The Dictatorial Power of the Scientific Truth

The Darwinian principle of the theory of the evolution of the origin of the species and its subsequent archaeological proof left us little choice for an alternative explanation. Naturally, this has caused a great concern for the future of humanity among the philosophers in the field of anthropology. Due to the lack of the resources or the uncontrollable catastrophe, like that happened to the dinosaurs, human species will be extinct at certain point of time in the future and we have to do something about it, they theorized.

However, it must be noted that this kind of doomsday philosophy has already assumed that there are limited resources and there will be no other technology available for the change of the situation in the remote future. So when a certain scientific doctrine is used allegedly to protect the future of the human species, one can go a great distance to a morally horrifying scenario. Any theoretical attempt or plan for the global population reduction, therefore, is flawed because it was contemplated based on the wrong premises that there will be no advanced technology that will alleviate the current situation of the earth’s civilization. For a typical example, Ted Turner’s avid support for this kind of program is appalling.

Human society should spend substantial amount of time and energy on the development of this future technology and seriously think about going out of the earth’s surface to the far distant stars because the earth is not going to be the ultimate resting place for the human species. Somehow the relative location of the solar system in our galaxy makes it vulnerable to the frequent bombardment of the asteroids. And whenever it happens, the living organisms on earth suffer a great damage.

We may have to find a much stable and quiet star system inside the galaxy that all of the human species can migrate into. When people draw conclusions following the Darwinian theory of evolution, the inherent danger is there. We don’t know the full secret of the laws of the nature and what will be its possible benefits for the mankind.

What scares people especially in the field of cosmology about the theory of dipole gravity is that it deprives them of the freedom to be wrong. It must be emphasized that the scientific truth is not determined by a popular vote. Either it is correct or it is a false. What determines the ultimate fate of it is, of course, repeated experimental measurements and/or the existing observational confirmation. There are cases that a theory is partially correct. In general, in the field of science, even when a certain theory is correct, it always has a limited scope of its applicable domain. A lot of the researchers in the field already knew MOND can’t be a correct theory of the universe. However, in the absence of any alternative theory, MOND flourished because of its correct predictions of a lot of the rotational velocity curves. We enjoy and thrive in our freedom to be wrong. But like in any business decisions, being wrong means the loss of time, energy and resources.

We feel we are deprived of our freedom when a teacher came out say you can’t do those immoral things, and show proofs. We would rather stone or crucify him/her. This kind of pattern has been repeated many times in the history of mankind.

Reader's Feedback(Geometrical Question)

Some of the readers of the dipole gravity blog may wonder if I have received any private emails challenging the basic concept of dipole gravity. Since I have been speaking out openly regarding dipole gravity to the general public, I have received none. I openly invited for debates, but no one volunteered to come forward. I'll post any critical errors or mistakes in the presentation of dipole gravity pointed out by the readers in the blog.

One of the minor errors pointed out by one of the readers was about the location of the center of mass of a solid hemisphere. I used hemispherical shell for the dipole gravity model in the published papers, since a spherical shell was used by Lense-Thirring as a model in their calculation for the purpose of simplicity. It was a good starting point for the proof of concept.

In the case of a hemispherical shell, the center of mass is located at the point (1/2)R from the center of the full sphere. However, for a solid hemisphere, the center of mass is located at (3/8)R from the center of the full sphere. This was pointed out by one of the readers and I appreciate him for this correction. Somehow I have been assuming that the center of mass of a sold hemisphere at rest was at (1/2)R just like that of a hemisphere, which is not correct.

In the case of a fast rotating black hole, I have a serious doubt that the core of the galactic center will be spherical. It will be more or less like a two superposed funnels with long protrusions at the poles with a wider rim at the equator. The reason for this is because the equatorial plane at the rim will be bombarded by the incoming debris due to the dipole gravity force which is strong and relatively short ranged compared to the Newtonian gravity. The balance point will be achieved where the centrifugal force becomes equal to the dipole gravity plus the Newtonian gravity.

In the absence of the strong dipole gravity, a non-rotating stellar object will assume a spherical symmetry, naturally, due to the isotropic nature of the Newtonian gravity.

However, in the case where the dipole gravity is strong, the spherical symmetry will be broken and the shape of the fast rotating stellar object will assume a topology which conforms to the overall dipole gravity force lines, which is basically like a two superposed funnels attached face to face. The elongated shapes of the both of the polar axis can be anticipated due to the collision of the ejected matters and the incoming stream of particles which will eventually settle down in balance.

So, it is interesting to see how the Kerr metric for the rotating black hole has to be modified in this particular geometry, since the spherical symmetry was assumed in the original Kerr metric.