The New Science 7
A Strange Encounter
Speaking to an accredited scientist, he voiced a lament that it was hard to come up with new discoveries. He was wanting to be the next “Einstein,” of course. Well, when your principles are wrong, based on fake theories, and your research is down blind alleys because you haven’t taken the trouble to be sure you know what you’re doing, how can you — or anyone — innovate or be a discoverer? It’s pure nonsense. But it exposes the brainwashing we endured, that we can be wondrous beings (like Saint Einstein) if we come up with some great “theory.” Better to try to devise great research to conduct. But most scientists are not great, and cannot be great if they can’t figure that out for themselves.
Complete Disclosure
Here’s a vital topic. Any theories or conclusions introduced out of the blue (especially those with great fanfare) need to be accompanied by complete disclosure, which means there is none of this, “Hey everybody, listen up: E=mc2 is what you’re supposed to recite now,” BS. You don’t just lay something like that on people without paving the way first. If you want to introduce anything in that vein, you give the derivation, and all the thought that went into that derivation. That is invaluable stuff.
Take that crap, “String Theory.” You’d always introduce a summary of what you meant by “strings,” and a brief synopsis of all the reasoning that went your deductions and conclusions. Obviously that ties in deeply with the concept of “public review,” where things are put out there in all their glory — or goriness — for public inspection and critiquing.
Science Branch Retirement
To decide on what fields of study need to be trash-canned, we can employ some principles.
The Dialectic
Nothing new under the sun. We’ve alluded to this ancient knowledge, in previous articles, the dialectic. Knowledge that seems to have been conveniently lost. It is reasoned discussion, considering opposing viewpoints. Not trying to win or lose, simply to arrive at the truth. That highly effective device has been cast to the wayside, because it’s a hindrance if you’re trying to pull a fast one.
With the dialectic, you can grind out the kernel of truth between differing beliefs (as long as you remember everyone’s ideas might all be wrong). Naturally, once you’ve come to the truth, you know what scientific fields to discard immediately. We already learned the truth about fields like paleontology, which is a total sham, meaning it has to be erased and thrown into the hall of shame for eternal ridicule.
Sanity Check Principles
- Assess whether something makes any sense to study. It makes no sense to study abstractions like “the beginning of time,” “black holes,” etc. Too vague, and, importantly, not verifiable.
- There needs to be an explanation for why mainstream science rejects each and any alternative viewpoint, and again, this must be subject to public review.
- Just jumbling some symbols into a mathematical formula doesn’t mean it’s true.
- It’s very important that scientists be sincere, and admit when their theories have failed, not continually beat a dead horse when ideas lead nowhere.
Bad Theories Principle
If your area of science is plagued with bad theories, or, is deadlocked, as the following delusional jester describes, you have no science.
Looking back, I’m gratified at how far we’ve come but disappointed that a connection to experiment continues to elude us. While my own research has migrated from highly mathematical forays into extra-dimensional arcana to more applied studies of string theory’s cosmological insights, I now hold only modest hope that the theory will confront data during my lifetime.
Even so, string theory’s pull remains strong...
- Brian Greene, mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics, in Smithsonian Magazine
This dingbat is representative of modern mainstream science foibles. If there’s no experimental evidence, you have no science. They’ll never get that through their thick skulls.
Just to clarify, “no connection to experiment,” means useless, worthless, unrealistic, and with no tether to reality. The admission is proof that String Theory is a farce. “String theory’s pull” indeed.
String Theory has: no field equations, no new physics, no experimental validation; therefore, and here is the hard part, it is not physics. It doesn’t matter how much “scientists” whine and cry and make up stories about its greatness.
In another farcical assertion, a “cosmologist” says the source of Carborado (black diamond) is a supernova, 8 billion years ago.
What is the point of such a statement?
It accomplishes nothing, and, of course, is unprovable, and, doesn’t do anything to advance science.
It, and things like “String Theory,” act to retard science.
But it’s all right, as long as a few bastiches get their “gratification,” their accolades.
The admission that there’s no experimental evidence is sufficient to give us grounds to dissolve the entire phony edifice of “String Theory.” If they want to study it, on their own time and own nickel, have at it, but not one cent is to be squandered of the public’s money. Same deal for the stupidity of the nuclear fusion quest, one of biggest boondoggles. They’ve been working on that crock for decades now. Any sane system would have shut down the fraud long ago.
Inconsistency
Eric Dubay mentioned the very pertinent point that, that which is inconsistent is not evidence! He was explaining the nonsense of the Foucault Pendulum, which has been called out as fake some time ago. Supposedly it demonstrates the rotation of Earth, but it turns out that it does nothing of the sort, and moves in all sorts of different ways, usually dependent upon the type of bearing it possesses.
But that doesn’t stop them trying to sell you despite the inconsistency. Fortunately for us, coming from a higher place of understanding, we can honor inconsistency as a tool in our search for truth and reality. Any inconsistency in a theory (and we’ve tried to hammer a similar point home in The New Logic), invalidates that theory.
How the fakers must despise the pendulum, and trip over themselves to come up with excuses and phony explanations for its “misbehavior.” Recall that it doesn’t do their bidding in deep mine shafts, either, not hanging straight down (technically, pointing towards the center of the Earth, which, given the scale involved, is effectively straight). No, it hangs at all kinds of crazy angles, and the misfits never seem to understand that the claim it should point to center is a mere theory, and this is contrary evidence. So they make up arguments about material density affecting gravity, though it seems that we could set up a relatively simple test experiment right up on the surface, by seeing if something accelerates more rapidly than normal in a fall above a dense mountain, say.
Fakery in Science
Part of any scientific endeavor needs to be a study of and for fakery. It is beyond irresponsible to assume there is no fakery going on in official science (especially when there is so much of it in actuality).
Scientists and reviewers and proctors of these scientists need to examine the question, “If this is fake, what changes?” among other things. And these analyses need to be saved, and presented as requested for public scrutiny.
We can use court rules as a guideline here. For example, in court, if a witness tells one lie, all the rest of that witness’s testimony is discredited and can be disregarded. There’s usually no reason to lie if you have the truth on your side.
Another court-style guideline: preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s no moon mission or space stuff, no Quantum Computing (Q.C.), no dinos or Evolution, since the evidence just isn’t there. We should note that even if something does exist, we still need that evidence before we can integrate it into our body of knowledge, and until then it remains an open question, or simply a target for ridicule, like in the case of Evolution theory, which we have proven as so blatantly wrong to never be redeemed.
Another guideline: If there are some fakes, we have no idea how many others there are, that are just better faked. Insanity reflecting back is when a person doesn’t understand that if you’ve found one fake, you’ve likely discovered that there are many others, not that you’ve found them all. A comment on Reddit mentioned how someone tried to gloss over the National Geographic con act where they falsified a bird-dino and tried to pass it off as authentic. So some turd jumps in to say that a farmer passed it off to Nat. Geo. and “when real scientists got a hold of it, they quickly proclaimed it fake.” Nat. Geo. presumably has real scientists who could and should have checked, Mr. Hankie. The human garbage that fall all over themselves to defend nonsense are intolerable. They can’t all be paid off, can they? Then why the hell are they so adamant?
Looking for the Cheat
Always look for the cheat. Is there profit in faking it? Can it be faked? That has to always be part of your analysis. How unimaginative and naive does someone have to be to think that there’s no profit to be had from over-selling something like A.I. or Q.C.?
Claims Must Be Supported
For the life of the claim, the onus is on the person making the positive claim. It’s not up to the person rejecting their claim, provided that person can point to a flaw, an obfuscation, or some other anomaly.
“We went to the moon!” “O.K., let’s see those old telemetry tapes.” “No can do, we taped over them and lost them, you filthy conspiracy theorist.”
Now that’s an indication of deception, but how do we proceed from there? The answer is to again turn to the courts, and their method of dealing with obfuscation and misdirection: The loss of the tapes weighs against the credibility of the moon missions. Which means that they have no case, since those tapes and some (proven fake) moon rocks are pretty much their only evidence. The moon missions are therefore, for all practical purposes, a gigantic fraud, we don’t have to have 100% certainty.
If, say, we were making regular trips to the moon which anyone could go on, we could be certain enough that the moon missions were true. That is to say, there are probably no absolute assurances of anything, but there are satisfactory assurances. Because it is an imperfect world, we need a tool, a strategy. In the case of moon missions, we need a high degree of certainty to accept their reality. There is no reason, in giving “the benefit of the doubt” to anyone when big claims are made. There’s money at stake, credibility, the scientific method, history... there is no end to the danger, and no benefit to believing a lie, except to benefit the scammers.
Strictness
Act as if claims are false, until proven. This is easy to do and will nip in the bud a lot of these scams, making everyone’s life easier.
You can see the power of this in the case of the moon missions. “Hey everyone, look at us, we went to the moon!” The proper response to that is, “Great job guys, now go away and come back later with proof. We’ll believe you when there are regular flights to the moon for everyone.” That would be the scientific response, the sensible response.
Always hold in mind the option that the claimant is faking.
So, we need to treat all claims and theories, as if they are being tried in a court of law, with the burden of proof on the proponent of the claim.
So How Do We Judge a Theory?
It’s nonsense that we can’t conclusively determine the facts.
The technique is the same one as used in courtrooms, preponderance of the evidence. (Except that science needs be held to a higher standard than court, due to the effects it has on people’s lives, the money it burns like a bonfire).
It’s easier to discredit/nullify a theory than “prove” it.
Nowadays, the enlightened individual has to accept that most everything is a lie.
Comments