s I have stated
, mainstream science has a lot of problems and these problems will only increase until
it embraces new paradigms.
In fact, these are not good times for any religionists to be overconfident - be it communicators of
mainstream science or anyone else disrespecting or faking relativity. The same is true for
consumers of such absolutism.
While they might be more careful in academic environment, unfortunately, communicators of science
often communicate their beliefs to public instead of objective thought. I, however, do not think
they fall in such trap by accident - the general public is more open to beliefs than knowledge.
Many of these beliefs will turn out to be wrong for one reason - the abuse of null
hypothesis, ignorance of possibility for the existence of hidden variables (hidden correlation).
This is why synchronicity is still not on the agenda and this is
of mass extinctions is still not taken seriously
of 26 to 30 My (million years) have been found in diverse geological phenomena, not only in mass extinctions - flood
basalt volcanism, ocean anoxic events, deposition of massive evaporites, sequence boundaries, and
If one accepts the new paradigm - a living Earth, it becomes obvious that this is not a coincidence,
all these events are supposed to occur relatively simultaneously in the events of neurogenesis.
Furthermore, if one accepts another new paradigm - that thermonuclear fusion does not occur in the
core of the Sun (it occurs in the Radiative zone
), Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction
of the core gives 25.746608 My for the time it takes for it to exhaust the fuel
(this is not
the end of the Sun's core though, it is hypothesized that fuel gets periodically replenished).
Considering that the best candidate for periodicity of mass extinctions I have obtained
is 25.74 My (see the same reference above), this is a remarkable correlation that should be
hard to ignore.
My calculations also suggest that Sun's core is at the end of the contraction cycle, agreeing with
the hypothesis of imminent major extinction.
The null hypothesis should have nothing to do with bias, but it does when the null postulate
states "the currently accepted theories and models cannot be wrong".
If mainstream science wants to progress - I suggest it inverts the null postulate and consider
the evidence. It is not that there is a lack of signals, there is an overabundance of
overconfidence in old models
(not measurements!) treating these signals as noise.