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
Scientism refers to ‘science’, being elevated as a religious cult, in which ‘naturalistic science’ is the only explanation for anything in life, and the only truth. All other religions, cults, dogmas and beliefs are to be dismissed and persecuted by the Church of Science. Obeisance to the gospels of ‘science’, articulated and enunciated through its apostles and priests is the primary objective for any human. Through ‘science’ we achieve knowledge and salvation.
This is what is being sold. Does it make any sense? First some terms used within ‘The Science’ which can help us understand ‘Scientism’.
· A priori: A priori knowledge is independent from any experience. Examples include mathematics, tautologies and deduction from pure reason. This is the basis of much ‘science’.
· A posteriori: Conclusions drawn from experimentation which can include various types of logic and inferences.
· Inductive logic: Drawing a conclusion by looking at a specific event, then generalizing from that event. Example, my cat is a good jumper. All cats are good jumpers.
· Deductive logic: Moving from a general observation and conclusion to a specific conclusion. All cats are good jumpers (at least the ones I have seen). My cat must also be a good jumper.
· Ontological: A metaphysical and philosophical view on the reality of being. Existential questions on ‘being’, or what constitutes reality for a being. We see ontology now in mathematics.
· Metaphysics: Above natural physics and naturalist science, a philosophy and world view explaining the world around us. Much of science is premised on metaphysical views.
We list the above terms to emphasise that much of ‘science’ is a priori reasoning combined with metaphysics. There is also never a single ‘scientific’ method. You can use a mixture of inductive and deductive logic linked to aposteriori experimentation. It is preferable of course when performing real science to use mechanical experimentation (aposteriori) and from that fabricate a conclusion premised on empirical fact.
Most of ‘The Science’ now ignores aposteriori experimentation and empiricism. It is mostly models, mathematics and lapidary (polishing) experimentation to prove a contrived conclusion. The Corona plandemic and its unending propaganda around ‘safe and effective vaccines’ is one obvious example. Evolution, cosmology and psychology are examples of unsubstantiated expressions of apriori-inductive-ontological rationalising and are therefore not scientific. More here
Few are as opposed to the Muslim Jihad and the cult of ‘Islam’ or ‘Submission’ as I am. I have published books on the topic which investigate the 1400-year Jihad against civilisation by the moon cult of Muhammad, or as I would term it, a fascist-paganism. Most people in the fast imploding, immoral and degenerate ‘West’ do not understand where the term ‘West’ comes from. ‘The West’ described the ‘western-rump’ of what remained from the once vast empire of Christendom, most of it conquered by the Muslim Jihad by 1000 A.D. Historically the cult of Muhammad has proven itself far more Christophobic in word and deed, than anti-semitic.
This is my bias. This is why I originally accepted 9-11 at face value. The narrative that Muslims had hijacked jet airliners and flown them into the South and North Towers in Manhattan appeared to be self-evident, supported by video and photographic evidence. That the towers would then collapse given such an impact seemed plausible. Given the bloody, brutal, immoral, uncivilised and persistently evil expansion of the Muslim Jihad over 1400 years, such an attack would seem both logical and expected.
Neo and changing your mind
Things change. Real science does not. I read the 9-11 Commission Report (book), which was rushed into production in a short amount of time and believed it. But as with evolution, the moon landing, cosmology, physics, vaccines, medical science, Jenner, Pasteur, Einstein, the assassinations of JFK (and the Warren Commission fraud), MLK and RFK and many other topics, I changed my mind when using my background in science and technology, I analysed the evidence.
I am quite happy to be proven wrong and forced to adjust to the evidence. I coerced myself to revisit 9-11. It was an endeavour I did not want to undertake. Taking the narrative at face value and analysing what they said led to a ‘discovery’ that real ‘science’ does not appear to support the relentless mainstream-contention that the planes themselves caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Yes planes did hit two of the three Towers, but the planes were likely a diversion and a cover. The Muslim Jihad was a very clever and practical proxy for the attack. The pretext to endless wage war in the Middle East and beyond was established by 9-11 with all the unforeseen consequences and destruction, including mass, unfettered ‘migration’. Cui bono?
Most people will cite that the Twin Towers, South and North, were the only structures felled on 9-11-2001. The South Tower was the first to collapse at 9:59 am and the North Tower imploded at 10:28 am. However, WTC 7 or The Saloman Brothers building, also collapsed onto its own footprint, vaporised at 17:20 pm. Yet BBC ‘reporter’ Jane Stanley stood in front of an intact WTC 7 at 16:57 pm stating that the building had collapsed, some 23 minutes before it actually did fall. No planes or objects had battered WTC 7. It simply collapsed into itself in a controlled demolition. More here
According to mainstream physics and cosmology, time-travel is a certainty! Establishment ‘science’ claims that ‘spacetime’, or the merger of a spatial map with our human-concept and calculation of time, means pace Einstein, that time is ‘relative’. According to these ‘geniuses’ there is no distinction between the past, the current or the future. Given that time is embedded in ‘space’, the establishment theory postulates that we can move backwards or forward in time, akin to rewinding or fast-forwarding a tape.
Spacetime is of course junk science premised on arcane mathematical models. We need to remember that much of modern science is meta-physics or ‘ontology’, and not mechanical science. It is easy to make up theories and supporting maths. It is harder to prove said theories with evidence.
Previous posts have discussed light, what time actually is, and why spacetime is scientific and even ontological gibberish. For example, to move backwards or forward in time, you would need to move all the particles in the universe in an ensemble together to that point in time on a non-existing 4-dimensional axis (x, y, z, t where t = time as the 4th dimension).
Do you really believe you can forward or rewind all the particles in the universe? Is there a magic tape recording we can access to do this at the universal level? The universe does not care about your local time, or your calculation of local time. There is no mechanism to roll back or roll forward every particle in the universe. There is no mechanism to roll back or roll forward particles which surround just yourself.
In the physical and real universe, the law of entropy applies. Entropy measures the level of disorder in a closed system over time. Within any process entropy will either be unchanged, or it will increase. Based on what we know, entropy can never decrease. If we were able to roll back time, we would decrease entropy. This is physically impossible. Therefore, time travel is also physically impossible. More here
There is no evidence that space is ‘curved’. The James Webb Telescope and plenty of other data indicates our universe is a flat disc. ‘The Science’ has never been able to explain the ‘god awful’ truth that planetary motions are not only predictable but seemingly magical. It is indeed a mystery. Given that gravity is a weak force, why doesn’t the Earth simply ‘spin off’ from the Sun and go on a canter through universal space? How is it possible that the relationship between the Sun and Earth includes the perfect distance, the perfect speed, the perfect orbit? Besides zero, what is the ‘chance’ that all of this occurred from ‘random chance’?
‘The Science’ does not have an answer for any of these basic questions. In order to improve Newtonian physics and explain the how ‘mass attraction’ keeps planets in their orbital paths, Einstein and Relativists resorted to inventing a curvature of space where planets follow ‘geodesic lines’ around their star. Apparently, ‘geodesics’ formed just because they had to form. They are there according to the mathematical models, so therefore it happened.
No observational evidence supports the claim of the curvaturists. Their theory is that the curvature of space occurs around masses, and this is the reason the Moon remains in orbit about the Earth. Such a claim requires a very large ‘depression’ within the fabric of space that should be visible to us. The curvaturists maintain that the curvature would be the same in all directions for observers on Earth. Due to this we cannot see star displacement in the sky.
More here
There are a number of problems with ‘time’ in modern physics and cosmology, which undermine most of what we are told is ‘The Science’, including Relativity and ‘The Big Bang’. Many posts on this substack outline why both are false, but one could simply take the concept of ‘time’. ‘The Science’™ is unscientific about ‘time’. In fact many within ‘The Science’™ declare time to be an illusion. They are right. Spacetime as a 4th dimension is indeed an illusion.
When we critically review what ‘time’ actually means, we began to understand that much of modern cosmology is simply a philosophical exercise based on assumptions, many of which are wrong. Metaphysics is not physics. It is part of faith.
‘The Science’ has its own fictitious definition of ‘time’. In Einstein’s relativity theories, time operates within the fantasy world of ‘spacetime’. Spacetime is now accepted as canonical gospel, but it is a fabricated, never proven 4-dimensional mathematical construction, derived by ‘magic’ according to some scientists. It was Minkowski, Einstein’s maths teacher who first proposed it, at least in its modern form. Einstein initially was aghast and rejected it, than when it was necessary and useful to fill out his theorems he consumed it whole without attribution or reference. In this simulation, time is merged into space. To explain how this operates, the gospel writers invoke divine revelation through advanced mathematics. Only a few incense-bearing priests of ‘The Science’™ have the celestial wisdom and knowledge to understand what these arcane equations might reveal but they are certain that time can travel backwards, forwards and even stand still. Don’t ask for proof, that results in an excommunication.
Mechanically, ‘The Science’™ agrees that a specific definition of time was established by 1967. ‘Time’ is calculated as the duration of a number of oscillations of light from a certain atom, under particular circumstances. This specificity seems rather elastic. Using this definition time can be measured against a meter of distance. Time measurement can also be applied to light travel, denoted as a light year which sounds ‘short’ and which is only 6 trillion miles in human understanding (keep that in mind when fantasists claim that we can whiz over to Alpha Centauri which is ‘only’ 4.3 light years away and cavort with Chewbaca and the comely aliens in the local bar).
Defining time as duration of light oscillations from an atom might permit cosmologists to work back toward a beginning of the universe to estimate the age of what we see around us. As Newton perceived though Einstein denied, space or the universe is the most logical reference frame against which to measure cosmological time. The universe itself however, has no conception of time and given that we don’t know much about ‘time’, or even the invariant speed of light, it is entirely reasonable to assume that time varies by distance, by epoch, by calculation and by observer.
