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
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.
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
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
‘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.
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.
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
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
Few are as opposed to the Muslim Jihad and the cult of ‘Islam’ or ‘Submission’ as I am. I have published books on the topic which investigate the 1400-year Jihad against civilisation by the moon cult of Muhammad, or as I would term it, a fascist-paganism. Most people in the fast imploding, immoral and degenerate ‘West’ do not understand where the term ‘West’ comes from. ‘The West’ described the ‘western-rump’ of what remained from the once vast empire of Christendom, most of it conquered by the Muslim Jihad by 1000 A.D. Historically the cult of Muhammad has proven itself far more Christophobic in word and deed, than anti-semitic.
This is my bias. This is why I originally accepted 9-11 at face value. The narrative that Muslims had hijacked jet airliners and flown them into the South and North Towers in Manhattan appeared to be self-evident, supported by video and photographic evidence. That the towers would then collapse given such an impact seemed plausible. Given the bloody, brutal, immoral, uncivilised and persistently evil expansion of the Muslim Jihad over 1400 years, such an attack would seem both logical and expected.
Neo and changing your mind
Things change. Real science does not. I read the 9-11 Commission Report (book), which was rushed into production in a short amount of time and believed it. But as with evolution, the moon landing, cosmology, physics, vaccines, medical science, Jenner, Pasteur, Einstein, the assassinations of JFK (and the Warren Commission fraud), MLK and RFK and many other topics, I changed my mind when using my background in science and technology, I analysed the evidence.
I am quite happy to be proven wrong and forced to adjust to the evidence. I coerced myself to revisit 9-11. It was an endeavour I did not want to undertake. Taking the narrative at face value and analysing what they said led to a ‘discovery’ that real ‘science’ does not appear to support the relentless mainstream-contention that the planes themselves caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Yes planes did hit two of the three Towers, but the planes were likely a diversion and a cover. The Muslim Jihad was a very clever and practical proxy for the attack. The pretext to endless wage war in the Middle East and beyond was established by 9-11 with all the unforeseen consequences and destruction, including mass, unfettered ‘migration’. Cui bono?
Most people will cite that the Twin Towers, South and North, were the only structures felled on 9-11-2001. The South Tower was the first to collapse at 9:59 am and the North Tower imploded at 10:28 am. However, WTC 7 or The Saloman Brothers building, also collapsed onto its own footprint, vaporised at 17:20 pm. Yet BBC ‘reporter’ Jane Stanley stood in front of an intact WTC 7 at 16:57 pm stating that the building had collapsed, some 23 minutes before it actually did fall. No planes or objects had battered WTC 7. It simply collapsed into itself in a controlled demolition. More here
According to mainstream physics and cosmology, time-travel is a certainty! Establishment ‘science’ claims that ‘spacetime’, or the merger of a spatial map with our human-concept and calculation of time, means pace Einstein, that time is ‘relative’. According to these ‘geniuses’ there is no distinction between the past, the current or the future. Given that time is embedded in ‘space’, the establishment theory postulates that we can move backwards or forward in time, akin to rewinding or fast-forwarding a tape.
Spacetime is of course junk science premised on arcane mathematical models. We need to remember that much of modern science is meta-physics or ‘ontology’, and not mechanical science. It is easy to make up theories and supporting maths. It is harder to prove said theories with evidence.
Previous posts have discussed light, what time actually is, and why spacetime is scientific and even ontological gibberish. For example, to move backwards or forward in time, you would need to move all the particles in the universe in an ensemble together to that point in time on a non-existing 4-dimensional axis (x, y, z, t where t = time as the 4th dimension).
Do you really believe you can forward or rewind all the particles in the universe? Is there a magic tape recording we can access to do this at the universal level? The universe does not care about your local time, or your calculation of local time. There is no mechanism to roll back or roll forward every particle in the universe. There is no mechanism to roll back or roll forward particles which surround just yourself.
In the physical and real universe, the law of entropy applies. Entropy measures the level of disorder in a closed system over time. Within any process entropy will either be unchanged, or it will increase. Based on what we know, entropy can never decrease. If we were able to roll back time, we would decrease entropy. This is physically impossible. Therefore, time travel is also physically impossible. More here
There is no evidence that space is ‘curved’. The James Webb Telescope and plenty of other data indicates our universe is a flat disc. ‘The Science’ has never been able to explain the ‘god awful’ truth that planetary motions are not only predictable but seemingly magical. It is indeed a mystery. Given that gravity is a weak force, why doesn’t the Earth simply ‘spin off’ from the Sun and go on a canter through universal space? How is it possible that the relationship between the Sun and Earth includes the perfect distance, the perfect speed, the perfect orbit? Besides zero, what is the ‘chance’ that all of this occurred from ‘random chance’?
‘The Science’ does not have an answer for any of these basic questions. In order to improve Newtonian physics and explain the how ‘mass attraction’ keeps planets in their orbital paths, Einstein and Relativists resorted to inventing a curvature of space where planets follow ‘geodesic lines’ around their star. Apparently, ‘geodesics’ formed just because they had to form. They are there according to the mathematical models, so therefore it happened.
No observational evidence supports the claim of the curvaturists. Their theory is that the curvature of space occurs around masses, and this is the reason the Moon remains in orbit about the Earth. Such a claim requires a very large ‘depression’ within the fabric of space that should be visible to us. The curvaturists maintain that the curvature would be the same in all directions for observers on Earth. Due to this we cannot see star displacement in the sky.
More here
There are a number of problems with ‘time’ in modern physics and cosmology, which undermine most of what we are told is ‘The Science’, including Relativity and ‘The Big Bang’. Many posts on this substack outline why both are false, but one could simply take the concept of ‘time’. ‘The Science’™ is unscientific about ‘time’. In fact many within ‘The Science’™ declare time to be an illusion. They are right. Spacetime as a 4th dimension is indeed an illusion.
When we critically review what ‘time’ actually means, we began to understand that much of modern cosmology is simply a philosophical exercise based on assumptions, many of which are wrong. Metaphysics is not physics. It is part of faith.
‘The Science’ has its own fictitious definition of ‘time’. In Einstein’s relativity theories, time operates within the fantasy world of ‘spacetime’. Spacetime is now accepted as canonical gospel, but it is a fabricated, never proven 4-dimensional mathematical construction, derived by ‘magic’ according to some scientists. It was Minkowski, Einstein’s maths teacher who first proposed it, at least in its modern form. Einstein initially was aghast and rejected it, than when it was necessary and useful to fill out his theorems he consumed it whole without attribution or reference. In this simulation, time is merged into space. To explain how this operates, the gospel writers invoke divine revelation through advanced mathematics. Only a few incense-bearing priests of ‘The Science’™ have the celestial wisdom and knowledge to understand what these arcane equations might reveal but they are certain that time can travel backwards, forwards and even stand still. Don’t ask for proof, that results in an excommunication.
Mechanically, ‘The Science’™ agrees that a specific definition of time was established by 1967. ‘Time’ is calculated as the duration of a number of oscillations of light from a certain atom, under particular circumstances. This specificity seems rather elastic. Using this definition time can be measured against a meter of distance. Time measurement can also be applied to light travel, denoted as a light year which sounds ‘short’ and which is only 6 trillion miles in human understanding (keep that in mind when fantasists claim that we can whiz over to Alpha Centauri which is ‘only’ 4.3 light years away and cavort with Chewbaca and the comely aliens in the local bar).
Defining time as duration of light oscillations from an atom might permit cosmologists to work back toward a beginning of the universe to estimate the age of what we see around us. As Newton perceived though Einstein denied, space or the universe is the most logical reference frame against which to measure cosmological time. The universe itself however, has no conception of time and given that we don’t know much about ‘time’, or even the invariant speed of light, it is entirely reasonable to assume that time varies by distance, by epoch, by calculation and by observer.
What we do know is that time, because it is a calculation, can never be merged into a spatial map. More here
Previous posts discussed how the speed of light was computed to be 300.000 km per second. These are largely mathematical exercises and are incomplete. According to this accepted theory, the speed of light is about a billion miles per hour. Does anyone really believe you can measure such a speed? I don’t and the reasons are given below.
Many scientists also agree that measuring such a speed is impossible. A billion miles per hour is simply an unimaginable, untraceable velocity. If the speed of light is inconstant, which it most certainly is, and if the vacuum of space does not exist which it most certainly does not; and if we can’t really measure a beam of light moving away from us to be one billion miles per hour which we can’t, modern cosmology and physics are entirely rubbished. Worldviews would be ravaged. Entire groups of people would be lost and forlorn, their religiosity, if not their entire existence called into disrepute.
We have argued on this substack (quite correctly), that the speed of light as experimentally proven by Sagnac, gyroscopes and satellite emissions, can never be a constant velocity. Many in mainstream physics know this and some are courageous enough to publish their doubts, putting their careers at risk. An example is B. Koberlein who expressed his scepticism in Universe Today and admitted we cannot measure the speed of light, even if we use the discredited philosophies and maths of Relativity. If the speed of light is wrong, the entire ‘long age’ history of our universe needs a complete reconsideration.
“several physicists have pointed out that while relativity assumes the vacuum speed of light is a universal constant, it also shows the speed can never be measured. Specifically, relativity forbids you from measuring the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you’d need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light. You can’t synchronize them without knowing the speed of light, which you can’t know without measuring. What you can do is use a single stopwatch to measure the round-trip time from A to B back to A, and this is what every measurement of the speed of light does.”
What does the above mean? More here
Many posts have discussed why the speed of light constant at 300.000 km per second is incorrect. If this criticism is valid, it means that the age of the universe is wrong and ‘The Big Bang’ and Relativity must be declared implausible. As a corollary it also indicates that the theories about light-shifting due to a difference in frequency (blue or red-shifting) are also without merit.
Other posts have discussed red shifting, often used a ‘proof’ for the Big Bang. Halton Arp and others have proven that these claims from ‘The Science’ are illusory. The idea is simple enough and was proposed by Edwin Hubble a hundred years ago. The theory is that when light is received with a lower frequency, it is called ‘red-shifted’. It is assumed that given the lower frequency the light is of greater age than a beam emitting a higher frequency or a ‘blue shift’. This theory is just that – a theory.
Using the above as a context, a red-shift emission is received when a star is emitting light as it moves away from the Earth. There are many assumptions in this model. The establishment explanation is that a red shift indicates a light emission which has lost energy during its journey (propagating at a lower frequency over time). Images accompany the explanation showing that the light waves are getting longer as the light moves away from the star and as the star accelerates away from the Earth (another assumption). We know that a light’s frequency is proportional to its energy, and this supposedly explains the lower frequency. More here
False claims
The dogma is that the speed of light travels at a maximum velocity of 186.000 miles per second in vacuo, or only in a vacuum. No vacuum exists anywhere in the universe, so this postulate is false. In reality light travels at different speeds depending on the medium and this upends Relativity and most of modern science. Since we cannot measure anything in a vacuum the claim that there is an upper end to the speed of light is mere speculation. It might be correct, but it could also be completely erroneous and could well vary over time.
It needs to be stated that light is independent of its source and therefore light waves require no medium for their propagation. Light emission is premised on electrons and electrical energy. Light is basically a wave in an electromagnetic field (Faraday, Maxwell), and when this is propagated through a medium (air, water, an object), its speed will vary in accordance with the properties of that medium.
We also know that all wave speeds, like object speeds, must be measured relative to some object on which points A and B can be specified or mapped out. This is called a frame of reference (or a grid map). We can only measure light speed relative to an object on a grid (hence points A and B representing starting and ending points or 2 objects relative to each other).
Logically we cannot measure the speed of light in a vacuum since reference frames and objects don’t exist in vacuo. The speed of light in a vacuum is thereby a theory devoid of meaning. It should also be noted that many scientists don’t believe that the speed of light can even be measured.
“But several physicists have pointed out that while relativity assumes the vacuum speed of light is a universal constant, it also shows the speed can never be measured. Specifically, relativity forbids you from measuring the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you'd need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light.” (Koberlein, 2021)
More on this quote below.
We should also emphasise that measuring speed and time is entirely a human invention. It is our conceptions of motion and time which allow calculations of velocity and duration. Time does not exist outside of human consciousness. Therefore time can never be merged with space into a new spatial-duration dimension. More here
There is a long list of experiments which have disproven Relativity, which was conceived as an attempt to explain why mechanical experiments could not prove a moving, or even a rotating Earth. These are not discussed, taught, and are largely unknown. One such experiment which the Relativists cannot answer is that of the French physicist Georges Sagnac, and his 1913 interferometer calculations. ‘Modern science’ simply brushes Sagnac under the carpet as they do with any replicable experimentation which disproves Special Relativity. Few Phd’s in Physics have ever heard of Georges Sagnac.
Sagnac was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Paris. He was a Copernican and Sun worshipper. Sagnac is never taught in schools, yet in his day he enjoyed renown. Sagnac assisted Pierre Curie in determining the properties of radium and the discovery of secondary X-rays and various other optical effects. He was part of the scientific establishment and a contemporary of one of France’s top physicists, the Catholic Pierre Duhem, who had the temerity to challenge the ‘consensus’ and whose Catholicism offended the small group of atheists that ran French ‘science’. Duhem was ostracized and sent to the University of Bordeaux and denied access to materials. Free speech, open science and all that. Sagnac suffered no such fate, he was part of ‘The Science’ until he began to question Relativity. More here
The speed of light is a problem for ‘The Science’. If the speed of light is inconstant in space and time, the entire edifice of modern cosmology including ‘Relativity’ is destroyed. Other posts in this substack have adumbrated the issues with the speed of light in the context of what is wrong with modern physics and cosmology. To further understand the importance of this issue we will provide 3 posts: a brief history of the speed of light, the ignored and wrongly vilified Sagnac experiment, and proofs and support as to why the speed of light dogma is incorrect, including personal experiments.
Through many years of study and experimentation with the speed of light, it is clear that the ‘settled consensus’ that the speed of light is ~186.000 miles per second in a vacuum is simply wrong. One obvious reason is that space is not a vacuum but full of material including radiation, rays, neutrinos, positrons, quantum fluctuations and other matter. No vacuum exists within the universe. Einsteins’ own General Relativity assumes an ether. Light speed obviously varies by medium including in space and in the opinion of many cannot even be measured. More here
Niall Ferguson to his credit recognizes the role faith plays in both the development of reason, and of the political-economy and its social-environmental evolution. His comments are worth reading at some length. On page 264 he gets to the crux of the matter as to why the West is better than the Rest [to quote his own depiction]:
“Religions matter. In earlier chapters we saw how the 'stability ethic' of Confucianism played a part in imperial China's failure to develop the kind of competitive institutional framework that promoted innovation in Western Europe....But perhaps the biggest contribution of religion to the history of Western civilization was this. Protestantism made the West not only work, but also save and read. The Industrial Revolution was indeed a product of technological innovation and consumption.”
All true. Though Weber's Protestant read, work and save ethic, is indeed a prime source of European dynamism it must also be said that the Catholic Church saved Europe and should be given joint credit for its rise to dominance. The Roman church developed the economy, fought wars of liberation and defence against Islam [including the Crusades which bought Europe 500 years of time to develop]; stimulated the creation of schools, universities, enquiry and debate; and financed science and art. The balance sheet of the Catholic Church is usually taught as a negative. This is nonsense. Even with the sordid foibles, corruption and inquisitorial nature of the Church, its influence in European development is undeniably positive and decisive.
The 'Great Republic' is a book compiled from many essays which Churchill wrote about America, during his many years in politics. This book was formed and edited by his grandson, Winston S. Churchill who was also for a time, an MP in the British Parliament. The book makes for interesting reading because it covers all of American history, including the Revolution, the Civil War, slavery, America's role in two World Wars, and even the creation of Canada. One of the more interesting chapters is named 'The American Constitution'. It is a good read because it gives the reasons why America, and its key foundational text is so outstandingly unique.
One has to wonder what Churchill would say today of the American government's disregard for this document? What would be his reaction to the destruction of the rules of political engagement which allowed in very large part, the creation of the modern world and of American exceptionalism? The Federal government alone now consumes close to 30% of national income, with ownership of key sectors such as auto manufacturing and banking. One doubts very much, that Churchill would be impressed by the totalitarian pretensions of the unDemocratic or anti-Republican parties.
One of Churchill's strengths in his 66 year long political career, was his defense of both democracy; and of the Constitutional division of powers. He admired the US foundational texts as being unique in human history, and the bedrock of the Republican ideal. The US Constitution was not just an piece of parchment concocted by rich, white men, who owned slaves – but rather the apogee of genius, crafted by highly intelligent men, who were successful in life, and knew how a prosperous and well-functioning nation state should be developed.
“Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.”
[Churchill May 14 1908, Dundee Hall speech].
This is little book a wonderful and new product for Churchilliana. The publishing firm, General Books, copied a number of Churchill's speeches between 1906 and 1912 using optical character recognition software. These full length reproductions were then turned into a book of some 138 pages. They are a fine compilation on Churchill's vision of 'Liberalism', or the establishment of what some might call welfare-capitalism, which merges aspects of socialism and communal responsibility, with trade, free[ish] markets, and aspects of capitalism.
These speeches formed the ideology and political convictions of Churchill the politician during the social-reforming era of 1906 to 1912. This was when the modern welfare state and its important components was created. Churchill became a minister of power during 2 governments serving as MP for Manchester North-West [1906-8], and Dundee [1908-22]. He entered the Cabinet in 1908 until 1910 as President of the Board of Trade and served as the Home Secretary from 1910 to 1911. These crucial 5 years from 1907 to 1912 were essential to restoring the communal health of Great Britain and the many 'have-nots'. Churchill's speeches make the argument as to why this is so and why a safety net of health, insurance, poor relief, and wage floors is necessary. Conservatives might be shocked but yes we do need a minimum welfare state.
The usual lament is that 'we don't build anything anymore' in advanced economies. This is not true. 15 % of GDP is in manufacturing and if one adds in software and technology development – which is a manufacturing process – the number is 30%. IT accounts for about 15% of US GDP making it the single most important industry. There are three factors about manufacturing which the mainstream media never reports.
Euro, soon to be a Zeuro. Europe has long been infected with the disease which first appeared with some force in the mid 19th century from the revolutionary slogans of 1848 to the mindlessness of Nietzsche's sad little writings which attempted to create 'supermen' out of a culture which was becoming socialist. All people, cultures, ideas and nations are equal. Fairness means everyone is the same. Equality is where all people and states are equally poor and miserable. Any 'gaps' in wealth, productivity, talent or initiative must be 'reduced' by government. If you try hard you are a criminally liable idiot, a threat to the state. Life is a large vacation punctuated by periods of unproductive, unsatisfying labour. The tenets of Christian civilization – rationality, gratitude, humility, hard-work, the reduction of the ego, the Golden Rule – are all relics of superstition and stupidity. Narcissism, self-absorption, 'free' benefits, TV and cults are the coveted idols of sophistication.
When your society is built upon the foundations of Rousseau and modern cultural Marxism it is bound to fail. When a currency is created to 'hide the decline', and allow governments more unfettered access to printed money currency, regulations, taxation, and power, the end is only a matter of time. Of course European 'leaders' now 'demand' a fiscal union. That is after all the whole point of the Euro exercise. Create a monetary disaster which implodes fiscal reality, and then offer 'solutions' which involve more government centralization and unfettered power.
Fiat currencies will disappear at least in their current form. When Nixon abolished the Gold Standard in 1971 he did so for self-interested reasons. He was aping the failed but short term policy of Lincoln during the Civil War – print more money all the time – to fund the war effort. That lasted only 4 years, and the inflationary effects were real but eaten up within 5 years by a rebounding economy, growing large and powerful on a unified Continental sized market. Nixon's feat has endured 40 years with a huge increase in the printing of money aligned with zero interest rates in the past 10 years, guaranteeing some form of future financial destruction. There are laws of economics, and we can't ignore them, though the big brains which run the world often times do.
US debt took off post 1971, when the US dollar was decoupled from the Gold standard.
The ancient Greeks set up the Oracle of Delphi as a temple to Apollo the Sun and Music God. The high priestesses were stoned on Datura leaves and mumbled some nonsense to any who brought a question. They were revealing what the 'Earth Mother' forecast. But like Nostradumuses sayings, much of what these stoned women muttered was completely inane and incomprehensible. No matter. The Delphic cult believed. This is essential. Muslims believe they are the chosen ones destined by the moon deity for an after-life of pleasure and endless sex [at least for Muslim men]. Our new Earth Mother cult has to give the cult members a combination of Delphic surety and Islamic rewards. It must in other words, transcend mere paganism and take on the attributes of a religion. To this end I propose the establishment – with tax money – of Churches in every single urban center, with the name of 'Earth Mother Institute'. Thus they will not look like a 'normal church' and won't be vilified by really smart people or the media. We will teach that by following our cult, your life will be purified, you will be moral, you will be superior, and at some point, because you are 'one with nature', you will be rewarded in both this life and the next.
Climate Change is a mythical problem premised on grand lies and fraud. Witness some real world facts: Co2 Emissions today are at their 2nd lowest level in history.
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm
Ice Ages are the norm:
“For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth's climate has been an ice age. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, and are punctuated by short periods of warm climate, or inter-glacials. The last ice age started about 114,000 years ago. It began instantaneously. For a hundred-thousand years, temperatures fell and sheets of ice a mile thick grew to envelop much of North America, Europe and Asia. The ice age ended nearly as abruptly as it began. Between about 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 °F.”
The UN IPCC scam
The fact that Co2 does not cause anything is a scientific fact. The Earth is not a greenhouse and ergo there can be no forcing of water vapour causing global cooling. There are over 1 million impact variables in the earth's convection system. The most common climate is an ice age – a reality completely divorced from Co2 levels or human activity. The sun has more to do with climate patterns than human activity.
No one from the Marxist-Globalist Globaloney Warming cult can explain the creation and the ending of the last ice age. Nor can they posit why Co2 levels which are at their 2nd lowest level in the last 2 million years have any ties to temperature, in spite of local climactic conditions and physical thermodynamics – both of which disprove 'global temperature' as utterly meaningless. The cult can't explain local variations or why the IPCC fraudulent data confirms that the earth is cooling, not warming. IPCC models [26 of them], have proven utterly futile at predicting any real world climate events or temperatures – a fact again left unexplained by the Eco Fascist cult.
Socialist reduction
Socialism always fails. States cannot afford socialized programs. If you deem health care to be a human right than nationalize food, housing, water bottle distribution, and clothing. Health care is no different than any other market. If a socialized system is truly necessary than we should at least have the rational intelligence to allow a functioning market to co-exist in which private insurances, care, and access are subject to price points and supply and demand factors. Not only would that alleviate the stress on state budgets it would improve the morality of the system by both decreasing costs and death rates. The modern dark-age mantra of 'socialism is good' is absurd. Time to move on.
