I have been writing a book since 2009. While the book lacks clarity and direction and needs a lot of work, I did publish several teasers – available here:
While what follows bears some similarity. This excerpt, from a chapter of the unfinished book is much clearer than I remember and poses the most important question of all.
(If Science replaces religion, then what should replace science?)
For any scientific experiment to have validity, tests need to be carried out against a series of constants. The test is carried out on just one variable upon which a scientist will report their findings. Experiments are designed to look at one thing a time. More than one thing to look at? Then you need to design multiple experiments. In essence it seems the more we uncover, the more we need to do to corroborate our findings. Not being able to design enough experiments, or map variables fast enough has to be one of the biggest failings of science.
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better…
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The very nature of the physical universe is that everything is variable all at once. While these variables happen relative to one another, some things vary more than others. Rocks for example, in their immediate surroundings, display little momentum and move and change very slowly. Wind on the other hand, or peregrines, can move and change relatively quickly. To date, light is the fastest known variable. Because it is a very big number which only fluctuates a very small amount it is almost constant and is used as such by scientists commonly being denoted as c.
The length of a metre is defined from this “constant”, as is the international standard for time. Yet c exists, not because it exists… It exists simply because c itself was defined, most notably in the most famous equation of them all E = mc2.
And c is not even the speed of light, it is the speed of light in a vacuum. In the absence of direct evidence of anything actually constant we place it in a space of nothing. The real constant we are measuring all of life up against is hypothetical. We make an assumption about the universality of physical laws, which strangely seems to work for most calculations. Dark matter? Infinity? Zero?
Perhaps relativity itself is the constant?
Everything and nothing all at once, a paradoxical un-knowable. It exists and it cannot yet be explained. Underneath all that happens, all that is, there is this silent relativity, the life force energy. It can even be found within the human experience.
Light speed is understood to be a theoretical limit. The speed of electricity and light, the forces of gravity and magnetism and c are currently believed to hold the same value.
Without any way to measure for a true constant, in the realms of relativity it seems impossible to find out what underpins reality. Theory is further confounded with the concept of a variable speed of light, in which is stated that the speed of light in a vacuum may not be constant in most cases. Anything physical becomes yet another circular reference. Without anything solid to ground it in, is my experience enough to prove the physical universe exists? Is it enough to prove the experience exists?
Religion gave us a world of beliefs…
Religion gave us a world of beliefs, of faith in Gods and Goddesses, of explanations for the inexplicable. Before science came along and challenged these beliefs, they seemed plausible. So science gets to challenge your unchallenged beliefs?
Challenging the ‘facts’ of science?
How often do we challenge the truths of science? The law of gravity? It’s a strong statement isn’t it. Scientific fact? Science declares and relies upon fixed values, axioms, constants. We think of these axioms as relative constants, events on an event horizon.
There is nothing constant in the physical universe.
There are no facts.
If the expanding universe is constantly changing, if there are no fixed constants and the apparent fixed constants are merely assertions…
See you on the other side of the looking glass,
Anurajyati (be in love)