Fiction Science

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Post Reply
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Fiction Science

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:27 am

FICTION SCIENCE

___________________________________

This (very long) article addresses some issues regarding 'science' as it is regurgitated timelessly through so-called 'educational' establishments at the present time and for any foreseeable future.

The issues will probably (most certainly) be dismissed by established views by most of the population of this planet since they (the issues) are so entrenched in the psyche of those who may go no further than believe what they are told to believe by those apparently 'qualified' to do so.

Dissent, therefore, is anathema to the present system.

'Science' is defined as:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
or here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... sh/science
or here:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science

I apologise for any reference to other languages that approach the notion (which would be useful).

Take your pick.

My own dissent relates to major aspects of what is known as 'science' but which are patently mostly fairy-tale; in other words, Fiction Science.

Much about these contentious issues have, of course, been discussed before. I wish only to add my views.

I have no intention of going into why's and wherefore's. I just want to explain that the Universe that we inhabit whilst alive to perceive it, is not as constructed (and instructed) by so-called 'scientists', named or otherwise; theories such as 'Big Bangs', 'point sources', amorphous omniscience and such-like.

Main issues:
1. The noun 'Universe'.
Statement: No-one knows the origin of the Universe unless they wish it so.

The capitalisation of the word 'Universe' presents as a noun, something that appears as an entity in itself (object). It thus leads itself to a definition. A definition is what you want it to be. It describes nothing, since it is a noun and not an adjective. A noun does not tell us what a thing 'is', it merely calls an 'object' an object. Whatever we say a 'thing' is, it isn't (general semantics).
Before we were personally expelled into this 'universe' it did not exist (for us). Our first breath inducted us into its fold. From here on, we were/are 'on our own', whatever the circumstances of our birth and thereafter.
After this event, we succumbed (without consent except for our means of nourishment) to whatever lay before us. We were born into a place and 'time' about which we had no knowledge nor any means to change it, even the nappies into which we shed the un-delights our body did not require and were thus discarded, hopefully, by a caring parent.
Our further 'education/existence' was a combination of our perceptual abilities and whatever else we were able to find/discover to become our personal behaviours and by suitable instruction from our carers. Our environment was our 'teacher', so to speak. This included our 'diet' and whatever else we were born with in regards to our abilities to exist on our own (if necessary or possible).
In my view, the 'universe' is personal construct. It appears (to a sensual being) to be timeless (since it must have been here before we were integrated into it) and therefore I submit that it has no origin, nor any ending (except for us when we depart from it).
Thus the 'universe' is infinite both before our perception of it and after we have left it forever. This, of course, is speculation (like most of 'science'.

1a. The 'Universe' is what we believe to be that within which we live (whatever/wherever that is). It may or may not include whatever is beyond what we might perceive (sun, moon, stars and so forth).
As other flora and fauna, human animals live within that which we can tolerate to live and in whatever form that may take.

I firmly believe that the human animal is of at least two species.
These human animal species, have no beginning, nor end. They are, as all things, continuous manifestations of the universe (whatever that may be) at any given point. Thus to lable this animal species Human or Humanoid, I am not stating a beginning nor an end to the concept. Thus, a human is not a point positive, nor a humanoid a point negative. There remains a continuity from one until the other. Thus again, there can be no starting point for a 'human' or an end point for a 'humanoid'. One can easily devolve into another.

I may interject the notion of 'polarity'. This contentious issue (in my view) rests upon the notions of two opposing views/factions/etc.

Polarity is not a definitive. No such 'poles' can exist because there are no ultimates. No ultimate good/bad and so on and so on. As I say again: when is a pole not a pole? Answer: when it is somewhere/somewhen in between; which is where we are! We are unlocked between push/pull or pull/push.

1b. The universe is continuous (a continuum). It cannot be 'broken' into seperate parts. How would they connect?

At what exact point does a magnet attract or repel a similar magnet? At what exact point does anything happen?

