Science and Nonsense

Hey you guys,

This Stephen Hawking issue has distracted the hell out of me (although my silence of late is more related to my inability to upload videos, based on my wifi-poor ramblings). I’ve been researching and working on an essay regarding the possibility that the Hawking we have now is not the original Hawking. Here’s the first paragraph of the unfinished essay:

‘Since mentioning Stephen Hawking’s possible status as a literal BS [Bullshit Science] puppet in my last post (as a half joke), several of you contacted me with some very interesting links and info; in fact, as a result I’ve done a flip-flop in my odds-making. It’s no longer 10% that Hawking is a puppet, 90% not. I’m now 90% – 10% the other way.’

The essay is about 4,000 words but I’ve decided that more research is needed before I subject you to it. In fact, I’m back to my original view of only 10% probability of Hawking-as-puppet…

Anyone interested in digging into this matter should go to this essay by Miles Mathis.

You might also view this documentary, however, which seems to pull off the age segues (but not the teeth issue!) in keeping with a single Hawking since the beginning. (It would have been necessary for the filmmaker to misrepresent chronology – juggle clips – which of course is completely plausible.)

Meanwhile, though, as part of my Hawking-interest I did some re-thinking on his overall claim to physics fame, which is black holes. Since I’ve come to realize that black holes do not exist, cannot exist, by some simple laws of physics, it would then follow that the whole of Hawking’s work, his life, you might say (whether real or concocted), is not only a waste, but likely much worse – disinformation. But the question is then Why would TPTB bother to deceive us on a matter of theoretical science… (‘TPTB’, the powers that be seems a good compromise in referring to ‘them,’ previously referred to as the deep state, the elite, the illuminati, etc., etc. For now, let’s leave it at that. TPTB.)

Anyway, the bedrock of Hawking’s black hole theories (there have been a few) is beyond shaky; in fact, it doesn’t exist. I hope to persuade you of this, and of the implications thereof, which are of no little importance, as we’ll see, if you hang in.

 

Bear with me for a minute while I conjure an allusion. As I write I’m at the mouth of the Pistol River in southwest Oregon. Right on the water, with the river and the ocean as my view. There is one other motorhome, RV, within sight, maybe a hundred yards distant, down the dirt road I’m sitting upon. Give this photograph a look, my view looking north:

Over the past week or so of sporadic road-travel/campsite hunting I’d step out my door and wherever I looked there was a postcard. And few, if any, neighbors in sight. I’ll try to make my point visually.

The RV up on the highway (photo below): Why is he in a hurry? Where’s he going?

He’s going to an RV park. Private or State of Oregon or National, an RV park of some sort is where he’s headed in such a hurry. This is more or less what it will be like where he is going (the park in the pic is in fact about 5 miles from here):

He’ll pay some low-rent jerk (not you, Bob) between $30 and $50, maybe less if he has some sort of ‘pass,’ senior or Good Sam or whatever. He’ll be guided (by the low-rent jerk, now in a golf cart) to a slot where he’ll be in earshot of the bodily functions of his neighbors and have a close up view of the side of their rigs; rigs with dumb-ass names like Dare To Dream, Magellan, Voltage, or Phaeton. (Imagine driving around in a rig named ‘Voltage’.)

Hey: I had to look up ‘phaeton’ to find out what it refers to. According to Wiki: ‘A Phaeton (also Phaéton) is a form of sporty open carriage popular in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Drawn by one or two horses, a phaeton typically featured a minimal body very lightly sprung atop four extravagantly large wheels.’

Bet you didn’t know that. (One has to wonder if the owner knows that.)

I’ve been here at Pistol River for three days. On average, up on the highway during daylight hours, no fewer than two RVs of some sort pass me by each minute. Traffic decreases drastically at night, so let’s calculate based on a 12 hour day… over 700 rigs per day times three days is over 2,000 rigs that have passed by my little niche since I arrived. This is a conservative estimate.

A total of four rigs have stopped here for the night (there is room for a dozen or so, easily).

