



Addendum





Since my first offering of this proposal in 1997, it has met, perhaps not altogether surprisingly, with a decidedly cool response. There appears not only to be indifference but also a degree of outrage at my presumption. I should like to stress that I have presumed nothing and that I have been scrupulous in restricting this paper to that which geometry, chemistry and rational thought would defend. In this regard alone I am no less convinced of the case for more research to be undertaken. I therefore continue to maintain what I have done so already, with complete confidence, and would offer the following quote from Plato as some justification for my apparent dogmatism.





“We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes from that which is always becoming but never is. The one is apprehensible by intelligence with the aid of reasoning, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real. In addition, everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause. Whenever, therefore, the maker of anything keeps his eye on the eternally unchanging and uses it as his pattern for the form and function of his product the result must be good; whenever he looks to something that has come to be and uses a model that has come to be, the result is not good.”

Plato - Timaeus. (28)





I hope this site will stimulate further areas of research amongst those people with a more specialist knowledge and enquiry. In response to those whose minds appear fixed within the present paradigm and who would use its ‘issue’ to pick holes in some of the detail of this alternate proposal I can but quote Thomas Kuhn:





“ ...the choice between competing paradigms regularly raises questions that cannot be resolved by the criteria of normal science. To the extent, as significant as it is incomplete, that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent... The normal scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before... Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue.”

Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Ch IX & XII





Within the light of this geometry I would suggest the reevaluation of numerous papers, articles and books that I believe to be well worth another look. Continuing use of the ‘Crick and Watson’ model as a ‘benchmark helix’ - with its inconsistant architecture, faulty mechanics and inaccurate atomic positioning appears tantamount to Nasa attempting an exploration of our solar system whilst believing in the geocentric system… ‘epicycles’ and all. I can see no true ‘sense’ being made either of genes or genomes until this geometry is addressed - there is simply far too much information missing from their accepted model. That the biochemist struggles to recognise and comprehend the validity of this work is perhaps symptomatic of their learned, and to all intensive purposes legitimate belief in Crick and Watson’s opinion based model over so very many years - the possession of power and wealth invariably debases the free judgement of reason. With their reason now fully developed and no longer free from the ‘unprejudiced senses’ and ‘preconceived notions’ that have evolved since 1953, it may well be that further exploration of this approach would be better suited to the pure chemist, biologist, physicist and mathematician. Engineers, architects, philosophers, designers, artists, theologians and nano-technologists could all potentially benefit from the contemplation and application of this geometry in their respective disciplines. Indeed, anyone and everyone on earth needs to contemplate this structure - be it only in order to gain the wherewithal to be able to hold these modern-day ‘scientists’ and their theories to account, something it would appear they have been unable to do themselves. From my own perspective, it is evident that many of the problems inherent in the world today stem not from how we teach but what we are teaching. I would therefore argue that all secondary school children ought to be acquainted with Euclid and this geometry prior to their introduction to the Sciences.





Lastly, I would like to emphasise that everything you see set down in this website could, and therefore would have been on the table in 1953, alongside Crick and Watson’s irrational model, had Euclid’s Elements laid out this elegant geometry. Indeed, I genuinely don’t believe we would have found ourselves in such a situation had the ‘Ancient Greeks’ understood linear perspective or ‘Renaissance Artists’ done more work in solid geometry. Rosalind Franklin, Linus Pauling, Karst Hoogsteen and others who questioned the veracity of Crick and Watson’s hypothesis at the time would, I believe, have championed such a rigorous approach. Indeed Hoogsteen’s genuinely scientific and truly objective research between 1959 and 1963, now buried because it failed to back up the C/W hypothesis, supports just such a natural pentagonal geometry. Their model came to be accepted not because of objective evidence but because no other proposal was forthcoming at the time, and on winning the Nobel Prize some years later in 1962, no other scientist was going to question further, something that to all intensive purposes was done and dusted. Whilst the C/W model answers and confirms some basic points - that it is a double helix, operates antiparallel, fulfils Chargraff’s base pairing ratios etc - it falls a long way short of elucidating any working detail. Quite simply, as I say earlier, they can sequence and map as many ‘genes' and ‘genomes' as they like, but they will never make any real sense of them until they get the primary structure correct... and to do that they will have to take a very large step back to where it all began.





To those who will inevitably question my ‘authority’, the use of quotation and its appeal to previous authority will, I hope, clearly illustrate why I feel it so important to get this geometry addressed.





I would also draw attention to the following contextual ‘quotes’.