Babel Science
The Sumerians and Babylonians asked, "What keeps the heavenly bodies in
their places?" Lucretious, Newton and Einstein also asked this question.
Modern Science is in fact based, in varying degree, upon their answers. (1.)
Most modern scientists believe their assessment of the empirical
evidence is correct. (2.) However, "The business of Science is not to
corroborate previous beliefs, but to test them." (3.) This chapter will
show Modern Science is in fact founded upon delusion practiced by the
Sumerian and Babylonian Astrologers.
Before testing beliefs that are the foundation of Modern Science, a
definition of the Logic to be used is in order. There are several
branches of logic. Pythagorean logic is one. Mathematics, Euclidean
Geometry or otherwise–however elegant, is a branch of logic.
It is not possible to determine which mathematical system represents
reality by mathematical methods alone because: (4) the scheme adopted by
Tycho Brahe "was mathematically equivalent to the Copernican system."
And, "Astronomical computations were rendered easier by the Copernican
scheme …but the prediction of planet places was not more accurate."
And, (5) Einstein accounted for the evidence of the rotation of the
earth on its axis by the false assumption that the universe rotates
around the earth. Last, because Pythagoreans have confused the Logical
with the Real, Pythagorean logic will not be used. (6.)
The logic practiced by Modern Philosophers is a combination of the
Dynamism of Boscovich, the Mechanism of Descartes and the Skepticism of
Hume. The Modern Sophists have castrated themselves with the question
"What is Truth," which they cannot answer. (7.) Their methods and
conclusions are therefore without use or value. That form of logic begun
by Aristotle and refined by St. Thomas will be used, since it is,
according to them, possible for Reason to obtain Truth. (8.)
According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method of obtaining
knowledge by: First, Observation, Second, Classification, Third,
Hypothesis, and Fourth, Tests. (9.) Science is the study of that which
is tangible and measurable by controlled and repeatable experiment. The
inherent nature of Science limits it to things that can be perceived by
human senses (or instruments that amplify them) and to things that it
can confine, control and manipulate in contrived and isolated tests and
experiments.
To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
cannot see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable
experiments and tests, it cannot be the subject of scientific study. If
scientists cannot demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they
cannot prove its existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence
of the non-existence of an object, rather than just a lack of evidence
of its existence, they cannot prove its nonexistence by the scientific
method. Scientists can only demonstrate, in this case, that Science
cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the property of Philosophy or
Theodicy.
Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
experience, where it was born, it dies." (10.) Kepler said, "If a
scientist’s hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but
if not, then it is the metaphysics which must go." (11.)
According to Webster, Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy. (12.)
Specifically, Ontology (the science of being) and Cosmology (the science
of the fundamental cause of things) are Metaphysics. Therefore, if the
empirical evidence, rather than Sophists misinterpretation of evidence,
does not support the theories of Uniformatism, Evolution, Big Bang and
Relativity, they must go.
Harlo Shaply (13.) said the origin of Origins is beyond Astronomy in the
realm of the, to us, unknowable. George Gaylord Simpson (14.) said the
source of all physical laws was quite unknown, probably unknowable to
science, and here religion may honorably enter the picture.
Some early Modern Sophists thought by proving the absence of an Absolute
Point of Reference (from which the Prime Mover was thought to view and
control the universe) they could refute the existence of the Supreme
Being. However, to prove God has no place to stand does not disprove His
existence; it proves man’s concept of God is inadequate, and the subject
is not treatable by scientific method. (15.)
The Word of God tells us the soul of man exists separate from the body.
Some scientists say there is no tangible evidence of the soul, thus it
does not exist. Yet scientists proclaim the existence of other physical
dimensions, of which they have no tangible evidence. (16.) Thus, Science
has severed itself from its roots.
Before proceeding, some examples of irrational thought should be
considered. The absolute winner for putting things backwards–with
intent to delude–is the wrong assumption "man created God." However,
let us consider examples of sophistry directly related to the subject.
According to Webster, "Sophism" or "Sophistry" is "an argument designed
to deceive." The argument, "there is no argument to deceive," is an
argument designed to deceive. Can the statement, "there are no true
statements," be a true statement? Can the statement "there are no
absolutes" be absolute? (17.)
Mosses recorded the first argument designed to deceive. Gen. 3:3-5. "If
God had meant you would die, He would call this the Tree of Death,
rather than the Tree of Knowledge. He meant ignorance would die. It will
make you wise, so you won’t die." Knowledge has nothing to do with the
mortality of the body, thus this is a non-sequitur argument. Another
argument like this is, "Cinnabar is far different, so, it can make
people immortal." (18.) Both arguments lead to death. First for Adam and
Eve: Then second for seven Chinese Emperors by mercury poisoning. One
kind of sophistry is that which is based on, or contains, a false
premise. A more subtle argument uses the delicate shades of meaning of
terms, or the confusion of Real and Logical, with intent to deceive. (19.)
As an example of wrong assumption, consider the epitome "there is no
God." Since there is no tangible evidence to prove such a hypothesis,
and thus it is impossible to arrive at this statement by scientific
method, it can only be an assumption. The beliefs of Evolution and "Big
Bang" cannot proceed except they begin at this wrong assumption.
Consider an example of the confusion of Real and Logical. "Physicists
are wont to talk about `space-time co-ordinates’ as if they were real."
(20.) Form (or Shape) does not exist separate from Substance. The
Concept of "curved space-time" exists only in the mind of the Modern
Sophists; yet they would have us believe Space (empty area) is curved. (21.)
For examples of the terms Modern Sophists have designed with intent to
deceive consider some terms used in Evolution theory: "discontinuous
variation" and "punctuated equilibrium." Consider "unlimited finite
space" as used in Relativistic "Big Bang." Sophists intend that
self-contradictory terms lead to wrong conclusions, and this reveals an
utter contempt for Truth. (22.) 2 Thes. 2:10-12.
The conclusion drawn from the Michelson and Morley experiments by
Fitzgerald and others will now be considered. (23.) Fitzgerald advanced
an untested premise. Namely, that the length of a steal rod is
determined solely (an assumption) by the Electra-static equilibrium of
its particles, and the rod, in motion through the Aether, would contract.
If the premise were correct, the application of a magnetic field would
cause a steal rod to contract, regardless of the motion of the rod, the
Earth, or the existence or nonexistence of Aether. In contradiction to
this false premise, a steal rod affected by a magnetic field will expand.
However, if the premise was correct, then it must be demonstrated that
the motion of the rod — or aether — is of sufficient velocity to
induce a measurable contraction in the length of the rod. There may be a
null result to the tests if the Aether consists of "other than Real" (or
neutral) particles incapable of inducing a magnetic field.
However, the results of the tests were not null. "They did not make the
assertion often attributed to them, that the effect was zero [or null].
Their published result says: `Considering the motion of the earth in its
orbit only… the relative motion of the earth and the aether is
probably less than one-sixth the earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly
less than one fourth.’" (24.)
Yet, consider the sophistry that follows. Some scientists, eager to
promote their preconception, jumped to the non sequitur assumption that
an observer in a moving system cannot know the Absolute Velocity of his
system. They believed they could then eliminate concepts such as
Absolute Space, Absolute Time and a Privileged Observer (God). (25.)
If it could be proven that an observer cannot know the Absolute Velocity
of his system, that would not prove the non-existence of an Absolute
Point of Reference, Absolute Space or Time (or God). What is
demonstrated is, the scientific method is inadequate to the task and the
subject belongs in the field of Philosophy or Theodicy. (26.)
The non sequitur conclusion to the Michelson and Morely experiments
marked the severing of Modern Science from its roots, and the beginning
of Satan’s Ideological war (the Strong Delusion) against mankind. 2
Thes. 2:2-12, Rev. 20:7-8.
Having dispensed with an Absolute Point of Reference, Modern Sophists
needed another Absolute to save Science from absolute chaos. In an
effort to replace the absolute point of reference, Albert Einstein made
man, after Nicolus of Cusa, the center of motion. However, the Theory of
Relativity proves there are no Absolutes and thereby falsifies itself.
If there is no absolute point of reference, and it is not possible to
…
read more »
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, oldwetdog wrote:
> Babel Science
Dear Old Wet Dog, I’ll stop to sniff you telephone pole and squirt my
aroma upon your thoughts. Do consider I have your best interests at heart
with the aroma theraphy I offer. Clearly you have outlined the eternal
delusion of man, that he can know the all unknowable. Now replace each
reference to science with one from religion and each reference to religion
with one from science and you will have covered completley the self
decepting fantasies of human pretense to know the all unknowable.
