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
(Just a cockup, a fake news headline from 1989 - Governments must yield national sovereignty to international governance)
Climate Scientism and the cult of Climate-geddon fail basic science.
This post follows on from the previous deposition on the Federated New World Order and relates to many posts on the Climate totalitarianism enveloping society (links at the end of the post). Totalitarian Fascism was defined and refined in the previous post and is a framework of reference for global governance models premised on ‘Health’, ‘Climate’ and energy control. Because ‘Climate’ is marketed as global (it isn’t) and supposedly occurs with velocity and malice, a global governance model as recommended by the UN, WEF and others is the only ‘scientific’ solution to resolve this non-existent ‘crisis’. All of this is based on junk science of course.
Transnational Climate Scientism is a core foundation of the New World Order. It runs in partnership with the Health-Medical Nazism we experienced during the Corona plandemic. Climate and ‘Health’ will be linked of course, through an outbreak of ‘disease X’ caused by anthropomorphic activity which has deranged Gaia, giving her no choice but to ‘fight back’ with a zoonotic scariant virus. To ‘survive’ we will be told that global governance or a Federated structure of global power is necessary. (It should be noted that many of the modern ‘plagues’ we are supposed to cower in terror from, were assembled and manufactured by US biolabs including Ebola, HIV, Dengue, Marburg, Sars II to name a few)
What we want to do here is list some reasons why the Scientism of Climate is a deranged, neo-Malthusian, anti-human, anti-science, cult. Scientism is largely the union of State and corporate actors merging interests for profit and complete control over society, or parts of it. We see this with the complete capture of State agencies, academic and research institutions, and most media platforms across the world, by the ‘Climate’ narrative and its money, including the endless issuance of false and fake studies linking human created ‘Climate change’ with every possible weather event or every possible issue, real or imagined. The propaganda from the Climate cult is relentless derived from endless billions of available spend.
With Climate Scientism, the objective to dominate energy means that the real power structures in our world can manipulate the ‘commanding heights’ of just about everything that makes a modern society affluent and dynamic. As with Corona and ‘Health’, the religion of Climate has nothing to do with ‘science’. It is about power, mandates, money and a Federated NWO.
According to the FT more than U$100 billion per annum is to be spent on international ‘Climate projects’. Most of this money is simply a transfer of funds from the G20 to ‘developing’ nations like India or China. But this underestimates the total amount of money on offer for ‘Climate initiatives’. According to the Brookings Institute the world spends some $20 Trillion per annum on ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. Most of these funds are not directly related to ‘Climate’ per se but at least U$ 1 Trillion would be directly attributable to ‘Climate action’, or ‘green projects’ related to ‘Climate’. It is a stupendous amount.
Given that the G20’s total economic size is ‘only’ U$ 26 Trillion per annum these numbers on SDG (sustainable development goals) and ‘Climate’ spending, are simply staggering. What can you buy with a $ 1 Trillion? Probably sanitation systems and clean water for most of Africa. Does anyone with an IQ over 70 really believe that spending more money, on ‘Climate action’, or increasing taxes on ‘carbon’ will lower the non-existing ‘global temperature threat’ by 1 C? Or is it more likely that the endless streams of these monies are ‘laundered’, taken, grafted, and abused by those within the ‘Climate action’ processes? Don’t all governments view ‘Climate’ as an endless source of potential taxation? Don’t the elite and their State allies engorge themselves on the same endless rivers of billions of dollars?
Outside of formal funding flows exist vast swathes of loan financing for ‘Climate projects’ for the great and good, such as the COP28 announcement that the UAE will provide some U$270 billion over a decade for ‘Climate action’. We can add in billions in ‘carbon trading’ that goes on in the G20, enriching millionaires and billionaires as the elite and fund managers ‘trade’ to reduce ‘carbon footprints’ (akin to the medieval payment of the indulgence tithe, where you could buy your way out of sin). Sundry other local, national and transnational financing exists for those who want to enter the ‘green’ game.
Simply put the ‘climate industry’ is big business, roughly constituting somewhere between a U$200 billion and U$ 1 Trillion per annum global market. It is now a larger market domain than the criminal mafia and Scientism called Pharmaceuticals which is a U$ 100 billion per annum revenue industry. Yet look at the power that Pharma wields over governments and ‘Health’ policy, soon to be further ennobled by the WHO’s 2024 pandemic treaty which effectively ends national sovereignty. Pharma literally owns governments, academics, agencies and most of the media. Why not
Climate Scientism?
Given the massive extent of monies for ‘Climate action’, we would expect that such largesse would buy ‘democratic institutions’, agencies, regulators, universities and produce endless studies to ‘prove’ that the end of the world is just around the corner, or that mankind’s pernicious output of Co2 causes everything. The two-headed Satan of Pharma and Climate is a formidable and demonic monster to fight.
Climate can be defined as weather over a long period of time, namely 30-50 years. ‘Climate’ will vary by region and geography. There is no valid concept of a ‘global climate’ given the complexity of convection systems and the innumerable variables which cannot be modelled, that constitute local, regional and continental weather systems. For example, since 2019 some 350 peer reviewed studies have declared that no noticeable warming has gone on in the modern era, and human impact on natural cycles of Climate is negligible. Most don’t know this.
We need to bear in mind that weather measurements have only been in existence, in an on-going and verifiable manner, since the 1880s. Most of the globe is uncovered by temperature reading instrumentation, including the oceans. Only recently were liquid thermometers replaced by more modern electronic and digital instrumentation which record temperatures at a more granular level. Many temperature reading sites are old, thermometer based, situated in urban heat sinks including airports, which fraudulently increasing surface temperature measurements. Therefore, it is silly and criminal to pass judgements on ‘climate’ and issue climate-geddon forecasts based on inaccurate, sparse, fraudulent and recent data sets.
Longer age temperature measurements using ice core sampling clearly indicate that Co2 has no correlation with temperatures and in fact lags temperature by hundreds of years (sources at the end). Outside of cautiously interpreted ice core sampling, the best evidence for past regional ‘Climate’ and weather is that of written records. These elaborate clear natural, cyclical patterns from the Roman to the early modern eras. Extant and detailed records over 2000 years indicate that Co2 has no role to play in natural climate variation and that all manner of phenomena has been experienced by humans when Co2 levels were lower than today.
Since the Climate cult cannot explain the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300 A.D.) or the Medieval ‘Little Ice Age’ (1350-1800 A.D.), they simply and criminally airbrush both from the record. Apparently, they never existed or if they did, it was ‘local’ and of no great importance. They then create a temperature history so that the medieval era (500-1500 A.D) and the 1945-1975 global cooling frenzy are now forgotten and flattened to provide a ‘hockey stick’ graph of spiking 20th and 21rst century temperatures.
Mann et al’s fraudulent tree-ring circus of 1998, based on 3 tree samples (2 pines and 1 cedar), which purportedly erased the medieval warming period (an objective of this corrupt cabal) is one example of criminal malpractice and the abuse of dendrology, itself a non-science riven with assumptions and problems (see Steyn’s great book, ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’). The peasant has also observed that Michael Mann is a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania earing U$1 million per annum and has a net worth in the many millions. Corruption and data fraud pay well it appears.
Climate-Gate revealed the depravity and criminality of a small group of US and UK based ‘researchers’ as they sought to rewrite climate-records and ‘hide the decline’ of temperatures from 1945-1975. The Hockey Stick fraud and ‘Climate Gate’ reveal this cult for what it really is.
(The Inconvenient warming ‘pause’ that will soon be rewritten)
95% of plant food is emitted by Gaia but for some reason it is only the 5% emitted by humans which deranges Gaia through word-salads like ‘radiation refraction’ and ‘the greenhouse effect’. The human emission of CO2 is 4-5% of the total, or 20 parts per million of all atmospheric gases. It is not even worth worrying about. To say otherwise is anti-science.
