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.

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 16th, 2015, 5:31 pm

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -- Søren Kierkegaard


smj said,

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...



-We sure do smj! If memory serves, a couple trillion magically vanished a day or two before. And the very next month The American Prospect published:


Keynes, Einstein, and Scientific Revolution – James Galbraith (12/19/ 2001)
The parallels between Keynes's economics and Einstein's relativity theory are deep enough, and evidently intentional enough, to provide a useful framework for thinking about what Keynes meant to do with his scientific revolution.

Newtonian Physics and Classical Economics
The analog of Newtonian time, in the classical economics, is money. Just as time is absolutely separate from space, money is absolutely separate from the market. Prices and wages may be measured in money terms, but this is only a convenience.
The reductionism of Newton's system is equally fundamental to classical economics and remains so today. Economists are taught that societies, like Newton's universe, are nothing more than the sum of their individual components.

Einstein and Newton's Mechanics
By the time Keynes came along, the Newtonian view of the physical universe had crumbled. Einstein's theories of relativity had done it in.
Furthermore, this newly unified concept, space-time, also destroyed the Euclidean concept of emptiness extending forever in all directions.
Near any massive body, the shortest distance between two points curves around, as does the path of a ray of light. For this reason, parallel lines may meet if extended far enough. (Keynes's reference to overthrowing Euclid's axiom of parallels is an unmistakable allusion to this feature of Einstein's theory.)

Relativity Theory and Monetary Production Economics
Keynes characterized his theory as a monetary theory of production, giving lectures on this subject in the fall of 1933 as the General Theory of Employment (the preliminary title) was taking shape. Keynes contrasted monetary-production economics with what he called the real-exchange economics of the classical view.

Consequences
The global irrationality of wage cutting, American budget balancing, zero-inflation Federal Reserve targets, and Third World austerity programs is an everyday occurrence.
The end result is that we cannot cope now, any more than could the classics in their day, with stagnation and involuntary unemployment.

http://prospect.org/article/keynes-einstein-and-scientific-revolution


-Newton & Einstein’s Theologies, of course, have no scientific merit. Their main purpose is to dazzle us with smoke & mirrors while bankers alchemists turn our blood, sweat & tears into gold.


Keynes and Copernicus: The Debasement Of Money Overthrows The Social Order And Governments (12/23/2013)
Let us in this moment of recess reflect on eerily similar observations by two of history’s most transformational figures: John Maynard Keynes and Nicolas Copernicus.
One of Keynes’s most often-cited observations, from his 1919 The Economic Consequences of the Peace…


-Which conveniently coincided with Einstein’s 1919 ‘Second Scientific Revolution.’

Keynes, like Copernicus a paradigm-shifter, was himself extraordinarily erudite. It is not impossible the young Keynes came across Copernicus’s work (which reportedly was first actually published in 1826).

-Yet another Copernican work discovered/published hundreds of years after his ‘death.’ Who buys this shit? Ironically, it’s the ‘well educated’ people who like to mock ‘Jesus freaks’ – Copernican freaks!

Newton’s gold standard was designed along Copernican principles of close correlation toward nominal and intrinsic value. It served the world very well for almost 200 years.

-It serviced the world for the same length of time that Newtonian heliocentricity was propped up.

Maynard’s remarks, Newton, the Man, were presented by his brother Geoffrey (and thus might even be characterized as Keynes’s last words). A brief excerpt:
“Why do I call [Newton] a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood.”


-More ‘magical mystery tour’ speak in reference to Newton. He was clearly the Aleister Crowley/ Harry Potter of his day.

As for Copernicus, On the Minting of Money has been translated into English several times yet those translations remained difficult to obtain for students of the monetary arts and sciences. It has remained mostly the property of elite historians. Scant and intriguing references were limited to all-too-brief articles such as “Treatise On the Minting of Coin and Copernicus views on economics” by Leszek Zygner of Nicolaus Copernicus University.
The full text of Copernicus’s fascinating and invaluable essay remained elusive, that is, until last month.


-Yes, I’m sure it was stored next to those precious dinosaur holotypes to prevent ‘air damage.’

Whether one follows Keynes or Copernicus … it is time to return to the principle of meticulous monetary integrity — as exemplified by the classical gold standard — to restore legitimacy both to to the social order and to government.

-Every usury based monetary system has resulted in a ‘collapse of empires’ scenario so what’s the worst that can happen?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/12/23/keynes-and-copernicus-the-debasement-of-money-overthrows-the-social-order-and-governments/


Physicists are working on it as we speak:


Working in physics: Success is in the bank - INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
An organization that helps look after the country’s economy may not seem an obvious career choice for a physics graduate, but the Bank of England and physicists have a lot to offer each other, explains Rupert de Vincent-Humphreys.
As a physicist, I find that I can make a full contribution to this work.
This is not particularly surprising. Since joining the Bank, I have found that the skills at the heart of my physics training have proved entirely invaluable... theoretically rigorous framework, bearing in mind the limits to which those data can be measured precisely.... All of this will be familiar to physics graduates. Furthermore, you can often find yourself having to explain complicated issues to people who do not necessarily have the same specialist, technical knowledge as yourself.

http://www.iop.org/careers/workinglife/articles/page_39045.html


No doubt, they’re formulating complex explanations for the next economic collapse. For more on the true purpose of the Newtonian/Darwinian Ideologies:


English Ideology, Newton & the Exploitation of Science by E. Michael Jones
In 1687 the Royal Society published Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematic Philosophia Naturae to almost universal acclaim. It went on to be an event that was compared with God creating the world, as when Pope wrote “God said, ‘Let Newton be!—And all was light.”

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is another example of the English Ideology, derived from Newton, which also claims that strife—or as Darwin would say, natural selection—is the fundamental principle of the universe.
Newton’s cosmology was a rationalization, in just about every sense of the word, of force. Motion was redefined. It no longer bespoke a telos or goal, as it had in the Aristotelian system. Motion was now extrinsic to the bodies in motion, and another world for that extrinsic motion was force. Once Whig magnates digested the lesson of the Principia with the help of propagandists like Locke, they learned that all motion was caused, not by entelechy leading them to their proper end or telos, but by external force, which was in some sense of the word, totally arbitrary and in that sense much like the force (William of Orange) which put James II in motion and drove him from his rightful position (now associated with the outmoded concept of entelechy or telos) on the throne of England. There was no longer any proper end to motion. Every motion was arbitrary and a function of force. All motion was in the Aristotelian sense, “violent motion,” and all of it was determined by force which is always imposed from without. Newton’s Principia was, in other words, a usurpers dream, and that is why the Whig Junta fastened on it as an answer to a maiden’s prayer.

This in a nutshell is a description of the brave new world imposed on England by the Glorious Revolution as well as a summary of the operating system of that regime, which would soon come to be known as Capitalism. Capitalism is government sponsored usury and usury, like the universal wolf invariably eats itself up, when the debt burden becomes insurmountable and the economy freezes up under it, as happened in 2008 and in 1929 and too many times previous to recount here.

http://www.culturewars.com/2011/Newton.htm


Meanwhile, the same was done under the auspices of Church ideology. Will humanity ever break the spell of religious and scientific MIND CONTROL? I certainly hope so.


The Last Scientific Revolution - Andrei P. Kirilyuk
It is interesting that in contrast to apparently desirable property of realism, official mathematics applications in modern science (dominated by so-called “mathematical physics”) seem to be proud of their immaterial nature deliberately favoured due to a very special assumption about the fundamental basis of the observed world structure [67-75], which reveals a strangely subjective, doctrinaire and almost “religious” attitude behind the allegedly “objective” form of knowledge officially supported and absolutely dominating in all “secular” educational and scientific institutions.

The best science advances have always been driven by intrinsic, individual creativity and constructive interaction within the whole civilisation development. But those could only be rare, “enlightenment” moments in the dominating kingdom of scholastic unitary thinking. And in today's epoch of “material life” triumph, fundamental knowledge as such has lost its creative character, superior purposes and has become just an imitative, parasitic and unpopular appendage to flourishing empirical technologies.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3432/1/LastScientificRevolution.pdf


“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”--Charles Mackay
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on March 22nd, 2015, 12:01 pm

‘Nature abhors a vacuum” --François Rabelais


In addition to programming people to trust mathematics (geometry/physics) over their senses Galileo also introduced the concept of a perfect vacuum (space):


Thomas Hobbes - Fascist Exponent of Enlightement Science - Brian Lantz
Galileo’s insistence on the existence of the perfect vacuum, as the “pure” context in which to frame “objective laws” governing the motion of falling bodies, for instance, was driven by Sarpi’s effort to wipe out the scientific understanding that an intelligible, transfinite generating principle must bound apparent Euclidian space.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/961_fascist_hobbes.html


And if you’ll recall form the Copernicus post:


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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Successors


It may interest you to know that Heliocentricity was disputed by some of the most prominent scientists before, during and after Newton’s Principia.


What did Mathematics do to Physics? – Yves Gingras
…the publication of Newton’s Principia [1687] which marks, conceptually, a radical departure from the then dominant tradition of mechanical philosophy. We defend the thesis that by taking the mathematical route to natural philosophy Newton initiated, or at least accelerated, a series of social, epistemological and even ontological consequences which over the course of a century, redefined the legitimate practice of physics.

…[Christiaan] Huygens…was still complaining to the Marquis de l’Hopital in December1692 that:
“We find so few occasions to apply geometry to physics that I often find that surprising. For this, with mechanical inventions, is what merits most of our attention; otherwise, as Seneca said somewhere, we lose our intelligence in playing with futile calculations.”

For a detailed analysis of [Gottfried Wilhelm] Leibniz reaction to Newton’s mathematization of natural philosophy, see Domenico Bertoloni Meli, Equivalence and Priority. Newton versus Leibniz (Oxford 1993). As he explains, Leibniz stressed “the insufficiency of purely mathematical laws [and] the need for physical explanations…”

Obfuscated by the general use of higher mathematics in physics, [Louis Bertrand] Castel remarked in his Vraisystème de physique [in 1743] that:
everything is now accepted in physics, attraction, vacuum and the most absurd hypotheses since geometry has taken hold of this science without restraint; under the envelope of geometry one is not shy of any paradox, any bizarre idea (folie d’esprit) or bad reasoning.”

And he [Castel] adds, like a cri du coeur:
“In truth, one will permit me to say, with the extreme respect one must have for Newton, that there is only geometry in his system and good physics will disappear if we continue to let him do that.
I admire his profound geometrical reasoning, but there is not (one must see it) a single word of physical reasoning in all that.”

Echoing Castel’s analysis, the editor wrote in his Preface:
“There is, so to say, two very different worlds; one mathematical, the other physical. The mathematical, which we can also call the metaphysical, only exists in the ideas of the geometer: he supposes the infinitely small, dots without dimensions, lines without width […]; as well as vacuum and gravitation. All these suppositions are the basis of a calculation which without them could not be exact and which without this exactitude could not be demonstrative. But nothing of this can be found exactly in nature […] and this is a strange illusion to abuse of the abstractions in transposing them in the physical world as if they were real beings.”

http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/443/1/gingras-mathematics.pdf


Leibniz and Huygens (as well as most of their contemporaries) recognized Newton’s work for what it was; metaphysical, philosophical & pseudoscientific nonsense. They also had the displeasure of knowing Newton, the man:


Leibniz, Papin, and the Steam Engine - Phillip Valenti
The Royal Society and Isaac Newton successfully obstructed the industrial and maritime use of steam power for 100 years, and then claimed the discovery for themselves.
In fact, the Royal Society was so intent on burying Denis Papin's 1690 invention of a paddle-wheel-driven steamship, worked out in collaboration with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, that it stole his work, and created a mythical story of how two British "Newtonian" heroes invented the steam engine for the sole purpose of raising water from coal mines—a myth that has persisted in the history books until today.

1673: Huygens successfully demonstrates his gunpowder-fueled engine, suggesting that his invention: "permits the discovery of new kinds of vehicles on land and water. And although it may sound contradictory it seems not impossible to devise some vehicle to move through the air."

1698: Papin constructs a steam-powered atmospheric pump. Leibniz and Papin begin the project of harnessing the direct force of high pressure steam; Papin constructs "a little model of a carriage that is moved forward by this force."

1707: Papin publishes a complete account of his direct action steam engine, and tests it successfully against Savery's design.

1708: In London, Papin proposes that the Royal Society allocate 15 pounds sterling to allow him to construct his engine "and to fit it so that it may be applied for the moving of ships. This Engine may be tried for an hour and more, together with some other made after the Saveryan method." Royal Society president-for-life Isaac Newton, backed by Savery, rejects Papin's proposal.

1712: Papin "disappears." The first Newcomen engine, limited to pumping water from flooded mines, is erected.


http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/papin_steam_engine.pdf



The true applied scientists who were responsible for the advent of the steam engine (Leibniz, Huygens and Papin) were stymied by the magician Newton. One can only wonder what happened to Papin. Moreover the Royal Society, by sabotaging their invention, delayed the industrial revolution by a full century! Roughly a quarter century after Darwin’s Origin of Species and before the collapse of Newtonian ‘physics’ Nietzsche proclaimed:


God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
--Friedrich Nietzsche, (‘The Gay Science’ 1882)


Now I’m not a religious person but I think those are the words of a truly sick & demented madman. A few years later he boasted of the true purpose of the ‘scientific’ revolution:


“For while Copernicus has persuaded us to believe, contrary to all the senses, that the earth does not stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last part of the earth that "stood fast"—the belief in "substance," in "matter," in the earth-residuum and particle-atom; it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has been gained on earth so far.”
--Friedrich Nietzsche, (Beyond Good and Evil, 1886)


[st]Galileo’s[/st] Sarpi’s objective had finally come to fruition. A quarter century later Arthur Eddington (hoaxmaster of the 1919 eclipse data) declared:


Eddington on the Greatest Scientific Revolution of the 20th Century – Roger J. Anderton
“When we compare the universe as it is now supposed to be with the universe as we had ordinarily preconceived it, the most arresting change is not the rearrangement of space and time by Einstein but the dissolution of all that we regard as most solid into tiny specks floating in void. That gives an abrupt jar to those who think that things are more or less what they seem. The revelation by modern physics of the void within the atom is more disturbing than the revelation by astronomy of the immense void of interstellar space.”

“The atom is porous as the solar system. If we eliminated all the unfilled space in a man’s body and collected his protons and electrons into one mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a magnifying glass.”

This is Boscovich’s theory.

Substance is mostly empty space filled with fields – unified field theory.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/anderton54.pdf


This is the epitome of mass hypnosis. It’s obvious that the intent of heliocentric & atomic theories was to crush the spirit of humanity.


Nikola Tesla on His Wireless System for the Transmission of Energy
You [The New York Times] have called me an “inventor of some useful pieces of electrical apparatus.” It is not quite up to my aspirations, but I must resign myself to my prosaic fate. I cannot deny that you are right.
Nearly four million horse power of waterfalls are harnessed by my alternating current system of transmission, which is like saying that one hundred million men untiring, consuming nothing, receiving no pay — are laboring to provide for one hundred million tons of coal annually.
Since I have accepted as true your opinion, which I hope will not be shared by posterity, would you mind telling a reason why this advance should not stand worthily beside the discoveries of Copernicus? Will you state why it should not be ever so much more important and valuable to the progress and welfare of man?
We could still believe in the geocentric theory and yet advance virtually as we do.

Nikola Tesla - (June 23, 1907)
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-article-can-bridge-the-gap-to-mars


Tesla, like all knowledgeable people, knew that the heliocentric/atomic theories were nothing more than abstract models & had no basis in reality.


TESLA vs. EINSTEIN Competing Theories on Light, Ether & Gravity – Marc J. Seifer
The paper then goes on to speculate that if this theory is correct, then radioactivity would also be the result of this process, that is, drawing energy from the universe. This led Tesla to study the Sun and cosmic ray production and also to completely dispute Einstein’s theory E=MC2, and so Tesla concludes, “the idea that mass is convertible to energy is rank nonsense…. There is no available energy in atomic structures, and even if there were any, the input will always greatly exceed the output.”

From this, it is easy to conclude that Tesla was wrong and Einstein right, as, for instance, the atom bomb clearly showed that there is an enormous amount of energy compacted into the mass of atomic structures, and that, indeed, one can be converted into the other.

[url]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81913149/Tesl ... ein#scribd[/url]



The atomic cartoons clearly showed how easily we all can be duped. The applied scientists whose inventions spearheaded the industrial revolution and the electronic age vociferously opposed the metaphysicians (Newton & Einstein) we hold in such high regard.



“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
--Nikola Tesla, (Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934)


Even Saint Einstein himself, in a relative sense, admitted:


“The [Darwinian] struggle, so violent [Newtonian motion] in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” --Albert Einstein, (The Evolution of Physics, 1938)


Did you know you had a choice? According to academia & the media, anyone who doesn’t believe in heliocentricity is an uneducated, Bible thumping dimwit. If you tell anyone there’s no such thing as the ‘solar system’ or the ‘atom’ they’ll think you’re crazy. But none of us have ever seen an ‘atom’ or the ‘solar system’ have we? We’ve placed faith in our high priests who have proven formulas.


Structure of the Atom by Ron Kurtus (revised 21 Janaury 2014)
The Bohr model or solar system model of the atom is that the atom is like a tiny solar system, with the nucleus in the center and electrons rotating around the nucleus in orbits, similar to how the planets rotate around the Sun. It is usually called the Bohr model, after Neils Bohr, who discovered electron shells in 1913.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/atom.htm#.VQ5NQiwg8zs


In other words, “As above, so below” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagram#Usage_in_Raelism


Finally, consider the Moon for a moment. If we assume Earth orbits the Sun then we must assume the Moon orbits Earth west to east once a month despite the fact that we see it orbiting Earth east to west once a day. Try to make sense of the following:


The Motion of the Moon
Although the Moon is moving eastward around the Earth, the Earth is also turning to the east, and much faster, for it goes all the way around its axis of rotation in just under a day. As a result, although the Moon is moving to the east relative to the stars, the much faster westward motion of the sky is carrying it to the west, and so, despite its eastward motion relative to the center of the Earth, it rises in the east, and sets in the west.
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm


Welcome to THE (Newtonian) PLANET OF THE (Darwinian) APES. All hail the Sun God – APOLLO!


P.S. - Think about the opening scene of the other 1968 blockbuster sci-fi film.


“…philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.” --Stephen Hawking, (The Grand Design, 2010)
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Thinktwice on April 3rd, 2015, 6:55 pm

Hello,
This is my first post. My introduction can be found here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838&start=1815#p2394914

Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt (2000)

After reading a reference to Disciplined Minds, here about a month ago, I sought out the text, and I did find a PDF version on scribd.

