The Scientific Method

The scientific method is an epistemology, that many have claimed. The origins of the word 'science' and the concept of science (as a method) are not the same. Surely the ancient Greeks, such as Archimedes, Pythagoras and Euclid used this very concept effectively in an ancient language under the word-concept 'philosophy'? Many institutions and individuals use the word 'science' as a label meaning 'fact' despite being in disagreement with one another. So the word, the label, the institution and the method are not identical entities. During apartheid, I can certainly recall most science teachers and professors making blatantly false claims that 'Africans are scientifically proven inferior'. No person nor institution owns a monopoly on truth.

Science was exemplified by Newton and Galileo, founded on the writing of Descartes. So the simplest explanation of science uses their foundational examples. Astrophysics inherits the mantle of the prime example of method. So every person should study it for this reason regardless of the main focus of their pursuit. And the success of astrophysics has paradoxically been its downfall. Hubris has allowed institutions to become a law unto themselves, and now the prime example of pseudo-science, is the public face of astrophysics: Einstein. A 21st century heathen idol, and little more besides. Dozens of proofs against Relativity are available at this link :

So how did the institution, once defined as the epitome of reason fall so far from its foundational philosophy?

The method of 'logical-positivism' has been an attempt to bring clarity to this process. In this sense, such a method involves a dialectic cycle between the purely 'logical'; and that which is 'positivist'. The word 'positivist' meaning empirical observations that are positively true beyond any reasonable doubt from the direct observations of the person making the claim. On countless occasions one sees claims that are said to be empirical on the basis that some 'credible' person simply made that claim. Nothing can be claimed as positivist on the word or reputation of another person.

In philosophy we call this classical error the 'argument from authority', and in psychology it is 'group-think' based on blind acceptance of the 'authority figure'. Religion calls it 'idol-worship'. Philosophy labels s such false ideas as 'sophistry'. Those are are fairly synonymous concepts from a truly transcendent metaphysical perspective, like logical positivism purports to be.

Unfortunately, any institution or individual can lay claim to any of these words; and those that call themselves the 'logical positivists' have concluded that 'The God does not exist', according to their mis-representation of this method. Whereas Aquinas' argument from design for the existence of The God is the epitome of reasoning.

So how can the use of new words change this tragedy of misappropriation? After all, the word 'science' was an attempt by the likes of Descartes, Galileo and Newton to break away from 'philosophy' which had degenerated from the seeming purity of ancient Greece into mere sophistry.

But genuine understanding is a rare thing, and most students do little more than repeat 'truth' as if it were a medieval religious mantra - regardless of the actual fact of the matter, or the logic between the matters. And any process of understanding must have empathy for this. We all start off babbling incoherently in one way or another. But there certainly is a categorical difference between that which is of sound logical methodology, and that which merely utilizes its style and appearance as a masquerade for corrupt and/or lazy thinking.

So an authentic claim to the scientific method must involve the teaching of it. We cannot simply reject people who are unable to keep up with our own progress. We must be able to reach out to the most confused imbecile and guide him carefully with every tiny little step in logic and observation, however trivial this may seem by comparison to our own Grand Cosmology. Each one of the great thinkers only made achievements, and transcended their inevitable misconceptions by being tolerated and nurtured by those whom history seems to have forgotten.
So to answer the question as to why it is preferable to use the term 'logical-positivism' to 'science' - it is because these words attempt to clarify the dynamic between the twin processes of logic and observation. But 'observation' here should always make every attempt to be in the first person using this most rigorous of methods. In this sense, building your own evolutionary algorithm of the solar system, according to your selected theory on gravity, is essential to a genuinely positivist appreciation as to the validity of the logic in that theory.

Most everyone seems to just pick a side, much like a football team. They then chant slogans and type random extracts in favor of their side, and against the others, completely oblivious to the logic between the claims themselves.

Truth is not a monolithic institutional dogma. Truth is a pursuit that is open-ended and multi-faceted. And a most vital facet of truth is that of falsehood. Truth cannot exist without untruth. Ignorance is a necessary consequence to Enlightenment. Knowing one idea always leads to us realizing that the next idea, is unknown. Good answers lead to more questions. This process is the dialectic.