To state that Climate is dependent on CO2 output is also anti-science. CO2 falls naturally out of climate processes. It is a part of the carbon cycle, a natural fact taught to 12-year-olds in most countries. There cannot be a ‘greenhouse’ effect because the Earth is an open, not a closed system. This means that there is no ‘layering’ or blanketing of the Earth’s 12 layered and complicated atmosphere by carbon dioxide. The exaggerated, linear and amplified ‘greenhouse’ effect, sold to the masses, is also anti-science.
To wit, “Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and as its atmospheric concentration can vary rapidly, it could have been a major trigger or amplifier in many sudden climate changes..” (Thompson et al. 1995). Water vapour constitutes some 95% of ‘greenhouse gases’, why not target water for reduction and net-zero?
(CO2- Endothermic and Exothermic convection systems)
CO2 has little to do with ‘heat accumulation and energy radiation’ if we look at the real science of spectral bands, Planck’s law and absorption.
1) Molecules in the atmosphere absorb light waves over what are called spectral bands. Spectral band absorption in the atmosphere can be quantified based on measurements over a certain distance through the atmosphere (eg 300 m above sea level).
2) The Earth emits a spectrum, or wavelength continuum, of radiation that is described by Planck’s Law, which has been validated by experimental data for over a hundred years.
3) There are two spectral bands in which the CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation. The first band is in what is called the Medium Wave InfraRed (MWIR) spectrum, and the second spectral band is in the Light Wave Infrared spectrum, or LWIR. The LWIR band is the most important in the absorption of infrared radiation (see the IR Handbook).
4) In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (centre wavelength of 15 microns) the transmission measured is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption. This means a total of 100% absorption over 300 meters at sea level, within the spectral absorption band of CO2, that would capture the most energy, or “heat”, being radiated by the earth’s surface.
Based on the above science, CO2 absorption of 'heat' is both a myth and unimportant in climatic variation. You cannot go beyond 100% heat absorption, yet that is what the Climate Cult is trying to sell with its inflated absorption rates. Within LWIR there is a ‘limit’ on CO2 heat absorption, claiming otherwise is anti-science and ignores that most of the CO2 is recycled and reused anyway.
CO2 is also exothermic, meaning it has both ‘warming’ (endothermic) and ‘cooling’ (heat reduction) properties. Co2 is not a unidirectional ‘heat trapper’. It does not create a warm blanket. It can absorb energy up to 100% of its mole fraction weight, but it also demonstrates cooling attributes.
At higher altitudes NASA has publicly admitted that CO2 is a ‘cooling agent’. Given that ‘Not A Space Agency’ (for the moon fraud see here), is also a prime beneficiary and promoter of Climate nonsense, the fact that CO2 has cooling properties within the LWIR and at higher altitudes is a rather large inconvenient truth. In other words, the net effect of CO2 on anything is negligible at best. More here
(Clapping ignormuses applauding the supposed demise of clean burning hydrocarbons)
Emanating from the elitist and reality-challenged COP28 (conference of the parties) the peasant is told, “…transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner … so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.” Net zero of what? Carbon? That means no life. And what ‘Science’ supports such nonsense and what is meant by ‘Science’?
No better illustration exists of Scientism, or the Church of ‘Science’ or its deluded, irrational and anti-human theology, than Climate and Eco-Fascism. No finer example exists of a non-science being used to create global governance, in the name of ‘Science’. CS Lewis and others warned about the Scientocracy of a New World Order. And here we are. It can be summarised as satanic and demonic.
Given the nature and context of the post, it is a bit longer than normal.
