311. Shaky foundations

Some of you who are more familiar with the articles on this site, will have come to realise that I never reveal anything fully but in stages with the intent for you to discover the links yourself, as I do not wish for you simply to believe what I say, but to know.

Nowadays, when we want to know something, we search on google, look at Wikipedia, the Nasa-site or other scientific sites. We then think we found out how things work, because the information is presented as factual.
Sadly, science in general has adopted a system that leads us away from discovering the true nature of things.

How does that happen?
Science describes a thing by what it sees and/or measures. A theory is then tested to see if it can predict an outcome. If so, the theory must then be true.
Now let’s look at a few such theories. But before we do, I will give you an example.
Let’s look at air. We can place our hand out of a car window and as we increase the speed of the car, your hand will be feeling an increasing resistance and we can predict the effect it will have if we further increase the speed or objects size. We are even able to use it to get lift and to build wings that with the right speed will fly airplanes.
BUT!!! It tells us nothing about the air itself.

Although it is  a somewhat simplistic example, it is true and a scientist that comes up with a theory will need a peer review, meaning those who have gone before must agree with your theory. Even worse, your theory must really build upon the so called established theories.

One of the major problems at present is connecting the very large with the very small physics and astrophysics. Somehow they’re not matching up.
So the scientists come up with theories with and about particles that need to be discovered to get their theories to work.
One “magical particle theory” after the other. Everything must be explained by some materialistic, physical particle. But is matter the cause of matter?

Here are a few of the things they seek to proof.
A particle that gives mass, the Higgs boson/the god particle, gravitons, the cause of gravity.
The latest I heard was a scientist saying we are on the right track but the particles must be disappearing into another dimension…. Yes, sure, create another dimension to make it fit your theory.

By the way, have you ever watched a scientific program about gravity?
Nearly always they start with the story of Newton’s apple falling from the tree, and how different objects eventually fall with the same speed to the earth. Isn’t that just like the example with the air? Describing things is not the same as explaining things!

Here are a few things which science likes to give you the impression of that they know but really don’t, in fact they are wrong with their theories.

The sun being a nuclear reactor in its centre.
Sunspots are holes in the corona. While the temperature of the inner core supposedly is millions of degrees, these spots show it to be much colder, the temperature being even lower than the outer core.
When asked why sunspots are dark they come up with some unbacked story about magnetic loops that cool it down, but no explanation is given.

Photons moving at the speed of light, electrons moving through your electricity cable. Light slows down through a medium such as glass, but passed through, its speed goes back to its previous speed. So does it have a driver that pushes the accelerator?

Black holes, nothing can escape from a black hole, so why do we see jets emanating? And a hole in what?

So what major theories are wrong?
Blasphemy!!! Yes, I know, but Einstein’s theory of relativity is wrong! Stephen Hawking is wrong!

Another one you will need to get your head around is that time and space are the effect of a cause like the air against your hand in a speeding car.

And as you will see it will all fit the structure given in the articles.

What happened to abductive reasoning? A form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation?

Occam’s razor is more commonly described as the simplest answer being most often correct, although this is an oversimplification, the correct interpretation is that entities should not be multiplied needlessly.
Researchers should avoid stacking information to prove a theory if a simple explanation fits the observation.
Occam’s razor is the process of paring down information to make finding the truth easier.

In the next article we are going to look at a few principles that can explain all the phenomena for which science has no explanation and of some of which their explanations are incorrect.



Moshiya van den Broek