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 pov603 on Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:24 am

"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part."

[Emphasis added]
Is that it then? 'We' now understand?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Anders on Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:12 am

aa5 » November 27th, 2016, 7:17 am wrote:One place I think they get confused is they talk about a light wave like it is something separate from the aether. Eg.. like a physical thing travelling through water. But I view it like after an earthquake in the ocean, a force wave is travelling through the water. But that wave of force from the earthquake is not a physical thing. It is pushing the individual molecules of water, which then push the molecules next to them, and so on.

Nassim Haramein, and alternative researcher, has said that it's the space that is the stuff of particles. One new thing I have learned on this forum is that even alternative science researchers can be controlled opposition. But I think Haramein is correct, that particles are vortices in and of space. And propagation of a particle through space is similar to the wave on an ocean analogy.
Anders
Banned
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Anders on Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:17 am

pov603 » November 27th, 2016, 7:24 am wrote:
"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part."

[Emphasis added]
Is that it then? 'We' now understand?

Notice that the Nobel Prize winning scientist still clings to Einstein's relativity (the full quote includes more references to relativity than I posted). And the top scientists no doubt know that Einstein's relativity is a hoax. But they are stuck with the hoax! They have to become gatekeepers against their own will, because otherwise the mainstream scientific community will reject them, and they will become poor and homeless.
Anders
Banned
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:20 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Kham on Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:26 pm

Einstein was a varied and prolific writer.

The lists below are some of the names of the papers Einstein has published. The list demonstrates that Einstein was somewhat varied in subject matter as an author. I often wondered if he was given other scientists patents and ideas to rewrite and to possibly put the 'correct' spin on because it is hard for me to imagine that for such technical papers, that Einstein would have time to conceive of, reconsider, write several drafts of and then write those papers all himself, even if co authored in such short time spans. The mental time needed for each paper take times to develop. I know PhD's who have spent years on one just one paper.

Some papers written by Einstein:
On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light
On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?
Thermodynamic fluctuations and statistical physics
Principle of relativity.
Photon and Quantum
Einstein solid
Old quantum theory
Wave–particle duality
Critical opalescence
Zero-point energy
History of general relativity
Principle of equivalence,
Theory of relativity, and
Einstein field equations
Hole argument
Gravitational waves
Cosmology
Schrödinger equation
Bose–Einstein statistics
Stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor
Classical unified field theories
Wormhole
Einstein–Cartan theory
Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations

What Science says Einstein got wrong:
Superconductivity
Special relativity
Gravitational waves
Black holes
Quantum mechanics
EPR paradox
Cosmological term
Minkowski's work
Heisenberg's work
Unified field theory

Einstein was a prolific writer. Below you will find how many papers Einstein published per decade. Lot's of his papers were co authored but still, the list rivals Miles Mathis. I think I remember reading how prolific Einstein was as a writer here at CF but I couldn't find the post to link to it. I wanted to finish that thought and show the statistics. All my data is from the official party line: Albert Einstein Wiki

1901-1910 . . . 58 papers published
1911-1920 . . . 91 papers published
1921-1930 . . . 73 papers published
1931-1940 . . . 30 papers published
1941-1955 . . . 20 papers published

At his most prolific, Einstein published 24 papers in one year, 1905, smack dab in the middle of his years working at the Swiss Patent Office which was from 1902 to 1909. Einstein was an information machine.
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Flabbergasted on Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:00 pm

These excerpts from the essay “Science: Pro and Con”, by G. K. Chesterton (The Illustrated London News, October 9th, 1909) criticize the modern-day glorification of science and bovine confidence in "canonized" scientists like Einstein and Hawking.

[...] For what we have suffered from in the modern world is not in any sense physical knowledge itself, but simply a stupid mistake about what physical knowledge is and what it can do. It is quite as obvious that physical knowledge may make a man comfortable as it is that it cannot make a man happy. It is as certain that there are such things as drugs as that there are no such things as love-potions. Physical science is a thing on the outskirts of human life; adventurous, exciting, and essentially fanciful. It has nothing to do with the centre of human life at all. Telephones, flying-ships, radium, the North Pole are not in the ultimate sense good, but neither are they bad. Physical science is always one of two things: it is either a tool or a toy. At its highest and noblest, of course, it is a toy. A toy is a thing of far greater philosophical grandeur than a tool; for the very simple reason that a toy is valued for itself and a tool only for something else. A tool is a means, a toy is an end [...].

[...] The only evil that science has ever attempted in our time has been that of dictating not only what should be known, but the spirit in which it should be regarded. It does not in the least matter whether we look at a lamp-post or a tree as long as we look at it in a certain spirit. It does not in the least matter whether we talk through a telephone or through a hole in the wall so long as we talk sense. But we must not ask the lamp-post in what spirit it ought to be regarded. If we do, we shall find it as deaf as a post. We must not ask the telephone what we are to say to it. If we do, we shall find the young ladies at the exchange somewhat sharply insensible to the pathos of our position. Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say. If we are going on a great and just adventure, it will be all the more glorious to go on a flying-ship. But we must not stop in the middle of the adventure to ask the flying-ship what a just adventure is. If we are rushing to get married, it may be thrilling to rush in a motor-car; but we do not ask the motor-car whom we shall marry. Generally speaking, we hardly even ask the chauffeur. That quite elementary and commonplace principle suffices for all the relations of physical science with mankind. A man does not ask his horse where he shall go; neither shall he ask his horseless carriage; neither shall he ask the driver of his horseless carriage; neither shall he ask the inventor of his horseless carriage. Science is a splendid thing; if you tell it where to go to [...].
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Tarek701 on Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:50 pm

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


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

Of course, the "most wrong" thing one can do is to criticize them. :lol:[/quote]

Actually I just read this today and remembered a really interesting german author, who was a heavy critic of Einstein and always relied that only Kant had the actual solution to similiar problems but Kants ideas were emergingly, according to the author, repressed by the mainstream science community the more Einstein gained popularity. The author's name was: "Ernst Moses Markus". And his interesting works were called: "Kritik des Aufbaus (Syllogismus) der speziellen Relativitätstheorie und Kritik der herrschenden Hypothese der Lichtausbreitung." (My translation of the title: "criticisms of the structure (syllogism) of the special relativity theory and criticism of the ruling hypothesis of light propagation")

Now to moral relativism, Ernst Moses Markus, actually saw the exact same problem on that and even conspired the idea that 'Einstein' is in fact just a popular figure to encourage moral relativism, which would also explain the growing denial of Kant's ethics and philosophies, which were strictly built on moral principles and duty. Interestingly, there was actually a letter (or a part in his book; unfortunately I do not really remember. Sorry) by Einstein who tried to disprove the Time and Space explanation by Kant. Ernst Markus also criticizes modern physics in general and also reminded, similar to what Roger Schlafly said, that with Einstein physics became a whole bunch of speculative theories and would only end up in a death spiral that could make future experiments be covered by incredibly wrong theories. If we look at quantum physics and how crazily the scientific community tries to unify it with the theory of relativity, shows that science is no longer science, but more "dogmatic" science than ever before. Why did never anyone ask the ultimate question whether relativity theory is most likely wrong when quantum experiments disprove so many aspects of it? Additionally, a lot of critics also showed that the relativity theory (especially the special relativity theory) has a lot gaps and contradictions that still cannot explain the most common phenomena. And yet, everyone is seeking for explanations, but instead for looking for new ones, they try everything they can to get the relativity theory working with quantum physics. Ernst Markus also criticized that science is too focused on empiricism, and leaves out apriorism in general. He seeks for an unification of both apriorism and empiricism, because only then experiments could be truly verified and be theorized in a model. Everything else would just be pure speculation.

Would it also be too far fetched to say that the extreme complexity of many quantum formulas is actually the result of a lot of inaccuracies caused by the countless speculative mathematical models?
Tarek701
Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby aa5 on Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:31 pm

Very interesting post Tarek. I will read Kant's theories on light, time and space now.

It took me awhile to see it, but science is the religion of our era. Religion is always used to give moral backing to the current political ideology and aims.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby molodyets on Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:10 pm

Kham » November 27th, 2016, 9:26 pm wrote:Einstein was a varied and prolific writer.

The lists below are some of the names of the papers Einstein has published. The list demonstrates that Einstein was somewhat varied in subject matter as an author. I often wondered if he was given other scientists patents and ideas to rewrite and to possibly put the 'correct' spin on because it is hard for me to imagine that for such technical papers, that Einstein would have time to conceive of, reconsider, write several drafts of and then write those papers all himself, even if co authored in such short time spans. The mental time needed for each paper take times to develop. I know PhD's who have spent years on one just one paper.
...
Einstein was a prolific writer. Below you will find how many papers Einstein published per decade. Lot's of his papers were co authored but still, the list rivals Miles Mathis. I think I remember reading how prolific Einstein was as a writer here at CF but I couldn't find the post to link to it. I wanted to finish that thought and show the statistics. All my data is from the official party line: Albert Einstein Wiki

1901-1910 . . . 58 papers published
1911-1920 . . . 91 papers published
1921-1930 . . . 73 papers published
1931-1940 . . . 30 papers published
1941-1955 . . . 20 papers published

At his most prolific, Einstein published 24 papers in one year, 1905, smack dab in the middle of his years working at the Swiss Patent Office which was from 1902 to 1909. Einstein was an information machine.


Just finished the latest Clues Chronicles episode on Einstein and would like to thank you for mentioning the book by Wheeler. I'm in the middle of reading it now. It's so refreshing to read scientific material that doesn't accredit all phenomena to mysterious particles.

I think Einstein's paper writing prowess just shows that he was a front man for a group, the establishment, taking the credit for ideas not his own. That was the perfect way to dazzle humanity by his amazing intelligence. IMO, there was too much scientific advancement and they wanted to stop it, to keep control of the situation. Einstein was the control rod to the nuclear reactor.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:01 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby molodyets on Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:51 pm

molodyets » September 12th, 2017, 11:10 pm wrote:
Just finished the latest Clues Chronicles episode on Einstein and would like to thank you for mentioning the book by Wheeler. I'm in the middle of reading it now. It's so refreshing to read scientific material that doesn't accredit all phenomena to mysterious particles.

I think Einstein's paper writing prowess just shows that he was a front man for a group, the establishment, taking the credit for ideas not his own. That was the perfect way to dazzle humanity by his amazing intelligence. IMO, there was too much scientific advancement and they wanted to stop it, to keep control of the situation. Einstein was the control rod to the nuclear reactor.


For someone who despises the scientific establishment as much as he claims, Ken Wheeler sure uses their same tactics: make the explanations/descriptions extremely complicated so people will think his intelligence far exceeds their own. Of course, horrible writing also helps.

While skipping around the file looking for something enlightening, I found this particularly hilarious excerpt, a typical example:
From Ken Wheeler's book 3rd edition, available at the following link http://keyoflife.thomazb.com/pdf/boeger/Uncovering%20the%20missing%20secrets%20of%20magnetism%20-%20Ken%20L%20Wheeler.pdf page 28.

A ‘field’ is the conceptual and mediated abstraction wrongly reified as an autonomous entity when in fact all fields are as relates to and of the Ether and an object that induces its appearance of which that object is necessarily of course comprised of stable dielectric Ether fields (matter), by logical necessity.


For anyone wishing to read his book, you must slosh through this kind of writing.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:01 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Flabbergasted on Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:20 pm

I couldn't resist posting this amusing photo of Einstein holding a puppet of himself...

Image

The official story: the Yale Puppeteers (apparently gay activists) used the puppet in a play presented especially for Einstein at the Teatro Torito (a predecessor to the Turnabout Theater) while he was teaching at Caltech. Einstein liked the performance but didn´t think the puppet was fat enough so he got a letter out of his pocket, crumpled it up and stuffed it up under the puppet's smock.

http://www.openculture.com/2014/01/albe ... uppet.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108407/
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby pov603 on Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:25 pm

How did Einstein operate such a huge puppet whilst his feet were off the ground?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby patrix on Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:03 am

I would like to give attention to this site
https://sciencevstruth.com
I’m trying to understand these subjects better but when reading criticism of our “Gods of science” and their theories by for example Gwynne or Mathis, I often end up more confused. This site however has a clarity and a tone I’ve not seen elsewhere. Not saying it cannot contain disinformation or mistakes of course.

People now blindly believe in Science, they adorn scientists as the ultimate authorities of knowledge. Whenever some scientific teaching sounds absurd, not only lay people but even science students prefer to put that down to their ignorance in the belief that scientists can’t go wrong, a situation not different from how people behaved in the ancient religious society. Many a times people don’t even know what some scientists actually teach, but they chant their theories (e.g. special relativity, general relativity etc) and worship them as Gods. Intellectuals who try to raise their voice against the prevailing weird theories and scientific superstitions are at a similar risk of humiliation, isolation and deprivation just like how people suffered in the ancient religious society for arguing against the absurd religious teachings.

https://sciencevstruth.com/2013/06/12/r ... believers/
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby aa5 on Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:25 am

One time I was reading that religious stories/explanations need to be irrational/impossible to understand. Because then it is a true test of faith, for the followers to believe the arguments anyway.

Whereas there is a small minority of people who are free thinkers. Those free thinkers will never be your unquestioning, loyal servants. Instead of trying to convince them, its better to just identify them and keep them away from positions of power.

For example in big corporations they need all the management to be on the same page for implementing 'the plan'. Inevitably there will be some managers who don't go along with the plan, and if left in their positions they will undermine the leaders in all sorts of ways. So what the executives do is simply fire those managers who have not fully submitted to 'the plan'/wisdom of the executive team. If those managers with different ideas have skills and knowledge the corporation needs, then the corporation would rather pay for consulting to that manager as an independent contractor.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby antipodean on Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:16 am

aa5 » September 12th, 2018, 6:25 pm wrote:
For example in big corporations they need all the management to be on the same page for implementing 'the plan'. Inevitably there will be some managers who don't go along with the plan, and if left in their positions they will undermine the leaders in all sorts of ways. So what the executives do is simply fire those managers who have not fully submitted to 'the plan'/wisdom of the executive team. If those managers with different ideas have skills and knowledge the corporation needs, then the corporation would rather pay for consulting to that manager as an independent contractor.


Big Corporations use the Delphi Technique for implementing change. To Shut down any opposing argument.
The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.

However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.

How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined.

First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize.

It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.”

Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.

http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:50 pm

Wow, cool article.

There is one part at the start I would call a bit naive:

The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.


The CIA's RAND corporation wants to claim credit for intrigue like rigging meetings? Is "The Delphi Technique" the first time it was ever done? I doubt it. Vote rigging of all kinds has been going on since voting was invented. Seems like there is missing information here or it's just CIA/RAND/MITRE wanting to again seem like the authorities on intelligence that they are not and/or brand existing deception in their own way. "Developed" might not be the right word; codified maybe. Recommended even.

But there are very interesting bits. Here's some more (my emphases) :

Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is reconvened.

This is the weak link in the chain, which you are not supposed to recognize. Who compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? Ahhhh! Well, it is those who are running the meeting.

How do you know that the ideas on your notes were included in the final result? You Don’t! You may realize that your idea was not included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every other citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether their ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if anyone’s ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the reassembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion.


Yes, antiopodean! That is why clear communication is so key. We need to take ownership of our own methods of communication so that we are both responsible for it and everyone knows the degree to which our opinion has been given fair voice. If those methods are taken from us (as it is with the mainstream media's way of censoring data that they can label with any number of "flags") then they can claim truth by drowning out the truth they don't like.

That's why listening to each other is also very important. We can easily come to false conclusions about whether we are in the majority or the minority on any given subject when clear and open communication has been obscured by a process ... or sometimes a constant re-contextualizing that makes the original truth sound vapid! (i.e.; moving the goal posts)

That would definitely apply to the biggest problem with the sciences lately. "Oh, yes we'll consider your opinion over here in this little corner where nobody can hear you." Then they will give the stage back to the dominant voice.

aa5 wrote:Whereas there is a small minority of people who are free thinkers. Those free thinkers will never be your unquestioning, loyal servants.


And thank goodness! What kinds of environments nurture free thinking? Not the Universities. And yet their public image is the opposite. What's that about? Is it because they consider themselves "free" from religions?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest