The Corruption of Science by Modern Philosophy

In Aristotle's cosmology the Earth was static and the sun stars and planets rotated around it once a day. Many of a religious bent thought the sky was black at night due to dark matter obscuring the divine world beyond. As George Orwell wrote in 1948:
1984 part 3:3 said:
"What are the stars?" said O'Brien indifferently. "They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it."
The return to Aristotelian thinking in the 20th century is characteristic of modernity (= modern thought, modern science etc.) and exemplified by the Party's official words.

This stance was highlighted by Thomas Kuhn in that book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962,1970), where in the postscript to the second edition (section 6 in particular), forced to defend himself from hounding by his critics, he takes refuge behind the FACT that the modern world has indeed returned to an Aristotelian conception of the universe i.e. an anti-Galilean conception of the world (and by 'Galilean' I mean Galileo, not the euphemism for JC).

Modern cosmology teaches that the universe is finite, hence it affirms O'Brien's view that the stars are trivial and that even if we should venture into space to try to start colonies there it would be an ultimately futile and finite venture. I.e. the world is finite but God (or the gods) is/are infinite! The educated masses worldwide have understood this implication hence their ongoing justification of, excusing of and financial support for the massive religious revival in the latter 20th century - not just Judaeo-Christian Zionism but Islamic Fundamentalism, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell-type Evangelism etc. etc. In this way science is sidelined to become a prop for religious revival - and not just at Creation Science museums!

From this we can see the key role of Galileo in having overthrown Aristotelian cosmology. In order to do this Galileo developed and proved the arguments of the Greek materialist philosopher Epicurus. In turn Epicurus had developed his philosophy from the earlier materialist philosopher Democritus. The difference between Epicurus and Democritus was that the former taught human free will but the latter taught that the world was deterministic. The former was also apolitical, whereas Democritus was democratic in his political approach (a happy easy-to-remember coincidence in names).

Since Epicurus was an atheist Galileo avoided mentioning his name. However the difference between Epicurus and Democritus was the subject of Marx's PhD Thesis (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/index.htm), Marx championing the former over the latter. Academic researchers on the subject (notably Cyril Bailey's The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, 1928) find little from the modern era predating Marx on the subject, the only example given by Bailey being in French by one Lafaist in 1833.

The key difference in the Epicurean atomic theory as against Democritus was that Epicurus taught that atoms had differing weights but that all moved at equal speed when under the influence of a force - as Galileo demonstrated with falling objects, disproving Aristotle's claim that heavier objects fell faster. Galileo then asserted a general law of motion - that all motion is relative. He thus not only displaced the Earth from being the centre of the universe, but also displaced the Sun from being the centre, unlike the Copernican heliocentric teaching which he otherwise upheld. Typically then, the Church condemned him on the false charge that Galileo taught heliocentrism!

Isaac Newton was born the year Galileo died. When at last Newton put forth his teaching on motion, his laws of motion which seemed to harmonize with Galileo's were contradicted by Newton's teaching of Absolute Space, a notion embodying Cartesian 3-D space with its x, y and z-axes. Hence for Newton, Galileo's relative motion was only of limited or approximate application. For Newton motion was actually absolute, i.e. "relative ONLY to space itself" meaning that absolute space provided a fixed reference frame for motion.

What we see here with Newton is the attempt to smuggle back Aristotelian notions into science - the procedure of logocentrism whereby static notions are reintroduced into human thought, static notions which can then be reinterpreted as the effect of divine influence and control. That this claim is NOT a mistaken inference on my part is shown by the fact that Aristotle considered the creator god or demiurge to be immovable, i.e. static or fixed and not moving with respect to the earth - as implied in my first paragraph above.

The philosophical corruption of science - unintentionally revealed by Kuhn - arises from Newton's reintroduction of Aristotelian conceptions into science, specifically his conception of Absolute Space (and its corollary, absolute motion). Or to put it another way 'absolute space' is a euphemism for the divine, for God, much as 'intelligent design' in modern anti-evolutionary creationist 'science' is.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
How would various chimpigs 'know' whether the agency of creation is either static or autoportable?

Is it possible that this mysterious agency is of both natures, either simultaneously or alternating? Some chimpigs see their god as being present everywhere and at all times, so unless this god is sloshing around in varying percentages of presentness, can't this god be seen as static? Or if this god is sloshing around like water in a bathtub or pool then this god is also portable (and sometimes potable)?

Of course, "... God (or the gods) is/are infinite!" needs some qualifications. The Abrahamic god (aka the Aten in Postflavianspeak), ironicly reduced to 'God', does not have the same 'nature' as the (other) pagan gods, excepting that El was indeed the Heavenly Father god of the Canaanite pantheon that is. El's sons and daughters, like the Greco-Romans and Mesopotamian gods, had specifically delineated bounds of Earthly (and solar system, and zodiacal) responsibilities and attributes. This is generally the same for the Hindu and Egyptian pantheons as well. So even these 'agencies' must be viewed with a distinct and layered POV.

