Physics as a tool for zombifying people. Part 1

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

In modern society, in the era of rapid development of information technology, many people are disappointed in almost everything on which the worldview is built - in ideologies, religions, "modern art", pop culture … and only science remained sacred and infallible for them. Because only science, they say, is honestly engaged in the search for truth!

Because everything she says is based, they say, on experimental facts!

Well, here we are - we have removed camouflage nets from physics: admire what these "foundations" are worth. In modern official physics, by and large, there is no living place. She went too far in the "honest search for the truth." It is ridiculous to look for the truth for money, because they will find it where they pay more. And then there will be no better way to be deceived than to believe: "Well, scientists should not deceive us!"

You know, there is a psychological phenomenon. A person can believe in anything, with the exception of one thing, which in principle he cannot accept on faith, without colliding with it on personal experience. This is what people, it turns out, can lie, i.e. tell a deliberate lie. A normal person is shocked by this discovery. And then they get used to it, and nothing. Many of them themselves are involved in the process … So: physicists are people too. And a collision with them on personal experience shows: physicists, it turns out, can also lie. Someone does not believe this? Well, then, faith is a voluntary matter. Anything!

Look, there are countless volunteers who believed that American astronauts had visited the lunar surface. Although the blatant absurdities of the "US lunar program" were striking not only specialists in rocketry, life support systems in space, space communications, ballistics, but also astronomers, physicists, psychologists, athletes, cameramen, photographers, lighting technicians … and just sane people. They write books about the fireworks of these absurdities and create websites on the Internet.

On our own behalf, we can add: the anomalous conditions for the propagation of light in the circumlunar space give rise to the phenomenon of backscattering of light by the Moon, known to Galileo, but still not explained by official science. At whatever angle the light falls on any part of the lunar surface, almost all the reflected light goes back, i.e. to where he came from, which is why on a full moon the brightness of the moon is abnormally high for us. Because of this backscattering, for an observer on the illuminated surface of the Moon, twilight always reigns, and there are sharp and completely black shadows from the anti-sun sides of objects and uneven terrain.

On TV frames broadcast by Lunokhod-1, these features of lunar illumination, which are almost impossible to fake in terrestrial conditions, manifest themselves in all their glory. Knowing about this lunar twilight and completely black shadows, even a child can be convinced that the films and photographs with Americans on the Moon are one hundred percent falsification.

And here we come to an interesting question. A child will be able to be convinced, but scientists will not. Those interested, conduct an experiment, ask physicists: "What does it mean that pictures of Americans on the Moon show clear signs of non-lunar illumination?" You will get amazing results. 95% of those surveyed will begin to worry and explain to you that “this is a misunderstanding”, that “in fact there should not be a contradiction”, because the Americans were on the moon: “There were, that's all!” You will be amazed to listen to the speech of your idols, trying to deny things that are completely obvious to the child, and you will begin to doubt the health of their mind. But this is because you do not know: this behavior is not dictated by reason at all.

Le Bon writes: “… the thought of people is not transformed by the influence of reason. Ideas begin to exert their effect only when they, after slow processing, … have penetrated into the dark area of the unconscious, where … the motives of our actions are developed. After that, the power of ideas is very significant, because the mind ceases to have power over them. A convinced person dominated by some idea, religious or otherwise, is inaccessible to reasoning, no matter how solid they are … The old idea, even when it is nothing more than a word, a mirage, has magical power. This is how this legacy of outdated ideas, opinions, conventions is kept, although they would not withstand the slightest touch of criticism … The critical spirit is the highest, very rare quality, and the imitative mind is a very widespread ability: the vast majority of people accept without criticism all the established ideas that are delivered to it public opinion also conveys education."

These words are quite applicable to the ideas prevailing in science, and, in particular, in physics. An idea entrenched in the subconscious of physicists acquires the status of the highest scientific truth, inaccessible to reasonable logical counter-arguments. "So many physicists couldn't be wrong!" - this is the reasoning of those who did not do anything where it was possible to make a mistake, because they simply assimilated with their "imitative mind" what they were drilled into. Not the mind, but the subconscious mind dominates them even in the question of whether the Americans were on the moon. What can we say about the scientific dogmas that “light is flying photons”, that “all bodies are attracted to each other”, that “opposite charges are attracted, and charges of the same name are repelled”! What a reasonable reaction can be expected to attempts to revise these dogmas, even if the new concept more honestly reflects experimental realities!

Thomas Kuhn also speaks about something like “inertia of thinking”. The scientific revolution, they say, does not happen every day. It is certainly preceded by a crisis in science, i.e. a problem that cannot be solved within the framework of the accepted paradigm. For example, a new fact that does not fit into it. But, here you go! - "until a scientist learns to see nature in a different light, a new fact cannot be considered a completely scientific fact at all." That is, scientists sneezed at a new fact until an acceptable explanation appears. What kind of "crisis" is this? Everything is going as it should! Now, if the explanation of the new fact is accepted, then it turns out in hindsight that there was, it turns out, a crisis … but it has already been successfully overcome, so it's not a shame to admit it. And if the explanation of the new fact is not accepted, then the fact will remain “unscientific”.

