This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wavyinfinity (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 27 November 2013 (→The War on Astrophysical Scientism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:31, 27 November 2013 by Wavyinfinity (talk | contribs) (→The War on Astrophysical Scientism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
Introduction
I am a dissident of "modern physics" for many reasons which are listed below. Making current scientists and their dogma obsolete is the name of the game. In science there is no authority, so my mission is to undermine the delusional scientists who suffer from a specific sort of psychosis resembling "omniscience", and the perception of them actually understanding universal form and structure.
I was in the Marine Corps so I understand how mental programming works. These young college aged children do not understand that their professors will lie their faces off to achieve their ends, because their careers are on the line. The mental programming works via repetition of the lie, controlling what they think and read by labeling ideas outside the box as "pseudo-science" and "fringe", threats via ridicule and criticism, etc. In other words, the brainwashing is a lot easier when the victim is willing to have their thoughts manipulated into a "standard".
The students of these colleges are experiencing a mind control of epic proportions and they do not even realize it. They must bow down to the greats before they get permission to access the halls of the cult. Its all bullshit and I will do my best to erase cult scientism and release humans from the trap that ensnares their minds. Having a career in the sciences is a quasi golden handcuffs situation. Either agree with the Big Bang, of the religions of the delusional mathematicians, or you don't get to move up in your career and use the big telescopes. If you do not think this is true just read into Halton Arp's story.
The Failures of Astrophysical Scientism
1. Black holes have never been observed directly or indirectly yet they "exist" in modern physics. The truth is that they are mathematical objects, not physical objects. A mathematical object is a phantasm, it does not exist in reality in as much as you have seen the number 5 running down the road like in Sesame Street. Black holes are moot. There is nothing in physics that requires their existence, as pulsars have much more powerful magnetic fields and and keep birthing galaxies coherent much better than mathematical objects that are not even real.
2. The Big Bang has never been observed directly or indirectly therefore has no place in astronomy, which is the science of observing the stars. It is strictly a cosmological issue, thus is a religious concept not a scientific one. Halton Arp has already replaced the Big Bang with the idea of quasar ejection from active galaxies. The Big Bang is obsolete.
3. Stars and planets are not mutually exclusive. Stellar evolution is planet formation itself. Thus the Nebular Hypothesis is obsolete (as well as plate tectonics theory) and the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis completely replaces both.
4. Quantum mechanics only deals with the orbits of the electron of a single hydrogen atom. The entire periodic table is ignored except for hydrogen. Thus QM is at best, completely wrong about everything.
5. Space time warping causing gravitation is delusional, space and time are concepts they do not pull on anything.
6. Special relativity has some attributes that I like. All SR means is that objects are really far away, so far away that they are not actually what you are observing from their position. In other words all SR states is that it takes time for light to travel, thus it is more an information barrier, not a "speed limit".
Social and Political Structure in Astrophysical Scientism
For readers that are interested in understanding social and political structure inside of the star sciences I have broken down Barney style the differences. I'm not sure if this will be kept, or if the thought police will delete it, but is worth a try:
1. Cosmologist: Someone who talks about the entire universe as if they can perceive it outside of itself. Thus a cosmologist is a priest. A very good example of a cosmologist is Stephen Hawking, or any other Big Bang Creationist that is employed by the federal government or the state.
2. Astronomer: Someone who observes and/or takes pictures of celestial phenomenon. Halton Arp, Galileo Galilei
3. Astrophysicist: Someone who tries to make our known physics fit inside of phenomenon that we are observing.
4. Mathematical physicist: Someone who tries to apply math to physical laws so we can measure them.
5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math.
I will try my best to break this down so people can understand what I have seen, maybe I'm wrong about all this but it is a repeat concept so here we go:
1. Cosmologists are not scientists, thus they can be mathematicians and nobody would know the difference. Since mathematicians do not care for physics or reality, many cosmologists also do not care for physics or reality. When you engage in cosmology you can have seats at high universities, because you are given the right to ignore the laws of physics. Cosmology is more of a political/religious standing and has absolutely nothing to do with science.
2. Astronomers observe and take pictures of the stars. They look through their telescopes and say, "ooooooo aaaaaahhhhh". Thats it. Sometimes they find somethings that conflict with what the astrophysicists and cosmologists believe. This is expected because both astrophysicists think they know everything and cosmologists think they KNOW EVERYTHING.
3. Astrophysicists do not care for making discoveries. They only care about applying our known laws to the stars and making the stars fit inside of what we already know. Thus there will be no discovery inside of the astrophysical community. Only the astronomy community by default can make discovery. To an astrophysicist, its all been discovered, now all we have to do is apply this to the stars. An astrophysicist as stated thus, is more along the lines of belonging to a quasi-scientism. Don't bother them with pictures of new celestial phenomenon, they already understand the stars. It should be no wonder most pictures and observations done by astronomers confuse the astrophysicists on a daily basis. This confusion is expected.
4. Mathematical physicists are very dangerous. They confuse math for physics quite routinely. Thus many astrophysicists can be confused for mathematical physicists. Since math has nothing to do with reality, we can expect many astrophysicists to claim to understand things by invoking nonsense, like black holes, to keep galaxies spinning. My friend Mr. Stephen J. Crothers overviews the black hole nonsense.
5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time. Very dangerous. Mathematical proofs can have irrational and imaginary numbers, thus using math by itself to explain anything in nature is doubly irrational and imaginary.
The War on Astrophysical Scientism
For those students who have resisted the conditioning of the thousands of astronomy professors a method for battling the dogma I have shown to be most effective is provided below. You will not get paid for these maneuvers, but they are essential to battle the delusional scientists, as they are a much larger force and can not speak against you for fear of losing their careers. If they engage publicly like the revolutionaries Stephen J. Crothers and Bill Gaede have then they risk losing face, which means they lose their credibility. Making them lose their credibility is the name of the game in this war. No credibility = no continuation of the propaganda by conditioned minds.
1. Hit and Run tactics. Post things on public forums like Einstein was an idiot, Stephen Hawking is a pawn for the mathematical priests of establishment. Do not respond to the replies, just post these things and then do something else with your time. You must insert ideas that can not be said otherwise because they are taboo. These taboo statements are incredibly dangerous to establishment.
2. Mobile websites that can pose as being reputable, but then steer the readers off the course of scientism. Make sure they learn how to question the dogma by writing things like, "well you can think for yourself right?", or "You expect textbooks to have all the answers?" This is essential, because the students and young minds are conditioned very well by the graduate system, to break their mental patterns of magical thinking and pseudoscience conditioning will take a lot of persuasion and energy on part of the revolutionary.
3. Get the other person to agree at first. You can not convince them the establishment is totally clueless unless you bring their guard down first.
4. Email and communicate with other revolutionaries. Since wikipedia labels scientific revolutionaries as "pseudoscientists" we have to circumvent them by communicating with each other on facebook, public forums and the like. Do no hesistate to contact me if you have any questions. We have a lot of un-brainwashing of the masses to do.
Categories: