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

'Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science': ‘Science’ is an ideology, not an arbiter of truth

Scientism is the Church of Science, based on false propaganda and blind, ignorant mass acceptance of its divine right to rule.

Bookmark and Share

 


“We would expect that for every case of major fraud that comes to light, a hundred or so go undetected.  For each major fraud, perhaps a thousand minor fakeries are perpetrated.  The reader can supply his own multiplication factor; ours would indicate that every major case of fraud that becomes public is the representative of some 100.000 others, major and minor combine, that lie concealed in the marshy wastes of the scientific literature.”  (Broad & Wade, ‘Betrayers of Truth’, 1982, p. 87)

 

Introduction

Newspaper reporters Broad and Wade decided to investigate scientific fraud in 1982.  Their exercise was to outline in the past few decades some of the more famous and disturbing instances of scientific mendacity.  They openly admitted that their investigation was the tip of a massive iceberg, the glittering scum on a pond with endless depths. 

 

“….ours would indicate that every major case of fraud that becomes public is the representative of some 100.000 others” (p. 87)

 

Chew on that tidbit. For every fake mRNA ‘safe and effective’ study, 100.000 other instantiations of fraud, small and great, exist. Scientific misconduct has only gotten much, much worse since 1982.  Does anyone believe that the massive increase in scientific ‘research’ budgets, ‘scientists’, ‘journals’, and ‘papers’ since 1982 has not led to an explosion of what this book unveils?  Does anyone believe that scientific fraud has receded since the 1980s?  If any such person exists it is best to view them as a leper and avoid contact.

 

Deceit and history

Scientific fraud is as old as humanity. In the modern world, the pace and acceleration of fraud is its most noticeable characteristic. Broad and Wade’s work can be seen in a historical context. Notable figures who have engaged in outright fraud including plagiarism, falsification of data, or providing no data to support their claims include inter alia:

 

Ptolemy:  the greatest astronomer of antiquity (2nd century) lifted many of his theories and observational data from Hipparchus of Rhodes (2nd century B.C.).

 

Galileo:  Performed few if any of the experiments associated with his name.  A post on the Galileo myth explodes the propaganda around this self-promoting philosopher who provided no proof for Copernicanism. 

 

Newton:  Employed a constant, which does not exist, to make his equations balance and fabricated large tracts of his data to support his theories.  Quite likely he borrowed concepts of calculus from Leibniz. His deceit is rarely discussed.

 

Jenner:  A 19th century unlicensed country quack, who concocted a potion including lacerated cow teat detritus, mercury, chloric and arsenic, which he injected into his gardener to ward off ‘smallpox’.  When his gardener did not succumb to smallpox (adults don’t contract smallpox in general), he marketed his solution as the saviour against the scourge.  He and his Royal Society friends went on to make £ 3 million.

 

John Dalton:  19th century discoverer of the laws of the chemical combinations which proved the existence of atoms; his elegant and perfect experiments and data cannot be replicated.

 

Darwin:  Plagiarised much of his material on ‘evolution’ and did not supply one single experimental proof of meta-mutations of species, instead relying on philosophy, descriptions and prose. 

 

Mendel:  The Austrian monk and founder of genetics invented much of his statistics on peas, which cannot be replicated, and which are far too perfect to be true.

 

Einstein:  Borrowed whole tracts of his theories from others including Lorentz, Minkowski, Fisher and others with referencing their work.  Like Newton he employed a fake constant to get his ‘steady state’ universe equations to balance (now termed ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’). Did not perform any physical experiments to support relativity.  Instituted arcane maths which do not work when applied to mechanical experiments.

 

Various-Piltdown man:  An early 20th century fraud which for 40 years was taught as proof of ‘evolution’ and the missing link.  The skeleton scam was fabricated and dumped into a pit in Sussex not far from Darwin’s residence.  It was a farmer’s skeletal remains glued to the skull and jaw of a chimp.  It would have taken a real ‘scientist’ about 20 minutes to identify the fraud. 

 

Milliken:  20th century American Nobel winner in physics, for his work on electric charges of an electron, fabricated much of his data and misrepresented his work to beat ‘rivals’.

 

Freud:  Manufactured fraudulent data and conclusions on a large scale to build his theories, practice, and revenues.  Freudian psychology is an example of an entire industry saturated with fraud and pseudo-intellectualism.

 

Alfred Kinsey:  A charlatan passed off by the media as a ‘scientist’, Kinsey in the 1970s invented ‘research’, studies and data proving that the ‘gay lifestyle’ was more mainstream than believed and that most men are bi-sexual by nature and that chromosomes are not gender gatekeepers. 

 

Michael Mann:  The hockey stick curve of ‘climate’ temperatures which attempts to erase the medieval warming and little ice ages, and which flattens the 1940-70s reduction in temperatures is one of the great frauds in modern science.  Independent analysis of the segments of code which were released reveal that any set of variables and parameters will generate a hockey stick (eg U$-GBP exchange rates). 

 

The above are just a few examples.  As the quote at the top of the page states, much of what passes for ‘science’ is simply fiction, butchered by criminal deceit.  Medical and bio-medical research including pharmaceutical research, is of course an extreme example of ‘scientific’ criminality.  But the usurpation of honesty in the pursuit of money and power exists in every domain. 

(Tobacco ‘research’ emanating from academics and private institutions guaranteed that cigarettes were safe and effective.)

 

Why and how?

Broad and Wade analyse why scientific fraud occurs by detailing some 2 dozen extraordinary cases, some of them quite famous (eg the widespread research fraud at Yale).  Contrary to the public image of the scientist as a moral saint, wrapped in a white jacket with a pencil behind the ear, earnest, honest, transparent, self-correcting, applying their genius to enlighten the world, or to save it, Broad and Wide paint a far more realistic picture. 

 

‘Science’ at its core is not the golden image sold to the public but riven and saturated with deceit, worst practices, disorganisation, competition, vulgar procedures and simmering violence.  All distorted by money and the pressures to publish. The processes of criminality are legion and varied.  There are many ways to commit ‘fraud’ and a crime.  The means, the motive, the ability to do so abound within ‘science’. 

 

Refreshingly Broad and Wade dispense with the usual nostrum that ‘most scientists are honest’.  There is no proof of this.  Scientists are just as craven, corrupt, self-serving, hypocritical, criminal, and egotistical as anyone else in society.  They identify some reasons why rampant fraud rampages through the ‘Halls of Science’:

1.     Fame and recognition

2.     Publication and money

3.     Replication/Peer review – does not work

4.     Scientific methods – which don’t exist

5.     Philosophy

6.     Public ignorance

Flying Viruses don’t exist. Virus theology is one of the great examples of $cientism.

Quackery, deceit, lies, lack of proofs, no common sense, saturates the modern religion of flying viruses and viral transmission.

Bookmark and Share


Introduction

Too many sceptics of the Corona fascism accept the ‘normative’ (normie) view that flying viruses exist.  This belief is from indoctrination.  You have been told your entire life by the ‘The Science’ that flying ‘germs’ relabelled ‘viruses’ have been ‘discovered’ and ‘confirmed’ to exist.  Further you have brainwashed that there is a monomorphic relationship between a single ‘virus’ and a single ‘disease’.  No evidence for monomorphism of a ‘virus’ exists.  This post will summarise why viruses do not exist.  Once you free your mind from this non-science, you are better able to defend yourself from medical totalitarianism, health fascism, from criminal quacks and from the state and its partners in the criminal industry of pharmaceuticals profiteering from ignorance and blind, stupid belief. 

 

What is a virus?

There are some 200 definitions of a ‘virus’.  No single definition is agreed upon, but a common interpretation is an ‘intracellular parasite’.  This word salad means nothing.  100 trillion bacteria inhabit each person’s body.  The ‘intracellular parasite’ would reference a bacterium which causes cell decay or tissue inflammation.  But no such bacteria exist in situ in our bodies. Bacteria are the ‘garbage collectors’ within our complex body and immune systems.  They arrive to clean up detritus and decayed cell matter and tissue.  They don’t cause the same. 

 

Stating that ‘Corona 19’ ‘genomic’ material is found in your system, is as irrelevant and ignorant as apocryphally stating that your DNA is 98% similar to that of a banana.  Truncated ‘strands’ or ‘isolated material’ being ‘similar’ does not mean you are a banana (though many normies are indeed vegetables).  Genomic strand correspondence does not mean you are ill or will die. 

