Scientism never more obvious than during Convid, though in reality there was no pandemic nor on best available evidence are viruses proven to exist and transmit the symptoms attributed to them.
The interview on YouTube was very entertaining. I have been delving into the formations of 'modern' science, and I concur with your guest. It's a grand delusion. I have a Bachelor of Science in Physics with Astrophysics, and I cannot believe I ever fell for it.
I do disagree with you, though, on one point. If they persevere, most people can understand more about the mathematics behind physics.
Recommended reading:
Gwynne's Introduction to True Philosophy provides an excellent demolition of Newton and Einstein. There is no mathematics involved.
Relativity from Lorentz to Einstein by Alberto Palazzi. It goes into the mathematics a lot but highlights the inconsistencies and lack of logic underpinning the theory of Special Relativity.
The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. Written by a professional physicist, it deconstructs the gobledegook of particle physics. Unfortunately, the author believes in the heliocentric model and has not looked into the kabbalistic belief system behind works such as 'Narratio Prima' and 'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.' As an aside, 'De revolutionibus' was written by Georg Joachim Rheticus and Johannes Schöner. Like Einstein and Hawking, Copernicus was a cut-out figure who knew nothing about Astronomy or Astrology. He was probably murdered, though, just as 'De revolutionibus' was published in 1543.
Science at the Crossroads by Herbert Dingle. It completely demolishes the theory of Special Relativity, which lays the groundwork for the nonsense that is modern physics. He repeatedly asked the 'geniuses' peddling SR to explain a straightforward thing. Let's assume we have two observers, A and B. Let's assume B is moving away at a constant speed from A, close to the speed of light. According to SR, when observed by A, B's clock is moving much slower than his. So far, so good. However, according to SR, no preferred frame of reference can exist. All frames of reference are equal, so B can claim that A is moving away from him. In this case, B observes A's clock moving slower than his.
So according to A, B's clock is barely moving, yet according to B, A's clock is barely moving. When asked to explain this logic inconsistency, most physicists will try to give you some BS answer, but it is evident to anyone with any common sense that it is nonsense.
It has always been a challenge to me to accept a methodology that rejects the spiritual and material reality of John 1:1. It's astounding to me that post 19th century empiricism has embraced dialectics so blindly. For doing so discards didactic wisdom of the past, which IMO is very unscientific. Your position, Michael, is very articulate, BTW.
Scientism never more obvious than during Convid, though in reality there was no pandemic nor on best available evidence are viruses proven to exist and transmit the symptoms attributed to them.
The interview on YouTube was very entertaining. I have been delving into the formations of 'modern' science, and I concur with your guest. It's a grand delusion. I have a Bachelor of Science in Physics with Astrophysics, and I cannot believe I ever fell for it.
I do disagree with you, though, on one point. If they persevere, most people can understand more about the mathematics behind physics.
Recommended reading:
Gwynne's Introduction to True Philosophy provides an excellent demolition of Newton and Einstein. There is no mathematics involved.
Relativity from Lorentz to Einstein by Alberto Palazzi. It goes into the mathematics a lot but highlights the inconsistencies and lack of logic underpinning the theory of Special Relativity.
The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. Written by a professional physicist, it deconstructs the gobledegook of particle physics. Unfortunately, the author believes in the heliocentric model and has not looked into the kabbalistic belief system behind works such as 'Narratio Prima' and 'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.' As an aside, 'De revolutionibus' was written by Georg Joachim Rheticus and Johannes Schöner. Like Einstein and Hawking, Copernicus was a cut-out figure who knew nothing about Astronomy or Astrology. He was probably murdered, though, just as 'De revolutionibus' was published in 1543.
Science at the Crossroads by Herbert Dingle. It completely demolishes the theory of Special Relativity, which lays the groundwork for the nonsense that is modern physics. He repeatedly asked the 'geniuses' peddling SR to explain a straightforward thing. Let's assume we have two observers, A and B. Let's assume B is moving away at a constant speed from A, close to the speed of light. According to SR, when observed by A, B's clock is moving much slower than his. So far, so good. However, according to SR, no preferred frame of reference can exist. All frames of reference are equal, so B can claim that A is moving away from him. In this case, B observes A's clock moving slower than his.
So according to A, B's clock is barely moving, yet according to B, A's clock is barely moving. When asked to explain this logic inconsistency, most physicists will try to give you some BS answer, but it is evident to anyone with any common sense that it is nonsense.
Good interview. I concur with many of the points made. Produced a documentary which helps debunk many of them. Sharing for those interested.
https://youtu.be/20SW9smqqfg?feature=shared
It has always been a challenge to me to accept a methodology that rejects the spiritual and material reality of John 1:1. It's astounding to me that post 19th century empiricism has embraced dialectics so blindly. For doing so discards didactic wisdom of the past, which IMO is very unscientific. Your position, Michael, is very articulate, BTW.
I'm not into science at all, but this was a very interesting article.