Can one say that Copernicus and Galileo are both correct, that it all depends on what frame is beheld in the current POV (and expedient need) of the beholder?

The ('western') Catholic Church and the ('eastern') Orthodox Church have disputed the Nicene nature of this agency, since the time of Constantine (and whether or not to recognize the Vicar (the temporary stand-in) of Christ as the leader of their church). Now the former has its round table of esteemed scientists, and a Jesuit gave us the Big Bang (ignoring the quantum red shift and the so-called noise in the Michelson-Morley Interferometer).

BTW, we Postflavians 'know' that this agency's name is Dogod, because Dogod has informed us so during Dogod's most recent pastafication as the FSM. It is recorded in Genesis that Dogod once had a theophany in order to have a wrestling contest with Jacob. Dogod did not like not winning (awkward), which is why Donald Trump does not like Dogod, or appear to.

... The educated masses worldwide have understood this implication hence their ongoing justification of, excusing of and financial support for the massive religious revival in the latter 20th century - not just Judaeo-Christian Zionism but Islamic Fundamentalism, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell-type Evangelism etc. etc. In this way science is sidelined to become a prop for religious revival - and not just at Creation Science museums!
I have addressed this "ongoing justification of, excusing of and financial support" as being intimately connected to the globalist subtext of the Abrahamic canons, as being critical to the human implementation of the Conquest, Colonization, Consolidation, and Schism cycle found therein, (aka, "a season for all things"). And that this "ongoing justification of, excusing of and financial support" extends back much further, including but not limited to the evangelical Awakening. Thus, I include the formation of the Romantic Movement, the Reformation(s), the Della Rovere division of the New World, etc. as part of one Abrahamic globalist piece.

And if you are a good Mormon, you get to be a new Adam on your very own planet, in your very own solar system. Problem is, if one of your Earthly descendants has some issues, then you can be cosmicly clawed back from your Adamship. Cosmic Clawback --- Ouch!!!

The philosophical corruption of science - unintentionally revealed by Kuhn - arises from Newton's reintroduction of Aristotelian conceptions into science, specifically his conception of Absolute Space (and its corollary, absolute motion). Or to put it another way 'absolute space' is a euphemism for the divine, for God, much as 'intelligent design' in modern anti-evolutionary creationist 'science' is.
You mean 'contemporary' anti-evolutionary creationist 'science', right?

If I am reading you correctly, on your other threads, you seem opposed to 'democracy', and supportive of 'fascism'. Is your stance on the "corruption of science" then connected to your politics?
 
Last edited:
You've made some good ripostes, Richard. I wonder if Jerry-built replies could measure up?
Richard Stanley said:
How would various chimpigs 'know' whether the agency of creation is either static or autoportable?
They can tell by the use of the name to describe the form of creation. For static creation read 'Newton', 'Descartes' or 'Laplace' etc. Sounds like you know who the 'autoportable' character is - but I want to get to the facts through teensy bites (see e.g.
at 8:44, so you'll enjoy and understand the process more).
Richard Stanley said:
Is it possible that this mysterious agency is of both natures, either simultaneously or alternating? Some chimpigs see their god as being present everywhere and at all times, so unless this god is sloshing around in varying percentages of presentness, can't this god be seen as static? Or if this god is sloshing around like water in a bathtub or pool then this god is also portable (and sometimes potable)?
Yes you can have a god - or a universe - that claims to be static one moment, moving or dynamic the next. The argumentation used to support it is called 'dialecticism' or 'catch me out if you can, Chump'.

Richard Stanley said:
Of course, "... God (or the gods) is/are infinite!" needs some qualifications. The Abrahamic god (aka the Aten in Postflavianspeak), ironicly reduced to 'God', does not have the same 'nature' as the (other) pagan gods, excepting that El was indeed the Heavenly Father god of the Canaanite pantheon that is. El's sons and daughters, like the Greco-Romans and Mesopotamian gods, had specifically delineated bounds of Earthly (and solar system, and zodiacal) responsibilities and attributes. This is generally the same for the Hindu and Egyptian pantheons as well. So even these 'agencies' must be viewed with a distinct and layered POV.
From the historical evidence we see that El-El, Yahweh, El Shaddai etc. was promoted to the supreme GOD while the others were just increasingly ever demoted gods, and ultimately saints, angels and devils only. Eventually the monotheist God was even considered to be somehow outside space and time - unlike the gods of Jainism for example.
Richard Stanley said:
Can one say that Copernicus and Galileo are both correct, that it all depends on what frame is beheld in the current POV (and expedient need) of the beholder?
Exactly, you can indeed say both are correct - but it depends on one's POV of course. According to modern science both are correct, even though they contradict one another as the RockChoppers (RCs - Roman Catholics in West Australian lingo) wished NOT to see.
Richard Stanley said:
The ('western') Catholic Church and the ('eastern') Orthodox Church have disputed the Nicene nature of this agency, since the time of Constantine (and whether or not to recognize the Vicar (the temporary stand-in) of Christ as the leader of their church). Now the former has its round table of esteemed scientists, and a Jesuit gave us the Big Bang (ignoring the quantum red shift and the so-called noise in the Michelson-Morley Interferometer).
The Michelson-Morley-Experiment (MMX) huh! I see you're champing at the bit like a well-trained racehorse!

