Science is dead - part 1-4
Part 1
It is a huge misconception that science is neutral and objective and free from petty business thinking and politics. Science is worshipped as a deity on a pedestal, danced around like a golden calf.
The misconception claims that science is a self-correcting mechanism that follows all evidence wherever it leads. The model is called the hypothetico-deductive method, or simply the scientific method.
The method already seems to have a weakness, as observation is excluded from the cyclical process, the feedback loop. Do you just close your eyes once you have observed? Doesn’t the imagined cycle then become abstract and close in on itself? What if a scientific research project is commissioned work, wouldn’t you take care to carefully select the observations and turn a blind eye to the inputs that are not deemed to support the predetermined result? Extremely and rarely, you say? Let’s look at it. But then it’s not science, you say? You are absolutely right about that.
It is a fundamental assumption that there are only two possibilities, science or superstition. It was with this attitude that science in the Age of Enlightenment took over the status of truth provider from religion. It became the new religion, even though it renounced the title.
The dogma of either science or superstition is a false dichotomy, a false opposition. It is directly destructive of science. There is a lot of scientific potential in what science calls superstition, and there is a lot of superstition in science itself. How can science claim to know what it doesn’t know? It does that all the time, it is hubris, not humility. It is even so arrogant that it mocks people who are not immediately willing to accept and copy-paste its assumptions about what one doesn’t know. It is therefore ironic that Christianity condemned the belief systems of the past as superstitious, and that the new religion of science later called Christianity superstitious. ‘Evil tongues’ have now begun to call science superstitious. Can you blame them?
Case study - Big Bang
That science and superstition are a false distinction can be seen in the rise of the Big Bang theory. Its origins are theological, stemming from a Belgian Jesuit priest and theoretical physicist named Georges Lemaître, who wanted to persuade science to accept Thomas Aquinas’s statement of Creation out of nothing. Theoretical physicists don’t experiment, they theorize. They do math magic.
The followers, the believers, display a strikingly religious attitude towards their adored dogma - a theory that is canonized as a higher truth. There is no evidence and proof for the Big Bang except for speculative mathematical ‘proofs’. That NOTHING existed from the beginning, which then suddenly exploded, violates one of science’s best-established statements: the constancy of energy in the universe. Energy can change, it cannot arise from nothing or disappear into nothing. Physics fixes this problem by saying that this creation created the physical laws that we think we know. In the beginning there were no laws of nature, but then Nothingness said: Let there be laws of nature, and there were laws of nature. Another piece of irony: Science praises the Big Bang, while they mock creationists. What is the difference between Nothingness and God, they do exactly the same thing?
Here comes the actual model for both the Big Bang and Fiat Lux - let there be light. We find this in ancient Egypt, where the creator god Atum or Aton or Aten - Greek atom - sat in his divine solitude and was bored as hell. He was clearly a piece of male, because what do lonely men do when they are bored? They jerk it off, and that’s what Atum did and KA-SPLAT! the entire universe and all the stars in the sky came out of his ejaculation.
And how did that story end up with us? The elevator version is that Akhen-Aten (pronounced A-’khe-na-ten with the stress on the second syllable, which has to go far back in the mouth) or Pharaoh Akhenaten was the real Moses, who was expelled in Exodus 1 from Upper Egypt in the south to his new building in Amarna in Lower Egypt to the north, after which he was expelled again in Exodus 2 to Sinai, and his descendants and his people called Hyksos are what we call the Jews today. Akhenaten has been called the first monotheist because he was a sun worshipper in the religious sense and abolished the entire Egyptian pantheon at one stroke. And there is only one sun … in the solar system. Read the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus Flavius, who writes directly, just as he had direct access to the sources he wanted. That he then cheated with some of them for political reasons is another story, but on this point he is reliable.
Josephus had a particularly well-known synonym: Saint Paul. Not only the Old Testament is cheating, the New Testament is even worse.
From Athens we have, among other things, Greek atomism and the name of the city of Athens. Via Judaism it ends up in Christianity, and Aten is renamed God. He doesn’t jerk it off, he ‘creates’. Where does men’s creative power lie? They provide the blob so that woman can create life. Finally it ends up with Lemaître, after which it ends up in modern science. The blob was laid far back in ancient times, and its offspring still live there today.
It leads far beyond today’s topic and down a rabbit hole - perhaps rather a completely underground rabbit mountain - to explain the implications of Lemaitre’s trinket maze, since the insignia we find in orders is neither superficial nor purely decorative but deeply significant. The square cross on the right shows that in addition to being Jesuit, he is also a Knight of Malta. Both of these sinister orders are a chapter in themselves, and the list of their criminal and often murderous activities will be almost endless. When you are one of their members, you are not ‘just’ a scientist but a member of a militant secret order of warrior monks with deep threads into the fascists - both the black, the brown and the red, which strongly suggests that the twist of physics that he helped to create was part of an operation designed precisely to manipulate science. Note the two daggers that form the double cross (to be double-crossed …).
An example of one of the scientific frauds that the Jesuits have helped to perpetuate is the bizarre story of the Piltdown Man. The Jesuit priest and semi-gnostic Teilhard de Chardin presented a discovery of a skull that was announced as the missing link between apes and humans. The missing link is the embarrassing hole in Darwin’s, or rather Darwinists’, theory of evolution that has irritated them all along, and which shows that Darwinism does not hold up as a basis for genetics. The skull was a fraud pieced together from parts from humans and apes.
Read: Darwin debunk
Being a Jesuit does not mean being naive, naivety does not exist in that camp. When they have taken such an interest in science, it is for reasons other than simple curiosity and research. They want to get their hands on the building blocks of life for the sake of power, and they appear everywhere in history when knowledge that can be used for that kind of thing needs to be seized. To tie this by no means exhaustive loop and return to astronomy, the Jesuits own and operate an observatory called … Lucifer! You can’t make this up.
One of the observations used to substantiate the Big Bang and the resulting expanding universe is the so-called red shift. Certain distant galaxies or quasars are seen as red at the edge, which was interpreted as meaning that they were moving away and even further out. An astrophysicist named Halton Arp, who has been called the Galileo of Palomar (the observatory), pierced the theory by showing that quasars were much closer to us than assumed. He was not allowed to say this, because it was a violation of the dogma of the Big Bang and an insult to the Big Bang gang, so he was fired and was hired by the prestigious Max Planck Institute in Germany. It was Max Planck who said (paraphrased):
New scientific discoveries do not come about when established scientists come up with something new, but when they die, allowing new minds to think.
A quote from Halton Arp:
By ignoring contradictory observations, one can of course claim to have an ‘elegant’ or ‘robust’ theory. That’s just not science.
When science does what Arp describes, it is called a logical fallacy.
