Dissent In The Ranks

Just stumbled over Alexander Unzicker’s book “The Higgs Fake – How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee”, available in Kindle etc.

Things are not well in particle-physics world, and Unzicker has written a rather unsympathetic criticism of the science, asserting that this branch of physics has stalled in an abstract cul-de-sac of mathematical nonsense, a sort of Kuhnian Crisis, as it were. The interesting aspect is that Unzicker is part of the establishment, and watching a presentation he recently gave on Youtube, he’s of the mainstream and philosophically of the political left judging by his reference to the late British PM Margaret Thatcher in his book.

The cause of the mess in this area of physics is not too difficult to identify – the pervasive belief in the fiction of the “Big Bang”.

If you base your whole world view and science on a fiction, then anything deduced or inferred from a fiction will also be somewhat fictitious and to quote Unzicker, ‘bullshit’.

It is also clear that science has more the appearance of a technically sophisticated religion than anything else as Unzicker also points out that modern particle physics hasn’t really produced any idea of usefulness.

And Unzicker also supports Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s theory that the Sun is a ball of liquid hydrogen, so the Kuhnian crisis is also spreading into cosmology. This suggests that our Sun, using an extremely hypothetical idea that stars are initially formed by enormous plasma Z-pinches, might be an extremely youthful star on its way along the journey to the black dwarf stage billions of years into the future. There is some ancient human anecdotes about the appearance of a new sun, Ra, which needs further research.

But do get a copy of Unzicker’s book about the Higgs Fake – marvellous and entertaining reading.

Update: Unzicker’s revelations could be described as blindfolded particle physicists hammering a china vase into many small pieces and then collecting the fragments and labelling them as new types of vases. Repetition of the process results in the vase being smashed into ever smaller pieces, resulting in a proliferation of additional particles simply based on degree of breakage. But what are they breaking at CERN?

Update 2: It seems CERN  might be breaking statistical records – finding new particles among the statistical numerical noise created from the data.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Dissent In The Ranks

  1. fabio says:

    Hi, Louis, I never read anything about Ra. What could it be ? A star in the other ellipse focus? Or a new body captured by the solar system like Venus had been too, according to IV ?


  2. Hello Fabio, Egyptian ancient history – Ra the sun God, which they suddenly started to worship.


  3. fabio says:

    I thought Ra was the god of our present Sun, but not another celestial body.


  4. PeterMG says:

    There is irony in that an establishment scientist can be so scathing of just this aspect of physics and yet not see that the same problems may lie throughout the sciences.

    I have been ploughing through all the Thubderbolts.info videos, including the latest you posted here by Wal Thornhill as this I see the Electric Universe as offering hope that we can finally explain much of what we find on earth and in the cosmos.

    I accept that the earth is probably not 4.5 billion years old (perhaps its older but I think much younger) but it bugs me that our process for working out the age of things just a few hundred or a few thousand years ago could be way out and that something we may think happened 10,000 years ago could be wrong, and perhaps the dinosaurs didn’t die out “65 million” years ago. There is much to correct once we correct the fundamentals; it will take another century.

    I’ve just started reading worlds in collision so as to get in that background inspiration.


  5. Once you get through the standard texts on the Electric Universe theory, wander into Charles Ginenthal’s books and essays, articles etc on Gunnar Heinsohn’s work. Also read George Grinnell’s paper on the establishment of the London Geological Society in 1807, and Lyell’s subsequent efforts to publish Principles.

    In terms of radiometric dating Richard Milton’s books on darwinism are important views, and from that one should then study Ralph Juergens’ essay on the Polonium problem identified by Gentry. Juergen’s take was that nuclear stability, i.e. the tendency of a nuclear particle to leave the nucleus, seem to be dependent on the magnitude of the ambient electric field that particular nucleus was embedded in. He raised the possibility that a serious change in the ambient electric field could cause U238, for example, to transform to Pb207 etc in a matter of days or even shorter.

    Modern science already has noticed that radiometric decay is not constant and they are searching for solar particles that affect it. They still have not cottoned onto the idea that nuclear stability might be dependent on the magnitude of the ambient electric field. If this is so, then radiometric dating has to be described as bullshit.

    That then leads to our understanding of time, and from what I can gather from the plasma people, if the universe always existed, ie. had no start nor end, then geological time/chronology becomes another matter entirely.

    We also need to recognise that recorded history is always written by the surviving elites, and hence always to be taken with a grain of salt whether that historical record is recent or ancient. Heinsohn as reinterpreted ancient Middle East history and shortened it more than Velikosvky, by only using stratigraphy. This is covered in Ginenthal’s book Pillars of History. Heinsohn’s theory has to date not been falsified by archaeological testing, so until proven otherwise, I am assuming his chronology as a starting point, especially the more recent 1st millennium chronology.

    A really interesting analysis is the late Michael Talbot’s book “The Holographic Universe” summarising David Bohm, Karl Pribram etc’s research and ideas. In addition Amit Goswami’s book “The Self Aware universe” provides another perspective that could add clarity.

    Both Jidda and UG Krishnamurti’s comments on the mind and thought/thinking are useful perspectives since it is clear our standard model of the universe etc is, when all said and done, the product of our thinking.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s