comment + criticism welcome

"Perceptions" ITEM
Copyright © 2008 Ray Dickenson

TRADUZIR

Blind Science

"Our knowledge is finite, but our ignorance is nearly infinite" - George Gore - 19th Cent.
"We are going along guessing the laws" - Richard P. Feynman - 20th Cent.
"Few scientists nowadays seriously believe that their laws are true" - Profs. Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart - 1994
"What the scientists say now is likely to be false" - Nigel Calder - '04
"Every cosmology book in the library is out-of-date, in fact, wrong" - Michio Kaku - '05
"We know no more than we did in 1975 - and that's not good" - Lee Smolin - 07 Mar '07 - (BBC: R3)

"Science fails in Explanation" - Lorenz, Darwin et al

WHY'RE SCIENTISTS SCARED?

Let's try some simple examples, and ask what `science' actually knows of the following

Rays of light - how do they work?

i) Classicists are forced to say - "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" - giving no cause; or "they take quickest paths"^* - again giving no cause.
* `quickest' = shortest in space-time

ii) Quantum "theorists" - (who pretend lab facts are a "theory") are forced to say - "they must travel all possible paths in advance, then travel a "superposition path" - but can give no cause - (of how that `time-travel' could be accomplished).

All our sensations from the outside world, indeed all energy transfers, are enabled via photons (including light & harder radiation), which remain a mystery to mainstream science:-
"Photons, electrons and protons have become about as meaningless to the physicist as `x, y z' are to a child on its first day of learning algebra" Sir James Jeans

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. ... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." - Albert Einstein 1954

"We still don't have a good idea of how a photon exists in reality" - Dr. James P. Siepmann, Editor - Journal of Theoretics

Scientist have gotten themselves in a muddle through `quantum' misunderstandings. The real (effective) path of a photon is not limited to the experiment area. It is the total possible future path: from original exitation / movement of electrons all the way to infinity in any one direction.

Some illustrations of this at `radiation' page for causal explanation. General write-up at timeprob page

Arrow of Time
QUOTE
"One of the greatest mysteries in science is the distinction between the past and the future. At a subatomic level, neither the old ideas of classical mechanics nor the modern theory of quantum mechanics distinguish between the past and the future"
UNQUOTE - John Gribbin - "Companion to the Cosmos" ISBN 0-297-81725-6

When a theory can't account for a fact that theory is `incomplete' (plain wrong).

Mainstream physicists don't understand that we, and all things made of matter, are embedded in space-time by the multiple re-clenching, quadrillions of times* each second, of space-time's binding energy.

And that the real reason for all biological organisms' ability to "age and die" is that constant subtle change in space-time's energy / matter ratio.

* At what `speed'? Try c². Yes, that c.
And what's the shape / form of the field? Try √ -1. Yes, that's square root of -1 (a complete, but central, mystery to most scientists) which says it's radial, and with incoming and outgoing effect, to create, energize and bind matter.
See:- RADIATION & TIME

Pendulums are found in clocks like this. Science knows what they do down here on Earth, swing at a rate depending on bob weight, length of suspension etc. But a free pendulum does much more.

If you hang one at the North Pole - at Earth's northern axis point - and start its first swing towards Cassiopeia and back - towards Ursa Major maybe, the pendulum will continue to swing from Cassiopeia to Ursa Major - and back - all day long, although you (and the Earth) are rotating around it;
[the same effect at lower latitudes - Foucault's pendulum]

The pendulum will move in a 24 hour circle, to follow those stars. Ask a scientist why and he'll say - "Ah, let's see, that's Mach's Principle isn't it" or some such - which means "I don't know why it does that"

A `pendulum' is a semi-gyroscope - Yes? See below

Try footnotes3#gyro & Coriolis `force' & earlieruef#Mach (note UEF was once called CBGR)

The Gyroscope. Science knows a lot of detail of what it does - on or near the Earth.

But try asking what it does in intergalactic space?, or "how", or "why" it works anywhere? You'll simply be told - "Gyroscopic principle".

Even the best scientific descriptions lack any real explanation of gyroscope's attributes or its habit of precession.
BTW, here's a precession quick-explanation. You won't find it elsewhere.

Along with gyroscopes is the presently unexplained stability of spinning tops, bicycles etc.. These all demonstrate the same effects.

Try footnotes3#gyro for background and footnotes3#know for new discovery (in case of possible N.A.S.A claim).

Also uef/earlieruef#Gyroscopic (note that UEF was once called CBGR).

"Gravity" - didn't Newton (or maybe Einstein?) define and explain all that? Don't we have a "Universal Law of Gravity"?

NO - Both Newton and Einstein only attempted to mathematically describe the effects of "gravity" - which is not a `force' but merely a shadow in an `effect'.

Newton always said he couldn't figure out how "gravity" actually worked.

Then Lord Kelvin flatly stated - "Present science has no right to attempt to explain gravitation. We know nothing about it. We simply know NOTHING about it."

More recently, Feynman admits "there is no model of the theory of gravitation today ..."

NO - Apparently that gravity effect isn't even "universal" - mainstream science now says it changes between certain size / density thresholds.
I.e. below proton size (and for `light') gravity's "wrong". And if you're much larger than supra-galactic size:- gravity doesn't `attract' - it `repels'!

But didn't Einstein prove that light obeyed gravity? No! The math only showed that `moving photons are influenced by the field that causes `gravity effect' (& inertia) - fairly obviously.

So scientists've gotten no further than Newton (or Einstein). Confusedly clinging to `magic forces' (really effects), they can't find the cause of gravity - which anyway is really only a shadow in an effect.

You can abolish "gravity" - then check those thresholds..

Insect - and bird - navigation. Again lots of detail of tests, of "hopeful" results, with magnets, lights, brain maps etc. etc. . but no real knowledge of how or why.

Here's an example of false trails being followed.

Try footnotes3.html#gyro.
Also try uef/earlieruef#Possible (note that UEF was once called CBGR).

Angular momentum

Wondering what an ice-dancer was doing at top of page?
If that skater starts into a spin, in that attitude, she will spin slowly - then, if she draws that leg and those arms in, straightening her body at the same time, she will spin faster and faster as she pulls more mass towards the "axis" of revolution.

Like - swing a brick on a string then `shorten' the string - by putting a tree in the way? The brick suddenly (& dangerously) accelerates! If you try it - use a plastic brick!

Ask why and you only get a description of what - "conservation of angular momentum" - and lots of impressive words.

Here's your intro and explanation of Coriolis Force - just angular momentum really.

And there's another common science misunderstanding about momentum.

Thresholds Why don't `gases' behave like 'liquids' or 'solids'; why do they all differ from each other?
Indeed why do our bodies hold together instead of vaporising to a thin mist? Introduction here.

Maxwell - perhaps the greatest scientific discoverer - almost partly found out why. But at the last moment he allowed himself to be swayed by the establishment need for a 'kinetic', mechanical, seemingly controllable universe.
Maxwell had actually concluded that gas molecules were repelled from each other as they are in reality, responding to the dynamics of space; however the 'kineticist' ethos of the day - still persisting now - made him abandon the concept.

Since then we've been saddled with imaginary molecular "collisions" - Forcing a mishmash of irregular ad hoc - made-up - `gas laws' with no foundations.

UEF thresholds are intimately linked to `entropy', which mainstream science does not yet understand. Maybe try search for "UEF thresholds".

Actually R J Boscovich almost got it right in 1763 (or maybe earlier), only he met the superstitious belief in magic "forces" (plural), as every physicist since has done.

UEF intro at footnotes, more at smt; result at topology.

Crystal formation

Crystals form in a denser, more regular pattern - if far away from Earth's surface.
But down here they grow in a looser, less regular pattern.

And, confidentially, if you were to grow crystals at the center of the Earth - protected, & at atmospheric pressure of course - they would grow in a regular pattern again, but even more loosely.

But don't tell a scientist that. They don't really know how crystals form - and that scares them!

Why? - 'Cos some crystal formations demand "Instantaneous transfer of Information" - Which `blind science' (see below) still says is impossible!

Try also smt & crystal

11 "Clockwise" - In the South / "Anti-clockwise" - In the North

What are we talking about, the monsoons?, the Gulf Stream?, the Trade Winds?
No, we're talking about 'planes
passenger plane

Those things some people go on holiday in. Haven't the scientists told you?

Well, a plane or a ship - or even a cannonball for that matter - will veer off course to the right if moving north from equator, or to the left if moving south from the equator.

[So the winds of identical storm - a "low" - spin clockwise in South, anti-clockwise in North]

This effect increases as you get closer to the poles - but doesn't exist at all at the equator.

Ask the scientist why this happens and s/he'll answer Coriolis Force" - or `effect' really - possibly adding "Conservation of Angular Momentum" - if s/he's very sharp.

It's really the ice skater again, but Earth sized this time.
Yes, we know what happens - the scientist can't give a "why" or "how".

Here's the real cause of `Coriolis forces'.

