Corrupt science sets standards for all
By Gary Novak
People don't realize how corrupt science is. They need to know, because science is where the standards of rationality are set for the rest of society. A better realization of what's going on in science should result in science being criticized for validity and evidence, like everything else in society.
The best way to characterize the state of science is with examples. To start with something simple, consider what so-called fossil fuels are. Supposedly, biological material got covered with rocks and earth causing heat, pressure and time to transform it into petroleum. Sometimes fossils in coal are given as evidence of its origins. Guess what, numerous types of rocks include fossils. That doesn't mean biological material was the source of those rocks. Biological material does not accumulate in large quantities without decaying. Peat moss accumulates somewhat, but nothing like the quantities found with petroleum.
The proof that petroleum does not originate with biomass is in the chemistry. Petroleum is called hydrocarbon because of hydrogen attached to carbon. Hydrogen-carbon bonds are very high in energy. Biological material has oxygen with it, called carbohydrate, which has less chemical energy. There is no way to increase chemical energy other than radiation. (ATP and similar reactions do not increase energy; they transfers energy with some loss.) Heat and pressure will not increase chemical energy, because they act upon nuclei, while chemical energy is in electrons which spin around nuclei. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei which will increase the motion of electrons which spin around them short of a nuclear reaction. (All chemical reactions go down-hill energetically with some energy loss as heat.)
Notice that the problem here is not the complexities of paleontology. The problem is that physicists don't know what chemical energy is. What sort of wizards can they be with more complex subjects such as relativity and quantum mechanics? The entirety of those subjects can be proven to be wrong based on proper logic and basic science.
Physicists admit there is a contradiction in quantum mechanics. They say radiation exists as particles and waves. Even though the two concepts contradict each other, physicists apply them both to light. The reason for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting electrons in large leaps. Electrons which orbit nuclei will only increase their energy in stages, as they jump from one "orbital" to another. The radiation which imparts energy to orbiting electrons has to be just the right frequency. The assumption is that the reason why the frequency has to be just right is because there are different amounts of energy in each frequency, and a particle of energy seems to be required.
That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The reason why the frequency has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When the frequency is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a wave does not have to have the same energy within it as the electron acquires.
Relativity includes several major points of invalid logic. One is the claim that the velocity of light is determined by the receiving point. Effect cannot precede cause. Something cannot be determined (or caused) after it occurs. The reason for the claim is that the velocity of light cannot be determined by emitting points, because they have numerous velocities, while light only has one velocity. Notice that receiving points have numerous velocities also. For this reason, physicists say there are infinite reference frames for the infinite velocities of the receiving points. They could have said the same thing about emitting points. There is no validity in using numerous reference frames. It is the same thing as saying something has numerous velocities, but worse. A reference frame includes the rest of the universe with it. There cannot be more than one reference frame for a universe. Otherwise it is not a universe. To create numerous reference frames for velocity creates numerous amounts of energy for the same wave. Energy must be conserved, which means it cannot have numerous reference frames.
It's actually an etheric medium which determines the velocity and characteristic of light waves, but that argument was thoroughly flushed down the drain, because an invalid experiment, called the Mickelson-Morley experiment, failed to find the etheric medium. The device used for the experiment rotated rapidly, refelcted light in several directions and then looked for slight differences in a diffraction pattern. No diffraction patter was found. (Some will say it both ways, imagining a diffraction pattern, but there was no result.) It is not valid to use a complex devise which never produces a result. Such devices always need fine tuning and calibrating, which cannot be done without a result. It's like jumping into the ocean and saying the Titanic is not there. Failing to find something has even less meaning in science, where evidence is more critical.
These errors were not a result of a desperate attempt to explain something; they were deliberately created for the purpose of stripping accountability from the subject and replacing it with the power of authority to decree. This purpose shows up in a few more absurdities. One is the claim that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The basis for this claim is a three component equation under a square-root sign. It's designed to produce a negative number for any velocity greater than the velocity of light. Since there is no such thing as the square-root of a negative, there is no such thing as anything moving faster than the velocity of light. A twelve-year-old could have produced the equation, given the task and being told there is no such thing as the square-root of a negative.
A similar contrivance is Einstein's famous equation, E=mc². Physicists cannot say where it came from other than it parallels the kinetic energy equation, which say KE=½mv². I show simple and unquestionable mathematical proof that the kinetic energy equation is in error. It should have velocity non-squared in it, which is: KE=mv. mv is called momentum. It means momentum is the real kinetic energy. So Einstein paralleled an erroneous equation. What science and brilliance produced a simple equation which looked like one which is in error? What does it have to do with relativity or the rest of physics? Nothing but Einstein's fakery.
The fakery also shows up in space-time. Space-time is simply the three dimensions of space with time added as a fourth dimension. Is it hard to understand how they mix? They don't mix. Space-time is nothing more than an image of a vortex with grid lines across it and a mass in the center of the vortex. Mass has nothing to do with space-time; yet a mass is always shown in the center of the vortex. Space-time is supposed to be the real gravity. But unlike the gravity which Newton described, space-time supposedly influences light. Einstein did no measuring. It doesn't matter; physicists supposedly prove him to be right every day. The primary proof is that light bends around stars and galaxies, just as Einstein said it would. Optics is a branch of physics based upon light bending when passing through variable density matter. It means light bends around stars and galaxies due to the matter around them, not because of Einstein's sorcery.
Over the 13.5 billion light years which earth telescopes reach, light passes through a significant amount of matter, which gives it a longer wavelength called a red shift. Red shift means the wavelength is longer than it should be. But that isn't how physicists interpret the red shift. They say it is caused by objects moving away from the observer. The more distant objects show more red shift, which supposedly means they are moving away from earth faster. This situation is interpreted by physicists to mean everything started with an explosion called the big bang. Isn't it strange that the earth is in the center of the explosion, and the size of the universe is exactly the distance reached by telescopes.
An explosion is an improper interpretation of the red shift, because all observations and logic show that galaxies are not moving away from a central point. There is no reason to assume passing though matter in space cannot change the wavelength of light, because wavelength is quite arbitrary and variable, as musical instruments show. Even though the theory is not understood, a change in wavelength is totally consistent with what waves do. It's not easy to conceptualize how a single wave can transform it's wavelength, but conceptualizing is not a valid test for physical phenomena, and an explosion theory cannot be justified just because an alternative cannot be conceptualized. Theoretical alternatives include the Compton effect.
There are numerous contradictions in the big bang "theory." The main one is that matter would have required an additional 13.5 billion years to get where it is from the center of the big bang, if it traveled at the speed of light, which matter never does. The universe would then be 27 billion years old instead of 13.5. None of this is possible or consistent with observations or assumptions. So physicists said everything got to approximately its present location by the universe expanding rather than matter moving. The expansion is called inflation. There can be no laws of physics until everything gets to its present vicinity. Matter cannot be compressed into a small amount of space and still have the forces and motions which create atoms, molecules and galaxies. Distance is an inseparable part of the laws of physics. Yet physicists tell us what happened as the big bang was occurring, as if laws of physics existed. It means physicists shamelessly contrive anything, when obscurity removes their subject from accountability to the public.
The simple and unquestionable mathematical proof that energy has been misdefined is on my web site at www.nov79.com.