So Season’s Greetings and Happy Holidays.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The Sumerians and Babylonians asked, "What keeps the heavenly bodies in
> their places?" Lucretious, Newton and Einstein also asked this question.
> Modern Science is in fact based, in varying degree, upon their answers. (1.)
> Most modern scientists believe their assessment of the empirical
> evidence is correct. (2.) However, "The business of Science is not to
> corroborate previous beliefs, but to test them." (3.) This chapter will
> show Modern Science is in fact founded upon delusion practiced by the
> Sumerian and Babylonian Astrologers.
> Before testing beliefs that are the foundation of Modern Science, a
> definition of the Logic to be used is in order. There are several
> branches of logic. Pythagorean logic is one. Mathematics, Euclidean
> Geometry or otherwise–however elegant, is a branch of logic.
> It is not possible to determine which mathematical system represents
> reality by mathematical methods alone because: (4) the scheme adopted by
> Tycho Brahe "was mathematically equivalent to the Copernican system."
> And, "Astronomical computations were rendered easier by the Copernican
> scheme …but the prediction of planet places was not more accurate."
> And, (5) Einstein accounted for the evidence of the rotation of the
> earth on its axis by the false assumption that the universe rotates
> around the earth. Last, because Pythagoreans have confused the Logical
> with the Real, Pythagorean logic will not be used. (6.)
> The logic practiced by Modern Philosophers is a combination of the
> Dynamism of Boscovich, the Mechanism of Descartes and the Skepticism of
> Hume. The Modern Sophists have castrated themselves with the question
> "What is Truth," which they cannot answer. (7.) Their methods and
> conclusions are therefore without use or value. That form of logic begun
> by Aristotle and refined by St. Thomas will be used, since it is,
> according to them, possible for Reason to obtain Truth. (8.)
> According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method of obtaining
> knowledge by: First, Observation, Second, Classification, Third,
> Hypothesis, and Fourth, Tests. (9.) Science is the study of that which
> is tangible and measurable by controlled and repeatable experiment. The
> inherent nature of Science limits it to things that can be perceived by
> human senses (or instruments that amplify them) and to things that it
> can confine, control and manipulate in contrived and isolated tests and
> experiments.
> To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
> cannot see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable
> experiments and tests, it cannot be the subject of scientific study. If
> scientists cannot demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they
> cannot prove its existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence
> of the non-existence of an object, rather than just a lack of evidence
> of its existence, they cannot prove its nonexistence by the scientific
> method. Scientists can only demonstrate, in this case, that Science
> cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the property of Philosophy or
> Theodicy.
> Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
> experience, where it was born, it dies." (10.) Kepler said, "If a
> scientist’s hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but
> if not, then it is the metaphysics which must go." (11.)
> According to Webster, Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy. (12.)
> Specifically, Ontology (the science of being) and Cosmology (the science
> of the fundamental cause of things) are Metaphysics. Therefore, if the
> empirical evidence, rather than Sophists misinterpretation of evidence,
> does not support the theories of Uniformatism, Evolution, Big Bang and
> Relativity, they must go.
> Harlo Shaply (13.) said the origin of Origins is beyond Astronomy in the
> realm of the, to us, unknowable. George Gaylord Simpson (14.) said the
> source of all physical laws was quite unknown, probably unknowable to
> science, and here religion may honorably enter the picture.
> Some early Modern Sophists thought by proving the absence of an Absolute
> Point of Reference (from which the Prime Mover was thought to view and
> control the universe) they could refute the existence of the Supreme
> Being. However, to prove God has no place to stand does not disprove His
> existence; it proves man’s concept of God is inadequate, and the subject
> is not treatable by scientific method. (15.)
> The Word of God tells us the soul of man exists separate from the body.
> Some scientists say there is no tangible evidence of the soul, thus it
> does not exist. Yet scientists proclaim the existence of other physical
> dimensions, of which they have no tangible evidence. (16.) Thus, Science
> has severed itself from its roots.
> Before proceeding, some examples of irrational thought should be
> considered. The absolute winner for putting things backwards–with
> intent to delude–is the wrong assumption "man created God." However,
> let us consider examples of sophistry directly related to the subject.
> According to Webster, "Sophism" or "Sophistry" is "an argument designed
> to deceive." The argument, "there is no argument to deceive," is an
> argument designed to deceive. Can the statement, "there are no true
> statements," be a true statement? Can the statement "there are no
> absolutes" be absolute? (17.)
> Mosses recorded the first argument designed to deceive. Gen. 3:3-5. "If
> God had meant you would die, He would call this the Tree of Death,
> rather than the Tree of Knowledge. He meant ignorance would die. It will
> make you wise, so you won’t die." Knowledge has nothing to do with the
> mortality of the body, thus this is a non-sequitur argument. Another
> argument like this is, "Cinnabar is far different, so, it can make
> people immortal." (18.) Both arguments lead to death. First for Adam and
> Eve: Then second for seven Chinese Emperors by mercury poisoning. One
> kind of sophistry is that which is based on, or contains, a false
> premise. A more subtle argument uses the delicate shades of meaning of
> terms, or the confusion of Real and Logical, with intent to deceive. (19.)
> As an example of wrong assumption, consider the epitome "there is no
> God." Since there is no tangible evidence to prove such a hypothesis,
> and thus it is impossible to arrive at this statement by scientific
> method, it can only be an assumption. The beliefs of Evolution and "Big
> Bang" cannot proceed except they begin at this wrong assumption.
> Consider an example of the confusion of Real and Logical. "Physicists
> are wont to talk about `space-time co-ordinates’ as if they were real."
> (20.) Form (or Shape) does not exist separate from Substance. The
> Concept of "curved space-time" exists only in the mind of the Modern
> Sophists; yet they would have us believe Space (empty area) is curved. (21.)
> For examples of the terms Modern Sophists have designed with intent to
> deceive consider some terms used in Evolution theory: "discontinuous
> variation" and "punctuated equilibrium." Consider "unlimited finite
> space" as used in Relativistic "Big Bang." Sophists intend that
> self-contradictory terms lead to wrong conclusions, and this reveals an
> utter contempt for Truth. (22.) 2 Thes. 2:10-12.
> The conclusion drawn from the Michelson and Morley experiments by
> Fitzgerald and others will now be considered. (23.) Fitzgerald advanced
> an untested premise. Namely, that the length of a steal rod is
> determined solely (an assumption) by the Electra-static equilibrium of
> its particles, and the rod, in motion through the Aether, would contract.
> If the premise were correct, the application of a magnetic field would
> cause a steal rod to contract, regardless of the motion of the rod, the
> Earth, or the existence or nonexistence of Aether. In contradiction to
> this false premise, a steal rod affected by a magnetic field will expand.
> However, if the premise was correct, then it must be demonstrated that
> the motion of the rod — or aether — is of sufficient velocity to
> induce a measurable contraction in the length of the rod. There may be a
> null result to the tests if the Aether consists of "other than Real" (or
> neutral) particles incapable of inducing a magnetic field.
> However, the results of the tests were not null. "They did not make the
> assertion often attributed to them, that the effect was zero [or null].
> Their published result says: `Considering the motion of the earth in its
> orbit only… the relative motion of the earth and the aether is
> probably less than one-sixth the earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly
> less than one fourth.’" (24.)
> Yet, consider the sophistry that follows. Some scientists, eager to
> promote their preconception, jumped to the non sequitur assumption that
> an observer in a moving system cannot know the Absolute Velocity of his
> system. They believed they could then eliminate concepts such as
> Absolute Space, Absolute Time and a Privileged Observer (God). (25.)
> If it could be proven that an observer cannot know the Absolute Velocity
> of his system, that would not prove the non-existence of an Absolute
> Point of Reference, Absolute Space or Time (or God). What is
> demonstrated is, the scientific method is
…
read more »
"oldwetdog" <oldwet…@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:11q8vjgssp8mt50@corp.supernews.com…
> Babel Science
Truly, a glimpse of insight into yourself, there. Pitifully brief, though.
Perhaps you should endeavour to spell "Bacon" instead of the incorrect
"Beacon"
before you try to impress anyone with quoting some "Dr." who obviously
doesn’t
know the three or four thingsies that actually come before the first thing
wrt. science.
Argh
T