Calling all Skeptics

I not only commend readers’ skepticism of the thoughts and theories I propose in my book − I’m counting on it.  Yet, it is important to avoid the common pitfall that it is far easier to criticize the work of others than it is to construct a coherent, deliberate approach that holds the prospect of advancing scientific thought to its inevitable next step.

The mysteries and paradoxes that emerge from today’s science provide the very confirmation that it is incomplete and/or flawed.  To acknowledge the “existence” of these paradoxes and mysteries, while vehemently defending the current state of scientific understanding, can only be viewed as an exercise in futility and the quintessential form of arrogance.

Please recall this quote from Einstein:  “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  There is little doubt in my mind that flawed and incomplete science has created the very paradoxes and mysteries that we would like to see slain during our lifetimes!

In the early 1900s, the scientific community was highly resistant to the theories proposed by an unknown patent clerk in Munich.  Einstein was considered an unlikely source for the emergence of the world’s next physics.  The community initially refuted his ideas because it could not yet think in terms of them, which of course makes complete sense.  Had the community been able to think outside of the doctrinal philosophy of its day, it wouldn’t have been hung up on the mysteries and paradoxes of its time, which required Einstein’s perspectives and contributions to overcome and still took decades afterwards for science to validate and ultimately embrace.

One thing is certain:  Understanding the true nature of the universe will require thinking in a far different way than science embraces, or can embrace, today.  If this were not true, then we would already have all the answers we so deeply crave. 

The most recent of science’s really important achievements is already firmly in its middle age.  In so many ways, science has been stuck for decades searching for some new, meaningful directions to take.  Despite ever more costly experiments, few new fundamental insights have been achieved.

It’s likely that the new thought that will lead science forward once again will also emerge from an unlikely source.  I can’t claim that each and every one of the theories I will soon propose − or, for that matter, any of them − will be judged favorably, but I can at least claim with confidence that I am an unlikely source to provide them.  Yet, I have taken a very deliberate and methodical approach that I believe to possess great merit and that I will share for others to scrutinize and hopefully refine.  Unlike string theory, my theories and propositions can be empirically validated but have not yet undergone any empirical assessment.

I look forward to viewing and responding to your comments, questions, and concerns.