This type of logical falsification is called cherry picking. You only pick the good cherries and leave the rest = you only use the data that supports the already planned conclusion.
It is a violation of the nature of thinking. In ancient education for thinking, it was called the trivium, the three-headed chain of thought. It consists of 4+1+1 questions, grammar, logic and rhetoric. Grammar is where you observe and obtain all the data by asking who, what, where and when? Then you ask the question why? and do a logical check to see if the grammar is coherent, if there is a pattern, and that there are no contradictions. The order is mandatory, without proper grammar, no logic. After that, you can commute back and forth between these two stages. Only when you have it under control, and all violations of logic have been resolved, can you do the 6th question how? So how can you use the result and how can you communicate it. This is rhetoric.
When you cherry pick, you have already answered the question why? After that, it’s fill-in-the-blanks in the grammar field. You get the solution in advance, then you look for all the data that supports it. This is NOT science.
Another observation that is used (cherry) to support the Big Bang is the CMB, cosmic microwave background. But this background radiation was predicted before the launch of the Big Bang and with greater precision.
Eric Lerner, lead scientist at LPP Fusion, wrote the book The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe in 1991:
The CMB is a radio wave nebula of condensed plasma filaments.
The phenomenon therefore says nothing about the age of the universe. It is an imprint of cosmic coherence. This is confirmed, to the annoyance and frustration of astrophysicists, by the latest observations from the James Webb Telescope, which, in the words of one physicist: have created a certain panic.
Pier review and gatekeeping
Halton Arp is one of the 34 scientists who wrote an article in New Scientist in 2004 entitled: An Open Letter To Closed Minds. One of the topics of the article is, among other things, the Big Bang theory’s dependence on hypothetical occurrences and the heavy use of pier-review bias by the Big Bangers. Well, you say, isn’t pier reviewing exactly a guarantee of real science? Pier review’ing is no more ‘objective’ than those who review, and if the Big Bang cult drives an entire army into position to shoot down criticism of their cultic object of worship, their golden calf, then all neutrality and objectivity disappear, and it becomes pure gate-keeping. Even such a mainstream-monumental institution as Encyclopedia Brittanica writes about pier reviewing: … the primary function of pier review is gate keeping - that is, to keep people out of the door. In 2022, a scandal almost arose when a scientific article revealed direct censorship of articles that criticized the Big Bang model. As mentioned, the theory originally came from the church, and now the institutions of science are behaving like the church and The Spanish Inquisition in the Middle Ages. Will posterity label the scientific dead ends of our time as superstition?
Another term for pier is pier pressure. The senior scientists who are assigned to review are precisely the types that Max Planck called the old guard who have to die before something decisively new can emerge. These are people with a whole shelf of publications behind them, with a reputation for posterity at stake, who have received considerable sums of funding during their careers, and who therefore do not bite the hand that has fed them. They help to put peer pressure on younger scientists by letting them understand which box they should believe and think and publish within. A researcher could risk losing their funding, and many, as you know, spend up to half their working time financing their research. Money is never neutral. Younger researchers at the beginning or middle of their careers may risk losing their careers completely and with it the opportunity to repay the student debt they have had to eat to get this far. They have ambitions. They probably have families and children who depend on their income.
Pier review-systemet skaber ofte uoverstigelige hurdler for nye publikationer af data, der synes at udgøre et modspil mod overbevisninger, der har år på bagen.
Dr. Freeman T. Freund, 2003
Here is an example of how the people of the system think.
A professor PhD in ‘natural philosophy’ at John Hopkins University, Sean Carroll states
If I had to decide whether to award money or employment to one of the bright young minds among the graduating students working on one of the many lucrative topics that have arisen through Big Bang cosmology or to give it to a guy with a bang who claims that the Big Bang has no empirical basis, then it’s an easy choice. It’s not censorship, it’s just a sensible use of resources in a world of limited means.
‘Natural philosophy’ is the natural science of the 19th century, that is, for example, Goethe. So if one of the greatest figures in European culture today were to apply to this jaded university gnome of an arrogant professor for a scholarship, he would get a fuck finger and a sneer. And with him thousands and thousands of truly bright minds who would be ready and able to think outside the box and contribute to wonders of scientific innovation if they were given the opportunity.
Richard Feynman, who is himself a theoretical physicist, writes in his book from 1999 The Pleasure of Finding Things Out:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
The scientific institutions like to talk down to people. And they also like to gain access to the media that can convey their condescension. At the beginning of the last century, the media and scientific journals made fun of the Wright brothers and their ‘alleged’ achievements in getting an airplane off the ground. This even took place when the brothers had been flying for several years. A contributing factor may also have been that they were closely observed by the American military, who saw a special potential for warfare. World War I was precisely the introduction of these biplanes that the Wright brothers had introduced. This opens up a whole new sub-element of today’s main topic: Science and inventions that disappeared or were hi-jacked by the military or Big Business. Or the government - but isn’t it the same thing? We can guarantee that the list is long.
Another sub-element that opens up is the difference between the scientific method and the engineer’s method. There was a lot of science behind the Wright brothers, but their approach was experimental. An engineer doesn’t necessarily have to understand physics 100% and thoroughly, because if it works, it works. More on that later.
It is said that the price of freedom is constant perseverance. If you choose to operate outside academia or inside as a critic of academia and established mainstream science, then you must prepare for perseverance for the rest of your life. For every 1/1000 serious scientists who are willing to choose this freedom, there are 999 who are willing to distance themselves from, despise, slander, neglect, ridicule and character assassinate you.
Can you decide on the truth?
A theoretical physicist named Freeman Dyson (died 2020) stated:
The public has a distorted view of science, because schoolchildren are taught that it is a collection of firmly established truths. Science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuous exploration of mysteries.
One should perhaps correct Dyson by saying that science should be such a continuous exploration of mysteries, just as one should note that the scientific method described at the beginning should be what science respects and follows. But there are many possibilities for a slur in the wheel from a number of vested interests. The mechanisms within science that were originally supposed to guarantee impartiality have now become self-serving, serving the vested interests and themselves. These can be external, political, ideological, financial, commercial or military. They can also be inherent in the form of academic hierarchy, establishment, institution, dogmatism, conservative laziness and careerism. Fear is an ever-present element, where play, love and eternal curiosity should be the foundation. Usually it is a mixture of external and internal pressures.
There is a very well-founded alternative to Big Bang cosmology and the Newton-Einsteinian scientific-industrial complex. It comes from one of the pioneers of plasma physics, the Swede Hannes Alfvén. He was something of an unusual electrical engineer who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. He is the father of what is today called the Electric Universe - see Thunderbolts Project. Like the Norwegian Anders Birkeland, who mapped the Earth’s magnetosphere (the Birkeland current), which can be seen with the naked eye as the northern lights (aurora borealis), Alfvén conducted direct experiments in his laboratory with plasma and electricity. Wasn’t that what Nicola Tesla did, by the way?
