Monday, June 02, 2014

Why i hate science !

Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:36:15 PM

The Biggest Problems i have with Science :


Darwinianism is UnDisProvable. Every ‘Good’ or Reasonable Scientific Theory or Hypothesis must be DisProvable by some specific Mechanism or Process. But no matter how improbable any Biological Operation may be; Darwinianists will never accept that it provides a kink in their Theory, There is simply no alternative way to look at Creation of The Species, Other than Natural, Randomly Generating Selection.


E=MC Squared. Doesn’t it seem a tiny bit ‘Odd’ that C; The Speed of Light ( The Speed, or Velocity of Light ) is being Squared for no Reason, & Then used as a Multiplicand for Mass to Equal Some Quantity of Energy. First of All; The Speed of Light, how is that in any way related to this, & then you have to get your Units of Measurement to Line up, & you’ve got The Speed of Something being multiplied by The Mass of Something ! That’s pretty much as crazy as a three legged dog at Miss American Pageant.


The Big Bang. Just on The Face of it, It’s as Crazy as a Moon-Burger with Acne being Excused from Gym for being too yellow. Then; On top of that; The proponents of This Lunacy have to keep adding crazy shat on to it to keep it working. i’m willing to allow that it’s acceptable to keep hitting Capitalism over The Head to keep our Economy from falling off The Rails, but with a Scientific Theory, it becomes more problematic. They’ve had to add an Inflationary Period, during which The Universe was Growing outwards faster than The Speed of light. They they discovered that The Galaxies & Super Galactic Structures looked all Wrong, so they had to add Dark Matter & Dark Energy, for which they had no evidence for whatsoever. Then they claimed that The Universe was actually Accelerating when their Theory Clearly stated that it should be slowing down. When you usually have a scientific Theory that disagrees will all of your Observations, you discard The theory & make up a new one, Not keep rewriting The laws of physics to sustain your theory.


Tides. Ever since The Third Grade when Tides were first Explained to me, i’ve been very suspicious of them. Granted; The Observations of how Tides Behave is Not The Fault of Scientists, but The Real ‘Conclusion’ that we should be drawing from Tides is that something very hinky is going on with The Physical World ! Just to remind you, The Tides are caused by The Moon Orbiting The Earth, While The Earth Revolves under The Moon, This causes The Oceans ( in most places ) to Rise & Fall in 12 hour Cycles. The Hinky part is that There are High Tides when The Moon is both Overhead & when it’s on The Opposite Side of The Earth, & These High Tides are just about Equal. The Explanation for this is pretty crazy too. This falls into that weird Category of ‘Just So Stories’ of how The Elephant got it’s long Trunk, Why Ball Lightning follows railroad Tracks, Why The Moon & Sun appear to be Exactly The Same Size, & Why The Moon always has one face towards us.


The Hammer & Feather Experiment. In which a Hammer & Feather ( in a Vacuum ) fall at The same Speed. This s derived from some Experiments conducted by Galileo, in which he very carefully timed balls of various sizes rolling down some inclined ramps.

The Problem with this methodology is that he was attempting to measure The difference between The Gravitational Attraction of The Earth + A Bowling Ball & The Earth + a Tennis Ball. i don’t think you need to be a Roof & Siding Salesmyn to figure out that they’re going to just about equal to about 3000 decimal places.

Lets look at it this way; You’re conducting this experiment on The Earth & they ( The Bowling Ball & Ping Pong Ball ) fall at apparently The Same Rate.

Then you conduct The same experiment on The Moon, again The two balls fall at about The same rate, as best as you can tell, but they’re curiously falling more slowly, because The Moon is much smaller.

So what if; you repeated both of these experiments again, but this time you replace The Bowling Ball with The Moon in The First Experiment, & The Bowling Ball with The Earth in the Second Experiment. Again; Each time; The Observer on The ‘Host’ Planet would observe The Moon & Pingpong Ball falling at The Same Rate, & on The Moon, The Earth & Pingpong Ball would be Falling at The Same Rate, only Slower.

The Problem is; How can The Earth Fall towards The Moon at a different Rate than The Moon falls towards The Earth ?


The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This one is especially Tricky in that my problem with it is how it is Frequently ‘ReWorded’.

