[thedoc (OP)]

Yousuf Godir asked the Naked Scientists:
   Do we understand that some scientific phenomenon became a religion dogma for scientist, and hence rationality fades away? For example, Big Bang, gravitation, and heliocentric seem to me not holding their feet on the ground, yet scientist consider it immune. Do you think these theories have strong base?
What do you think?

[Villi]

From personal experience, yes. Science is comparable to religion as a belief system. When I was younger I believed science was God-like, but later opened up my mind to some religion. I noticed similar trends in behaviour between scientists and preachers. Both using sources or processes of knowledge to explain things, the former using more present day material and the latter using older material. Both can be extremely beneficial and destructive imo.

[jerrygg38]

I write books and produce both religious theories and scientific theories. Religions are theories of God and the Universe that comes from the inner minds of the various prophets. They use logic and reason to produce followers. Later they use force to insure obedience to their beliefs.
  Scientific theories come from the inner minds of the various scientific prophets. They use logic and reason and attempt to relate their beliefs with actual measurements.  In general no force is used but over time they become part of the belief system of their followers. Then it becomes like religious dogma.
   
 

[guest39538]

Some scientific dogma is a comparison to religious dogma , however there is a lot of science that is not dogma.  People make the mistake of factualising  theory instead of remaining objective.

[puppypower]

One example is connected to the statistical assumptions of classical biology as applied to life. It has been known for some time that proteins are bound together with very weak binding forces and can be easily denatured. Proteins are held together with the binding strength equivalence of a few hydrogen bonds. Due to these weak binding forces and the thermal energy in water, classical statistical assumption assume proteins should fold with average folds, governed by statistics. Over 50 years ago, it was observed that proteins actually fold with exact folds not governed by statistics; probability=1.0.

One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.

The dogma of statistics is so blindly followed and taught in biology, science has been willing to ignore hard reality for over 50 years. One only has consider how many students have been indoctrinated with science misinformation, due to the blind faith in a god of casinos. In this religion, one worships with black boxes and blind folds, to appease a god of chaos and gambling, using math oracles. This religion is old and dates back to before the age of enlightenment.

On the other hand, this religion may not be entirely based on blind religious faith. It may also have a medical explanation. Gambling is very addictive. Any religion of jackpots and lotteries may be very hard to give up, due to the compulsive behavior associated with gambling. If you had a religion centered on alcohol or drugs, the drug addiction itself will make it hard for reason to get through the compulsive actions; physiological faith.

In US, there is a separation of church and state, so maybe the government needs to be consistent and not support any faith based science. It may be healthy for the addiction to confront itself, so it can sober up to get back in graces; tough love.

[hamdani yusuf]

If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.

René DesCartes
Discours de la Méthode (1637)

That advice is rarely heard from religious preachers toward their follower. But it could be used for converting purpose, if they are confident with their argument against other religions/denominations.

On the other hand, it is often heard from science teachers. But we can see some science authority figures try to force their views to general audience through unscientific ways, containing logical fallacies such as argument from authority and blinding with science.

[Villi]

One example is connected to the statistical assumptions of classical biology as applied to life. It has been known for some time that proteins are bound together with very weak binding forces and can be easily denatured. Proteins are held together with the binding strength equivalence of a few hydrogen bonds. Due to these weak binding forces and the thermal energy in water, classical statistical assumption assume proteins should fold with average folds, governed by statistics. Over 50 years ago, it was observed that proteins actually fold with exact folds not governed by statistics; probability=1.0.

One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.

The dogma of statistics is so blindly followed and taught in biology, science has been willing to ignore hard reality for over 50 years. One only has consider how many students have been indoctrinated with science misinformation, due to the blind faith in a god of casinos. In this religion, one worships with black boxes and blind folds, to appease a god of chaos and gambling, using math oracles. This religion is old and dates back to before the age of enlightenment.

On the other hand, this religion may not be entirely based on blind religious faith. It may also have a medical explanation. Gambling is very addictive. Any religion of jackpots and lotteries may be very hard to give up, due to the compulsive behavior associated with gambling. If you had a religion centered on alcohol or drugs, the drug addiction itself will make it hard for reason to get through the compulsive actions; physiological faith.

In US, there is a separation of church and state, so maybe the government needs to be consistent and not support any faith based science. It may be healthy for the addiction to confront itself, so it can sober up to get back in graces; tough love.