This book, written by physicist Jeff Schmidt, is fascinating because it discusses exactly how a world full of smart, well-meaning scientists, lawyers, bankers, academics, nurses, businesspeople etc, through their day-to-day work on the job, are little more than pawns trained to extend the ideology and politics of their bosses and corporate owners. Even though many individual scientists, lawyers, bankers, and other professionals may think that they have liberal views in life, in their professional work they enact values and political outcomes which are vastly different from what they imagine--and very much in favor of the ruling class. The professional class is specifically trained to learn and parrot the prevailing ideology--so that they can be trusted to act on their bosses' behalf. A regular worker, with a university or high school education, would never be trusted with certain types of work--those reserved for the professional class, who have been trained in the specific ideology that is acceptable.

OK, so that's the summary you can get from the intro. I dove into the book a bit further. Schmidt worked in physics so luckily (for us), he has a lot of examples of foul play within physics. He talks about how the US gov't, by funding almost all the science research, will "direct" the "curiosity" of the professors, toward military goals and objectives. The professors dress up their work in such scientific jargon that it is incomprehensible, to anybody, how the research relates to the real world. But then if you look at some military summaries of the same research, you find the objectives clearly laid out.

So not only do we see the mechanism of how the US's top scientists can do government research and parrot the government lines. We also see how often the true goals of science research are hidden even from the scientists carrying out the work.

I hope you don't mind a few excerpts. I tried to make them as concise as possible.

pp.55-56
DIRECTING THE PROFESSOR'S CURIOSITY


Most basic physics research at universities… is sponsored by just four government agencies—the Department of Energy (successor of the Atomic Energy Commission), the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense (through the Army Research Office, the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and so on) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ninety-nine percent of the federal funding for basic physics research at universities comes through these four agencies. In 1995 the federal government spent about $590 million on university physics research; about $455 million of that expenditure paid for research characterized as basic.
[…]
To what extent do the university pipers themselves call the tune when the government pays for their work? The government, like any sponsor, is keenly aware of its influence, and has known the answer to this question since the 1950s, when it began to dominate the funding of basic research in universities in the United States. In 1954, the president of the United States ordered the then four-year-old National Science Foundation to report the effect that federal research money has on educational institutions. [...] NSF gives the answer to the president in scientistic language:


It would be unrealistic to claim that Federal contracts and grants for research at universities have exercised no influence over the types and fields of research undertaken by the institutions. For example, Agency X has funds for support of a given type of work. Professor A at University Y applies for funds to carry on a project in this area...One of [his] assistants...is taken on the staff as an instructor or even assistant professor. He, too, applies for support for the same type of work and before long University Y has a strong department in the particular area. One cannot conclude that the influence of Agency X was detrimental, but one can say the Agency did influence the direction of research at University Y and perhaps the number of young scientists with the particular research interest.[\quote]
Clearly, the government understands not only that it influences the content of research at "University Y," but that it also programs new scientists with particular research interests.


OK, so the US government has been sponsoring science since the '50s, and they know how much of an influence they have--creating generations of scientists with directed curiosities that serve the military. So we know they are going to use every advantage they have to push their agenda.

What then does the government do with these loyal scientists? Let's see an example.

According to the military funding description for one particular project, this physics faculty member at UC-Irvine was researching techniques to simulate nuclear weapons.

pp.68-69


UCI physics professors Norman Rostoker and Nathan Rynn ran a plasma physics research project titled "Electron Beam Switching Experiment." In their proposal to work on the project under government contract, they described what they had been doing and what they planned to do:



We are evaluating energy storage devices that involve accumulation of electrons in a magnetic trap and rapid release of the energy by magnetic switching. … We also plan to study several other methods to produce short intense radiation pulses.



Nowhere do the researchers say why anyone would want to produce short intense radiation pulses. The funding agency is, by contrast, straightforward:

Objective: Develop ultra high power sources for simulating nuclear weapon effects and having energy storage capabilities significantly exceeding present simulators.


Simulating nuclear weapon effects? Why would we want that? Take it away, Jeff Schmidt:

Simulation allows the development of real-world systems in the laboratory. In the words of a report from a major Army weapons research and development laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland, which coordinated much of the governments effort in nuclear weapons effects simulation:
Since at this time tests cannot be conducted in a real nuclear weapon environment, simulators are the only available link to reality.


The ability to simulate the effects of nuclear weapons allows the U.S. government to get around some of the obstacles that nuclear test ban treaties place in the way of preparation for nuclear war. Professors Rostoker and Rynn, by contributing to the governments "link to reality," helped it violate one of the hopes people had for the test ban—an end to the further development of nuclear war technology—without actually violating the letter of the treaties.


Wow! The whole thing goes right over Jeff Schmidt's head. Of course, you can't blame him, really. The entire world has been fooled into believing in a magical apocalypse bomb, that can transmute metals into other metals like the vulgar exoteric misunderstanding of alchemy. But after almost 70 years, this silly story desperately needs a "link to reality", else it might die soon!

Why would the US military want to simulate nukes? I'll leave that question for now...

But the important point this book makes is that it is very easy to achieve ideological purity in your society's professional class, like scientists, teachers, bankers etc. Successful, tenured physicists are perfectly comfortable with quietly playing along with their bosses' goals, and would never have the opportunity to look into any questionable areas of science (or other policy). Any students who pursue these unhelpful areas are to be guided back onto the garden path, otherwise they do not pass the examinations and cannot continue in that career. The path to this type of career is a sort of ideological "survival of the fittest"--only the most rule-following, curiosity-directing, authority-worshipping workers make it to the top positions, while the rest of the independent thinkers "die off" in their careers.

In fact, that is what happened to me. I studied biochemistry and once I started assisting a graduate student in a university lab, that is when I started to feel the weird pressures to conform to a certain level of thought control. I had a glimpse of that world, and once I graduated I knew I did not want to enter that academic science world.

There is actually a lot more to be said about this book, but I thought these examples were particularly helpful in our quest to try to ferret out the truth among all these confusing statements from the authorities, and those who work for them.
Thinktwice
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: March 12th, 2015, 5:46 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on April 3rd, 2015, 9:53 pm

Well done, ICfreely and Thinktwice. Fascinating stuff!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on April 25th, 2015, 10:02 am

Very interesting post Thinktwice! I’ve been meaning to read Disciplined Minds ever since Farcevalue made mention of it. Your line, “Wow! The whole thing goes right over Jeff Schmidt's head” immediately reminded me of a Michael Brooks article that I’d read a while back with equal astonishment.


Scientists Behaving Badly – Michael Brooks
Should we be shocked by scientific fraud, or is such misbehavior actually rather common?

It might not be something to celebrate, but scientists who commit research fraud are following in a grand tradition.

The first recorded fraud in science took place in the second century AD. The Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Ptolemy manipulated data to support his astronomical models. When observations didn't fit with his ideas, he simply cast them aside.

The world's most celebrated scientist, Isaac Newton, also bent the rules. Whenever he produced a new edition of his masterwork, The Principia, Newton tweaked his calculations so they would look accurate compared to the data of the day.

Newton did this to claim superiority over his scientific rivals. The falsified calculations, biographer Simon Westfall says, were "a cloud of exquisitely powdered fudge factor blown in the eyes of his scientific opponents".

Anyone familiar with Newton's prickly and difficult personality would probably expect such behavior.

We think of Galileo as a martyr to the truth…It is rarely mentioned that the last chapter of this book [Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems], published in 1632, contained a blatant and deliberate fraud.

Galileo constructed elaborate mathematical arguments showing that the motion of Earth around the sun, combined with its daily spin on its axis, would cause a sloshing of the oceans -- the tides. But the math gave only one high tide per day, and always at the same time.

Galileo lived in Venice. He and everyone around him knew that there were two high tides a day, and that they happened at ever-changing times.

When Einstein came to write a preface for a modern edition of Galileo's book, he said Galileo's fraud was acceptable because it was well-motivated.

Though he claimed ownership of the world's most famous equation, E=mc2, Einstein never managed to prove it.

In all, Einstein made eight attempts at a proof, and all of them contained errors, bogus assumptions or devious sleights of hand designed to cover up the proof's shortcomings.

On another occasion, though, Einstein committed a fraud where he got things badly wrong.

A few years later it emerged that Einstein's theory about magnetism was incorrect. Einstein only "proved" it because he had cherry-picked the results that fit his preconceptions.

This is part of what scientists call "normal misbehavior". Roughly one-third of scientists admit to having committed some kind of fraud in the last three years.

That's what the astronomer Arthur Eddington did in 1919 when he cherry-picked among his observations of an eclipse. The idea was to prove Einstein's general theory of relativity.

In their hunt for the structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson stumbled for months because other people's published results, involving the angles between some chemical bonds, were incorrect. Crick said that the experience taught him "not to place too much reliance on any single piece of experimental evidence."

Scientists know their colleagues will often take shortcuts. To be first to the truth often requires it. Crick once moaned that his colleague Rosalind Franklin was "too cautious" and "too determined to be scientifically sound and to avoid shortcuts."

This confrontational system causes a few fights and often exposes dirty tricks and shady short cuts. Ultimately, though, it gets us to the right answer. Science in progress might not always be a pretty sight, but that's exactly what makes it so reliable in the end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brooks/scientists-behaving-badly_b_1448729.html



Well, I suppose if one believes in the validity of Heliocentricity, the Apollo Missions, Nuclear Bombs/Energy and Genetic Determinism then one can confidently conclude that mainstream science is reliable and ultimately gets us to the right answer despite the ‘normal misbehavior’ of its high priests.



Science, scientism, the BBC and the thought police
There is an idea being spread around in Britain and the USA today that ‘science’ (by which they mean evolutionism) and ‘religion’ (by which they mean Christianity) are in a mortal conflict that only one side can win, and the winner is science. The people who propagate this simplistic dichotomy invariably castigate intelligent design as religion in disguise (‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’) and therefore, according to their philosophy, it’s claims can be dismissed without going to the trouble of examining them.

They also assert that Darwinian evolutionary theory is a well established scientific fact which has stood all relevant tests and no evidence has been discovered against it. Therefore, anyone who purports to challenge or question evolutionary orthodoxy is, by definition, advancing a religious, therefore anti- science, agenda and so, again by definition, is not to be listened to.

None of the above is true.

Teaching creationism or questioning Darwin?

Dawkins compares ‘teaching creationism’ (by which he means ‘questioning Darwinism’ but he can hardly put it like that since science is supposed to allow questions) with child abuse. I heard him say this on BBC radio and he has repeated this vile smear elsewhere. That’s right, a teacher who, having explained Darwinian theory to his pupils also mentions the scientific objections to it is on the same level as if he had, having given her Belgian chocolates and promised her a new iPhone, asked his little niece to come out to the shed to play a special game with him that mummy mustn’t be told about.


-What a class act!

Evidence for molecules to man evolution '...at least as good as evidence for the Nazi Holocaust'?

Dawkins has also written that the evidence for evolution is ‘...at least as good as the evidence for the Nazi race holocaust.’(3) As one commentator said of this outrageous statement ‘Where are the (Jewish) anti-defamation league when you need them?’ Is this a good model of how scientific enquiry or good education goes forward, from a man who was recently titled ‘Professor of Public Understanding of Science’? No wonder that Professor Alister McGrath told a large audience including myself at Southampton university that ‘Atheists come up to me at Oxford and apologise for Dawkins saying ‘Don’t judge us atheists by him, we’re not all like that.’ Dawkins truly is the Fred Phelps of atheism, embarrassing many on his own side.


-When you can’t keep your Sumerian Evolutionary Tree of Life story straight, race bait!

Does science allow questions to be asked? yes or no?

Think. There is no area of science where a dedicated movement is trying to use the law to prevent certain questions being asked or theories challenged. If in their philosophy there can be no reasoned argument against ‘The Fact of Evolution’, then surely it is no longer a theory but a dogma. One could argue that Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto et al in their efforts to slam down Darwin questioners are heretics and blasphemers against their own belief system, the scientific method. They seem to be saying ‘In the name of Science I forbid you to question the current orthodoxy, ask that question or draw attention to those facts!’ Science and scientism are not the same thing. One is open and neutral and can change if the evidence changes. The other is a fixed philosophical belief and demands compliance with dogma.

-Virtually every area of science is weighed down with dogmatism. In the words of Sir Fred Hoyle, "Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down."


Science can enable bad men to do more evil, but it cannot even define goodness

An atheist T shirt slogan reads ‘Science flies you to the moon; religion flies you into buildings’. One could write an essay on the crass dumbness of this slogan, beginning with the observation that in both cases it was men who did the flying and both flying machines equally used science. Science and technology give us tools; we decide how to use them. Science is as neutral as fire, water, steel, chemicals or the spoken and written word. All of those things can be used for good or bad purposes, depending on the choices we make.

-Media fakery flies wholly fictitious fables into the space between our ears. The slogan reveals (to me at least) the dynamics at play here - the TPTB’s use of science & religion to establish Order out of Chaos. For what it’s worth, American Atheists prefer the Invisible Atom to the Biblical Adam, choosing the ‘Atomic Whirl’ as their official logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_whirl).

But scientism is a materialistic philosophy which insists that, as the atheist Carl Sagan put it, ‘the cosmos is all that there is, was or ever will be’. In other words, there is matter, energy and the laws of physics, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing else. This is an unproveable assertion, a faith position, yet it demands our absolute allegiance. I am prepared to believe a cell biologist when he says ‘trust me I’m a scientist’ as long as he confines himself to cell biology, just as the doctors I teach about skin cancer diagnosis can, I believe, trust me up to a point on that subject. But why on earth should I believe that an astronomer or metallurgist has any more insight into unseen things than I do?

-I’m not prepared to believe anyone who says ‘trust me I’m a (fill in the blank).’ I’d rather rely on my own six senses & risk being wrong. Indeed, why on Earth should anyone believe any astronomer’s/astrologer’s ‘Sky Stories’?

The demarcation dispute-your argument against Darwinism may not be put, so Darwin wins

This is no mere ‘sore loser’ whimpering. The ‘science versus religion’ thing is quite new in historical terms and is being played up to deny a hearing to scientific arguments against Darwinism, arguments which it cannot survive without special pleading or plain cheating. The biochemist Michael Behe, a leading light of the intelligent design movement, has been denied the right to publish in peer review journals or even a right of reply to inaccurate and unfair criticism of his work in such journals. He has posted about this on his web site after being told in writing that if his criticism of ‘the paradigm’ (i.e. Darwinism) were published it might deny space to a letter or article ‘advancing the paradigm’. In other words, you are not allowed to question Darwin.

The Richard Sternberg affair underlines this point.

Forced out of his job for allowing peer review criticism of Darwinism

Actually, I don’t think they mind the swivel eyed Bible bashing fundamentalist fanatics very much, they have made a lot of mileage out of Fred ‘God hates you!’ Phelps. What I think really scares them is the person who has read the works of scientifically literate Darwin dissenters like Jonathan Sarfati, Vij Sodera, Stuart Burgess, Andy McIntosh, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, John Sanford and others like them. They are scared of people who have read and understood Charles Darwin and point to the gaping holes in evolutionist theory, not using Bible texts but asking difficult questions about laevo amino acids, peptide bonds, Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, the species envelope, synergistic co-enzymes without which other processes can’t even begin, sudden appearance of complex forms and discontinuity in the fossil record, information theory and the demonstrably deleterious nature of random mutations. This is what makes the atheist fundamentalist stick his fingers in his ears, gnash his teeth and cry ‘silence the blaspheming heretics!’


-I couldn’t have said it better myself!
http://www.questiondarwin.com/science_scientism_the_bbc_and_the_thought_police


According to Steven Kreis:

“Science is faith. And the Gospel of that faith was written by [the nonexistent] Copernicus, [Sarpi’s sock puppet] Galileo, Newton [the magician], Darwin [the med school drop-out], Einstein [the patent clerk] and others. We are certainly not all scientists. I know I'm not a scientist. But yet, I'm sure that scientists are busy at work solving problems, the solution to which will help me in some way. Perhaps scientists can improve our situation here on earth, just as the Gospels perhaps did almost two millennia ago. A scientist is an expert and for some reason we have grown to trust experts. The scientists, the technicians, the experts -- they must know the answers to our questions.”
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture10c.html


Like I said in my intro, “Same shit, different toilet!”
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838&start=1755#p2394049


“It does not require great insight to see that power in human society takes the form of a pyramid, in which the mind-set of the general bulk of the structure largely reflects that of the mind at the top. Indeed, contrary to the common impression, modern governments are set up this way, with the apex of the pyramid often a mere figurehead representing the unseen wielders of power immediately beneath it. To control the apex is to control the nation.”
– Ian Taylor
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on July 12th, 2015, 7:33 pm

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” Edward Bernays



That sobering explication of democracy comes from the man whose “Make the World Safe for Democracy” war slogan helped draw America into WWI. The man whose ‘Torches of Freedom’ publicity stunt helped ‘liberate’ women from ‘man’s inhumanity to women by a taboo against smoking.’ The man who helped Chiquita United Fruit expand its plantation-style domination of South America by means of ‘Banana Republic Wars’ which brutally suppressed genuine movements for freedom under the guise of containment of communist expansion in order to 'guard the free world.' The Soviets, of course, pillaged their fair share of nations under the guise of ‘defending freedom’ from capitalist expansion.

The ‘father of public relations,’ was Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ top mentor. He was also the nephew of Tavistock’s Sigmund ‘father of psychoanalysis’ Freud. Freud’s pseudoscientific pile of manure (which was based on Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man) fertilized the seed that sprouted into the wholly monstrous & pseudoscientific discipline of Psychiatry (state sanctioned chemical lobotomization). Darwin’s ideology also influenced John Maynard Keynes’ brand of capitalism as well as Karl ‘the father of international socialism’ Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Marx in turn influenced Adolph Hitler’s brand of secular fascism.

Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.

I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Charles Darwin
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
October, 1873


http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/marx/


Add to the happiness of Mankind? That’s rich!


"The influence of Darwinism upon psychology during the last quarter of the nineteenth century probably did as much as any single factor to shape the science as it exists today. Psychology was to become consistently more biological; even the description of mental processes tended to be more and more in terms of the underlying brain mechanisms, the functions served and the tasks accomplished in adjusting to the environment. The comparative viewpoint, although present here and there in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, could come into its own only when evolutionism had become the groundwork of psychological thinking. As a natural consequence, interest in animal psychology rapidly increased...."
Chapter 9, page 134 'Evolutionism and the Birth of Comparative Psychology'

Psychiatrists now admit ‘chemical imbalance’ is a meaningless pseudoscientific term invented by Bernaysian PR manipulators to sell poisons for big pharma. They also admit they cannot define what ‘mental illness’ actually is. They used to attribute their fabricated ‘psychological diseases’ to ‘biological’ and ‘psychological’ ‘conditions.’ They now attribute ‘mental disorders’ to ‘neurological’ and ‘genetic’ ‘co-factors.’ Practically every conceivable human emotion is classified as a mental disorder which can be ‘treated’ with a wide range of ‘medications.’ If you study the history of psychiatry you will have a renewed appreciation for the term ‘chemical warfare.’ I’m not trying to fear monger. If you take these words lightly, then may your chains rest lightly upon you dear reader.


"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Malcolm Muggeridge, Philosopher


When people say we should not mix religion and science when it comes to the evolution vs. creation debate they, in essence, are propagating the myth that evolution is a legitimate science. In actuality, evolution is a religion and it should not be mistaken for science.

I think a few excerpts from the Protocols may shed light on all this theoretical nonsense. I know it’s a lightning rod for scapegoaters and apologists. Whether it’s real or fake is inconsequential. Even as a fictional literary work it’s compelling and bone-chillingly accurate. Frankly, it leaves The Art of War and The Prince in the dust. I think it’s important for everyone (especially Jewish people) to read it from a neutral stance. We’re all being played for fools. How can we be truth seekers and honest with one another if we can’t be honest with ourselves?


PROTOCOL No. 1
10. …Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument.

23. Our countersign is - Force and Make-believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power.

PROTOCOL No. 2

2. …The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism.

PROTOCOL No. 5

4. Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbitage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the GOYIM understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain.

PROTOCOL No. 9
10. WE HAVE FOOLED, BEMUSED AND CORRUPTED THE YOUTH OF THE "GOYIM" BY REARING THEM IN PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO US TO BE FALSE ALTHOUGH IT IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INCULCATED.


http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf



“The undiscerning public ...considers scientists to be some sort of high priest of our society, paragons of objectivity who have no philosophical axes to grind. Hence, the public is often fed a diet of philosophy under the guise of science.”
Martin Lubenow, (Bones of Contention, 1992)


“The fascinating impressiveness of rigorous mathematical analyses, within its atmosphere of precision and elegance, should not blind us to the defects of the premises that condition the whole process. There is perhaps no beguilement more insidious and dangerous than an elaborate and elegant mathematical process built upon unfortified premises.”
--T.C. Chamberlain 1899

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."
Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.


metaphysical
adjective
1. relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal; supernatural

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphysical



"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.

Why is Newtonian mystery G heliocentricity a metaphysical assumption? Because the amount of matter in a planet is not measurable. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. Heliocentricity – the bedrock of modern science – is literally meaningless, unduly theoretical and SUPERNATURAL! Ironically, those who rightly reject it are accused of being scientifically illiterate people who must be blinded by religious (SUPERNATURAL) beliefs.

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.

Bertrand Russell & George Ellis are as establishment as they come. If you can’t read between the lines (still trying to reconcile your cherished ziontific theories), then good luck dear reader.

Jaron Lanier: "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins: "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth."

(‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.)

If you actually believe Dawkins, then luck will do you no good!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on July 13th, 2015, 7:22 am

Well, I am not sure you have really drawn all your points together as cohesively as usual. Bringing the infamous (and mysteriously authored) "Protocols of Zion" into your arguments doesn't do a lot for your research. Is there anything more we can do about this text besides quote it?

On a related note, you might be giving too much credit to Bernays by acknowledging his belief that artificial propaganda is by necessity a requirement of government to replace normal superstition and folk wisdom. It isn't so much that he 'knows' what he thinks he knows, but he believes it or "believes" it — once again, as a more successful theme of your research track seems to indicate, the personal 'world view' or 'perspective' of his (and each individual with a belief) gives way to the experimental assumptions and/or bias that justify action. In his case, the action of manipulating crowds and groups (which he somewhat had a knack for, or at least for a time period and for a certain series of groups, as evidenced by modern beliefs and behaviors) is the presumed 'good' that his assumptions must sort of 'justify'. I hope that makes sense, but if it doesn't, I can try to word it another way.

Anyway, interesting compilation as usual. Thanks, ICfreely. It's inspiring vitriol and, at the very least, it makes me wonder just what our relationship to various source materials can be without constantly making our posts too 'meta'.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on July 14th, 2015, 2:13 am

Did you know that, currently, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East, outside of Israel, is in the Aryan Nation (Iran)?

Did you know that the only non-Jew anointed a ‘messiah’ by Jewish people is the father of the Aryan people (Cyrus the Great)?

But we all know Iranians (Aryans) are radical Islamo-fascists committed to developing big flying magic mushroom bombs to wipe Israel off the map. They just haven’t gotten around to wiping out the Jews they hold in captivity (Strangely, Israel hasn’t demanded or offered payment for their release). And we all know Israelis have a large (not so) secret cache of said bombs pointed at everyone.

To make matters worse, scientists warn that an Indo-Pakistani 100 warhead magic mush-off will trigger a global holocaust, annihilating all life on planet earth. Add the goddess of a thousand faces (ISIS) and her global network of sleeper cells to the mix & you’ve got one enormous powder keg waiting to go off. You know, the Bible predicted all this, proving once and for all it’s the literal word of the all mighty himself. You better study your scriptures. Turn or burn you heathen!

It’s a chaotic situation to say the least. Obviously, in order to make progress, we must put our religious differences aside and address these global problems with the sound application of political science.

On top of all that we have to deal with ozone depletion, global warming, war on drugs, war on cancer (and hundreds of other ‘diseases’), war on hunger, war on poverty, war on war… We’ve got wars galore & more in store! I know all this ‘cause I watch VICE. They tell it like it is & shit’s fucked up bro! It’s produced by Bill Maher. He doesn’t fall for any of that religious nonsense. Wake up you stupid sheeple! I can’t stand ignorant morons. Join a cause, raise awareness, make a difference…be a part of something bigger than your petty little self!

My point is, we’re ALL being misled by false hope & fake fears on a multitude of levels. If I’ve learned one thing in life it’s not to hold people’s beliefs against them. It’s less of a giant conspiracy, and more of a mass hypocrisy! If you can get past the fear, hate and anger you see more clearly and become more compassionate. If you read the Protocols with the intention of ‘deciding for yourself’ whether it’s a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ or an ‘anti-Semitic forgery’ you will emerge dry from a sea of knowledge. I learned a lot about myself (and human nature in general) from it.

Science (should/is perceived to) be ‘…guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation.’

But it isn’t. Instead:

Science is ‘…guided…by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results.’

I think that’s a profound statement! We're lost in religious theologies masked as scientific laws. The rest of the quotes speak for themselves. The main things I learned from the Protocols is if you think and act foolishly, you will be treated accordingly. You can’t expect to be ignorant & free. As long as there are believers there will be deceivers ready to mislead them. Instead of wondering who you should believe in, you should be honest with & believe in yourself!

It’s intellectually brilliant & completely devoid of emotional intelligence at the same time. People seem to think democracies spontaneously emerged from some magical Cambrian Explosion. They are, in fact, an intermediary step between monarchies and a one-world government. The Copernican Revolution paved the way for Democratic Revolutions.

Make of it what you will. The fact that Shakespeare never existed doesn’t make ‘his’ work any less compelling. Speaking of people who most likely never existed I'd like to nominate the ancient ‘father of modern science’:


Democritus - "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC
Known as, “The Mocker” for “…laughing at human follies”

Democritus (fake person) – Democracy (fake freedom)

Metaphysical/Supernatural (un-scientific/un-testable) assumptions (cloaked as proven scientific theories and accepted as fundamental scientific truths) attributed to the Prophet of Modern Science:

Atomic & Void Hypotheses – Invisi-balls suspended in the deep dark lonely void of ‘space’ - The void within, the void without!

Aetiology (causality) – Every absurd assumption can appear to be proven by an equally absurd assumption.

Materialism – Everything is the result of natural laws therefore if we ASSUME UNIFORMITARIANISM (As below, so above), the supernatural (space/heaven) could be known through the study of the natural (Earth). Man no longer requires God’s approval to enter the pearly gates of space.

Evolution – Sky Father inseminated Mama Gaia’s primordial soup with his panspermia which was fertilized with, “thunder bolts of lightning & very, very frightening things!” Papa was rollin’ stone who apparently partook in several galactic gangbangs. He hasn’t been around for so long that he doesn’t even exist to us anymore. But we’re still looking for our, who knows how many, half siblings that must be out there…somewhere!

Heliocentricity – Sun God…

Big Bang – In the beginning, before space, time & matter existed, there were a bunch of tiny invisi-balls (how exactly, no one knows) that first collided (nuclear fusion) then exploded (nuclear fission). From that Chaotic beginning billions & billions of years ago Order eventually emerged (how exactly, no one knows).

Inductive reasoning is superior to ‘bastard’ sense perception - Planet of the Apes!


Mocker, Indeed!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on July 17th, 2015, 6:08 pm

I, more or less, agree with your assessment of Bernays. I don't think I gave him undue credit. He was but one in a long line of countless manipulators. IMO, being Freud’s nephew and Goebbels’ mentor distinguishes him from his counterparts. With regards to the Protocols I’ll elaborate on another quote for now.


PROTOCOL No. 1
10. …Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument.



When we unyieldingly defend sentimental theorems dogmatism sets in and perfectly reasonable arguments get thrown out the window. Take evolution vs. creation for example. Seeing as both viewpoints are metaphysical neither one should be taught as a science. People who advocate creation being taught as a science in lieu of evolution fail to realize that it would be riddled with as many contradictions as evolution. I’m no ‘prayer hater’ but creationists have no right to push their faith based propositions onto others (especially in the name of science). The same goes for evolutionists whose beliefs are also faith based.

Seeing as 99% of people believe Earth is spherical, there’s no better way of discrediting someone than labeling them a ‘Flat Earther.’ It’s perfectly understandable that Simon is concerned with CluesForum even being associated with FE. Every contributor (myself included) has a vested interest in maintaining the prestige of CF for posterity. Too many well intentioned people have put their hearts into compiling the unmatched content of CF to see it fall apart. I’m also in full agreement with Simon that there is no shortage of clownish shills doing their best to associate themselves with CF, thereby dragging it down with them.

When this ‘spontaneous’ FE ‘movement’ began I noticed all the tell-tale signs of a psyop. However, I also became (and still am) curious as to when/how exactly it was determined/decided that the Earth is a sphere. My posts in the ‘Cold of space…’ thread basically posited the question, ‘How do we know the Earth is a sphere?’ That was my intent anyway. Based on the vibe of subsequent ‘infighting’ posts I decided to leave it alone. It was doing more harm than good. Furthermore, out of respect to Simon I will refrain from ‘going there.’

Steering clear of FE is one thing but trying to disprove it is another. I’ve read several ardent posts attempting/claiming to debunk FE when they have done no such thing. I've refrained from replying to them because doing so would most likely trigger more FE talk thereby associating CF with it (Catch-22). My references to Antarctica were (maybe not so) subtle attempts to send the message, “Either discuss it fairly, or leave it alone for the sake of preserving CF’s integrity.” I hope that makes sense.

My two preceding posts were (not so successful) attempts at provoking readers to question the fundamental bases of all their preferred theories. I suppose it was too ‘meta.’ I can only hope I got through to readers on some level.
Last edited by ICfreely on July 17th, 2015, 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 7:58 pm

Thank you for a very clear and reasonable response that adds to the topic. I appreciate it.

Also, I feel that CluesForum should be a place to be comfortably but intelligently "unknowing" and you've described that phenomenon (and the troubles it exhibits) well. While we'd like to discredit plain lies and balderdash as quickly as possible, we are constantly challenged to do so in a way that does not strengthen the lazy foolish side that empowered those lies in the first place. I think we are working here to get and keep a balance, when possible, between skepticism and pragmatism. We have disagreements about what is or is not foolish — what is or is not useful. And perhaps that is just the sort of discussions we should be having. And then some arguments come up just because of questions of organization. But now I am off topic, and sorry about that.

Anyway, good analysis. Thanks.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby simonshack on July 17th, 2015, 11:46 pm

ICfreely wrote:People seem to think democracies spontaneously emerged from some magical Cambrian Explosion.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Priceless.

I'm sincerely enjoying your 'metaphysical rants' of late, IC...
"Mama Gaia's primordial soup" - lol - I bet they have that dish on the CERN canteen's menu !
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on July 30th, 2015, 1:04 am

Forgive me father (of scientism), for I am about to sin. I shall take the name of Saint Einstein in vain.


The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein – Christopher Jon Bjerknes
In 1919, Albert Einstein rose to international fame for predicting the gravitational field of the sun would deflect rays of light. Eclipse observations confirmed this prediction. Newspapers around the world covered the story and declared that Albert Einstein had surpassed the genius [ :rolleyes: ] of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. It seemed that all was right with the world – but then everything went tragically wrong.

The Famous Jewish philosopher Oskar Kraus of Prague was scheduled to deliver a lecture stating his objection to the special theory of relativity. The Czechoslovakian government refused Kraus a visa for “political reasons” thereby preventing his appearance at the meeting and actively obstructing a public expression of anti-relativism by a famous intellectual figure of Jewish descent. Kraus had known Einstein while Einstein had lived in Prague. Kraus believed that Einstein was nothing more than an amateurish Metaphysician. Einstein told Leopold Infeld, “I am really more of a philosopher than a physicist.” Einstein was a poor philosopher, as well. He argued on redundancies based on unproven assertions.

Kraus’ arguments against the metaphysical absurdities in relativity theory make a powerful impression on the lay public – One Einstein’s advocates were frantic to prevent. Einstein did not grasp the distinction between Metaphysics and science. He stated in 1930, “Science itself is Metaphysics.”

This maneuver enabled pro-Einstein newspapers and Max von Laue to:

5. Prevent Kraus’ dramatic public exposition of the fatal flaws in the theory of relativity, which could not be misconstrued as if “anti-Semitic” even by the shameless pro-Einstein press.

…all of this was done to change the subject to the irrelevant issue of anti-Semitism. Einstein and his friends were completely unethical. They inhibited the progress of science and took away fundamental human liberties.

http://www.ivantic.net/Ostale_knjiige/SaintEinstein.pdf


The puppet masters of the media and academia are (and have always been) partners in crime in the advancement of pseudoscience. It would be quite naïve to say Einstein, a learned elder of ziontism, did not grasp the distinction between metaphysics and science. The fraudfather of relativity knew exactly what he was doing (and was being done in his name). There are (and have been) many Jewish scholars like Oskar Kraus that have been silenced and/or labeled self-hating Jews for their scientific dissenting opinions. Non-Jewish dissenters, of course, are accused of being anti-Semites.

I’ve already covered the 1919 eclipse data hoax which deified Einstein. It’s important to note that every experiment confirming relativity since 1919 has also been a hoax. Not long ago NASA ‘confirmed’ relativity in ‘space.’


THE POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE - Ivor Catt
The Establishment has a dilemma. The parasite knowledge broker is in the science Establishment, not an accountant, because he wanted to push forward knowledge. But he must suppress knowledge in order to survive. He must not admit to himself, and even more to his wife, that he is a barrier to progress; that in order to survive, and keep paying their mortgage, he has to block advance in his field. That is where he is vulnerable. He fights an increasingly desperate rearguard against new knowledge, because of this freezing of the body of knowledge. The date I give for the freezing of the body of knowledge is 1927, at the Brussels - Solvay Conference, which mirrors the Council of Nicaea for Christianity.

If you pay professionals to maintain a body of knowledge, it will finally disintegrate. But more importantly, a professional paid specifically to advance a body of knowledge, will freeze it.

Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium Clock, wrote to Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC 'confirmation' of relativity to stand. Essen told me that Dingle queered the pitch by making a mistake. Essen also told me that the Inst. Phys. broke its contract with him to publish an article even after he had checked the galleys. The Inst. Phys. also broke its contract with me to publish my article which later appeared in Wireless World in March 1979. The Inst. Phys. is riddled with unscientific PC - mania.

The blocking of new information by all our institutions means the end of civilization. It is of the utmost importance that the facts of the situation be established soon, and if the crisis is as severe as I believe, that remedial action be taken. All that is required is that, should a knowledge broker be proved to have blocked new knowledge, he be held accountable, something which does not occur today. This accountability will be through his pocket by way of dismissal.

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm


With respect to Ivor Catt, I’m afraid he’s being very shortsighted. The ‘freezing of the body of knowledge’ transpired centuries before the Solvay Conference. Therefore, the crisis is far more severe than he believes it to be. Moreover, peer-reviewed journals deceive scientists in the same manner the media deceives the lay public. I’m not holding my breath for rags like Nature to remedy the pseudo sciences they gatekeep for in the first place.

Make no mistake dear reader, our current scientific paradigm (The Copernican Devolution) will eventually collapse. As to when and how severe it will be is anyone’s guess. Those who take the, “I’m no scientist & can’t possibly decipher complex scientific theories” stance thereby ignoring it altogether, will suffer the most severe consequences.


Science, Stem Cells, and Fraud - David S. Oderberg
A central fact concerns the standing and reputation of scientists in our contemporary, post-religious era. Like it or not, the figure of the priest in clerical garb has been replaced in the public imagination by the white-coated scientist. Figures Lord Robert Winston and Professor Richard Dawkins appear on our television screens, pontificating (I use that word advisedly) on anything from religion to politics to anthropology to biology to public policy. Whether they are actually qualified to do so or not, they are more than happy to dispense their wisdom to the masses on whatever takes their fancy; and when it comes to their pronouncements on the scientific issues of the day, their word is received almost as Holy Writ.

Moreover, the media itself, already complicit in the secular deification of individual scientists, are always ready to report the latest findings from the lab, whether or not they have already been published or even peer reviewed. Once the work is in print, though, it has received the secular imprimatur and is recorded as eternal truth. The BBC regularly reports the headline news from the medical journal The Lancet much as preachers of old captured public attention for their Sunday sermons. By generating false or unwarranted hopes that the latest cure for cancer is just around the corner, or that the final truth about the origin of the universe has been uncovered, or that the secret of life is a mystery no more, the media deliberately and recklessly give science and scientists a reputation as the ultimate repository of truth which far outstrips anything the profession is capable of achieving.
http://www.intellectum.org/articles/topics/Scientific%20fraud%20and%20Stem%20Cells%20(David%20Oderberg).pdf


Our current health-scare system is killing more people than any wars ever have. Doctors are as (if not more) brainwashed as the lay public. They’re unwittingly (for the most part) carrying out the ‘soft kill’ agenda of TpTB.