The Second Law states that heat does not of itself pass from a cooler to a hotter body. Another, equivalent, formulation of the second law is that the entropy of a closed system can only increase.

One Problem is The Fudging of this Definition with The Inclusion of The Idea of a Closed System.

The Curious thing about Politicians or CEO’s that tell a Lie, is that they will reveal in The Lie that they are lying or being disingenuous. They do this by adding a clause or caveat so that latter when their lie is caught, they can say that they weren’t  lying at all !

i have no particular problem with The observation that hot gases tend to expand, but it should be noted that if this were universally true, stars would have a very hard time forming.

The Real Problem is when you reconfigure The 2nd Law to say that it really has to do with Things moving from Orderly Systems to DisOrderly Systems. Or thing tend to Break, Rather than Fix themselves.

Obviously; The Theory of Evolution Contradicts this. So this is where Closed Systems come to play.

But The Real difficulty is in Entropy; which is saying that Things become more disorderly in one of these closed systems.

OK— i’m Not sure how they’re defining ‘Closed’ here, because it seems to me a Closed system is where order is more likely to spontaneously organize itself, such as at The bottom of a closed Gravity Well.

But what is more disturbing is This Idea of Disorderliness. This is a very curious concept because Orderliness is an Entirely Subjective Observation.

The Anti-Thesis to this is that Everything ‘Just Is’ ( ! )

Who’s to say if a painting by Van Gogh is more orderly than a Painting by Degas ? That a Waltz by Chopin is more Orderly than a Jingle for Washing Detergent heard on The TV. i’m sure you could create some very clever arguments to prove any system is more Orderly than another, & then create an equally compelling argument that The Opposite is True. Daily Life is Full of such Arguments that are pulling & pushing us along The Sidewalks of Western Civilization.

While Eggs tend to break apart in frying pans, they are pulled together inside of chickens.

Astronomers tells us that The Universe will eventually fly apart, as The Stars burn up & are eventually swallowed up, one by one into bigger & bigger black holes.

But it seems to me that whenever two of these Black Holes skim by one another, just as comets are pulled from The outer solar system into The Sun, Not to crash into The sun, but flip around it, & head back out into deep space beyound pluto.

These Black Holes would come racing in towards one another, barely missing one another, & upon their closest approach, tear each other apart, creating new hydrogen & helium & releasing countless other atoms, just as Quasars appear to be doing all The time, in our current universe.

The Universe isn’t getting colder, it’s maintaining a nice comfortable living room temperature if you’re inclined to wear a sweater around The house.

The Anti-Thesis; Even for these Crazy Astronomers that believe in The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that The Universe should have frozen a long time ago, since it’s infinitely old.



Logic is Bunk. The Difference between a smart myn & a stupid one, is that while both believe all sorts of crazy things, The Smart one is clever enough to create an argument to prove What they believe is true.

Paradoxes, all by themselves, prove that logic is bunk. & by this i mean that reasoning falls apart when confronted with The simplest word games or misrepresentations of sentence Structures.

Not all sentences make sense. Some may seem to, but they’re really just gibberish.

On another level; Let us imagine that there is a Genuine Way to Think Rationally, & that this methodology has been codified into a System of Logic that we’ll call ‘Propositional Logic’, or more Accurately; ‘Fractional Propositional Logic’. The purpose of prefixing this with The Word ‘Fractional’ is to allow that Not all of The Statements used within this Logical Process are 100% True or 100% False. In The Real World, there are plenty of things that we’re just Not sure about, or they may be mostly true, some of The Time, or usually False, 30% of The Time.

As i like to Say; ‘i’m as sure of (x, as that there are Elephants in Africa.’

Along with this very good system of Good Logic, which by The way, can only that True Things are True;

There is another System of ‘Bad’ ‘Logic’ or ‘Reasoning’ that we’ll call ‘Jiggery Pokery’ Logic. This is usually thought of in terms of Joke or Riddle Logic or Batman/Riddler Logic or HamString Logic.

Jiggery Pokery Logic can be used to Prove that anything is True.

That is; Jiggery Pokery can be used to create a seemingly irrefutably logical argument that anything is True.

As proof of this; There are countless Jiggery Pokery Arguments that ‘Oldie Time Scientists’ used to Prove all sorts of things in years past, which we now ‘Know’ are pure malarky !

We should interject here that The Purpose, or Functionality of The Good Logic ‘Fractional Propositional Logic’ is to provide a measure of ‘Certainty’ to our Beliefs. It is fine to simply believe things that make you happy, or things that seem to make sense, or taking a sound pragmatic footing on your beliefs & using them to ‘get things done’; But some people always want to be really sure that when they believe is really true. Really True, Really really. Absolutely True. 

That is where Fractional Propositional Logic comes to play, By carefully constructing a solid, genuinely irrefutable argument for (x, you can rest assured that it must be true. It has to be. It can’t Not be True !

The Problem is that, As we’ve mentioned already, Jiggery Pokery Arguments can prove anything you want to be true, is really true.

If a Fractional Propositional Logical Argument is shown to be flawed in some way, it may be possible to fix it, by approaching The Proof from a different Direction or Reconsidering your Axioms, & Hopefully; Your Final Argument will be Short & Elegant & easy to follow from beginning to end.

A Jiggery Pokery Argument can always be fixed by slapping more & more clever Jiggery Pokery Arguments to your Initial Effort to make it Whole again. This process can continue for any number of recursive itinerations until your opponents finally give up & go home.

But a Fractional Propositional Logical Argument can only be taken so far before it becomes clear that What you were hoping to prove, just isn’t.

At this point; it may be possible to create an anti-thesis argument to provide you with some ‘Closure’ so that you can stop trying to prove that Unicorns can ride a surf board.

The Problem though, is that with The Existence of Jiggery Pokery Arguments that pass off as Fractional Propositional Arguments for Centuries, in some cases; This Certainty that you’re hoping to achieve with Fractional Propositional ‘Good’ Logic is Defeated with The Awareness that any given Argument that may seem to be a ‘Good’ Argument, is really just a very Clever ‘Bad’ Argument; Which means that that Certainty is an inescapable Illusion; Thus; Logic is Bunk.


My Favorite Paradox :

The Unexpected Quiz

A teacher announces to her class that sometime next week, at 9:00am, there will be an unexpected quiz.

That is; The test will be given on either Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

So one of the students decides that if the test weren't given on either Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday; Then it would have to be given on Friday, and thus; If it were given on Friday, it wouldn't be unexpected!

Using this same reasoning; The test can't be given on Thursday, since it can't be given on Friday, it can't be given on Thursday either. Likewise, i can't be given on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday.

Confident that The Unexpected Quiz can't be given on any of the days next week, he doesn't prepare at all and is astonished when the test is given the following week.

What is curious, is that it could be given on Friday!

For the average student that hadn't over-thought this paradox, they would simply arrive at school on Friday morning and be suitably surprised that a test was being given.

In fact, if anything, they may have completely forgotten that a test was being given that week by the time that Friday rolled around.

While the students that have carefully analyzed the conditions of the test and decided that logically it could not be given on Friday would be especially surprised that it was given on a day that he was convinced it couldn't be given on...!

The most troubling case would be that of a student that considered the conditions of the unexpected quiz, or had it explained to him by the smarter student, but didn't quite buy into the logic of the argument. So that when Friday does come around, and this student is thinking, It's been explained to me that it can't be given today, but still, maybe it will be. The test has to be given sometime this week, and this is the last day, so that they will be expecting it.

The Solution then; Is that while logically, it can be given on Friday, it will be far more unexpected on Wednesday.


Heisenberg was Uncertain, Not Reality!

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is one of the most misunderstood rules of thumb in the entire history of the physical sciences. It is commonly used by spiritualists, The Clergy & Zen Motorcycle Mechanics to insert into our understanding of the universe, a ghostly aspect that solves the problems of freewill, consciousness & NDEs.

What HUP was really stating was that if you want to look at something really tiny, as tiny as things get; The only way to do so is to look at them with other really tiny things, and in so doing, The thing that you're trying to examine will be substantially altered by the tools that you're using to examine them.

When you shine a flashlight on an apple in a dark room, The light is going to imperceptibly raise the temperature of the apple and maybe even shove it over about a half of an electrons diameter.

When you shine a flashlight on an individual atom, you're going to kick it across the room. And whatever it was doing before you turned the flashlight on, is now completely unknowable.


 The Truth About Magnetism ( & Gravity

i’ve been a big fan of Richard Feynman for a long time, i’ve read all of his ‘Popular’ books & i think that he’s an alright kind of guy—


i have watched two separate videos in which he was a complete Jerk, & these both pertained to questions about Magnetism.

In both Videos, The Interviewer tried to get Richard to explain what it was that both pushed magnets apart from one another, & alternately, pulled them together if you flipped one over.

In both videos; Richard weaseled out it by essentially saying that he’d like to explain it, but that The interviewer was too stupid to understand The answer !

Many Physicists genuinely believe that they’ve got Physical Reality completely Nailed down & they understand everything with such confidence that all The Physics departments should be shut down in all The universities because they know everything now.


Some of them are willing to allow that a few things are still unknown. But they’re really little Details.

But What Physicists have actually only done is labeled about 60% of all Physical Phenomena & Made a lot of reasonably accurate measurements.

But there are still many stupendously gigantic holes in this understanding. Like’ What is The Underlying causality of Gravity or Magnetism. Labels are Not Understanding.

Saying that Gravity is merely The Curvature of Space-Time evades The Question of what is Space-Time & Why Curving something is going to ‘push’ it in any given direction.

Nevermind that many of The Equations in The Standard Model, which Physicists use to explain everything, are Dependent on a handful of ‘Constants’ which are made up from hole cloth to make The other Variables fit together.

The Correct Answer that Richard should have given was; No one knows.

Having said that; His Explanation of how Mirrors or Rubberbands work are Mind Blowing !



There is new headway from time to time for how scotchtape works, but everytime i come across a new explanation, it seems only slightly less hokey than the last explanation.

As with just about any observable phenomena that obviously works, there must be a rational description of it, and if it's completely inexplicable, a best guess is constructed that will include elements made up out of whole cloth.

The real problem with Scotchtape is that if it's sticking by some chemical means, then how does it stick to glass?

If the chemical explanation is true, why does it stick to virtually any dry surface, whether it's essentially acidic or alkaline?

So then it's suggested that it's the gel that squeezes out the air, and it's air pressure on the back of the tape that presses it down...! ??? This hardly seems plausible since scotch tape works so well on paper when it is repeatedly flexed.

Maybe then; The gel is fusing with the fibers of the paper...

So that Scotch tape takes many different techniques to each task, some of which do the work of sticking, while the others, do nothing.


Why do Smart People let Dumb People Run The World?

Why hasn't a philosopher king come to rule the world?

It may be that running the world would be insanely tedious, and that really smart people have come to realize this. It is the sort of job that is best handled by middle management drones with nominal IQ's . While these drones may initiate great mischief from time to time, The Smartest People are usually able to just side step it, and don't really consider the damp masses anything to worry about anyway.

Very Smart People will find the means to do what they really want to do anyway, and while the world may be burning around them, they are content to watch from a far off window and sigh worrisomely.


Balloons Can't Fly

If a balloon is blown up and holding its shape, then the pressure inside it must be greater than the pressure outside, and this is exactly the opposite of the explanation of why it rises...

Granted; The hot air or helium in the balloon may weigh less than the surrounding air, but if you removed the air, would the balloon rise in a vacuum? No.

It would just sit there, like a feather or paperclip.

So the explanation requires that the surrounding air pressure somehow detects that the air inside the balloon is less dense than the surrounding air, but the only clue that the outside air has, is the pressure surface on the skin of the balloon, which is higher to hold the shape of the balloon... ( ? )


What are The Real Simple Machines?

The Traditional Simple Machines are;

The Lever, Incline Plane, Wedge, Screw, Wheel & Axle; And The Pulley.

In these cases; The Road under The Wheel is equivalent to The Rope running through The Pulley. Is this ‘Other’ Component, The Tether, A Simple Machine in its own right ?

Obviously though; The Wheel/Axle & Pulley are the same thing, and allowing the axle to be elemental to one, and not the other is suspicious! Might it be that the Axle is a simple machine in it's own right?

Again; The Incline Plane, Wedge & Screw are all the same thing.

And The Lever may be the most elemental form of the other five!

Would not the focal point of the Incline Plane & Wedge be the fulcrum of these two devices, and then the point of the screw would be it's fulcrum, while the center rotational point of the wheel & pulley be their fulcrum's...?

What is The Best Definition for a Simple Machine? Can it have parts?

Where does it derive it's functionality from? Can a Diode be a simple machine?

Can a Hole be a simple machine? Can a piece of String?


The Real Vowels

The Traditional Vowels are A, E, I, O & U Allowing for Y & W.

A Vowel is Rather Arbitrarily Defined as an Open Vocal Tract Sound,

But is more readily perceived as a Unique Continuous Sound that forms An Elemental Phoneme upon which other sounds can use & extend upon.

Such as B, C, D, G, P, T, V & Z are all derived from E.

The Vowel A is The Elemental Foundation for J & K.

Other Vowels, such as I & U produce only Y, A Vowel in it's own right, And W & Q.

Is Q a Unique Vowel...?

O is entirely unique as an elemental phoneme.

Then there is F which has a very unique phonemic & continuous sound.

As do; L, M, N & R.

S; A very common phoneme gives rise to H & X.

The Real Vowels should be: A E I O U F L M N R & S, And Sometimes Q.

- - -

Should Numbers be Included?

1 is built upon N

2 is built upon U

3 is built upon E

4 is a slight permutation of R

5 is interesting. It seems to either be a Vowel itself or makes use of V as a PreVowel?

Does Five form an extending sound, or end with a Consonantal ‘uh’ ?

6 is built from S

7 is built upon N

8 is a Consonant

9 is built upon N

0 is a variation extended from O.



From Earth; Jupiter would appear, viewed with the naked eye, to have appeared no bigger than Venus, Mars or Saturn. In fact; Venus would appear much larger, and Mars would be more apparent & unique from it's color, But Jupiter is the principle gawd from Roman & Greek Mythology...? Why would they think it was anything special?

It might be suggested that it has a much longer orbital period than Mars or Venus... But from Earth; It would cross the sky at the same speed as the background stars, and even considering this apparent shift from night to night, The orbit of The Earth would wash this effect out. The Priestly observers would have to have a thorough understanding of planetary dynamics to make sense of this, and if so; Saturn should have been the King Gawd.


Fractals / Blood Vessels / DNA

The Veins & Arteries inside the human / animal body are obviously fractal, but just how general is the formula for each animal in a species, or all animals in general? Does a dog or cat use the same fractal formula as humanimals? When comparing all humanimals, where does the fractal pattern of veins break from anatomical physiological requirements for organ placement, and start making pure fractal branching patterns? Then; At that point, the pattern of each person would be unique or highly divergent for each person.

The underlying question is then: How much DNA is needed to map out all the veins & arteries before the elegant solution of fractals can start its magic.

Then of course; Once you begin to apply the Fractal Model to explain why it’s not necessary to have Each Arterial & Veinous Branch specified by another axon of DNA encoding; But thereafter, You still need the Fractal Information & The Machinery to Interpret that Fractal Expression, which when written out mathematically; is quite lengthy.


Quantum Entanglement

The Problem i have with Quantum Entanglement, aside from no one being able to explain what it is, And that it seems to defy every elemental idea of cause & effect & the idea of distance separating events... which i actually don't mind too much... ( ? ) ...It's that if it were possible for two particles to ever become entangled... This would be going on; All The Time. Every particle in the universe would be Entangled with every other particle in the universe. How could you, by any experimental apparatus, believe that you have isolated two particles and that they are uniquely Entangled to each other, and not all the other particles that they are simultaneously entangled with...?


Gyroscopes Clearly Defy Gravity

Gyroscopes are a terrific example of something that is observed, and observed to be clearly impossible, so some crazy explanation is created ad hoc to summarily dismiss it.


Floating a Battleship in A Cup of Water

Clearly there is something very odd about being able to float a battleship on a thin film of water that surrounds the battleship at & below the waterline.



How can anyone suck up a Spaghetti Noodle ?

The Mechanism is that A Person creates a Low Pressure Zone inside their mouth,

But The Outside Pressure is applied to The Entire Length of The Noodle, from all Directions, How can it possibly be pushing The Noodle into your mouth?

Even if you allow that The Pressure that really counts is The Tiny Area around The Mouth; That has to work against The Weight of The Noodle, and The Pressure on all sides of The Noodle from The Sides. Where is The Point that is Actually pushing The Noodle into your Mouth?




No comments: