Question 1: It is hard to believe many parts of Universal Cycle Theory because the concepts are so different from conventional theories in science. Why should I believe your new theories?
Answer 1: Some of the ideas presented in Universal Cycle Theory are unique interpretations of how the universe operates. For many, the difference between our ideas and conventional theories may be too wide to easily accept at first. That is why we followed the initial summaries of the theory with chapters containing lengthy details and a wide range of supportive evidence. Any person with an open mind who also reads the book to completion, will understand the reasons for rejecting many parts of conventional theories. There are many reasons to believe that Universal Cycle Theory is correct. Among them, the infinitely hierarchical model described in the book closely matches all major documented observations that we are aware of. Conventional theories cannot make the same claim. This makes conventional theories increasingly impossible to believe. (Read Answer 4 for details about contradictions in conventional theories.)
Question 2: Because Universal Cycle Theory is based on assumptions, it is not falsifiable. Doesn't this run contrary to the way that theories are supposed to be constructed in modern science?
Answer 2: Many modern scientists incorrectly believe that theories can be constructed in a falsifiable form. The concluding topics in Chapter 3 discuss this issue. The hard reality is that all theories are based on assumptions. For example, modern conventional theories are based on the assumption that the universe is finite - because they postulate the existence of elementary particles as well as speculating that space has boundaries by proposing that the universe has a shape. Conversely, Universal Cycle Theory is based on the assumption that the universe is infinite. Unfortunately, no one can go to the "edge of the universe" to absolutely prove whether the universe is finite or infinite. Nonetheless, we can construct models based on these two opposite assumptions, and then compare the models against accepted observations. This is the standard methodology of science. The fact that we cannot absolutely prove the universe's nature is an undesirable reality that we must deal with as logically as possible. We must combine logic with assumptions, and then employ secondary methods to assess whether it makes more sense to model the universe as infinite or finite. That is what Universal Cycle Theory does. First, we assume that the universe is infinite, and then we make judgments about how it would function based on that assumption. But we never prove that the universe is infinite. It simply gives us a way to test if infinity makes sense, or not. This is the same type of reasoning widely used by conventional theorists.
Question 3: In the book, why do you reach so many conclusions by stating that the ten assumptions demand a particular interpretation? Shouldn't you use evidence rather than assumptions to determine how the universe operates?
Answer 3: As explained in Chapter 3 of the book, we arrive at all conclusions in the book so that our theories are self-consistent. That is, we developed Universal Cycle Theory so that one part of the theory never contradicts another part of it. This is quite different from conventional theories, where scientists mostly ignore internal contradictions. For example, since Einstein first debated the contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics some 80 years ago, physicists have never resolved the conflicts. These theoretical contradictions remain today, as noted by physicists at Cal Tech: "It leaves us with one fundamental contradiction that still needs to be resolved. General relativity and quantum field theory are incompatible." [Cal Tech, 2011] A solid, credible theory should never have internal contradictions. That is one of the reasons why we identified the contradictions up-front - before we began the developmental phase of our various neomechanical theories. By knowing up-front which ideas were incompatible with the Ten Assumptions of Science, it limited our choices for selecting the ideas that were consistent with neomechanical philosophy.
Question 4: Why do you disregard proven scientific theories simply by stating they fail to fit with the ten assumptions of science?
Answer 4: Once again, our goal in developing neomechanics was simply to construct a non-contradictory model of the universe based on the Ten Assumptions of Science. Among the assumptions, infinity may be the most important. Once constructed, we tested our infinitely hierarchical model against credible observations. Our objectives were always positive - to construct a credible, non-contradictory theory of the universe. While developing our theories, we proceeded through a check-list. We examined all of the major conventional theories, and determined which parts conformed to the Ten Assumptions of Science, and which parts did not. In most cases, we agreed with some parts of the theories (generally, the equations) while disagreeing with other parts (generally, the explanations of the cause). We seldom, if ever, completely rejected every part of every conventional theory. We only rejected the parts that made our infinite universe model contradictory. As we strove to make neomechanical theory internally consistent, we made it consistent with observations. Also, we noted the recent observations that contradict conventional theories. Ironically, these contradictory observations are coming from some of the most respected scientists in the academic and professional communities. Following are some recent findings that have startled conventional theorists…
1) Physicists from the University of Michigan recently found an excess of left-handed spiral galaxies in the region of the observable universe toward the north pole of the Milky Way. [Longo, 2011] The odds that the excess could result from random motions were estimated at about one in a million. Longo's new finding contradicts the random large-scale motions hypothesized by the highly regarded cosmological model - the core of the Big Bang Theory.
2) The recent discovery of the dark-flow indicates that galaxy clusters move together with similar velocities toward a common direction of the sky. [Kashlinsky et al., 2008], [Watkins et al., 2009], [Kashlinsky et al., 2010] This also contradicts the isotropic and homogeneous distributions postulated by the standard cosmological model.
3) Based on experiments using the particle accelerators at CERN, physicists now doubt the existence of the controversial Higgs Boson - an integral part of the standard model of particle physics. In a recent press release, CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci stated: "These are exciting times for particle physics… If the Higgs exists, the LHC experiments will soon find it. If it does not, its absence will point the way to new physics." [Mondal &Menon, 2011]
4) Physicists at CERN also recently discovered matter moving faster than the speed-of-light. [Adam et al.,2011] Of course, this discovery contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. Question 5: Why do you base so many incredible ideas solely on the concept of infinity? It seems that you need more than a belief in infinity to brush aside currently accepted theories.
Answer 5: We respond to this question with questions of our own. Which of our theories are outlandish? And why are they outlandish? When introduced to new and different ideas, an open-minded reader should carefully evaluate the evidence before rejecting the idea. New and different ideas should never be considered outlandish when they explain nature better than the established theories (which are loaded with contradictions). If the reader finds internal contradiction, then that is a good reason to reject the new idea. If the reader finds contradictions between the idea and credible observations, then these are other good reasons to reject the idea. However, an idea should never be rejected simply because it disagrees with a conflicted theory from the status quo. To consider neomechanical ideas as outlandish or incredible, readers must first find identifiable flaw in our theories. So far, that has not happened.
We recognize that this new theory presents a formidable challenge to conventional theories. However, before brushing Universal Cycle Theory aside, we need details. Good science demands specific details, and a claim that our theories are incredible lacks the details required by sound science.
Question 6: Shouldn't Universal Cycle Theory be classified as meta-science or new-age science, rather than true science?
Answer 6: Meta-science deals with scientific philosophy - which is an important part of the book. Meta-science (or meta-physics) is an important part of science that is often overlooked or ignored. For example, these days, students often receive a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy degree) without ever studying philosophy. In additional to scientific philosophy, we also embrace the experiments and observations used by conventional scientists. However, Universal Cycle Theory never involves new-age material. That is, it never delves in ideas that deal with spirituality. We never attribute any effect to spirituality, mysticism, magic, or any other non-material cause. Unlike conventional theories (which do employ mysticism in their "field theories"), Universal Cycle Theory is exclusively about mechanical cause-and-effect relationships. Anyone who reads Universal Cycle Theory to its conclusion (including the appendices) will realize that our book never utters one word of new-age mysticism.
Question 7: It appears that you manipulated the data to substantiate your theories, or perhaps your interpretations are simply figments of your imaginations. How do you respond?
Answer 7: We are always curious about claims of manipulated data or imagined patterns detected from our data. To make such a claim without giving specific details is somewhat libelous. If we manipulated any of the data, show us where. The links to our spreadsheets can be found at the following webpage: http://www.uct-news.com/page9.html. Our book is loaded with labeled graphics, some of them can be found at this webpage: http://www.uct-news.com/page5.html. Every spreadsheet contains a documentation tab, which identifies the source of the original data. Anyone who claims that we manipulated or misrepresented any of the data should be able to show us where. Because of our detailed documentation, they can obtain the original data directly from the source. Then, they should be able to identify where the claimed manipulated occurred. Every graph and every spreadsheet used in association with Universal Cycle Theory states the source. Moreover, the appendices of Universal Cycle Theory explain all statistical methods used in analyzing the data, while also explaining the reasons these methods were used. Any claim that we manipulated or misrepresented the data is completely false. If we manipulated any of the data, we need to know where and how. Unfortunately for the critics, whenever we receive this type of objection, we never receive the details of these groundless claims. We analyzed each original dataset by keeping the data intact, and then using standard statistical methods for the analyses. Moreover, the details about how the data was analyzed are given in Appendices A, B, and C.
Question 8: Why is the book written in such a zealous manner?
Answer 8: Merriam-Webster defines the following two words…. Zealous - Marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal….. Partisan - A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance…. First, we have no allegiance to any organization. We are a group of freely independent thinkers. We continually debate and exchange ideas, but one member of our group never forces another member to accept any idea. We tend to agree on the major issues, but have some differences on minor issues - where we focus our internal debates. Those who call us zealots seem to confuse scientific detail with zealousness. Scientific rigor demands extensive references, detailed explanations, good equations, and sound reasoning. These components are especially important for a new untested theory such as Universal Cycle Theory. We meticulously provide the references, explanations, equations, and reasoning. This is good, solid science - which is what we do. On the other hand, conventional theorists often reveal the partisanship of a zealot because they fiercely defend their conventional theories - even as the observational and internal contradictions embarrassingly expand. This zealousness makes them the ultimate hypocrites.
References
Adam, T. et al, [2011]. Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam. arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex] http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
Kashlinsky, A.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Kocevski, D.; Ebeling, H.; [2008]. A Measurement of Large-Scale Peculiar Velocities of Clusters of Galaxies: Results and Cosmological Implications. The Astrophysical Journal, 686: L49-L52, Oct 20, 2008; Amer. Astron. Society. http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3734
Kashlinsky, A.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Ebeling, H.; Edge, A.; Kocevski, D., [2010]. A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies. Astrophysics Journal, (2010), 712, L81-l85; arXiv:0910.4958v3 [astro-ph.CO] 11Mar 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4958
Watkins, R.; Feldman, H.A.; Hudson, M.J., [2009]. Consistently Large Cosmic Flows on Scales of100h−1 Mpc: A Challenge for the Standard ΛCDM Cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 392, Issue 2, pages 743-756. http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4041