The history of physics is littered with facts that historians of physics prefer not to recall. And some of them are so unscientific that historians are driven into a nightmare. Take, for example, Nikola Tesla's devices, which clearly showed that the then highly scientific ideas about electricity were simply ridiculous. Tesla was going to provide cheap electricity to consumers around the globe, without wires. Those interested had the opportunity to make sure that all this really worked in a mysterious way for science, therefore Tesla's equipment was destroyed. Otherwise, there would have been an “unscientific revolution,” objectionable to the “powerful of this world”.

But Thomas Kuhn does not speak about this - the guts are thin. Listening to him is so incomprehensible how revolutions in science are possible at all: “Scientists fail to cast aside paradigms when they are faced with anomalies or counterexamples. They could not do that and still remain scientists. " Blimey! And why "fails"? Why “couldn't”? In response, we get some kind of babble: "… scientists who are not alien to anything human can not always admit their delusions, even when faced with strong arguments."

In general, it is difficult for them to admit the correctness of others, and they do not need to be severely judged, the poor. Does Thomas Kuhn know anything about the subconscious? Oh no no no. What could a representative of the learned crowd say about the scientific revolutions who wrote about the learned crowd for the learned crowd? Scientific revolutions are not made by scientific crowds! By the way, one should not equate the learned crowd with the street crowd. The street crowd does not live long: its participants eventually disperse, and everyone regains their sanity. The crowd of scientists is serious and for a long time.

How is the development of science, in particular, physics, possible with such matters? How do new, "advanced" theories win? Well, other theories don't need to win. For example, before the advent of quantum chromodynamics, the ideas of physicists about what the structures of atomic nuclei are based on were in a very deplorable state. The meson theory of nuclear forces did not provide answers to even the simplest questions. And so, quantum chromodynamics went much further and deeper, retaining all the concepts of the meson theory. That is, all the unsolved problems remained unresolved. They just gave up on them and took up the "more advanced" problems - with quarks and gluons. The "leading edge" was promoted, and the holes left in the rear were transferred to the category of "irrelevant". Today the cutting edge of physics is all so "advanced" - with heaps of "irrelevant" holes in the rear. Remember, "a person with normal vision looks at the cutting edge of science and does not see further"? He is not supposed to see any further!

And here is the second example: how the theory of relativity, which had no honest experimental confirmation, and did not contain anything but mockery of common sense, won. People with headaches like to ask: "Excuse me, but what is common sense?" Sane people know very well what it is: this is what they are guided by when they think sensibly. So, she "won" thanks to an unprecedented PR campaign organized on an international scale: so, but nevertheless, the propaganda of SRT interpretations is also increasing). Constant publications in newspapers begin, public appearances in front of non-specialists (schoolchildren, housewives, etc.), even Charlie Chaplin is involved in advertising. " In parallel with this campaign, there was a persecution of famous physicists who criticized the theory of relativity. They could not compete with them according to the rules of scientific struggle, so they were accused … of anti-Semitism. The resulting "victory" clearly illustrates that the community of physicists has long lived by the laws of the crowd and is well managed by methods of influencing the crowd.

And we naively believed that scientists are busy looking for the truth, that they are striving for the truth! “The crowd never strove for the truth; she turns away from the evidence, which she does not like, and prefers to worship delusion if it deceives her”(Le Bon). Indeed, what a beauty the same theory of relativity with its signature advertising gimmick: "not everyone is able to understand it"! Pretend that you understand her, and immediately you look much smarter than someone who honestly admits that he does not understand her. What a feeding for your own worth! Those who promoted this dummy knew what they were doing. But try to tell the relativist that this is a dummy. He will immediately trigger a defensive reaction, which is also known for a long time to the engineers of human souls: "They couldn't have deceived me, so clever, so dirty!" There is nothing you can do about it!

Only in physics everything is interconnected. If even a small deception in it is not stopped immediately, then it will continue to multiply, because each deception will have to be supported by a dozen new deceptions. And in parallel, deception will multiply in pseudo-scientific propaganda. It was necessary to check this: "One of the most stringent, albeit unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appealing to the heads of state or to the broad masses of the people on scientific issues." And how, do physicists follow this strict rule? Yes, they remember about him only when they need to put in place some upstart nugget. It is not for them to apply such strictness to themselves! Who do physicists turn to for money for their expensive tweets, if not the heads of state? To their mistresses, or what? And who, if not the broad masses of the people, do they turn to when they immediately post information about their alleged achievements on the Internet and other media long before the corresponding articles appear in peer-reviewed scientific periodicals?

The catastrophic proliferation of deception in modern official physics is the result of the fact that the physics community has lived by the laws of the crowd for too long. After all, the crowd, as Le Bon said, cannot create: "The strength of the crowd is directed only towards destruction." It is not for nothing that the community of physicists appears before us in a completely different halo to which it is accustomed. The views of the scientist crowd of physicists on the structure of the world are determined not by the flaming mind, but by the dark corners of the subconscious. This learned crowd is not preoccupied with seeking the truth, but with persisting in their delusions.

But if more and more funds are thrown into such classes, "does it mean that somebody needs it?"

H. O. Derevensky. Honest physics. Articles and essays. fragment