And its easy to lose sight of meaning in the endless interaction between ideas because it often seems that at every point our answers depend on assumptions, opinions of others, and unverified or unattainable data. That is why the first facet of the scientific method, or any other method, must always be the internal logical consistency of any body of work. No valid idea can contradict itself. Logic is the foundation, and thus it is also the goal.

Before we can use logic and observation to uncover truth, we have to make a less-certain decision on what is a worthwhile topic to pursue. So prior to starting a study, we are lead by our intuitions - more commonly termed 'guesses'. The typical error is to begin with a seemingly worthwhile intuition: a hypothesis, but then to ignore data which does not fit that intuition. Thereafter the claim is made that the hypothesis has been verified by the data that does fit. So methodically accounting for how wrong data comes about, is vital. Proper careful contextualization of the data that does not fit is actually the key to authentic progress. This is why free speech is so vital to a proper understanding of what the process of understanding actually entails: errors must be included. People who make mistakes must not be excluded.

We always begin with a hunch, we almost never start with pure logic. And observations can easily be misleading, or beyond the capacity of our immediate individual perspective. On the one hand we have those who mistakenly take intuitions as verified, and on the other hand there are those who believe that intuitions are worthless; insisting on a type of rigor which if possible, would mean that we all know everything instantly. The rigid-mind and the fickle-mind actually complement one another. We need both, and dispensing with either prevents a dynamic growth in the process of understanding.

Often, the rigid-mind will idolize a famous theory for no reason other than its fame. 'The theory is famous because it is correct, and it is correct because it is famous', is the only real method of the rigid-mind. Another classic error is 'science-of-the-gaps'. Two quite separate or even contrary famous ideas are assumed to both be true; and it is also simply assumed that some-or-other 'science' will in some way fill the gap between them.

After a time, that assumption is then itself simply assumed as being verified due to the unthinking repetition typical of the by-rote examination process. Most simply assume because they scored marks for memorizing a theory at a big institution, that this therefor makes the theory true, despite the contradictions within the theory itself. This science-of-the-gaps ritual often relies implicitly on esoteric jargon and complex formulae with arcane symbols, which are either memorized by-rote, or simply glossed over and blindly accepted. Sadly, it is actually the majority of academic texts at university that fall into this category.

And yet, complex formulae are often valid. But devising complex ideas without explicitly explaining them in detail is the hall-mark of pseudo-science. The most complex ideas always comprise of many simple steps. Assuming these simple steps exist and are valid, and then relying on others to make similar assumptions are psychological tricks employed by the lazy mind. Often the chicanery is so pervasive, that it is impossible to be certain who has been duped by sophistry, and who is doing the duping. It is very easy to dupe oneself out of the will to reach a conclusion; to appear knowledgeable. But there are never total conclusions; so we have to be just as comfortable with accepting the mysterious; as we are determined to de-mystify the unknown.

Authentically, we must just be honest about what is theory, and what is proved. All too often theory dons the guise of science. The very phrase 'scientific theory' is an oxymoron. The psychological key to identifying false theories in the guise of science is to observe the way in which contradictions are blithely countered with dogmatic assertion. Jargon in such instances is qualified by more jargon. References qualified by other references. Contradictions are glossed over with vague promises to resolve them, either unfulfilled, or themselves full of further contradictions with further vain promises of resolution. And the smoke-screen of filibuster eventually wears down the reasoning process. Thus bureaucracy is a tactic of the sophist.

The rigid mind memorizes esoteric sophistry; obediently ignoring his intuitions which are nagging at his subconscious with ever-increasing dissonance. It becomes quite easy to notice such a mind, because intuitive dissonance manifests as anger and belligerence; eventually disintegrating the personality into psychosis. So if you feel anger at some idea, then this is often an acute warning signal that you have missed something vital. Go back. Identify what and why you are angry. Suspend further progress until you can be certain where you left the logical-positivist path.