The special thing about plasma is that it is scalable from the very largest to the very smallest. We are talking about filaments that connect galaxies in the universe to electrical bonds in the atom. Or on a more human scale in an isolated box in a physics laboratory. Plasma is ionized gas, electrified air. We know it as lightning discharge in a thunderstorm. We also know it as a neon tube that glows because electricity is applied to a gas in a closed space. Plasma always arises via an anode and a cathode, it is dipolar. The sun is not a gigantic hydrogen bomb under a lid. It is an encapsulated plasma field that is directly connected to all planets and celestial bodies and asteroid belts, etc. in the solar system and directly to the energy field in the Milky Way galaxy. Johannes Kepler would have understood and almost recognized plasma physics and all its dynamics without any problems, but he died 370 years earlier.
Hannes Alfvén said:
The pier review system may be useful in times of calm and repose, but not during a revolution in a discipline like astrophysics, where the establishment seeks to maintain the status quo.
It was very nicely and diplomatically said. He could also have said that science has become a despotic, selfish and oppressive institution that does everything it can to crush those who do not submit. He could also have been so shameless as to state that the leaders and arbiters of science have begun to behave like a high priesthood. Alfvén was half a century ahead of his time, and only today has the establishment’s dead-end universe begun to crack. In 100 years or less he will be considered one of the greatest physicists - and then you can think what you want about the Nobel Prize, a highly politicized institution, albeit to a lesser extent in physics than, for example, in literature. The inflamed Peace Prize is going completely wrong.
Perhaps posterity will have to correct or completely dismantle the aura that has arisen about science. It was not as nice as we used to say. It was perhaps far more respectable to be an honest engineer with the ability to think than an intellectual speculator who cannot distinguish ideology from science.
It is certainly not the first time in world history that science has been attacked. We need only remind ourselves that in the 17th century Galileo Galilei had to stand trial before the papacy and deny his discoveries for the political correctness of the time. If the Earth was not the center of the universe, then the Pope, as the representative of the Son of God on earth, could not be the center of the universe either, and the world would no longer revolve around his and the church’s navel. Orthodoxy said that Ptolemy’s geocentric model from the 2nd century and its epicycles were the true one, because it fit into Christian dogma. And then Ptolemy was actually an excellent observer in a wealth of detail, and his naming of celestial bodies and constellations is still used. His conclusions were just wrong, but they held up from the 2nd century to the 17th century, when Galileo pulled the rug out from under the model and came up with the heliocentric worldview.
Copernicus believed that the celestial bodies rotated in perfect circles around the Sun. Kepler corrected Copernicus and concluded that they moved in ellipses. Kepler is probably the most important astronomer of all, because he was completely ahead of his time in a way that science still has not accepted. He was also ahead of Newton, even before he came up with his theories about gravity, which science in turn accepted. It would be almost 400 years before science began to understand that they were running with the wrong ball back then. It is not mass attraction that holds the universe together. It is what Kepler called magnetism and rotation. The universe is both magnetic and electric, it is electricity in the form of plasma that holds it all together. Kepler’s models and calculations were based on Tycho Brahe’s observational data, which were very precise.
Part 2
When someone presents something new and exciting or something that deviates from persistent habitual thinking, ‘we usually do’ and ‘everyone knows that …’, they may be met with the question:
Is there scientific evidence for that? - where’s the science?
How often in my previous work have I heard doctors ask Is there evidence for that?
The question is certainly not irrelevant. Shouldn’t you test whether something new or different holds water? Any spade can come and try to sell anything. It often costs a lot of money to start treatments, and shouldn’t you have some certainty that they work? We shouldn’t get out of line with the medical-scientific-medicinal-industrial complex, allopathic magick-bullit-medicine, because then we won’t get home today. We just mention in passing that the pharmaceutical industry has NO problem releasing their products in a big way without documentation and evidence for the products’ postulated beneficial effects. Was there evidence for global lockdowns, house arrest muzzles, snot sticks and the jabbajab in 2020-23? Follow the science they repeated-repeatedly-repeatedly. Which science?
The problem is that evidence-based and scientific evidence is no guarantee of what is claimed and in some cases the exact opposite. We ended episode 1 of the series with The Electric Universe, which is one of the greatest and perhaps most important case stories of our time for how tons of evidence and scientific evidence do not count, and how BigBang cosmology, which does NOT have evidence-success but is solely speculative and ‘prophetic’ in its essence, has stuck like the three I’s:
Ideology, Interpretation and Idiocy.
Orthodox cosmology or astrophysics has only one tool in its bag: gravity, but there are a lot of phenomena out there in the cosmos that cannot be explained by gravity. Electromagnetic phenomena are hard to fit into mathematical formulas, and they are a real pain in the ass for theoretical physicists and their mathemagicians. They are all mathematicians and represent the mathematical coup that has taken place in cosmology. Their so-called ‘evidence’ consists of numbers and not experiments. Their proofs are mathematical proofs = logical number constructions and not proofs in the real world.
Upon receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for the development of a model for an electric plasma-based cosmology, the recipient, the Swede Hannes Alfvén, gave a speech, as is expected on such a ceremonial occasion. Here he said, among other things:
… the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today have been developed using the most sophisticated methods, and it is only the plasma itself that does not ‘understand how beautiful these theories are and completely refuses to obey them.
We must guess that there were quite a few physicists sitting down there in the hall who were very offended, because this polite formulation with a barely concealed ironic bite hit them right in the gut. In 1976, Alfvén and G. Ahrenius wrote in the book Evolution of the Solar System:
We need to relearn that science without contact with experiments is an undertaking that is likely to run completely off track and into imaginary assumptions.
published by NASA - indeed!
Interestingly, it was two Scandinavians who paved the way for The Electric Universe. Physicist Wallace Thornhill says:
It is now 100 years since the Norwegian genius Kristian Birkeland proved that the phenomenon of the northern lights or aurora borealis is the Earth’s connection to the electric sun. Hannes Alvvén, the Swedish Nobel Prize winner in physics with a background as an electrical engineer and direct experience with the aurora, described the sun’s electrical system. It is no coincidence that Scandinavian scientists paved the way …
Plasma physicists take observations and experiments with plasma as a starting point and theorize on the basis of that. Theoretical physicists take the prophetic starting point = a set of ideal assumptions, after which they look for everything out there that can support it. This is reverse logic and therefore not science. Furthermore, their model has a number of ugly holes that they patch with speculative concepts such as black holes, black matter and dark energy. They have gone completely black. These patch theories are a kind of rubber checks required to prolong bankruptcy. As the historian Terrence McKenna said: Just give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake likes to quote McKenna and in his book The Science Delusion calls this form of pseudoscience scientism.
