Einstein and other gods of science

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Farcevalue on November 18th, 2013, 4:04 pm

Wasn't Einstein critical to the "creation" of the atom bomb? I always associate Einstein with splitting the atom and the bomb, etc.

Was he not an integral part of the initial framework of the nuke hoax?

I also connect the theory of relativity to the ideas of moral relativity and subjugation to authority. It is not possible to know anything for certain, therefore we must rely on those with credentials to spoon feed reality to us.
Posts: 363
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Einstein and other gods of science

Postby lux on November 18th, 2013, 5:37 pm

[copied from the What is Gravity thread]

hoi.polloi wrote: It seems there is a problem in modern science (perhaps just traceable back to human reason) where many different observed things are lumped together. Maybe the feeling I get from this modern 'gravity' theory started by Newton is akin to string theory hypothesizing to bridge relativity (with all its problems) to quantum physics (with all its problems) without many (any?) real ways to actually test the hypotheses.

I think Einstein has a lot to do with these science problems you mentioned. Or I should say, the Einstein Psy-op because that's what I believe it was (and still is).

Science was different before Einstein and the media creation of him as a sort of physics god is what brought about that change which is still with us today.

The idea that Einstein was a fraud is certainly not new but the question I've never seen asked about him is WHY? Why was Einstein created?

I've been looking into Einstein lately and I think I've found the answer to that one.

First of all, to describe the change that was brought about by Einstein …

A mathematician named Roger Schlafly who wrote a book called How Einstein Ruined Physics described this change better than I can in this interview at about 4:30 where Schlafly says:

“I'm not claiming there's anything wrong with the theory of relativity but there is something wrong with the idea that physicists can just cook up theories and tell you how the world works without any experiment or without any observational verification. And, that's the image of what Einstein did.

“You can see this, for example, … PBS television has been running a series for the last month on its science program called Nova. They have a series called The Fabric of Space-Time in which they tell about the theories of physics like relativity. And, a lot of it is very good … very polished explanations of the progress of 20th century physics but a lot of it also has these wild speculative theories for which there is no experimental evidence and there can be no experimental evidence and the only justification given for these theories is that Einstein was able to change the world with abstract thinking so modern physicists should be able to do the same.

I would go one step further from saying that Einstein ruined physics and say that Einstein ruined science because these high flown proof-less theories are just about all we hear about today in all the sciences. And, nobody expects any of these scientists to prove anything anymore as they once did or show any observational data or experiments that led up to them. They just dream them up and the public swallows them whole.

And, that, I think, was the reason for the Einstein Psy-op: To pave the way for a succession of science gods who merely have to think up and make pronouncements about the way things are. No proofs or observations necessary –- just a sort of scientific dictatorship about what is true and what is not.
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby lux on November 18th, 2013, 5:49 pm

Farcevalue quote copied from the What is Gravity thread:

Farcevalue wrote:Wasn't Einstein critical to the "creation" of the atom bomb? I always associate Einstein with splitting the atom and the bomb, etc.

Was he not an integral part of the initial framework of the nuke hoax?

I also connect the theory of relativity to the ideas of moral relativity and subjugation to authority. It is not possible to know anything for certain, therefore we must rely on those with credentials to spoon feed reality to us.

The alleged content of the Einstein letters to President Roosevelt are posted here and other places you can find via searching.

If these letters are for real it looks to me that Einstein is urging FDR to start building a bomb before the Germans do the same. I believe Einstein was later quoted as saying he regretted the writing of these letters.

But, as far as I know Einstein didn't do any real work on the A-bomb personally. For that matter, I wonder if he did any work at all on anything. His wife supposedly did all his mathematics work, for example. And, since he did no experiments or lab work his only contributions that I know of were the writing of papers. That is, If he really wrote them himself.

I also connect the theory of relativity to the ideas of moral relativity and subjugation to authority. It is not possible to know anything for certain, therefore we must rely on those with credentials to spoon feed reality to us.

Yes, I agree. Moral relativism is a whole other can of worms that seems to be in the realm of the pseudo-scientific psycho-babble-ists and all their related psy-ops. These psycho-gods decide for us what is right and what is wrong.

Of course, the "most wrong" thing one can do is to criticize them. :lol:
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 1st, 2015, 11:53 am

Dear Farce, hoi & lux,

I’ve pondered this myself for quite some time. What’s the difference between theoretical scientists & theologians? I mean how the hell did we get to this point?

Turning a Sphere Inside-out (1994)

It’s mathematically possible to turn a sphere inside-out but it’s impossible to do the same with a circle (i.e. a rubber band). So something that, in reality, is impossible is mathematically possible and vice versa. In other words, mathematical ‘proofs’ can annul physical truths.

Einstein was no Einstein. His ‘Theory of Relativity’ is the antithesis of the Truth of Reality. I agree with you, Farce/lux, regarding your inference to moral relativism being a derivative of ‘his’ (unsourced) theory. But hoi’s ‘Laws of Gravity-String Theory’ collation really got me thinking…What if maybe, just maybe, it was Nicolas Copernicus who ‘in the beginning…’ ruined science? What if the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was really the ‘Age of Inscience’ and our enlightened sages (Kepler, Galileo and Newton) were the fathers of the new dark ages? What if ‘Heliocentricity vs. Geocentricity’ was the ultimate ruse?

People on both sides of the helio/geo issue agreed on one fundamental concept – we live on a ball. Copernicus mathematically proved that out ball revolves around the Sun which is also apparently a ball. Although it appears to be the same size as the Moon it’s actually hundreds of times bigger and way, way further. But the kicker is, despite the fact that the Sun, Moon & stars all appear to circle Earth east to west, the Moon (which is apparently also a ball) is going in the opposite direction! Further, we know the seasons change because our ball is tilted.

Our ball spins 1,000mph along its axis & flies 67,000mph around the Sun in a 280 million mile circle while it's zipping through space at 1 million+ mph though we don’t feel any movement. Kepler discovered that we orbit the Sun elliptically yet it always appears to be the same size. The North Star only appears to be in the fixed center because our ball wobbles & tilts. The Moon is in perfect sync with our wobbly ball & it spins on its axis as well. We just don’t see the other side. All these balls are flying in a near perfect vacuum we call space. Ok, so how do we & everything else on our ball not get sucked out into space?

Simple, Gravity! Newton figured it all out so we don’t have to. Newton’s apple, Eve’s apple & your bitten apple computing these bytes...what do we really know?
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby smj on March 1st, 2015, 8:55 pm

Einstein was given his Nobel for predicting the photon in order to explain the photoelectric effect. He drove the reductionist nature of the narrative; his persona taught us to think in terms of unified theories and whatnot.

His "discrete packets (bits) of light" gave their imprimatur to Schrodinger's equation and the wave-particle duality; just as his general relativity brought us the theology of black holes and big bangs and his special relativity gave us the dogmatic mass-energy equivalence... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

Now, of course, none of these doctrines make any more sense than let's say, the holy trinity, but they aren't meant to. If they did; we'd need neither scientist nor priest.


I guess it goes without saying that the wave function is a psi-op...


psi is also the symbol for psychiatry...


Dirac also scribbled some nonsense about the wave function that can be seen in Westminster...


but beware, we are told if a quantum system doesn't evolve according to Schrodinger's equation it will collapse.... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
...and we all know how that goes...

Posts: 63
Joined: September 10th, 2014, 11:29 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 2nd, 2015, 11:54 am

Wow, a psychiatric psi with a Monarch (MKULTRA) butterfly no less. How fitting! I never knew psi was also a symbol for:

The letters Ψ or ψ can also be a symbol for:
• psychology, psychiatry, and sometimes parapsychology (involving paranormal or relating with the supernatural subjects, especially research into extrasensory perception).
• In mathematics, the reciprocal Fibonacci constant.
• Water potential in movement of water between plant cells.
• In biochemistry, it denotes the rare nucleotide pseudouridilic acid.
• Stream function in fluid mechanics defining the curve to which the flow velocity is always tangent.
• One of the dihedral angles in the backbones of proteins
• The planet Neptune
• Indiana University (as a superimposed I and U)
• Gangster Disciples
• A sai, the name of which is pronounced the same way.
• Pharmacology, general pharmacy
• In virology the ψ site is a viral packaging signal.
• The J/ψ meson, in particle physics.
• In the computability theory, represents the return value of a program .
• In circadian physiology, ψ represents the phase relationship between a zeitgeber and a biological rhythm.
• In building, to represent an adjustment to a U-value, accounting for thermal bridge effects.
• The ordinal collapsing function and notation developed by Wilfried Buchholz


‘Unified Theory of Psi-entism’? We already know the father of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was a Jesuit priest, physicist, astronomer and friend of Einstein and Hubble. Not surprising, considering the Old Testament and Scientism both share an ex nihilo origins narrative. While we’re at it, the Old Testament's also rooted in sci-fi (Epic of Gilgamesh). Anyhow, I think a cursory look at Nicolaus Copernicus, straight from wiki, might shake the faith of some believers out there.

