John Eichler has recently published an article in Nexus magazine (Vol. 18, No.3), an international publication with primary readership in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe where it is translated into 6 languages. The title of the article is “A New Mechanism for Matter Increase within the Earth.”
For over one hundred years, a number of PhD geologists have maintained that what is observed about the geology of the Earth can only be explained if the Earth had undergone a massive expansion over time. Numerous books and articles have been written on this subject which goes against the current Plate Tectonic concept. However, the drawback has always been that if the Earth has increased in size, where did the increase in matter come from? Several proposals have been made over the years but on close examination they have been rejected as not a viable source of new matter.
Through his research on this subject, John came up with what he believes to be a plausible explanation of this matter increase based on observed and known science. He also has submitted a paper on this subject to the upcoming Interdisciplinary Workshop on The Earth Expansion Evidence: A Challenge for Geology, Geophysics and Astronomy to be held in October 2011 in Sicily, Italy.
We asked John to tell us a little more about his research and how it relates to his work in the MALS program.
Q. Tell us a little bit about your MALS final project.
A. The title of my MALS final project is Investigating scientific paradigm shifts: The rhetoric of an uphill battle. History clearly shows that over time, most scientific paradigms undergo replacement with newer paradigms. A good example of this was the dramatic shift from believing the Sun and planets all revolve around the Earth to the realization that the Sun was the center of all planetary motion. In my view today many of the things taught as scientific fact are open to valid challenge. In the old days, such heretics were burned at the stake. Today they experience great difficultly in presenting their research simply because theirs is not the current paradigm in favor. In my project I hope to bring more attention to what many consider a major problem to the advancement of current science.
Q. Tell us a little more about the article you’ve just published.
A. My article presents a view that is clearly controversial and hence I might be considered a heretic similar to others I’m studying. Every time I see another video of the Big Bang, for example, on a science television show, I nearly gag. Those who claim that absolute proof exists that the Big Bang occurred fail to recognize that there are a number of credible scientists who show contradictory evidence. It becomes a question of who can shout the loudest instead of objective scientific research. I’ve seen this over and over in a large number of disciplines which leads me to the conclusion that today many areas of the physical sciences are prime for radical paradigm shifts. I think the study of this is not only important but extremely interesting.
Q. Did your coursework in your primary area of Rhetoric and Writing impact the way you wrote and framed the article? How?
A. My coursework in Rhetoric and Writing definitely impacted the way I wrote the article. I was lucky to have found several professors who have given me the latitude to do independent research and writing to pursue topics definitely not on current radar screens. I find it funny to hear one professor tell another, “Watch out for Eichler, he will change your thinking about the universe.” Universities are theoretically supposed to be places where knowledge is pursued to the ultimate. In my opinion, UALR has proved that to me, especially in my areas of study.