Mainstream physics has begun to understand that there is a magnetic field present in the galaxy, but they leave out the electricity in the electromagnetic complex. Do we hear a quiet sigh from Ørsted in the afterlife: You’ve had 150 years to do it, and you haven’t gotten any further! Alfvén says:
To understand the phenomena in certain plasma regions, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric current.
If you do that, you would expect to find a strong plasma field in the center of the galaxy. But gravitational physics can’t see it, so there must be a black hole, where the gravity is infinitely strong in such an infinitely small area that everything disappears. So a kind of reverse Big Bang. In the beginning, the idea of black holes was just a placeholder for the fact that it was necessary to investigate more closely what they were. Later - because they didn’t find out what it was - they just left the placeholder as it was and elevated it to Now we know what it is - it’s a black hole!
That’s what’s called a circular argument.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.
And you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard Feynman
Even the overrated figure Albert Einstein stated that the theory of black holes was not convincing and that they did not exist in the real world.
It is not the mathematics that is the problem. It is the imbalance that occurs when science is based on mathematics instead of mathematics being based on science and serving as its tool. It is the tail that wags the dog.
Plasma physicist Winston H. Bostick (died 1991) stated:
There was so little geek terminology. Beltrami was a 19th century Italian mathematician. He developed differential equation mathematics that can be used to describe - not explain, because mathematics explains nothing, mathematics describes - that is, to describe vortex phenomena such as DNA and plasma filaments such as Birkeland currents. In other words, microcosm and macrocosm, as above, as below.
Bostic’s findings are confirmed by both Alfvén and another famous plasma physicist Anthony Peratt from the Los Alamos Observatory. He is very interesting and plays directly on The Thunderbolt Project and their interest in modern cosmology compared to ancient and pre-ancient cosmology. Peratt has collected images of rock carvings and cave paintings with figures that resemble the plasma phenomena that can be recreated in laboratories. These figures are similar to each other in all the places in the world where they have been found. People who lived perhaps 40,000 years ago or even earlier saw these phenomena in the sky, because they always depicted what they saw with their own eyes.
In September 2021, before the James Webb Telescope went into operation, Wallace Thornhill stated:
I predict that the James Webb Telescope, with its vast improvements in sensitivity and resolution, will reveal the existence of the connecting network of helically twisted filament pairs* and braids even more clearly. We will discover these everywhere we look.
Filament: String of plasma that connects fields of plasma.
Vortex: Spiral shapes in motion around a center point or axis, possibly a flexible axis and possibly with branches, as we see in the plasma phenomenon lightning and thunder - the sound of plasma you could almost say, or at least the sound of electrical discharge via the plasma, which is ionized air/gas.
Helical: As we find them in the plasma field of the Sun and all stars.
So, Big Bang cosmologists are desperately searching for support, because they feel that their theory is reaching its expiration date. In 2019, they took a picture of something that was immediately announced as the first image of a black hole, and look! It turned out to be a duck. It was a picture of a plasma phenomenon. On the left is the real photo, on the right is a composite image that is supposed to make it look like a black hole. That’s what was sent to the media.
In another ‘enhanced’ image of the galaxy M87, they smear it even more thickly. It’s SO clearly a piece of Photoshop. There’s a perfectly round black giant sphere sticking out of the middle. Shouldn’t a black hole be infinitely small with infinite gravity, so that even light is pulled in? And here there’s a razor-sharp edge between the black and its surroundings as if the hole was saying n-n-n-NOW! I’M WORKING, TA-DAA!
The Japanese immediately shot the image down. Researcher at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan Makato Mioshi and his colleagues say that:
… the high-energy stream is missing from the EHT image. (EHT: Event Horizon Telescope). Furthermore, the new image of the M87 galaxy has suddenly become a panoramic view (oblique from the side) and there is no luminous ring in the shape of a doughnut, meaning the image is a fake.
Mioshi adds that this hoax will affect how we perceive other images of alleged black holes, including the image of Sagittarius A at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.
A phenomenon called plasma focus has been observed, where a focused straight string shoots out from the center. The Big Bangers try to use it as an argument for a black hole, as in the illustration here. It is the second of the three I’s in Ideology, Interpretation, Idiocy. They interpret observation to support their Ideology, which leads to idiocy. This contradicts what they themselves say about a black hole: that there is NOTHING that escapes the hole. However, plasma focus can be recreated in a laboratory with an apparatus:
Science has the basic idea that we know everything at this point, that everything is in place, and that we just need to fill in the blanks, but then it should be in place. It is also called Horganism after John Horgan, who wrote a book called The End of Science - Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. Here he writes that there is no need for any more new scientific discoveries, all that remains is to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
Part 3
Where are the numbers to support it?
Where is the mathematics?
We can prove with mathematics that …
This phraseology has become cliché. When the blackboard is full of equations, and the mathematical genius has worn out the 4th piece of chalk and turns around and says:
And this should prove that the earth is flat!
… then people would believe him. Which is of course an imaginary example, because even the most evil mathematics could never prove such an absurdity. Nevertheless, a great deal of the so-called proven facts of science are made of that stuff.
A mathematical proof is a closed circle that does it to itself. It is self-oscillation in an abstract world - unless it is based on an observable world and used as mathematics was intended: a tool and not an end in itself.
Mathematics is not the same as science, and science is not the same as mathematics.
Mathematicians have been an invasive species in science, so that they have taken over entire branches of science, such as astrophysics and cosmology, which are our case studies in this series of articles.
The mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell - about whom there is a lot in an unpleasant direction for his political philosophy and cynical view of humanity and as a member of the Fabian Society - stated as a mathematician with a touch of philosophy:
Physics is mathematics - not because we know so much about the world, but because we know so little.
The statement can go in two directions.
Either that we know so little about the world, so we compensate for it by putting a mathematical smokescreen over our lack of knowledge and then claiming that we know something.
Or that we know so little about the world, so that is precisely why we need mathematics to find out what is so difficult to understand.
That was possibly the last thing he meant, but it is the first thing that has become a reality.
Mathematics should be an auxiliary tool for science and not a control system.
Mathematician: And you experimentalists down there, can’t you just go out and prove what I’ve just proven for you up here on the board?
When we say a mathematical proof, we’re talking about proof in a mathematical context and not, for example, evidence in a criminal case or evidence that a historical event took place. Mathematics doesn’t explain anything, mathematics describes something. It’s a post-rationalization of observation and measurement. And then mathematics can be used going forward. Every building designer uses mathematics to draw a building. Every engineer uses mathematics to calculate whether the building foundation can withstand the pressure. Ancient buildings are full of mathematics, often very advanced-esoteric mathematics full of weird ‘sacred’ numbers. But mathematics arose through experiment, it’s pattern registration, it’s systematization of observations. Mathematics comes in because science consists of learning what we don’t know using what we already know.
To say that mathematics governs science is to put the cart before the horse and the tail wags the dog. It’s like running a business with only an accounting department without a business model.
Historically, assumptions based solely on mathematics have proven to be wrong. Epicycles, such as the orbits of planets, are a classic example. Epicycles are circles that move within a larger circle. Both the leading astronomer of antiquity, Ptolemy, and Copernicus 1450 years later, believed that celestial bodies moved in perfect circles - the difference, of course, was the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric universe. There was a lot of advanced mathematics behind Ptolemy’s model, because ancient times were masters of mathematics, just like Pythagoras. And what few people know is that ancient Indian mathematicians and other scientists were extremely advanced, but since it was part of the British Empire’s perfidious agenda to wipe out India’s greatness, we are not aware of it. The problem with Ptolemy’s calculations was that they did not reflect reality. It was not until Kepler and Tycho Brahe that the planetary orbits became ellipses.
In section 1 we mentioned the Wright brothers, where newspapers and magazines of the time claimed that their flights, which had already taken place for years, had never taken place, because mathematics said that objects of that weight were not capable of flying. They confused the landscape with the map. According to the same mathematics, a bumblebee cannot fly, but since the bumblebee knows nothing about mathematical physics, it flies anyway. Many of us are happy about that, because it is a completely pleasant animal that does a lot of good in nature.
Plasma physics has as its main point the decisive and dominant electro-magnetic importance of plasma on a cosmic scale rather than gravity. Mathematicians do not like plasma, because their mathematical models and calculations do not really ‘understand’ it. Mathematicians want beautiful and elegant laws in nature. As Hannes Alfvén stated: … it is only the plasma itself that refuses to recognize how beautiful the theories are and refuses to obey them. In an unguarded moment, you can witness mathematicians go blank and say: And this equation is simply beautiful (violin music).
Certain gases can possibly be mapped mathematically. But plasma is air in its fourth state (solid: ice - liquid: water, airy: steam, ionized: plasma), where electromagnetic forces rule. You could say that plasma is outside the Newtonian model, and when mainstream physicists try to shove it down-and-into the model they think they have mastered, things go wrong. That’s a bit of a problem, because 99% of the universe consists of plasma.
The moment science says that something is mathematically proven, it commits hubris.
No number of observations of white swans can prove that all swans are white.
Just a single observation of a black swan will disprove it.
Karl Popper
A good theory or hypothesis must always be vulnerable to falsification, which means that it must be formulated in a way that allows it to be rejected. In other words: we need to be able to disprove a theory or hypothesis.
Without this possibility, science stagnates. It dies.
In Part 2, we quoted the somewhat arrogant professor of natural philosophy at Johns Hopkins University, Sean Carroll. He has also stated:
It is in principle possible that the basis of the Big Bang model (an expanding universe that was much hotter and denser in the past) is somehow wrong, but the chances of that are so infinitesimally small that it is not worth bothering with.
The arrogant professor here tries to make it impossible to criticize the Big Bang. He thereby commits an intellectual crime against the fundamental foundation of science: that it must always be possible to disprove. He is a dogmatist, and a dogma is irrefutable, it is an imperative for submission. The professor personifies the despotism that has infected and poisoned science.
Isaac Newton, the man himself, hvis bold de løb med og nægter at aflevere, indrømmede selv:
… But so far I have not been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity, and therefore I make no hypothesis.
That’s all you can give the man. He just describes to the best of his ability and refrains from explaining / justifying.
Einstein described gravity as deflected space. He replaced a mathematical description with a mathematical abstraction. Or as the mathematician John Wheeler puts it: … matter tells spacetime how to deflect, and spacetime tells matter how to move.
But he uses metaphysical terms. Spacetime and ‘telling how’ are not defined by physics. It is not physics and therefore not science when you talk like that. But the way of speaking started 100 years ago and has continued ever since. Even Nicola Tesla said back then:
Today’s science has replaced experiments with mathematics, and they wade from equation to equation, ending up building a structure that has no connection to reality.
Tesla didn’t have much respect for Einstein and called him a woolly-haired idiot. Einstein, in turn, had great respect for Tesla, so you can feel a little sorry for him. Einstein - and you have to give him credit - was so self-aware that he said the following at various times:
After the mathematicians invaded physics, I don’t even understand it myself.
When the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are uncertain;
when they are certain, they do not refer to reality.One might imagine that I look back on my life’s achievements with serenity and satisfaction. But up close, it looks different. There is not a single concept that I think will hold up, and I feel uncertain that I am even on the right track.
These and other statements are used to highlight the will and ability of science to constructively doubt, and were it just as well, because in reality it is considered heretical and impermissible by physicists to doubt the theory of relativity. Black holes are considered one of the most certain predictions that the theory of relativity has made, but this is in contradiction to Einstein’s own rejection of their existence. SO: is the theory of relativity just a later equivalent to the epicycles, one of the monumental mistakes of science? Or far worse than the epicycles, since Ptolemy could not have known better, whereas Big Bangers have had every opportunity to know better but have refused to use them.
Here is a little calculation that may make some mathematical-theoretical physicists a little dizzy:
F elektrisk = 8.2 x 10-8 = 2.3 x 1039
F gravitation = 8.2 x 10-47
which means that the electric force is 1039 stronger than gravity.So 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 times bigger,
or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger
which is a number that doesn’t even have a name among decimal numbers, but if it did, it would be called a sextillion times greater.
And yet science believes that it can disregard electricity and magnetism as the all-dominant force in the universe.It becomes particularly dizzying when you consider the physicists’ statements that gravity is instantaneous over large distances. So there is no delay. So mass is not subject to its own limitations, so now we are confused! Gravity has to operate at a speed of 20 billion x the speed of light. An electron has to operate at a speed that is far greater than the speed of light to create coherence, and a charge of electricity will therefore be able to reach from our solar system to the Andromeda galaxy in 1 second = 2.5 million light years boiled down to 1 second. There was the principle that the speed of light is the ultimate, a contradiction that is already built into completely conventional physics, but which is never talked about.
Definition of theoretical physics: Mathematical speculations cut off from experiments and without a firm basis in reality.
This is the scholasticism of our time, the vast complex of speculative theological science that arose among scholars in medieval monasteries and ecclesiastical universities. The Big Bang is particularly scholastic, and as mentioned in Part 1, has just arrived from theology.
It has to be like that to make the math work.
Phill Platt - advocate for black holes in a story (oops)
It’s weird how black holes play with our sense of what’s real and not real, what makes sense and what doesn’t, but that’s why they’re so fun and entertaining, right… uh, besides being totally destructive and just cool…
Davies is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, because his language reveals that it’s all a game with our conceptuality and reason, and that it’s cool to be destructive - as above, so below. That’s how they think in the Saturnian death cult.
