History of science

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:12 pm

formerlycbragz wrote:And let us not forget that "c=186,000 miles per second"is only in a VACUUM...there are no vacuums in the universe...


According to mainstream there is no space/time.
So if there is no space, how can there be a vacuum?
And if there is no space and no time, how can there be speed?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Roshi » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:34 am

We know about refraction here on Earth. But outside, in space all light path bending is caused by, and is proof of relativity. Even if there is "hot gas" as they say, practically everywhere.

Because there is no way to tell if relativity or refraction did the bending, and relativity has to always be praised, they just ignore refraction in space. There is no refraction in space, it's an unique phenomenon, it happens only on Earth. I dare anyone to ask about refraction in space on a mainstream forum. There isn't any. And if there is, someone can surely differentiate refraction from relativity, and we are stupid to ask.
Roshi
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:34 pm

Roshi wrote:We know about refraction here on Earth. But outside, in space all light path bending is caused by, and is proof of relativity. Even if there is "hot gas" as they say, practically everywhere...


Yes. Space is special, and very different from earth.
That is why there are no electrical fields, nor electrical currents in space.
No refraction and reflection either.
And all normal matter is visible.
And light-frequencies are never affected by anything, even when we can do it on earth.

And because of that we know that dark energy exist, dark matter, and impossibly huge structures in space.
Black holes and big bangs.
No proof needed, because space is special.

Space is so special, that even the astronomers have become special. :mrgreen:
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Bin-Ra » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:16 pm

The issue that I see is whether mainstream or officially acceptable Science has in effect been captured and controlled by the means and will to do so.
This is the idea that the theories that 'win', do so by their usefulness to power or people and institutions of influence.

Because power struggle is the very nature of a split mind (polarised separation as the seeming independent self-other), the nature of our consciousness is predicated on possession and control - which is of marketising and weaponising the new as an upstream advantage by which to capture or dominate under the guise of a progress serving humanity.

Of course there is the love of truth and of our fellow Man - that is represented in scientists and others who follow their curiosity and intuition to challenge and explore beyond the current sense of self and reality. These are generally denied in their own time. While those who are celebrated while alive tend to be adopted and aligned with power, prestige and privilege.

Pasteur set a course for 'germ theory' that largely ignores the terrain or environmental context. Beschamp was sidelined. Eventually the wrong turning will be revisited - but against the momentum of invested energy, identity and reputations that stand on the shoulders of giant mistakes.

Ancel Keys - a chemist - set the cholesterol con and the demonisation of saturated fats in motion - very conveniently for the sugar lobby - and with heavy Media support. High carb malnutrition and toxicity became 'health guidelines'.

It isn't that there are not learned critics to new ideas that become officially 'true' but that a persistent and cleverly crafted PR can and does override any reasoned argument.

Celebrity status carries more weight than facts - for the same reason that fantasy fulfilment distorts the mind to want it true and not want truth to get in the way of a good story.

Knowingly or otherwise - the presentation of science - along with its adoption or applications in human affairs remains a politically directed narrative - not in terms of left or right - but in terms of power, possession and control.

At a level of a greater perspective I see the incremental expansions of our consciousness as a guided or supported process of reintegration. And so that for which we are not ready, does not come through - although its precursors or foundations may well be seeded by those who seem to be 'before their time' or denied acceptance in idea and contribution.

The Electric Universe opens technologies of a capacity to influence for good and ill.
Are we in a playpen or straitjacket because we have not owned our full consciousness - and are thus re-enacting destructive 'greed' and 'power' as subconsciously acquired conditioning?

I am well aware that deceit plays a much larger role than the deceived usually ever come to realize - and yet I am also aware that the wish not to know is, an expression of freedom - even though it effectively abnegates responsibility to 'beliefs' that mask or substitute for true by the intensity of the wish that feared truth remains hidden.
Bin-Ra
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Previous

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests