George physics is not my game but it seems to me that Brad is fudging a bit. Let’s look at the first two points that he claims point to a broken paradigm in the hard sciences. My guess is that the other points are also likely to be on equally shaky factual ground:
1.His claim is that “Dark Matter” is not predicted by “standard” physics models.
As DM can’t be seen, how then is it thought to exist? The simple answer is that without it, calculations (which must come from some theoretical model) don’t work. The possibilities are that there is no dark matter and the model and perhaps the theoretical basis is wrong or that there is dark matter and the model and hence calculations are correct.
There is not as yet a “Theory of Everything” so to state that it fails to “predict why it is or understand what this substance is" is to compound his ignorance.
2. There are plenty of suggestions about the Allias effect without invoking General Relativity (or para-normal reasons). The following snippets from NASA indicate there are some suggestions that point to physical causes that account for the Foucault Pendulum effect and the satellite trajectory effect:
Eclipsing Speculation (NASA)
If the scientists do observe the Allais effect, the prevailing question will be "Why does it occur?" So far, explanations have included the anisotropy of space (the condition of having different properties in different directions), gravitational waves, and solar radiation.
Abstract (Harvard/NASA) The reported anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft of -8.5X10^{-10} m/s^2 (i.e. towards the sun) can be explained by a gravitational interaction on the S-band signals traveling between Pioneer 10 and the earth. The effect of this gravitational interaction is a frequency shift that is proportional to the distance and the square root of the density of the medium in which it travels. If changes in this frequency are interpreted as a Doppler shift the result is an apparent acceleration directed towards the sun. The gravitational interaction is caused by the focusing of the signal photons in curved space where in this case the curvature is related by the density of the interplanetary dust.
If one had the time, I think it would be shown that a resort to or hint of some para-normal explanation for what are physical phenomena is as outlandish as the suggestion that science has run out of scientific explanations for "difficult to reconcile with current theoretical physics" some physical effects, is an equally flawed proposition.
The history of science shows that most theories are discarded or modified over time because of "recalcitrant" data.
Brad Seiger's points 1 and 2.
{In the past three decades scientific evidence has accumulated showing that the present scientific paradigm is broken. In the hard sciences:
1. DARK MATTER of an unknown form makes up most of the matter of the universe. This matter is not predicted by the standard physics models. The so-called "Theory of Everything" does not predict and does not understand what this substance is.
2. THE LAW OF GRAVITY appears to be seriously broken. Experiments by Saxl and Allais found that Foucault pendulums veer off in strange directions during solar eclipses. Interplanetary NASA satellites are showing persistent errors in trajectory. Neither of these is explained or predicted by the standard theory of gravity known as Einstein's General Relativity}.
What all this shows George is that that genre of writing is typically loose with the facts because it tries to get the reader thinking along a path that leads to an unwarranted conclusion.
