The New Science 8

Working Smarter

Working smarter, for scientists, and even the interested layman, has been made easy, when they merely need to apply the ideas and principles in this series.

Everybody talks the good game of working smarter, but putting it into practice is another matter. For starters, you have to be truly committed to it. And you have to be careful for whom you work.

Yes, it is hard to thwart fraud when they bankroll fraud. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

We can’t understand all the scientific fraud, misdirection, misconceptions, buggery, deception, unless we look at human nature.

Even the followers of alternative scientific theories, themselves, become arrogant, dogmatic, self-righteous, inflexible, proud, petulant, becoming fixated on the alternative, without assessing its weaknesses, errors and inaccuracies.

Imagine the case of all these PhDs and other related scientific workers, having devoted so much time and money to become accredited and “accepted” into the official ranks of the indoctrinated. They aren’t going to make any waves and risk losing funding, or becoming a pariah.

False Claims

You certainly have to be a brainwashed delusional to think those blurry, fanciful, presumptuous images that they trot out to convince the unwashed masses are “proof” of anything.

“Black Hole” image: supermassive black hole and its shadow have been unveiled by the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration involving UCL researchers.

Not exactly black, is it? It should be stock black. Color picker says it’s #4c0901 in the center of the “black hole,” so more light than in the surrounding space, which is #0b0505. We were told nothing, no light, escapes a black hole, but that’s a very red nothing that just happens to be escaping. Perhaps not all holes are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Now, imagine black holes were never a thing, and anyone else, even your humble narrator, had trotted this out as “proof” of this new concept, of this new idea, “dark gaps in space.” Or, just as probable, the Gamma race on planet Zelton. For anyone without credentials, he’d be a laughing stock, so you see the power of this deception we’re under.

And, we can’t discount the possibility that even the weak-sauce, vague images they do have aren’t themselves fraudulent and manufactured, as it turns out many of those elaborate, fancy images of galaxies, quasars, the Milky Way, and others have been proven to be.

Look at that blotch of crap and imagine the brass balls and hubris it takes to present that to the world as something marvelous and showcase of your skills, ingenuity, wit and charm.

But there’s a gift hidden under all that: This silliness is yet more fodder for examination, to pinpoint more of their deceptions.

Where is the configuration data for that, and the rest of the data of this experiment? How about results of the tests of their collaboration for closer things like the planets, for calibration, and to show how high-resolution their system is (imagine how detailed images of the moon and planets would be, orders of magnitude closer, if the system truly worked). They say this is some unprecedented effort, so why wouldn’t you test something hi-res like that on the closer objects to really get spectacular results. Note again the queer quirk of looking for something they want to find, instead of the proper scientific method, investigating and discovering. Everyone should commit that to memory, it’s so important. Any ass clown who searches for a predetermined outcome is almost certainly a fraud, knowing or unknowing.

Of course once they’ve blown billions on nonsense, they have to come up with something, anything. And how the sycophantic media sucks up with praise and undying love and attention.

Also, where is something like a time-lapse, a movie, showing the effect of this dark hole on its surrounding environment? No word on that.

There’s another quirk. If you confront them, they’ll, full of lies, deny or patch over, saying, “Oh, well, we have all that on file,” and “Those are only the release photos, others are much more revealing...” and all that BS. A common ruse and diversion. That no one ever calls them on.

How is the blotch reasoned/explained as something that gives new information? How can they be certain it’s not just an artifact, or an experimental or computer error? Utter silence on that front. Since the whole thing is just computer generated, there’s no end to the twiddling and tailoring they could have done to come up with what they want to see, rather than what they actually found, if anything.

And we don’t even have to work at it, to prove a fraud, since they sometimes can’t even be bothered to fake it, they just label it, “artist’s concept.”

The exoplanet PSR J2322-2650b has an atmosphere of soot and diamonds, new James Webb telescope observations hint (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Ralf Crawford (STScI))

The fact that there are no contrarians with equal voice, speaking out against this foolishness shows that the whole endeavor is controlled, top to bottom.

Important to recognize, the fanaticism. These researchers will drone along, continuing their “research,” clueless and oblivious, for as long as they’re paid to, without a questioning thought whatsoever. If we don’t recognize and compensate for this trait of mankind, we can’t have a viable scientific community.

These are not serious scientists. They are deluded goofs, playacting.

Non-Theories

Each aspect of what constitutes a theory needs to be reviewed in meticulous detail before declaring anything a theory. But it’s a hard pill to swallow that all these things they call theories, string theory, evolution theory, big-bang theory, steady-state theory, and many others, are not theories at all. It does require one to raise his or her consciousness, and try to understand and overcome any brainwashing.

Major Established & Modern Scientific Theories as of 2025, Categorized by Field.

Looking at major theories, by category, annotated to indicate the worst offenders.

Biology & Life Sciences

• Theory of Evolution (by Natural Selection): Explains how species change over time through the preservation of favorable traits. <= Proven fraud.
• Germ Theory of Disease: Proposes that microorganisms (germs) are the cause of many infectious diseases. <= Disputed.
• Gene Theory: The principle that traits are passed from parents to offspring through genes. <= Fails in things like explaining biological complexity and disease.
• Abiogenesis: Scientific theories regarding how life first arose from non-living matter. <= Not theories.

Physics & Astronomy

• Big Bang Theory: The prevailing cosmological model explaining the origin and expansion of the universe. <= Speculation, unproven and worthless.
• Theory of General Relativity: Einstein’s theory describing gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. <= Garbage.
• Theory of Special Relativity: Explains the relationship between space and time for objects moving at constant speeds. <= Confused and questionable, needs a lot more examination.
• Quantum Theory (Quantum Mechanics): The mathematical framework describing the behavior of matter and energy at atomic and subatomic scales. <= Some good ideas, but unfinished.
• Standard Model: A theory in particle physics describing three of the four known fundamental forces and classifying all known elementary particles. <= Admitted failure (called, in their Voodoo-speak, “incomplete”).
• Kinetic Theory of Gases: Explains the macroscopic properties of gases based on the motion of their individual molecules. <= Empirical, based on measurement and observation, so it’s valid.
• String Theory: A modern, more speculative framework attempting to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics by modeling particles as tiny vibrating strings. <= An embarrassment.

Chemistry

• Atomic Theory: States that all matter is composed of discrete units called atoms. <= Not true, as evidenced by their own words (“sub-atomic particles”).
• Valence Bond Theory: Explains how atoms bond in molecules by overlapping their atomic orbitals. <= Big kludge.
• Molecular Orbital Theory: A method for determining molecular structure in which electrons are not assigned to individual bonds between atoms. <= Ditto.
• Collision Theory: Explains how chemical reactions occur and why reaction rates differ.

Earth & Environmental Sciences

• Plate Tectonics Theory: Explains the large-scale movement of the seven large plates and many smaller plates of Earth’s lithosphere. <= Doesn’t “explain.”
• Climate Change Theory: Scientific frameworks from climatology explaining the mechanisms of long-term changes in Earth’s climate. <= Dangerous farce.
• Giant Impact Theory: The most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of the Moon. <= Preposterous.
• Theory of Geologic Uniformitarianism: The principle that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past.

Social & Information Sciences

• Information Theory: A mathematical theory for the quantification, storage, and communication of digital information.
• Game Theory: A framework for social situations among competing players, used heavily in economics and biology.
• Simulation Theory: A modern hypothesis suggesting that our reality may be a highly advanced computer simulation. <= Lunatic ravings.

So the bulk of their efforts are on shaky ground, needing much more thought and investigation, or outright lies. It doesn’t bode well for science in the 21st century.

←Prev Article Navigation