I presume the name 'Dogod' derives from the Gospel of Thomas #102 ...
Richard Stanley said:
BTW, we Postflavians 'know' that this agency's name is Dogod, because Dogod has informed us so during Dogod's most recent pastafication as the FSM. It is recorded in Genesis that Dogod once had a theophany in order to have a wrestling contest with Jacob. Dogod did not like not winning (awkward), which is why Donald Trump does not like Dogod, or appear to.
GTh #102 said:
Jesus said, “Woe unto the Pharisees, for they are like a dog in a manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat.”
...where we equate the manger content here with the Gospel of Matthew version! Or do you mean it palindromically only?
Richard Stanley said:
I have addressed this "ongoing justification of, excusing of and financial support" as being intimately connected to the globalist subtext of the Abrahamic canons, as being critical to the human implementation of the Conquest, Colonization, Consolidation, and Schism cycle found therein, (aka, "a season for all things"). And that this "ongoing justification of, excusing of and financial support" extends back much further, including but not limited to the evangelical Awakening. Thus, I include the formation of the Romantic Movement, the Reformation(s), the Della Rovere division of the New World, etc. as part of one Abrahamic globalist piece.
No problems there, and happily I am an ex-Anglican not a disenchanted Latter-Day Taint.
Richard Stanley said:
And if you are a good Mormon, you get to be a new Adam on your very own planet, in your very own solar system. Problem is, if one of your Earthly descendants has some issues, then you can be cosmicly clawed back from your Adamship. Cosmic Clawback --- Ouch!!!
Own planet? Not your own universe with its own static reference frame = absolute space?
Richard Stanley said:
You mean 'contemporary' anti-evolutionary creationist 'science', right?
Too right I do!
Richard Stanley said:
If I am reading you correctly, on your other threads, you seem opposed to 'democracy', and supportive of 'fascism'. Is your stance on the "corruption of science" then connected to your politics?
The claim in your first sentence is essentially correct, as is your second highlighted sentence. (Hence I wince every time I hear Joe Atwill speaking of "restoring democracy" to the West). My political viewpoint has evolved with my understanding of cosmology and physics - i.e. Marx did not appreciate the subtlely of Epicurus' teaching, nor the bald fact that Epicurus' physics was essentially glued upon the original atomic model of Democritus. However, the significant scientific discoveries on atoms became clear only after 1895 when Marx & Engels had both died, so we cannot be too harsh on them.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
They can tell by the use of the name to describe the form of creation. For static creation read 'Newton', 'Descartes' or 'Laplace' etc.
No, I mean how can a person know whether or not static or 'relative' is the correct model that whatever the agency is is employing? Or, are we left with a conundrum like the Dual Slit Experiment? For you're saying that the primordial waters of Nun are both calm and sloshing (as per the hieroglyph).

Sounds like you know who the 'autoportable' character is - but I want to get to the facts through teensy bites (see e.g. at 8:44, so you'll enjoy and understand the process more).
There are several spots in the clip that the audio goes dead, at least for me. But I think I get the gist. The existential dilemma(s) of Mankind, to make wise decisions or not to make wise decisions, that is the question. How much effort to pursue the chance of excess procreation, in view of the Law of Diminishing Returns? To slip the sirly [sic - the origins of 'surly'] bounds of Nature and fly too close to the Sun.
From the historical evidence we see that El-El, Yahweh, El Shaddai etc. was promoted to the supreme GOD while the others were just increasingly ever demoted gods, and ultimately saints, angels and devils only.
The logical consequence of religious mergers and acquisitions, mirrored by the rise of secular governance from animistic tribes to empires. In any case, the educated of yore more often than not understood that their 'child' gods' were metaphors for respective forces of Nature. The more 'politic' of them realizing the profit to be maintained in letting the hoi polloi wallow in their literalism, as from Christ Caesar till today.

"Angels and devils" of course being more Persian (or raher Arya) influence (besides the Levirate marriage contract) into the merger's Judaic synthesis. But I digress.
Eventually the monotheist God was even considered to be somehow outside space and time - unlike the gods of Jainism for example.
Eventually? Didn't he create the universe from the Void, the 'daily' sequence detailed generally conforming to Big Bangishness? Or, ... does Big Bangishness conform to the canon.

