Science Heretics and How Humans Used to Deal with Dissent

This is what happened to people who spoke up against the belief system of the day.

Thank god I live in the 21st century. If I were doing what I am doing now in the 15th century this would be my fate.




Here is a list of pseudoscientific ideas that my readers need to learn to avoid:

1. Big Bang
2. Dark matter
3. Dark Energy
4. Black holes
5. General relativity



Do not waste your time on these pseudoscientific ideas. They will make you run around in circles trying to understand them, but alas, they are not understandable. They were never designed to be understood, they are the "magic for the masses". Ideas which have been placed at the top of the university system to discredit anybody who questions their validity. They are the Emperor's New Robes. He apparently has a complete set, one for every single day of the regular business week.

Hatred in Establishment Physics

It is true reader.

Most physicists are nasty, hateful, self centered individuals. They are vicious. The majority of them holding the reputation as the cream of the crop in society is ill-deserved. They are like lawyers, the shitty 95% make the 5% who break their backs for people look bad. The real physicists who are deserving of respect are the people who dedicate their blood, sweat and tears towards easing the suffering of humanity, absent grants, titles, money and fame. If a "scientist" isn't doing that, but using their positions in universities to put others down and for self-aggrandizement, then they are the acidic needless forms which clutter the collective mentality of society.

This is why I will now consider myself a natural philosopher. The word "scientist" is overused and reeks of hate and disgust for anything new, especially inside the mob mentality of people online, labeling new original thinkers as pseudoscience promoters.

Pseudoskeptics and their Emotional Instability

It is well known now that there are very angry people wandering the internet ridiculing people and putting them down if they dare question the authority.

Here is a thread that nails this attitude. It is almost vapid ridicule except for the person "Space Trucker".

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/stellar-metamorphosis-t44866.html

I told Mr. Chandler about it and here was his stance:

QDL Summary

"I don't know if this belongs in the astrophysics category, due to the nature of the Stellar Metamorphosis theory, or the psychology category. To date, there have been 82 posts, and none of them discuss the theory — it's all ad hom attacks. What kind of person would participate in 82 posts of ad hom attacks? What are they getting out of this? Is it a catharsis for them — are they actually nice people in real life, because they get rid of their hatred anonymously on the Internet? Or is that too much hatred to call a catharsis? IMO, this kind of stuff is mildly interesting to someone who studies the gangland mentality. Suffice it to say that if Adolf Hitler were alive today, he would have no problem finding people sure enough of their own world view that they would be willing to say (and do?) hateful things to others. Aside from that, there isn't any value in it."





It appears to me that this rational skepticism site is full of emotionally unstable people. You can go there to study this hotbed of neurosis and psychosis, but don't take it personal, people in pain always lash out at others.

My Stance on Bill Gaede's Rope Hypothesis

I do not think the universe operates via ropes (Bill's hypothesis) or particles (quantum).

Placing the vastness and the stupendous nature of the universe inside of human constructs is incredibly ignorant.

A rope? A billiard ball?

Nope. Hardly. Scientists are still clueless. They do not even have the very basics down. They cannot explain how the Earth came to be.

It is not known with certainty how planets are formed.

What Would Make a Great Book.

The similarities between Geocentrism and Big Bang Mythology, in both culture and the scientific establishment would make a great book. 

What I think Big Bang Really Is

Big Bang is religious fundamentalism. It is religion disguised as science.

It is the Kalam cosmological argument

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

   Therefore:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Georges Lemaitre proposed it. 

It is an argument for the existence of the big G-man or "God". That's all big bang is.

It is not science. It never was science. It never will be science. It is religious creationism. The religious folk are inside of the establishment. The true believers of God work inside of astronomy departments. The real priests call themselves "scientists" now.

Are you surprised? Nothing has changed. We still live in the dark ages.

Miles Mathis and his π Arguments

Miles Mathis is a very intelligent fellow. I enjoy reading his papers and ideas about things. He has a refreshing new take on almost everything math and physics related, and many of his ideas can be expanded into new avenues of thought which can branch out into thoughts of their own.

...but all gardens can have weeds...

An unwillingness to pull the weeds, when outsiders can clearly see them, is another story.

I think his argument of π equaling 4 is a weed for practicality purposes. All engineering projects use π as 3.14159... for their projects and designs, in the real world.

In math, π can probably equal any number you want, because math is not physics. In math you can have imaginary and irrational numbers. In physics there is nothing imaginary or irrational, either its there or it isn't, and it is perfect or it isn't. Mother nature doesn't half-ass things and make shit up like mathematicians do.

So my argument is stated:

1. In reality and in physics, π is 3.14159...
2. In math, π  can be any number you want.

Thus, in Miles Mathis's arguments of  π equaling 4, it does not matter. Any mathematician can argue number stuff into oblivion and it does not mean it has anything to do with reality. This is a huge problem I am seeing with mathematicians thinking they are physicists. They confuse their math formulas with real things. There should be a demarcation between math and physics, sadly there isn't anymore. 

Miles is wasting his time on me with the π stuff. I already understand math is not physics. Math can describe physical things, but it is not the Ox pulling the cart, math is the cart.

Kepler 78b, a mystery?

There are two types of "mysteries". I know, strange, but let me explain.

1.  Not actually understanding something with no alternatives. An accepted mystery.
2.  Not actually understanding something with alternatives that are not being looked into. A forced mystery.

Kepler 78b is not an accepted mystery. It is a forced mystery. The difference is in the presence of alternatives. If there is an alternative that is not being looked into, I can guarantee it is not because of the alternative not being reasonable, but because of the censorship practices and bureaucracy of establishment physics and their intolerance of new insight.

