthen a concept, though this does not constitute proof. Predicting an outcome, if not a chance event, can strengthen a hypothesis even more, but still does not prove a concept. The viability or feasibility of a concept can be implied and prototypes created. If the prototype works this can lead to a more advanced model. The effectiveness of a prototype can only suggest likely outcomes and still are not proof in themselves.
A proof-of-concept study is usually small and may be incomplete, yet it can still suggest future studies. According to the theory developed by Einstein, nothing can travel faster than light, and this becomes the starting point for any other theory.

Any suggestion outside this, be it conflicting or supportive, should rightly be critically examined. Established fact demands that the Big Bang theory is a reality and that the Universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Such 'fact' does not validate data. Prediction and 'verification' do not demonstrate proof. However, they are suggestive.


Post a Comment

<< Home