posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:43 AM
One strong reason I don't trust science is because of who finances it.
The way Tesla was disqualified as a scientist, because he was "just" an "inventor" is a good reason for me to discard much of the so called
scientific theories. Does anyone know how many Tesla's inventions are hidden, and inventions from others? Why? I think it's self explanatory. It
doesn't fit into the modern era Ptolemaic, egocentric theory.
Theory of gravity comes nice into a play during an absolutist rule in England - stupid mass ("lazy" mass) ruled by an arbitrary force
In social and political theory, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Dostoevsky, Zamyatin, Kafka, London, Capek and many others gave much more to the point
observation of what is really going on than all the "official" theoreticians, starting with Plato and Aristotle. These writers were independent
thinkers, not officials of some institutes, paid to proliferate "suitable" PC theories.
When Dostoevsky says that "there is an axe circling the Earth and chopping heads which protrude" I believe him much more than scientists who are
projecting "exploration, exploitation and appropriation" of the existing Universe and pretending that we humans, led by scientists, are god given
supremely conceived beings with bright future of ruling the "so far" perceived "dead" Universe.
Talk about Resonance. Rhythm is "permeating", actually creating everything. How does rhythm fit into theory of gravity? It doesn't. We have Laplace
resonance in movement of planets and moons (like Jupiter moons) but is the gravity source of this resonance? I think it's not. There is no rhythm in
gravity, gravity does not produce rhythm. So, where does it come from and how it organizes "mass" in mathematically articulate patterns?
Gravity is simply perception, information. Matter. Dead matter. Dead without something to stir it up and organize it or disperse it.
There is no such thing as anti gravity. How can there be anti gravity, when gravity has no defined direction. What really attracts is the same
quality, not the "opposition" of "poles". Quality attracts quality, and difference does not attract matter brought to "order".
Science neglects this, and I say it does so intentionally. It is very visible from the Theory of All, which tries to project Universe as a totally
causal event, with the so called Big Bang, which stands at the "beginning" of time and space as some scientifically approved "God".
Blasphemy and nonsense of "bending space" is also the product of science. How can space, which is a principle, be bent?
How can time, which is simply the means of thinking, be bent?
It can, but only in "scientific" reflection, where reflection itself (also a principle of differentiation) can be manipulated at will and claimed to
possess justification in itself. Self justifying reflection is the true face of science controlled by political powers and interests.
Those who seek truth are disgusted with such theories, proliferated by paid scientists.
Astronomy is an ideal place to be turned into a scientific sandbox. Because the mass of information is such, no one can really "organize" it in some
comprehensible system. Thee are plenty of "working" theories posing as "guides" for human thought. All those theories are subject to change, an
arbitrary change, depending on the newly acquired data.
"Newly" acquired data is nothing but arbitrarily introduced novelty into our perception.
Hawking described the concept of "imaginary time", a time line orthogonal to one existing point in another time line. This brings the experience of
the whole Universe from its supposed beginning to its end.
Hawking is a smart guy. He knows that this concept introduces anticipation in science and that science will spit it out as "unsuitable". The
knowledge "in advance" does not depend on "incoming" data.
Hawking, as one of the most praised scientists of today, discarded "scientific method" by introducing this concept. And the truth is, time is
something imaginary, it is not objective. Time is clearly the "means" of thinking and nothing more than that.
The true scientific method is deprived of incoming data, empiricism is not scientific method. What passes as analytical thinking in science is
actually statistical manipulation, because true analytical method is about principles, it is about ethics in the first place - honesty, which is
removed from the official science in favor of arbitrariness - and that is a political, opportunistic stance.