One of my biggest surprises is how wrong many of the answers given by official science are. They’re just flying by the seat of their pants to give an illusion of being all-knowing, and it’s a ridiculous conceit. One outrageous lie is their explanation for rainbows, that they’re caused by multiple reflections and refractions, and any time something comes up that spoils that idea, like how there are double rainbows, they just add some more reflections and refractions, throwing in the odd “diffraction” for good measure.
This is okay, though. We can have a lot of fun, and find a way to explain these gaping holes in our knowledge, ourselves.
In fact, the Miles Mathis site has given a logical explanation for rainbows. He describes them as literally, a fuzzy projection of the sun on a bright background (cloud, fog, the white water of a waterfall, or snow, for example).
Fine water droplets (rain, mist) in front of the natural “screen,” and roughly spherical, act as a lens, projecting the sun’s image onto the white background. The lens effect tends to broaden out the image, and the color bands of the sun’s corona, which is the rainbow you see, or rather, focus on. A test of this hypothesis is that the inside of the rainbow, which is the image of the sun, would have to be brighter than outside, and so it is. But people focus on the pretty colors, not noticing the rest of the sun inside the arc. If you examine the corona at the very edge of the sun closely, it is a series of color bands, same as the rainbow.
Multiple rainbows would occur with multiple sheets of mist or rain, separated by gaps. The sheets closer to the observer would produce the larger, dimmer bows.
In other words, it’s a lens effect, not a prism effect.
Actually the Mathis site’s explanation of the mechanics is somewhat different, but this idea makes more sense to me, though even it isn’t completely satisfying — and I felt about to choke on the can of worms I’ve opened here, when I realized I’m not trying to create a new Optics, just describe how a projected image of the sun seems to make physical sense.
It’s something that at least deserves an examination. Now here’s where the experimental science comes in. We can take pictures of a rainbow and the sun simultaneously, or film them in high resolution, and see if the features just outside the rainbow and the corona are identical. Because outside the bands of the rainbow, looking closely, we see what looks like the image of the corona, radial bands of lighter and darker areas extending from the sun. Since these are always changing, if our images are detailed enough, and we see the same variance in the simultaneous recorded images of both sun and rainbow, that will be conclusive.
Also, setting up something in the lab to mimic the sun with mist and white background situation would be a sensible experiment.
Turning now to something really outrageous, we have “cryogenics.”
This is where they preserve corpses “on ice” to bring them to life, “in the future when we have the technology to cure them.”
I guess no one really thinks about this, but it is surprising they get away with this nonsense. They have never unfrozen anyone, nor any animal, back to life, which is a way to test their lunatic proposal. Wouldn’t that be your first question when you’re signing up for a contract?
Buried, incinerated or frozen, is all still dead. This idea of cryogenics seems to be saying that a body never dies as long as a corpse is maintained in a passably similar form to the deceased, which is purely nuts.
It makes you question if anyone is actually falling for this cryogenics stuff and actually paying for it (which would have to be a terrific fee), or if it’s a joke on us.
Suppose the power goes out (and backup power fails, if they even have generators) and all their corpsicles thaw? Are they going to cop to it? No, they’ll just smile and say, “Lookin’ good, lookin’ real good, never any power issues here, nope,” if anyone inquires.
Suppression of advancement and suppression of known solutions is a key surprise, but it’s done all the time.
Like the problem of garbage.
And because we’re so bad, just making garbage everywhere we go, the oceans are dying because of us, with huge “continents” of plastic floating around in the oceans, etc., etc.
Our “garbage” is not garbage.
Paper can be recycled, or used as mulch. Glass is recyclable, certainly metals. Even old concrete can be ground up and utilized.
Used plastics, like containers, are a resource, a refined product of petroleum, which means they’re reusable. For one, they can be used to make things like plastic park benches — where the longevity of plastics is an asset. Consider that a main selling point to scare hell out of you is, “And these things persist in the environment for five hundred years!” Sit back, ponder, and realize that is a huge benefit when setting out to construct something that needs to be durable. There are many things we’d like to be around indefinitely, like seats, benches and fences.
Besides, there is another alternative, the discovery that plastics can be turned back into fuel for reuse. This collapsed a whole line of environmental scaremongering BS, but do we see it on the news? No.
And, there is yet another alternative: waste plastic pellets in asphalt. This is a proven use that makes the asphalt more durable, and cheaper! Why aren’t we insisting on plastics for immediate use in roads, to stop this supposed plastic waste problem?
“SCIENTIST” DOESN’T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES
The title of “scientist” is only an opportunity. If a scientist can predict something about our world, and it comes true, then he might be worth listening to. If his predictions fail in any way, his theory is discredited. Minor discrepancies don’t necessarily discredit, but must be explained. A scientific basis for theoretical claims allows predictions, to anticipate what is coming in the future, which is the whole point of theories. If a scientist’s model is inaccurate, making failed or inaccurate predictions, the model is a failure, and the scientist has no further grounds to make any claims of “knowledge” or “scientific ability,” but has to start from scratch and prove himself competent from Go.
This means, they should be prudent in their predictions, not running off half-cocked and making outlandish claims, as we see with the “Climate Change” circus.
This doesn’t mean no one can make mistakes, but it does mean one has to make provisions for mistakes and own up to them. Part of this is embodied in the term, “falsifiable,” which means, simply, a form of testing. A theory must be falsifiable to be a theory. If it fails, the theory fails. All theories have to be testable. I have proposed a simple test to falsify “Climate Change:” Place piles in the ocean down to bedrock. Measure and mark the ocean height at high and low tide on the piles. Wait a few years. Go back and remeasure. If there is little or no difference in the measurements, “Climate Change” has been falsified.
They do not do this simple test, or at least it isn’t reported, which means, automatically, that you’re dealing with insincerity, or “bad actors.” Which is a nice, euphemistic term for frauds and liars.
In another example of science jumping the shark, yet another rehash of the old “black hole” nonsense. A “cosmologist” was quoted in a recent article, that, “Earth could be crushed into a sphere 100 m across” (due to tests at a particle accelerator).
Just what is the purpose of cosmologists? Is there one, single thing they have done for humanity? I wonder what they can do. I would guess they can operate the controls of useless particle accelerators, perhaps are proficient with some graphing and charting programs, and can write funding requests, but, seriously, what can they do? They’re probably pretty “smart” in the conventional sense, of being quick studies and able to baffle with BS. I’m sure there’s that.
Coming so soon on the heels of this “Higgs Boson” farce, where they supposedly discovered some big, important miniature particle, just what is the purpose of this insanity? The “Higgs Boson,” also, was going to destroy the Earth. I guess the babies of so-called science aren’t getting enough attention, and the corresponding funding. But note how it’s always fear tactics, never, “look at this great discovery we’ve made to help all mankind.” In an intelligent society, this would get them banished, exiled. What they need are some good, solid years of productive labor, digging ditches, gardening, clearing trails in the bush, to get them grounded and clear the cobwebs of their sophistry and conceit.
NO DINOSAURS, FOUR MILE-HIGH TREES, HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
A big surprise is that there are no dinosaurs, and there never were, and the supposed volcanic neck, called Shiprock, in New Mexico, is the petrified stump of an gigantic (4 mile-high!) tree from the past, not the core of a defunct and eroded volcano.
True or false? Shiprock is an interesting one. It can be easily tested, by drilling core samples horizontally. If it is petrified wood (where mineral-rich water seeps into wood, the wood decays around it and the minerals assume the form and pattern of the previous wood), the samples should show the growth rings of the former tree! Also, a search for evidence of the old root structure would be nice.
Naturally this presupposes that trees that could grow to four miles high existed, (or do exist, somewhere). There’s another factoid that comes into play here: A four mile artifact, extending from the base of Shiprock, could presumably be the remnant of that fallen tree — the shape is more evidence still (recall that straightness in pure geologic formations is rare — the slight curve would be consistent with the fallen tree bending as it dehydrated). Presumably, this would be a different type of tree, or maybe it was a plant, just like how palms aren’t strictly trees. They aren’t woody, but are monocots of the family, Arecaceae, (if anyone cares), in which case the growth rings probably wouldn’t exist and our test would fail even if they were still plants, but nonetheless, the experiment should be tried, but probably won’t be.
I never knew this until recently, but it’s undisputed that there are no complete dinosaur skeletons ever found. All are created with bits and pieces of other creatures’ skeletons, plastic or plaster! Apparently there’s a sweatshop in China that creates all these parts for museums. Yikes! What a con. Why are the religious types not leaping on this like poked toads? We already went over this on my article on Evolution, where organized religion coexists in a comfy relationship with organized science. Also noted previously: National Geographic was caught promoting fake dino skeletons. It just turns out, it’s possible they all were doing it!
Now, we must assume it is all fake, and they must prove their assertions that dinosaurs existed, with unassailable evidence. The ones making the positive claim must provide the proof. (Sadly, the world does not understand this fundamental principle.)
Watch out for tricks when something that they want to cover up comes along. There’s a logical fallacy of distraction they use: “What purpose would there be for faking dinosaurs?”
We don’t need to know the purpose for something to be true or false. Wonder how this would play in court: “Dickie murdered Poofie, but we don’t know the purpose so he didn’t do it!”
How do the official sources play this? Well, there seems to be a lot of backtracking going on:
by Lin Edwards, Phys.org
The dinosaur story has all the hallmarks of a hustle. There was no knowledge of dinosaurs, until 1842, then some guy supposedly discovered them, and then, everyone was pulling “dinosaur bones” out of the ground. How would they suddenly know where to look when, for thousands of years, no one ever discovered “dinosaurs?”
Is it a coincidence that Darwin originated his theory in 1838? I think it’s no coincidence at all, but to back-fill and support the “evolution” story.
And look at this absurd “new breakthrough discovery,” that looks like nothing more than a crocodile with a few flourishes added, if it isn’t a bunch of fake, manufactured hooey.
What a big surprise — shocking, really — that there is so much grounds for skepticism regarding dinosaurs — especially since these doubts have never made it to the mainstream, and “dinosaur” references are so frequent that dinosaurs just seem like a given, unquestionable.
We’re told meteorites are meteors, rocky, metallic objects that intersect with and crash to earth in their travels through space. Yet they look like earth rocks. Are they lying about these, too? Why couldn’t they be products of eruptions from volcanoes? They would come crashing down, could be hot or cool, and look like earth rocks, also.
So-called meteors zipping into the atmosphere and leaving those light trails (“shooting stars”), could actually be an electrical phenomenon or something new we haven’t discovered yet.
A major surprise, to find that the stories we’re given about meteorites don’t add up.
THINGS THAT DON’T ADD UP
Okay, but aren’t meteorites supposed to be thousands of degrees hot, basically lava? We all know what happens when molten magma contacts anything flammable — it bursts into flames, yet this house never went up, no mention of the victim being burned…
There is also supposed to be this fantastic explosion, from so much kinetic energy, like an atom bomb! — no mention of that… Oh, wait… she was bruised.
They just don’t know, but we’re fed assertions (lies, no conclusive proofs), as though “scientists” weren’t just gullible, fallible people too.
Who is to say that “space meteorites” aren’t simply rocks ejected from volcanoes at times when they have huge eruptions, or perhaps when water from, say, an underground source contacts hot lava underground and builds up a huge pressure, causing a fantastic explosion?
This means, yes, rocks may have to travel hundreds of miles from a volcano, or perhaps some other geologic formation, but be aware of the awesome power of steam.
This idea of all these scattered rocks floating around above us, capriciously pelting us, is fanciful, to say the least, when, if planets remain in their own orbits, so should these asteroids.
Another lame explanation is that earth is running into debris from comets all the time. If shooting stars were random intersections of space debris with earth’s atmosphere, then we should see their trails going upwards, as well as down, not always falling, but intersecting with earth in strange ways. Just something to consider, as we find that these authoritative statements about the nature and origins of things by “experts,” more and more prove to be nonsense.
What are the big surprises you’ve encountered that have changed your perception of things? Please leave your comments below.