I really liked this post and could relate to it.

It reminds me of something someone in a lab told me: "Science is like playing the lottery."

[mad aetherist]

I write books and produce both religious theories and scientific theories. Religions are theories of God and the Universe that comes from the inner minds of the various prophets. They use logic and reason to produce followers. Later they use force to insure obedience to their beliefs.
  Scientific theories come from the inner minds of the various scientific prophets. They use logic and reason and attempt to relate their beliefs with actual measurements.  In general no force is used but over time they become part of the belief system of their followers. Then it becomes like religious dogma.

Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.

[guest39538]

Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.

Hello  Mad,   are  you  educated  in  science ? 

[mad aetherist]

Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.

Hello Mad, are you educated in science ?

No i am a retired engineer, with very little science, & not much math. I like to have an intense interest for a few years & then move on to something new, & at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).
I am very impressed & awed with~by the intelligence of scientists, oldendays & modern, & wish that Einsteinism be quickly dumped so that science advances.
My heroes are Cahill, Ranzan, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Sagnac, Ives, Lorentz, Wallace, Builder, Dingle, Arp, VanFlandern, Allais, Esclangon, Munera, & about 20 others.

[guest39538]

at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).

Thank  you  for  explaining  your  background  to  me  which  helps  me  to  give   a  simple  explanation.   

Einstein  is  not  your  ''enemy'' ,  Einstein  explains  the  ''aether''   with  space-time,   which  in  essence  is  relational  to  a field  space   within  a  BH.   Large  mass  objects  can  curve/bend  space-time  which  is  explained  in  the  rubber  sheet  analogy.

In  your  own  mind  ,  just  replace  the  rubber  sheet   with  ''invisible''   space-time.   

I  hope  this  helps  you  understand. 

[mad aetherist]

at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).

Thank you for explaining your background to me which helps me to give a simple explanation. Einstein is not your ''enemy'', Einstein explains the  ''aether'' with space-time, which in essence is relational to a field space within a BH.  Large mass objects can curve/bend space-time which is explained in the rubber sheet analogy.

In your own mind ,  just  replace  the  rubber sheet with ''invisible'' space-time.  I hope this helps you understand.

Unfortunately the rubber sheet analogy is horrible, i cringe whenever i see it. It in no way explains spacetime. In addition i need to point out that if u place a marble on that sheet the marble will run down to the center, whereaz nothing in Einstein's GR would make a marble placed near another massive object move towards that object.

Spacetime in no way explains aether. Spacetime itself, besides being a silly notion (within a stupid theory), is superfluous -- there is no need to mention spacetime at all, ie as being a part of anything to do with SR or GR. My understanding is that Einstein reckoned that time is dilated near mass & that light is thusly slowed in all directions near mass [time]. And that length is contracted near mass, radially, thusly (he says) light is slowed radially (ie light going in radially, & light going out radially)[space]. The combined slowing bending gravity etc being called spacetime, or being said to be due to the bending of spacetime. But there is no need for the word spacetime, or that idea -- & there is no need to raise spacetime to the status of a (silly impossible) 4th dimension. Anyone can simply crunch Einstein's time stuff & space stuff in the usual way, spacetime or no spacetime, the concept of a spacetime duznt change anything or help anything by one iota. Spacetime smells to me like a PR & marketing stunt, where u invent some sort of buzzword or gimmick to attract the suckers or to put on a cap (MAGA).

[Paradigmer]

Yousuf Godir asked the Naked Scientists:
   Do we understand that some scientific phenomenon became a religion dogma for scientist, and hence rationality fades away? For example, Big Bang, gravitation, and heliocentric seem to me not holding their feet on the ground, yet scientist consider it immune. Do you think these theories have strong base?
What do you think?

IMO, I think almost all scientific phenomena have become a religion dogma for most scientists.

Those examples you cited, indeed are not holding their feet on the ground at all.

Am backing the above contentious positions with my works on "Critiques of the scientific method", and "Logic and belief systems".

[Paradigmer]

Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.

IMO, Einstein was also a victim of your so called "a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research".

Einstein actually advocated the existence of a physical aether, but he later capitulated under peer pressure, which turned his work into a cult science, and also twisted and turned the works of your aether heroes.

This article on "The UVS review on the GR concepts of gravity", is my collective views on Einstein actually was an advocate for the existence of a physical aether. 

Like yourself, I also hope the dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. But, let's set the target on the real culprits.

[guest39538]

Spacetime in no way explains aether. Spacetime itself, besides being a silly notion (within a stupid theory),

I  have  spent  over  a  decade  saying  the  same  sort  of  thing,  it  took  me  that  long  to  fully  understand   Albert  Einstein  and  space-time.   I  will  be  blunt  and  tell  you  that  you  are  incorrect  and  are  imagining  that  you  know  better  than  the  genius  of  Albert  Einstein.  ( I use to do the same thing!)

I  will  make  a  suggestion  to  you ,  spend  lots  of  time  trying  to  understand  space-time,  put  space-time  into  your  own words.   

Then  you  may  understand..

[mad aetherist]

Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.

IMO, Einstein was also a victim of your so called "a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research".

Einstein actually advocated the existence of a physical aether, but he later capitulated under peer pressure, which turned his work into a cult science, and also twisted and turned the works of your aether heroes.

This article on "The UVS review on the GR concepts of gravity", is my collective views on Einstein actually was an advocate for the existence of a physical aether. 

Like yourself, I also hope the dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. But, let's set the target on the real culprits.

Very interesting. And thanx for  thems 3 articles of yours, i downloaded them, & will read them soon. Funny that -- an aether sinks SR -- but no SR then no GR.

[mad aetherist]

Spacetime in no way explains aether. Spacetime itself, besides being a silly notion (within a stupid theory),

I  have  spent  over  a  decade  saying  the  same  sort  of  thing,  it  took  me  that  long  to  fully  understand   Albert  Einstein  and  space-time.   I  will  be  blunt  and  tell  you  that  you  are  incorrect  and  are  imagining  that  you  know  better  than  the  genius  of  Albert  Einstein.  ( I use to do the same thing!)
I  will  make  a  suggestion  to  you ,  spend  lots  of  time  trying  to  understand  space-time,  put  space-time  into  your  own words.
Then  you  may  understand..

I have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly. But i must admit that i dont understand the math, so that counts against me.
Just because Einstein used a rt triangle & Pythagoras with c one one side & c+v on another & came up with a similar looking gamma to Lorentz is nothing special. Einstein's gamma is different, the symbols mean different things. Hell i came up with the same equation for gamma using the wavelength of an orbiting electron, it took me 5 minutes, & i am an old retired Engineer.
There have been i think 4 different derivations of the fresnel drag equation, done 4 different ways, by different scientists, in different eras, & all of the equations look the same. 
Its more a case of how could u not come up with that equation for gamma.
But there is no need to waste time re any of this. The original MMX was not null. And no gas-mode MMX has ever been null. And DeWitte found an anisotropy in the 1way speed of light. The list goes on. SR & GR should not have even been born.

[Kryptid]

I have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.

So you complain about the scientific establishment being closed-minded when it comes to aether, yet you have no trouble announcing your own closed-mindedness when it comes to relativity. Double standard much?

[guest39538]

have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.

You  seem  like  you  have  intelligence  so  must  understand  the  difference  in  complete  and  incomplete  education  of  a  subject!

Perhaps  you  do  not  know  enough  of   the  information  to  understand  it  fully,  is  that  a  possibility?

Is  there  anything  particular  you  would   like  to  discuss ?   

 



 

[mad aetherist]

have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.

You  seem  like  you  have  intelligence  so  must  understand  the  difference  in  complete  and  incomplete  education  of  a  subject!
Perhaps  you  do  not  know  enough  of   the  information  to  understand  it  fully,  is  that  a  possibility?
Is  there  anything  particular  you  would   like  to  discuss ? 

Yes i would love to know what % u would give to u possibly accepting the following, bearing in mind your incomplete education of the subjects.
Scientology.
Satanism.
Astrology.
Christianity.
Islam.
Jewism.
Communism.
Socialism.
Aetherism.
Allow me to dwell on the last one, Aetherism -- You  seem  like  you  have  intelligence  so  must  understand  the  difference  in  complete  and  incomplete  education  of  a  subject!  Perhaps  you  do  not  know  enough  of   the  information  to  understand  it  fully,  is  that  a  possibility? Is  there  anything  particular  you  would   like  to  discuss?