About absurdity in a scientific approach

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

It is enough to delve into the essence of scientific definitions or ask obvious questions from scientists in order to understand how imaginary and contradictory is the current scientific picture of the world …

Why did I decide to write this article? And is there any relevance in this? - Yes, I have. And it consists primarily in the fact that the identification and even a simple ordinary attention to the contradictions in the scientific picture of the world is important in itself. This is necessary, first of all, in order to follow the correct path of knowledge.

Correct ideas about the nature of things and phenomena - make it possible to manage them. Wrong ideas about nature will inevitably lead to an ecological disaster (in which we are now). And the constant further ignoring of the obvious mistakes of science - and to the death of civilization itself.

One of the main "stumbling blocks" that pulls science and knowledge into the abyss is the existing principle of knowledge itself. Let's take a little more detail.

1) Excessive postulation. As science develops, postulates are introduced (concepts accepted without proof). Naturally, a person previously could not explain this or that natural phenomenon - for this he introduced one postulate, then another, in order to rise to the level of understanding higher and from a new, from a higher point of view, already close the old postulates. Accordingly, as science develops, the number of postulates should decrease. But at the moment there are hundreds of them, and this number is not even decreasing, but on the contrary growing - which, in itself, should already alert. As a result, we have many open white spots in the foundation itself.

2) The next wrong approach of cognition itself is the absolutization of our senses. The organs of perception that a person uses in his knowledge of nature do not give him such an opportunity for one simple reason. Nature has created the human senses not so that he can cognize it. The sense organs of man, and indeed, of all animals, arose and developed as a mechanism for adaptation and adaptation of each type of living creature to the ecological niches that they occupy (and which consist of physically dense matter. And everything else is 90% of the matter in the Universe - " dark matter "(" dark matter "). AND ONLY 10% of all matter - physically dense, in principle, being the tip of the iceberg …)

The senses fix only what they are adapted to. And they give an idea of the four states of aggregation of physically dense matter - solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma, as well as the optical range of longitudinal-transverse waves and the acoustic range of longitudinal waves.

Therefore, having only five senses, even expanded with the help of devices, it is simply impossible to describe and create a complete picture of the universe. In order to create a full-fledged picture, it is necessary to be able to simultaneously observe both the surface and the underwater parts of the "iceberg" of the universe, which is possible only with the appearance of additional senses to the five existing ones.

3) The next problem is the use of mathematics - abstract science, to explain natural phenomena. After all, you cannot just take a natural phenomenon, multiply it by another natural phenomenon, and get a pattern and a formula. Understanding of the universe should be based on a philosophical rethinking, and not on an abstract, numerical science.

We were always told that, for example, biology stands on chemistry, chemistry stands on physics, but physics stands on mathematics. But when you think about such a strange hierarchy and analyze physical formulas, the question involuntarily arises: what is the relation of numbers and abstract laws of mathematics to real phenomena of nature, in which the function of mathematics lies only in quantitative calculations? And then, it must be borne in mind that behind the numbers there are real objects - and not just numbers. Let's take, for example, the number of apples as a calculation. There were 6 in total, divided equally into 3 people - therefore, everyone will get 2 apples. No one will doubt that mathematically it will look like this: 6: 3 = 2 or 6 - 2 - 2 - 2 = 0. But you need to understand that apples differ in weight, taste, quality … This is discarded. Or, if we add a banana and an apple, mathematically, there will only be a calculation of the category of the fruits themselves and will be written as 1 + 1 = 2. But a banana is one thing, an apple is completely different. These are units of different qualities. Let me give you the following case … A simple example: 2 x 0 = 0. Now let's think about it - how can this be? If we project onto reality, then, multiplying one car by nothing, will we get 0 cars? But that's just something else … Can you imagine when 2 + 2 = 4 and at the same time 2 + 2 = 0? In mathematics, there is the concept of "imaginary unit", denoted as i = √-1. The "i" means a negative root number, which, in principle, cannot be ironically, according to all the rules of mathematics. But in the end, in equations where they get answers with a negative value under the root, they simply replace it with the letter “i”. This is a tailor-made response. And there are TENS of such contradictions, but for most people it will not be interesting to analyze mathematics, so I will continue … By the way, in mathematical physics, equations are also adjusted to the results of research, discarding unnecessary terms …

This is where so many imaginary contradictions arise in the interpretation of physical processes. The foundation itself is outrageously lazy, as it rests on abstract information and a number of unsubstantiated assumptions. At the same time, modern science has accumulated a huge number of FACTS, but due to the wrong basis, their understanding is completely absent, and moreover, these same facts break all the fundamental theoretical concepts in all sciences … About this - in the next article.

4) The use of terms without a clear explanation of what is behind them. To make it clearly visible, it is enough to ask ordinary, even childish questions from the scientific elite. You will be answered with a clever look with accepted terms, but if you dig deeper and ask what this concept means, what does this mean … Very often nothing intelligible will be answered. As a result, it turns out that instead of candy (understanding) you are given a beautiful wrapper (terminology): There is nothing behind the terms and one gets the impression that they are needed just to get away from the answer. For example, what is electric current? The official definition of this concept is as follows:

"Electric current" is a directed, ordered movement of charged particles from "+" to "-" …

But then:

1) What is an electron and why does it exhibit dual properties, like particles and waves?

2) What is "-"?

3) What is "+"?

4) Why does the electron move from "+" to "-"?

- Not explained (and never explained) 4 fundamental concepts.

Naturally, such a situation in science cannot be accidental. It's simple: the one who possesses true knowledge, or at least its fragments, has advantages and levers to control. Also, one should not forget that science is an ordinary business … If it had developed correctly, they would have mastered gravity control long ago, there would have been fuel-free technologies for moving in space, unlimited energy sources and much, much more! If all this is implemented, all oil companies will go bankrupt …