Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:05 pm

In the past the main obstacle to scientific progress was that many found the narrative associated with religion/bible to be convincing. Now the "church ladies" use science itself as the narrative that justifies their deliberate refusal to apply the scientific method.  

Anybody can pretend to understand. It takes no skill, no intelligence, and it involves no work.

One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality. (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. It's here to stay.

Church ladies wrap themselves in their self-righteous belief that they know the truth and, therefore, they don't have to consider contradictory evidence. They perceive their own cognitive dissonance as evidence that their opponents argument is wrong and then desperately start looking for anything that will re-establish their delicate sense of certainty.

There is an inexhaustible supply of brain-dead church ladies, eager to pretend to understand all things conventional.

Meteorology's storm theory is a hold-over from the nineteenth century when people were generally ignorant and believed plainly stupid things, like the notion that a pot on a stove was a good analogy for storms. And/or they believed the plainly dumb notion that H2O magically turned gaseous (in the atmosphere) making moist air lighter than dry air. And/or they believed that dry air above had magical structural abilities that produced a downward force that trapped convection (this involves meteorology's dishonest argument to explain why convection doesn't always happen). And/or they believed H2O's latent heat magically caused the gusty winds of storms. Church ladies are so gullible and so eager to believe that it was not even necessary for meteorologists to conceal the blatant dishonesty of these suppositions.

Much of science has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Unscrupulous, pretend scientists employ the techniques of consensus (politics, propaganda) to dominate scientific discourse. It's easy to pretend like you have a deep scientific understanding of a scientific subject if you just go along with what everybody else believes. It takes no talent to agree. It takes no intelligence to pretend to understand. And it takes no effort to lie and obfuscate in order to appeal to what people already want to believe.

With science it is really easy to be seduced into believing you understand when actually you just believe.  For example, you believe that cold steam is in earth's atmosphere. You believe this despite the fact that nobody has ever detected it. And so, you have no empirical reason to believe it exists. You believe it, therefore, because a lot of other people believe it. This is the twisted logic of group think. And the multitude of brain-dead believers is the reason it works.

In other words, much of science lies about water because all of science appeals to the lowest common denominator of science consumer--and everybody "knows" water is simple. Well, water isn't simple. And pretending it is simple is a major obstacle to progress in many disciplines, like meteorology.

Exposing this pretense is a theme in the first chapter of my next book.  

Here is the first paragraph:

Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5])
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 82#p117060

Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our
reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to
understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others
pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic
factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to
understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the
public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be
led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention
away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying
complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody
would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with
fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in
liquid water).

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:25 am

[QUOTE=jonesdave116;12504509]Lol. Science not really your thing, is it? Take a bowl out of cupboard. Stick some water in it. Leave at room temperature. See what happens after a few days. Dear me. Talk about lowest common denominator! I think we just found it.[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christ!!! Are you all the dumbest group of people on the internet? Surreal.

Do I have to spell this all out for you simpletons?

There are two alternatives. BOTH OF THESE TWO ALTERNATIVES RESULT IN THE WATER DISAPPEARING, YOU FOOL! SO YOUR EXPERIMENT IS WORTHLESS. Duhrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!

dum de dum dum

Pay attention:

1) The water leaves as gaseous H2O (violating the known boiling temperature/pressure of H2O

2) The water leaves as nanodroplets. This requires some way to explain what force causes levitation of heavier than air nanodroplets.

None of you could figure this out on your own. All of you simipletons thought the fact the water disappeared indicated it became gaseous.

This is the reason science can't advance. There are millions upon millions of you church lady simpletions. And all of you get to have your opinion heard.

The internet is overwhelmed with you brain-dead trolls.

Read this (and stop the incessant whining.):

We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Unread postby Frank_Grimer » Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:32 pm

Water that is properly a vapour/gas is invisible. When you see “water vapour” you are actually looking at tiny droplets of liquid water. The droplets are so small that air currents can hold them up, similar to the way that dust is able to float even though it has a greater density than air.
Frank_Grimer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:15 am

Re: Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:18 am

Frank_Grimer wrote:Water that is properly a vapour/gas is invisible..

1) There is no such thing as "vapour/gas."

2) All of the moist air in earth's atmosphere is liquid droplets of various sizes (there is no gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere).

Frank_Grimer wrote:When you see “water vapour” you are actually looking at tiny droplets of liquid water.

3) All moist air in earth's atmosphere contains tiny droplets--including moist air that is invisible.

Frank_Grimer wrote:The droplets are so small that air currents can hold them up, similar to the way that dust is able to float even though it has a greater density than air.

Yes, electrostatic forces explain how all heavier than air objects, including H2O droplets, stay suspended:

Millions of Tons of Water Suspended Kilometres Above
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16597

Concerning the drying of wet shoes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647

Disputing The Existence of 'Cold Steam' in the Atmosphere
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16851

Why Are Storms Wet?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16841

What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16615

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Unread postby Frank_Grimer » Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:57 am

If you go Prof.Chaplins website on properties of water you will see that he has graphs showing three power laws for water "vapour' below 0oC, water between 0oC and 100oC and water above 100oC.

Since you are knowledgeable about water vapour I thought you might have an explanation for these relationships.
Frank_Grimer
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:15 am

Re: Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:59 pm

Frank_Grimer wrote:If you go Prof.Chaplins website on properties of water you will see that he has graphs showing three power laws for water "vapour' below 0oC, water between 0oC and 100oC and water above 100oC.

Since you are knowledgeable about water vapour I thought you might have an explanation for these relationships.


There is an overwhelming amount of group-think superstition in the 'accepted' science surrounding H2O. Much of Chaplin's thinking seems to reflect this. So, much of what is presented on Chaplin's website is convoluted and even evasive.

I don't know what power laws you are speaking of. Unfortunately the whole paradigm is ensconced in group think superstition. Untangling the whole mess requires extreme effort. Most people are lazy.

The problem is that people will only accept simple explanations and H2O is collectively very complex on a fundamental level. So, in an attempt to make something, water, what it isn't they have created convoluted understanding of water.

If you seek simple solutions and simple models you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests