Science History Shows Flat Earth Success

If you look at the major developments in physics over the last 115 years, there is entirely indication and precedent that the fraudulent flat Earth theory basis of climate alarm and its fake simulacral version of the greenhouse will be successful in establishing itself as core and unquestionable theory going forward from here.

There is a history.  It begins with Einstein’s version of relativity theory which he modified from what Lorentz & Fitzgerald & Minkowski and others had already been developing.  When Einstein published that all reference frames could be considered equal and equivalent, hardly any scientists today realize that this was met with a lot of skepticism and debunking letters by other scientists at the time familiar with such subject matter.

Einstein’s reinterpretation, or recasting, of relativity theory was the first to establish the cognitively-dissonant concept that a physical variable or physical outcome could be two different things at once.  That is, one observer could make one claim about another, but the second observer could make the same claim about the first observer and deny that the first observer’s conclusions were actually physically applying to the second observer.  This is of course all about the Twin Paradox, and if you read the Wiki for that paradox, just as with Schrodinger’s Cat paradox mentioned in a previous post, science is still to this day just as confused as ever as to how to interpret it.

You see, scientists do not understand that if a self-generating paradox is found within a theory, that this therefore indicates a fundamental problem in whatever sub-components of the theory or the theory itself which generated the paradox.  I once mentioned to my thesis supervisor during my Master’s degree that if a paradox is found in a theory, that it must indicate a problem because actual physical paradoxes do not exist in reality.  We have never actually ever found reality doing something observably paradoxical, such as 1 + 1 = 3, and the paradoxes we have are in conceptual theory and are in empirical domains which we have never actually experienced, and physical paradoxes whether experienced or not in any case would have to reduce to statements that 1 + 1 isn’t always equal to two.  Well, the thesis supervisor found this to be quite a surprising position to take, and had apparently never thought of a paradox in this way.

As I have explained, scientists have been conditioned, since Einstein, to accept cognitive dissonance, i.e. paradox, as the basis of their thinking and of their ego & persona identity in being a scientist.

To finish the point about Einstein, he simply made the constancy of the speed of light an axiom, an assumption.  This seems all well and good to scientists, for some reason.  For some reason, they find this axiom sufficient.  Scientists seem to not care about explaining why the speed of light should be a constant in the first place, and what pre-existing logical and self-explanatory conditions of sufficient reason must be present in order to arrive at that result.  Isn’t that such a strange thing to over look, or not care about?  Why would you just accept an axiom, and never wonder about what sufficient reason there is for the axiom to exist in the first place?  The work of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and Michelson & Morley, etc., was heading directly to that question, but all work in that direction was halted by Einstein and then by the media circus manufactured around his personality.  Wouldn’t you like to know why the speed of light is constant to all observers?  Scientists don’t.

It is subsequently strange that Einstein rejected the observer-relativism of Copenhagen quantum mechanics when that result was really just an extension and finalization of his own observer-relativism in relativity theory.

You know it should have never been called relativity theory because it has just made emotionally vulnerable stupid people make an idiotic extrapolation to absolute moral and intellectual and social relativism…in the same way that they have taken the concept of “equality before the law” and stupidly extrapolated this to mean “everyone is equal”.  Everyone is NOT equal, which is why we need equality before the law…

In any case, it should have been called “constancy of light theory”, or “absolute light theory” or something else.

So we have the example of Einstein creating paradoxes which to this day confuses scientists yet they accept it as gospel truth, and we have the example of Copenhagen quantum mechanics with its paradoxes of exploded/unexploded nuclear bombs which scientists likewise accept as gospel truth.

Modern scientists accept paradoxes as physical reality.  And this, even though said paradoxes have never actually been experimentally confirmed, nor are they possible to experimentally confirm.  That’s a pretty amazing achievement in mental gymnastics!  Or should we call it mental circustry…

And so what position is science in to reject flat Earth theory?  It is obviously, and quite by establishment precedent, in no position whatsoever at all to reject flat Earth theory.  In my book I pointed out how the flat Earth mathematics of climate alarm’s greenhouse effect directly results in an equation solution where 1 = 2…a pure mathematical logical paradox.  I have learned a lot in these past few months, and I was clearly naive to think that a paradox such as this would actually finally matter to scientists.

How could it matter though?  It never could have.  The entire basis of their thinking has become predicated upon paradox, on accepting paradox at the and as the very basis of existence itself.

Clearly modern science is in no position to reject the paradox of flat Earth theory, or 1 = 2, or dead-alive cats and exploded-unexploded bombs, etc.

And so the conclusion is that, just as in these previous examples where while there were many people writing about the clear logical and physical problems with the relevant theories, that these obviously flawed and empirically unconfirmed paradoxical theories nonetheless became standard accepted pedagogy and science was quite happy to continue on this way without ever questioning itself, flat Earth as the basis of climate theory and the political Left’s mission to scatter the productivity of the state into the stratosphere by fighting the weather will likely entirely be successful:

How will we re-do 115 years of scientific history?  What political/economic/cultural/societal/geological/astronomical conditions will have to become present in order that a re-do of 115 years of scientific pedagogy and research and development and mathematical methods could then manifest?




This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Science History Shows Flat Earth Success

  1. Funny:
    Here’s what my brain did with one phrase in your article — the phrase that reads …
    … these obviously flawed and empirically unconfirmed paradoxical theories nonetheless became standard accepted pedagogy and science was quite happy to continue on this way …

    Seriously, at first, I saw “standard accepted pedagogy” as “standard accepted pathology” (^_^)

  2. On a more constructive note, I have a sense that the speed-of-light-constancy idea has something to do with Zeno’s infinity-within-unity paradoxes.

    I’m not sure how such an insight, if true, could help things, though.

  3. Hah yah that’s about it.

  4. My layman’s uncomfortableness with Einstein was in the physical description of things.
    First is the concept of “curved space”. How do you curve a vacuum? Especially where objects within it exist in three dimensions? Pictures of the process show a two dimensional table-cloth being pushed by a bowling ball to represent a planet curving space. But if space was an object then the table cloth would have infinite thickness and there would be a table cloth above as well as below, on the sides…all around the bowling ball. So the picture of curving “space time” is nonsensical.

    The second issue I have is making time relative. It makes more sense to me to make internal atomic motion relative. If I am aging more slowly because I am traveling faster through space than people on earth, doesn’t that simply mean that all of the electrical and chemical processes that cause my existence to be real are functioning more slowly because of my faster travelling through space? Time needs to be observed from outside the universe. If I am outside looking in, time would be constant, but I could observe two people in different places aging at different rates.

  5. wicked,

    If the universe is all there is, then there is NO “outside the universe”.

    If space is absolute emptiness that contains substance, then absolute emptiness absolutely CANNOT be curved, because there is nothing to “curve”.

    Now if space is substance too, then maybe we can work with the idea.

    As I remember from a reading of something somewhere, even Einstein seemed confused about the idea of curvature applied to a “stuffless” concept of space — he stated somewhere something to the effect that space is not substantial yet it is depicted mathematically as if curved — CONTRADICTION — “accepted pedagogy/pathology”.

    I think that we would be far better off thinking of space as a fluid “stuff” of indeterminate complexity.
    The rigid, M&M space “stuff” was not the way to go.

    Science needs sensible metaphors to connect with human experience.

  6. Christopher Marshall says:

    Great post Joseph. Don’t have much to add to it just seems sad for the human race and it’s desire to really grow. If an alien race a million generations more advanced than mankind came to this planet and said we have proof global warming by CO2 is false. The Alarmists would throw stones at them and demand they get off the planet. The facts aren’t the problem they just don’t care.
    Are the days of space travel over? Will anyone care to explore or just mindlessly obey a global socialist state and remain safe in a 10X10 area and have no desire to go further. What a sad world that would be.

  7. Robert,

    I should have been more precise in my language. When I said we must view the concept of time from outside it, I simply mean that if we were able to look upon it as a whole time wouldn’t appear relative at all. We would observe people on earth moving faster than people moving on a spaceship travelling at half the speed of light. They would age faster.
    I am simply asserting that time is constant. Because time is nothing more than a unit of measurement for the universe as a whole and what motion of matter occurs within each unit of time depending on where you are and what other forms of motion are occurring. Mathematically it would be the same, only the perspective has changed. Send a man and an atomic clock into space and he ages slower and the clock runs slower because they are travelling faster. We have been told it’s because time slows. That time is relative. From a vantage point of observing everything at once, it isn’t. Only motion is.

  8. Christopher Marshall says:

    OK geniuses (and for once I’m not saying that in mockery) We can’t time travel per se but if say a thousand space ships were sent out at various speeds and distances what time difference would that create for each ship returning to Earth as opposed to the time spent on the ship? Is that a way of jumping through time? How many feasible Earth years could one person “jump” through? I find these concepts fascinating.

    I was just thinking if man ever became a space fearing race (unless a means of travel is created far greater than the one that exists now) the entire concept of time would change. By the “time” you reached a human populated planet their technology would out date your current technology you’re bringing to them. By the “time” you returned to Earth that technology would be outdated. Each inhabited planet would evolve in such a different way form Earth and the physiology of “human” would evolve in such a different way on each planet. Naturally I’m sure each of these are covered already in science. Please share.

    I don’t mean in our solar system of course, all inhabited planets would be close enough to not grow so far evolved from Earth. I’m referring to systems outside ours that would take light years to reach.

  9. Time is a method of human record keeping. For the universe, time does not exist. We speak of time, because our living forms have a limited existence, and we must keep a record of where we are or where, in relation to our mortality, certain perceptions are recorded.

    Time is a very useful concept — it’s just not a real entity, as I see it.

  10. The “cause” of special relativity from which all its equations flow is the lack of any independent measure of either distance or time , only their ratio . The “speed” of light is not a “speed” in the normal sense . It is the ratio relating distance to time and it boils down to the metric basis for spacetime is ( 1 1 1 i ) .

    I also hate the “flat earth” cartoons one always sees . But the GHG is false because it denies — leaves out of the equationless paradigm — Newton’s Law of Gravity which quantitatively explains why and by how much bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops and their planet’s radiative equilibrium with the Sun .

  11. While the presenter in the video hits upon some interesting points, I, unfortunately, do not appreciate his smart-ass tone of delivery, especially since he offers no substantial alternative to the ideas he is trashing, nor does he make any attempt to elevate his own persona above those he curses.

    Math and physics are accounting methods for human perception. Humans are bipedal-moving creatures, constrained within perceptions of “up/down” most intensely, and “right/left” next intensely.
    Our anatomical structure and our constraint by gravity predisposes us to viewing the world in terms of duality.

    This is NOT to say that the universe has duality, but rather that human perception (because of its constraints) requires duality, in order to function and enable graded decisions about how to move, act, or conduct life.

    Einstein and Feynman worked out some interesting accounting methods, in my view, which enabled human beings to advance our inherent polarity-seeking consciousness. I cannot trash them or curse them for doing this. What I or someone else might do, however, is take their contributions as starting points, review them constructively, and then build on them or reject them outright, IF a better accounting system presents itself.

    I think that there ARE better accounting systems to be developed, and they, like Einstein’s and Feynman’s accounting systems would be equally open to further development or outright rejection, as human consciousness possibly advanced even more.

    Einstein and Feynman are not in the same category of “idiots”, as human-caused climate-change “idiots”. I reserve that word for people to whom it most aptly applies. (^_^)

  12. Christopher Marshall says:

    He just came across to me as a bloating toad demeaning others to make himself feel better about his poor life choices. Get a PhD before you denounce everyone else as stupid. Even then don’t do it, instead convince others you may have a better way of presenting facts. Ego is a main driver of science without it not much would be achieved. Ego, however is a two edged sword and used wrongly like this bloating toad it does more harm than good.

    Climate Clowns, well that does not apply. Insulting and demeaning is all they seem to understand. However, and very rarely, I come across someone who isn’t an average climate clown and I can talk to him/her on opposing positions like adults even if we end up disagreeing at least we can respect each other in the morning. This guy I simply have no respect for and that makes his points, some very valid, moot.

    IF someone is attacking you then yes you have a right to defend yourself. I seriously doubt that Einstein or Feynman attacked this guy on the Prime Materiel Plane of Existence. Maybe one of his tats convinced him he has access to higher planes of existence where they (Feynman/Einstein) had a serious failing out over ideas. That sounds more like some kind of spiritual metaphysics science I don’t want to know about and perhaps some 70’s CIA mind inducing drugs I also don’t want to know about.

    So that’s my 10 cents worth.

  13. Joseph E. Postma says:

    Seeing if this embed works from BitChute

  14. “Is it still okay to have children.”

    ANSWER: Probably not, because the educational system, as it is structured today, will most likely convert them into irrational idealists, so out of touch with physical reality that they become a danger to themselves and to the rest of society.

  15. Ten whole cents, CM? That’s quite generous, since the customary expectation is only two.

    A good 10 cents too. (^_^)

  16. Mark says:

    I actually thought the guy talked a good argument. My verdict is he talked common cents ( sense)
    I give him a yes!! His opinions on peer review was spot on as well.

  17. Christopher Marshall says:

    If she had cut he finger that would have been epic. Compared to her the other guy was a rock star. Perhaps she and Tyson should do a united front on saving the planet and fight over credit in the process with Bill Nye chasing behind them saying, “Me too. Me too.”

    @Mark: Many of his points were very valid the obnoxiousness got in the way of those truths. The “Peer Review” was hilarious and spot on. If he had presented himself and his points with some well chosen jabs it may have come across less choppy in my personal opinion (whatever that’s worth?). Humor is a better conduit to convey sarcasm. Clearly he was smart but presentation is everything in social media anyway.

    @Robert: My 10 cents usually ticks people off so I try and keep it to 5 if I can.

  18. What I perceived with the guy in the video was an eighteen-minute ad hominem with no alternative ideas whatsoever being contributed. In other words, all attack and no substance. He came across as a fat, tattooed, obnoxious-ass blabbermouth, with an overblown self-confidence that lacked any basis for being. … just obnoxious, unattractive, mouth wagging condemnation.

    I mean, I watched fifteen minutes into the damn video, and still he was just cursing and condemning, without instructing his viewers in any alternative ideas. He gave us zero clue as to any intelligent insight that might underlie his disdain for Einstein and Feynman. I would like to know what he thinks, but he never tells us. He just rants and raves and condemns as his whole presentation.

    The guy gave no arguments at all. He just ranted. Ranting is not giving arguments. It’s just being a total ass. At least, JP has some substance behind his rants. I see no substance in the video guy. I’m not a tattoo fan either, and so his full-body display offers further assault on my credibility-judgment meter. Sorry, but this is how it comes across to me.

  19. Mark says:

    Guys, that’s funny as I found the guy quite assuming and interesting? Maybe its my intuitive nature
    but appearance aside I resonated with his viewpoint. What do you think Joe’s reasons were for posting this?

    This is another of the man’s videos:

    See what you think?

  20. Mark says:

    Guys, that’s funny as I found the guy quite assuming and interesting. Maybe its my intuitive nature
    but appearance aside I resonated with his viewpoint. What do you think Joe’s reasons were for posting this?

    This is another of the man’s videos:

    See what you think?

  21. Christopher Marshall says:

    My impression is he’s an arrogant bloated toad first and yet he has some valid points. So nothings changed.

  22. Mark,

    My personality type has a strong intuitive aspect. Even so, I still agree with CM — nothing has changed. I’d like to see the guy demonstrate what he knows in a different tone. I have a feeling that I would find some resonance with him, but his style is just too obnoxious to reveal what it is he really knows.

    He needs a presentation makeover. (^_^) … in my opinion.

  23. I suspect that Joe posted the video, because there are grains of favorable insight even among the obnoxiousness that Joe finds potentially worth discussing in further detail.

    I find a bit of hypocrisy in the video guy’s rejecting photons outright, and then accepting waves equally outright, for example. I think that there is a way to reconcile the duality of particle and wave, … namely by viewing a particle as a wave crest or an instance of maximum expression of a wave. Hence, there are times that we need to focus on the point of this maximum expression, while there are other times that we need to focus on the movement between and up to such expressions.

    By “expressions”, I do not mean the human equivalent that involves sentience. I mean something more along the lines of “coming into existence”.

  24. Mark says:

    Hi Joe and guys, have a look at these series of Videos and how modern astrophysics is predicated (I believe) on ancient Zohar Kabbalistic teachings.
    I am a Christian so my view of the Zohar may be skewed but take a look and see what you think.

    Joe I believe this is the forunner to Transhumanism. Humanity is being tricked into believing we can be as gods, when all we are doing is
    creating the platform and reality for an demonic entity system to spring forth and be awakened and freed by our dabbling at playing as God.

    1) The Cult of Atomism:

    2) Kabbalah and the Zohar

    3) Opposites are Complimentary

    4) Astrophysics, Evolution, and Quantum Theory

    We don’t think in numbers or mathematics, the powers that be do, as they are souless and that is the difference, we are Human they think like Machines, and is the
    forerunner to transhumanism. Our creativity is what defines us apart from machines. Our senses and emotions are what make us human and what it is to
    be human. Replacing our minds with equations and mathematics will not advance us but enable our souls to become trapped in mechanical bodies.
    I am a Christian and I believe God would be abhored at such abominations.

  25. Mark says:

    Does a daffodil want to become God, does an oak tree want to become God, does an ant want to be God, does a dog want to be God, Does a monkey want to be God, Does a human want to be God, Does and angel want to be God?
    And there is the problem…..

  26. Mark says:

    It’s all lies. I cannot become a God anymore than a daffodil can become a rose.
    I am a Human.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s