Why is "gravitational mass" exactly proportional to "inertial mass"? A big problem for modern physics.

"The notion of mass as gravitational charge is perhaps the best "theoretical" notion of mass we have. Note that this idea of mass is qualitatively different from the idea of "inertial mass": that quantity which makes it difficult to change the velocity of an object. That these two quantities, gravitational charge and inertial mass, are equal, is another of the fundamental mysteries of physics." - www.rwc.uc.edu

Newton and then Einstein couldn't quite figure it out.
"This experience - of the equal falling of all bodies in the gravitational field - is one of the most universal which the observation of nature has yielded; but in spite of that the law has not found any place in the foundations of our edifice of the physical universe." A Einstein, writing in Annalen der Physik,35.
Yes, same problem: inertial mass proportional to gravitational mass. Einstein's math forced him to opt for `rubber sheet myth' of Relativity but without causes & no explanation.

"The reason why things coast for ever has never been found out. The law of inertia has no known origin" Richard P Feynman in The Character of Physical Law (1965) 1992 ISBN 0-14-017505-9.

"It is a curious and still not fully understood phenomenom that the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are always exactly the same." John Gribbin in Companion to the Cosmos 1996 ISBN 0-297-81725-6.

Today we find mainstream scientists trying to decribe a holistic universe while still using `Newtonian' mathematics and mind-sets - claiming that `momentum = mass × velocity'. Yet we now know that momentum = inertia!

So - another term is needed in that equation, and that term is made up of a universal effect, strongly modified by non-local but adjoining conditions.

How do we know that? UEF theory says so - but more visibly: because individual radio-active elements have unique `half-life patterns' of decay.

That would be impossible if `atoms are identical and self-defined' - as our presently Newtonian or atomist scientists would appear to think. Conclusion - any matter's attribution of mass / inertia is informed and changed, instantaneously and non-locally, by the rest of the universe.

Anomalous spacecraft movements
Well, of course scientists should know all about satellite and spacecraft behavior - they built them didn't they?

Even so, scientists don't know why spacecraft behave as they sometimes do.

Try "verified" and "latest news"
For more immediate & damaging effects, try fertility.

More experts' misunderstandings & possible dangers here -

planet's change Sun problems Optical illusions soft "jets"?

Update! Finally the establishment - NASA, media etc - have had facts forced down their throats. Check "Great Woman" and then "humble pie"

I.x.I - Instantaneous transfer of Information
Surely "blind science" says it's IMPOSSIBLE?

Yup - all present theories still say that faster-than-light transfer of anything is impossible.
However, paired photons can be separated by great distances, and when one is interrogated it will `instantaneously' reveal the "spin" or "state" of the distant other.
-
1) The information travels at many, many times "lightspeed".
2) It is unaffected by intervening space (or matter).
3) We've known for a while this is also required for atoms in natural processes.

Explanation?
Intro at UEF Index, and brief talk-thru at smt

TEXT BOOK `LAWS'
Are the text books `true'? Are modern students taught `reality' about physical attributes & forces?
NO! - 'Fraid not.

What is taught?
The books contain either :- classical Newtonian - Hamiltonian `determinist' rules or modernist (flawed / false) Einsteinian relativity & / or Quantum probability rules or combinations of both.

The rules are false - at best some are close guesses but even so they fail over distance / time / high velocity.
Here Quantum broke down, and Relativity also breaks down - when faced with just one of many `impossibilities'.

"The discovery of a new subatomic particle adds to the evidence that physicists' standard model of how matter behaves is seriously incomplete."

"Discovery Of Neutrino Oscillation, Mass - Upends Standard Model"

2006 - "Standard Model is going to have be revised or superceded"

Again - explanation?
Intro at UEF Index, and brief talk-thru at smt

And there's a whole lot of other anomalies and enigmas, artifacts and other anachronisms and out-of-place fossils.

`Professionals' seem always in denial, as with these indications of earlier civilizations.

Also - ball lightning, spontaneous human combustion, falls / flows / oozes and intrusions (1), P-K, SUNDS, poltergeists, and more intrusions (2).

William R. Corliss has made another list - `A Search for Anomalies' (.pdf).

Brave Princeton investigators have shown effects that cannot be explained by conventional science.

Why are `establishments' always stuck in arrogant (and fearful) denial mode?
Suggested reason.

Earlier examples of `blind science':-

1st Cent. CE - Julies Sextus Frontinus - "Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development"

14th Century - King Philip VI of France asked University of Paris medical faculty for the cause of the 1347 Black Death outbreak (when the bacterium yersinia pestis arrived from Asia, killing one-third to one-half of Europeans within two years).
The `medical' answer - published and accepted by the intelligentsia - "A triple conjunction in the constellation of Aquarius (20 March 1345), was the cause of the subsequent pestilence."

