This book had to be rewritten several times before achieving its current form. The story it tells is nothing short of incredible and pertains to the forefront of scientific thought. Therefore, it contains several issues that required my special attention.
I cannot overstate the significance of reliability and objectivity for anyone who argues that a leading scientific theory is, in fact, unfounded. For this reason, special care has been taken to verify that every single scientific datum included in this book has been published in reputable scientific journals. The data prove that contradictions to leading scientific theories have been published by genuine, unbiased scientists. The book describes a large number of events wherein scientists had stumbled upon an observation that contradicted a leading theory. These scientists, however, were unaware of how prevalent such discrepancies in fact were, as, rather strangely, data of this kind are never mentioned in textbooks. This book examines a comprehensive list of such contradictions for the first time, and seeks to shed light on their internal logic and significance.
In order to allow readers to assess the book’s impartiality on their own, the book comes complete with references and excerpts whenever deemed necessary. Consequently, a substantial portion of this book takes the form of references and citations.
Another issue forced upon me was the vitriolic campaign of delegitimization against any scientist who dares to question or cast doubts on existing theories. I hope I have managed to treat the matter gently, albeit with the firmness and resolve I believe it merits. Nevertheless, I would like to preemptively apologize if from time to time I was unable to help myself from hurling the occasional sarcastic remark at those who partake in that campaign.
My third stumbling block stems from the twofold purpose this book seeks to attain. The object of this book is not only to present a satisfactory account of discrepancies found in current scientific theories, but also to provide popular science readers with tools that will enable them to fully understand the controversy, and to judge the significance and likelihood of each claim for themselves. The scientific contents of this book are usually deemed obscure and unpresentable to popular science readers. Nevertheless, I hope that my efforts were sufficient in rendering them accessible to everyone. To that end, I persevered in addressing only those scientific concepts that are necessary for understanding the arguments presented in this book. I used a great deal of illustrations, some of which, I admit, contain a simplified version of reality. That said, the scientific basis of this book is sound, and I have endeavored to make it explicitly clear whenever an approximation of reality is presented to readers.
Several readers mentioned that the book is challenging because it forces them to think and take a stand. In one chapter this approach is used to extremes and readers are asked to solve scientific problems that even the current theory cannot solve. I hope that readers will find this challenge rewarding.
The Chronological Evidence Test
Popular science books habitually present scientific theories based on the chronological order in which the evidence was found. This method can be useful when seeking to explain why scientists adhere to a certain theory. In this book, however, discoveries are often presented in a non-chronological fashion. The reason for this is that this book has no intention of examining why a certain theory is preferable to others. It is more interesting to try and find out which theory is actually correct. At times, the non-chronological portrayal of events might make it seem as though I am trying to ridicule the scientists who adhere to certain theories, and I must stress that this was never my intent. I know it is very difficult to abandon a concept that seemed reasonable at the time, even as new evidence comes to light.
But one of the most important tests, I believe, of a scientific theory’s veracity, is the chronological evidence test. Such a test requires a great deal of scientific integrity and forces the scientist to answer the following question: Had the scientific findings we currently possess first been discovered in a different sequence, would we have also adhered to the theories we now consider to be true? Correct theories never depend on the order in which the evidence is discovered. In this book, I seek to demonstrate that the theory adhered to by most contemporary scientists today appears completely unfounded when the evidence is presented in a non-chronological fashion.
In terms of the chronological evidence test, the situation of contemporary scientific research is rather grim. Not only does the scientific community ignore the application of this test, it even insists on applying the exact opposite. Normally one expects that the first theory conceived remains dominant only until it is refuted by another. By contrast, we will see that in the case discussed in this book such a theory may continue to reign supreme even after it has been contradicted in numerous different ways.
This book’s scientific advisor has been publishing articles on particle physics, nuclear physics, and electromagnetism since the 1970s. He earned his BSc and MSc from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the 1960s and his PhD from Tel Aviv University in the 1970s.
I am a mathematician, a chess problem composer, and a multiple-time world champion in chess problem solving. In my early days I was the winner of the Weizmann Institute’s Mathematical Olympics.
I hope you will find this book rewarding and enjoyable.