Nicolaus Copernicus – “Father of the Scientific Revolution”


Nicolaus Copernicus (/koʊˈpɜrnɪkəs, kə-/; Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik (help•info); German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at its center. The publication of this model in his book Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) just before his death in 1543 is considered a major event in the history of science, triggering the Copernican Revolution and making an important contribution to the Scientific Revolution.

Copernicus was born and died in Royal Prussia, a region that had been a part of the Kingdom of Poland since 1466. He was a polyglot and polymath, obtaining a doctorate in canon law and also practising as a physician, classics scholar, translator, governor, diplomat and economist. In 1517, he derived a quantity theory of money – a key concept in economics – and, in 1519, formulated a version of what later became known as Gresham's law.

That's quite an impressive resume. A polymath indeed!

Nicolaus' mother, Barbara Watzenrode, was the daughter of a wealthy Toruń patrician and city councillor, Lucas Watzenrode the Elder…

They soon became one of the wealthiest and most influential patrician families. Through the Watzenrodes' extensive family relationships by marriage, Copernicus was related to wealthy families of Toruń, Danzig and Elbląg (Elbing), and to prominent noble families of Prussia: the Czapskis, Działyńskis, Konopackis and Kościeleckis. The Modlibógs (the Polish name means "Pray God") were a prominent Polish family who had been well known in Poland's history since 1271.

A nobleman to boot!

Copernicus became familiar with…and almost certainly attended the lectures of…and probably other astronomical lectures by…

Copernicus broadened the knowledge…probably, also date his earliest scientific notes, now preserved partly at Uppsala University.

Without taking a degree, probably in the fall of 1495, Copernicus left Kraków for the court of his uncle Watzenrode, who in 1489 had been elevated to Prince-Bishop of Warmia…

Copernicus studied medicine probably under the direction of leading Padua professors…

It was probably the Padua years that saw the beginning of his Hellenistic interests.

…Copernicus seems to have devoted himself less keenly to studying canon law…probably attending lectures by…and to studying astronomy.

According to a later account by Rheticus, Copernicus also—probably privately, rather than at the Roman Sapienza—as a "Professor Mathematum" (professor of astronomy) delivered, "to numerous... students and... leading masters of the science", public lectures devoted probably to a critique of the mathematical solutions of contemporary astronomy.

One of the subjects that Copernicus must have studied was astrology…he appears never to have practiced or expressed any interest in astrology.

There’s no question about it; he almost certainly probably must have…

It was probably on the latter occasion, in Kraków, that Copernicus submitted for printing at Jan Haller's press his translation…

Copernicus' first poetic work was a Greek epigram, composed probably during a visit to Kraków…

…in January 1520, during which Copernicus' astronomical instruments were probably destroyed. Copernicus conducted astronomical observations in 1513–16 presumably from his external curia; and in 1522–43, from an unidentified "small tower" (turricula), using primitive instruments modeled on ancient ones—the quadrant, triquetrum, armillary sphere.

Bernard Wapowski wrote a letter to a gentleman in Vienna, urging him to publish an enclosed almanac, which he claimed had been written by Copernicus. This is the only mention of a Copernicus almanac in the historical records. The "almanac" was likely Copernicus' tables of planetary positions.

…presumably existed. Surely a man of his stature must have been given a funeral fit for a king.

Toward the close of 1542, Copernicus was seized with apoplexy and paralysis, and he died at age 70 on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that he was presented with the final printed pages of his Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the very day that he died, allowing him to take farewell of his life's work. He is reputed to have awoken from a stroke-induced coma, looked at his book, and then died peacefully.

Copernicus was reportedly buried in Frombork Cathedral, where archaeologists for over two centuries searched in vain for his remains. Efforts to locate the remains in 1802, 1909, 1939 and 2004 had come to nought. In August 2005, however, a team led by Jerzy Gąssowski, head of an archaeology and anthropology institute in Pułtusk, after scanning beneath the cathedral floor, discovered what they believed to be Copernicus' remains.

The find came after a year of searching, and the discovery was announced only after further research, on 3 November 2008. Gąssowski said he was "almost 100 percent sure it is Copernicus". Forensic expert Capt. Dariusz Zajdel of the Polish Police Central Forensic Laboratory used the skull to reconstruct a face that closely resembled the features—including a broken nose and a scar above the left eye—on a Copernicus self-portrait. The expert also determined that the skull belonged to a man who had died around age 70—Copernicus' age at the time of his death.

The grave was in poor condition, and not all the remains of the skeleton were found; missing, among other things, was the lower jaw. The DNA from the bones found in the grave matched hair samples taken from a book owned by Copernicus which was kept at the library of the University of Uppsala in Sweden.

On 22 May 2010 Copernicus was given a second funeral in a Mass led by Józef Kowalczyk, the former papal nuncio to Poland and newly named Primate of Poland. Copernicus' remains were reburied in the same spot in Frombork Cathedral where part of his skull and other bones had been found. A black granite tombstone now identifies him as the founder of the heliocentric theory and also a church canon. The tombstone bears a representation of Copernicus' model of the solar system—a golden sun encircled by six of the planets.

Bullshit checklist:
1) A cheesy death narrative even by Hollywood standards.
2) A ‘part of his skull and other bones’, minus his lower jaw, were found 463 years after his alleged death.
3) Experts were ‘almost 100% sure’ it was him based on a reconstruction which matched his self-portrait.
4) Hair sample and bone fragment match confirmed by, the most holy of holies, DNA faux-rensics.

Despite the near universal acceptance later of the heliocentric idea (though not the epicycles or the circular orbits), Copernicus' theory was originally slow to catch on. Scholars hold that sixty years after the publication of The Revolutions there were only around 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe

Arthur Koestler, in his popular book The Sleepwalkers, asserted that Copernicus' book had not been widely read on its first publication. This claim was trenchantly criticised by Edward Rosen, and has been decisively disproved by Owen Gingerich, who examined nearly every surviving copy of the first two editions and found copious marginal notes by their owners throughout many of them. Gingerich published his conclusions in 2004 in The Book Nobody Read.

It was only a half century later with the work of Kepler and Galileo that any substantial evidence defending Copernicanism appeared, starting "from the time when Galileo formulated the principle of inertia...[which] helped to explain why everything would not fall off the earth if it were in motion." It was not until "after Isaac Newton formulated the universal law of gravitation and the laws of mechanics [in his 1687 Principia], which unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics, was the heliocentric view generally accepted."

So there you have it. The father of the so called scientific revolution was as genuine as the Piltdown Man. Or better yet – Primate of Poland! Moreover, the triumvirate of Kepler, Galileo and Newton helped create the myth of the messiah that never was.

A portrait of the Primate of Poland credited to an unknown artist. The Shroud of Turin Toruń?


“To boast of one’s teachers is to try to give credence to one’s own words.”--
Taoist belief
Last edited by ICfreely on March 3rd, 2015, 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 2nd, 2015, 4:49 pm

There's no shortage of conflicting stories about Copernicus. Nothing ever seems to add up. For instance:

Galileo's Misstatements about Copernicus - Edward Rosen

The first of the five errors occurs in Galileo's remark that "Nicholas Copernicus…was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon."

No evidence that Copernicus entered the priesthood was known to Galileo. In fact, it was more than three centuries after he composed his Letter to the Grand Duchess before any document allegedly designating Copernicus as a priest was published.

Galileo continues: Copernicus was "so esteemed by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to undertake its reform."

Paul of Middelburg (I445-I533), bishop of Fossombrone, in a published report to Leo X about the outcome of that pope's efforts to stimulate projected corrections of the defects in the current calendar, listed Copernicus among those who wrote, not among those who traveled to the Eternal City.16 On this occasion, then, Copernicus did not go to Rome, nor was he in any special way "called to Rome."

Although the new astronomer was not mentioned by name, the reference was unmistakably to Copernicus, about whom Luther at once proceeded to say...

Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 3rd, 2015, 2:00 am

I think Copernicus belongs in the same myth-to-man-to-legend realm where King Arthur and Shakespeare reside. He exists only in the minds of men. He’s meant different things to different people at different times. In him, they see a reflection of themselves. In reality he's a nonentity!

The Making of Copernicus - Early Modern Transformations of a Scientist and his Science
The contributors to Making of Copernicus examine by the study of particular examples how some of the myths surrounding Copernicus came about and whether they have held their validity or have vanished altogether. Are there links between a real or postulated transformation of images of the world and the application of metaphors in science, especially the metaphor of scientific revolution? What were the interactions and conflations in science and literature that led to Copernicus being set on a pedestal or being cast down from it, and how did they come about? Is there on the other hand any fallout from reconstructions and hagiographies in the history of science on the literary image of Copernicus presented by novelists down into the 20th century? Papers deal with the history of the reception of Copernicus not by affirming or rejecting him and his teachings, but as rather as a process of transformation. They thus examine transformations of his doctrine: methodological, institutional, textual and visual - and transformations of the historical personage of Copernicus: topical, rhetorical, and literary.

Copernican kinship - an origin myth for the category - Gregory Schrempp
Within the history of mythic visions allegedly shattered by science, the Copernican revolution holds a special, epitomizing place. And so to catch Copernicus purveying solar myths is a mythologist’s delight—a double delight in fact because there are, first of all, the wonderful solar myths that Copernicus rounds up for his reader; then, on top of these, the interesting friction that these create for our myth of Copernicus. Why, wasn’t Copernicus the one who first led us to the vantage from which, for the first time, we could see the universe as it really is, and not as our petty, self-absorbed humanity would have it? But, the sun a king? Planets as his children? The earth impregnated by the sun for her yearly parturition? This is the sort of thing that we expect from pre-Copernicans.

If indeed myth is the nemesis of science, the situation is especially ironic because the myths that Copernicus cites are precisely the kind that nineteenth-century “solar mythologists” attributed to the human mind in its very infancy.

2011 | HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1 (1): 103–139

Science and Myth - The Hidden Connection - Wolfgang Smith
On a sufficiently large scale, the cosmos is thought to resemble a gas in which the individual molecules can be replaced by a constant density of so many grams per cubic centi¬meter. It was Hermann Bondi who first referred to this assumption as the Copernican principle, and not without reason; for even though Copernicus himself knew nothing about a supposedly constant density of stellar matter, the principle in question constitutes the ultimate repudiation of geocentrism, and thus consummates what has been termed the Copernican revolution.

Rather than being limited to a mathematical account of the correlations between ‘observed’ systems and their ‘observers’, or pointing to the inherent ‘transcendental’ limits of physical knowledge, Catren argues that quantum mechanics furnishes a complete and realistic description of the intrinsic properties of physical systems, an ontology which exemplifies the Copernican deanthropomorphisation of nature.

Neither Kepler nor Galileo tells us precisely why he became a Copernican. Kepler always justified his choice in terms of the Holy Trinity, but this could hardly have been the starting point.

…and also that the earth in its orbit had the property of speeding up when it was closer to the sun. I hasten to point out that this momentous physical discovery was not present in De revolutionibus and had to be teased out through Kepler’s insight into the nature of the problem.

Was this the brilliant confirmation of a Copernican prediction? A.D. White, in his infamous A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (published in 1896) had it so. The so-called Galileo affair played a central role in his account, introduced by the following wholly fictitious episode [11]:

"Herein was fulfilled one of the most touching of prophecies. Years before, the opponents of Copernicus had said to him, "If your doctrines were true, Venus would show phases like the moon." Copernicus answered: "You are right; I know not what to say; but God is good, and will in time find an answer to this objection." The God-given answer came when, in 1611, the rude telescope of Galileo showed the phases of Venus."

The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus - Robert Funk
The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan and bequeathed us secular heavens.

Oh the irony Mr. Funk!

Copernosaurus Hex
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Farcevalue on March 4th, 2015, 5:43 am

I heard a reference to a book called Disciplined Minds on a recent School Sucks podcast, in particular the 3 part series on Scientific Consensus vs. Dissent.

The comments in the podcast elucidated how academics are vetted and sanitized so that the privilege of tenure is never exercised since by the time it has been achieved, the tenured academic is intellectually incapable of thinking outside the prescribed parameters.

There is an audio version of the book, read by the host of the Unwelcome Guest site (which I have not browsed at all, other than to get the audio) which can be found here:


The official site for the book is linked below. I am not endorsing this for the simple fact that there seems to have been some absolution granted to the renegade writer by the state, from what I can tell by my brief scan, but the book may contain some insight into how those tasked with being the most creative can be the most confined to conformity.


I have only listened to a small part of the audio book, but it begins by describing how the professional class tend to be the most rigidly conservative and conformist. I look forward to hearing how scientists and academics are molded into shapes that suit the powers that be.

In my experience, many who self identify as critical thinkers are often incapable of grasping the ideas of fakery and psyops.
Posts: 363
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 8th, 2015, 12:55 am

Well Farce, Imo it boils down to repetition & ridicule. If a lie’s repeated often enough it eventually becomes a ‘truth’…a ‘known.’ Once that happens, the naive readily accept it & most of the doubters self-police to avoid ridicule. Society punishes free thinkers & rewards followers. Academia is designed to kill critical thinking not encourage it. In order to make the grade you must obey, memorize & regurgitate. The ‘best educated’ are actually the most indoctrinated (with artificial intelligence). Academics are diseased with degrees. Anyhow, I’ll delve into the theories of our heavenly fathers next post.

I think the archetype for the ‘Nicolaus Copernicus’ myth is most likely Paolo Sarpi. Like Copernicus, Sarpi’s mother was a noblewoman. His father (a merchant) died while he was still a child. He was mentored by his maternal Uncle and attended the prestigious University of Padua. He never married nor had children. He consorted with Popes and patricians. He was also a cannon lawyer, priest, mathematician, astronomer…

He groomed GG ‘The Father of Modern Science’…

Paolo Sarpi and the first Copernican tidal theory – Ron Naylor
The examination of Sarpi's tidal theory and of the work of Galileo in this period indicates that the theory Sarpi recorded in 1595 was of his own creation. The appreciation that the theory was Sarpi's and that Galileo subsequently came to change his views on the Copernican theory and adopted the tidal theory has major implications for our understanding of the significance of Sarpi's contribution to the Scientific Revolution. Moreover, it appears that several of the most significant theoretical features of the tidal theory published by Galileo in the Dialogue - and which proved of lasting value - were in reality Sarpi's.

…and was instrumental in establishing ‘Copernicanism.’ The official narrative of the courageous savant defeating the all-powerful yet benighted theocrats & thereby sparking the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ doesn’t ring true to me. Momentous thing like that don’t happen by accident on the world stage. Although Webster Tarpley’s a known gatekeeper I think his book “Against Oligarchy” may be slightly closer to the truth. Here are some excerpts for some historical perspective. But again, it's Tarpley so...

In the Middle Ages the Venetians were known as the archetypes of the parasite, the people who “neither sow nor reap.” For the Greeks, they were the hated “frogs of the marshes.” In Germany, a folk tale describes the merchant of Venice as an aged Pantaloon who makes his rounds robbing men of their human hearts and leaving a cold stone in their place.
Closer to the essence of Venice is the city’s symbol, the winged lion of St. Mark, bearing the misleading inscription, Pax Tibi Marce, Evangelista Meus (“Peace be with you Mark, my evangelist.”) The chimerical winged lion comes out of the East, either from Persia or from China. The symbol is thus blatantly pagan, with St. Mark being added as an afterthought because of his alleged visit to the Venetian lagoons. To buttress the story, the Venetians stole St. Mark’s body from Alexandria in Egypt, and Tintoretto has a painting celebrating this feat.

