Table of Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The First Scientific Revolution and the Fall of Philosophy
- 3 Newton, Absolutism and the Fork in the Road
- 4 Mach and the Victory of Relationism
- 5 What Comes Next? The Second Scientific Revolution
- 6 The Rise of Philosophy and the Birth of a New Science
- 7 What Becomes of Physics?
- 8 The Great Consummation
- 9 The New Official Science
Subtitle: The Fall and the Rise of Philosophy
“Absolutism and relationism are two aspects of absolute relationism.”
Author — New Philosophy, 2017
Article Structure: While this article is divided into sections, I must, however, let you know that it is a continuous flow of thought and the sections are only presented to highlight crucial subjects in the manner they appear in the article.
Philosophy, by my definition, is the quest of man to understand how to understand the universe. Philosophy which was man’s first attempt on the path of rational understanding was the shift from myths and legends that had served as the means of explaining natural phenomena.
It is now a general consensus that man began on this path towards the rational understanding of the universe in ancient Greece, and this bold march has evolved and diverged into the various disciplines we have today.
One of such disciplines is modern science. When I talk about modern science, I refer to the scientific tradition and knowledge of the universe that overthrew the Aristotelian model of the universe during the first scientific revolution.
Before the first scientific revolution, man’s study of the universe had been of a philosophical nature, I mean purely speculative without dependence on experimentation which would later become the crucial condition for validating scientific hypotheses.
The success of practical investigation in explaining certain mysteries of the universe and which displaced the Aristotelian model of the universe proved to be the first blow against philosophy. This caused the separation of science from philosophy which has become most pronounced in this century.
The separation of physical science from the otherwise pure, speculative and philosophical understanding of the universe birthed the scientific tradition and has remained so ever since. However, I will like to inform you that this evolution birthed two disciplines, science and subjected philosophy.
The notion of subjected philosophy arises from the limit imposed on philosophy after the first scientific revolution. The terrain where philosophy could no longer foster became the purview of science.
Science consists of the concepts, rigorous mathematical framework and experimentations required to establish a theory. Philosophy, on the other hand, now questions how we interpret science, and can no longer directly approach to investigate the true nature of the universe.
This limit imposed on philosophy is why I called modern philosophy subjected philosophy. Science can no longer be interested in philosophy in its pure form as it once was before the first scientific revolution.
Philosophy before the first scientific revolution had unhindered access to the investigation the true nature of the universe, no wonder people we call scientists today were called philosophers in the ancient world.
Whatever means, method or tradition man used in investigating and understanding the universe before the advent of the first scientific revolution over time became philosophy. We presented science as the new concept to explain the new tradition and method of understanding the universe that emerged from the first scientific revolution.
Philosophy now has this condescending repute as a kind of old science, though it still serves a purpose today. Some scientists and philosophers in an effort to place purpose on philosophy purport that it now serves to question science. It now only seeks to put science in check. Sadly philosophy is now grappling for a new purpose.
The First Scientific Revolution and the Fall of Philosophy
Philosophy began its descent as a subject of science with the overthrow of Aristotelian philosophy. The fall of the Aristotelian philosophy is akin to the fall of philosophy itself because Aristotle had become the hallmark of the philosophical method coupled with the fact that his ideas reign supreme for two millennia.
The Aristotelian model of the universe which was deeply rooted in the tradition of philosophy began its descent with the new proposal of the heliocentric model of the Solar System.
Aristotle and Ptolemy had upheld the geocentric model of the Solar System which placed the Earth at the centre and the planets and the Sun as revolving around the Earth. This model of the Solar System lasted for nearly 2000 years.
However, there was an anomaly in the observation of the motion of the planets the geocentric model could not describe. The planets at certain times appeared to move backwards. This retrograde motion was explained by the introduction of deferents and epicycles.
Deferents were large circles with the Earth at their centre and around which the planets undergo some sort of primary revolution, while epicycles were small circles which their centres lay on the deferents and around which the planets undergo some sort of secondary revolution.
So, retrograde motion became what resulted when a planet revolves in a direction on an epicycle such that it moves away from the Earth. The diagram below gives you a picture of the geocentric explanation of retrograde motion.
At point A on the epicycle which is the small orbit, the planet will appear to be in a retrograde motion relative to the Earth. The large orbit is a deferent.
It wasn’t until the 16th-century that the geocentric model was fully questioned. In 1514, Nicolaus Copernicus, relying on his findings and on those of earlier proponents began to devise a comprehensive model which would later be referred to as the heliocentric model of the Solar System.
In the heliocentric model of the Solar System, the Sun was at the centre of the universe while the planets revolved around the Sun. In this system, the retrograde motion could simply be explained to be as a result of the relative motion between the Earth and other planets.
It took time before the heliocentric model was fully adopted, and this was partly due to the challenges and confrontations the major proponents of the heliocentric model faced from the church.
Galileo who was persecuted the most did much to advance the heliocentric model, and by the time Newton came on board with the Principia which gave us a causal description of the heliocentric model to be due to the principle of universal gravitation, the heliocentric model had become a new scientific fact.
The newly adopted heliocentric model was a revolutionary proposal and it marked the victory over the old ways. The Earth was no longer the centre of the universe but the Sun and it has remained so ever since.
Years after Copernicus presented the heliocentric model of the universe, the Aristotelian model or description of motion around the Earth would also be attacked by Galileo through the famous Pisa Experiment performed in 1589.
Aristotle had concluded that a body with greater mass would fall to the Earth faster than a body with lesser mass. But, when Galileo performed the experiment the result was different from what Aristotle had concluded.
Galileo found out that both bodies fell to the Earth at the same time. This discovery questioned and challenged Aristotle’s model of the universe, and importantly, it exposed the danger of untested speculations which became the repute of Aristotle model (philosophy), which was before then held as universal truth.
A Statute of Aristotle
The emerging method of practical science became indispensable as man began to sense that there are subtle aspects of the universe which cannot be deduced from speculations, or in other word, philosophy.
The resolution of the mysteries of science which led to the overthrow of the old ways raised serious doubt about the philosophical method which was more concerned with the proposition of concepts which were simply born out of speculations and conjectures. At least this became the major criticism against Aristotle’s methods.
This is important, as it led to the decrease in the authority of philosophy or speculations over matters that concerned the universe. And ever since that time, every proposition of a speculatory nature is dismissed as philosophy. This is what I refer to as the fall of philosophy.
The first scientific revolution showed man how to distinguish between testable propositions called hypotheses from untestable speculations which lie within the domain of philosophy.
This is the major and ever increasing divide between science and philosophy today. If philosophy had wrestled man from the grips of myths, then science became what wrestled man from the grips of philosophy.
Philosophy is more concerned about concepts that are borne out of speculations without experimentation. But science which is the real reverse of philosophy is more concerned about concepts that have been validated by experimentation.
Whenever man becomes confronted with persistent, unexplainable mysteries of the universe, just as we have today, it is an indication of a flaw or loophole in the current method of investigating the universe.
We have history to learn from. Philosophy was the old method of investigating the universe, but the mysteries of retrograde motion and free fall led to the overthrow of philosophy as the new way, which is science, became the new method of explaining them.
This article is very important because we are at the same point in history. This is why this post-modern era will be referred to as the era of the second scientific revolution. I will come to this later in this article.
Newton, Absolutism and the Fork in the Road
The then new way (science) did away with propositions of a speculatory nature, or so the medieval scientists had thought. One man, even during this revolutionary and, was going to attempt to revert man to the old ways. This man was Sir Isaac Newton.
In his magnum opus, the Principia, Newton unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics and he laid down the law of universal gravitation. However, in the Scholium of the Principia, he introduced the concepts of absolute space and time alongside the concepts of relative space and time.
He defined absolute space and time as the real space and time of the universe and that they do not come directly under observation and he defined relative space and time as apparent space and time of the universe and that they are observable.
The concepts of relative space and time were in harmony with the new way (science) which was more concerned about what we can observe about the universe, whereas the concepts of absolute space and time were in harmony with the old way (philosophy) which permitted non-observable speculations.
This led to a serious debate between Newton and another of his contemporary called Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz argued for the existence and validity of relative space and time, while Newton argued for the validity of absolute space and time.
Newton and Leibniz
This contention was only necessary because one has to determine or at least state for a fact the true space and time of the universe. To Newton, absolute space and time were entities that exist independent of any matter in the universe. Newton asserted that in the absence of matter one can still talk about space.
This made no sense to Leibniz who insisted that space was relational. In the absence of bodies, it becomes illogical to talk about space. According to Leibniz arguments, we cannot talk about space without visible reference points, space only makes sense because we can set two points or bodies to give us a sense of spatial proportion.