For Truth is not just cold-fact, but it is a 'truth-of-mood' as well. Ignoring such qualities for the sake of assumed quantitative posturing is the rigid mind again. And yet, the seasoned sophist knows this, and employs every tactic to evoke anger in the mind of the honest logical inquiry. Aah, the wicked webs of the mind of man, are their own worst enemy. So above all, the most essential method is simply testing for internal logical consistency, and ensuring self-contradictory ideas are exposed for what they are. Our legend here is Socrates.

Intuition and style are often conflated. Many reject my own work off-hand because I like using colors and put elaborate fractals in the margins. I was once told by a University professor that my work was too interesting, and if I want to be accepted, then I should do something more boring. Many thus use the tepid corporate style as a means to convincing the rigid mind that their own trivial ideas are of value. Of course, we must not now assume the opposite and only embrace the colorful, creative style. How to recognize worthwhile intuitions is a slippery fish.

But paying attention to the graphic detail is a methodical way of starting and ending a day's work. The harmony of color eases my mind into a state of joy that carries over into the rigor of the programming. Observing the little details in the graphics tunes the mind to recognizing the tiny little geometric inaccuracies which need to be ironed out to achieve precision in computation.
Constructing the fractals (fraxtals) has taught me how to visually turn math into geometry; and to extract the math from the geometrical patterns too!

And composing music has likewise become an essential human experience in bringing the emotions into harmony with the proportions of geometry. The similarities between discovering astrophysics and creating music are so intertwined that I would suggest they are both essential facets of the mind. Where logic and emotion meet is right at the core of our very being: Ethics. And even parapsychology is very close to this essential mode of mind.

Identifying inner psychological dissonance is thus a vital part of any philosophical method. So ultimately, tackling problems and confronting evil is the path to enlightenment. How can God exist if there is evil in the world? This is the question that undermines faith. But is it a perfect game of golf, when all the players always get holes-in-one? True value is in over-coming the obstacles. Setting goals and achieving some of the them, gives us a sense of satisfaction. So a world without evil would be dull and static. Thus the evil mind convinces itself that it is doing good. And that is itself dissonant.

Be aware of those who obstruct truth as a means to preserving academic territory.

It may seem I have digressed from science into mind, but in in order to answer what science is, itself, we must reach beyond science. The method of science cannot be attained by using the method of science; for the question must be prior to the answer.

We must go outside of science to define science. Thus asking 'what is science?' is not a question of science, but a question of metaphysics and ethics: philosophy. Anything to the contrary is circular-logic; a fallacy of reason. And yet this very fallacy is committed by most of those in the institution of science that I have personally spoken to. It is sad how many professional scientists simply cannot adequately answer the question as to what science actually is.

This is where two concepts collide that make consensus in understanding seem almost impossible at times. Where science-of-the-mind meets with the mind-of-science; seems trivial word-play to some. It is easy to flee from such paradoxes; but if you do that, you will never properly appreciate what the method of science really entails.

How can there be science without a mind? The materialists will answer from assumptions about neurons and genes that reduce the mind to an epi-phenomeon: something that has no real existence of its own. Thus the rigid-mind argues itself out of its own existence! And following this: the classic 'existential crisis' and the breakdown of truly universal ethics, then ultimately: war.

And yet, mind is the very first thing we can be aware of in any sense. The mind is the first-most truth: The foundation of all knowledge. And all materialist theories about neurons and genes that fail to see this, have committed a blatant error. The notion that mind is an epi-phenomeon must be contrary to our foundation of mind as a first basic point of reason. And when it does so, materialism must collapse in a nervous breakdown. It must begin again.

Properly dealing with contradictions is essential to any reasoning process.

Two examples serve to illustrate this: Time; and the mind-body-problem.

Let us start with time. An example of two famous theories which cannot both be valid: Planck-time versus Relative-time. If a single quantum of time (Planck) is the smallest unit of time, then it cannot shrink or expand. But if time does shrink or expand (Einstein) then we have defied the very foundation of what quantum-time actually means.