The universe cannot be homogenous, since homogeneity is not 'dynamic' it must be continuous in an analogue sense (no 'stop or go' without the means to go from one to the other without some connection). The word 'dynamic' is the heart of the notion of continuity, since one 'something' must precede something else (either 'push' or 'pull'). A homogenous substance lacks a dynamic element (much like the concept of 'vacuum', which is an impossibility such as the ultimate 'cold' or heat'). To say the 'vacuum' of space would be incorrect since it apparently has stars, planets and galaxies within it. It is the dynamic element that is the nature of the universe, howmsoever it is constructed.

My notion of the continuity of matter (analogue not digital) requires me only to look at one of my old school exercise books (which I still have from the early 1950's) when we were taught that:
1. Nothing can be created or destroyed and
2. That things can only be converted/transformed from one substance to another.

This still makes sense to me, even though I am expected to believe in some 'theory of the atom', which makes no sense and which leads me to:



2. Theories of particle physics, including atomic theory.
The notion that the universe is made up of 'particles'.

It may be admitted that the notion of particle physics has some value, perhaps for descriptive uses, much as the label 'table' describes a device for the sitting at (or whatever).

So far as I know, the notion (atomic theory) was invented by chemists (alchemists?) to visually describe their mixture of one substance with another and 'seeing' (etc.) the result.

Aside: I also believe that this is exactly what happens when pharmaceutical companies try to make new drugs but I will not go there at this time, (B$$1 = B$$2 to infinity etc.)

'Atomic' theory may look good on paper (without its pictureless equations which are inexplicable to those of us not able to interpret them therefore they have little value to us and explain nothing).
I submit that the universe is not divisible into quanta i.e. smaller and smaller bits of stuff that glue or unglue (gluons, any one?) and (in some inexplicable fashion) together and from which the universe is constructed. For example, smashing a brick to smithereens with a big hammer will never explain a brick as a complete entity. Chuck in a batch of the notion of 'time' and you are away (with the fairies).
If my thesis is anywhere near correct, of course, the notion that an 'atom' is held together by 'forces' (of which we can have no verifiable or reproducible evidence) then the notion of 'splitting an atom' becomes redundant and there can be no 'release of energy', (whatever that is), and any so-called 'bomb', which is a release of such energy, cannot be a truth. Such 'bombs' cannot, therefore, exist in any reality.

I firmly believe that 'time' is a perception, not an actuality nor an entity. One may appear to 'measure' time with a 'clock', for example but this is only a tool for use at a specific 'time'. 'Time' is an immeasurable quality and 'clocks' can only represent a particular moment, which is, and must be, continuous, since it cannot be started or stopped, just like any concept.

Unfortunately (perhaps), the universe is not divisible, (like the frames of a motion picture, which may be cut and spliced). It is a continuous, non-digital medium. The universe is analogue.
Even digital is analogue since a digit has to 'move' from one place to another. 'Move' is analogue, however small the step from one to the other. The 'step' is the crux of the matter in hand.

Our perceptions of the universe are those of a continuous 'medium' dependent on our personal skills at being able to perceive them. The personal skills, are, of course our personal sensual apparatus at any given 'time' or moment.

It is here that we might also insert the notion of 'gravity'. In my own 'push/pull' theories, I consider what I have since learned (I am not alone) that there is a theory of buoyancy relating to gravity and my own thoughts gravitate (!) to this as a better explanation than the one I have read about but which, like a great many theories, begs more questions than it has answers.
If, indeed, the universe is a dynamic aether, then the possibilities of a 'natural buoyancy' seems to make more sense than one thing pulling in only (seemingly) one direction. So, one may ask why does a feather/smoke/balloon float upwards? Does 'gravity' work in one direction or infinite directions?
Question: Please explain?


3. Theories that there are 'germs/viruses' (or that Nature is self-destructive).

I can only say here, that Nature (or the planet upon which we live) cannot be self-destructive otherwise we would not be here at all. The notion that we are constantly 'invaded' by 'germs' or 'viruses' can only be total nonsense and not verifiable in concrete terms.
The notion that 'bacteria' are anathema to human health, is like-wise a completely ignorant notion. Bacteria are created when they are needed to maintain the body's self-healing properties. They do not exist except when required to perform a function to rid the body of material that is not required or is anathema to the self-healing of the body, or to digest required material to distribute this where it is needed for self-healing. Self-healing is 'staying alive' (in common parlance) .

It will be perhaps noted that:

'Germs' were invented by (but not limited to) a chemist, (without knowledge of any biological processes) by one Louis Pasteur, for whom we can 'thank' the progress of the degradation of common good foods from which a great deal of humans suffer the consequence from his entrepreneurial machinations. His worst crime was the notion of 'vaccination', which was preluded by the monster Jenner, and Pasteur managed to conquer the planet with a devastation of ill-health for all flora and fauna unprecedented and continues to this present day with the development of un-health-care world-wide (and the plethora of many vaccine-damaged children I have been teaching life-skills for over twenty years).

4. The theory of 'genetics'.
Genetics is supposed to be the 'science' of how certain traits are carried supposedly from one progeny to another. These 'genes' (part of a 'particular' notion that the universe is comprised of 'atoms') are apparently comprised of what is called D.N.A. (deoxyribonucleic acid). The work was performed by the assistants of a couple of guys called Watson and Crick.
The problem arises, of course, in the first instance is that if the universe is not constructed from 'particles' (atoms'), then a substance that is claimed to be extruded from a homogenous substance is not possible. Thus the notion of genes (and their apparent 'chromosomes' is a no-no, along with and alleged D.N.A. testing.
The problem arises also when we view the notions of in vivo and in vitro .
For those unfamiliar with the terms, in vivo means within the body and in vitro means outside the body.
A living organism (flora or fauna) is a total containment of whatever is necessary for survival. If you remove any part (microscopic or otherwise) the removed part no longer works as part of the whole. It must thus have an existence of its own.Since Nature is self-healing (again, as otherwise we would not be here), the removed part will still try to heal itself from whatever it has available to do so. It can do this only up to a certain point until it returns back to an original state of 'waiting to do something given the environment in which to do so'.
Thus, studying something from a living body is not to study what happens within the living body but what happens outside of it. Any ensuing report is therefore worthless. Removing a nut from a bolt to understand how it is holding two pieces of steel together, might be disastrous!
On the other hand, trying to study how something is working inside a human body (in vivo ) or a clock that is working towards its purpose, is impossible.
It would be obvious that there are elements of our parentage that are carried forwards, the same way that an oak tree produces another oak tree, or I have a squint like my father or mother. No 'rocket' fiction science here. Elements of all or anything or something must be apparent in progeny of any kind; that is how Nature works if left alone.

5. Theories that there is a 'science' of human behaviours lending this theory to subjects such as 'psychiatry' and perhaps less so, psychology.

It is all very well studying human behaviours. It is my contention that the so-called 'human' species is divided into a continuum of 'human' and 'humanoid'. Humans live/exist within Nature (that which cannot be, in my view, denied).
Humanoids live/exist in a World created by them to foist upon others for their own ends, whatsoever they may be. The two factions (at any level) cannot co-exist with Nature.
Humanoids are controllers by virtue of the fact that they seem to be able to assume 'power/control' over others, even of their own kind. They are the bandits of the humans. They steal for gain and can apparently get humans to concur with their banditry. 'Sweeties for the kids'.
Bandits are not a 'race; races do not exist except as mind/control games for them.
Humans are Scrabble letters for their games and they can invent words to fit their triple word score with 'X', 'J' or 'Q' when no words can be constructed from them and convince you that they are correct.
Humans live and work within Nature. Nature is the essence of the universe and our survival as individuals.
Where the 'division' between the species occurs can only be speculation only realised by the fact that humanoids (at present) seem to have the upper hand/control.
It is not the humans that study others to determine their worth in the negative in a World controlled by others (for whatever reasons) but those who wish to implant their nefarious activities (for their own reasons) upon others.
Like many other personages linked to various 'scientific' theses with an appendage such as 'Sir' attached to their fore-name, there are others who claim, may I say, notoriety from creating and reforming their particular perversions and disgusting habits into what they would later (by others) consider a 'science' of human behaviour.
One such inhabitant of this club of perversions of human nature is most famous for his 'Id', 'Ego' and suchlike. Thus we have yet another Fiction Science that may still be revered to by the ignorati but still holds sway if you happen to have a problem your ordinary 'quack' who cannot deal with it because he has no knowledge of Nature (or the biological symptoms of Nature (i.e. Nutrition and our invitation of the sun)).
The expression 'abandon hope all ye who enter here' (“Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate!” ) found in Dante's Divine Comedy is patently relevant here. In fact to all those who believe the 'official' stories of anything!
Studying human (or even humanoid) behaviour may certainly be useful. Then so is the studying of other animal or plant behaviours but only so long as we try to understand Nature and not the interpretations of others with an agenda that is anti-Nature, which is its antipathy.