But the essence of their strategic doctrine was something more abstruse, something sometimes described as the “collapse of empires” scenario. Venice parasitized the decline of much larger states, a decline that Venice itself strove to organize, sometimes in a long and gradual descending curve, but sometimes in a quick bonanza of looting.
Venice was repeatedly confronted with the problem posed by a triumphant enemy, at the height of his power, who would be perfectly capable of crushing the Serenissima in short order. This enemy had to be manipulated into self-destruction, not in any old way, but in the precise and specific way that served the Venetian interest. Does this sound impossible? What is astounding is how often it has succeeded. In fact, it is succeeding in a very real sense in the world today.
The most spectacular example of Venetian manipulation of the dumb giants of this world has gone down in history as the Fourth Crusade. At a tournament in the Champagne in 1201…

An eminent witness of this typical Venetian vice was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was to the years after 1500 what Petrarch had been in his own time: Leader of the Platonic humanist faction. Erasmus came to Venice in 1508, on the eve, interestingly enough, of the attempt to annihilate Venice in the War of the League of Cambrai. Erasmus came to get in touch with Aldo Manunzio, the Aldus who owned what was at that time the largest and most famous publishing house in the world.
Venice had reacted to the invention of moveable-type printing by Johannes Gutenberg of Mainz in a way that foreshadowed the reaction of the British oligarchy in this century to radio, the movies, and television. They had immediately attempted to seize control of the new medium. Dozens of Gutenberg’s apprentices from the Rhein-Main area were bought up and brought to Venice, where the production of books up to 1500 and beyond was frequently a multiple of the number of titles published in the rest of the world combined.

-I suspect the Gutenberg press was the mainspring for a controlled ‘scientific revolution’ to govern the emerging literate class.

Since the Venetian oligarchy relied for its survival on the secret weapon of political intelligence manipulation, its primary strategic targets were first and foremost dictated by epistemological rather than military criteria. Fleets and armies, even in the hands of a powerful and aggressive enemy state, could well redound to Venetian advantage. The real danger was a hostile power that developed epistemological defenses against manipulation and deceit. In the face of such a threat Venice did – and does – kill.
The Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, perhaps the greatest outpouring of human creativity in history, represented such a threat to the Serene Republic, and in a more concentrated form than it had ever faced before.
During the first half of the fifteenth century, much Venetian energy was devoted to a rapid expansion up the Po Valley toward Milan. They seized Padua, Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, and Bergamo, reaching the Adda River, just a few miles from Milan. With Milan under Venetian control, the “new Romans” could bid fair to dominate northern Italy and then the entire peninsula.
During these years, stymied in Italy, the Venetians concentrated on overseas expansion, including the conquest of Cyprus. But on the death of Cosimo’s successor, Lorenzo the Magnificent, they began their systematic campaign to destroy the civilization of the high renaissance.

For Venice, so far so good: Florence, Naples, and Milan had been ruined. But ironically, the same dumb Valois and Hapsburg giants which had taken out three dangerous rivals were now to turn like Frankenstein’s monsters on the wily new Romans. Venetian manipulations were about to boomerang in the form of an alliance of all of Europe against Venice.
This was the famous crisis of the War of the League of Cambrai, which was assembled in 1508-1509. The opposing coalition was made up of the pope (by then the Genoese Giuliano della Rovere, as Julius II), the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, France, Spain, Savoy, Mantua, and Ferrara. The announced purpose of this alliance was to expunge Venice from the face of the earth.
The symbol of Genoa was St. George the dragon-slayer, in reality no saint at all but a thinly disguised version of Perseus saving Andromeda by slaying the sea monster, a legend that is centered on the coast of Lebanon. The “George” is said to come from the Gorgon Medusa, whose head Perseus was carrying.
Perseus is in turn nothing but a westernized variant of Marduk, the Syrian Apollo, a deity associated with the most evil forces of ancient Assyria and Babylon. The Venetians had their own Marduk cult, although subordinated to St. Mark, on the island of San Giorgio Maggiore, home of a Dominican monastery and today of the Cini Foundation, one of the highest level think tanks in the world. The modern British preference of Gorgons is too well known to need comment.

What does this sublime Venetian patrician have to do with the founding of the Jesuit order by that itinerant and deranged mystic, Ignatius of Loyola? Ignatius was the creature of Venice, and of Contarini in particular.
In 1521, Ignatius was wounded while fighting the French in one of the wars of Charles V. During his convalescence, he underwent his much-touted mystical crisis, after which he took up the life of a hobo. Making his way around Europe seeking funding for a pilgrimage to the holy land, Ignatius found his way to Venice, where he camped out in St. Mark’s Square and lived by begging.
Then Ignatius made his way to Rome. Here he became the protégé of Gasparo Contarini, who had been appointed to the College of Cardinals by Pope Paul III Farnese. The cardinal took the Exercitationes Spirituales, and appointed Ignatius his personal confessor and spiritual advisor. By 1540, Contarini had personally interceded with the pope against Ignatius’ enemies within the church hierarchy to ensure the founding of the Society of Jesus as a new Church order. In June 1539, Contarini personally traveled to the pope’s summer residence at Tivoli, and prevailed on the pontiff to let him read aloud the statutes of the new order composed by Ignatius. The pope must have been favorably impressed by something. His approving comment Hic est digitus Dei, (“Here is the finger of God”), has become a feature of the turgid Jesuit homiletics.

-The Jesuit Order was most likely established to ease the transition from theocracy to scientocracy.

An ironic postscript to this story is that later the Venetian oligarchy decided that it simply would not do to be too closely identified with the benighted excesses of the Spanish and the papacy they so thoroughly dominated. In the years around 1570, accordingly, Venice became the site of the first example in Europe of what the French later termed “salons” for socializing and literary discussion: the Ridotto Morosini, sponsored by the ancient family of the same name. Here the seeds were sown that would later produce free-thinking, l’esprit libertin and the Philosophes – in a word, the Enlightenment. The Ridotto Morosini salon was in favor of tolerance and science, against everything doctrinaire and narrow. They sheltered Galileo against the Inquisition. Out of the Morosini salon came one of the rare public factions in Venetian political history, the so-called Giovani.
At the same time, the powerful Venetian propaganda apparatus swung into action, under the leadership of a Servite monk named Paolo Sarpi, whose lack of noble birth kept him from public office. Sarpi was the Venetian contact man for Sir Francis Bacon.
Sarpi had been in Rome, where he had been associated with Nicholas Bobadilla, one of St. Ignatius’ original hard core. He had been a friend of Bellarmino, later the Jesuit-general, and his direct adversary during the Interdict affair. He was close to Galileo, who called him “my father.” Sarpi had lent a hand in the construction of Galileo’s telescope. Sarpi was lavish in his praise of Gilbert’s treatise on magnetism. He was also the author of an Arte di Ben Pensare, which is curiously similar to the writings of John Locke.

The Venice-Genoa partnership is in evidence first of all in the banking side of the Spanish looting of the New World. Venice got control of the silver coming from the Americas, shifting to a silver standard from the previous gold standard in the middle of the sixteenth century. This silver was used to pay for the spices and other products from the East.
Venice was extremely liquid at this time, with about 14 million ducats in coins in reserve around 1600. At about the same time, incredibly, the Venetian regime had completed the process of paying off its entire public debt, leaving the state with no outstanding obligations of any type. This overall highly liquid situation is a sure sign that flights of capital are underway, in the direction of the countries singled out by the Giovani as future partners or victims: France, England, and the Netherlands.
The Genoese around the St. George’s Bank received virtually the entire world’s circulating gold stocks. The two cities teamed up starting around 1579 at the Piacenza Fair, a prototype of a clearing house for European banks, which soon had a turnover of 20 million ducats a year. This fair was a precursor of the post-Versailles Bank for International Settlements.

Today, the Club of Rome is the institution that represents the most concentrated essence of Venetian influence and the Venetian method. The Club of Rome wants to convince the great powers and peoples of the world to commit collective suicide by accepting the genocidal doctrine of zero growth. It also hopes to abolish the sovereign nation as a vehicle for economic growth and scientific progress.
Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei has just written a new book titled One Hundred Pages For the Future, a global review of the impact of the Club of Rome, and particularly since its 1972 release of the zero-growth model Limits to Growth was published, a series of social movements has sprung up under the sponsorship of the ideas in the book. These – the women’s movement, the peace movement, Third World national liberation movements, gay rights, civil liberties, ecologists, consumer and minority rights, etc. – must now be welded together into one movement for a single strategic goal: the implementation of a zero-growth international order.
The Venetian problem remains with us today. Truly, the most urgent task of this generation of mankind is to definitively liquidate the horror that is Venice.

-Saul Alinsky’s oxymoronic “Rules for Radicals” proposed a welding-together of movements in order to bring “power to the people” as well.