(BTW, this reminds me that Jerry informed me that someone has hilariously proposed that a lightpole cannon was Jerry-rigged to shoot a fragment of a light pole into a taxi-cab windshield in front of the Pentagon on 9/11. A friend of ours informed us on Friday that a conference is being held this weekend debating what happened there on 9/11. We were the first to propose the damage at this scene was all from pre-planted demolition charges. And, to get partially back on topic, I have discussed how Jupiter (Zeus) was present to watch over the demise of his Gemini sons, Castor and Pollux, at the WTC.)

Exactly, you can indeed say both are correct - but it depends on one's POV of course. According to modern science both are correct, even though they contradict one another as the RockChoppers (RCs - Roman Catholics in West Australian lingo) wished NOT to see.
What did the RockChoppers Wish to see? (Jerry informed me that a RockChopper priest (from Opus Dei) has been featured in the 9/11 debates. He was present in front of the Pentagon, helping to confirm the official story (along with evangelical high priest Gary Bauer).)
The Michelson-Morley-Experiment (MMX) huh! I see you're champing at the bit like a well-trained racehorse!
A champing chimpig! o_O

BTW, Trump says that the champion racehorce, Maximum Security, was robbed ... by Political Correctness.
I presume the name 'Dogod' derives from the Gospel of Thomas #102 ...
...where we equate the manger content here with the Gospel of Matthew version! Or do you mean it palindromically only?
This was a revelation made to Jerry, and he has not disclosed any such background details to me, at least. The suspicion lingers that it is indeed a palindrome, but does this possibility masque a deeper meaning, like 'Do Good', or some such profundity?
Own planet? Not your own universe with its own static reference frame = absolute space?
Come on, be reasonable.
The claim in your first sentence is essentially correct, as is your second highlighted sentence. (Hence I wince every time I hear Joe Atwill speaking of "restoring democracy" to the West).
I suppose you will grace us with instances of successful fascism, possibly an enlightened and benign fascism? And that you will describe the social structure of your fascism? How will leadership succession be managed, or deposition? Like Plato, DeVere, Evola, and others posit caste systems where everyone is granted a dignified life (each according to their needs and such o_O and/or karma :eek:). Some even where one is not fixed from birth into a particular caste, being meritriciously mobile up or down.
However, the significant scientific discoveries on atoms became clear only after 1895 when Marx & Engels had both died, so we cannot be too harsh on them.
Alas, they had no revealed knowledge of Dogod. While the running dog barks, the sleeping Dogod Quarks!!

That's a whole lotta quarks. Led Zeppelin changed the name of their song from Whole Lotta Quarks, BTW. Cheeky Bastards
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder if Jerry-built replies could measure up?
Richard is doing a good job with the ripostes, while I am waiting for more of your 'tiny bites'.

I don't understand why so many fascists think this forum is a great place to practice their seduction skills. All this complaining about Aristotle is not getting my panties wet.
 
I had wondered if Jerry-built replies could measure up?
Richard is doing a good job with the ripostes, while I am waiting for more of your 'tiny bites'.

I don't understand why so many fascists think this forum is a great place to practice their seduction skills. All this complaining about Aristotle is not getting my panties wet.
By 'Jerry' I had more the many German thinkers and philosophers in mind - whose teachings usually disagreed vehemently with one another given their idiosyncratic elective affinities. I.e.:

In England [and the English-speaking world perhaps] one "throws out the baby with the bathwater". Baby, bathwater or other waste is a matter of indifference for the Humean agnostic.
In Germany one "throws out the baby but keeps the placenta". This from Schopenhauer I believe - but at least genetic studies can be done on the placenta, i.e. there is some use despite the mutual recriminations and the child sacrifice.

So here's a tiny bite: that most comic cartoon character Duckman, as shown brilliantly in this episode, represents in minor exaggeration the end result of MK-Ultra experiments and the Sex'n'Drugs'n'Rock&Roll philosophy of Marcuse & Co. - an occasional sane and loving core improbably emerging from perhaps the sleaziest character imaginable. After all, he concocts a vast quantity of aphrodisiac from breaking into his Jewish psychiatrist neighbor's home while the latter is away on holiday, using the latter's private chemical laboratory to synthesize more of the aphrodisiac!

However, this digresses from the physics emphasis of this thread as opposed to the social-ethical thread that I am still to lay out in some detail.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
this digresses from the physics emphasis of this thread
With a thread title like "corruption of science by modern philosophy", I was expecting you to be complaining about string theory, or general relativity, or the Big Bang. Or maybe genetics, babies and bathwater. What do Aristotle and Newton have to do with any concept of 'modern'?

Moving into the twentieth century and beyond: physics rejects Newton's idea of a stationary frame of reference. We've established that you've heard of Michelson/Morley, so I don't understand why you're bringing this up. The Big Bang Universe is expanding into an infinite void. Travel as fast as you like, you will never reach the boundary. And if that isn't infinite enough for you, just wait, it will get bigger.