And yet many see no problem with claiming both theories are valid. They cannot be. More detail on this is available in the section on Zeno and Planck, which uses Zeno's paradox to show that time cannot be relative because "time cannot be infinitely divisible". (Page 33-34 Philosophy: Man's Search for Reality, Odham's Press, 1955). Thanks to Odham for showing that the argument which I had independantly realized disproved Relativity by proving quantum-time, was already in print before my birth.

That the ancient Greeks already had a concrete proof against Einstein's theory on time, shows the extent to which the separation between philosophy and science has been a tragic disaster. How could Einstein have been so ignorant of Zeno's Paradox?

Earlier we noted that the true method of science - or logical positivism - was based on direct first-person empirical observation and logic. This analytically shows that the Universe itself is actually a duality between form (logic) and substance (which is observed). The very possibility of abstracting the logic of a situation tells us that the world we observe (and how we observe it) has two distinct qualities: A logical structure, and the physical manifestation of such structure.

Without this inherent truth of the duality of the Universe, physical science would not be possible. A fair logical and practical theory, for example, is that we know the weather will be good for growing the same type of food every year, at the same time of season. Science is actually all about Divining the future according to time. Stonehenge predicted the seasons from observations of the stars by abstracting the logic of celestial mechanics when noticing the patterns in the evening sky.

The notion that one part of this duality between logic and world, can exist without the other, makes no sense. What is logic applying itself towards other than substance? What is the world other than a categorized observation? Any definition of the world has to be scaled to a particular abstracted and isolated perspective: ours. What, indeed, is God without Creation? What is science, other than to be in service of humanity? And humanity without logic is a bunch of gibbering idiots!

So when a theory breaks down - when the logic no longer applies, then that is a bad theory. The physical Universe is always logical. But our minds can be illogical! That itself shows how mind is separate from the perfectly logical physical world. The feature of illogicality, and falsehood is something within the foundation of what it means to be a conscious being. It has no part in the physical world. Out there 1+1=2, always and absolutely. Inside the mind, even the impossible is possible.
For the next example of how to resolve contradiction, we look at the mind-body-problem. The section called 'Pandora's Contraption' details this argument, here simplified. If we replicate your body, atom-for-atom, then:
What will the mind of such a replicant consist of?

There can only be 3 logical permeations:
(A) Nothing, all we replicate is a corpse.
(B) Both bodies hold your mind simultaneously.
(C) The replicant has a mind of its own.

If (A), then your mind is clearly not a subset of your body.
If (B), then your mind is not a subset of your body as it exists somewhere else entirely, transcending both bodies. Here the body is much like a TV set, simply a receiver of the information which represents your mind in this analogy. A single program can be on two TV's at once - because the program is not a part of the TV.
If (C) then your mind is not a subset of your body because the replicant has a mind which is not YOUR mind!

So we can see, that through logical deduction - mapping all possible answers, then going through them in turn, we must conclude that the 'seat of consciousness' cannot possibly be a subset of the body. This is because YOU are a unique individual, whereas atoms are not unique. Every atom in your body replaces itself. Your central nervous system is fundamentally different structurally to what it was when you were a child. And yet, YOU remain: beyond your body.

Thus the entire facade of gene-theory and materialist science should collapse. But it does not! It persists! Surely it should follow that only those without a Soul can argue themselves that they do not have a Soul? If a person does not know what is meant by YOU being not another you, then it follows that they do not
actually have a seat of self-awareness. Or they are just being deceitful.

Aah! Deceit is the mind-killer. Self-deception is the fatal flaw that destroys entire nations. To die for Truth places the mind above the body. Such is Socrates. And others too. Or is it that the fear of losing material advantage is often
just a more powerful emotion than the quest for Truth in some people?

So how to convince the materialist that his own potential transcendence is worth more than any material positioning? My intuition is to allow that arguments for the Soul and for God will likely not be examined by those who jerk away compulsively from such ideas due to emotional reasons in their personality development.

Often they have conflated such ideas with medieval Cosmology. Thus, what follows is the subtle process of entrenching such Theistic arguments within a mature rendition of Cosmology, complete with cutting edge Astrophysics algorithms. Paradoxically the path to the Soul now exists within a ruthless materialist computation. Computer algorithms simply do not allow blatantly illogical ideas to process. Oh how the traditional religionists will complain bitterly at the prospect of actually applying logic to the Universe!

