Our Moon and Our Oceans

[Poemander]

It is quite possible to construct a theory based on a false hypothesis and continue to create further ad hoc hypotheses to cover an entourage of anomalies as long as they keep on coming forth. This situation is true for both Big Bang Theory (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Asymmetric Matter-Antimatter Reactions, Decomposing Dark Matter) and Quantum Theory (first created as a massless speed of light particle with negligible interaction with matter, explaining the range of beta emissions, and becoming a magic entity [non-conservational] like BigBangium] making it a  panacaea of ad hoc covers across both extreme disciplines, from sub-PARTICLE physics [let’s face it] to cosmology!!!). Would you grant that Albert Einstein is a reputable scientist that has produced reputable theories? Have we read that he both conceived of the quantum of electromagnetic radiation with E = hv, (v = frequency) and also dabbled in cosmology with unparalleled success? Yet he said that "the further they go with quantum physics the more laughable it gets." Yet he was honest enough to declare that his ad hoc “cosmological constant” was his greatest blunder! Still he dabbled in Steady State "Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang", Was he incapable of imagining a Big Bang as a possibility, or did he recognise it as an impossibility while Astronomer Hubble could not?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/#.XIihhyIzZhE

He was too old to survive until the anti-proton was detected in 1956.

We don't just need to make new discoveries to advance science. We need to overturn hypotheses that, firstly contradict established hypotheses, or choose between conflicting hypotheses. Secondly, we need to choose to abandon or modify hypotheses that yield anomalies. Those hypotheses that spawn successful technologies are trustworthy, while many steals their credence unworthily by assuming the title Science as described above, to the deception of Civilization and we all pay the price. Perhaps, until we are back far enough to see the forest, we cannot see enough trees yet to make a sound judgement. Einstein was there in spades and had read the Bible and the Talmud forming an opinion about Jesus shared by few in this time of extreme specialisation, including those from prelates (“Christianity is an insult to the intelligence”). We have, in my view, uncovered much but mixed with some inevitable false inferences which are an inevitable consequence of proper scientific methodology and scientific revolutions.

Much prejudice is alleviated if we accept the Philosopher’s Stone, the touch stone of the Philosophical Mind. Consciousness is the first cause, anciently called Spirit, and ‘spirit’ is still used in that sense. A Cosmology so generated is indistinguishable from the manifold of senses that produces our conscious physical lives and the objects of science. Further, a theory that is indistinguishable from an alternative is logically equivalent. In the physical, we can only test the physical, but must not forget the pragmatic – history and its evidence. These blinkers are attributed to Aristotle and overturned in Einstein’s writings. I am proud to share his notoriety to any extent and will go to the masters in all fields every time. Money doesn’t talk – it swears – but it is the only language most will heed, so we must live with its evils. Its power is in who’s hands today? As prophesised to the one who received the Philosopher’s Stone (by tradition), the Jews. This is a very long shot for coincidence – the explanation of liars and fools – and only one of many from the same book.

To conclude and begin my next thread – which was to an extent my first and torpedoed by the same judge of sanity – science is made to conform under blind faith in Mainstream hypotheses without proper reason. I am exploring the validity of hypotheses and trying to turn minds to the same. I have given possibilities of such. The only absolute of truth is consistency, logical and pragmatic.

“And yet you have not acknowledged that your hypothesis contradicts established theory, and experimental evidence. Since you have indicated that you will not be doing this, we're done.”

Please excuse my impudence. I value your input and respect, even envy, your knowledge. Here however “Established theory” is being questioned, in terms of its irreducible and fundamental hypotheses. As outlined above, and according to extensive studies at UNSW (discontinued and under another name), if this is logic on your part, please explain. Consistency certainly demands some review. I welcome alternatives, not “you may only quote the little red book or receive the extreme displeasure of the party!” much less “Heresy! From his own mouth! What further evidence do we need!” This is not science, it is regression to what you profess to abhor.

For my next thread, let us now explain this (from Wiki). Presumably Wiki is not pseudoscience. I have over the years noted the expulsion of non-Mainstream doctrine AND evidence (E.g. PatienceYost.pdf) from Wiki.

“The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the Solar System coalesced.[1] The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, from the name of the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon.[2] Analysis of lunar rocks, published in a 2016 report, suggests that the impact may have been a direct hit, causing a thorough mixing of both parent bodies.[3]

 

The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:

 

Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]

Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.

The Moon has a relatively small iron core.

The Moon has a lower density than Earth.

There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris disks.

Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.

The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]”

1.    There was not time, under this hypothesis to create the homogeneity of two isotopes of Titanium discovered in moon rock and the lithosphere.

2.    Mars, only twice the size of the Moon, sports the largest (extinct) volcano in the solar system. The Moon’s lack of  a core and tectonic activity is not consistent with such an origin, but rather with extraction from the mantle.

3.    The Moon’s synchronous rotation is attributed to “tidal drag”. Is there mathematics to support this claim.

4.    Forty-five Solar System moons out of thousands (all sizes) alone have synchronous rotation.

5.    There were twice as many meteor strikes during the Ordovician than today. This is very recent for the 4600 MY Earth. Could this have been the time when a planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded, due to forces akin to and synchronous with the real explanation for our Moon’s existence, and very different far side geology?

6.    Why are so many early multicellular evolutions dependent on fresh waters when they are presumed to  have begun their tenure in marine environments they cannot tolerate at all? Are petroleum, coal, limestone and WATER all biological productions perhaps?

7.    Why would the protons from the solar wind not burn in oxygen, burn holes in the ozone in the Southern Hemisphere, electrons make Green cathode ray colours in the North, protons make Red sprites and Red Auroras (meeting Green from the Earth) in the South, and generate thereby a massive ice sheet in Antarctica while the Northern Ice sheet alone disappears summer and winter from global warming, making Polar Bears migrate into inhabited regions?

 

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

I think one thread for your rant against science was quite enough. 

 

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, Poemander said:

Please excuse my impudence.

!

Moderator Note

You misspelled "ignorance".