Page Content (OCR)
approach of scientific experimentation, which brings us right back to the perceptual maturity mentioned above. Contemporary science thus does not reflect the reality of the facts but part thereof. In other words, it is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the paranormal. It would be nice if skeptics simply admitted that. Ego has built a barrier between disputing a fact and expressing its inability to understand it. Since it is scientifically impossible to prove the non-existence of something, this dilemma persists. The irrational status of the string theory is the best example of this boundary. However odd it may seem, the concept of proof does not exist in astrophysics! If we wanted to apply this to the definition provided by La Recherche (producing and verifying a fact), we would need the power to create a star, a galaxy or a Big Bang and we would have to verify all the events constituting the hypotheses of a model, from birth to death. In other words, our theories about the real- ity of the events of space are an uninterrupted series of assumptions based on continuous space-time variables. However, the Frenchman Nottale, for instance, has been trying to share his vision of scale relativ- ity in cosmology for almost twenty years now. In general, scientists usually fuss about a specific aspect of a model to avoid this problem, with rather limited results, if | may say so. If this aspect is verified, i.e., reproduced several times on our scale, the model gains better predictability. Nevertheless, verification is but one indica- tion of a more comprehensive outline. It is possible that this indication eat 1 tad. vacua is not part of the proposed model, but we would still have to propose another one, like this book does. The history of general relativity is a typical example. For a long time, the indication of the perihelion advance of Mercury was its only foundation, followed by the disputed observation of the gravitational lensing effects during the eclipse of 1919 and, finally, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radi- ation conclusively proven fifty years later! We clearly see that our acceptance of the existence of ETs is based only on indirect or circumstantial proof — considering the countless manifestations of advanced physics. To definitively eliminate the doubt and obtain direct proof, we could quite simply ask the ETs to show themselves collectively, for personal proof is testimony by definition. They may agree to do so if enough of us ask them. However, as we have seen that proof is another way to express total control over nature, it is not certain that the scientific community will make that request. Aside from the fact that the competition did not come up with any- thing better, general relativity became important because of the public- ity it received! If Einstein had not doubled his efforts to promote his The proof or the inferno of error 89