K.C. PAUL - astronomer extraordinaire

[simonshack]

Maybe Simon is resenting me but I am definitely of the opinion that the Tychos (or any other alternative model of the universe), whatever merits it may have, cannot have any exposing potential.

Very well, Mansur - so what exactly do you deem to have 'exposing potential'? Your own obscure, defeatist and disjointed ramblings, perhaps?

[patrix]

I find the "exposing potential" of Tychos quite high myself since it's a suggested configuration of our Solar system that actually works geometrically as opposed to the heliocentric, as demonstrated in Tychosium, and that fits the observations and evidence as explained in Simon's book.

So I must say that I find it pretty ironic that other alternative ideas and thoughts about the shape of our planet that has absolutely nothing going for them in terms of observational confirmation is exposed so eagerly. It's almost like one can suspect it's for this very reason. The "exposing potential" of Tychos is very high, and will be trouble for the Nutwork, so let's expose alternative ideas that are absurd as to distract from it.

[Macaria]

Maybe an ‘ideal case’ it was hovering before your mind’s eyes - where, say, to the famous utterance ‘Utter Bilge’ hundreds, maybe thousands, of astronomers and physicists and other scientists would respond, not so much publicly and in words but – really – in deeds.

Yeah... maybe. Just hovering..... Right.

Simply because there is no such thing.

So while you are back on your horse imagining what I am thinking, the ambiguity of your words has me guessing what you mean. Apparently you mean that there is no unrestrained science because all science is restrained or controlled.

even if we were able, we cannot possibly determine or describe here what ‘pure/real/unrestrained science’ is

"We cannot possibly"? Unrestrained science is simply science that is not sanctioned, that is non-canon. It exists as a sub-set of free thought and free ideas in general. Tychos is a perfect example of this. But perhaps Tychos doesn't exist? Or it is not based on free thought? Perhaps free thought doesn't exist either?

So, to follow your logic, the world controllers are not concerned about unrestrained science, free thought of a scientific nature, because this doesn't exist. They are not concerned about controlling the thoughts of people, about controlling all narratives in all domains, about preempting and neutering all opposition of any form because uncontrolled thought is not a threat to their plans.

Then you have to explain why so much effort is expended to do such controlling, such preempting and neutering. Or do you deny such efforts?

As to the ‘busting of the virus myth’: I think we are not only centuries but millenniums away from such a ‘busting’, don’t you think?

It is obvious why Simon used the word "defeatist".

[Mansur]

…other alternative ideas and thoughts about the shape of our planet…

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you are suggesting that e.g. ‘flat earthers vs globsters’ is a deliberate diversionary operation, then you are certainly right, and also that there are quite a few of them. (I've already tried to hint at this). However, I don't see how it all comes into this. To my knowledge at least, these ‘ideas and thoughts’ have little more than the bare minimum astronomical relevance if any. So now are you calling for these to be exposed or not - it's not clear.

The "exposing potential" of Tychos is very high…

Exposing what? And, more importantly, to whom?

Let’s ask, please, how many people do you think there are who, either on their own or as a result of some outside impulse, discover substantial discrepancies in mainstream astronomy data (which assumes they have spent at least years mastering the basics of the subject)?
Then, how many of these people will be suspicious of ‘space exploration’ on that basis?
Then, how many of these will (and want to) become certain?

_____________________________
__________________________
____________________

@ Macaria, -

Maybe an ‘ideal case’ it was hovering before your mind’s eyes - where, say, to the famous utterance ‘Utter Bilge’ hundreds, maybe thousands, of astronomers and physicists and other scientists would respond, not so much publicly and in words but – really – in deeds.

Yeah... maybe. Just hovering..... Right.

Maybe he who tries to understand the other one is not so much ‘on the horse’ than he who doesn’t. (Sorry for the ‘hovering’ by the way, seems I took it literally from my mother tongue.)

…Perhaps free thought doesn't exist either?

You said. - Does it?

Look, please, - first, almost every single scientific researcher is boasting of that very f… terms of ‘free thought’ ‘free thinking’ ‘independent researches’… in some way or other, so it seems not being too advised using them; second, to be free, in this field of human activity called experimental science, will remain always a relative, very relative notion where the ‘free from what?’ remains always in the background to be specified/defined. As a third, in this region of things, ‘freedom’ can be used legitimately – imho! – only in a very personal sense, I mean freedom from the (uncontrolled) influence of one’s own emotional life into one’s thinking/insight etc. – into one’s higher faculties. Quite a few authors could be cited here having been considered this last one as the very elemental/beginning phase for any kind of wisdom. So much about freedom.

So, to follow your logic, the world controllers are not concerned about unrestrained science, free thought of a scientific nature, because this doesn't exist. They are not concerned about controlling the thoughts of people, about controlling all narratives in all domains, about preempting and neutering all opposition of any form because uncontrolled thought is not a threat to their plans.

You missed something. I don't believe in the existence of ‘world controllers’, or ‘Nutwork’. Originally, the phrase ‘the power that be’ was not referring to individuals (to be hated -- and mostly envied at the same time). All of these are taken from the reality of fictions (as referred to a few posts above), which cannot be translated word for word into our public/political everyday life.

And yes, the ‘free thought of a scientific nature’ (and ‘unrestrained science’) I find not a bit ‘oxymoronic’. If a thought is ‘of scientific nature’ it is already bound, bound by multiple bonds of various nature and levels (of principles, rules, habits, customs… – and you are free to complete the list).

Moreover, science is more than any other field of human thought, dependent on sponsorship, and this dependence stands even in case when sponsors are who seek out scientists. If anyone thinks that there have been exceptions to this dependency (not individuals, dispersed in times and places, are meant but movements, trends) over the centuries since modern science is on the ring, this is a good place to mention them.
___

I don’t know what ‘pure science’ is*, commonly by science they mean more or less immediate applications which in turn is synonymous for power, their fight for becoming mainstream.

* ‘…studying and developing the principles of science for their own sake rather than for their immediate usefulness‘ so runs one definition; of course the ‘immediate’ is a very vague term (just as the 'rather'), I would change it to ‘any’. A little more comprehensive definition would hardly miss to mention the incompatibility with any kind of popularization.

The controlling process is inbuilt in the scientific principles/methods themselves. Or, put differently, it has no inherent principle, it must be given to it from the outside, i.e. by the power.

That is my point; or opinion. (And because it is only an opinion, confessedly that, maybe there is no need to be so hostile and derisive – and so biased in answering/quoting. Opinions must necessarily differ - the more the better).

Then you have to explain why so much effort is expended to do such controlling, such preempting and neutering. Or do you deny such efforts?

Do I? However, does this all controlling attitude of the power that be prove the 'threat' or 'sense of threat' you speak of? - That is not a special effort on their part; that is their very activity; to impel every segment of human life ‘under its wings’, knowledge, healing, education, everything… Everything must be based on scientific foundation. (Ah, St. Huxley!)

If this seems like defeatism to some, I can't help it. (It is a strange charge by the way. By what things am I defeated, please, what high hopes have I given up? If it really is that ‘obvious’, let me know so I can get it back).
___________________________________________

[Since no one seems to care anymore pundit gentleman Mr. K. C. Paul, seems right to move the last few post to a more topical thread (‘Science Deceit’).]

[Flabbergasted]

seems right to move the last few post to a more topical thread...

Maybe we should have a thread specifically for your contributions, something like "Disjointed ramblings and other mansurdities".

[Macaria]

Mansur,

Some coherence please...

You missed something. I don't believe in the existence of ‘world controllers’, or ‘Nutwork’.

Some time earlier....

Really? Do you really think that the powers that be are even a little bit worried that science, 'real science' or I don't know what you call it, will one day get out of control?

[Mansur]

The term 'nutwork' refers to certain individuals, a particular class, which holds or usurps power as it were hereditarily and does not let it out of its hands. I think Simon, Patrix and Flabbergasted use it in something like this sense. Here is Simon's definition:
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p ... 4#p2416284

Now, obviously there are people sitting in 'control rooms' - but unless by that name I can designate to some extent at least or allude to why it is so, or how it comes about, and how it is maintained, I see no point in such a separate term. And this 'nutwork' is in no way equivalent to 'the powers that be'.

Perhaps I am indeed self-contradicting, (though I don't think so - perhaps it's the continuation of the first quote that I should be paraphrasing), but why is it important now? If you find them both false, now why should I want to put some logical string to prove that they are both true?

Sorry, dear Macaria, I can only offer the usual mansurdities.