18th Century - Lavoisier speaking to the Academy of Sciences (Paris, France) - on peasants' reports of meteorites - "There are no stones in the sky - therefore stones cannot fall from the sky"

19th Century - UK's premier scientific body, the Royal Society, persistently refused papers from Waterston and Joule (on "oxygen theory"), instead preferring to cling to "phlogiston theory" until 1848.

19th Century - Lord Kelvin (doyen of European physics) - "X-rays are a hoax - Radio has no future - Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." - president of the Royal Society, 1890-95.

19th Century - the Royal Society (London, England) passed a resolution to the effect that - "Man's knowledge of the universe is complete and everything worthwhile has been invented" - 1895 (apocryphal - with similar from US Patent Office boss, c 1899).

20th Century - Ernest Rutherford (Baron, Nobel prizewinner, leading British physicist - see "Royal Society") - "The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - 1933.

20th Century - British Under-Secretary of State for Air - "Scientific investigation into the possibilities [of jet propulsion] has given no indication that this method can be a serious competitor to the airscrew-engine combination" - 1934.

20th Century - British `Astronomer Royal' - "The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space] . . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable" (R.v.Riet Wooley) - in Nature, 14 March 1936.

TODAY - 2004. Science is still censored and blindfolded - here's censorship reports - from the UK - from the USA.

Science "discoveries" ? Science "forecasts" ?

NO - most often science MISTAKES.

Almost every `discovery' was a mistake - and wasn't corrected for many years, sometimes not for generations.

Astro-physics? Check for yourself - almost all names of astronomical phenomena are wrong! Due to scientists thinking they'd discovered something else.

The "mistakes" are still happening, right now. Here about tiny particles; here `science' mistakes birth of new galaxies (`quasars') for "galactic collisions".
-
You've seen above that physicists were equally wrong to trumpet Einsteinian "Relativity" and then "Quantum Theory" as discoveries. Both "theories" were great near-guesses but are still plain wrong.

And, as forecast, in genes8 - the much-vaunted `cloning theory' was also wrong.
-
Scientists have yet to learn even 1% of the data, much less the vital knowledge, needed to guarantee safety for even one genetic manipulation or nano-release. And only recently many `established' DNA axioms have been overturned - so we are in the dangerous position of having `power without knowledge or responsibility'.

Our resulting analysis shows - those patterns are not the safe blueprints that our politicians claim, but dangerously variable toolkits and ammo supplies.

The obvious conclusion is that any genetic manipulation will have unintended consequences. No argument. So any larger (GM or Nano-) mistake will be very costly indeed, even in the short-term.

All genes are capable of being transmitted and absorbed eventually - to a greater or lesser extent - by all organisms. There is no sure, safe insulation - see Reviews & Reports and `2007 Gene Transfer Shock'.

So what happens if G.M profit-seekers force a tiny change of gene structure or position that just happens to kill - insects? As might be happening to bees right now 2007 - (significantly, in countries with high organic pesticide use and most GM on the loose).

- We're only now finding out that most insects are vitally necessary for our eco-system. The fertility of plants, the natural hygiene of countryside and gardens, the structure of soil itself will all be at risk.

But perhaps a GM mutation could upset say - grass? (As this alarming news report says may be happening in wheat - April 2007.)

- All of us, Earth's humans, and most of the animals, would starve within a year or three, after some really bloodthirsty world wars. Cereal crops - including rice - are "grasses". The basis of our human diet would be gone; and with it almost every animal feed.

Or say a change goes on to irritate bacteria?

- Bacteria are vital living ingredients in our oceans, in our soil, in our air and even in our bodies. Harsh retribution could be almost immediate! Perhaps a warning sign is already here.

"As we project a future of increasing technological progress, we may face a future that is increasingly hazardous and susceptible to irreversible disaster"
John D Barrow "Impossibility - the limits of science and the science of limits"
ISBN 0-09-977211-6
-
"What might be lost? It is a question humanity ignores at its peril" asked Bill McKibben
-
`The Hundred-Year Lie, on the prevalence of toxic chemicals' June '06: interview with Randall Fitzgerald
-
"Silent pandemic" - plus - `Killer chemicals' Long suppresed science - held down by rich polluters - Nov 2006.
-
Jan. 2007 - `Dangers of GM - Reports By Scientists' External Reviews and Reports - some concealed or suppressed.
-
Mar. 2007 - "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods" - backed by (ex)politician
-
Nov. 2007 - "The research hasn't been done" - from Report - `Nanotech's Health, Environment Impacts Worry Scientists'

A frank look at human `science' - the most impartial we've been able to find.