…an important feature of Venetian method, namely the strategy of dominating culture, religion, and politics through the expedient of concocting a series of Aristotelian cults or schools which then contend among each other.
It should then come as no surprise to find Martin Luther, a few years later, packaging his own reform movement in a very similar “anti-Aristotelian” garb, despite the Manichean dualism in Luther which led right back to Aristotle’s method. Similarly, the pseudo- scientific method cooked up by Francis Bacon using the epistemological writings of Paolo Sarpi portrayed itself as tearing down the authority of Aristotle in favor of scientific experiment. But this does not change the fact that Bacon’s method was Aristotelian through and through. Bacon touted induction as the great alternative to syllogisms, but there is no qualitative difference.
Venice, as Machiavelli exulted, lost all the land it had stolen in the course of centuries. The Venetians were driven back to their lagoon; their destruction was imminent. Pope Julius II was induced to drop out of the League of Cambrai, but between 1509 and 1513 the French forces, with Florentine money, kept the Venetians on the brink of doom. The state was close to bankruptcy, and had to borrow from the Chigi of Siena. It was also at this time that the Jewish community of Venice came into existence. Previously Jews had been restricted to the role of moneylenders on the terraferma. Jews were obliged to live in the quarter called the ghetto, whose residents were subjected to special discriminatory laws and were obliged to wear a yellow star of David. As the Cambrai crisis deepened, demagogic preachers attempted to blame the disasters of Venetian policy on the new Jewish community.

Until about 1600, the posture of the Venetian Party toward science was one of more or less open hostility, favoring black magic. But in the early 1600s, the group around Sarpi succeeded in changing their public profile from being the enemies of science to being the embodiment of the most advanced and sophisticated science. For several centuries after this, the Venetians would work inside the scientific community to take it over. They would claim to represent the highest expression of scientific values. In this way, they could institutionalize the dead hand of formalism and the fetishism of authority, so as to stifle the process of discovery.
During the first years of the pontificate of Pope Urban VIII Barberini, Galileo was the semi-official scientist for the pope. But in 1631, when the Swedish Protestant army of Gustavus Adolphus fought its way through Germany, reached the Alps, and seemed ready to sweep down on Rome, Urban VIII turned abruptly from a pro-French to a pro-Spanish policy. The Spanish ascendancy is the backdrop for the trial of Galileo carried out by the Dominicans with Jesuit support. Some years earlier, Sarpi had forecast that if Galileo went to Rome, the Jesuits and others were likely to “turn … the question of physics and astronomy into a theological question,” so as to condemn Galileo as “an excommunicated heretic” and force him to “recant all his views on this subject.” Sarpi in 1616 seemed to know very well what would happen more than 15 years later, well after his own death. It is evident that the scenario sketched here corresponded to Sarpi’s own long-term plan. For Galileo, the trial was one of the greatest public relations successes of all time. The gesture of repression against Galileo carried out by the Dominicans of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome established the equation Galileo=modern experimental science struggling against benighted obscurantism. That equation has stood ever since, and this tragic misunderstanding has had terrible consequences for human thought. Lost in the brouhaha about Galileo is the more relevant fact that Kepler had been condemned by the Inquisition more than a decade before.
So, Galileo says, it is time to get rid of ears, tongues, and noses, and go for shapes, numbers, and motions, and never odors, tastes, and sounds. From this he proceeds quickly to a reductionist theory of atoms, in which heat is explained as the effect a “fiery minims” of igneous atoms. Galileo’s epistemology is identical with that of Sarpi. This is what Galileo means when he denies Aristotle to say that the truth is written in the book of nature, and written in mathematical characters. Galileo was a reductionist.

-In 1616 (over 70 years after its purported publication) De revolutionibus was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
-In 1633 the ‘Galileo affair’ was played out as scripted.
-The atomic theory sounded as idiotic then as it does now.

The next phase of the corruption of science by Venice depends on a rather obscure Cambridge don by the name of Isaac Newton. For the oligarchy, Newton and Galileo are the only two contenders for the honor of being the most influential thinker of their faction since Aristotle himself. The British oligarchy praises Newton as the founder of modern science. But, at the same time, they have been unable to keep secret the fact that Newton was a raving irrationalist, a cultist kook. Among the oligarchs, it was the British economist Lord John Maynard Keynes and a fellow Cambridge graduate who began to open the black box of Newton’s real character. Was Newton the first and greatest of the modern scientists, the practitioner of cold and untinctured reason? No, said Keynes, Newton was not the first of the Age of Reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last wonderful child to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriate homage. Keynes based his view on the contents of a box. What was in the box? The box contained papers which Newton had packed up when he left Cambridge for London in 1696, ending his Cambridge career and beginning his new life in London as member and president of the British Royal Society, director of the mint, resident magus of the new British Empire.

What were Newton’s findings? Let him speak for himself: “Concerning Magnesia of the green Lion. It is called Prometheus & the Chameleon. Also Androgyne, and virgin verdant earth in which the Sun has never cast its rays although he is its father and the moon its mother. Also common mercury, dew of heaven which makes the earth fertile, nitre of the wise. Instructio de arbore solari. It is the Saturnine stone.” This would appear to have been written in the 1670s. A sample from the 1690s: “Now this green earth is the Green Ladies of B. Valentine the beautifully green Venus and the green Venereal emerald and green earth of Snyders with which he fed his lunary Mercury and by virtue of which Diana was to bring forth children and out of which saith Ripley the blood of the green Lyon is drawn in the beginning of the work.”

Newton’s love of alchemy and magic surfaces as the basis of his outlook, including in his supposed scientific writings. In his “Opticks,” he asks, “Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance…. How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.” This is Newton’s notion of gravity as action at a distance, which Leibniz rightly mocked as black magic. Newton’s system was unable to describe anything beyond the interaction of two bodies, and supposed an entropic universe that would have wound down like clockwork if not periodically re-wound. Newton also wrote of an electric spirit, and of a mysterious medium he called the ether. What the basis of these is in alchemy is not clear.
When Conti got to London, he began to act as a diabolical agent provocateur. Turning on his magnetism, he charmed Newton. Newton was impressed by his guest and began to let his hair down. Conti told Newton that he had been trained as a Cartesian. “I was myself, when young, a Cartesian,” said the sage wistfully, and then added that Cartesian philosophy was nothing but a “tissue of hypotheses,” and of course Newton would never tolerate hypotheses. Newton confessed that he had understood nothing of his first astronomy book, after which he tried a trigonometry book with equal failure. But he could understand Descartes very well. With the ground thus prepared, Conti was soon a regular dinner guest at Newton’s house. He seems to have dined with Newton on the average three evenings per week. Conti also had extensive contacts with Edmond Halley, with Newton’s anti-Trinitarian parish priest Samuel Clarke, and other self-styled scientists. Conti also became friendly with Princess Caroline, the Princess of Wales, who had been an ally of Leibniz. Conti became very popular at the British court, and by November 1715 he was inducted by Newton as a member of the Royal Society.
Conti understood that Newton, kook that he was, represented the ideal cult figure for a new obscurantist concoction of deductive- inductive pseudo mathematical formalism masquerading as science. Thanks to the Venetians, Italy had Galileo, and France had Descartes. Conti might have considered concocting a pseudo scientific ideology for the English based on Descartes, but that clearly would not do, since Venice desired to use England above all as a tool to tear down France with endless wars. Venice needed an English Galileo, and Conti provided the intrigue and the public relations needed to produce one, in a way not so different from Paolo Sarpi a century before.


Tarpley asserts the Medici-Platonic faction were somehow the ‘good guys’ but I don’t buy it. Science & religion were & still are the network's hammer & anvil. To recap, Paolo Sarpi was in essence Copernicus' Holy Spirit & Galileo's father. Both Galileo & Newton were certifiable nut-jobs. Their supposed theories were even nuttier. I’ll try to make my case next time. I admit, I’m no mathematician but neither were they!
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 9th, 2015, 8:45 pm

I wanted to add one last thing before tackling the Newton-Einstein Universal-Special-General [st]Laws/Theories[/st] Theologies:

Astrology – mapping of the celestial bodies – served our ancient ancestors well in terms of predicting seasons, solstices, equinoxes, eclipses…but when astrologers tried to predict every aspect of all phenomena (‘Theory of Everything’) they were hopelessly beyond their depth. When they eventually pretended to have such abilities & people believed them a ‘collapse of empires’ scenario ensued (i.e. the Black Plague). Our ancient ancestors weren’t as dumb as we’d like to think they were & we’re not nearly as smart as we’d like to think we are.