Theoretical physicist and plasma physics advocate Jeremy Dunning-Davies writes critically about his own field in a 2012 article titled: The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology:
As someone originally trained in mathematics, I am perfectly capable of appreciating the beauty of mathematics, but in my early years as a research student I became aware that when dealing with a physical problem, one must be able to demonstrate the physical meaning of any mathematical result obtained, and that this must be in the form of realistic physics and not by floating into the waters of imagination or science fiction.
It is also important to always be aware that any result obtained is dependent on the actual mathematical model from which it was derived. I would therefore tentatively suggest that no scientist seeking actual truth should indulge in any kind of flattering self-satisfaction - no matter how great.
Mathemagics is able to make a square brick fit into a round hole. Didn’t we all have those baby toys where we put bricks into holes? It’s the kind of problem you could give a crow or a cockatoo - or an octopus - and it would solve it. A clever cat could figure it out too.
It is one of the assumptions of the theory of relativity that space is curved due to gravity. Former NASA scientist Edward Dowdye, PhD, and physicist, suggests that this is overly complicated. His specialty is optics, and he stated at the EU2012 conference (EU stands for Electric Universe) that it is much more likely to be a simple optical deflection.
Evidence for gravitational bending of light at Sagittarius A as predicted by the laws of light deflection has not yet been observed.
Edward Dowdye, Jr.
Professor at the Institute of Engineering and Technology in Lucknow, India R.C. Gupta says the same thing independently of Dowdye:
It is said that gravity only occurs between material bodies, and that the zero-rest mass photon of photons is unaffected by the gravitational force. The alternative new approach to explaining phenomena such as the deflection of light near a star and the gravitational red-shift is an optical deflection phenomenon… The new approach could have a crucial impact on our understanding of space-time, gravity, and cosmology.
Although Gupta still uses conventional terminology accepted by mainstream physics - which is perhaps a smart move on his part - it is nevertheless a break with dogma and curved space.
Every schoolchild knows that ‘sticky water’ deflects light. That is: when you put an object in water, the light around the object looks different in the water. We also know that the atmosphere / air close to planets is denser than between planets.
Is the airless space actually airless? It should be called the thin air space or the electrified airspace or the plasmoid space.
How about keeping it simple instead of getting bogged down in the metaphysics of spacetime, deflection by mass/gravity, relativity and thermodynamic death machines?
Keep It Simple, Stupid = KISS
Is mathematics a language? Or are we lost in translation?
It is not a new idea that numbers (mathematics) permeate the universe.
The question is whether it is not a projection of our attempt to understand the universe by putting it on formulas. The ancient Greeks and their heirs the Romans operated with a layering of the sciences, where numbers permeated everything. They called it the Quadrivium, the 4-part scientific layer cake. We have already described their Trivium - the threefold division of thinking in part 1.
They saw mathematics as the foundation = the study of numbers.
They saw geometry as the study of numbers in space.
They saw music as the study of numbers in time.
They saw astronomy as the study and numbers in space and time.
They saw the final stage as philosophy, the love of knowledge.
By music the ancients did not mean harp playing and dancing, they were practitioners of the Pythagorean science of oscillations, frequencies and harmonies. They thought deeper and broader than today’s mathematical blackboard graffiti painters in the auditoriums of the Department of Theoretical Physics.
And although there was this focus on numbers in ancient times, the goal was not for numbers to rule the world and for mathematicians to be gods.
Stephen Hawking, the so-called mathematical genius in a wheelchair with all that, has a 100% mathematical approach to physics. It is remarkable that a person with so little physical physics, who lives 100% in his brain and so little in the actual physical world, is considered top-of-the-pops in physics = theoretical physics. It doesn’t get more abstract-theoretical. Hawking states:
You can’t really argue against a mathematical theorem.
Can’t you? Why can’t you? Where did you go wrong… there you go.
What he’s saying is that a mathematical theorem is like God.
You can’t doubt God, can you?
Another Stephen, mathematician Stephen R. Crothers from Tasmania, Australia, has the following statement:
Hawking was a pop scientist who ipso facto (actually) did NOTHING of value to science. Einstein was the first pop scientist promoted at one point by another entertainer Charlie Chaplin. Hawking and the Einstein cult have ruined physics and astronomy and have turned it into a circus freak show.
Science cannot just sit around and wait for them to disappear. While they are still active and kept busy, they are destroying young minds on their way into science, so that they get caught up in the same rat race and produce more pop scientists. This cycle must be broken.
This is how astronomers and cosmologists commit science: falsifiers using mass media-induced mass hysteria. You don’t believe your eyes. Think about it: According to astronomers and cosmologists, the final mass in their black holes is concentrated in a physical singularity of zero volume, infinite density and infinite gravity. But no finite mass anywhere has zero volume, infinite density, and infinite weight.
Stephen Hawking’s first wife - what motivates a woman to marry an ultra-crippled person, by the way, other than an oversized maternal instinct? and nothing bad about it - stated:
My biggest problem when I married Stephen was convincing him that he wasn’t God.
Part 4
Pier-reviewing, your good and competent colleagues read along and provide input and constructive criticism that helps ensure the quality of scientific research.
It sounds like a really good idea, doesn’t it?
We have already looked a little at the wonder in part 1.
Here, however, we also quoted Encyclopedia Brittanica, which has the formulation:
The primary function for pier reviewing is gate-keeping.
That is, to keep out anyone who is not allowed to be part of the good company.
Gatekeepers are senior and/or well-established scientists with an invested interest in a particular branch of science and its paradigm, and what is considered orthodoxy within the field. They do not let in people who are deemed to be out of place in that company.
When the philosopher Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolution, a book on the history of science, he was surprised to discover that almost all new breakthroughs in science have been met with hostility. It was in that book that he introduced the concept of paradigm shift.
Kuhn writes:
In science, innovation only occurs with difficulty, manifested as resistance, and against a backdrop of expectation.
Max Planck wrote:
Scientific truths triumph not by convincing their opponents and making them see the light, but rather because their opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up who is used to it.
One problem is that the reviewers are anonymous. This makes it unclear whether they are people with a bias because they are bound by a partnership through their work or other affiliation.
Science today is locked in paradigms. Every approach is blocked by wrong beliefs, and if you try to get something published by a journal today, you will run into such a paradigm, and the editors will reject you.
Fred Hoyle
A ‘passed’ peer review is no guarantee that a paper will be read, or that an important contribution to science will be allowed to be … an important contribution. If the branch of science with its peer pressure / professional peer pressure manages to enforce a certain paradigm or one might say paradigm, then it doesn’t matter. Or if outside forces have a sufficient interest in enforcing an interpretation or selection of an ideology with political, commercial, military or other angles and have the power to do so - and they do - then there can be as much serious science as there is, because it must die. We saw with overwhelming clarity how science was whipped, threatened, seduced into singing the same hymn and going to the same funeral march during Operation Shutdown, while a certain Dr. Fauci sat and repeated the mantra of ‘Follow the science’ - that is, the subdued version that had been hitched to his and the globalists’ wagon.
Jamal S. Shrair, scientist at Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Electrical Ingeneering and Informatics writes in International Journal of Current Research in an article The External Energy Supply to the Sun Is Overwhelmingly Obvious and has Recently Been Detected by Space Probes:
… in the standard solar model, the origin and mechanism of the sun’s magnetic field are still a mystery.
Interesting that the statement comes from Hungary, where the country’s politics have also gone against the EU authorities. Well, that’s politics, you say? It is, but hasn’t it gradually dawned on us that politics and ideology have eaten their way far into the field of science?
It is not always obvious which argument is the right one. Here, a wing of opinion can then step in and claim scientific consensus, as if it were a negotiation in a parliament, where the parties knock each other down to achieve a compromise or a political settlement, so that everyone is happy - or more often than not equally dissatisfied.
But science should not be a question of negotiation in that way. Discussions, yes, lots of discussions. Data is not always unambiguous, they are open to interpretation. But if it is not too early to conclude and agree, then isn’t this precisely where science should know itself and give its people a piece of homework for next time.
In these consensus negotiations, a group will often point out that because there are several studies that confirm their interpretation and paradigm, that must decide the matter. In other words, a purely quantitative argument.
SCIENCE IS NOT CONSENSUS AND CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE!
Consensus is politics. In science, it should be the results of the experiments themselves (quality) that decide the matter and not the number of hands raised (quantity). Because a topic has given rise to several studies, a few weighty studies can be of decisive importance.
It may well be that someone has been more skilled at raising money. Among medical researchers, with whom I have most often been in the company, there is off-the-record talk that some researchers just spew out indifferent papers because it looks better on their curriculum, and then they get more money for their projects. A review committee in a foundation is not professionally qualified to assess the quality of the titles that fill the applications. Oh, he’s probably diligent, and look - there are four A4 pages of scientific articles, so he must have some money back, because there really are some results here. 4 tightly written A4 pages of bouncy castles and wind meatballs. Or as Bruce Springsteen made into a song because he was forced to stare at stupid TV in the evenings in his hotel room on tour: Fifty-Seven Channels and NOOOthing on! He could have left it alone, of course, but in United Bluff the TV is always running in the background.
The burden of proof has been reversed…unpopular views now require extraordinary evidence. Popular views seem to require only a show of hands.
Stuart Talbott
Normal science, which is the activity in which most scientists spend most of their time, is based on the assumption that the scientific community knows how the world works. Normal science often suppresses fundamental innovations because they are inherently disruptive to what they are doing.
Thomas Kuhn (the man with the paradigm shift)
100 years earlier, the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer stated:
Truth passes through several stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Next it is violently attacked.
Finally it is accepted as self-evident.
In the final phase, when what has been ridiculed and the attack is now accepted, one will observe that the opponents try to take credit for what they have previously attacked by claiming that now… NOW! they have discovered something completely new, and their previous opponents and critics can then shrug their shoulders and state that they have been saying that for the last 50 years and shake their heads and ask: Why did you take so long? The answer is what we have described so thoroughly in these 4 articles.
Do we need to mention that popular knowledge catalogs like Wikipedia are absolutely unreliable when it comes to topics that have been affected by political correctness. Politics, science, archaeology, history fall under that threat. This is what the independent researcher Michael Cremo - author of a mop-boy book called Forbidden Knowledge - calls the great knowledge filter. Knowledge that contradicts the narrative that the ideologues of science have canonized and elevated to law and truth simply disappears, is ignored, discarded, ridiculed or character assassinated. Cremo has collected a long list of anomalies that archaeologists and historians and their institutions cannot explain. Many of them have emerged from layers that are far beyond the age that is approved as belonging to human culture. People have lost their careers and good reputations by accidentally discovering these anomalies. Because they were honorable people and could not bring themselves to speak out against better knowledge, and because they have had a - possibly naive - belief that they would be understood, they have been hated and ostracized. At the same time, they are used to set examples, because it quickly spreads throughout the entire community of colleagues that so-and-so has been slaughtered as a scapegoat for simply stating invariable facts. It could have been them themselves. In this way, science is kept in a state of fear and paralysis.
A little archaeological-historical digression - which we love here at the store - is the Great Wall of China. We have all been told that the wall was built to keep out the wild Mongols. It is a very small part of the 20,000 km long wall that is visited by tourists, and it is always the same fully restored part that we see in pictures. But most of the wall is in disrepair, and 30% of it has not been excavated at all. Those who have visited the dilapidated part have made a strange discovery. The wall is accessible from the outside, and you can climb up the sides, whereas the inside is steep and inaccessible. The arrow marks found in the masonry are on the inside and not on the outside. So the wall was not built to keep anyone out but to wall someone in. So who built the wall, and who was the wall intended for and against?
There have been no scientific innovations since the 1920s because science has become a big business that suppresses true innovation.
Gregory Chaitin, mathematician
This statement stands in stark contrast to the perception we have of the 20th century as the century of science and the perception that science has of itself. And it has now been 100 years. Chaitin says at one point in a long interview on YouTube titled Gregory Chaitin: Complexity, Metabiology, Gödel, Cold Fusion, that lightning is a phenomenon that is very poorly understood. Chaitin, who is considered one of the heavyweights in mathematics, thus recognizes that plasma and electromagnetism are phenomena that are difficult to handle with the tools that mathematicians have at their disposal. His ability for self-knowledge comes from one of his respected historical colleagues, Kurt Gödel.
Gödel formulated two incompleteness theorems.
The first states that:
Any consistent formal system that is comprehensive enough to express certain elementary parts of arithmetic will be incomplete; it will be possible to find statements in the system that can be proven or disproved, i.e., that are undecidable within the system.The second incompleteness theorem states:
In such a formal system there is a statement that expresses the system’s consistency, and that this statement is an example of an undecidable statement. This means that it is not possible in such a system to show the system’s own consistency.
These sentences are difficult to fully understand unless you are at a certain level of nerdiness. But they caused concern among mathematicians who were sure of the completeness of the system, and then this nervous genius came along, whom they could not push aside without appearing like idiots, and placed a ticking bomb under mathematical logic. Their self-confidence got a few scratches in the paint. We ended part 2 with the telling anecdote that the pseudo-genius Stephen Hawking’s wife’s first problem, according to her, was convincing him that he was not God.
Chronic abstraction is despotism. Conceived ideologies are abstractions, we will just mention Marxism, a political ideology that completely distanced itself from the realities of human existence and called speculative theories science. Abstraction is when a set of thoughts distances itself from or rises above its foundation. Helicopter perspectives can be useful for gaining an overview, but if you don’t re-establish the ground connection or have never had it, then despotism is inevitable.
An example of how cosmological statements can easily contradict themselves is a sentence with just three words that contradicts itself. The sentence is a compressed simplification of the theory of relativity that has become pop-smart to dismiss:
EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE
It only takes one wicked question to tear the sentence apart:
Does that also apply to what you just said there?
What do you mean?
Yes, you’re talking about relativism, and you’ve just fired off an absolutism by using the word EVERYTHING.
Well, yes-yes, but what I’m saying applies in all cases and contexts.
OK, but then it’s not relative anymore.
And it’s not sophisticated rhetoric to ask such a destructive question, it’s a puncture of an unthought-out statement that pretends to be well-thought-out and bulletproof. The use of that kind of pop language reveals an agenda. Reality can therefore be bent to the extreme when it suits. It’s absolute (despotic) when I say it, but it can be bent to the extreme when others say it, and I myself am exposed to it. It’s a double standard.
Everything is relative is just a pop-up misunderstanding of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus’ famous statement Panta Rhei - everything flows. Which means that everything is constantly in motion, there is nothing that is static. So it is something else.
Let’s not forget one of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th and 21st centuries:
The climate agenda and man-made global warming. The Earth’s climate is 100% controlled by the interaction between the sun’s energy field and the Earth’s. These climatic changes have occurred throughout Earth’s history. A globalist think tank called the Club of Rome devised how, via this subject, which was very little understood, and via a young and vulnerable science, climatology, they could create the basis for a new fear-guilt-and-shame-based global taxation system. Global taxation did not yet exist, so how could such a thing be established?
And no, CO2 is not a toxin - have you talked to your potted plant recently?
The strategy was the age-old one: YOU are the culprit, because the climate is man-made = YOUR fault, but WE give you the opportunity to pay for it, and if not, the Earth will perish, and it is YOUR fault! In the Middle Ages it was called paying indulgences for the forgiveness of sins. Today it is called paying your green taxes and pretending that you are oh-so-green (greenwashing). The Catholic Church / Club of Rome once again had a hand in the game.
It is an ugly story about how a piece of science was swallowed up by fascist corporatism.
Like astrophysicists, geologists and geophysicists also have a black hole - in their heads. The importance of plasma phenomena for terraforming is left out of their equations.
On the planet Mars there is a gigantic one called Vallis Marinaris - the valley of the sea. Because geologists operate with natural forces acting slowly over time, and because catastrophe theories are avoided as much as possible, they have a limited arsenal of possible explanations. The scar must mean that water has dug it out. And if that doesn’t work, then it must have been volcanic lava* that has miraculously stayed liquid for thousands of kilometers. The scars on the moon are explained in the same way, and the round craters must be caused by meteor impacts that miraculously all hit at a 900 angle to the surface, making it circular. The scars on the surface of the earth are explained in a similar way. The Grand Canyon must have been created by the Colorado River miraculously deciding to run uphill - because hey! that’s what water usually does - and over a couple of hundred million years it carved its course with razor-sharp edges.
Objections that it must be volcanic activity fall to the ground, because geologists themselves have established that there are no signs of volcanoes in the area on Mars. All the talk for decades about searching for water on Mars stems from the erroneous assumption that the ‘valley of the ocean’ must have been created by water.
As mentioned, plasma phenomena are scalable. They occur on the largest scale and the smallest + everything in between. A powerful lightning strike on an open area can create patterns that look like miniature Grand Canyons. But geologists can’t see that kind of thing.
Watch and listen:
Enigma of the Grand Canyon - video lecture by Matt Finn
These formations look as if they could have been formed yesterday. There is little evidence that they are 100s of millions of years old. Our ancestors had mythologies = direct experience and memory of intraplanetary electrical discharges that scared the life out of them. When they talk about the fire-and-thunder god Indra, the god Thor and the god Zeus, who emit their thunderbolts, that is WHAT is being told with the ancients’ imagery of natural phenomena. So the god of war Mars, as the Romans called him, got a huge scratch on his paint when he met Venus and Jupiter. Ralph Juergens (pictured), an electrical engineer and researcher from Arizona, said back in the 1970s that there was no need for a watered-down (liquid) explanation for these formations at all, that the explanation was right on the mark when studying plasma phenomena scaled down to lightning strikes.
And remember, lightning doesn’t strike, it strikes, because it’s the earth’s surface’s overload of positive ions that discharges to negative ions in the clouds. Everyone knows the oppressive atmosphere before a thunderstorm. This is because our own electrical systems in the body react to it. We also know the relieved atmosphere that comes after a thunderstorm, but we don’t attribute it to electricity. In the same way, we don’t understand why we get heavier and heavier in the head from sitting in the office with a closed system full of computers and electrical installations and devices, reinforced by the synthetic materials of the building and premises. These environments are full of positive ions, which weigh down our internal system. And when we go for a walk in the forest or by the water and maybe even take a dip in the blue wave, and experience a refreshment of the internal system, we don’t attribute it to electricity. But it is.
Should you have any doubts that the body is a refined electrical system, ask how your nervous system works. What do you think makes your heart pump? You operate constantly on low current. A cell in the body operates at 0.7 volts - and there are 50 trillion of them! In experimental closed-controlled trials, Chinese QiGong masters have been able to concentrate this cell energy (qi) and produce 220 volts! A lightning strike is 3 million volts and 30,000 amps. This usually means instant death if you get hit, but there are actually examples of people who have survived. They were not the same afterwards, it is reported. Like being struck by lightning.
Not only is the Electric Universe and its plasma foundation scalable, it is also synchronizable and analogizable. Here is a researcher named Arthur Ramthun who has mapped the formation of plant life by following the same principles as the plasma physics cosmologists:
Arthur Ramthun: Plant Electro-tropism | EU2015
We as ‘consumers’ of scientific communication should be more consumer-aware. It is not always that easy, because science does not provide a product declaration that explains how they arrived at the result and how many funny additives are in the package. There is also no such thing as a sell-by date and even less a shelf life like the Big Bang - best before 1980 or the Theory of Evolution - best before 1945, when the British Empire turned the key. Or how about: The universe - contains 99.9% dark matter and dark energy due to lack of understanding. Or like medications with a warning: This is a theory and should not be taken as definitive. Known side effects: Confusion, cognitive dissonance, reduced intelligence and mild itching of the hard bottom. And those were only the known and admitted side effects.