I know this because I have offered an alternative for Kepler 78b. Its a black dwarf star. It is an ancient star older than its host and was adopted as its host moved about the galaxy.

Kepler 78b is an accepted mystery for the senior scientists who believe in the 18th century nebular hypothesis. Kepler 78b is not a mystery at all for the public who is paying attention to the papers I have been writing.

Here is the paper:

Kepler 78b, the Impossible Planet

.

How to tell if the theory is a scientific one or a mathematical one

Modern science has confused math for physics.

Two good methods for determination if a theory is scientific and can be tested or is mathematical and cannot be tested is if it mentions thermodynamics. If it outright ignores thermodynamics then it is either pseudoscience such as Big Bang Creationism, black holes and spacetime warping, or if it fails to include proper thermodynamics and its consequences such as the nebular hypothesis (which gases become rocks absent a coherent background to stabilize the material) or stellar evolution, in which their models rely on stars not losing mass as they evolve, even though they radiate and are losing mass.

In conclusion:

A. If the theory ignores thermodynamics it is probably mathematical theory (pseudoscience). (Big Bang Creationism, Black Holes, spacetime warping).

B. If the theory misapplies thermodynamics it is probably wrong. (Nebular hypothesis creating Earth sized objects, accepted stellar evolution models which ignore the mass-energy equivalence principle).

Pseudoscience Disguised as Science

Black holes and spacetime warping are genuine pseudoscience. They are fool's gold. Its heavy, its gold colored, its metallic, its NOT GOLD.

I'm totally sure of it now. 100% false science. I'm still overcoming the anger of finding out how we have been strung along by fools and their "expertise".

Spacetime warping and black holes are trash. Nothing of use will come of them. No predictions, no real explanation of anything, nothing. Two of the most atrocious red herrings of the 20th century.

Wikipedia Fools Strike Again

Check out the energy page on wikipedia:

"Our Sun transforms nuclear potential energy to other forms of energy; its total mass does not decrease due to that in itself (since it still contains the same total energy even if in different forms), but its mass does decrease when the energy escapes out to its surroundings, largely as radiant energy."

This is too good. I'm going to get a screen shot of it too:

Read that statement.

"its total mass does not decrease due to that in itself..." In itself what? They didn't say anything! What happened here is the writer had a brain fart. He is assuming the Sun is a closed system in the idea that it is not losing mass, then he goes to correct himself in the next bit,

"but its mass does decrease when the energy escapes out to its surroundings, largely as radiant energy."

It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out reader. Star evolution models are based on the idea that stars are closed systems. They literally forgot their basic lessons in their first year of college (even non physics majors learn this), that when something can be see radiating, it is not closed thermodynamically!

Their star models:

"stellar evolution" on wikipedia:

"Stellar evolution is the process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime. Depending on the mass of the star, this lifetime ranges from only a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe. The table shows the lifetimes of stars as a function of their masses."

As a function of their masses? They lose mass as they radiate! The establishment's models for star evolution are bogus bull crap.

What I think of Suspicious Observers and the Channel on Youtube

I have to clarify my own thoughts concerning the youtube channel Suspicious Observers. To keep a record of events and ideas is the best option. Like a cave painting.

Cave Painting in Gua Tewet in Indonesia


I have not found any papers written by Suspicious Observers (of course that is not his name, his initials are BD) on the General Science Journal or Vixra.org. This is where an outsider who has genuine interest in theory development would publish their ideas.

All scientists have papers published, heretic or not.

Where are all SO's papers? Where are his own ideas? Where are his cave paintings?

Pierre-Marie Robitaille on the Invalidity of Kirchhoff's Law of Emission

Kirchhoff's Law of Emission is invalid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw

Watch at your own risk.

The Second Rational Science Conference

http://www.rationalphysics.info/

All the information is on the site. Just click and follow.

Mr. Alexander Unzicker and the Standard Model is Crap

I agree that the standard model is crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NOaYu-AxsI

People should really pay attention. They are learning nonsense if they study particle physics.

Scientism is the New Religion (What to look for when navigating the internet)

Analytic philosopher Susan Haack lists what she considers six signs of scientism:



1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise. (you'll see this all over TV, Neil D. Tyson does this a lot!)

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. (writing papers full of lingo and no real meaning, in other words, when simple language can explain results but they choose not to use it to make the paper sound "technical")

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters. (This is all over the place, like the site dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.com, and rationalwiki.org  where dishonorable anonymous trolls vilify real people.)

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful. (this is all over the place too, people have to learn how to spot it out, a big thing is the difference between technology and science itself, the two are not the same, a technological discovery is not necessarily a scientific one, think language)

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. (ALL over the place)

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. (or even a human being's intuition, which isn't recognized by the new religion)

And I have a #7 from my own experience:

7. When there is only one interpretation for a given phenomenon. (when there is only one theory for a given natural phenomenon, we can guarantee only one ideology is being pushed, in other words, the others are being censored for the sake of the prescribed belief)


I have extensive experience with #7. The reader should be made aware there is only one "accepted model" for star evolution. You know why this is now. The current model for star evolution is a belief system. It is scientism in its raw form. Stars ARE fusion reactors. Stars' life spans can ONLY be determined by their mass. Stars can NEVER solidify into condensed matter. Stars can NEVER be made of gaseous matter.

With my new theory I break the chains of establishment stellar scientism. Read it if you want.

stellar metamorphosis