The benchmark for the Scientific method, has been astrophysics since at least the days of Newton, and in real terms, since before stonehenge. However, the sophistry of the Relativist has almost entirely eroded this epistemology. It has reduced science to crony-capitalist institutions, and phony 'moon-landings'. And even making such allegations, brings on a host of enemies kowtowing to their idols, scoffing in a blind unison like medieval sophists. But Truth cannot compromise anything to mere populism.

In our society, deep at the nexus of blunt deceit, lies one perpetual fallacious idea: Relativity. And the primary alleged 'proof' of Einstein's theory is the Perihelion Precession of Mercury. It should be commonly understood for anyone in the sciences, that progress in understanding orbits is the essential example of the scientific method.

Orbits were first understood to be circles, then developed to Kepler's ellipse. After this, the binary-orbit was closely mapped. At that point, Newton gave us the principle formula: g=m/r^2. But nobody had been able to completely apply Newton's formula to more than two celestial bodies. This became known as the many-body-problem (later the n-body-problem).

Certain sophisticated statistical models were developed which showed that the extremities of Mercury's orbit would advance around the Sun at a very slow rate in the same direction that the orbit itself moves: Perihelion Precession. And 'observations' were made that claimed to be of such fine detail that a fluctuation of 43 arc-seconds per century were missing after having applied these crude completions to Newton's work.

Now 43 arc-seconds represents an angle of the orbit of Mercury that over a century, that amounts to a little over 4 minutes of time that was allegedly unaccounted for by Newtonian theory. For a single orbit of Mercury, this is 0.6 seconds of time that observers have claimed to be able to precisely predict when Mercury is nearest or furthest from the Sun.

So when the Relativists claim that Einstein's theory accounted for this miniscule amount: 43 arc-seconds per century, it is akin to not only finding a needle in a haystack. But also then using that needle to split a hair on the head of an almost entirely bald man!

When developing computer algorithms to check this number, I first modeled the solar system in 2D, which seemed at one point to be a wrong turn. Especially after I realized that the 3D algorithm was not much slower in computation, and not as tricky to compute as I had first intuited that it would be. So when I made the transition to the 3D-n-body algorithm, I had already got very close to the required Perihelion Precession for Mercury in 2D. That 'wrong turn' was actually so fortuitous, it can be called Divine serendipity.

It was a simple step to realize that the 2D algorithm (OGS13) was giving a Perihelion Precession for Mercury that was closer to the numerical models from history than the more accurate 3D algorithm (OGS15).

The 2D algorithm, was also giving results closer to the alleged 'observations'. And yet the 3D angle of 7 degrees to Mercury's Z-axis had caused the Perihelion Precession to be reduced by as much as 13%. So the models which the Relativists had used to 'prove' Einstein's theory were entirely inaccurate, being only 2D models.

So using the standard measurement of arc-seconds per Earth-year (as/Ey), Mercury's perihelion was 'observed' to advance by an average of 5.75 as/Ey; or 5.6 depending on where you read. And various 2D Newtonian models had expected a theoretical advance of either 5.5 or 5.45 or 5.3 or thereabouts, the difference between observation and theory being attributed to the claims Relativity (0.43 arc-seconds per year, or 43 per century).

My 2D Newtonian model had revealed an average of 5.46 as/Ey. Which seemed to vindicate orthodox theory for Newton's account on the matter. But the 3D model then showed that Newton's law would only advance Mercury's orbit by a mere 4.84 as/Ey.

Nobody else had taken into account that the angle of Venus and Mercury's orbit would decrease the gravitational effects of other planets on Mercury's Perihelion Precession by 13%. So the missing 43 arc-seconds per century (0.43 as/Ey) is only half of what is 'missing'. There is actually a short-fall of 90 arc-seconds per century (or more), when comparing the 3D Newtonian algorithm to 'observations'.

But the statistical historical method of using an average for a 100 years of observations was itself terrible. Individual orbits of Mercury can advance perihelion by over 80 as/Ey, with some receding by lower than -40 as/Ey. So the amount of 43 arc-seconds per century which has been attributed to Relativity is more than double accounted for by simply shifting the start of the 415 orbit-sample by a single Mercury orbit.

Changing the starting orbit will cause a measurement per century that will deviate by amounts larger than that attributed to Relativity. It is vital to see that the other models are giving an average that not only ignores effects of individual orbits - and thus ignore which is the individual starting orbit, but it also ignores the Z-axis. So those are two quite different reasons to allow Relativity to slide into its science-of-the-gaps facade.

The historical observation is given for the years 1850-1950 by Godoi. However no theoretical models take into account the anomalies caused by starting position. This is clear because a century is a time-frame that should never be used as an average for orbits in the Solar System.

A century is a bad duration for the average of Mercury's Perihelion Precession. Mercury's orbit is better averaged every 237 years, or 474 years in order to fit in with the cycles of the other planets. Even 59 or 60 years gives a better average than 100 years. 913 years seems to work for most of the planets (especially the outer planets).

To be certain of such a small deviation to orbits, would require precise mapping, both observational and theoretical, of a single orbit within a genuine 3D-n-body gravity algorithm. When I quickly compare the duration of the first two individual orbits of Mercury in my sample, I can immediately see a difference of more than a minute of time between them. How easy it is for a few orbits of Mercury, a bit longer or shorter than its average, to distort the average Perihelion Precession by amounts similar to Relativity. A third gap in the method of the Relativists reveals itself now. The variations to the duration of Mercury's orbit can only be averaged our by using a 237 year sample. Or other such cyclic amounts.

So its not that the claim of 'proof' of Relativity within Mercury's Perihelion Precession is just bad statistics and bad modeling, it is also a gross attribution error. Because if we consider Einstein's formula from Special Relativity for the 'limit at the velocity of light' - then we apply that formula to Mercury's orbit, the loss in velocity due to this formula, should cause Mercury to spiral inwards towards the Sun at about 2km per orbit. See previous chapter for details on this:

It gets worse however, because if we allow for gravity moving at the velocity of light (from General Relativity), then such a delay, should cause a binary star-system like Alpha Centauri to spiral outwards by over 1.4 million km per orbit. (See previous chapter for details on this.) Gravity has been proved to be instant in this thesis; and right in the middle of the process of proving this, the Nobel prize for 'Science' was awarded for 'proof' to the contrary (2017).

For the only way in which General Relativity and Special Relativity makes any sense, is to ask: who are the relatives of the said academic, generally? And more specifically, who is their special relative?
The verdict:

Before Newton's law of gravity, Rene Descartes theorized that the planets were rotating due to 'vortices' in space. This theory was quickly over-shadowed by Newton. Even though much of Newton's work was founded on Descartes philosophy of science being based on geometry, rather than the wordy sophistry which so often swamps the faculty of philosophy. Descartes idea seems to have worked largely on not what keeps the planets moving, but on what caused that movement initially!

In the section on the Big Unwind (not the Big Bang!) I have concluded that Dark Energy, is at least partly an act of spin. This is because everything in the universe is spinning. And had that been due to collisions of a random nature, then most massive objects would be spinning slowest in terms of angular momentum. But it is quite clear that the most massive objects have the fastest rotation. Thus it must be a force of some kind that caused this when they first formed. This blatant and simply point of logic is lost to the fog of scholastic academia.

So it is noted in the chapter on Rotation Curves of Galaxies that spin can overcome gravity and this is also a necessary feature of solving for gravity on the galactical scale, whilst preserving Newton's law. So in spiral galaxies, there are a pair of 'white-holes' emitting stars at their equators due to excessive spin. But then we are still left asking: But why do these 'white-holes' spin so?

Moreover, in the section which replaces the Big Bang, called the Big Unwind, it was required that the singularity at the start of the universe can only result in uniform orbits forming throughout the universe, if that singularity split apart due to spin overpowering gravity.

So Dark Energy is partly spin, and partly expansion (or inflation). But it is also required that this force of spin needs to be detected on a local scale. So if the entire universe is spinning at an increasing rate, or perhaps even a fairly constant rate, then we would notice something like a Cosmic Coriolus force around us here on Earth.
This being not unlike the vortices of Descartes - which have to be credited as being the precursor to Dark Energy of earliest theoretical origin.

The stunning truth of this thesis is that contrary to what the Relativists claim, if we look beyond Mercury, the observations of Perihelion Precession for most of the other planets are not less, but greater than that predicted by the 3d-n-body Newtonian gravity algorithm. Moreover Einstein's theories clearly are self-contradictory and are little more than vague 'science of the gaps' pseudo-ideas fudged into the vacancies of our understanding; but they have also sadly been squeezed into the void as to what accounts for systematic robust methodology; and genuine computational logic.

Now if we look at the duality which is Dark Energy vs Gravity, then we have to see that this repulsion and attraction are not perfectly balanced as it is with electro-magnetism. This is because Dark Energy must be greater than Gravity regarding the entire universe or else the universe could never have started. But gravity seems to be localized to mass, whereas spin seems to be spread out over all of space.

This is why the Cosmic Coriolus is in its entirety, still greater than gravity, but so spread out that its direct observation is always going to be less on a local scale. I still have not properly calculated Cosmic Coriolus in energy terms directly. That will have to be part of the inevitable unanswered array of questions that always arises from a methodologically sound set of answers.

The Earth's axis rotates. Read that again. We all know that that the Earth rotates around its axis, but that axis itself is wobbling in a circle about every 26 000 years. Most of the other planets also do this. And mostly at the same rate. This is called Axial Precession or Precession of the Equinoxes, and it is a vital component to grasp when trying to accurately calculate how n-body-gravity operates.

Why do almost all the axes of the planets have this same rate of Axial Precession. The answer is that the entire universe is rotating every 26 000 years. Axial Precession operates similarly to a four-dimensional Foucault's pendulum. Details on that are in the section: Cause of Precession of the Equinox.

The circumference of the Universe is 54.8 billion light-years according to my calculations in a previous chapter on this page: Volume of the Universe. Its a simple sum to see then that the Universe at its hyper-equator is rotating at about 2.1 million times the speed of light. That model may need to altered if I can ever find a robust and thoroughly transparent explanation for current inflation models.

So if you still believe in the science-of-the-gaps that Einstein gave us, perhaps return to this list of articles: Proof against Relativity.

If you think that none of this has much practical use, then try here: The Astrosling
If you have seen that, then anticipate an even better inter-stellar spacecraft, called:
'The Centaur's Arrow'.

Well! So much for the institution of science? Best we realize the extent to which method and institution only have in common the word: 'science'. But this thesis is mere computational philosophy. This is not populist economics, and grand prizes which are little more than fashion shows designed purely to return profits for corporate monopolies. They would not welcome me anyhow as I refuse to wear a suit and tie. I am no racist either and I belong to the culture that is religiously baggies and flip-flops. Make even the slightest insinuation about the length of my hair or beard at your impending peril, heathen infidel!

After all, those with appreciation for psychology know how persuasive the authority figure in his suit, tie, and white lab-coat can be. And in philosophy we call this 'argument from authority'. Relativity is true because it won the Nobel prize, and it won the Nobel prize because it is true. And thousands of 'careers' will be in jeopardy when it is realized Einstein's Relativity is not just a bad or inaccurate theory, it is categorically wrong. Those that protect such lies with more vanity and ever yet more unholy lies, are ensuring that their descendents inherit their sins. Yea! Even unto the third or fourth generation shall their offspring suffer! Ask the Germans about this. Ask the Afrikaners.

But if you can walk on the moon with its one-sixth gravity, and yet almost every step is no higher than it is on Earth, then anything is possible. After all, half a century after the Wright brothers, people were casually flying around the world in airplanes. And half-a-century after Apollo, all I got was cell-phone spam and internet scam.

Walking on the Moon, you say? Well I'm off to walk on the beach.
You never know.
One of these days I may even figure out how to walk on the sea itself.

Sections of this article by web-page


Visit homepage:

n-body gravity from

Visit forum:

Cosmology Forum