RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Recent Articles

Descartes (1596-1650), the Dualist. Part 1: Maths and Cosmology.

Part 2 of Descartes (next post), will discuss his philosophy which is his most important contribution (even if it is malignant). This post is Part Five of the series, 'Science and Philosophy'.


 

Modern Science it can be said, began with Descartes. Like Francis Bacon he strove to create a new methodology, but his was based more on deduction than experience.” (Commins, Linscott, p. 159).

(Comment: Bacon [late 16th century] promoted ‘induction’ from experimentation, calling the method ‘new’. Descartes [middle third of the 17th c.] offered ‘deduction’ from general observations, suggesting it was ‘new’. Both claims are untrue. Deduction and induction long predate both men.)

 

 

Modern science, cosmology, physics and our worldview are based entirely on philosophical assumptions which might be wrong.  We looked at Copernicus, whose system and theory was incorrect, premised on circular orbits and ‘crystalline spheres’.  Copernicanism as first proposed, was largely incoherent, and organised around the ancient Pythagorean-Platonic concepts of Sun Worship and Aristarchian heliocentricity.  Copernicus provided no observational proof whatsoever for his theory. 

 

Neither did Kepler, who used Tycho Brahe’s detailed observations and may have killed Brahe to access his journals.  Kepler’s complicated geometry seemed to offer some ‘proof’ of planetary elliptical orbits and movement around the Sun.  Much of what Kepler offered was however inaccurate or wrong.  His maths could just as easily have proven the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system or geo-centricity. 

 

As a Lutheran devotee and a member of the ‘new religion’ which opposed the Catholic Church, and as an acolyte of Plato and Pythagoras, Kepler made the philosophical decision to support heliocentricity.  It was philosophy and maths, not ‘science’ which informed that decision.  ‘Out with the old, in with the new’, was the zeitgeist of Kepler’s era.  More here

Kepler the Conniver (part 2)

Part 4 of 'Science as Philosophy' series. Kepler's philosophical choice.


In the last post we looked at the foundational ideas for Kepler’s theory and his drastic amendment of Copernicus’ model.  We noticed his occultism, his worship of the Sun, Platonic religiosity, the unjustified and unscientific use of Plato’s ‘solids’ and the Greek ideal of symmetry.  We also witnessed his dependency on Tycho Brahe’s charts and observations.  We saw that Kepler’s own maths could have ‘proven’ the Tychonic geo-helio-centric model, yet for personal and philosophical motivations he decided to align his complicated geometry behind Platonic theory.  We will now discuss the concept of ‘proof’ for Keplerian theory which is never discussed or taught.

 

Kepler’s modifications of the Copernican model did not alleviate the many anomalies regarding the motions of the planets which still remain today.  Kepler’s maths explaining the elliptical motion of planets is only an approximation and could be described as a poor one.  Planetary orbits are not perfect circles but are imperfect ellipses.  The planets precess at different rates, and all contain eccentricities that cannot be explained by the Keplerian method. More here

 

Trump, the 2024 election and ‘The Science’. The revolt is now in progress.

Scientism is a totalitarian program. There is now a sizeable reaction against the divine-right-to rule, by 'The Science', corrupt, immoral and insipid as it is.


With Trump’s great victory, the US now has a chance at survival, as a rational, moral, constitutionally sound state.  2024 is the 2nd most important election in US history.  Probably the most vital was Lincoln’s re-election in 1864, to ensure the eradication of the odium of slavery.  Trump’s 2024 destruction of the deep state is just as significant.  

 

A significant factor in Trump’s victory is the reality that most normal people, with IQ’s above Kamalalalarama Harris and Joe Biden’s (>75), are sick and tired of being told to ‘follow the science’ and that if you vote Bolshevist you are ‘the science’.  How absurd it is, to conflate voting socialist and globalist with ‘science’.  It hearkens back to the Nazi and Communist programs premised as their propaganda claimed on ‘science’, namely Darwinism, Evolution and dialectical Materialism.  Sad, sick, stupid. 

 

As
 

 

 

posted previously why many of us knew that the 2020 was stolen.  We knew that the Corona Plandemic was implemented in part to stop Trump from winning.  The Corona Coup and Catastrophe also served other purposes as the post outlined.  It punished the Americans and Brits for the 2016 Brexit and Trump votes, and it accelerated the globalist governance structure based on ‘The Science’ of ‘Pandemics’. 

 

We know that the US election was stolen in 2020 using basic maths.   More here

Kepler the Conniver (1571-1630). Philosophical choice over scientific veracity.

Part 3 of Science as Philosophy. Kepler's 'stolen data', models and philosophies.


Henri Poincaré: “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.”  (1901 in La science et l’hypothèse, Paris, Flammarion, 1968, p. 182)

Sir Fred Hoyle: “…the geocentric theory of Ptolemy had proved more successful than the heliocentric of Aristarchus. Until Copernicus, experience was just the other way around. Indeed, Copernicus had to struggle long and hard over many years before he equaled Ptolemy, and in the end the Copernican theory did not greatly surpass that of Ptolemy. (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, 1973, p. 5) 

We will split the analysis of Kepler into 2 parts to keep it short.  In this post we will discuss the background and philosophies which provide the foundations for Kepler’s amendment of Copernican theory.  In the next post we will analyse his claims and ‘proofs’.  

 

Copernicus provided no proof for his heliocentric theory of cosmological organization.  The 2 men quoted above knew this.  His system possessed more ellipticals or quants than the Ptolemaic and his underlying assumption that planetary motions followed circles within a ‘crystalline sphere’ was wrong.  The accuracy of the Copernican system is inferior to that of the Tychonic. 

 

Copernicus the Confused’s primary work De Revolutionibus, was poorly written, devoid of factual evidence and based largely on Platonic religio-philosophy.  Another example of Scientism. More here

Science as Philosophy or Scientism.

Part One: A summary of the problem. Part Two will look at our friend Copernicus, the confused plagiariser.


In the next post we will discuss Copernicus and his underlying philosophy, including his use of ancient Greek ideas, to propose a counter theory to the Ptolemaic geo-centric model of cosmology.  It is a very important topic when we look at ‘Scientism’.  Many posts on this substack outline issues with the Copernican model, problems which still need remediation.  None of these are well known because ‘The Science’ declines to discuss them.

“…nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Lincoln Barnett (in, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73)

 

What is rarely discussed is the philosophy which informed Copernicus’ largely purloined model.  This philosophical foundation is one of the most important yet rarely discussed metaphysics in Western history.  The Copernican model cannot be disengaged from its philosophical imperative.

 

“The result has been a popular culture littered with ideological detritus: atheism, of course, or naturalism, or materialism, or physicalism, or scientism, or even, God help us, trans-humanism. These are not very precise terms, nor do they denote very precise ideas. Naturalists can rarely say of naturalism anything beyond that it is natural.” (Berlinski, 2023, a secular Jew, Maths-Physics scholar and irreligious)

 

To set the stage for the Copernican discussion, we want to summarise the key points from the last post.  We discussed the philosophical underpinning of ‘Science’ and the claim that Science is an output from epistemological philosophy, or the philosophy concerned with observing, acquiring and interpreting knowledge (Feyerabend, 1995). 

 

This is a valid point of view and rarely if ever taught.  We should never forget that the tragedy of the 20th century, the 100 million dead, the endless wars, the general chaos, was based and founded on ‘Scientism’ or ‘The Science’.

More here

Copernicus the Confused (1473-1543). Copernicanism is Philosophy not 'Science'.

Part Two of Science as Philosophy. The Catholic mixes up ideas, models and provides no evidence for this theory. All hail.


There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Henrick Lorentz (1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.)

[Relativity arises from…] The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…” Arthur Eddington (Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11)

In the creation myth of Copernicanism, it is taught that the Catholic monk Copernicus, born in Poland and educated in Italy in the glare of the ‘enlightened’ late 15th century ‘Renaissance’, was a clear eyed, far-sighted seer and prophet, a man who knew the truth and through his jeremiads proclaimed the true gospel of mankind’s cosmic unimportance and utter irrelevancy.  This lion of noble scientism fought against the crude, savagery of the dark superstitions, dragging mankind into the light of reason, Sun worship and heliocentricity.  So the myth goes.

 

 

 

Without Copernicus, so we are told, we would still be in hairshirts, baying at full moons, convinced of a flat earth, and burning lonely widows on heaps of faggots.  Misery and darkness our companions.  Instead, the modern can rejoice in the gospel proclamations of Materialism and Rationalism; of mankind’s cosmological insignificance, of the uselessness of existence; and that our Earth is nothing in the great canvass of the universe.  A hairless ape, a less agreeably evolved virus, so is mankind described by Materialism and the Copernican ‘principle’.  More here

Science as an output of Philosophy

Introduction: Why Science is a part of Philosophy and why $cientism hearkens back to $ophistry.

 

There are obvious patterns over Ferdinand Braudel’s long duration of history, that we can see within the philosophical and scientific history of ‘Western Civilisation’.   Being a simple man of average intelligence trained in science and technology, I would say there are 3 overriding key patterns.

Pattern 1: The migration of philosophy and ‘science’ from individual efforts and small schools (the medieval period), to that of statism and state control (the ‘modern’ leviathan). The ‘state complex’ is now the arbiter of ‘Science’ once aided by the printing press, now supported by extensive digital technology and media.

Pattern 2: The return to the pagan philosophies of materialism (only matter is real) and nominalism (reality does not exist, nothing is objective). These patterns are regressive not ‘progressive’.

Pattern 3: The obvious philosophical foundation of all ‘science’. In reality, science is a branch of philosophy.  More here

Einstein’s Relativity ‘Postulates’ are wrong, a short summary as to why.

Wave theory, whilst better than Relativity, also accepts invariant light speed which is wrong.

 

In teaching physics at a local college, I was bemused and confused by the contradictions I could see in the students.  Many were very intelligent and intellectually engaged in knowing more about ‘science’.  Few, however, questioned what they were taught.  They were motivated by grades and attaining degrees, not by knowledge itself.  Few if any of them would ever challenge the ‘system’. 


When I confronted them by saying ‘controversial’ things such as ‘evolution is demonstrably false and unscientific’, or ‘Einstein’s theories are unproven and largely incorrect’, the disbelief and horror were palpable.  Only a few would dare to pursue or even argue the topic.  Most just wished I would shut up and force feed them what they needed to pass their exams.  The system to manufacture graduates, grinds on.  More here

What if the speed of light is much faster than the accepted 'constant' and varies?

What if Einstein's 2 postulates are wrong?

 

Einstein’s 2nd ‘postulate’, carved into stone and worshipped by the faithful, states that light must be a constant 186.000 miles per second in a ‘vacuum’.  This constant is the ‘fastest’ light or any particle can travel. By vacuum Einstotle (Einstein + Aristotle) meant a space of ‘nothing’ which has never existed.  A vacuum is currently defined as the ‘lowest energy state in space’ whatever that means. 

 

Two physicists, Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes, believe that the ‘speed of light’ and the related measurement of ‘time’, are fundamentally impossible to prove.  They support what Sagnac had discovered in 1913, and which has been replicated hundreds, if not thousands of times since.  The implications of what they propose are ‘game-changing’.  More here

George Adams and the cultural genius of Christianity

Christianity formed and shaped all of the foundations of the modern world

 

 

It is refreshing, indeed mandatory, to read common sense and real perspectives from the past. Out of the dark and gloom of the modern era of 'scientism' [abiogensis, plant food causes climate, panspermia, life on dead rocks, algae became Achmed etc.]; and into the light of learning. In a culture which praises transgendered bathrooms and applauds a bronze age moon cult as enlightened, it is difficult to understand where civilization came from and why it formed. There is no 'evolution' of civilization to use the modern world's unscientific obsession. Civilization, as with life, art or any material substance, is designed, built, constructed and managed. It can be torn down, just as easily as it can be created.


 

Adams makes important notes on Christianity's seminal impact on Western Civilization, a metaphysics unlike any which had preceded it in the pagan world:


 

"Christianity taught also the equality of all men in the sight of God. It taught this not merely as an abstract idea. Stoicism had done that. But in the early Christianity, at least, it put the idea into practice so far as it was possible to do so. The master was held to treat his slave as a brother. They both stood on the same footing within the church, and its offices and dignities were open to both alike. ...instances are not uncommon of men from the lowest classes rising to positions in the church of the highest rank. The teaching of the church always kept before men the idea of the equality in moral rights and in final destiny of all men. That it was the chiefly effective force in establishing practical equality, so far as it has been established, can hardly be asserted."


 

Equality of men, leads to the equality of rights, freedom of speech and due process, between all men, and over time, women. The universal ethics of Christianity, demanded a universal creed in which all men had to be treated equally, fairly and justly.


 

"Christianity also taught, as a necessary result of the Christian conception of the relation between God and man, that religion has a direct practical mission as an ethical teacher and help. This was a new and most important step in advance. The ancient national religions had made no ethical demand of the worshipper. The character attributed to the gods could not be helpful to any man. The pagan priest had never looked upon himself as a teacher of morals, or conceived of any reformatory mission for his religion. The Greek or Roman in need of ethical aid and comfort sought the philosopher and not the priest. This whole condition of things Christianity revolutionized. The pure ideal of character which it held aloft in its conception of God, its clear assertion of the necessity and the possibility of such a character for every man which it made in the gospel narrative, created an intimate bond between religion and ethics unknown before. The religious life which Christianity aimed to create in the individual must of necessity express itself in right conduct. This was its true fruit, its external test, and to perfect this the energy of the new religion was especially directed."


 

Even when acting badly, and Christians have a long history of that, as does most any man or woman today; the ideal does not perish. The character of faith should imbue all action. God is not unknowable or untouchable. He is a part of each person and of the world around us.


 

...[the] fatherhood of God, typified and proclaimed in an extremely effective form in the sonship of Christ, man’s elder brother, brought man near to God and gave him a new point of view for all the future. Love became the great religious force of the new age. In the practical working of Christianity this idea did not remain a mere idea. It was transformed into a positive force in history through the keen conception which the individual Christian had of the immediate personal relationship between himself and God, by virtue of which the power of the Almighty would come to his aid in his endeavor to make himself like God. In other words, Christianity not merely taught that this relationship was an ideal possibility, but it made men believe it as a fact, so that they actually lived with a sense of the divine power in them."


 

Animated by equality, opportunity, joy, morality, a strong character, always trying to stay ahead and deny the baser impulses and true demerits we all possess including free will and our poor choices [sin]; Christianity galvanized and demanded action. Help to the poor, the needy; protection of the old, young, infirm and innocent. A conscious desire to do good and to be active in this life, to try to live a good, not a crude life and to participate in society in order to effect good works for the next life if grace grants us that. A commitment to life, family, beauty, reality and proper conduct. We all far short. But those attributes are what created the modern world. Christianity created that culture.

 

 

 

 

Aether, Gravity and 'Axioms': problems for Relativity and modern cosmology.

Axioms and Postulates are not 'scientific laws', they are philosophical statements based on a logical argument, informed by a world-view.



In Science-speak we have ‘postulates’ and ‘axioms’. 

These terms are interchangeable.  They both refer to the same ‘assumption’ and the underlying philosophical logic which supports that assumption.  Creating a ‘postulate’ or an ‘axiom’ was common with ancient Greek philosophers and the medieval schoolmen and naturalists.  Neither a postulate, nor an axiom is by itself a ‘truth’.  It is not by itself a ‘law’.  It is simply an assumption and is used as a ‘starting point’.

·        Moons orbit Jupiter.

·        Our moon appears to orbit the Earth.

·        Therefore, the Earth must orbit the Sun, given the similarities in this relationship that we see with moons and their planets.

·        My theory will start with the ‘postulate’ or ‘axiom’ that the Earth orbits the Sun. 

·        Based on this ‘axiom’ I will declare that the Sun and our solar system must revolve around the centre of our galaxy.

·        I will now expand on this hypothesis with my proofs and maths….

The above ‘postulate’ uses an assumption that is assumed to be a truth.  I have just accepted that premise and moved on.  This is not exactly scientific.  A critic could and should go back to my foundational ‘axiom’ or ‘postulate’ and ask for experimental proof.  If the axiom is so obvious, that proof should be readily available.  More here

Relativity, String theory, ‘unified models’ and anti-science theologies

Is Einstein the new Aristotle? Are we in a 1000-year paradigmatic reign? Is it the age of Einstotle?


Einstein was a philosopher not a physicist. If Einstein is the new Aristotle, we might in the early years of a new ‘Thomas Kuhnian’ paradigm. Aristotle’s philosophy dominated science for some 1000 years. Will Einsteinian philosophy persist for a similar duration?

“Philosophy is the true mother of science.”  (attributed to Cicero)

“Truth is the object of philosophy, but not always of philosophers.”  (attributed to John Churton Collins) 

 

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others convinced the public that heliocentricity was validated science and there was a motion of the Earth around the Sun.  As late as 1900 no mechanical, experimental evidence could be produced to support this concept.  The theory of Relativity was created to resolve the matter.  It was not invented by Einstein but by half a dozen other men in the late 19th century after the enormous failure of the 1887 Michelson Morley experiment to detect motion. 

 

 

There is still no mechanical evidence that we move.  

 

Relativity is now sold as a ‘scientific fact’.  As with ‘Evolution’ another non-science, the truth is the opposite.  Relativity is philosophy and abstract maths.  It is a theoretical and physical chimera and rubbish.  Many posts outline scientific reasons and experiments why this is true.  DC Miller, another unknown physicist, disproved ‘Relativity’ in the 1920s and 30s with over 200.000 experiments.  Einstein performed none.  DC Miller is never studied.  His experiments have never been invalidated. 

 

The essence of ‘Special Relativity’ is the symmetry of spacetime. That is, symmetries relate space and time as a single spacetime.  Being homogeneous and isotropic are the key properties of those symmetries and are declared obvious from the perspective of an ‘observer’ who will see homogeneity and isotropy in the universe.

Universal isotropy and homogeneity are however, both wrong.  This fact by itself negates Relativity.   More here

Quantum Theory, String Theory: unproven, unscientific claims and their distortion of reality.

Why Quantum Theory has led to distortive investigations and claims.


What is Science?

 

 

Natural Science’, or the scientific analysis of our natural world, is constructed on 3 concepts: objectivity, reasonability or rationality and experimental verification (Ratz, 2000).  It is fair to say that much of modern physics and cosmology is by this definition, unscientific.  When we discuss Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or String Theory, each admittedly covering a broad area, we will discover that the 3 core ideals for science listed above, are violated and often raped.  Within these three domains we find subjective, unreasonable and unverified conclusions. The implications for society and ‘science’ are both nefarious and portentous.

 

We know that the abstraction of Relativity fails to explain the ‘macro world’, littered as it is with unproven time-space integration, a cadre of incorrect and inaccurate equations and forecasts from light to energy and mass, and suffering from experimental disproofs.  Relativity is a philosophy not a proven objective, reasonable, experimentally verified ‘science’.

 

The same is true of its bastard offspring String Theory, which the last post introduced.  This inanity is an attempt to provide a unified theory aligning the macro-philosophies of Relativity, with the micro-world of particles and molecules, explained by Quantum Mechanics.  It is a spectacular and expensive failure. More here.


 

A brief history of ‘Relativity’, why, who, how and Einstein’s open plagiarism.

Relativity was contrived to save the phenomena of Copernicanism. A fact rarely taught.


This is a short overview of Relativity

 

Who created ‘Relativity’?  What was the motivation? How was it was arrived at?  Why is Einstein given all the credit when his role was so minor?

 

These are questions that are rarely answered and are not found in most textbooks or histories of the topic.  There is a reason for that.  There is something to hide.

 

Relativity is a conceptual ‘macro’ theory of the universe and cosmology.  It is the reigning paradigmatic world view of physics.  Using only naturalistic observations and mathematics, Relativity attempts to explain space, time, the motions of objects, planets, the beginning and current functioning of our universe, and how Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations can be aligned with and improve Newtonian physics based on gravity and attraction. 

Relativity offers a unified view of macro-physics, albeit an incorrect one

 

The Myth

 

 

In outlining a brief history of Relativity many personalities and details are omitted due to length.  The purpose is to dispose of the myth that Einstein, through his own ‘genius’, alone, unaided, bearing the torch of reason and hope for all of mankind, toiled until he poured out his own blood in the form of ‘Relativity’ for our scientific and intellectual salvation.

 

 

No part of this Einstein myth is true.  He was no saint.  He was a philosopher, not a physicist.  Unjustly affixed to his name, Relativity has so many issues that a society which truly embraced reason and real science, would long ago have discarded it. But here we are, burdened by its distortions. More here

$cientism and its Totalising agenda

A religious framework, with a 'Divine Right to Rule' imperative. No one is 'anti-science'. We should however, be 'anti-Scientism'.


Scientism refers to ‘science’, being elevated as a religious cult, in which ‘naturalistic science’ is the only explanation for anything in life, and the only truth.  All other religions, cults, dogmas and beliefs are to be dismissed and persecuted by the Church of Science.  Obeisance to the gospels of ‘science’, articulated and enunciated through its apostles and priests is the primary objective for any human.  Through ‘science’ we achieve knowledge and salvation.

 

This is what is being sold.  Does it make any sense?  First some terms used within ‘The Science’ which can help us understand ‘Scientism’. 

·       A priori:  A priori knowledge is independent from any experience. Examples include mathematics, tautologies and deduction from pure reason.  This is the basis of much ‘science’.

·       A posteriori:  Conclusions drawn from experimentation which can include various types of logic and inferences. 

·       Inductive logic:  Drawing a conclusion by looking at a specific event, then generalizing from that event.  Example, my cat is a good jumper.  All cats are good jumpers. 

·       Deductive logic:  Moving from a general observation and conclusion to a specific conclusion.  All cats are good jumpers (at least the ones I have seen).  My cat must also be a good jumper.

·       Ontological:  A metaphysical and philosophical view on the reality of being.  Existential questions on ‘being’, or what constitutes reality for a being. We see ontology now in mathematics.

·       Metaphysics:  Above natural physics and naturalist science, a philosophy and world view explaining the world around us. Much of science is premised on metaphysical views.

 

We list the above terms to emphasise that much of ‘science’ is a priori reasoning combined with metaphysics.  There is also never a single ‘scientific’ method.  You can use a mixture of inductive and deductive logic linked to aposteriori experimentation.  It is preferable of course when performing real science to use mechanical experimentation (aposteriori) and from that fabricate a conclusion premised on empirical fact. 

 

Most of ‘The Science’ now ignores aposteriori experimentation and empiricism.  It is mostly models, mathematics and lapidary (polishing) experimentation to prove a contrived conclusion. The Corona plandemic and its unending propaganda around ‘safe and effective vaccines’ is one obvious example.  Evolution, cosmology and psychology are examples of unsubstantiated expressions of apriori-inductive-ontological rationalising and are therefore not scientific.  More here