 

The etymology of the word virus is from Latin, meaning ‘poison’ or a toxic sap or substance.  For 2000 years until the ‘modern’ 20th century, this definition was accepted as factual, meaning that a virus was related to toxic materials and influences.  It was not created from abiogenesis (another non-science), nor manufactured from genomic material in our bodies.  A virus for 2000 years referenced poisons imbibed and ingested which changed our bodily tissues and cells, fomenting a reaction, labelled a disease.

 

Modern myths

 

The modern concept of a virus can be dated back to the 17th century.  Pasteur in the 19th century is usually credited with the ‘theory of germs’ forwarded in two phases in the 1860s and 1880s but there are many theories and ideas, akin to Pasteur’s germ theory which long pre-date the mid-19th century.  Koch the German competitor to Pasteur, is celebrated for his ‘postulates’ on disease creation which his own experiments on ‘germs’ failed to satisfy.  Between Pasteur and Koch, the state with its medical and scientific ‘societies’ declared that ‘germs’, renamed ‘viruses’ were the cause of disease.  Every disease was associated with a single ‘virus’.  The cure was a drug or vaccine.  Profits, power and control over populations was the real objective. 

 

As with Saint Jenner the criminal fraudPasteur was a quack and Koch created and issued a ‘vaccine’ for tuberculosis which killed thousands of Germans.  Their theories still remain unproven and experimentally unsupported.  They do generate billions in profits each year for the drug industry to ‘keep us safe’ from the flying viruses.  Obviously, your pet will die from the flying rabies unless you ‘inoculate’ it every year for £200 a shot.  You don’t want to be an evil and negligent pet owner and endanger your children by exposing them to rabies right?  Alternative theories including Pasteur’s contemporary Bechamp’s terrain theory, explain much better how disease forms in our bodies and those of our pets. 

 

The religion of Virology

Astrology is more useful and contains more science than modern virology.  The following recapitulates the arcane inanity of modern ‘medical science’ around how a ‘virus spreads’:

1.     A chicken has a ‘genomic’ sequence labelled a ‘virus’, which if transferred to humans is somehow toxic (humans and chickens have cohabited for millennia, so pace the religion of ‘evolution’ shouldn’t you be immune to chicken DNA material since you are the ‘fittest’?);

2.     The clucking creature is petted by your son, or eaten in a ‘wet market’ in Wuhan (the science is ‘certain’ that any contact can result in a transfer), this kicks off the catastrophe;

3.     The ‘virus’ leaves the tissue of the chicken through touching, or is present in the tissue through ingestion and enters the body of the new host;

4.     This ‘virus’ then finds its way into the respiratory tract and ‘attacks’ your respiratory system, cells, membranes and tissues, causing ‘bird flu’;

5.     The ‘bird flu’ and its toxic genomic material ‘spreads’ through ‘recombinant DNA copying’ (more word salads), issuing viral matter into your organs, destroying cells and functionality, it is carnage worthy of a war (imagine a sword wielding viral-DNA chain slaughtering the innocent cells of your body);

6.     ‘Influenza’ or cold symptoms include fever, shallow breathing, chest pain, sweating and debilitating muscular weakness;

7.     If old, frail, obese, or suffering from pre-conditions (or all the aforementioned) you die;

8.     Before you die, the ‘bird flu virus’ lodged into your mucous membranes and nasal cavities, is ejected in ‘water molecules’, which are airborne and float and fly (sometimes for miles, pace the ‘science’)

9.     The toxic viral-DNA protected by water sacs, with a distinct ‘genomic’ footprint, will float and fly into a recipient’s eyes, nose, mouth;

10.  The water-protected ‘viral DNA matter’ will also be transferred to surfaces and will await a person to touch the surface, collect the viral DNA onto their fingers, they will then rub their face and then somehow the viral matter now released from its water-sac, will ambulate into the nose, eyes, mouth or ears of the recipient host;

11.  The new host will then succumb to the toxic viral-DNA admixture which enters the respiratory tract and causes ‘flu symptoms’;

12.  The process then repeats until there is an epidemic and the entire globe needs to be shut down, locked down, diapered down and stabbed down.

 

The above nonsense and stupidity are declared to be ‘science’.  For Corona 19 the bat-pangolin ‘virus’ provenance was Wuhan China, and somehow by a series of miraculous transferences, was spread across most of the globe.  It is noteworthy that the death rate was the same as the ‘flu’, the symptoms the same as influenza or a bad cold, and that the death rates did not increase in ‘modern nations’ until the stabbinations appeared in December 2020.  In Africa and other locales that were ‘vaccine hesitant’ the death rates were a fraction of what they were in ‘modern states’ that happily stabbed 90% of the population, most of them gullible sheeple.

 

When you view the concept of a ‘viral’ pandemic, it is embarrassing how ridiculous, religious, puerile and fictitious the belief system is.  There is more magic and religiosity in this framework than anything seen at a Marian shrine.  Not a single experiment can prove any of the above as an end-to-end process, nor even mechanically prove its constituent parts or claims.   More here

Scientific Fraud. 'Retractions' are the tip of a massive Iceberg of corruption and criminality.

$cientism. 'Follow the Science' or the fraud? The U$2.5 Trillion science and research market is as corrupt and debased as any single Pharma study on 'safe and effective' poisons.

Bookmark and Share

 


“Grant Steen (Citation2011a) analysed article retractions and suggested that it demonstrated that research fraud has indeed increased in recent years. In a subsequent paper, Steen (Citation2011b) suggested that apparent increase in incidence of research fraud in medicine is leading to increased harm to patients. Yudhijit Bhattacharjee (Citation2013), suggested that scientific fraud has a range of manifestations, some of which go unchallenged, ‘on a continuum of dishonest behaviours that extend from the cherry-picking of data to fit a chosen hypothesis … to outright fabrication’.” (Source‘Research fraud: a long-term problem exacerbated by the clamour for research grants’, 2020)

 

Introduction

‘Science’ is full of fraud and quacks and always has been.  In this post we list some egregious examples of retracted ‘research’ fraud. It is a tithe of what could be posted. A good book needs to written on the extensive frauds permeating science since the beginning of recorded history. ‘Retractions’ are an insignificant category of the total fraud, but like a canary in the coal mine, a leading indicator of poisons, toxins and catastrophe.  In the ‘modern world’, the caveat is always, ‘the fraud and retractions are still a low percentage of publications’.  This is because not every submission is audited for fraud and because the definition of ‘fraud’ is vague and ambiguous. The fraud in ‘the science’ is more extensive and pervasive than fraudulent votes in a US election.

 

[Cambridge University Press, 2022]:  Scientific fraud still lacks a precise, universally accepted definition: the borders between unambiguously established fraud, errors, misconduct are uncertain: this frequently complicates decisions on whether or not cases of questionable behaviour can be classified as true fraud…..Also important is the fact that the assessment of the seriousness of suspected cases is incremental: it goes from simple misconduct cases that would border on negligence, to cases of evident fraud, e.g. the fabrication or falsification of data or results, and/or the appropriation (plagiarism) of another person’s ideas or data without giving appropriate credit.

 

If I use just the last sentence (plagiarism), I will say that Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Darwin, Koch, Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins and many other ‘scientists’ are frauds.  Forget the fact that much of what they proposed was wrong and without basis.  Most ‘scientists’, including the aforementioned, were very good at ‘borrowing’ from others without attribution or reference. That is fraudulent.

 

Further, if every single published paper was fully audited, and we properly defined all the categories of misconduct, the fraud and retraction rate would probably be in the 80% range.  It is not just the vapid and breathless ‘research paper-mills’ churning out non-science for psychology, gender, evolution, climate change and the virus-pandemic complex and hundreds of other activist causes. Most scientific research is fraud on an industrial scale, encompassing every known domain, fuelled and mutilated by money, power and government interference.  It is largely intentional, not accidental, and is geared towards accruing profits, power, career advancement and state aggrandizement.

 

Climate, Corona as examples

The previous sentence is revealed as a fact when one looks at the apogee of outright scientific fraud for money and power in the climate cult.  Since the 19th century, this collection of fantasists and green totalitarians have spewn propaganda parading as science on a weekly basis, now premised on fraudulent models, readings, data sources, programming code, and contrived algorithms. Even the Fake News media admits that climate models are useless.  A long history of climate predictions and failures, with attendant issues in models which cannot possibly replicate the complex convection systems of long-term weather is collated here.  Yet few if any of the ‘climate papers’ are retracted.  We should never forget that this criminality was laid naked and exposed in the Climate Gate email scandals.  It is fair to say that there is amongst informed critical thinkers a 97% consensus that 97% of all ‘climate studies’ are junk science. 

 

The Corona plandemic followed the same runbook as the climatist religion, as will future ‘pandemics’ and ‘emergencies’.  The fraud within the Corona plandemic was outrageous and one of the greatest examples of $cientism.  Trillions spent worldwide on a scamdemic when the globe was shut down for almost 3 years.  Far more died from the lockdowns, the stabbinations and other policies including treatment protocols, than perished from the ‘virus’.  In every country the death from the ‘cure’ was 8-10 times greater than that from the disease (see here).  In the UK about 25.000 died from Corona and only from Corona.  Over 200.000 died from the stabbinations (‘excess deaths’) and some 20-30.000 from the March to May 2020 lockdown

 

There is not a single shred of evidence that ‘viruses’ exist, nor any experimentation showing end-to-end, how a ‘virus’ emitted by a human (sneezing, coughing, touching), is transmitted by air or surface to someone else, how the DNA and RNA of the virus survives outside the host, how this molecule infects a second host and causes the same illness (same DNA, RNA).  Yet endless research is published yearly on ‘viruses’ ‘proving’ a correlation with ‘diseases’.  They should all be retracted until there is proof that ‘germs’, or ‘viruses’ exist.  But they never are. 

 

  • The ‘scientific’ claims and ‘studies’ issued during the Corona plandemic were ludicrous including inter-alia:
  • CV-19 was a ‘pandemic’ when a pandemic was redefined to be ‘cases’ from false PCR tests, not actual people who were sick or dying in real life (the death rates never changed during the plandemic);

  • mRNA stabs sold as ‘safe and effective’, preventing transmission, disease or even death;

     

  • mRNA ‘clinical trials’ proving they were safe and effective when the trials themselves were fraudulent (with the drugs cooked up in a matter of months and the ‘trials’ rushed and scientifically invalid);

  • Claims that face diapers/nappy rags would stop a 0.3 micron size particle, when diapers were proven in hundreds of studies to be useless;

      

  • That the unstabbed would die in legions because they were not ‘protected’ (the unstabbed death rate was far below the stabbed);

  • The fake PCR tests were ‘gold standards’ in SARS-II virus hunting and if the test was positive you were going to die; 

  • The scariants (mutations) were ‘worse’ than the original CV-19 genomic structure which is anti-science and biologically impossible (mutations don’t add functionality, they destroy);

  •  Models showing that lockdowns were necessary to flatten curves and sombreros;

    …etc

     

 

Yet we hear that US government ‘scientists’ received U$700 million for their fraudulent research supporting the scamdemic narrative. Cui bono indeed? Below in this post are listed a small sample of fake mRNA studies later retracted or destroyed by real evidence. Yet the mass of that propaganda still persists. Most of that lurid junk science posing as ‘scientific studies’ informed policies and protocols and they still stand to be reused to support and calibrate a ‘response’ to future ‘emergencies’.

 

Much of what passed for ‘science’ during the Corona Medical Nazism was simply psychological brainwashing and acclimating the mass (the sheeple) to lockdowns, mRNA injectables and totalitarian control including digital IDs and passes, vaccination status and compliance.  We see the same brainwashing and anti-reality program with ‘climate’ and ‘boiling’, ‘changing’ or ‘weirding’. 

 

Fraud and Markets

Those of us who have been through a peer-review process and had papers or submissions approved for publication or issue, know that it is a deeply flawed approach.  It is the equivalent of forming a committee to create a sausage.  Some basic questions a farmer would ask about peer review would reveal just how broken and disjoined it is. 

1.     Is your purported ‘problem statement’ really a problem?  Or is it concocted to fulfil other non-scientific (social, political, activist) objectives? 

2.     Are you investigating an observed hypothesis, and then going through experimentation to try to shed light on why the observed phenomena behave in the way that they do?  Or is it really the reverse, where you are using data, measurements and maybe experimentation, to prove your pre-determined conclusion.  

3.     Is the research using inductive (bottom up from observations) or deductive (top down from generalisations) logic?  Both methods should be used to reach a valid conclusion

4.     Who within peer reviews fully understands the topic, or has time to investigate the claims and their attributed sources in detail? 

5.     Who in the peer review community understands the data, the code, the schemas, the sources, the logic, the links, the references and attributions?  Who can explain any of the backup detail to support the paper’s ‘conclusions’?

6.     Are the data sets, code and programming logic, including all documentation, ‘open science’ and accessible to anyone with an interest in the topic?  If not how is this ‘scientific’?  [If IP protection is used as an excuse, masked or obfuscated data and code can still be presented with documentation explaining how the system logic operates.] 

7.     Did IT experts verify the application code, data schemas, data sources and logic?

8.     Are biases, worldviews, philosophies, conflicts of interest and financing openly declared?  Cui bono from the ‘research’?

9.     Can I, the little peasant farmer, replicate your research and methods? 

 

The above questions highlight the issues that have always distorted ‘science’.  Peer-review as a process is more garbage in-garbage out, than some magical filter of honest appraisal and confirmation.  It means nothing to say your paper was ‘peer approved’.  You pass mine; I will pass yours.  Especially if money, prestige, a professorship, or publication is at stake.

Money

More here

Summarising the failures of Newton and Einstein. $cientism, dogmas and Einstein’s hoax.

The make-believe fantasy world of Einsteinian physics has retarded real science and pushed mechanical proofs to the side.

Bookmark and Share


The Hoax

It turns out that such matter (the ether) exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo” (Robert Laughlin, 1993 Nobel prize winner; Laughlin, pp. 120-121)

 

The ether exists which by itself negates Relativity. It is entirely reasonable and scientifically justifiable to label Einsteinian Relativity as a hoax.  Einstein cooked up two theories to explain the mechanics of the universe.  The first was called ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ written in 1905.  The second came a decade later in the form of the ‘General Theory of Relativity’.  Both are dogmatic gospel within ‘the Science’.  Both are wrong.  Both have pushed ‘The Science’ into anti-scientific propositions and suppositions, including using both to support the ‘Big Bang’ a paradigm long past its sell date.  This post summarises the issues with Relativity and why it is a nonsense and why it explains nothing.  More here

Summarising the failures of the Big Bang. $cientism's very religious views.

Next article will summarise the failures of Netwon and Einstein since they are related to, and inform the Big Bang bust.

Bookmark and Share

 


Big Bang in big trouble

There are many proofs against the Big Bang. Few are known or discussed. How would a ‘bang’ create information, structure, order and life? This is a philosophical program not a ‘science’. The ‘10 Easy steps’ from nothing to the ‘Big Bang’ and then to you, is analysed here.

 

The underlying Philosophy of the Big Bang is deeply religious (link to post)

There is no proof which supports the religious tenets, namely mechancial naturalism, of the Big Bang theology.  The Banging religion is anti-humanist, in that it demands a purely naturalistic (pagan) explanation for the creation of the universe, life, intelligence and information. Within this theology, our planet is a poor, reduced spheroid in the fringes of the universe. Humans are unimportant, our species simply a chance causation, designed by a random fluctuation of material and matter, akin to developed bacteria, related to and maybe inferior to the great ape. It is an atavistic theology and philosophy.

Supposedly, pace the Catholic priest and physicist Lemaitre and the industry he helped to create, the following naturalistic process occurred: a cosmic egg containing all universal matter exploded (how formed?), fusion reaction and massive heat ensued, an expansion, slowdown, then acceleration, cooling, isotropy, and homogeneity (disproven), gravity appears, galaxy and planet formation somehow occurred and improbably stardust and inanimate matter became information systems and life.  This philosophical nonsense, built as a religio-scientific framework without foundational proof, is sold as ‘fact’. It is anything but factual or proven.

 

Some reasons why the Big Bang is simply rubbish are given below.

 

First Law of Thermodynamics

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.  Matter cannot simply create itself and in the ‘real world’ matter cannot spontaneously arise from nothing, whether or not the instigating event is an explosion.  There is no observational evidence to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics

 

Radiation spectrum disproves the Big Bang (links to post with details)

In general, we can say that two things would falsify the Big Bang religion:  1-if the blackbody radiation spectrum is not found and 2-if the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMB possesses a spectrum that is substantially different from a blackbody.  Astronomical observations confirm these two objections. The Big Bang is therefore invalid.

 

James Webb Telescope (JWT) observations which refute both the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and the Big Bang

Contrary to STR and Banging theology, stellar galaxies should be far less than 1 billion years old, but this is not what ‘The Science’ has found.  Exploding Supernovae are young.  Galaxies larger than ours are newly created.  Super galaxies have formed in short periods of time.  According to STR and Banging, the Universe should collapse on itself and either reform or cease to exist.  Magical dark matter and dark energy are invoked to prevent a collapse, neither has been found or can even be described. JWT observations suggest that the universe may be a flat disc and not curved.

 

Curved or not? Time Dilation?

‘The Science’ has no ‘consensus’ on the size, shape or form of the Universe. It might be expanding. It might be expanding and contracting. It might be in a steady state. It might not be in a steady state. The universe might well be a flat disc pace the JWT data. Or maybe not. Most likely it is a flat disc, but we might never know.

To be fair to the one of the few ‘insights’ from Einstein, Planck probes may suggest a slight curve of the universe which means that time dilation would be valid (clocks on the Earth would run much faster than in space).  This is Einstein’s time-dilation and his ‘Twin paradox’ where a twin in space ages less quickly if he is travelling in a rocket near the speed of light (and that is the important variable), than his twin on Earth. Clocks due to gravity, run ‘faster’ on Earth than in space.

If true, this would mean that the billions of years of cosmic space formation would be rendered in the thousands or millions on Earth, depending on the clock dilation impact from a slight curvature and Einstein’s view that large objects due to gravity, slow down time. This by itself would upend modern cosmology and it would be the end of long ages on Earth. You can hear heads exploding at the very idea!

If no time dilation it is still a lose for ‘The Science’

However, if the slight curvature of space is not true and time-dilation is invalid and the JWT flat disc observation is accurate, it is still a lose for cosmology, given that the Big Bang and Relativity promote a fairly large curvature. Yet, ironically but deliberately, in promoting their space-curve dimension, ‘The Science’ does not bother to calculate the impact on time, because it would destroy long ages on this planet. Rocks and hard places.

It must be said that the concept of space and time being merged into a curved 4th dimension is frankly ridiculous, unproven and just another mental experiment.  In this theory there is no absolute time, and the past, the present and the future do not exist independently of each other. In real life, time is outside of space and is a human only creation.  Inanimate matter does not consider ‘time’. 

 

Cosmic Background Radiation disproves the Big Bang

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation or CMB, disproves the Big Bang theology, and this is confirmed by the James Webb Telescope.  The universe as viewed from the Earth is largely isotropic or homogenous but with 4 defined anisotropies or heterogenous patterns. This heterogeneity indicates that the Earth is near the barycentre of the universe.  The CMB axis when viewed from the Earth appears to show geo-centricity, once again calling into disrepute the Copernican religion of Sun Worship.

 

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations disproves the Big Bang

All of the above has been confirmed by WMAP data which cannot be easily dismissed or explained away. WMAP observations thrust a dagger right into the heart of the Banging model leading to laments about the axis of evil, or the centricity of the Earth within the universe (anathema!).

More here

The Inherent Problems of Newton’s and Einstein’s Physics. 'Laws' which don’t explain reality.

Nothing better illustrates $cientism than the dogma of modern cosmology and physics. Even if the underlying assumptions are wrong, it is more agreeable to live the lie than admit 'horrible truths'.

Bookmark and Share


Prologue

Philosophy and world-views are always the foundation of ‘The Science’ past or present.  In the confused, anti-reality modern clown-world of secular materialism and nihilism, the dogmas of ‘settled science’ are religious gospel to those who believe, and to the powers that benefit.  ‘Cui bono’ as the Roman lawyer Cicero supposedly asked.  In our world, as evidenced by the Corona scamdemic, the Climate cult, and the flying virus (‘intracellular parasite’) mythology, following money and self-interest is the shortest path to find ‘The Science’.  Enrichment and power matter far more than truth or real science. 