6. That 'scientists' and 'experts' are generally not named, nor their particular specialisations or credentials explained or can be corroborated.

If we allow it, we are constantly bombarded by 'scientists' or 'experts' or 'pundits' or whatever who claim this or that to be a truth. The same goes for those who claim perhaps any event that might or might not happen in the (humanoid) 'World' to be a truth.
Proper researchers (those people who want to decide for themselves or have the courage to dissent anything they are 'told') claim nothing. They merely present what they have discovered as a truth that allows them to continue their lives in some sort of comfort.
Proper researchers 'weigh data'. Data is not information. If the data fits a personal world-view then it may become a 'truth' until otherwise realised as not so, by continued research.

aa5
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Fiction Science

Unread post by aa5 » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:24 am

Modern scientists wouldn't like to admit it we still haven't figured out time, it may be impossible to know it. Zeno of Greece really nailed the question when he was showing an arrow flying through the air, how it goes from one position in one moment to the next moment in a position slightly further ahead. How far can it move in one moment, how divisible is the universe. How do all the 'atoms' in the arrow jump forward one square in the universe.

And how much time elapsed between those two moments as the arrow was flying through the air. We think we know because we can look at the clock, but the clock is measuring movement. The movement of the hands/gears of the clock, or even the sundial is measuring the movement of the Sun/Earth, rotation of the Earth.

It goes with continuity too, say one arrow is moving at 60mph and another arrow at 30mph. Do the 'atoms' in the 30mph arrow stay in the same location for more moments, than the 'atoms' in the 60mph arrow, before jumping ahead to the next location. It brings to mind a computer monitor which 'updates' the screen say 60 times a second. So to follow arrows flying across the computer monitor. The pixels change to represent the color of the arrow on the next update.

Peaker
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Fiction Science

Unread post by Peaker » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:55 pm

Zeno and his Paradox is a favourite of mine. I grab at the opportunity to discuss it as, from the time I first heard them in Primary School till now I have heard no flesh and blood person ever raise the topic.

Between us and the world stands the description...that's what Zeno was saying.

Or, as we moderns like to put it: The Map is not the Territory.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Peter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Fiction Science

Unread post by Peter » Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:09 pm

1 Universe
We became a minor planet circulating a solar system which became a small solar system in a galaxy of billions of solar systems which became a small galaxy in a universe of billions of galaxies which became just one universe among billions. Maybe it’s all to make us feel insignificant, easier to control. Take us from God and the increased confidence that gives.

2 Atomic Theory
Fairy tales. Electrons behave so erratically under experimentation they have to be called “experimental electrons”, as opposed to “theoretical electrons”. So now we have two completely different types of electron.

“If, indeed, the universe is a dynamic aether, then the possibilities of a 'natural buoyancy' seems to make more sense than one thing pulling in only (seemingly) one direction. So, one may ask why does a feather/smoke/balloon float upwards? Does 'gravity' work in one direction or infinite directions?
Question: Please explain?”


I can't but the fanciful notion that two masses have inherent attraction to each other (gravity) has never been proven (not by Cavendish or others). For now we have to accept a knowledge void, something “scientists” always rush to fill. Density/buoyancy is an idea but force needs vector ie direction. “Gravity” incidentally doesn't seem to even provide logical direction – the astronots apparently don’t have that force acting on them towards Earth when they are suddenly far enough to become weightless but their ISS and the Moon still do.

3 Germ/virus theory
It would surprise the "we eradicated smallpox etc" crowd that no virus has ever been isolated or even seen by the "electron microscope".
Dead matter in our body must have agents, provided by the body, to reclaim the energy and material of the dead tissue. A “virus” must be simply this. The question medicine should be asking is, if there is a higher than normal local cell death, why?

The idea that a virus is an external agent, from the ether, with its own motivations, must come from the past evil spirit theory. The evil spirit theory, also as yet unproven, probably came from medieval cess pits where foul smelling toxins emanated and drifted into town and made people ill.

4 Genetics
Is the gene a faux god for atheists? High priest Richard Dawkins. Anyway their faux god has been losing his power since its invention. Irritating environmental factors are constantly discovered to go “back up the chain” and change the gene, either improve it or, in the case of cancer, corrupt it.

5 ‘Human' and 'humanoid'
Do we have a spirit independent of form and, if so, what happens to our spirit at death? Hamlet still unanswered alas.

6 Scientists
The tragedy of modern scientists, compared with the past, is that most are directly or indirectly employed by government, modern government = now bloated with our money. Thus there is the motivation to conform, not explore.

Big pharma scientists are just creating and registering toxins in pill form for profit so can never make real discoveries.

patrix
Member
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Fiction Science

Unread post by patrix » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:40 am

Let’s compare notes Peter :-)
1 Universe
We became a minor planet circulating a solar system which became a small solar system in a galaxy of billions of solar systems which became a small galaxy in a universe of billions of galaxies which became just one universe among billions. Maybe it’s all to make us feel insignificant, easier to control. Take us from God and the increased confidence that gives.
To dream/fart up things about how the universe came to be and the configuration of our solar system seems to have been the favorite pastime of the Nutwork for centuries. Turns out Tycho Brahe was mostly right 400 years ago and that Simon has found the piece he overlooked – The PVP-orbit. And Simons latest research shows beyond any reasonable doubt that we’re just a binary system like all the others and that Earth is situated in the barycenter of it. That’s probably the reason we have life here. A planet with that needs to be situated in the “Eye of the storm”


2 Atomic Theory
Fairy tales. Electrons behave so erratically under experimentation they have to be called “experimental electrons”, as opposed to “theoretical electrons”. So now we have two completely different types of electron.
Indeed, and one of the reasons the aether physics was derailed was because it threatened the fairy tales called Newtonian physics and the Copernican model. The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment showed no significant motion of earth, and this is of course in stark conflict with the Copernican model so the solution was to derail physics and we know that was a very successful maneuver.


3 Germ/virus theory
It would surprise the "we eradicated smallpox etc" crowd that no virus has ever been isolated or even seen by the "electron microscope".
Dead matter in our body must have agents, provided by the body, to reclaim the energy and material of the dead tissue. A “virus” must be simply this. The question medicine should be asking is, if there is a higher than normal local cell death, why?
Another favorite pastime for the Nutwork has been to make patients and doctors believe that what actually kills, cures. Bechamp was right and Pasteur was probably working for the Nutwork. And since the day the vaccine was “invented” it has done nothing but harm. Inoculation was done by harvesting puss from cows but these days more deceptive and effective chemical poisons are used. Not too much or too often however since goyim may become suspicious. Read some books from the previous century and it becomes apparent that “Antivaxxers” is not a new phenomenon and for good reason.

Diabetes, stroke, heart disease, cancer, dementia, rheumatism et. al. are in most cases an effect of toxification (vaccinations, drugs, mercury and plastic dentistry, fluoride toothpaste, food additives, vegetable oils. etc), combined with insufficient nutrition (too little salt, natural fats and protein and too much plants and sugars) topped off with stressful lives. This leads to what hundred years ago was branded smallpox, syphilis or leprosy, but that today has been rebranded to the diseases mentioned. And the “treatments” doctors apply in good faith in accordance with their education mostly does more harm than good since it’s the Nutwork who has financed the medical schools.


6 Scientists
The tragedy of modern scientists, compared with the past, is that most are directly or indirectly employed by government, modern government = now bloated with our money. Thus there is the motivation to conform, not explore.
Science has been successfully killed off by the Nutwork. Scientists receiving Nobel Prizes today believes things that a school boy would laugh at in the 19th century. I think the reason the Jules Verne book "From the Earth to the Moon" used a cannon was that it would have been to implausible to use a rocket since everybody knew at the time that free expansion does no work. The Nutworks favorite joke and "Tombstone" over science was the late Stephen Hawking.

It’s a brave new world and it’s time to push back.

Post Reply