The debate was quite fierce and in order to put an end to it, Newton proposed what is now called the Bucket Experiment. Newton contended that the surface of the water takes a concave shape when spun because the water moved relative to absolute space and not relative to the inner walls of the bucket.
This experiment and Newton’s explanation was so convincing and it ushered in Newton’s worldview which lasted until the early 20th-century. Before we discuss how the 20th-century changed Newton’s Paradigm, I want us to look at how Newton influenced scientific history.
If the Aristotelian philosophy or the old way was criticized for not being concerned with observation, then Newtonian philosophy (absolutism) was criticized for being non-observable, but at least provable which was what Newton set the bucket experiment to accomplish.
This was a shift from the merely speculatory nature of philosophy. Newton’s proposal of the bucket experiment was in an effort to reconcile what would have otherwise been dismissed as speculations with the new scientific method which is concerned about experimentation and practical proofs.
So, thanks to Newton, the old way won and still found existence after the scientific revolution. However, this came about because Newton sharpened and added more astuteness to it, though there was still one drawback, which is that absolute space and time could not be observed.
Newton’s discovery of absolute space and time which were at first speculations and conjectures was given content by the Bucket Experiment which could not be explained by relative space and time.
Absolutism became the aspect of Newton’s paradigm that is concerned about absolute space and time, while relationism which was also Newton’s paradigm but more upheld by Leibniz became that concerned about relative space and time.
Both absolutism and relationism have their speculative aspects and practical aspects, but relationism proved to have more practical relevance than absolutism, as even Newton confessed that the arguments for absolutism could not be easily observed.
While both absolutism and relationism can be equally philosophical, they are not equally practical. The practical relevance and the observable nature of relationism over absolutism would prove to be significant in helping us understand the history of science and the current state of physics.
Newton distinction between absolutism and relationism had placed a fork on the road of the first scientific revolution, however, absolutism was chosen as the truth until Ernst Mach showed up.
Mach and the Victory of Relationism
Many scientists after Leibniz were not satisfied with absolutism. They wanted an explanation of space and time that were accountable by observation. Any of such explanation would align with relationism.
Such explanation would help get rid of absolutism which was a vestige of the old way. The new science that emerged from the first scientific revolution could not allow for any non-observable explanation of the objects of scientific investigation.
Absolutism did not reconcile with the new way, but relationism would, and what better way to displace absolutism than by re-interpreting Newton’s Bucket Experiment. This reinterpretation came from physicist called Ernst Mach.
Mach argued that the water surface takes a concave shape not because the water spins relative to absolute space as Newton had contended but because the water spins relative to other bodies in the universe. In this relationist interpretation, inertia arises because of the interaction between bodies and not because bodies move against immovable absolute space.
This idea sounded plausible and had the potential of replacing Newton’s absolutist interpretation of space and time. This idea consolidated the relational description of space and time which became the conceptual method applied in relativity.
Relationism found its victory. Have you ever wondered why today’s scientists treat philosophy with condescension? This is why. The victory of relationism would inevitably lead to the current rift between science and philosophy.
Relationism gives no room for non-observable interpretations which is why I sometimes view relationism as the scientist’s philosophy and absolutism as the philosopher’s philosophy. They are both different ways of interpreting the nature of space and time.
So, when a scientist is making equations and carrying out experiments, he does these things on the underlying philosophy of relationism. Relationism has been the guide of scientists from the 20th-century which is why the 20th-century was a revolutionary period in science.
The philosophical base upon which science was practised changed. This philosophical base is exemplified by the two giant theories of quantum mechanics and relativity. When I began my personal study of relativity, I saw how obviously the theory is about clocks and meter sticks.
The theory gives no other meaning to space and time. This is one of the major consequence of the victory of relationism. Scientists have praised Einstein’s relativity for proving that the aether does not exist, and also that Newton’s absolute space and time do not exist.
Relativity and quantum mechanics became the results of the victory of relationism. Now, after the boundaries of these two theories became mapped out to a large extent, physicists realized that they cannot be unified. This is the current state of physics and the question on everyone’s mind now is what comes next?
What Comes Next? The Second Scientific Revolution
While quantum mechanics produced certain results, the results or accomplishments of relativity are far more fundamental and relevant for the next progress of science. The two accomplishments for which Einstein’s relativity is praised are now been brought into further investigation by post-modern physics.
Post-modern physics raises the two fundamental questions outlined below against the accomplishments of Einstein’s relativity:
- Did Einstein relativity disprove the existence of the aether or of the classical aether?
- Did Einstein relativity disprove the existence of absolute space and time?
For now, there is no better way to resolve this questions but by showing or discussing the accomplishment of the second scientific revolution. Yes, you heard me right. Science is now experiencing the second scientific revolution which has begun right here in Echa and Science.
The Wavecentric Model
Post-modern physics questions the disproval of the aether by relativity while also preserving the fact that relativity disproves the existence of classical aether. Relativity disproves the classical aether which arose as an explanation of the medium for the propagation of light.
Light travels as an independent wave in the universe. And in post-modern physics, light is the first non-mechanical wave in the universe and not the only non-mechanical wave in the universe.
I want you to know today that relativity disproves the fact that classical aether is the medium for the propagation of light but does not disprove the very ancient idea of the aether as the fifth element in the universe.
The ancients taught about the four elements and another fifth element which they called the aether. The four element consists of water, air, fire and earth and the fifth element was conceived by Aristotle as the content of the stars.
This old idea by Aristotle and others comes to us again in post-modern physics as the second non-mechanical wave in the universe after light. I call this second wave the gravi-electromagnetic wave or the G-wave.
This new discovery introduces the aethercentric or more preferably the wavecentric model of the universe or Solar System. From the proposal of the geocentric model to the heliocentrimodel, we have sought the true centre or Sun of the universe.
The geocentric model proposed that the Earth is the centre of the universe and would have no qualms in finding how the Earth produced the motion of the revolving bodies. The heliocentric model being more concerned about causes very much associate the cause of the motion of bodies with the fact that the Sun is at the centre of the Solar System.
The heliocentric model only further accentuated the association between the origin of motion and the structure of the universe. In the heliocentric model, the Sun is the origin of the motion of the planets and as such it resides at the centre of the Solar System. But is this true? No, it is not.
Now, not only is gravi-electromagnetic wave the cause of the motion of bodies, it is also the content of the stars. This new discovery shifts the centre of the universe from the Sun to the true Sun of the cosmos which is the gravi-electromagnetic wave.
The post-modern wavecentric model of the Solar System raises and resolves vital questions the heliocentric model cannot, one of which is: what kind of mass of the Sun do the planets revolve around? You wouldn’t have thought about this without the wavecentric model.
The wavecentric model is revealing to us that the planets revolve around the inertial mass of the Sun and not the rest mass of the Sun, and all these changes are brought about by the true centre of the universe.
The wavecentric model comes to terms with the higher laws of the universe we all must ascend to. We must now establish this new model. It is the best explanation of the mysteries of cosmology today from dark energy, dark matter, fine-tuning problem etc. It is, in fact, an encompassing model of the universe which also extends into the atomic world.
The current mysteries of astronomy are shifting us away from the heliocentric model of the universe. They are indications of a paradigm shift in our understanding of heavenly and atomic motions in the cosmos.
The wavecentric model of the universe now overthrows and replaces the heliocentric model as the fitting description of today’s mysteries and anomalies just as the heliocentric model overthrew and replaced the geocentric model as the fitting description of medieval mysteries and anomalies.
We are moving from a more geometrically dependent model of the universe to the more causally dependent model of the universe. The true Sun (gravi-electromagnetic wave) that emanates from the Great Spirit and that causes matter and produces motion is now to be recognized as the centre of the universe.
The discovery of gravi-electromagnetic wave, which is the second non-mechanical wave after light and upon which the wavecentric model of the universe is established, proves that Einstein did not abolish at least completely the aether. Einstein only abolished the classical aether.
Now to address the second question being raised by post-modern physics, did Einstein relativity disprove the existence of absolute space and time? From a philosophical standpoint which is the main concern of this article, no.
Einstein theory did not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of absolute space and time. Rather it only went ahead to describe how the principles of relativity apply to relative space and time.
This new criticism emerges as a benefit of hindsight from the new post-modern theory of Absolute Relativity. The philosophical background upon which Einstein wrote the theories of relativity were purely relational as is evident from the theories flagrant concern for physical space and time.
Also, to insist that Einstein’s relativity disproved the existence of absolute space and time is to undermine the influence Mach’s principle had on the scientists of the early twentieth century.
Before Einstein ever set out to lay the foundation of his relativity theory, he had already embraced relationism. Relationism was already the philosophical foundation of his theory. The philosophical foundation of science had already changed before the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Both theories are as a result of relationism and not the other way round. I want us to really look progressively at scientific history. So, it should be said that Einstein’s relativity came as a result of the earlier disproval of absolute space and time and not the other way round.
So, if Einstein had from the onset set out to determine how the principles of relativity apply to relative space and time and was not concerned at all with absolute space and time, what then will happen if we set out to investigate or determine how the principles of relativity apply to absolute space and time.
This new way is the high road that leads to the discovery of the encompassing philosophy called absolute relationism. This new way presents a real return to absolute space and time and it marks the true rise of philosophy in a new way which I will discuss soon.
How could we have thought that the principles of relativity would apply to absolute space and time? Well, they do, but this comes with a major revision of our understanding of the universe since classical physics.
In this second scientific revolution, the essence of light is perceived further from its undulatory nature as it is now seen as a limit of inertia. The same applies for gravity. So, the principles of relativity are now applied to a deeper and complete understanding of light and gravity than had earlier been imagined.
Einstein’s relativity applies the principles of relativity to the understood undulatory nature of light and gravity. And as have been stated above, this is not so in post-modern physics. The second scientific revolution has finally resolved the mystery surrounding the true nature of light and gravity.
Now, the new application of the principles of relativity to the absolute natures of light and gravity as limits of inertia and not to their relative natures as undulations is one of the major distinctions between post-modern relativity and Einstein’s modern relativity, and which proves that Einstein did not abolish the existence of absolute space and time.
The Rise of Philosophy and the Birth of a New Science
This new application of the principles of relativity arose from a new and remarkable understanding of absolute space and time. Newton had earlier succeeded in smuggling propositions of speculatory nature into science by astutely presenting and explaining the bucket experiment.
The bucket experiment gave tangibility to the idea of absolute space and time, but is that all? The post-modern era of physics presents another option for the return to absolute space and time, but this time, absolute space and time are given real tangibility beyond what Newton’s bucket experiment alone and as presented by Newton could have projected.
The new tangibility given to absolute space and time arises from the proposal of two forms of space and time. Ever since man began to mathematical interpret space and time, we have always thought about dimension as the only property of space and time.
The new physics now teaches us that these two entities, space and time, have another property which I call form. It is important that you understand that all of the two sided contentions in physics since the medieval times have all been because of the qualitative and quantitative nature of the universe which form and dimension represent respectively.
The history of science can be seen as a dialectical struggle between the qualitative and the quantitative natures of the universe. The history of science is a history of the universe trying to find the balance between its qualitative and quantitative aspects.
Newton’s proposal of absolute space and time on one hand and his proposal of relative space and time, on the other hand, are proposals of the qualitative and quantitative nature of the universe.
Remember I had earlier stated that philosophy fell when its methods based on speculations became questioned by a new rising method called science which is concerned with experimentation.
What I want you to now know is that in post-modern physics the philosophical method is an indication of the qualitative nature of the universe. The new purpose of philosophy is now to investigate forms in all its manifestations. This is the rise of philosophy.
Philosophy is no longer of a speculatory nature. Its propositions and theses are now borne out of a deep understanding of the qualitative nature of the universe, and it is backed by the new science. The post-modern scientist can no longer do without philosophy.
Just as after the first scientific revolution, science established itself firmly on the quantitative nature of the universe, in this second scientific revolution, philosophy establishes itself firmly on the qualitative nature of the universe.
Now, what becomes of science? Remember, what we now call the old science is science attached solely to the quantitative nature of the universe without regard for the qualitative nature of the universe.
The resulting union between the quantitative nature of the universe and the qualitative nature of the universe already alters what scientists may think the quantitative nature of the universe means.
This new understanding of the quantitative nature of the universe as a result of its union with the qualitative nature of the universe gives birth to what one can now rightly and fittingly call the new science.
The new venture into understanding the universe based on an inextricable union between science and philosophy constitute the new method of the second scientific revolution. This new method is what we shall now call metaphysics.
Metaphysics is the new science which is concerned with the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the universe. It is unlike physics which is only concerned with the quantitative nature of the universe. Metaphysics is the balanced discipline of all things.
This is how I want you to understand metaphysics, and I want you to now know that the new man that emerges after the second scientific revolution can no longer separate the new science from philosophy.
Furthermore, absolute relationism being the philosophical foundation of metaphysics becomes a much broader concept. If metaphysics has philosophy and the new science as its two branches, then absolute relationism becomes even more than a philosophy, it becomes even more than the new philosophy, it becomes the way of life itself.
Absolutism and relationism are aspects of absolute relationism and are respectively related to philosophy and the new science. What now stands as relationism is unrelated to Mach’s principle rather it represents the new principles of relativity not founded on Einstein’s theses.
Absolutism is the Philosophy, l relationism is the new science. Both constitute the new way of absolute relationism. Man is moving beyond the mere accumulation of concepts and principles to the organic understanding of the universe. This is the new way.
What Becomes of Physics?
After the first scientific revolution, physics was birthed and it displaced philosophy as the means of investigating the universe. Now, we are experiencing the second scientific revolution and metaphysics is displacing physics as the means of investigating the universe.
So, one may ask what becomes of physics in this new era? No doubt, just as the first scientific revolution placed a limit on the reach and application of Aristotelian philosophy in investigating the universe, so does the second scientific revolution (or preferably the meta-scientific revolution) place a limit on the reach and application of physics in investigating the universe.
We are about to experience in a lesser or greater way the same shock the men of the medieval era who upheld the (Aristotelian) philosophy experienced with the advent of the scientific revolution.
The persistent mysteries of the universe that confront us today are irresolvable by physics and they are all indicators of probably the greatest revolution in man’s way of understanding the universe.
The advent of physics relegated philosophy to a kind of speculatory science, now the advent of metaphysics relegates physics to a kind of physical science. This is because metaphysics is real and it is the true science of the cosmos.
When we want to discuss the physical, observable universe, we will deploy physics, but when we want to discuss the metaphysical, non-observable universe, we will deploy metaphysics. It is as simple as this.
Now, we shall be traversing the physical universe and the metaphysical universe, but I envisage a time in the future when man shall break free from the bounds of physics and become complete metaphysicians of the universe.
Through physics Newton showed us a kind of unity in the physical universe, now through metaphysics, we are discovering a new kind of unity, not in the physical universe, but in the metaphysical universe. This has been the underlying source of the urge for the unified field theory.
The unconsummated revolutions of the twentieth century have all been pushing us to find this greater unity in the universe. This unity which is metaphysical, and which is the unity of the macro realm and the micro realm, is a far greater unity than that of Newton.
The unity of physics has already been accomplished by Newton and there can be no other true unified theory in physics. This is why the problem of quantum gravity has been very hard to solve. Our methods must change. We now must embrace the greater unity of metaphysics.
The Great Consummation
Everything is coming together. Man is beginning to unite all the truths about the universe from the ancient times of the great myths to the time of philosophy and now science. This is the great consummation.
No lost truth will be left out. Absolute relationism introduces a far reaching understanding of the harmony and operations of the cosmos. Mind and matter are now been finally consummated to produce a greater and more purposeful scientific advancement, not to the stars and distant galaxies, but to the Great Spirit that permeates all things in the universe.
As we move further, we shall find that the post-modern era is an era of synthesis. It is an era of the synthesis of the old and the new, absolutism and relationism, science and philosophy, logic and intuition, God and many etc.
The great consummation is the coming together of all truths in all the facets of scientific knowledge, and more importantly, it is the coming together of God and man. The separation between man and the Spirit of the Universe has become bridged by absolute relationism, the new philosophy.
The New Official Science
I am writing this, so that may be, by any possible way, history will not repeat itself. The church, holding dear to the Aristotelian philosophy, stood against the rise of the now old science.
They held dearly to the geocentric model of the universe and rejected with ignorant zeal the heliocentric model. Today we now hold dearly the heliocentric model and the new science is obliging us to embrace the wavecentric model.
Is official science also going oppose the wavecentric model just like the church opposed the heliocentric model? I don’t wish so. We must be quick to learn from history and realize that a new knowledge of the universe has come to us which should change our scientific traditions.
Most of our theories, especially those of the standard model of particle physics, are synonymous with the epicycles and other flawed theories that plagued the geocentric model of the universe.
History is repeating itself already, but I want us to make the necessary amends now in order for us not to stall the progress of science. The new forces and unstable particles purported to be responsible for the stability of the atom are far from the truth.
We must now return to the truth. Official science must now become open to true metaphysics. The prejudice against metaphysical investigation should end; for the universe, at its base, is metaphysical. This new science births the new official science. We should not persecute this new science even though it can be constructively criticized.
We all should now begin to investigate and explore the new philosophy and the seven higher absolute principles of the universe that have come down to us, as we pursue with intent the existence of a collective and enlightened civilization.
Until next time.
– M. V. Echa