It’s about 25 miles between Gold Beach (to the north) and Brookings (where I’m more or less headed). I left eight days ago. A 25 mile trip. See, I keep finding niches like this, right off the highway. So I stop. Stay a couple of days, maybe longer.

The question is, What were the 2,000 drivers of the RV park-bound rigs that whizzed by me in the past three days thinking?… Hold on…. If we count the past week – during which I’ve been on my way from Gold Beach to Brookings – it’s more like 8,000 drivers.

How the fuck could 8,000 people go right by places like this, on the way to an RV park?!

But what’s my point and what does it have to do with Stephen Hawking?

This: How the fuck could virtually every P.H.d. in physics on this planet believe in the existence of black holes?!

 

Listen, please: I’m asking you to put aside whatever’s on your mind right now and seriously consider the point I’m trying to make. It genuinely does have essential implications – essential meaning of an essence. I know that most of you are awake and – while maintaining your appreciation for the absurd – perceive HTWW as a serious matter. And you know the degree of deception we have been subjected to regarding current events and history in general (I assume this because you are reading this)…

 

Okay, I hadda say that. Now a slight rephrasing of my last question: How could virtually every P.H.d. in physics on this planet believe that stars are formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of hydrogen (or any) gas?! Let alone collapse until the ‘gravitational pressure’ ignites a fusion chain reaction?! Let alone a chain reaction that lasts for billions of years with no fuel added in the meantime? Let alone Then it collapses further, explodes into a supernovae, yet somehow leaves a ‘singularity’ (of almost infinite density) behind?!

 

The real reason you haven’t heard from me in a while is that the above notions (the RV drivers & the physicists, how they conflate) has been constantly on my mind, for what it says about human nature. 

Wait a minute. What was that up there in the paragraph before the last one? In the parentheticals?… ‘almost infinite’ density?! (Yes, as you will see, this is a common term among theoretical physicists these days…)

ALMOST infinite density? ALMOST?! Notwithstanding my having flunked algebra in junior high, I strongly suspect that almost infinite is an utterly nonsensical non-concept, logically, mathematically, or any other way. In fact, I know it is. As Wolfgang Pauli would say, it’s ‘not even wrong.’

 

I want to prove to you that the people who are supposedly ‘the smartest on the planet’ and who are supported by TPTB in telling us how we, and everything else, came to exist, are in fact completely, utterly, out to lunch. Either lying or living in some ultimate Orwellian doublethink world. One or the other. And it’s completely, utterly obvious.

Please view the following clips (it’s only a couple minutes!):

 

 

Since the term ‘infinite’ is vital in proving my point, let’s formally define it.

Full Definition of INFINITE

1

:  extending indefinitely :  endless <infinite space>

2

:  immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive :  inexhaustible <infinite patience>

3

:  subject to no limitation or external determination

4

a :  extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any pre-assigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers>

Using just everyday common sense, we can see that – using any of the definitions above – the adjectives ‘nearly’ and ‘almost’ are incompatible with the concept of ‘infinite,’ but number 4 is most relevant, since the scientists in the above video (plus their colleagues) all use mathematics to ‘prove’ their theories.

‘Greater than any pre-assigned finite value’

I realized the absurdity of ‘almost’ and ‘nearly’ infinite even before I came across Stephen Crothers’s (a dog lover of course) analysis; not to mention Thornhill, my favorite physicist. (Note that both are Aussies.) A comparison with the old goofball joke of being ‘almost pregnant’ comes to mind, although ‘almost infinite’ is actually dumber-ass. Seriously, how is Professor Hawking going to respond if I ask him for the status of his almost infinite number after I multiply it by a thousand billion?

Maybe he’ll parrot Ralph Cramden (remember ‘The Honeymooners’?): ‘Hub-ida-hub-ida, hub-ida’? Now imagine it in that robot voice…

Really, folks, the 11-year old in the above video exposes them all for what they are, doesn’t he? (‘How could something infinitely large get bigger, Mister Nobel Laureate?’)

Burt let’s get down to some nuts and bolts. Let’s look at the mainstream theory on the formation of our sun (a pretty goddamn basic notion, that they ought to get right, no?):

 

 

The ‘gravity collapse’ theory is held by virtually all (probably 99%) of the P.H.ds on planet earth. Do you now see why it’s nonsense? No? Mmmmm.

Okay, give this a quick look:

I met Bryan at the Electric Universe conference. Although I missed the above presentation, he sent the link to me a few days ago. It was great seeing it – even though a lot of the engineering stuff is above my pay grade – since I’d already come to the conclusion that there is no mechanism to make a gas cloud collapse to form a star, let alone a black hole.

But let’s think about this. Imagine a cloud of hydrogen atoms. Each atom represents a tiny bit of gravity, right? The bit of gravity could be shown as a point with little arrows directed inwards towards its center, right?

The huge amount of gravity (claimed by MS scientists) represented by the ‘cloud’ of hydrogen (or any gas) is merely the sum of all the individual atoms’ gravity. Examine the diagram and look where the arrows are pointing: There is no concerted force toward some theoretical ‘center’ of the cloud. Is there?

One more time (because this is vital): There would be no theoretical or literal ‘point’ at the center of the cloud toward which all the hydrogen atoms would be attracted. Would there?

There is no force acting on any atom to move it in concert with the others.

The only thing collapsing here is all of modern cosmology. And the guy (me) pointing it out flunked high school algebra. (Perhaps significantly, I got the highest grade in the history of my school on the New York State geometry Regents exam. How do you figure?)

 

If you’re thinking it can’t be that simple and that if it were that simple all these P.H.ds would know it, look again at the ‘almost’ and ‘nearly’ infinite video. Yes, they can all be wrong (and/or dumb-ass as all get-out) about something so utterly simple and basic. Listen to those dog-loving, truth-is-what-counts Aussies, folks!

 

Here’s a quote (from The New York Times) that demonstrates how clueless MS scientists really are about what powers the sun:

‘But controlled fusion is still a dream, avidly pursued and perpetually out of reach. Scientists have never figured out a way to keep a fusion reaction going long enough to generate usable energy. The running joke is that “fusion is 30 years in the future — and always will be.”

Now, however, scientists here have given the world some hopeful progress. Last month, a team headed by Omar A. Hurricane [whaddare they, joking, with this guy’s name? Seriously, folks!] announced that it had used Livermore’s giant lasers to fuse hydrogen atoms and produce flashes of energy, like miniature hydrogen bombs [my emphasis: see the video below]. The amount of energy produced was tiny — the equivalent of what a 60-watt light bulb consumes in five minutes. But that was five times the output of attempts a couple of years ago.’

Does something, anything, about the above bother you? Maybe ring a bell regarding what I’m trying to say here? I mean, does our paper of record find it amusing that billions of tax dollars have been spent on bullshit – which is obvious to an algebra-flunkee but not to our top scientists?

See, ‘controlled fusion’ is what Hawking et al. believe powers the sun; they have been trying to duplicate the reaction since around the time I was born (1948). More than a half a century of complete failure. You’d think they’d take the scientific method’s hint and look elsewhere for the power of the sun. You’d think one of them, at least, would go to Thunderbolts.info and fucking learn something!

Stephen Hawking and his buddies don’t know how the sun got here or how and why it shines. To put it simply: They don’t know anything. (The real, deep problem with modern cosmology is that the universe is not expanding, but that’s a slightly separate subject…)

The only success scientists have had with hydrogen fusion is via a hydrogen bomb. How did they succeed with a hydrogen bomb, you ask? By adding an outside mega-force:

They need 50 megatons of additional force to start a fusion reaction but figure that out in space it just… flares up all on its own, via gravity and Einstein’s General Theory of hogwash! Yep, the same folks who gave you ‘almost’ and ‘nearly’ infinite…

Please consider the implications of… all this… I mean aside from the fact that it exposes black holes for the nonsense that they are, making a (bad) joke of the life of ‘Stephen Hawking’ (whoever he really is), which is how I got sucked into this in the first place.

On good old Youtube I’ve watched more than 20 documentaries on the solar system, star and planet formation, black holes, f-ing quasars and pulsars and so forth. Nova, Discovery, Disney, The Documentary Channel, National Geographic, you name it and they have well produced extravaganzas on cosmology and astronomy; great CGI with narration by respected scientists like Hawking, Krause, deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and on and on. (Hang in for examples in future posts.)

All told, I’ve watched probably 50 hours of material on the cosmos. I got the cosmos, the BS of it, cosmic bullshit, comin’ outa my butt…

It’s… very… very difficult to describe what it’s like witnessing so much ‘science,’ knowing full well that virtually (i.e., almost or nearly) everything being thrown at me is utter horseshit. Balderdash. Nonsense. And transparently so. (It’s this, the transparently so part that has me rattled.) For some reason it’s more extreme than, say, watching the news, which is likewise all untruths.

I don’t know if anyone can identify with how I feel about this. Surreal is, I suppose, one way of describing of my state of mind (along with a tiny bit of scholarly superiority).

 

I use the above, the ‘nearly’ or ‘almost’ infinite nonsense, and the absurdity of the standard model of star formation, because they are two of the most transparent indicators that something is very wrong with the current state of science. Pretty much all of current science is like this. Evolutionary biology, for example, is… no, don’t get me started…

But the question that keeps nagging at me refers to the people, the scientists: How could so many believe – or claim to believe – so much nonsense? Does the scientific method or just plain old critical thinking mean anything to them? I do know that the puzzle is related to RV drivers who are in a hurry to go whizzing by where I am to get to an RV park where they have to pay to be uncomfortable and have no view…

One last detail: Do you have a compass? Or one of those magnet-stick ‘em thingees for the fridge? If you do, the electro-magnetic force of it is a thousand billion billion billion times stronger than its gravity. Gravity is ridiculously weak. And they want us to believe it runs amok and creates ‘monster’ black holes that gobble up galaxies? (Hold on. I left out a ‘billion’ above. It’s a billion billion billion billion times weaker. Think about that if you have the time.)

 

So when you picture hydrogen atoms straining to form a star gravitationally, keep in mind that — in the words of the Nobel Laureates — Gravity is almost infinitely weak.

But I’m running long here. I’ll finish the Hawking essay and get it to you. Meanwhile, your thoughts on the Mathis essay above would be appreciated. (Combine it with the Hawking documentary, for balance, but keep in mind that most filmmakers are dishonest.)

If you have an argument proving me wrong about star formation (or the ‘nearly or almost infinite’ issue), by all means shoot me an email. If you know a physicist, maybe forward this post to him/her for a reaction; it’ll likely be good for a laugh if nothing else.

If there is something amiss with my reasoning I’d like to know. (FYI, I ran this post by Bryan Strohm – from the above video – and he wrote back ‘Yeah, exactly!’ Ditto ‘Edwin,’ likewise from the E.U. conference, who likewise is suspicious about Hawking…)

It’s completely possible that I’m wrong and there is a mechanism that causes gas clouds in space to collapse: but I guarantee you that they do not ignite into nuclear fusion reactions. I’d bet my life on that.

Allan

But holy shit I’d love to get Larry Krause/Stephen Hawking (or Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Alex Fillipenko, Michio Kaku, etc., or, for that matter, anyone who believes that the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] was worth $13 billion) in a room with Thornhill and Crothers! In fact, that’s my long-term goal. Yes! How about it? If you’re into it, help me think of a way to accomplish this. I’m all ears. (In an upcoming post I’ll show you how it went when I personally asked Michio Kaku a question about dark matter, which is another fantasy.)

Here’s where I was a few days ago. (My Postcards are piling up. I have four others in line; one of them is really good, I think.)

In case you haven’t noticed, my Postcards are my visually subtle way of saying ‘It’s all electric, folks!’

Thanks a bunch to those who have recently signed up to help out with a gallon of gas a month – drewslist, WM, RW, DB, and AO. If I’ve missed you, if your initials are not in the photo, let me know…

 

One last thing. (Really last.) If you find this blog worthwhile, pu-lease spread it around, via Facebook or the like. I’d much appreciate it. It’s sort of depressing to only get two or three hundred views of my Postcards. Some of them are pretty good, I think.