It was not until the thirteenth century, however, that the attack on lay women healers became institutionalized. It was at this time that laws were passed requiring physicians to obtain licenses and medical training. Since universities were almost universally closed to women, lay women healers were, in effect, barred from the legal practice of medicine. There was, however, little in medical training or practice that we would recognize as "science." Medical students confined most of their studies to astrology, religion, and philosophy and read more of Plato, Aristotle, and Christian theology than medical theory. The heroic medicine espoused by the Hippocratic tradition had become the favored form of treatment for the sick. However, the purgatives used were no longer derived from plants alone but were also extracted from the far more toxic mineral world. The administration of mercury, lead and arsenic (along with blood-letting) had become routine practices. For centuries, physicians were too preoccupied with the correctness of their medical theories to notice that their treatments often caused more harm than good.
Although it was the white, upper-class, male medical profession that, under the guise of science, ultimately wrested control from lay women healers, it was the church that initiated the first major blow. An estimated nine million people (mostly women) were executed or burned as witches between 1479 and 1735.17 Interestingly, one of the titles for witches was "herberia," meaning "one who gathers herbs." Often, the crime such women were accused of was literally their ability to heal. This attack by the church was, at once, directed against the Goddess-worshipping religion which embodied a reverence for all of the natural world and against the peasantry which lived by this tradition and passed its knowledge on.
In order to comprehend why healing should be considered a crime, it is necessary to understand the church's attitude toward women and all of the natural world. According to the church, the vital, healing force of nature resided not within the earth, but rather, within a male, sky God. Disease, illness, and even labor pains, were all expressions of God's will. Only church-approved individuals (mostly men with university training and the priests with whom they were obliged to consult) could work within "God's plan."


Isn’t it interesting that both science & religion (purported adversaries) actively opposed people healing themselves naturally & passing on their knowledge? Aren’t the WHO & FDA currently doing the same thing? Are there any major organized religions actively opposing them? What’s really changed?

Medical thinking, trapped in astrology and leechcraft, stressed air as the communicator of the disease, ignoring sanitation or visible carriers. The rumors of the East told of "foul blasts of wind" which carried the infection to Europe, and the idea that the plague was caused by a corrupted cloud of mist or smoke, which destroyed the land it passed over, became widely accepted. Some thought this cloud had been drawn up by the sun from the stagnant depths of the sea. Others blamed zodiacal influences and planetary alignments. In France, King Philip VI the asked medical facility of the University of Paris for a report on the affliction which was threatening all human life. With careful thesis, antithesis, and proofs, the doctors described it to a triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in the 40th degree of Aquarius said to have occurred on March 20th, 1345. They acknowledged, however, effects "whose cause is hidden from even the most trained of intellects." The verdict of the masters of Paris became the official version. Borrowed, copied from Latin into various vernaculars, and carried abroad, it was accepted everywhere, even by Arab physicians, as the scientific answer.
Popular opinion, on the other hand, viewed the plague as a scourge from God. If the plague was a manifestation of divine anger, then Christians should do all they could to assuage that anger. From this simple impulse came the flagellants: “barefoot in sackcloth, sprinkled with ashes, weeping, praying, tearing their hair, carrying candles and relics, sometimes with ropes around their necks or beating themselves with whips, the penitents wound through the streets, imploring the mercy of the Virgin and saints at their shrines.” These processions, at first authorized by the pope and often lasting as long as three days, were attended by as many as 2,000 and accompanied the plague everywhere and helped to spread it. They inflicted all sort of punishments upon themselves, trying to atone for the evil of the world, sacrificing themselves for the world's sins in imitation of


When the proverbial shit hit the fan ‘scientists’ resorted meaningless pseudoscientific answers & theologians, true to their nature, offered the obligatory ‘it’s God’s will - repent you sinful heathens!”

The science of alchemy (medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy) was also affected by the plague. As a specialty and method of treatment, it was considered the norm for most scientists and doctors prior and during the Black Death. However, after the plague had taken its toll, the practice of alchemy slowly began to wane. The citizenry began to realize that, in most cases, it did not affect the progress of the epidemic and that some of the potions and "cures" used by many doctors throughout Christendom and the Islamic world only helped to worsen the condition of the sick.

People, for obvious reasons, lost faith in alchemists, ‘doctors’ and preachers. TPTB had to herd the flock somehow. Hence, the “scientific revolution.” Consider the ramifications of the Copernican revolution and, again, ask yourself if anything’s really changed. Out of the frying pan & into the fire…

pharmacy (n.)
late 14c., "a medicine," from Old French farmacie "a purgative" (13c.), from Medieval Latin pharmacia, from Greek pharmakeia "use of drugs, medicines, potions, or spells; poisoning, witchcraft; remedy, cure," from pharmakeus (fem. pharmakis) "preparer of drugs, poisoner, sorcerer" from pharmakon "drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment." Meaning "use or administration of drugs" is attested from c.1400; that of "place where drugs are prepared and dispensed" is first recorded 1833. The ph- was restored 16c. in French, 17c. in English (see ph).
pharmaceutical (adj.)
1640s (pharmaceutic in the same sense is from 1540s), from Late Latin pharmaceuticus "of drugs," from Greek pharmakeutikos, from pharmakeus "preparer of drugs, poisoner" (see pharmacy). Related: Pharmaceuticals; pharmaceutically.

Two of the most important notions that contributed to the demise of the former worldview can be found in the philosophy of Francis Bacon and that of Rene Descartes. According to Bacon, nature could be viewed as a mysterious virgin whose secrets needed to be penetrated by the tools of science. Baconian science sought to discover "still laid up in the womb of nature many secrets of excellent use" that no man had reached before. The point was no longer just to know nature but to conquer and subdue her with the power of the "rational" (masculine) mind.
The Cartesian world view carried the conquest of nature to its logical extreme-i.e., to the point of death. Nature, which was viewed as female, was relegated to an inferior and inactive realm, apart from "rational man." In contrast to the "vitalists," who believed there was an irreducible, vital aspect to all life, Descartes maintained that nature conformed to mechanical (chemical) laws. According to this view, nature was a machine, devoid of both rationality and soul. Animals, who were also machines, could experience no pain. Their cries of anguish upon being dissected were mere mechanical response.
The twin notions of conquering nature and of viewing nature as a machine have become the life-blood of modern western medicine. According to the modern, scientific viewpoint, disease reflects a failure in the body machinery. When disease strikes, it is the body's machinery that must be repaired. Whether the repair takes the form of surgery, a drug, or the replacement of "defective" body parts, such adjustments must be performed by those thought to have the necessary technology, expertise, and skill. The doctor and the doctor's tools alone can mend the failed machine.
Since the modern medical body is conceived as a machine, it is also thought to conform to Newtonian laws of cause and effect. Disease and ill health are thus seen to have a single, external "cause"- usually viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms. In order to restore health to the body, the offending agent need only be identified and rooted out. Typically, these enemy organisms are fought with chemical weapons forced from nature on another battlefront- the modern research laboratory.
This reductionistic view of the healing process has become so entrenched that it is difficult for many people to conceive of healing in any other way. And, yet, the concept of "one disease-one cure" (and one drug) is equally alien to the holistic view. In the holistic tradition, only a single disease exists- namely, an imbalance or a lack of harmony with nature, whether within oneself or with the rest of the natural world.
Today, drugs have become the primary weapon employed by western medicine in its war against disease. Rather than trust in the healing power of nature- i.e., poultices, plants, and the body's own healing energy- western medicine prefers to respond to the "affront" of disease with an assault of its own. Just as Bacon sought to "storm the bastions" of nature with the tools of science, modern western medicine has declared a war of its own. It is a war waged against the body and all of the natural world. Unable to trust in the healing power of nature, western medicine prefers to "penetrate nature" in order to produce "cures" of its own. Plants are no longer valued in and of themselves. Rather, the most powerful properties of plants must be isolated, extracted and then synthesized into chemicals and drugs. Nature is seen as a resource which is useful only when transformed by men's rational mind.
The human body has become the central battlefield in western medicine's war against disease. Thus, two of the weapons used in the "war" against cancer are nitrogen mustard and radiation, both weapons used during the last world wars. The terminology of warfare permeates the modern, medical world. Thus, we hear of the "war on cancer" declared by presidential decree in 1971. We hear, too, of "bombarding" cells with an arsenal of drugs and of "magic bullets" that "target" cancerous sites. Conversely, we often hear of our alleged enemies described as cancerous growths or other forms of disease. Most of all, we hear that the war will be won, provided, of course, that biomedical research scientists are given sufficient funds.
It should come as no surprise, however, that the "war on cancer" (and other diseases) has produced more victims than cures. Indeed, the warfare mentality of western medicine has made medical casualties a routine part of our world. In the United States, prescription drugs have become a major cause of iatrogenic (doctor-induced) disease, causing more deaths each year than accidents on the road.