Paul LaViolette says that the quantum foam arises out of the ether, which he defines as motionless. Nobody is taking LaViolette seriously. Corrupt physicists? I don't know enough to say. I wrote about this here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/eschatology-of-the-third-and-fourth-reichs.2422/post-10212
 
Leaving aside the foaming foolishness of LaViolette...
Jerry Russell said:
What do Aristotle and Newton have to do with any concept of 'modern'?
...
Paul LaViolette says that the quantum foam arises out of the ether, which he defines as motionless. Nobody is taking LaViolette seriously. Corrupt physicists? I don't know enough to say.
...the relevance of Aristotle and Newton to the concept 'modern' (i.e. modernity) lies in the fact of their logocentrism, their 'centering' of reason about an abstract yet reified entity embracing everything.

With Aristotle it is the belief in the Unmoved Mover, the divine counterpart of his notion of a fixed stationary Earth with planets and stars rotating around it.

Only Galileo escaped this logocentrism by claiming that all motion was relative.

In contrast, Newton restored logocentrism through invoking absolute space, also labelling space "the sensorium of God". His ideas, like Aristotle's would become foundational for the Enlightenment and for modernity, the Enlightenment's bastard offspring.

Then research on light led to more hypotheses. Newton claimed light was a particle - though the experiment known as 'Newton's rings" showed that light must be wave instead. Using a tower of lenses which refracted light into a series of concentric rings, Newton was able to change the distance between the rings by filling the spaces between the lenses with water! Clever but not supportive of his corpuscular model.

By the French Revolution, Marat and others had shown that diffraction reveals that light does not always travel in straight lines, in contrast to Newton. Researchers then started to focus on light being waves. But waves of what? Many researchers then concluded that light was a wave in a mysterious fluid called aether. For them the aether, essentially fixed and thus 'stagnant', filled the whole universe - just like Newton's absolute space.

It soon followed that Newton's absolute space and the stagnant aether were considered one and the same, especially as the Newtonian universe, while spatially infinite, contained only a finite amount of matter, this contained in the Milky Way.
While later thinkers such as Kant thought that bloblike lights called galaxies were more distant homologues of the Milky Way (rather than just accumulations of small stars) - making the universe meaningfully infinite in that the amount of matter in it could be infinite - the existence of galaxies outside our Milky Way was not proven until 1924 when Hubble discovered Classical Cepheid stars in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Arguments over the stagnant aether and light waves flared in the early 19th century when Fresnel mathematically described diffraction, based on observation using a circular disc blocking a light source. Absurd, replied the mathematician Arago, because this would mean that the centre of the point behind the shadow of the disc would actually be slighter brightly than its surrounds! Later research proved that the centre of the disc's shadow was indeed slightly brighter - this phenomenon being called the Arago spot in his honor! These and other discoveries led to a popular notion that the universe, while infinite, was static, its static nature embodied both by the stagnant luminiferous aether and Newton's absolute space, these considered as mutually unmoving and essentially one and the same, despite the divine connotations of Newton's "sensorium" of God.

Then came the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX). The argument here was that since the aether is stationary, the Earth, given its revolution on its axis, its motion around the sun and the sun's motion relative to the galaxy and our galaxy's own motion, should demonstrates changes in the interference fringes in a MMX. This is because one half-beam of the light will travel forward and backward through the aether while the right-angled half-beam of the light will travel transversely across the stagnant aether. The forward and backward half-beam should travel more slowly, hence varying Earth motion should show varying interference fringes.

However NO such interference fringes were ever shown in an MMX. This proved instead that the stagnant aether - and its divine corollary, Newton's Absolute Space DID NOT EXIST, hence the stagnant luminiferous aether and Newton's absolute space are erroneous concepts trying to reintroduce Aristotle's Unmoved Mover and or a Stationary (Protestant) God on the sly!

Rather, the negative MMX merely proved Galileo correct. There is no absolute space, absolute reference system nor stagnant luminiferous aether hence all motion is relative as Galileo stated.

Unfortunately however this plain straightforward and correct answer is not where the debate ended. Rather, the Three Stooges got involved - Moe Fitzgerald, Larry Lorentz and Curly Poincare.

In order to explain the negative MMX, Moe Fitzgerald (of Irish Anglican origin) hypothesized that objects contracted in their (absolute) direction of motion. This hypothetical phenomenon was soon called Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction (FLC), after Hendrik Lorentz mathematicised the situation with the Lorentz Transformation Equations - equations that he hijacked from elsewhere, from one Woldemar Voigt who was investigating the Doppler Effect.

In the early 1900s along comes Henri "Curly" Poincare who, examining Lorentz's FLC equations, decided that these equations should apply to time as well - the infamous 'time dilation'. The end result of this speculation was the claim that any object undergoing motion - meaning absolute motion relative to the stagnant ether/Newton's absolute space - would undergo both FLC and time dilation, time slowing down in proportion to the absolute velocity of the object.

Now let me hear your contracted and dilatory comments on the Three Stooges' Theorizing!;)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I had written: "They can tell by the use of the name to describe the form of creation. For static creation read 'Newton', 'Descartes' or 'Laplace' etc."
Richard Stanley said:
No, I mean how can a person know whether or not static or 'relative' is the correct model that whatever the agency is employing?
Or, are we left with a conundrum like the Dual Slit Experiment?
We'll get to the two-slit experiment in due course.

Your highlighted statement is vital since in one case it presumes the world static, and in the other (if I interpret your quote-marks correctly) presumes the world to have only relative motion - Galilean Relativity where "all motion is relative". This is indeed the pivot point on which this first argument hangs.

In contrast, Newton based his absolute space, not on a linear steady-velocity proof for absolute motion, but on water in a rotating bucket. According to Newton, the effect of absolute space on the rotating bucket is what we now call 'centrifugal force' (but Newton did not use that term). The water is forced outward, rising up the side of the bucket, its surface forming a paraboloid shape - you can also get the same effect by stirring your coffee too vigorously, the drops spilling over and short-circuiting your keyboard just at the point where you are to push the 'banned' button on my membership!

The underlying question is: is rotation relative or absolute motion?

***

Below are you being insightful or just lucky?
Richard Stanley said:
Alas, they had no revealed knowledge of Dogod. While the running dog barks, the sleeping Dogod Quarks!!

That's a whole lotta quarks. Led Zeppelin changed the name of their song from Whole Lotta Quarks, BTW. Cheeky Bastards
What song was that? You have a potential analysis here better perhaps than Joe's Walrus!?

The word 'Quark' was invented by Murray Gell-Mann to explain the contents of protons and neutrons. Quarks however are meant to be indivisible like Democritus' and Epicurus' atoms, so hark back to the atomist philosophy of ancient Greece. However the word 'Quark' is also a Freudian slip, since Gell-Mann knew German and knew that the word 'der Quark' (masculine) meant cottage cheese, or more usually, 'garbage' or 'rubbish'. Hence the rubbishy theory of the constituents of protons and neutrons, hearkening back to ultimate indivisible particles - except that in German the word is used neuter i.e. das Quark.

In order to hide this fact, Gell-Mann misrepresented the origin of the word, mispronouncing it as 'quawk' and claiming it came from James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake with a rhyming phrase: "Three quarks for Muster Mark". However Mark is not pronounced 'mawk', showing that "all the quark-minded become mawkish when they moralize".

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Now let me hear your contracted and dilatory comments on the Three Stooges' Theorizing!
Why didn't you finish this yourself? Einstein looked at Fitzgerald-Lorentz and Poincare's results, and showed that their equations worked just the same if there's no fixed frame of reference. And this has been the Official Story ever since, as I'm sure you know full well.
 
A contracted comment indeed!
Jerry Russell said:
Why didn't you finish this yourself? Einstein looked at Fitzgerald-Lorentz and Poincare's results, and showed that their equations worked just the same if there's no fixed frame of reference. And this has been the Official Story ever since, as I'm sure you know full well.
I didn't finish it because I wanted YOU guys to take the final deductive steps - which you have done correctly of course.
However if the MMX is merely proof of Galilean Relativity i.e. "all motion is relative" there is NO NEED for the Lorentz Equations quantifying length contraction (LC) and time dilation (TD). The Lorentz Equations (LEs) are used ONLY to justify the existence of the luminiferous aether (= Newton's absolute space), and have no bearing on Galilean Relativity!

That is, the question is why "their equations worked just the same if there's no fixed frame of reference", since the equations are working in the abstract only, NOT working on physical objects in our physical universe which has no fixed frame of reference. Get the message?:cool:

Einstein's intent however is to manipulate people based upon the popular prejudice of a static universe (Newton's absolute space & luminiferous aether) - with an 'atheistic' deity hidden behind these words. Hence, although he supposedly discards a static universe he actually permits it to be an optional extra. Rather, the static universe cannot be discarded in the manner Einstein wishes to adopt because the LEs, the Lorentz Equations, along with LC & TD are the explanatory apparatus tied to the belief in the static universe of Newton's absolute space & luminiferous aether. Hence if the latter are discarded the former (LC & TD) are also to be discarded since, as Galileo said, "all motion is relative."

Hence Einstein's procedure, used to introduce special relativity (SR), is duplicitous and deceitful, cherishing in the Schopenhauerian (or German) manner the placenta (LC & TD) while discarding the beloved baby (Newton's absolute space & luminiferous aether) . And a warning, Jerry, you won't find THIS explanation on your favorite MSM source, Wikipedia!:D

And remember you also have the Humean (or English) option, "throw out the baby with the bathwater" of just banning me - and thus all SR criticism - from the website!:oops:

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
That is, the question is why "their equations worked just the same if there's no fixed frame of reference", since the equations are working in the abstract only, NOT working on physical objects in our physical universe which has no fixed frame of reference. Get the message?
No, this is where you lost me. Special relativity establishes the mass-energy equivalence, which is easily demonstrated in particle accelerators. It can also be verified by relativistic Doppler effect. None of this would make any sense under Galilean or Newtonian physics.

And a warning, Jerry, you won't find THIS explanation on your favorite MSM source, Wikipedia!
You're right that Wikipedia is my favorite mainstream source. This is because it's a democratic platform, however imperfect. I myself have done some editing there, and was the original author of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar's_Messiah.

But, maybe you haven't seen this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity ? You aren't the first person to ever raise doubts.
 
The Wikipedia article on Criticism of Relativity is controlled by the editors despite many having put forward cogent arguments. Articles on anti-Einsteinians are also edited to conform with the modern pro-Einstein prejudice. References to articles showing up the fraud of Einstein have been edited out. Wikipedia is no neutral objective forum when it comes to the vital principles of human society and science philosophy.

So where did I lose you? - On the physical universe having no fixed frame of reference? Yes!

So note the order of the procedures.

1) Galileo demonstrates no absolute reference frame (Newton's absolute space and by implication no luminiferous aether) which I will abbreviate as ARF.

2) Newton invokes an ARF for motion, but can only 'prove' it for rotatory motion.

3) The MMX is negative for absolute motion, proving Galileo's "all motion is relative".

4) Popular prejudice supports Newton's ARF-LA (Newton's absolute space & Luminiferous Aether) so the notions of length contraction (LC) and then time dilation (TD) are invented to explain away the negative MMX.

5) Einstein 'blends' Galilean relativity by claiming there is no ARF. However as Einstein admits there is no ARF, then the notions of LC and TD are delegitimated too since they arose only to explain away the negative MMX result. Hence they are unjustifiable claims because if Galilean relativity is correct, the negative MMX is the expected result.

6) Popular prejudice accepts Einstein's adoption of LC & TD but doesn't realize how Einstein has perverted physics. Einstein claims that LC & TD are individualized, referred to an individual observer. I.e. all LC & TD takes place relative to the solipsistic observer.

IOW this Einsteinian procedure is not science but solipsistic philosophy. We know that this is so because the logical paradoxes which necessarily arise from applying Einstein's mathematics derive entirely from LC & TD, two hypothetical notions which have NO experimental evidence to justify them whatsoever. They are mere relics of the belief in an ARF - the static Prime Mover deity of Aristotelianism.

Now can you point to the numbered position where I have lost you?

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: I note in one of your podcasts that Joe passed over the Einstein mess very quickly. He clearly did not understand Einstein's book "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation that Anyone Can Understand" - but you or he haven't had Anyone on your radio programs, nor have I heard Anyone anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
The equivalence of mass and energy expressed in the equation "E equals mc squared" or E = mcc, is not something derived from special relativity (SR). Even Einsteinians such as George Gamov admit that it arose from earlier considerations. Also Friedrich Hasenoehrl worked it out about six months before Einstein did.

Indeed that energy can be expressed in terms of mass was something known to the ancients. If a person does not exercise, the food energy they consume turns into fat - they convert the fat into energy by exercising. The main discoveries here were made in the 19th century by Joule, Clausius and Julius Rober Mayer (non-Jewish) who uncovered the interconversions of energy - from & to light (optics), heat (thermodynamics), mechanical energy and kinetic gas theory. These only had to be extended to mass itself.

Note too that Einstein did NOT win the Nobel Prize for his work on the energy-mass relation nor SR but for explaining the Photoelectric Effect via Quantum Theory.

Rather, Einstein wrote a later article claiming that SR gave rise to E = mcc, scheming so as to create a false inference that SR somehow underpins the material world. We see the same false procedures used to claim that fast moving subatomic particles formed in the upper atmosphere, surviving longer if moving more quickly, are proof of time dilation.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Jerry the bright eyed little boy said:
You're right that Wikipedia is my favorite mainstream source. This is because it's a democratic platform,...
And a Cardinal no less comes along the platform with a tub of plain vanilla ice cream in one hand and a flagon of altar wine in the other. He can mix them together for you: would you like to try some?:eek:

Let me give another example of the fraudulent nature of modern physics, served up for popular consumption.

As Planck's constant (h) is a mathematical unit (10^34 - ten to the power of 34) much 'smaller' than an atom (a mole of atoms being about 10^23) it is commonly preached that Planck's constant is a unit of length, a linear measure, and that therefore space is 'quantized', broken up into discrete units of length.

These claims are rubbish.

Planck's constant is measured in the unit 'joule second' and what we have to establish is what 'joule second' means physically - apart from the obvious fact that it is NOT a linear measure.

A joule is a unit of energy (E), and time, such as a second, is t, so we will express Planck's constant in terms of physical units:

h = Et

We now turn to the energy mass relation:

E = mcc

The unit of mass being 'm' as indicated we have to understand that the units of velocity - the speed of light being 'c' by convention - are d/t where t is time and d is distance. Hence we rewrite E=mcc as:

E = mdd/tt

Multiplying by t on both sides gives us the other units for what Et (Planck's constant) must be:

Et = mdd/t

So what is mass times the square of the distance divided by time?

The unit mdd/t is that of angular momentum - as you will find in any decent physics textbook. I.e. Planck's constant h is a unit of quantum spin.

We know that anyway because another common unit is h/2π, usually written ђ (called the 'reduced Planck's constant'), where it refers to the same energy transferred to linear motion - as opposed to itself being a unit of length!!!

So whenever you read a physics article claiming the existence of "the Planck length" or claiming that "space is quantized" according to quantum theory YOU KNOW YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

For example you'd have to be as thick as two planks to believe this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

Or to put it another way, Wikipedia is 100X more deceitful than you think it is and even 10X as deceitful as Joe thinks it is - and much more deceitful than I think it is and not just because the Wikipedia editors are deceiving and cheating themselves. We think for ourselves or we die!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Now can you point to the numbered position where I have lost you?
At number 4. Time dilation is experimentally demonstrated by disparities in time indicated by moving clocks vs. stationary clocks. Given the fact of time dilation, MMX is an experimental demonstration of length contraction. Important aspects of modern electromagnetic theory would fall apart without SR as a basis.

The equivalence of mass and energy expressed in the equation "E equals mc squared" or E = mcc, is not something derived from special relativity (SR). Even Einsteinians such as George Gamov admit that it arose from earlier considerations. Also Friedrich Hasenoehrl worked it out about six months before Einstein did.
Hasenoehrl and others provided experimental evidence, and described their results with formulas. Einstein provided a theoretical explanation which has since become widely accepted.

Chemical reactions such as those known to the ancients, were misunderstood at that time to involve much larger changes in mass than were actually going on. They were unable to trace the fate of all the reactants. As you point out, the correct analysis was first carried out in the 19th century, and the unexpected result was that mass was conserved to within the accuracy of their measurements.

It seems oddly disingenuous to me, that you would bring this up.

For example you'd have to be as thick as two planks to believe this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
As of today, the article includes this statement: "The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry." There's been no recent edit warring about this, and the talk page makes it clear that the consensus of editors agree with you. So I'm mystified why you're complaining about this article.

On the other hand, it's obvious that a significant amount of thought is going into the search for the physical meaning, if any, of this constant. The article is drawn from 16 peer reviewed sources written by esteemed physicists. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia article, perhaps you have a problem with those esteemed physicists as well?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
At this website, our main focus is the political function of religion, and specifically the three major organized Abrahamic religions.

Claude: Do you seriously think that fundamentalist religious folk are going to change their tune if they somehow become convinced that Einstein was wrong and Galileo was right?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Chemical reactions such as those known to the ancients, were misunderstood at that time to involve much larger changes in mass than were actually going on. They were unable to trace the fate of all the reactants. As you point out, the correct analysis was first carried out in the 19th century, and the unexpected result was that mass was conserved to within the accuracy of their measurements.

It seems oddly disingenuous to me, that you would bring this up.
Indeed that energy can be expressed in terms of mass was something known to the ancients. If a person does not exercise, the food energy they consume turns into fat - they convert the fat into energy by exercising.
It is the proton and neutron mass of the food that becomes the weigh-able constituent of fat (whether by the ancients or high school chemistry students). The stored energy from the 'food' and in the 'fat' is in the form of respective electron relationships to their wife-swapping nuclear mates. But there is no significant weigh-able 'nuclear' reaction going on here to such people.

At this website, our main focus is the political function of religion, and specifically the three major organized Abrahamic religions.

Claude: Do you seriously think that fundamentalist religious folk are going to change their tune if they somehow become convinced that Einstein was wrong and Galileo was right?
I was wondering similar myself, but also on a wider scale. I have to admit that I'm intrigued with the brick by brick construction of Claude's non-(f)ascist (F)ascism, whatever that is. Will it be like the bucolic enlightened societies of the Cathars and Bogomils or what? If so, how will the (Catholic) Shepherds respond, like they did last time?

These same Shepherds told every Christian that the Earth was Flat, knowing full well themselves that it wasn't. So, we do have some precedent for contemporary corruption.
 
Good question, Jerry.
At this website, our main focus is the political function of religion, and specifically the three major organized Abrahamic religions.

Claude: Do you seriously think that fundamentalist religious folk are going to change their tune if they somehow become convinced that Einstein was wrong and Galileo was right?
Of course not - but these fundamentalist religious folk, or at least their percentage, will diminish sharply after the coming war (unless everyone is annihilated). My concern is those with some knowledge of science and the fact that people will need science and want to understand science and wonder why what is peddled today as science is such a heap of paradoxical BS!

Einstein teaches that the universe is finite - the curvature of spacetime means that universe curves back on itself. If the physical universe is finite then infinity can reside ONLY in mathematics or in God/gods.

And you really have to ask me why religion resurged in the 20th century???????

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Top