Scientism’s religious dogma is built upon unceasing propaganda and financial largesse.  Within every domain of ‘The Science’ a religious liturgy exists, replete with miracles (Evolution, Relativity), apparitions (non-existent viruses, Co2 causing climate), and virgin births (the Big Bang, life on this planet).  ‘The Science’ is far more religious and prone to superstition than any mainline Christian church.  Newtonian physics and Einstein’s fantasy world of relativity, which has been extensively excoriated and debunked on this substack, are examples of this truism.  Both are venerated, both at the core, are quite wrong. 

What’s the problem Jack?

Starting with Copernicus and Galileo, science turned from mechanical proofs to philosophical and mathematical treatises (the execrable Galileo myth is dealt with here).  The heretic can list thousands of mechanical experiments which do not find either the rotational speed of the Earth, nor its 30 km/second canter in space.  None can be offered by those who believe in both.  This is rather curious given that nearly everyone believes in the 1000 per mile diurnal rotation and the 108.000 km per hour zoom through space.  The only defense of Copernican dogma are mathematical representations of physical phenomena, but never mechanical-physical proofs or physical answers.  Yet few know this for it is never taught or rarely discussed.  And of course, if you question any of it, you will be fired, failed, or declared a lunatic. 

Saint Newton, of the unaccelerated frames

Newton developed a physics that interpreted, in mathematical terms, the force of interaction between two bodies. Newton’s theories however, are not independent of the reference frame in which those bodies are contained. The formulas F = ma and F = Gm1m2/r2 will only work in unaccelerated reference frames.  This is not how reality operates.  Most of reality as Einstein realised, sits within accelerated reference frames of motions and bodies in movement. When Newton’s formulas are applied to accelerating frames of reference they simply do not work unless compensations are added.  This obvious error was one that Einstein attempted to resolve with his Relativity magic show but failed to do so as many posts in this substack have outlined.  

What is an accelerated frame?

Within an accelerated ‘frame’ or grid of physical locations, two bodies begin to accelerate or move relative to each other, with a force either being applied to generate the motion (or in the case of universal forces, no force is directly applied to the object per se, but movement occurs). In the image above the frame of reference is the box car. Whether the woman is moving and how fast, depends on your viewpoint or position as the ‘observer’. This philosophical premise leads to the fantasy world of ‘relativity’ which was created by Einstein to fix the flaws in Newtonian physics and to ‘save the phenomena’ and disprove thousands of experiments which could not find the Earth’s movement through space at 30/sec or its diurnal rotation.

Newton never developed the underlying mathematics to explain accelerated motion, or accelerated frames of reference (eg a moving bike and a person running behind it), so he added to his equations ‘fictitious forces’ which we now identify as the centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces.  Physics names these as ‘non-inertial forces’ since they produce motion and acceleration. However, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, even though they are measurable, are not products of matter or energy in the Newtonian system.  Newton could therefore never explain where these ‘fictitious’ forces came from or why.  They are simply thought experiments and used to make equations balance.  Physicist C. Møller described this problem 70 years ago:

…. so-called fictitious forces (centrifugal forces, Coriolis forces, etc.) which have no connexion whatever with the physical properties of the mechanical system itself….It was just for this reason that Newton introduced the concept of absolute space which should represent the system of reference where the laws of nature assume the simplest and most natural form.  However…the notion of absolute space lost its physical meaning as soon as the special principle of relativity was generally accepted, for as a consequence of this principle it became impossible by any experiment to decide which system of inertia had to be regarded as the absolute system (Møller, pp. 218-219).

Newton’s first ‘law’ is the law of inertia which was ‘discovered’ in the 14th century.  A system of inertia means a system at rest or a body with no changes in motion (i.e. no change in acceleration).  If we want to compare ‘systems’ composed of bodies we need a reference point.  If the box car is at rest and moves, and we are in it, we can measure our acceleration and speed even though we are at rest, or appear to be at rest in the box car (we are not moving but standing still). The frame of reference is the original state of the box car at rest.

However, for Bangers and Relativists no absolute frame of reference or baseline can exist. In Copernican theory the Earth cannot be a frame of reference given that it is in motion around the Sun and has a diurnal rotation. Newton never allowed the Earth to be at ‘the centre’ as a frame of reference. Instead he imposed ‘space’ as the frame of reference which, as given below, is wrong. Einstein removed space as a frame of reference and imposed relativity - where all objects are in relative motion to one another.

Anathemas