Very brief overview of Scientism and its history
The State, ‘Science’ and Culture
Defining Fascism
Why national governments participate
The 3-pronged attack on reality by the 2 major cults of Scientism (Climate, Health/virus) and the threat of a WEF-led cyber-attack
The US inspired ‘New World Order’
Digital IDs
Why now
Cui bono from the Climate con?
Why Climate Scientism is a brain-dead cult and a fraud
The end goal
The material makeup of EVs, Bird Choppers, Solar panels
Globalist or World Government premised on ‘Science’, is promulgated in various ways through endless propaganda. ‘Science’ is used to market the most anti-scientific claims and the most absurd theories including Climate catastrophism from human activity, and global ‘pandemics’ and ‘viruses’. Thus we have Scientism, or the philosophy and religion of ‘science’, not real science. ‘Follow the Science’ is now a theological gospel. Science has become perverted and is used to generate crises which can only be resolved through transnational if not a Federated-global governance structure (a constant refrain of the US Deep State, the UN, WHO and WEF).
Other philosophies and programs pretending to be scientific and which play a central role in dehumanising people and in iconising and elevating ‘Science’ to Godhood include inter-alia and what can only be called the frauds of: materialism, evolution, long-ages, the big-bang, the moon landings, much of STR (special theory of relativity), ‘vaccines’ and ‘health care’ (which includes huge amounts of dead from drugs and misconduct, abortion, euthanasia, and mercy-killing). This is not a comprehensive list, many other examples exist.
These philosophies and conceits are however, offered as ‘proof’ of ‘Science’ and its benefits. They are deemed ‘settled’ and beyond doubt. After all, didn’t the 19th century smallpox quackcine save everyone? (No it only killed and injured). Don’t rocks ‘prove’ billions of years of age? (No they don’t).
The philosophy of ‘Science’ as a program of ‘truth’, benevolence and consensus is used to sell the idea of state and scientific omnipotence. If you object or question ‘The Science’, you are the problem and pace JS Mill you might ‘harm the community’ (whatever harm might mean) and need to be restrained or worse. ‘Science’ is now religious.
Scientism is the establishment of a Church of Science, which involves the expansion of science to include all domains, including those areas that lie outside of real science. The theology of ‘Science’ is used to create a total governance system to establish complete control over all domains. In this endeavour Scientism purposefully conflates technological advancement with ‘Science’.
In the early 21rst century we can look back on great advances in all areas of life in hygiene, electro-magnetism, physics, microbiology and DNA, to communications, satellites, cosmology and the human body. Machines, applications and technologies abound. These outputs of intelligence and design are not however, ‘Science’ which is the study of objects, entities and the physical world.
Technology and applications may or may not use ‘scientific’ principles. Even if they do, that does not prove or disprove a particular area of physical science. Maths, logic, electro-dynamics and other applied features of science and observation are the main elements in application development.
Climate and Health ‘Sciences’ are entirely unscientific and are political, philosophical and metaphysical programs, based on assumptions, and corrupt or poorly programmed models and measurements. Neither virology including Corona ‘Science’, nor Climate ‘Science’, remotely fulfill the postulates of a Scientific method especially regarding data verification, experimental replication and method and data transparency. These two programs are driven by profits, money and power, not observable evidence.
Modern Scientism differs from the totalitarianisms in past ages, due to the almost unlimited power of the modern state, modern technology, fungible and massive money flows, international linkages, international governance forums and models and the ease of meeting, planning and dialoguing between vested interests. The tools and financing now exist to create a global dystopia.
How did this modern obsession with ‘Science’ and Scientism develop? Why the deluded and immoral desire for a global governance based on totalitarian ideals? There is a long and pernicious path in Western history leading to the current menace.
Philosophically, Scientism is based on the pernicious and corrupted theories of rationalism, evolution, materialism, relativism, and suffused with the philosophies of both nihilism and extreme-pagan nominalism where objective reality does not exist. A hard core of anti-humanism is also apparent within Scientism reflected in ‘Climate change'‘ and its obvious hatred of humanity.
We can trace the antecdents of these philosophies to the bastard metaphysics produced by the so-called ‘Enlightenment’. By destroying the foundations of Western civilisation, especially the Church and its culture, the ‘Age of Reason’ bequeathed to the modern unreasonable metaphysics.
The French Revolution, premised on Enlightenment rationalism, accelerated ‘Scientism’ or a ‘Church of Reason’ into the mainstream of philosophical ‘thought’. 1789 was an irruption by the forgotten, the marginalised, the poor and the aspiring middle class, against over-taxation, misery and the hierarchy of privilege and corruption found within the system of noblesse oblige, the monarchy and its close ally the Catholic Church. The mandate was to create a New World Order.
This largely atheist New World Order was decidedly disordered, manifested in mass mayhem, murder, destruction, the ‘thermidor’ and Napoleon’s bloody career, which fascinates and impresses too many. Napoleon’s dicatorship was an extension of the revolution’s atheist ‘Church of Reason’ which was entirely unreasonable and immoral, resulting in a generation destroyed by wars, deaths, injuries, economic devastation and widespread social destruction.
Auguste Comte and many others during and after the Napoleonic era proposed a ‘Church of Science’ which imitated that of the ‘Church of Reason’ but was broader and more ambitious. Mindlessly parroting the French Enlightenment propagandists of the 18th century, Comte religiously believed that only ‘Science’ should control ‘all aspects’ of life, not only the physical and material, but also the spiritual and immaterial. Human activities must therefore be governed by ‘scientists’ and only the scientific view of life was valid. Some echoes of Plato’s technocratic republic can be heard in Comte’s declarations.
To this end Comte and the ‘positivists’ advocated turning over political and social control to ‘scientists’, without bothering to define any of the terms. This idea is much in vogue today. It was ‘self-evident’ to extreme rationalists such as Comte that reason, which is also not usually defined, is the only organising principle worth pursuing. The fact that unreasonable people believe they are reasonable, or that the insane maintain they are sane, or that the fascist declaims his love of freedom and individual choice, is lost on these not-so-bright-lights of philosophy and scientism. Irrationality pervades much that is declared rational. When Comte died his enthusiastic followers - who idealised ‘reason’ - built and sacralised Churches of ‘Science’ in his name.
As the 19th century progressed with inventions and scientific achievements advancing into the 20th century, the desire to embed science in all aspects of life permeated political discourse and philosophy. Materialism, Darwinism, mechanistic views of life, dominated the philosophy and culture. Invention, technology, application development became permanently and wrongly conflated with ‘Science’ and especially rationalist or humanist science, even though Christian and Deists dominated much scientific investigation (Maxwell-Clerk, Einstein, Morley, Duhem to name a few). Much of scientific investigation was abstract and mathematical often disconnected from physical proofs (see posts on the big-bang, Einstein and long-ages).
Claims of scientific invincibility helped shape Nazism and Communism. Creating a bizarre mix of satanic occultism, Nordic paganism, and evolutionary determinism, Hitler and the Nazis wanted the complete destruction of Christianity to impose what Hitler called a ‘religion of science’. The State Church of Science would manage all areas of Nazi society.
Nazi theology and the establishment of a Reich Church and culture, was based on the principles of Social and racialist Darwinism, including eugenics and the purification of genes. Jews and Christians (Hitler did observe that Christ and Paul were Jews) were deemed unfit within the process of ‘natural selection’ and along with undesirables, non-Whites, the sick, the insane, the poor, the old and other Untermensch, were to be dispensed with. The key objective was unfettered state power confirmed by ‘the science’ to create a super-race (Darwinian racialism) and achieve materialist-evolutionary goals by eliminating genetic impurities.
Russian Communists also imposed their own Church of Scientism, selling the public that Communist dogma was a scientific and materialist inevitability, given the stage progression of history and the clash of classes. Russian Scientism was based on Lysenkoism or the Darwinian theological belief, based on failed Lamarckian theory, that the ‘environment’ would change genetics and eventually form better and even perfect plants, crops and humans. The key point was immanent state control of the ‘environment’ or society to create a perfect state and fulfil the scientific prophecies of Lysenkoism and Marxist dialecticism. As with Nazism, religion and opposition was demolished.
The Nazis and Communists thus had their ‘Science’ and their ‘proofs’, based in part on the non-science of Evolution, which confirmed their totalitarian regimes. Citizens in those states could not disagree, dissent was not allowed, censorship enforced, and internal enemies liquidated. How is this any different than what was implemented during the Corona plandemic? In a demonic twist of history, the victors of WW2 are now following their former enemies’ playbooks, using health and climate allied with Darwinian themes of trans-humanism and evolutionary demands, to create another instantiation of Fascist governance.
Fascism has nothing to do with ‘right wing’, conservatism, libertarianism or anarchy. Fascism is identified as: ‘A Totalitarian movement which merges Governmental power with Corporatism in a system of total control, with forced compliance, limited freedoms, cult symbolism and myths, allowing no dissent. Nothing lies outside State power. Fascism can be national, regional, or transnational in nature. Fascism is aggressive and violent. It shares many characteristics with Communism. The defining difference with Communism is that of Corporatism, and the pursuit of wealth and property controlled by the Fascist elite.’
This definition is based on explanations offered by Mussolini, Hannah Arendt, Roger Scruton, Roger Griffin and others. There is no reason why a ‘Scientism’ would not morph into a totalitarian Fascism as defined above especially given the omnipotence of our modern governments. As state power has increased, so too has the power of ‘Science’ its close ally. More here
Scientism has preached for at least 200 years that the Earth is of an endless age. ‘Everyone knows’ that the Earth is supposedly 4 billion years old, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years of age. The religious cry is that our endless history is steady and slow and ‘the current world we see is the key to the past’, meaning eternal time and stasis. There is precious little proof to support such declarations. Uniformitarianism is unsupported by observational reality as discussed below. As posted previously, long age declarations based on C-14, isotopes and isochrony simply do not pass scrutiny. The Big Bang has long been in big trouble and will simply die off as a reigning paradigm, as will much of the special theory of relativity. Long ages as a paradigm, regardless of the mountains of studies and expostulations to the contrary, is ineluctably collapsing.
Evolution needs deep time to be even remotely credible as a metaphysical project given that objective science has long ago disproved it. Within the Church of Darwin, Time is the Father. When I grew up the Earth was 400 million years old. Now we are into the low billions. There is every reason to expect the Earth to be re-aged past 10 billion years, based on incorrectly interpreted cosmological assessments of light waves (or redshift), and a disavowal of time dilation and the difference between Earth and cosmological time. Rock-aging will likewise be adjusted upwards based on supernatural incantations of isochrony and isotopic magic.
Within this unknowable, unaccountable philosophy of endless time ‘anything can happen’, including nothing becoming you. No human can actually fathom what the number 1 billion means. If you stacked $1 bills to total $1 billion, the height would reach 100 kilometres. Who can comprehend or visualise that? 4 billion, or 14 billion is impossible to put into perspective or to elaborate as a conceptual design. The number might as well be 4 trillion or 4 gazillion brazilians. No one understands such vastness. Yet we are to believe such massive age calculations based on the flimsiest of evidence because ‘geology’ or ‘cosmology’ says so.
Geology as a science is quite raw and new, dating from the 17th century at best (physics can be traced back to the 13th century), with much of it open to question. Geology is not a monolithic set of acknowledged facts. Most of geology’s findings and ‘facts’ are entirely open to question. Different interpretations and conclusions exist in every area of investigation, rendering geology far less a science, and far more of a philosophical endeavour. Your worldview will frame what you see. If the worldview of geologists is the Lyell-Darwinian uniformitarian philosophy of endless time, and if that theology is the provenance of funding and power, it is rather easy to surmise what conclusions will fall out of observations.
Geology is however riven with problems. Some notable failures of long-age geological ‘science’ include:
1. C14: there should be no carbon-14 in coal, oil, or diamonds that are millions, or even billions, of years old, but c-14 is consistently detected above background levels. Its half life is maybe 5700 years. C-14 should not be present in any meaningful way in artefacts dating to be ‘millions’ of years in age. Yet it is found in sizeable quantities in coal, oil and diamonds.
2. Continental erosion: continents should be rising due to processes of land creation, but the reality is the opposite, continents are eroding at >1 mm per year and would not exist after millions of years. North America would have disappeared long before 10 million years at present erosion rates.
3. Planation: or ‘flattish’ surfaces should not exist on exposed ranges or mountains, or rock types of varying hardness, if endless time was true, due to erosion. Yet the opposite is viewed around the world.
4. Layers: flat-gaps or para-conformities should be rare due to the extended timeframe of deposition of the layers, which should mean that there is ample time for erosion of the surfaces of underlying formations. However, the boundaries between layers often show no signs of erosion. Flat gaps are common.
5. Folding: there should be little evidence of large-scale folding of soft sediments involving many strata. This is not what is observed (eg Grand Canyon). Extensive folded sedimentary rocks are found around the world which means that they were soft when folded. This is impossible within a uniformitarian process.
6. Global strata: sedimentary strata should have limited geographical extent due to the localized nature of depositional processes (i.e. no global flooding cataclysms). The opposite is viewed. Continent-wide sedimentary formations are common, even extending between continents and some are global. In fact, there are 6 sequential ‘mega-sequences’ in fossil-bearing strata that are global in extent.
7. Bioturbation: the mixing of sediments due to the activity of marine organisms, called ‘bioturbation’ should be obvious and evident in the fossil bearing strata (called Phanerozoic). Marine burrowing animals mix sediments to many cm within hours. If these layers were deposited very slowly, over endless time, there should be no evident layering. The reality is however the opposite, the layers are clear and there is no admixture.
The above when allied with the previous analysis on the incoherency and false claims of long ages due to c-14, isotopes and isochrony testing, should make it clear that geology is hardly a ‘settled science’. There is precious little evidence for long ages regardless of what the contrived internet search engine returns or the programmed generative-AI chat issues forth. More here
“One of the most striking characteristics of Einstein is that even in those papers where he worked out the profoundest theoretical principles and theories, such as in the 1905 paper about the special theory of relativity, he did not finish without at least glancing around for possible verifications of their empirical consequences.” (Klaus Hentschel, ‘Einstein’s Attitude Towards Experiments, Testing Relativity Theory 1907-1927’, 1992).
For STR and much of ‘the science’ mathematics and their elegant explanations, backed by some qualitative proofs took precedence over physical reality. As the ancients, the scholastics and Pierre Duhem would have said, maths were employed to ‘save the phenomena’ with abstract calculations and metaphysics in lieu of physical proofs.
An overview of Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
An introduction to the underlying maths of STR
Key scientists and actors within the STR domain
James Webb Telescope observations which refute parts of STR and the Big Bang
Herbert Dingle’s unanswered clock paradox and the inherent contradiction within STR
The theory of relativity has been debated for over one hundred years. Contrary to what we are told there has been and there still are, plenty of scientists and analysts who remain unconvinced by the abstract mathematics of Einstein and his STR and the lack of physical proofs. It is a theory in crisis.
While febrile, STR does convey an important but hard to prove concept of time dilation. Namely that the clocks in space go much faster than on Earth, meaning that space time age is much longer than Earth age. From many perspectives this seems plausible and reasonable. This idea is very difficult to prove without performing interstellar experiments.
For the rest of STR There is plenty to critique about the ‘laws’ of STR, which are rarely mentioned within Scientism or ‘the science’. Previous posts have summarized STR, its maths and surfaced some issues. This continues with the critique and focuses on the key question of the ‘ether’.
STR is an attempt to correct Newtonian laws on gravity and ‘save’ the Maxwell-Lorentz equations on motions and the speed of light. Einstein wanted a ‘unified’ theory where Newton’s law of inertia was married to the equations of Maxwell-Lorentz. To do this he needed to remove the ‘ether’ (more below) and update the theories for his idea of ‘relativity’, or the difference in the phenomena of speed and motion between objects and their clocks, based on an observer either static, or in motion with the objects in question (Resnick, 1972).
As with Maxwell’s obstruse and endless pages of symbology and maths, STR is at its core a mathematical edifice which is entirely theoretical, not physical. Contrary to ‘popular science’ little physical proofs exist for the Maxwell-Lorentz theorems or for Einstein’s STR theory which is largely a modification of Lorentz’s theorems with the ether removed.
Having said that, Lorentz’s theory is far more empirical than Einsteins. It should also be stated that Einstein’s famous formulation of E=Mc2 in which energy and matter is interchangeable seems to be correct, but is largely borrowed from Maxwell and others. There does exist many critics of this equation who maintain it is false. In any event this famous ‘law’ does not belong only to Einstein, nor to STR. People who use this as proof of STR do not understand that independently and long in advance of Einstein and STR, energy and mass equalisation proofs were forwarded and developed. E=Mc2 does not prove STR whatsoever.
We can list issues with STR as given by many scientists and researchers who have delved into the theory. Literally hundreds of scientists and researchers in the past century have heavily critiqued the validity of STR. But no one has heard about this. The issues include:
1. Mathematical abstraction, where maths replace physical proofs
2. Impossibility to prove or disprove the mathematical arcana given their long, complex and tautological nature
3. Maxwell’s equations were not understood by many and pace Pierre Duhem and others, might well be wrong
4. Lorentz’s equations are not understood by many and pace sundry critics, might well be wrong and further, Einstein accepted his maths which only work with an ether, yet rejected the ether
5. Few if any observations confirm Lorentz’s theories though the qualitative and quantitative proofs for this theory heavily outweigh that of Einstein’s
6. Michelson-Morley’s experiments which ‘disproved the ether’ are likely wrong, and some maintain they were a fraud
7. The ether used by both Maxwell and Lorentz could be valid based on experiments from the past 100 years (more below)
8. If the ether in any form, with any density is valid, STR by default is invalid
9. Einstein’s STR suffers from the clock paradox and does not have empirical physical proofs to support the maths
10. The observed time-dilation effect in atomic clocks could be caused by a physical effect of the ether-wind on electron’s orbits inside the clocks (more below)
11. Space-Time dimension (4th dimension) is unproven and unlikely given that time is outside of space and is a metaphysical construct
12. The production of multiple time concepts as evidenced by Harald Nordenson (1922-1969) would invalidate STR
13. The speed of light might well vary within space, negating much of STR which assumes is a constant rate in a vacuum applied to the universe
14. Shadow gravity is a better explanation of how gravity would function than Newtonian gravity, which is a core component of STR (more below)
15. The Big Bang theology is incorrect, much of it premised on STR with ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ simply replacing Einstein’s fudge namely his ‘constant’ which he invoked to stabilise the universe and resolve issues with Newtonian gravity
Any of the above would disprove STR (Smarandache 2013). Each could fill and has filled, a small book. An example is that of the ‘ether’ which is simply accepted by those in cosmology and physics to not exist. But like much of ‘the science’ this is incorrect, resting on unproven assumptions and very outdated experiments and ideas. The ether is a classic case of where a few people make decisions based on models and contentious experimetation and the rest of the industry simply accepts this truncated analysis as a law and builds yet more mathematical models and explanations upon this flawed foundation. More here