My point is, blind faith in science or religion is not only foolish but deadly. Throughout history science & religion has been ‘good cop bad cop’-ing us to death. What TPTB fear most is people thinking freely because if that happens all of their illusions of power vanish. As they say, ‘salvation lies within.’ Imo, the worst spiritual sin to speak in the name of God & the worst logical lapse is to pretend to know the unknowable.

Rational is not always real
It used to be generally accepted, at least very widely so, that the essence of science is providing experimental proof for some mathematical theorem. This "mathematics" is usually understood to be a branch of formal deductive logic. To the extent science relies upon that, the most important physical phenomena can not be understood in a rational way. Admittedly, most of the simpler mechanical phenomena can be understood, at least to the degree that any errors are not particularly noticeable in practice. It is the most fundamental sort of scientific problems-those phenomena which the mathematician usually labels as "nonlinear"-which can not be understood in a formal-deductive way.
For this reason, what academic teaching generally identifies as a rational way of thinking works sometimes, and sometimes does not. If science is dominated by formal-mathematical thinking based on only deductive and inductive methods, the fabric of scientific knowledge as a whole is filled with many holes-or, what mathematics terms "discontinuities . "It is through these "holes" in deductive reasoning that the wild irrationalism of belief in horoscopes, luck, and even witchcraft, may penetrate the victim' s mind, and even pretty much take it over.


The more things change the more they stay insane!

Similarity between Quantum Mechanics and Astrology - Tapan Das Ph.D., P.Eng.
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on March 9th, 2015, 10:16 pm

It's interesting that you bring up the "plague" because I was recently reading about how it mysteriously appeared in various countries centuries apart, and I wanted to crack that open under a fakery lens soon.

Thanks for the insights.
Posts: 4671
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 11th, 2015, 8:33 pm

Sounds good hoi. It may be worthwhile to compare/contrast the "plague" with current/historical epidemics that always seem to be shrouded in mystery.

Contrary to popular belief Sir Isaac Newton’s Three ‘Laws’ of Motion & Universal ‘Law’ of Gravitation in no way proved Heliocentricity (‘planet’ Earth supposedly revolving around the Sun). Believe it or not, there's no scientific proof for Heliocentricity.

Admittedly Unproven, Why Does Science Accept Gravity as a Property of Matter? - Peter Bros
In the 18th century, the unwashed masses still believed in biblical conclusions, and biblical conclusions were dictated by religious authorities. There are only so many seats at the banquet table, and there were not enough seats for both religious authorities and scientific authorities to feast. A life and death battle was going on to determine who should shape the picture of the world for the unwashed masses. Religion had performed the function, and reaped the benefits, for thousands of years. The new religion of science was shouldering its way to the table, in the process elbowing religion away.
Great battles, including the origin of man and the age of the Earth, battles that had little to do with science but much to do with capturing the minds of men, were looming. Science couldn’t just admit that its founding principle, the explanation for the most puzzling phenomena we experience, falling objects, was erroneous.
In the opening decades of the 19th century, William Whewell would write volumes on the history of science, focusing on the scientific method. Inherent in all this verbiage was an organizing principle, that Newton’s induction of gravity as a property of matter was valid regardless of his failure of proof.
Think about this turnaround for a minute. Newton used the amount of matter in the moon and the Earth to predict the orbit of the moon. The orbit he predicted was the actual orbit of the moon as altered by gravity from its straight-line course. Science is saying we use the orbits of the planets to compute the amount of matter in the planets.
Science says we assume that gravity is a property of matter and therefore proportional. We then determine the amount of gravity in a planet using its orbit and use proportionality to convert that gravity to matter. Because the matter doesn't coincide with size, we call the matter thus computed mass.
Instead of using gravity to predict orbits, science is using orbits to predict gravity, and because gravity is proportional to matter, predicting the amount of matter in a planet.
What is the one tenet of science that must never be violated?
Any hypothesis must produce measurable predictions.
Is the amount of matter in a planet measurable?
Absolutely not. No one, and this was Newton’s fallacy, knows the proportion of the different densities of matter in a planet, and therefore the use of Newton’s unproven theory to demonstrate the amount of matter in a planet is inherently unscientific.
Science basically said we have to save Newton, but how do we do it? We simply accept Newton’s conclusion, then use Newton to produce all sorts of fuzzy math that results in meaningless conclusions. The beauty of the thing is, like black holes and dark matter, the meaningless conclusions, being meaningless, can never be disproved, and therefore, no one can ever challenge them.
The result is, we have universally come to believe our own subterfuge. We believe we have answered questions we haven’t, and we believe that we have answered questions that we can never answer, increasing the awe with which we view ourselves.
We think we know everything and we know absolutely nothing, and if you think Newton created a can of worms with gravity, imagine what a can of worms our own ignorance is creating.


For more on Newton’s fraudulent Gravitational ‘Laws’, I suggest the following to the mathematically inclined reader:

English Royal Society: Physicists Newton, Eddington, Einstein, Investigation trial and conviction
Historically Robert Hooke a member of England's Royal society 1635 – 1703 accused Sir Isaac Newton 1642 - 1727 the head master of England's royal society of theft of the Universal Gravitation law F = - G m M/r². Hooke's law is a well-known physics law F = - k r. After Newton claimed F = - G m M/r² Hooke accused Newton of stealing his deduction claiming that his law F = - k r and Kepler's third law a³/T² = constant when put together produced the universal gravitation law F = [- G m M/r²] r (1) that Newton stole from him. This article is a proof that the Gravitational law Newton the head of England Royal society not only possibly stole but also changed a³/T² to a variable without precautions or experimental proof weaving a trap for Einstein to use and named relativity theory. Furthermore, Hooke accused Newton of…

From 1687 (publication of Newton’s Principia) to 1887 (Michelson-Morley experiment) countless experiments failed to demonstrate the Earth’s movement (1000mph rotational & 67,000 mph orbital). In order to maintain its false authority, the Church of Scientocracy commissioned one of its high priests (Sir Arthur Eddington) to save Heliocentricity. Eddington, by falsifying data to 'prove' light bends around large objects, transformed an obscure patent clerk (Albert Einstein) into a scientific saint. The following link adequately exposes the fraud.

The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science By Richard Moody Jr.
To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud as the greatest hoax of 20th and 21st Century science.
So Eddington set out to Principe in Africa in 1919, with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. No supporters of Einstein appear to be fazed by the fact that Eddington was an advocate for Einstein, not some objective scientist.
“Sir Joseph Thomson, President of the Royal Society and Chair of the meeting, strongly endorsed the results.” It does not appear that any scientists present actually looked at the photographic plates (the whole affair was more like a coronation rather than a scientific presentation e.g. Pais stated, “…the day on which Einstein was canonized.”)


Scientific American offers a sanitized/sugar coated version of the event. You be the judge:

Did Researchers Cook Data from the First Test of General Relativity? – J.R. Minkel
"If I was in the same position, I would have done the same thing," says Washington University's Will, who adds that he never believed Eddington had cooked the numbers. "It just didn't seem credible to me that someone of his stature would throw out data because it didn't look right."

A pox on the blasphemer who dares to besmear the good name of an infallible Fellow of the Royal Society! Good day to you Sir – I say good day!

Universal Gravitation is a non-falsifiable physical hypothesis. Special Relativity is a non-falsifiable non-physical hypothesis based on a definition. General Relativity is based on two definitions plus an axiom connecting stress-energy to so called space-time curvature which is similar to Newton’s ‘Law’. In essence, ‘General Relativity’ is a euphemism for ‘Universal Law’ – a metaphysical myth!

Physics—A Culture of Criminality – Gary Novak
Relativity was designed for corruption
Relativity has no other purpose than breaking down rationality, so incompetents can prevail. It starts with two objects moving toward each other, so velocities can be muddled with relative motion. What does that have to do with E=mc²? Absolutely nothing. Einstein paralleled the definition of kinetic energy, which says KE=½mv². Since that equation can be mathematically proven to be wrong, it means Einstein paralleled an erroneous equation. What is science which parallels errors?
The reason why nothing can supposedly move faster than the velocity of light is because velocities are arranged under a square root sign, and there is no such thing as the square root of a negative. An eighth grade math student could contrive such a scheme.
Space-time supposedly replaces gravity because of an image of a vortex with a mass in the center. The science? It's explained as a graph with space and time on different axes. A graph and image replaces gravity. But Einstein is supposedly proven correct every day, because he predicted that light would bend around large objects.


Therefore, no negative number can have a real square root. However, it is possible to work with…the imaginary unit, which is defined such that i2 = −1.

“The term "imaginary" for these quantities was coined by René Descartes in 1637, although he was at pains to stress their imaginary nature…”

"According to Einstein's doctrine the world is a finite four dimensional sphere full with force-lines. No motion is possible in it since time is one of its geometrical dimensions, and there is no external time." - Dr. Uri Fidelman.

The best examples of circular reasoning (other than the nature of an encyclopedic reference such as Wikipedia) would be Newton's Laws (inertia and gravity) and Einstein's theory of relativity.
The incidental knowledge our senses provide us about sizes, shapes, movement, weight, color, sound, texture, fragrance, etc., are the things our minds collect, reason and create ideas about. Because ideas are neither material nor infallible, and because our finite minds and the range of ideas that can be created from our senses are also finite, circular reasoning pretty much encompasses everything we mere mortals will ever know.
Newton and Einstein are remembered precisely because they dealt so effectively with the most fundamental elements of their universe with their manifestly finite minds.


According to modern science our six senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, & COMMON!) are not to be trusted. We must place faith in our high priests of science. We believe Earth is a planet (a wandering star). NASA’s Galileo satellite images showing the Earth spinning (with static/non-morphing clouds and all) proved it. We believe in Newton’s Universal Gravitation. An Apollo astronaut’s ‘feather & hammer’ demonstration proved it. We believe we evolved from primates. Darwin proved it. We believe Earth is 4.5 billion years old & the Universe is 15 billion years old. Radiometric/age dating proved it…We have it all figured out!

Man is truly a mythical creature…

Volume 1 Mythology & History
Falling, rising, generality, difference, relation. These are extremely profound notions; people for countless millennia have naturally meditated upon them. Indeed via mythology and etymology we will discover — or reconstruct — the original and in fact prehistoric theory of quantum gravity, the prehistoric theory of everything. Likewise we will learn that this antique Holy Grail, if you will, interfaces naturally with the theory of everything nascent in our contemporary world. In the process we will recognize that we owe as much or more to the likes of James Joyce as to the likes of Leibniz and Einstein.
The only complete and consistent appreciation of the White, Red, Black trinity is the perennial philosophy I call the Golden/Legal. (Leibniz coined the term “perennial philosophy” and it was famously expounded upon by Aldous Huxley.) The Golden/Legal philosophy naturally accommodates both the antique and the presently nascent theories of everything (i.e. of quantum gravity). This philosophy is more than a paradigm, I think, in the sense that it is the only paradigm that seems capable of truly addressing the Black/Baroque. I hinted at this philosophy when I described the holistic nature and holographic essence of the true principle of relativity and when I emphasized the natural affinities — peaces — between all entities.
This passage largely expresses the way I feel about the Gravity trilogy. Still I recognize — and I expect my readers to do the same — that a theorist is obliged to postulate, to eventually present at least a single postulate as if it is simply true, and to build his/her theory as much as possible on the minimum number and simplest expression of such postulates. These foundational postulates are what we call principles. Good science is ultimately reckless in this deepest, principled sense. Aldous Huxley in his Literature and Science notes the same with respect to literature, pointing out “the ultimate magic — the magic of what might be called verbal recklessness.” Principles are the highest codification of magic. A theorist is a poet.


"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
“If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”
“The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.”
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled!"

- Mark Twain
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Observer on March 12th, 2015, 7:20 pm

ICfreely wrote:Believe it or not, there's no scientific proof for Heliocentricity.

Yes, about the fact that there is no proof we are NOT living inside a concave earth,
totally out-of-the-box thinker Total Recall (Wild Heretic) wrote this a few days ago:

"I know there is an “international” group that were suddenly very interested in me literally the day after publishing the Sun as a sulphur lamp article. Who they were, I do not know, but those experiences have led me to think that they have very high technology (I won’t go into this here). “Heliocentric theory is wrong” got me attention from a British group as well (they had just the standard surveillance back door hacking tech, nothing exotic there at all which led me to believe they were just an alphabet agency). The international group however were a totally different kettle of fish with reality bending tech in a league far beyond the British experience. I won’t go into the personal details here, but thought my opinion may interest you (and the British group ;)).

Why they suppress this knowledge is open to speculation. I’ll probably write an article outlining the possibilities in the future. One poster on YT wrote a good theory that it is a battle for your soul."

http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-eart ... mment-8645 Wild Heretic
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-eart ... mment-7223 Observer
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-eart ... mment-7254 Observer

(This post might distract from ICfreely's amazingly thorough posts, so Hoi, if you need to move this post to Derailing, I wouldn't be mad.) :)
Posts: 71
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 12th, 2015, 8:15 pm

“To attempt to bend ‘reality’ to theory is upside down. Reality always trumps theory.”- H. Stanley Judd

Yes Observer, I’m familiar with Wild Heretic’s website. Although I haven’t come to any conclusions as to the shape of the Earth I applaud him for thinking outside the box. First they told us the Earth was a sphere, then an oblate spheroid and recently; pear-shaped (wider south of the equator) courtesy of, none other than, Neil de-Ass Tyson! Seeing as we’ve been brainwashed, from day one, to internalize the notion that Earth revolves around the Sun (i.e. Solar System, Heliocentricity) I realize that it must be very difficult to accept alternative models. Therefore, I’d like to add the following:

Newtonian Reality Check
The unquestioning belief in Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is perhaps one of the strangest mysteries in modern mainstream science because:
a) The “law” was originally grandly claimed to be “universal” based upon extremely limited observational data from one celestial body [the Earth].
b) The “law” is a magical force at a distance [for which Newton feigned no hypotheses] which “acts” upon celestial bodies without any underlying mechanical explanation.
c) The “law” is based upon the immeasurable “mass” of large celestial objects and is [therefore] a totally unscientific “law” because it cannot be falsified [by real observational measurement of “mass” for celestial objects].


Nikola Tesla, whose contributions to science & society are too numerous to name, had this to say about the Theory of Relativity:

Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics - By Marc J. Seifer
To Tesla, the Theory of Relativity was just “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take f or a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” Writing a decade before the explosion of the atom bomb, and ignoring the space curvature data from the 1919 eclipse which supported Einstein’s idea that space was curved around large bodies such as stars, Tesla suggested that the existence of a force field would account for the same mathematical results. Thus, Tesla brazenly concluded, “Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”

Taking the nuke hoax and the 1919 eclipse data hoax into consideration it seems as though Tesla was right about the fallacy of Einstein’s ‘theory’ after all! Isn’t it odd that ‘Einstein’ is synonymous with ‘genius’ and Tesla is all but forgotten? In light of the fact that modern astrophysicists have been brainwashed to accept the Newton-Einstein double dogmas it’s not surprising to come across articles like this on a daily basis:

The Milky Way: Bigger, Faster, Better Understood - Danielle Dowling
It turns out that our solar system is moving nearly 100,000 m.p.h. faster than previously thought — revolving around the center of the Milky Way at 568,000 m.p.h., announced Mark Reid of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics on Monday at the American Astronomical Society's conference in Long Beach, Calif. Since velocity is related to mass, the 15% increase in solar-system speed translates into a near doubling of mass of the Milky Way, according to Reid's group — and all of that newfound bulk is composed of dark matter.
Original estimates of the solar system's speed were based on what Reid calls "one-dimensional velocity" obtained solely from Doppler shifts. "Now," he says, "we have three-dimensional velocity and more exact measurements" — a huge advancement in the field. The findings debunk the notion that the Milky Way is a little-sister galaxy to her neighbor Andromeda. "They're more like fraternal twins," Reid says. And the fact that they are of equal size increases the likelihood that the two will someday collide.


These poor folks have been blinded by ‘science.’ Here are just a few half-hearted admissions:

The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
Edwin Hubble, “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”, 1937.

"There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."
Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, 1960.

"Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation."
Bertrand Russell, D. W. Sciama, "The Unity of the Universe", 1961.

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.
Sir Fred Hoyle, “Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course”, 1975.

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
George Ellis, Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995.

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006

Also, consider the insanity in the following statements:

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics,”
--Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman

“Quantum mechanics is a totally preposterous theory which unfortunately appears to be correct,”
--Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg

Instead of mocking our benighted brethren we, at Clues Forum, should perhaps petition the Nobel Prize Committee to dip into its coffers & build a state-of-the-art sanitarium with well padded rooms and a psychiatric staff to provide Rick, Steve and their fellow Nobel Laureates the help they so desperately need!

“They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.”
― Gerald Massey
Posts: 545
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm


Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests