Fiction Science

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

Fiction Science

Postby sharpstuff on September 2nd, 2018, 7:27 am

FICTION SCIENCE

___________________________________

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

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

Dissent, therefore, is anathema to the present system.

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

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

Take your pick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

It will be perhaps noted that:

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

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

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

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


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

If we allow it, we are constantly bombarded by 'scientists' or 'experts' or 'pundits' or whatever who claim this or that to be a truth. The same goes for those who claim perhaps any event that might or might not happen in the (humanoid) 'World' to be a truth.
Proper researchers (those people who want to decide for themselves or have the courage to dissent anything they are 'told') claim nothing. They merely present what they have discovered as a truth that allows them to continue their lives in some sort of comfort.
Proper researchers 'weigh data'. Data is not information. If the data fits a personal world-view then it may become a 'truth' until otherwise realised as not so, by continued research.
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Fiction Science

Postby aa5 on September 2nd, 2018, 10:24 am

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

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

It goes with continuity too, say one arrow is moving at 60mph and another arrow at 30mph. Do the 'atoms' in the 30mph arrow stay in the same location for more moments, than the 'atoms' in the 60mph arrow, before jumping ahead to the next location. It brings to mind a computer monitor which 'updates' the screen say 60 times a second. So to follow arrows flying across the computer monitor. The pixels change to represent the color of the arrow on the next update.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am


Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests