Response to Criticism of Universal Cycle Theory
Because Universal Cycle Theory is both new and unconventional, we expect significant criticism. Some of it could be warranted. We doubt that our current explanations are perfect. If we gave an inadequate explanation in the book, once we are made aware of it, we will work toward improving it in a later edition. Moreover, there could be valuable datasets available that we are unaware of, and it is possible these datasets could allow us to improve Universal Cycle Theory. If so, we welcome feedback about any data that we overlooked.
Conversely, most of the criticism directed toward Universal Cycle Theory has been vague, misleading, and worthless. To have scientific value, an objection should conform as closely as possible to scientific standards. This includes stating assumptions, using documented evidence, using logic to form conclusions, and employing references where statements might be questioned. Throughout the book, we use all of these scientific methods. Surpisingly, our fiercest critic ignores these standards, as follows….
Case # 1 - On November 16, 2011, a person identified as Marshall wrote a negative (2-star) review of Universal Cycle Theory on Amazon. Individually, some of his sentences could have value if they eventually led to a specific piece of relevant information. However, none of them had substance. Consequently, we rate this review as meaningless and worthless. We clearly understand that Marshall disliked Universal Cycle Theory, but beyond that, we are left wondering why. For example, we have no idea which parts of Universal Cycle Theory he disliked. Was it our atomic, molecular, gravitational, or cosmological theory? And he definitely failed to identify which aspects of our diverse theories he objected to. Because his review was so vague, we are without the details that might help us understand his objections.
Moreover, the Amazon web-page showed that Marshall obtained the book via Kindle, and then placed his review on November 16, 2011. Unbeknownst to him, our records with Kindle show only two copies of the book sold via Kindle before November 16 - one on November 13 and the other on November 14. In other words, he only had 2 to 3 days to read the entire 618-page book. Even though the book is written in a style that is easy to read, it has many technical aspects that are new. These portions of the book require slow reading to fully comprehend them. In all likelihood, he only read a small part of the book. Therefore, we are fairly certain that Marshall wrote the review with a very foggy understanding of Universal Cycle Theory. Of course, this makes him poorly qualified to comment on it. On a sentence-by-sentence basis, we comment further on Marshall's review.
Sentence 1 - "The content in this book is almost impossible to believe."
Our Reply to 1 - Actually, we somewhat sympathize with Marshall's initial comment. Some of the ideas presented in Universal Cycle Theory are new and unique interpretations of how the universe operates. For some readers, 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 with chapters containing lengthy details and a wide range of supportive evidence. We have reason to believe that Marshall never read the entire book. If he had an open mind and read the book to completion, he might have worded this sentence differently. We have a simple reason for believing that the interpretations outlined in Universal Cycle Theory are correct. To this point, the infinite universe model described in the book closely matches all major documented observations that we are aware of. Importantly, conventional theories cannot make the same claim. In fact, numerous observations in recent years increasingly contradict predictions made by conventional theories. This makes conventional theories increasingly impossible to believe. Note that some of the major contradictions of conventional theories are listed later in this response.
Sentence 2 - "All of the explanations presented are very circular."
Our Reply to 2 - Marshall failed to carefully read the concluding topics of Chapter 3. Otherwise, he never would have made this statement. All theories are based on assumptions. For example, modern conventional theories are based on the assumption that the universe is finite. We disagree, and thus base Universal Cycle Theory on the assumption that the universe is infinite. It may seem circular to Marshall that we base our theories on assumptions. But then, the same holds true for the conventional theories that he so strongly advocates. No one can absolutely prove or disprove 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. If Marshall calls our infinite universe model circular, then he's calling the conventional finite-based models circular as well. He needs to re-read Chapter 3 and then recognize that all theories are based on assumptions. The fact that we cannot absolutely prove the universe's nature is simply an undesirable reality that we must deal with as logically as possible. We will never conclusively determine if the universe is finite or infinite. Thus, 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 exactly what we do in Universal Cycle Theory. When we assume that the universe is infinite, and then make judgments about how it would function based on this assumption, we never prove that the universe is infinite. It simply gives us a way to test if infinity makes sense, or not. If Marshall calls this type of reasoning circular, then he fails to understand philosophy, logic, and theoretical development. This is the same type of reasoning widely used by conventional theorists.
Sentence 3 - "Many of the conclusions the author believes to be self evident are forced on you with the quotes 'the ten assumptions demand...' or 'then this must be so.'"
Our Reply to 3 - First, there are two authors and a cohesive group of reviewers associated with Universal Cycle Theory, not a single author as Marshall implies when he wrote "the author believes…" If Marshall read the Preface, he would understand this. More importantly, we never "forced" anything on anyone. Marshall needs to re-read Chapter 3. As explained in the preceding reply and also stressed in Chapter 3, 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 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] Rather than abhorring our logic, Marshall should applaud our efforts to develop an internally consistent theory. However, it appears that he is more comfortable with the conventional contradictory theories - which he considers "proven" theories, as indicated by his next sentence.
Sentence 4 - "The authors attempt to throw out some of the most proven science by saying that the results do not fit infinity or the ten assumptions."
Our Reply to 4 - Once again, Marshall needs to re-read Chapter 3. We specifically state that we will never (nor do we attempt to) disprove any conventional or unconventional theory. Our goal was simply to construct a non-contradictory model of the universe based on the Ten Assumptions of Science - of which infinity may be the most important assumption. Once constructed, we tested the infinite universe 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). In this sense, Marshall misrepresented our treatment of conventional theories. We seldom, if ever, completely rejected every part of every conventional theory. We only rejected the parts that made our infinite universe model contradictory. Finally, even though Marshall considers his conventional theories as proven, recent observations indicate otherwise. Ironically, these contradictory observations are coming from some of the most respected scientists in the academic and professional communities. Perhaps Marshall has failed to keep up-to-date on the latest developments in physics and cosmology. 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…. In Universal Cycle Theory, we introduce non-contradictory explanations for all of these troublesome aspects of conventional theories.
Sentence 5 - "The concept of infinity is used to justify some incredibly outlandish theories."
Our Reply to 5 - Marshall should be more specific here. Which of our theories are outlandish? And why are they outlandish? More importantly, it would be helpful if Marshall identified where an established observation contradicts our theories. Or, he should identify an internal contradiction. Our guess is that he cannot find a contradiction. That is why he continually uses broad-based statements - while never being specific about an identifiable flaw in our theories. Good science demands solid logic, detailed explanations, credible references, and reliable experimental data. We use them all in our work. This makes Universal Cycle Theory a highly credible non-contradictory theory. We recognize that this new theory presents a formidable challenge to conventional theories. Also, we expect vague pot-shots such as those lofted by Marshall. Unfortunately for Marshall, good science demands specific details - of which his review grossly lacks.
Sentence 6 - "This book belongs in the meta-science or new-age section."
Our Reply to 6 - Meta-science deals with scientific philosophy - which is an important part of the book. This 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, Marshall is completely misleading when he makes the statement that Universal Cycle Theory involves new-age material - that is, 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. This is yet another example of the careless wording in Marshall's review. Among other things, it indicates that he never read the entire book. Anyone who reads Universal Cycle Theory to its conclusion (including the appendices) will quickly realize that Marshall misrepresented the content of our book. It does not have one word of new-age mysticism in it.
Sentence 7 - "I feel like I have been robbed."
Our Reply to 7 - If Marshall is upset that Universal Cycle Theory disagreed with conventional theories, then he should have read the Amazon reviews first. Specifically, in a 5-star review entitled Clears A Lot of Cobwebs, Rick Dutkiewicz of Allegan, Michigan wrote in the 8th paragraph: "As the authors review the history of gravitational theories, they point out that completely throwing out flawed theories is unfortunate because rejected theories often contain valid points. This is such a breath of fresh air. That kind of fairness is rare in any field of study. This brings up the sad fact that many science lovers will not be open-minded enough to embrace neomechanics. You'll need a healthy skepticism embedded in your personality to appreciate the work that these two authors have done. This book is not for 'true believers' with blind faith in the status quo. Sorry." Rick's statements are correct. Strong advocates of conventional theories will be disappointed with our book. A person must have an open-mind when reading Universal Cycle Theory. Specifically, a reader must first attempt to understand the basics of Universal Cycle Theory, and then decide if it conforms to known observations far better than conventional theories. If a person reads the book with this open-minded approach, we feel certain that most readers will come away agreeing that Universal Cycle Theory offers a credible new paradigm for replacing the contradictory theories of conventional physics and cosmology.
Sentence 8 - "The only reason this book gets 2 stars is because of the amount of supporting documentation the author has included for reference."
Our Reply to 8 - Indeed, from the beginning, we realized that our revolutionary ideas would face a barrage of criticism. In anticipation, we relied on reputable and conventional sources, especially when it came to observations about the way the universe evolves. While we often disagreed with the explanations of the causes, we almost always agreed with the observations and the associated equations. We always attempted to add references to any aspects of our theories that might seem questionable. Ironically, we were able to use conventional ideas and observations to support our unconventional ideas. Hence, this is the only fair statement that Marshall made in the entire review.
Sentence 9 - "Unfortunately the author has manipulated the data in such a way as to gleam what he wants in order to substantiate his assumptions."
Our Reply to 9 - We reiterate that two authors and a group of reviewers are associated with Universal Cycle Theory, not a single author as Marshall stated. Once again, he demonstrates either poor comprehension of what he read, or laziness in his writing, or intentional misstatements of what he read. We are also curious about what he meant by manipulated data. To make such a statement without giving specific examples puts Marshall in a libelous position. Here is our challenge to Marshall…. If we manipulated 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. If we manipulated the data as Marshall claimed, then he can obtain the original data directly from the source, and quickly identify where we manipulated it. Every graph and every spreadsheet used in association with Universal Cycle Theory states the source. If we manipulated the data (other than with standard statistical methods), then he should be able to quickly identify the manipulation. 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. Marshall's claim that we manipulated the data is perhaps his greatest distortion in the review. If we manipulated any of the data, Marshall needs to tell us where. Unfortunately for him, he will spend countless unproductive hours in this task. That is because we analyzed each original dataset by keeping the data intact, and then using standard statistical methods for the analyses.
Sentence 10 - "Lastly, this book is written with a very zealous sound, like that of an extremely religious person defending [his] beliefs."
Our Reply to 10 - Wow! This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. Marshall is the ultimate hypocrite. 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. It seems that Marshall is confusing scientific detail with zealous religious defense. 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, Marshall reveals the zealous partisanship that he claims to abhor when he defends conventional theories that he calls "proved." This is in spite of the numerous contradictions between conventional observations and conventional theories, with some of the major contradictions listed in our reply to Sentence 4. Calling conventional theories proved when conventional evidence indicates otherwise shows that Marshall has the blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance of a zealot - making him the ultimate hypocrite.
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
Cal Tech: Superstring Revolution,[2011]. The Final Contradiction.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str115.html
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
Longo, M. [2011]. Detection of a Dipole in the Handedness of Spiral Galaxies with Redshifts z~0.04. Physics Letters, Vol. B 699, pages224-229. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2815.pdf
Mondal, N.; Menon, K., [2011]. LHC experiments present latest results at Mumbai conference. CERN Press Release. http://press.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR14.11E.html
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