Jumping back to the ziontific aspect of modern science (I apologize in advance if I’m getting too ‘meta’ again):


The Culture of Critique – Kevin Macdonald
In other words, the issues of the ethnic identification and even ethnic activism on the part of people like Einstein are entirely separate from the issue of whether such people viewed the content of the theories themselves as furthering ethnic interests, and, in the case of Einstein, there is no evidence that he did so. The same cannot be said for Freud, the New York Intellectuals, the Boasians, and the Frankfurt School, in which “scientific” theories were fashioned and deployed to advance ethnic group interests. This ideological purpose becomes clear when the unscientific nature of these movements is understood. Much of the discussion in CofC documented the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of empirical rigor, the obvious political and ethnic motivation, the expulsion of dissenters, the collusion among co-ethnics to dominate intellectual discourse, and the general lack of scientific spirit that pervaded them. In my view, the scientific weakness of these movements is evidence of their group-strategic function.
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/goyim/je1.pdf


Again, Einstein knew exactly what he was doing. As for the ‘group-strategic function’ consider the following excerpt from israelvisit.il:


PURIM-- A MODEL OF ACTIVIST CO-ED SALVATION
Purim is the day, and Esther the book, when all is unpredictable, constantly turned upside down; the Jews have it great, as the book unfolds, are soon sunk in severe crisis, and emerge in much better shape at its (temporary?) climax. Purim's message becomes more and more relevant, as our world becomes more and more a topsy-turvey roller coaster. What we assume and take for granted, even for centuries, in so many realms, suddenly seems quite questionable, even wrong, as modern knowledge and thought develop. A little later down the road, the new premises themselves may be questioned; old truths, values and practices may even be rehabilitated. Even our basic image of the universe has a flipside, a completely different way of looking at reality.

ARE YOU STANDING STILL?: What's Let's start our Purim banquet with an hors d'oeuvre-- a wild diversion, taken from a respectable chassidic journal of science and mysticism. Pour epater le bourgeois-- truth often isn't "balabatish", isn't even "common sense"; the sun does not revolve about the earth, tho it appears to do so.

When the cosmographer Rabbi David Gans showed to Tycho Brahe the account in tractate Pesachim of how the sages of Jerusalem yielded to the scholars of Alexandria as to whether the galgalim move and the mazalot are stationary, or v.v., he exclaimed: "Those sages were wrong to submit to the Greeks..." (Nechmad V'Nayim 25). All research confirms the Biblical-Tychonic schema, with the planets of the solar system (except the Earth, which is not a "planet", the word meaning a "wanderer") in epicyclic retinue about the sun, and this coherent unit, plus the whole steller array-- space, and everything in it-- orbiting the Earth and subordinate to it (see Maharal's Be'er HaGola 6)... The authority of Scripture and our sages support the geocentric paradigm (e.g. Rambam's M.T., Y.H. 3; YF: but we don't learn science from Torah, per Rambam & Co.)...

Marx and Darwin openly acknowledged their gratitude to Copernicus, w/o whom their obnoxious theories would never have gotten off the ground to hijack human minds. Historians have shown that many social woes today are directly attributable to the rise of Copernican heliocentrism and relativistic acentrism: i.e., Biblical criticism, evolution (!!-- Rav Kook approved), Nietszche, Freudian psychology (!-- Rav J. Soloveichik appreciated Freud's genius), communism, moral relativism, Nazism, atheism, existentialism, humanism (!!!-- cf. The Mussar Movement), hedonism, anarchism and despair. No wonder Ma'aseh Tuviya referred to Nicholas Copernicus as the `first born of Satan'.

http://israelvisit.co.il/top/Purim.shtml


Make of it what you will! Incidentally, the Purim narrative (Book of Esther) took place in the Aryan Nation (Iran) and is the only section of the Bible which doesn’t reference God.


The Doors of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything – Tim O’Shea
Aldous Huxley’s inspired 1954 essay detailed the vivid, mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty and power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space captain in recorded history. Whether by hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to remove all bonds, all controls, all filters, all cultural conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the World or Reality first-hand – in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched infinite rawness. Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century later. We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given story in today’s news.

If everybody believes something, it’s probably wrong.

As we’ve seen above, just because we read something or see something on TV doesn’t mean it’s true or worth knowing. So the idea here is, like the tea, perhaps the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access to it. This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our scope of awareness, our personality, our values to be shaped, crafted, and boxed up according to the whims of the mass panderers? There are many important issues that are crucial to our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being which require time and study. If it’s an issue where money is involved, objective data won’t be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody knows something, that image has been bought and paid for. Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at least one level below what “everybody knows.”

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors/doors-of-perception/#sthash.jqr0crMm.dpuf


I seriously doubt that Hoaxley intended to open the doors of perception. IMO, he opened the doors of deception. Consequentially, we are the most conditioned/programmed beings in history due to mainstream media/academia’s relentless promulgation of Einstein and Hoaxley’s (and their ilk’s) ideologies. IMO, questioning what ‘everybody knows’ (and what we think we know) is the first and most crucial step in freeing ourselves from the hypnotic grasp of the ‘master magicians.’
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on August 11th, 2015, 6:42 pm

Worshipping in the Church of Einstein - George Johnson
On the eve of a monumental experiment to test a surprising prediction of his theory of General Relativity -- that light has mass and can be bent by the gravity of the sun -- Einstein irreverently declared: "If it is not proven, I pity the Good Lord, for the theory is correct."

-The pompous pontiff of metaphysics felt free to speak with reckless abandon because he knew the Church of Scientocracy (Royal Society of London) had already decided to (wink, wink)‘prove’ his acentric relativity.

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever," he wrote to a friend, adding, "This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

-No shit?

If the Church of Einstein can be said to have a dogma, it would go something like this: that the universe is comprehensible, that it can be explained with precise mathematical laws (the simpler the better), that the laws prevailing in the vicinity of earth are the same throughout the cosmos [As below, so above!]-- or, if they vary, that they do so because of some other law.

-So long as you have the blind faith of the awe-struck flock you can fake it up ad libitum!

None of that can be proven. It is possible that everything our senses tells us about the world is an illusion, that the reason and logic in which we pride ourselves is as meaningless and arbitrary as the rules of a video game, that the true grand unified theory was conveyed to the authors of the Bible . . . or the Koran, or the Rigveda, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

-Our senses aren’t the problem. Our sense-perception, which has been distorted by the illusions of the master magicians, is the problem. Once we realize we have the free will to think for ourselves instead of letting pseudoscientific celebrities do our thinking for us, we can render them powerless & truly appreciate what it means to be free. The only power the pathetic pTB have is the power we willingly give them.

Some scientists soften the blow by invoking the anthropic principle: If the universe hadn't turned out this way, then we wouldn't be here to theorize about it. Blessed be the Holy Tautology.
http://talaya.net/fischbeck.pdf



How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies - Louis Savain
Bringing Down Einstein's Castle in the Air

Einstein once wrote to a friend, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.)

-There you have it dear reader. If that admission, straight from the Trojan horse’s mouth, doesn’t compel you to question modern asstrofizzix, then I don’t know what will.

One of the requirements of Einstein's physics is the existence of a time dimension. The only problem with that is that a time dimension makes motion impossible. This is something I have written about many times but it bears repeating over and over because it invariably takes Einstein's defenders by surprise. I like this argument, not because it is enough to convince them of the stupidity of Einstein's physics but because it is fun to watch the ass kissers morph into babbling fools, foaming at the mouth and jumping up and down. (See Nothing Can Move in Spacetime)

-Some of the ass kissers, over the years, have periodically dropped turds in this forum – pathetically trying to shout down genuine dissenters. When confronted with ‘inconvenient questions’ (i.e. Hoi Polloi vs. Astronut) they huff n’ puff and finally take their toys & go home.

What Will It Take to Destroy Einstein's Physics?

Don't count on physicists to clean up their act. It's not going to happen. The scientific community is like an incestuous gang; they view the rest of the world as their prey and enemy. They take the public's money while, at the same time, forbidding the public the right of oversight on their business. Somehow, they've managed to convince the public that they are too stupid to understand science. Their arrogance and pompous condescension are legendary.

-There’s no hope for some of these poor souls. They’ll never be able to wash off the dark matter for their heads are too deeply buried in black holes.

Only the lay public can bring enough pressure on the powers that be to bring an end to a century of stupidity and what amounts to a wild goose chase. I think it is time that the public reverses the table on them and show that scientists can be just as stupid as everyone else. In fact, their stupidity is all the more glaring since they pride themselves on being smarter than everyone else. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in Against Method, "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-falsify-einsteins-physics-for.html



Why Einstein Will Never Be Wrong - Brian Koberlein
One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have “proven Einstein wrong”. These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as “it is obvious that..”, or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.

-In other words, Einstein’s theory of every-absurd-thing can only be disproven by another charlatan’s new and more convincing (confusing) theory of every-absurd-thing. He can’t be swayed by ‘no mathematical equations’ or ‘page after page of complex equations’ arguments but, rest assured, Bri-guy isn’t indoctrinated. No siree Bob!

In some cases even when an old theory is supplanted we continue to use it. Such an example can be seen in Newton’s law of gravity. When Newton proposed his theory of universal gravity in the 1600s, he described gravity as a force of attraction between all masses. This allowed for the correct prediction of the motion of the planets, the discovery of Neptune, the basic relation between a star’s mass and its temperature, and on and on. Newtonian gravity was and is a robust scientific theory.

-Ok Kobester, if you say so. We mere mortals aren’t equipped with Newtonian ‘thought scales’ capable of measuring the mass of stars and planets (wandering stars). How dare we question Isaac the Great?

Then in the early 1900s Einstein proposed a different model known as general relativity. The basic premise of this theory is that gravity is due to the curvature of space and time by masses. Even though Einstein’s gravity model is radically different from Newton’s, the mathematics of the theory shows that Newton’s equations are approximate solutions to Einstein’s equations. Everything Newton’s gravity predicts, Einstein’s does as well. But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury’s orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.

-They’ve all been ‘experimentally validated’ by prestigious peer-reviewed journals – The zionce is settled! Riddle me this, Batman! How can the big bong, which purportedly occurred 15 billion years ago, be experimentally validated? Does NASA have access to some sort of Doc Brownian flux capacitor technology we’re not privy to?

So Einstein trumps Newton. But Einstein’s theory is much more difficult to work with than Newton’s, so often we just use Newton’s equations to calculate things. For example, the motion of satellites, or exoplanets. If we don’t need the precision of Einstein’s theory, we simply use Newton to get an answer that is “good enough.” We may have proven Newton’s theory “wrong”, but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was.

-Oh, I see. Newton’s equations are validated by the motion of satellites and ‘exoplanets.’ I stand corrected.

To begin with, Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work. Einstein’s theory didn’t supplant Newton’s until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn’t agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.


-As far as BK is concerned, Saint Einstein will never be proven wrong by a theory – NEVER! But don’t you dare accuse him of being indoctrinated.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein’s theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.

-So if you propose a theory that builds on Newton & Einstein’s ci cago piles of theories (as deAss Tyson and Hawking have done), then you will be listened to.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein’s (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein’s theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won’t have been proven wrong, we’ll simply understand the limits of his theory.
http://www.universetoday.com/108044/why-einstein-will-never-be-wrong/


I doubt BK will be swayed by the following article (or any argument for that matter):


Challenging Einstein - Einstein the Hoaxer – John Lear
Einstein was a brilliant mathematical hoaxer. While other hoaxers use simple tricks and tools with a common objective, usually money, Einstein used advanced mathematics to perpetrate his hoax and it is unknown what his true objective was.

His hoax was so complex that the only people who suspected it was a hoax were ignored as terms like "special relativity", "curved space", "simultaneity", time dilation and length contraction exploded in popularity.

The ingenious key to the hoax was two-fold: its complexity and audacity.


Jean Francois Chazy (noted French mathematician);
(Translation) "In all fairness, at the present status of science, the value of the advance of Mercury's perihelion as an argument for the theory of Relativity does not, could not have the definitive character that some people believe it to have."

Pari [Spolter] further remarks that Einstein's general theory of relativity does not explain:
• (1) the rotation of the celestial bodies
• (2) the orientation of the axis of rotation of the planets
• (3) the orbital planes of all the planets approximately on the solar equatorial plane (±12?)
• (4) the inclination of the plane of the orbit of each planet
• (5) the direction of movement of the planets (counterclockwise) as viewed from north)
• (6) the distance law (Titius-Bode)
• (7) the eccentricities
• (8) the regression of the nodes
• (9) the precision of the equinoxes
• (10) the perturbations

Louis Essen cautions;

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory"

He is concerned that;

"students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."

In a series of articles, A.A.Logunov and co-workers have made several important remarks. They point out that in general relativity the energy of a system and, therefore, its inertial mass does not have any physical meaning, since it depends on the arbitrary choice of the coordinate systems. Therefore, the assertion of equality of the "inertial" and "gravitational" masses in Einstein's theory is devoid of all physical meaning.

Moreover, the arbitrariness of the coordinate transformations in general relativity makes it incapable of giving unique predictions for gravitational effects (bending of light, perihelion rotation, red shift and time-delay experiments.)
They conclude that the absence in the general theory of relativity of conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the matter and gravitational field taken together, and also its inability to give unique predictions for gravitational phenomena, make it necessary to abandon the theory of relativity as a physical theory.
In addressing Einstein's unified field theories Pari quotes a number of scientists, beginning with a statement by Einstein himself and Rosen made in 1935;

"In spite of its great success in various fields, the present theoretical physics is still far from being able to provide a unified foundation on which the theoretical treatment of all phenomena could be based. We have a general relativistic theory of macroscopic phenomena, which however has hitherto been unable to account for atomic structure of matter and for quantum effects, and we have a quantum theory, which is able to account satisfactorily for a large number of atomic and quantum phenomena but which by its very nature is unsuited to the principle of relativity."

Lincoln Barnett in his book, "The Universe and Dr.Einstein, quotes Einstein;

"The idea that there are two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic, is intolerable to the theoretical spirit."

Dewey Larson comments;

"Most scientists accept the General Theory of Relativity but no one uses it except as a mental and mathematical exercise; indeed it is doubtful if anyone knows how to use it in anything other than an artificially simplified situation."

George Gamow likens the Einstein field equations of the general theory of relativity to the Taj Mahal;

"a structure standing out there in majestic isolation, without any connection to the rest of Physics".

My opinion is that General Relativity, 'the spacetime continuum' was a deliberate scientific and mathematical hoax perpetrated on the scientific community for reasons that are unknown at this time. This scientific and mathematical hoax is still firmly in place with current scientific experiments continually being weighted in favor of, and data contrary to, being discarded in favor of the theory.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Einstein_the_Hoaxer_Rev_10.htm


In closing, I’d like to reassert math isn’t the be-all and end-all. Numbers, like letters, are useful communication tools. Both have helped advance our understanding of the world. However, they both have limits. If you believe everything can be explained by precise mathematical equations and ‘laws,’ consider the following statement from Sgt. Pepper:


Black Magic is Not a Myth - Aleister Crowley
In theory there is no limit to the power of magic. A magician is like a mathematician; he has complete control of the symbols as long as he keeps to the rules.
http://hermetic.com/crowley/articles/black-magic-is-not-a-myth.html
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ProperGander on September 5th, 2015, 1:37 pm

Einstein's thought experiments are contradictory and flawed. His work is not sourced and most of it is what we would now call "copied and pasted" from other sources.

The Principle of Relativity train car thought experiment and Einstein's 1905 claim that no optical experiment can detect Earth's motion is contradicted by his General Relativity thought experiments and claims.

In the original incarnation of Einstein's version of Relativity the Michelson Morley experiment, although unmentioned, is clearly referenced and the famous 'null' result embraced.

Einstein states that one cannot optically detect one's motion based on the path of a beam of light, despite the recognition that light propagates at a constant velocity independent of the motion of its source. The observer moving with the train car cannot see a fringe shift when conducting a Michelson Morley interferometer type experiment. Its the motionless observer, when viewing the train car in motion, who notices the beam of light is contradicting the postulate that light propagates at a constant velocity independent of the motion of its source. Here the motionless observer sees the light beam travel with the train car like a sound wave would travel with the atmosphere in the moving train car. Yet Einstein denies light such a medium. Einstein denies an Aether that moves with the Earth. He also denies a motionless Earth and the need for any kind of Ether. (Yet by 1920, Einstein is claiming the importance of the Ether to General Relativity.)

Yet in his latter General Relativity theory thought experiments, Einstein makes use of an optical experiment to measure motion.The observer inside a genie pulled chest in an imagined Zero G environment is equivalent to being at rest on the surface of the Earth. In both cases the beam of light does not look straight. It 'bends' or arcs down. The observer moving with the "train car" can now see a fringe shift when conducting a Michelson Morley interferometer type experiment. The moving observer now can tell they are moving, or at rest on Earth's surface. We can distinguish this pair of possibilities from the other pair: the chest at rest in Zero G and the chest in free fall in Earth's gravity field.

In the case of the gravitational field and the accelerated chest, we have the bent light beam. The genie pulled chest will continue to accelerate, and we will notice we are not standing on the surface of the Earth as the G-Force will continue to increase. The beam in the accelerated chest would be expected to continue to bend down further as we continue to accelerate to greater and greater velocity.

In the case of the Zero-G chest at rest and the chest in free fall in Earth's gradational field, we are floating. Yet if we are in free fall we will know it as we simply have to wait and we will strike the Earth's surface. Einstein claims the light beams will appear straight to the observer in free fall and in Zero G. Yet in the case of free fall, Einstein contradicts what he established with the genie accelerated chest and although the free falling chest is accelerating towards the Earth's surface, it will not show a directional lag and the beam will act like it did under Special Relativity.

Einstein's thought experiments are also flawed because he disregards the conservation of energy, G-Force, time and having to actually engineer a real experiment. For example, Einstein imagines a Zero-G environment removed from the gravitational effects of the rest of the Universe. This is fantasy.

Special Relativity
Image
*please note that when in motion, the light path is no longer a straight line. The path becomes part of a triangle. The Lorentz contraction cannot scale this triangle into a straight line. Time dilation does not explain away this effect.
This effect shows either a medium that moves with the laboratory (the Earth), or a ballistic emission theory of light where the motion of the source does add momentum to the light ray.


General Relativty
Image
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Rudy Algera on October 14th, 2015, 9:15 am

I liked this statement in an article I came across somewhere:

Quote: "Mesmerized by News channels and distracted by status quo-supporting Hollywood paradigm, Corporate Citizenry firmly believes itself to be free and safe, while shamelessly parroting events and statements it was indoctrinated to, proudly saluting its flag, listening to and thanking the Stooge-in-Chief."

From: http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/10/09/the-stooge-and-the-statesman/
Rudy Algera
Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 4:15 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests