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
There is a simple technology I have used for years that disproves, or calls into question, the Earth’s purported rotation. I have taught this to students and had them conduct experiments which call into disrepute everything they have been taught in ‘science’. It is called the gyroscope.
The gyroscope joins the roughly 300.000 experiments which fail to find a motion of this planet. Current scientific principles and beliefs cannot explain this. Yet it is an experiment everyone can do at home with a U$150 instrument. It is never taught and rarely shown in schools. The online media and ‘science’ media will tell you that a laser gyroscope ‘proves’ the rotation of the Earth. The opposite is true.
And no, no one believes in a flat earth, nor in Chewbacca, ET and Yoda. And no, I don’t have a PhD in ‘gyroscopology’ but neither did its many inventors. If you buy one, you need to buy the free-swinging gyroscope, not the motorised version. If you use the free-swinging version, you will see what I mean as described below. The Earth might well rotate but the proof is thin. More here
We are concerned in this series with the philosophical foundations of science. Science is the discovery about how the natural, physical world operates. ‘Science’ however, interprets data based on its worldview. If the underlying philosophy is changed the interpretation must change. We know for example, that the mathematical and observational ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity, apply equally as well if not better, for the geo-and helio-geo-centric models. We also know that Relativity has been disproven through observational experience. Yet both are ‘consensus’ ‘science’. They are philosophies not ‘science’.
In the last 2 posts we discussed Descartes and the malevolent effects of Cartesian philosophy. Cartesian ‘rationality’ has been abused by interpreters to become irrational and unprovable. First it has led to hyper-rationalisation and a belief that solipsistic (egocentric) nominalism (no reality) is valid and reasonable. Second, Cartesian deductive mathematics, which negates experiential proof, were the foundations for the elevation of models and abstract maths over experimental induction. Descartes’ philosophy had led to the destruction of common sense and has informed Rousseau, Comte, Marx, Nietzsche and Einstotle’s Relativity.
Following from Descartes, it is necessary to turn to Newton (1642-1727) who was a Cartesian. Many posts here discuss issues with Newtonian physics and why it has distorted modern physics. This short post will look at the philosophical impact from Newtonian theory, including how it supplied the assumptions undergirding Relativity and modern cosmology. In summary, Newton’s mechanisation of nature and the universe is along with Descartes’ ideas, one of the great destructive theologies of common sense in Western civilisation. More here
“Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us….whilst I thus wished to think that all was false….I observed that this truth, I think, hence I am, was so certain and of such evidence, that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, would be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it….accept it as the first principle of the philosophy…” (Descartes, ‘Discourse on the Method of reasoning well and Seeking Truth in the Sciences", Part IV 1637).
In part one, we looked at the maths and cosmology of Descartes Given his Copernicanism, Descartes could not map the Earth onto a Euclidean reference grid and locate it within the universe. Though his contributions to graphing geometry and mathematics were powerful and long-lasting, he could not apply his geometrical reference grid model to cosmology. Descartes’ astronomical theory quickly lost out to the absolute reference design of Newton (Commins, Linscott, 1947).
Descartes most vital influence was in philosophy, particularly his principle of ‘dualism’. By dualism Descartes meant the difference between the body which he viewed as a material-mechanical machine and consciousness, which found its expression in reasoned thinking and in our soul, both of which verified the truth of God. More here
“Modern Science it can be said, began with Descartes. Like Francis Bacon he strove to create a new methodology, but his was based more on deduction than experience.” (Commins, Linscott, p. 159).
(Comment: Bacon [late 16th century] promoted ‘induction’ from experimentation, calling the method ‘new’. Descartes [middle third of the 17th c.] offered ‘deduction’ from general observations, suggesting it was ‘new’. Both claims are untrue. Deduction and induction long predate both men.)
Modern science, cosmology, physics and our worldview are based entirely on philosophical assumptions which might be wrong. We looked at Copernicus, whose system and theory was incorrect, premised on circular orbits and ‘crystalline spheres’. Copernicanism as first proposed, was largely incoherent, and organised around the ancient Pythagorean-Platonic concepts of Sun Worship and Aristarchian heliocentricity. Copernicus provided no observational proof whatsoever for his theory.
Neither did Kepler, who used Tycho Brahe’s detailed observations and may have killed Brahe to access his journals. Kepler’s complicated geometry seemed to offer some ‘proof’ of planetary elliptical orbits and movement around the Sun. Much of what Kepler offered was however inaccurate or wrong. His maths could just as easily have proven the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system or geo-centricity.
As a Lutheran devotee and a member of the ‘new religion’ which opposed the Catholic Church, and as an acolyte of Plato and Pythagoras, Kepler made the philosophical decision to support heliocentricity. It was philosophy and maths, not ‘science’ which informed that decision. ‘Out with the old, in with the new’, was the zeitgeist of Kepler’s era. More here
In the last post we looked at the foundational ideas for Kepler’s theory and his drastic amendment of Copernicus’ model. We noticed his occultism, his worship of the Sun, Platonic religiosity, the unjustified and unscientific use of Plato’s ‘solids’ and the Greek ideal of symmetry. We also witnessed his dependency on Tycho Brahe’s charts and observations. We saw that Kepler’s own maths could have ‘proven’ the Tychonic geo-helio-centric model, yet for personal and philosophical motivations he decided to align his complicated geometry behind Platonic theory. We will now discuss the concept of ‘proof’ for Keplerian theory which is never discussed or taught.
Kepler’s modifications of the Copernican model did not alleviate the many anomalies regarding the motions of the planets which still remain today. Kepler’s maths explaining the elliptical motion of planets is only an approximation and could be described as a poor one. Planetary orbits are not perfect circles but are imperfect ellipses. The planets precess at different rates, and all contain eccentricities that cannot be explained by the Keplerian method. More here
With Trump’s great victory, the US now has a chance at survival, as a rational, moral, constitutionally sound state. 2024 is the 2nd most important election in US history. Probably the most vital was Lincoln’s re-election in 1864, to ensure the eradication of the odium of slavery. Trump’s 2024 destruction of the deep state is just as significant.
A significant factor in Trump’s victory is the reality that most normal people, with IQ’s above Kamalalalarama Harris and Joe Biden’s (>75), are sick and tired of being told to ‘follow the science’ and that if you vote Bolshevist you are ‘the science’. How absurd it is, to conflate voting socialist and globalist with ‘science’. It hearkens back to the Nazi and Communist programs premised as their propaganda claimed on ‘science’, namely Darwinism, Evolution and dialectical Materialism. Sad, sick, stupid.
I posted previously why many of us knew that the 2020 was stolen. We knew that the Corona Plandemic was implemented in part to stop Trump from winning. The Corona Coup and Catastrophe also served other purposes as the post outlined. It punished the Americans and Brits for the 2016 Brexit and Trump votes, and it accelerated the globalist governance structure based on ‘The Science’ of ‘Pandemics’.
We know that the US election was stolen in 2020 using basic maths. More here
Henri Poincaré: “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” (1901 in La science et l’hypothèse, Paris, Flammarion, 1968, p. 182)
Sir Fred Hoyle: “…the geocentric theory of Ptolemy had proved more successful than the heliocentric of Aristarchus. Until Copernicus, experience was just the other way around. Indeed, Copernicus had to struggle long and hard over many years before he equaled Ptolemy, and in the end the Copernican theory did not greatly surpass that of Ptolemy. (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, 1973, p. 5)
We will split the analysis of Kepler into 2 parts to keep it short. In this post we will discuss the background and philosophies which provide the foundations for Kepler’s amendment of Copernican theory. In the next post we will analyse his claims and ‘proofs’.
Copernicus provided no proof for his heliocentric theory of cosmological organization. The 2 men quoted above knew this. His system possessed more ellipticals or quants than the Ptolemaic and his underlying assumption that planetary motions followed circles within a ‘crystalline sphere’ was wrong. The accuracy of the Copernican system is inferior to that of the Tychonic.
Copernicus the Confused’s primary work De Revolutionibus, was poorly written, devoid of factual evidence and based largely on Platonic religio-philosophy. Another example of Scientism. More here