The Universe versus Science - Opening Statement by the Prosecution

Case: The Universe versus Science

Opening Statement for the Prosecution

"My Lord, members of the Jury, we’re here in the matter of ‘The Universe versus Science’, a case that is not without its complexity, but as you will hear, much of the complexity is self-imposed by Science in its own defence. You’ll hear the charges against Science that it is guilty of fraud, deception, false accounting, misappropriation, and theft, and if it was possible to charge Science with incompetence then that too would have been added to the charge-sheet. Sadly it was not."

"Although much of the evidence for the Prosecution is circumstantial, you will hear also that it provides a much firmer case than the circumstantial case provided in the defence of Science."

"You’ll hear how Science has held on to theories that no longer fit comfortably the results of increasing numbers of experiments, preferring instead to class the experiments as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘poorly constructed’ rather than addressing the real issue of fundamental theories being flawed fundamentally."

"You’ll hear too how Science’s total disregard for anything that it is unable to explain within the framework of its current theories has opened up areas of The Universe to woolly-thinkers and charlatans who are more concerned with their selfish interests and money-making scams than with people around them or of The Universe itself."

"The main thread of the Prosecution concerns the missing mass of the Universe – some 98% that according to Science’s own measurements, formulae, and theories should exist, evenly spread throughout the remaining mass that we see as stars, planets and other celestial phenomenae. You’ll hear how Science, when faced with the alarming exposure of the 98% missing mass produced a smoke-screen of it actually being hidden in inter-stellar space as ‘cold dark matter’. When ‘cold dark matter’ failed to be located you’ll hear how Science invoked ‘matter/energy inter-convertibility’ to switch attention away from ‘dark matter’ towards ‘dark energy’, something that also has never been located. Surely, if this ‘stuff’ accounts for 98% of what is around us all at all times then it must be so ubiquitous, so prevalent that anyone could reach out and touch it?"

"Another thread for the Prosecution concerns the Speed of Light which Science has held on to as a ‘constant’ because Albert Einstein’s theories suggested that it should be so. We will show more-recent experimental evidence that shows the Speed of Light to be more than 200 times faster than previously thought possible, results which the scientific community has branded ‘impossible’ so has disregarded those results because they would show some of the greatest thinkers of our time as being flawed in their work. I’m sure that I do not need to explain to the Court, M’Lord, that if something is ‘wrong’ then it cannot be justified as being ‘right’ just because no-one had the courage or reason to say it was ‘wrong’ before. I can cite the precedent of The Emperor’s New Clothes in support of this position."

"You will also hear how Science has based some of its theories on the ‘Void of Space’, and the Prosecution will endeavour to show that the ‘Void’ described by Science cannot have characteristics that could never be attributed to ‘nothingness’, bringing the ‘Void’ itself into question. I refer of course to the ‘constants’ that describe the relationships between things that operate consistently inside and outside of the ‘Void’, things which have not been explained by anyone but have been measured often."

"Related to that, the Prosecution shall explore the view of Science concerning particle/wave duality and quantum mechanics, both of which seem to be acceptable as far as they go but neither of which can explain what Einstein called ‘spooky action at a distance’, something which has been observed at CERN as ‘entanglement’ but whose mechanism has never been explained."

"The Prosecution shall explore many things which people experience directly but which Science refuses to acknowledge simply because they do not fit comfortably within Science’s current theories. I’m sure that I do not need to remind the Court that Science once declared that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that flying above the Speed of Sound was impossible, to cite just a few examples of where the passage of time has shown Science to be not only flawed but totally wrong. The Prosecution will show examples of where Science has disregarded the direct experience of people because those experiences cannot be explained within the theories currently available to Science."

"Finally the Prosecution shall explore how simply shifting the frame of reference of Science slightly would provide a closer match between how The Universe is actually experienced by both Science and all observers within The Universe, removing many paradoxes and resolving many ‘impossibilities’ which were nonetheless experienced directly by people, ‘impossible’ or not, and proving as a consequence that Science is indeed ‘guilty as charged’."