According to Einstotle and his cult, there is no reality. We all live in separate reference frames. The only 'absolute' is the invariance of Light Speed (which is of course falsified).
Perhaps people don’t appreciate how important these objections are. I’ve been trying to point out, to a anyone who is willing to listen (and there aren’t many who have the capacity nor attention span do and so anymore), since the late 1800s and early 1900s there has been an obvious and concerted effort (whether orchestrated or not) to foster a form of moral relativism underpinned by a “scientific” basis. It seems with the expressed intent of removing any room for God.
Regardless of your individual religious views, you should question this almost pathological attempt to eradicate the opportunity for God to exist to the extent that it results in frameworks that strain credulity. Frameworks that persist despite the obvious paradoxes and fallacies that remain unaddressed lest they precipitate a god in the gaps argument. The operational goal of science then seems to have become (above ALL else even coherence itself) to expunge anything resembling theism from the foundations of natural philosophy.
The irony is that modernity has only smuggled in a new metaphysics, often more dogmatic than the one it claims to replace. Instead of faith, we get deterministic or non-deterministic models. Instead of theology, we get abstract mathematics. Instead of priests, we get celebrity scientists. Instead of awe and mystery, we get closed systems and simulation metaphors. None of which adequately address the myriad observed phenomena and all of which exhibit unaddressed paradoxes.
But I don’t have a PhD and thus I don’t get a say according to the gatekeepers. However, I always wonder to what extent being indoctrinated into the cult would have inhibited my ability to discern the rhetoric. Once you’re inside, the price of staying in appears to be that you stop asking questions that might dismantle the altar - “shut up and calculate”
Great comment. 100% right on. If you get a Phd you are indeed indoctrinated and it is unlikely that you will rebel against your belief system. If you do, you are punished, denied funding or a degree, and censored (or your career is very limited). As you said, Scientism is more religiously dogmatic than all other belief systems. It really is (hypocritically) an Absolutist Church of Science, and presides over the mystery of scientific faith. There is no dissent in this church and no heresy permitted.
."..since the late 1800s and early 1900s there has been an obvious and concerted effort (whether orchestrated or not) to foster a form of moral relativism underpinned by a “scientific” basis..." Yes correct and very perceptive.
Relativity is a maths based exercised in which no absolutes exist and there is de facto, no reality. We see the same transferred to society. There are no morals or absolutes when it comes to hyper-personalisation and 'freedom'. Sex, gender, relationships, even laws designed to manage our behaviour are now 'relative', multi-leveled or ignored.
Yet perversely we have extreme-absolutes when it comes to 'science' and what we should believe including (ironically) Relativity itself (if everything is relative, than Relativity cannot be correct), AGW, 'Climate', 'Space', 'The Big Bang', flying-viruses and virology....suddenly nothing is relative and this belief is an absolute!!
Truly bizarre and insane how the very philosophies are at odds with their own 'principles'. Science is premised on philosophy and culture has ingested the Relativist philosophy and is falling apart in real time.
I wonder if light is visible scalar energy? Both can be captured and I believe are longitudinal. Are they different velocities or power of the same type of energy?
I don't know enough about scalar energy to really comment but given its longitudinal nature and instant velocity, its properties would probably be different than what is seen in the light spectrum, including speed.
Light is usually defined as visible electromagnetic energy that travels as a transverse wave at an invariant speed (which is incorrect but let's say at a very high, almost instaneous and quite variant speed depending on the medium). A transverse wave is where the oscillations are perpendicular to the direction of energy transfer (not longitudinal). The 2 ideas are somewhat at odds it appears.
Yes, we acknowledge different UV spectrums that are frequencies so you are correct. Sound and scalar are longitudinal (Dr Jerry Tennant book Healing is Voltage Scalar Energy). If space is not a vacuum I wonder if sound can travel through the space medium? Maybe all those sci-fi movies are wrong.
Perhaps people don’t appreciate how important these objections are. I’ve been trying to point out, to a anyone who is willing to listen (and there aren’t many who have the capacity nor attention span do and so anymore), since the late 1800s and early 1900s there has been an obvious and concerted effort (whether orchestrated or not) to foster a form of moral relativism underpinned by a “scientific” basis. It seems with the expressed intent of removing any room for God.
Regardless of your individual religious views, you should question this almost pathological attempt to eradicate the opportunity for God to exist to the extent that it results in frameworks that strain credulity. Frameworks that persist despite the obvious paradoxes and fallacies that remain unaddressed lest they precipitate a god in the gaps argument. The operational goal of science then seems to have become (above ALL else even coherence itself) to expunge anything resembling theism from the foundations of natural philosophy.
The irony is that modernity has only smuggled in a new metaphysics, often more dogmatic than the one it claims to replace. Instead of faith, we get deterministic or non-deterministic models. Instead of theology, we get abstract mathematics. Instead of priests, we get celebrity scientists. Instead of awe and mystery, we get closed systems and simulation metaphors. None of which adequately address the myriad observed phenomena and all of which exhibit unaddressed paradoxes.
But I don’t have a PhD and thus I don’t get a say according to the gatekeepers. However, I always wonder to what extent being indoctrinated into the cult would have inhibited my ability to discern the rhetoric. Once you’re inside, the price of staying in appears to be that you stop asking questions that might dismantle the altar - “shut up and calculate”
Great comment. 100% right on. If you get a Phd you are indeed indoctrinated and it is unlikely that you will rebel against your belief system. If you do, you are punished, denied funding or a degree, and censored (or your career is very limited). As you said, Scientism is more religiously dogmatic than all other belief systems. It really is (hypocritically) an Absolutist Church of Science, and presides over the mystery of scientific faith. There is no dissent in this church and no heresy permitted.
."..since the late 1800s and early 1900s there has been an obvious and concerted effort (whether orchestrated or not) to foster a form of moral relativism underpinned by a “scientific” basis..." Yes correct and very perceptive.
Relativity is a maths based exercised in which no absolutes exist and there is de facto, no reality. We see the same transferred to society. There are no morals or absolutes when it comes to hyper-personalisation and 'freedom'. Sex, gender, relationships, even laws designed to manage our behaviour are now 'relative', multi-leveled or ignored.
Yet perversely we have extreme-absolutes when it comes to 'science' and what we should believe including (ironically) Relativity itself (if everything is relative, than Relativity cannot be correct), AGW, 'Climate', 'Space', 'The Big Bang', flying-viruses and virology....suddenly nothing is relative and this belief is an absolute!!
Truly bizarre and insane how the very philosophies are at odds with their own 'principles'. Science is premised on philosophy and culture has ingested the Relativist philosophy and is falling apart in real time.
Thank you, Doctor Santos, for hammering away at this fraud, and for summarizing and clarifying the arguments for us non-physicists.
Thanks Graham, happy to try and help and demystify what is shrouded and kept hidden. The Wizards of Oz :)
I wonder if light is visible scalar energy? Both can be captured and I believe are longitudinal. Are they different velocities or power of the same type of energy?
I don't know enough about scalar energy to really comment but given its longitudinal nature and instant velocity, its properties would probably be different than what is seen in the light spectrum, including speed.
Light is usually defined as visible electromagnetic energy that travels as a transverse wave at an invariant speed (which is incorrect but let's say at a very high, almost instaneous and quite variant speed depending on the medium). A transverse wave is where the oscillations are perpendicular to the direction of energy transfer (not longitudinal). The 2 ideas are somewhat at odds it appears.
Yes, we acknowledge different UV spectrums that are frequencies so you are correct. Sound and scalar are longitudinal (Dr Jerry Tennant book Healing is Voltage Scalar Energy). If space is not a vacuum I wonder if sound can travel through the space medium? Maybe all those sci-fi movies are wrong.