"Photons, electrons and protons have become about as meaningless to the physicist as `x, y z' are to the child on its first day of learning algebra. The most we hope for at the moment is to discover ways of manipulating `x, y z' without knowing what they are, with the result that the advance of knowledge is at present reduced to what Einstein has described as extracting one incomprehensible from another incomprehensible." - Sir James Jeans in `The New Background of Science'

"Or one could put it like this: In a reasonable theory there are no dimensionless numbers whose values are only empirically determinable." - Albert Einstein - letter to Rosenthal-Schneider 13 Oct.1945
N.b. - As Einstein implies, present physics is lacking the knowledge needed for calculating the `Constants of Nature' and is forced to try to "measure" what they might be.

"Whatever economic and human resources were made available to Pythagoras for the purpose of investigating the natural world ... he would not have known what questions to ask, nor could he have known. There is no reason to doubt that the present state of affairs is any different" - John D. Barrow in `Impossibility - the Limits of Science and the Science of Limits' - ISBN 0-09-977211-6

"There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not Nature." - Richard P Feynman

"Even within science, the same set of facts may be interpreted in very different ways. Paradigms provide a framework into which new or old information can be slotted, a coherent structure that helps link different phenomena together. Explanations that depend on paradigms are in that respect a little closer to those of religion: They depend upon a particular world view. The paradigms of science are not true, but they have been tested extremely rigorously against the available evidence, and their consequences have been deduced and tested as well. They are like old religions." - Profs. Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen in `The Collapse of Chaos' - ISBN 0-670-84983-9

"Of course, what is both wonderful and terrifying is that there is absolutely no reason that nature at its deepest level must have anything to do with mathematics.
Like mathematics itself, the faith in this shared mysticism of the mathematical scientist is an invention of human beings ... I have never heard a good a priori argument that the world must be organized according to mathematical principles." - Lee Smolin in `The Life of the Cosmos' - ISBN 0-297- 81727-2

"Gödel's Theorem [which proved human mathematics is necessarily incomplete] means ... all mathematical models fall inherently short ... physics will remain embedded forever in that deeper level of thinking characterized both by the wisdom and by the haziness of analogies and intuitions." - Stanley Jaki

"We are certainly not at the end of science. Most probably we are just at the beginning!" - Halton Arp in `Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science'

"So this implies that there is in a sense a fundamental limitation to theoretical science. But it also shows that there is something irreducible that can be achieved by the passage of time. And it leads to an explanation of how we as humans--even though we may follow definite underlying rules--can still in a meaningful way show free will." - Stephen Wolfram in `A New Kind of Science'

Previous
Superstitious
Beliefs

Ancient
Science

Medieval
Science

Blind
Science

Greatest
20th Cent.
Discoverers

Present
Chaos

[new window]

can we

take off the blindfolds?

WEB-MASTERS

NEW PAGE TIPS

Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.

Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor

happy?

"Perceptions" ITEM
Copyright © 2008 Ray Dickenson

Blind Science

Let's try some simple examples, and ask what `science' actually knows of the following

WEB-MASTERS

NEW PAGE TIPS

happy?

"Perceptions"

HOME

Copyright © 2008 Ray Dickenson

this page
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html

PRIVACY POLICY


What is Dark Matter? "We've known that it exists for more than 25 years," says astronomer Virginia Trimble of the University of California Irvine. "But we don't know what the hell it is" inside-info? Yes - check "SpaceMatterThought" "COPY-CATS?" & "IGNORANCE"	What is Dark Energy? "Frankly, we just don't understand it," says Craig Hogan, an astronomer at the University of Washington at Seattle. "We know what its effects are," Hogan says, but as to the details of dark energy, "We're completely clueless about that. And everybody's clueless about it" inside-info? Yes - check "Radiation" "COPY-CATS?" & "IGNORANCE"

"Perceptions" ITEM Copyright © 2008 Ray Dickenson

Blind Science

Let's try some simple examples, and ask what `science' actually knows of the following

WEB-MASTERS NEW PAGE TIPS

happy?

"Perceptions"

HOME

Copyright © 2008 Ray Dickenson

this page http://www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html

PRIVACY POLICY

"Perceptions" ITEM
Copyright © 2008 Ray Dickenson

WEB-MASTERS

NEW PAGE TIPS

this page
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html