Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Charles Weber: on 10/31/12 at 23:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Donald Wilson, In portrayals of the Universe astronomers...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:01am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 6:24am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 1:20am UTC, wrote Dear uncle Donald Clayton Wilson Very approved your argument, that's also...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 9/29/12 at 11:00am UTC, wrote Don Great analysis. Do you think the 'Incommensurability Gap' can really...

Frank Makinson: on 9/12/12 at 5:18am UTC, wrote Don, I was looking for something else when I ran across an article titled,...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/11/12 at 5:06am UTC, wrote Dear Donald, I agree with you that < The Basic Physical Assumption that...

Frank Makinson: on 9/8/12 at 23:22pm UTC, wrote Don, Dark energy and dark matter are popular terms in the papers published...


Georgina Woodward: "'Energy' can be a measurable. Measured or calculated, number value assigned..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Energy is merely a category of information in the same sense..." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

July 19, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Cosmological Deja Vu:The Second Copernican Revolution by Donald Clayton Wilson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Donald Clayton Wilson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Essay Abstract

Dark energy, dark exotic matter, dark flow, “dark” inflation, “dark” dimensions, and many other “dark” entities (“dark” being defined as directly unobservable and having unknown physical properties) are all products of the present scientific community’s consensus cosmology model, the Big Bang, which is creating a “Dark” CRISIS. In many respects this parallels the seventeenth century scientific community’s consensus cosmology (solar system) model which was plagued by the familiar “Epicycle CRISIS” and pseudoscience. During both periods the communities were dominated by mathematicians guided by the assumption of a physical space/time centered observable universe. And accordingly, the physical observations were interpreted to fit this assumption, thereby spawning these CRISES. This essay joins in with Copernicus’ lament to reveal the analogous situations. Also presented is a graphical account of this “centered” fixation during the last two millennia, and in addition, a prize winning example of how “dark” expanding space is masterfully justified with the invention of the mathematical fudge factors dark energy, dark matter with pseudoscience. This compels one to ask: “Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions are Wrong ?”

Author Bio

Don. C. Wilson Investigator of Scientific Fraud and Expert Witness Forty years of experience in domestic research laboratories and as an international independent consultant. I am the author of numerous publications (most as intellectual property) and the holder of 85 patents worldwide. My academic background: M.S. Chemical Engineer (UC Davis) with multi-minors of Geology, Chemistry and Physics, plus post-graduate studies in Microbiology, General Relativity and Cosmology (UC Berkeley), and an instructor at San Jose State University.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT

You have had the opportunity to observe numerous approaches to "impugning" a subject, which ones work and which are counterproductive.

"A lengthy historical analysis shows that this crisis is the result of an erroneous interpretation of astronomical observations made exactly one century ago."

The "dark energy" crisis fits well within Georgina Parry's essay 1316, where she used the term "incomplete information", how this has resulted in some of the contemporary assumptions. If the scientific community or "scientific authority structure" (a Kuhn term) then decides an assumption is fixed in stone, everyone is required to use it without question.

There is another issue that has stagnated scientific progress for over 70 years, but one cannot challenge the views of a scientific "prophet" without retribution, thus it is better to "impugn" secondary issues.

I challenged a "cast in stone" assumption in my essay, 1294, and I quoted Kuhn when I presented an example of a contemporary paradigm change.

Very people are aware that the transverse electromagnetic field structure was the only structure known to Einstein when he developed his theories. Does this make a difference? Yes, Einstein had "incomplete information."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
Hello Don!

I greatly enjoyed a quick read through of your paper, which I try to do for all the papers before I start reading for details and content. Your paper was a lot of fun to read, and I hope you do well in the contest.

You may remember me from CCC2 in Port Angeles, and I actually mention that conference in my essay Cherished Assumptions and Progress in Physics. You will find Avtar Singh also has an essay entered.

You make a good case for how widespread the current problem is, Don, and also that it will be seen by history that the 2nd Copernican Revolution already happened - or is solidly underway. Fun times for Physics are ahead.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:22 GMT

Dark energy and dark matter are popular terms in the papers published in arXiv. A recently published paper solves the problem of gravitation without stepping on curved space-time or using the terms electromagnetic or Coulomb anywhere in the paper.

unified theory of dark matter, dark energy

Gravitational Field Equations and Theory of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

"The negative part of 'epsilon' represents the dark matter, which produces attraction, and the positive part represents the dark energy, which drives the acceleration of expanding galaxies."

The final sentence in the report states: "Consequently, when there is no normal matter present (with T = 0), the curvature R of space-time is balanced by R = 'Phi'. Therefore, there is no real vacuum in the universe."

There is definitely too much consumption of dark energy and dark matter going on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 05:06 GMT
Dear Donald,

I agree with you that < The Basic Physical Assumption that the observed galactic redshifts are to be interpreted as receding velocities is Wrong.> I supposed the dark matter is due to nuons which are similar to white dwarfs by their properties but have such mass as nucleons. More about it in the Essay and in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles.Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 05:18 GMT

I was looking for something else when I ran across an article titled, "On not being the first to discover no galactic dark matter"

No galactic dark matter

The article has numerous linked references. The last sentence, "Vast, distributed-mass galaxies should not be required to rotate like sparse planetary systems."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT

Great analysis. Do you think the 'Incommensurability Gap' can really be filled with all so swamped with information and clinging on to their own beleifs?

I would like to point you to one new and quite brilliant way ahead, which your investigative skills should expose and assess. unusually this is not my own essay! It is Peter Jacksons's, who find a new underlying mechanism explaining classical physics from QM. OK, I do identify a consistent part of his ontology, a real 'boundary mechanism' found by the Cluster probes, equivalent to the LT between the ECI and Barycentric frames, which Peter generalises.

Blindness caused by old beleifs seems to be preventing most physicists following the dynamic mechanism. I think you may do so, We both need votes! I'm giving you a deserved top score, and expect Peter would agree. Please do comment on both and expose any suspected 'fraud' or ask questions.

Thanks, and very best of luck.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear uncle Donald Clayton Wilson

Very approved your argument, that's also my point about the "false assumptions". "10" is a reasonable assessment.

Kind Regards !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:01 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Charles Weber wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 23:39 GMT
Dear Donald Wilson,

In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present as if the big bang and expanding galaxies were an established fact. But actually there is no evidence that the we are at the center of the Universe and the galaxies are all moving away from us other than the assumption that the cosmological red shift is a Doppler shift. There is a discussion of other possible causes of the red shift in . My own view is that the red shift is due to an interaction of the photons with masses passed in space. If light actually is degraded by the ether itself, It should prove impossible to establish the cause by experiment, because the affect would be so tiny.

Astronomers speak of a "young Universe". It was, of course, younger than it is now when distant stars shone. However, there is no chance at all that the Universe was as young as astronomers say when the light from those distant stars was created even if the big bang hypothesis were valid. It took the light over 13 billion years to arrive here, so it is obvious that the atoms emitting it took well over 13 billion years to get out there even given a big bang. It does not make any difference if the atoms traveled out there from a spot near here or the ether is expanding, well over 13 billion years would have had to go by, so by now the Universe could be over 30 billion years old even in the unlikely event that there was a big bang.

You may also find interesting a hypothesis that the characteristics of quasars arise because of refractive lensing by gases near a huge mass inside the quasar of the light from an opposite jet in .

Sincerely, Charles Weber

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.