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
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’.
“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
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 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
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
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