What we do know is that time, because it is a calculation, can never be merged into a spatial map. More here
Many posts have discussed why the speed of light constant at 300.000 km per second is incorrect. If this criticism is valid, it means that the age of the universe is wrong and ‘The Big Bang’ and Relativity must be declared implausible. As a corollary it also indicates that the theories about light-shifting due to a difference in frequency (blue or red-shifting) are also without merit.
Other posts have discussed red shifting, often used a ‘proof’ for the Big Bang. Halton Arp and others have proven that these claims from ‘The Science’ are illusory. The idea is simple enough and was proposed by Edwin Hubble a hundred years ago. The theory is that when light is received with a lower frequency, it is called ‘red-shifted’. It is assumed that given the lower frequency the light is of greater age than a beam emitting a higher frequency or a ‘blue shift’. This theory is just that – a theory.
Using the above as a context, a red-shift emission is received when a star is emitting light as it moves away from the Earth. There are many assumptions in this model. The establishment explanation is that a red shift indicates a light emission which has lost energy during its journey (propagating at a lower frequency over time). Images accompany the explanation showing that the light waves are getting longer as the light moves away from the star and as the star accelerates away from the Earth (another assumption). We know that a light’s frequency is proportional to its energy, and this supposedly explains the lower frequency. More here
Previous posts discussed how the speed of light was computed to be 300.000 km per second. These are largely mathematical exercises and are incomplete. According to this accepted theory, the speed of light is about a billion miles per hour. Does anyone really believe you can measure such a speed? I don’t and the reasons are given below.
Many scientists also agree that measuring such a speed is impossible. A billion miles per hour is simply an unimaginable, untraceable velocity. If the speed of light is inconstant, which it most certainly is, and if the vacuum of space does not exist which it most certainly does not; and if we can’t really measure a beam of light moving away from us to be one billion miles per hour which we can’t, modern cosmology and physics are entirely rubbished. Worldviews would be ravaged. Entire groups of people would be lost and forlorn, their religiosity, if not their entire existence called into disrepute.
We have argued on this substack (quite correctly), that the speed of light as experimentally proven by Sagnac, gyroscopes and satellite emissions, can never be a constant velocity. Many in mainstream physics know this and some are courageous enough to publish their doubts, putting their careers at risk. An example is B. Koberlein who expressed his scepticism in Universe Today and admitted we cannot measure the speed of light, even if we use the discredited philosophies and maths of Relativity. If the speed of light is wrong, the entire ‘long age’ history of our universe needs a complete reconsideration.
“several physicists have pointed out that while relativity assumes the vacuum speed of light is a universal constant, it also shows the speed can never be measured. Specifically, relativity forbids you from measuring the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you’d need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light. You can’t synchronize them without knowing the speed of light, which you can’t know without measuring. What you can do is use a single stopwatch to measure the round-trip time from A to B back to A, and this is what every measurement of the speed of light does.”
What does the above mean? More here
False claims
The dogma is that the speed of light travels at a maximum velocity of 186.000 miles per second in vacuo, or only in a vacuum. No vacuum exists anywhere in the universe, so this postulate is false. In reality light travels at different speeds depending on the medium and this upends Relativity and most of modern science. Since we cannot measure anything in a vacuum the claim that there is an upper end to the speed of light is mere speculation. It might be correct, but it could also be completely erroneous and could well vary over time.
It needs to be stated that light is independent of its source and therefore light waves require no medium for their propagation. Light emission is premised on electrons and electrical energy. Light is basically a wave in an electromagnetic field (Faraday, Maxwell), and when this is propagated through a medium (air, water, an object), its speed will vary in accordance with the properties of that medium.
We also know that all wave speeds, like object speeds, must be measured relative to some object on which points A and B can be specified or mapped out. This is called a frame of reference (or a grid map). We can only measure light speed relative to an object on a grid (hence points A and B representing starting and ending points or 2 objects relative to each other).
Logically we cannot measure the speed of light in a vacuum since reference frames and objects don’t exist in vacuo. The speed of light in a vacuum is thereby a theory devoid of meaning. It should also be noted that many scientists don’t believe that the speed of light can even be measured.
“But several physicists have pointed out that while relativity assumes the vacuum speed of light is a universal constant, it also shows the speed can never be measured. Specifically, relativity forbids you from measuring the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B. To measure the speed of light in one direction, you'd need a synchronized stopwatch at each end, but relative motion affects the rate of your clocks relative to the speed of light.” (Koberlein, 2021)
More on this quote below.
We should also emphasise that measuring speed and time is entirely a human invention. It is our conceptions of motion and time which allow calculations of velocity and duration. Time does not exist outside of human consciousness. Therefore time can never be merged with space into a new spatial-duration dimension. More here
