Tag Archives: science

QUESTION SCIENTIFIC DOGMA

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

TED Talks Chris Anderson censored Rupert Sheldrake, and removed this video from the TEDx YouTube channel.  Dr. Sheldrake dared question the “Scientistic Orthodoxy”, and for that they have been publicly castigated and defamed.  What is the materialistic dogma of “science” trying to hide?

BIOGRAPHY:
Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

From 1968 to 1969, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants. From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life.

From 2005-2010 he was the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project funded from Trinity College,Cambridge. He is a Fellow of Schumacher College , in Dartington, Devon, a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco, and a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut.

Books by Rupert Sheldrake:

A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (1981). New edition 2009 (in the US published as Morphic Resonance)
The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (1988)
The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God (1992)
Seven Experiments that Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science (1994) (Winner of the Book of the Year Award from the British Institute for Social Inventions)
Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (1999) (Winner of the Book of the Year Award from the British Scientific and Medical Network)
The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (2003)
The Science Delusion (2012, published in the US as Science Set Free)

EVERYTHING LOGIC

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

A–“WHICH IS THE WAY BACK TO KANSAS?”

“I’d give anything to get out of Oz altogether, but which is the way back to Kansas? I can’t go the way I came.”–Dorothy

“The only person who might know would be the great and wonderful Wizard of Oz himself. He lives in the Emerald City and that’s a long journey from here. Did you bring your broomstick with you?”–Glinda, the Good Witch of the North

“No, I’m afraid I didn’t.”–Dorothy

“Well then, you’ll have to walk. It’s always best to start at the beginning and all you do is follow the Yellow Brick Road.”–Glinda in ‘The Wizard of Oz’

One of the primordial questions Dorothy was trying to answer in ‘The Wizard of Oz’ was, “which is the way back to Kansas?”

Trying to figure out the answers to the mysteries of life here on planet Earth is even harder than Dorothy trying to get back to Kansas–none of us have a broomstick to ride, we don’t have a good witch to ask for directions and there is no Yellow Brick Road to follow.  So, we’re stuck here having to figure it out for ourselves, logically, using the information we have in our environment.

To begin at the beginning, the Land of Oz is a type of Universe. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a universe is defined as: “an area, province or sphere, as of thought or activity, regarded as a distinct, comprehensive system or world.”

The physical reality we all share on Earth and everything throughout the surrounding space is called the Physical Universe (PU).

On the other side of reality is your own imagination, your personal perceptions, viewpoints, dreams, hopes, desires, and creations, which comprise Your Own Universe (YOU).

The Land of Oz can be considered to be a Universe dreamed up by Dorothy, as conceived in the mind of L Frank Baum, the author of the book. (It has been speculated that the author created the “Land of Oz” after glancing at his file cabinet. The two file drawers were labeled “A-N” and “O-Z”. Dorothy could just as easily have been transported by the author’s pen into the imaginary “Land of AN”.)

In the movie version of the story, Dorothy creates the Land of  Oz in a dream, induced by a knock on the head, using remnants of Kansas in the physical universe mixed together with creations from her own universe–which, for Dorothy, existed over the rainbow in the Land of Oz.

Every Universe seems to be made up of its own, peculiar set of Laws. The PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, for example, is built on a set of agreed upon Laws.  A few examples of these Laws are:

The Law of Motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

The Food Chain Law: “In order for one life organism to live, another life organism must die.”

The Law of Gravity: “Whatever goes up, must come down.”

The Law of Time: “Time marches on.”

Most of us take the Laws of the Physical Universe for granted because everyone seems to agree with them. However, such laws leave a lot to be desired when compared to the Laws of a Universe we might create for ourselves!

In YOUR OWN UNIVERSE you can create any set of Laws, or have no Laws at all. You can make them, change them or break them. The Laws of YOUR OWN UNIVERSE can be anything or nothing, limited only by your imagination.

In YOUR OWN UNIVERSE, everything you wish comes true, because you are the “wizard” of YOUR OWN UNIVERSE!

In Dorothy’s universe, Scarecrows and trees can talk; witches can be beautiful and fly in magic bubbles; Munchkin girls join the “Lullaby League” and Munchkin boys have a “Lollipop Guild”; horses can change their color; and, Dorothy can dye her eyes to match her gown.

Dorothy’s first awareness of the particular universe she calls the Land of Oz is the realization that she is definitely NOT in Kansas. When she opens the door to her farmhouse, which has just crash-landed in Oz, Dorothy compares her past experience in Kansas with her present experience in Munchkinland. The Technicolor flowers, a good witch in a flying bubble, all the little brightly dressed people, a yellow brick road, etc, are definitely NOT similar to anything she has ever seen in Kansas.

The Land of Oz is an example of what Earth scientists would call an anomaly. For Dorothy, the anomaly is a departure from the usual arrangement of things as compared to her past experiences. In the universe of Oz, everything is so completely different from the universe Dorothy is familiar with in Kansas that she thinks she is lost.

How do you find the way back home when you are lost?

One way is to ask someone for directions. Of course, if you’ve ever been sent on a wild goose chase by a stranger, the experience taught you that it is a good idea to be somewhat selective as to whom you ask for directions. So, how do you know who is a reliable source of directions or information?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to find out something about the person from whom you are asking directions before you act upon what they tell you. Right? (Or, is it left?)

In our example, should Dorothy be asking for directions back to Kansas from the local natives, the Munchkins?

The main reason one would ask a local resident for directions is that one makes the assumption, otherwise known as an hypothesis (which is the first step in creating any scientific theory), that someone who lives in the area will be a reliable source of information and will give correct directions.

Well, in Dorothy’s case, the Munchkins have lots of familiarity with the Land of Oz, but they have no familiarity with Kansas. Fortunately for Dorothy, they are honest enough to tell her that they don’t have a clue where Kansas is, and they pass the buck to the Wizard of Oz, who they believe knows everything. And, based on their familiarity with the Yellow Brick Road and Munchkinland, they are certain that it leads to where the Great Oz lives.

Most would agree that a certainty is better than an assumption. When one has no familiarity based on personal experience or observation, it is best not to assume that one knows the correct directions. So, one asks for information from someone one believe knows–like a scientist, for example–who is supposed to be familiar with the area or subject in question.

Do the local Munchkins or local scientists of Oz give Dorothy the correct directions to help her get back to Kansas?

When Dorothy crash-landed her house in Munchkin City, the Munchkins cowered under the bushes and flowers in terror of retribution for the death of the Wicked Witch of the East from her mean, nasty, ugly sister, the Wicked Witch of the West.

Their benevolent, all-powerful protector, Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, who the Munchkins trust implicitly, is not much help in solving Dorothy’s problem, either. To begin with, Glinda does not have all the information regarding the situation, because she was not even there when Dorothy crashed her house into Munchkin City and inadvertently killed a wicked witch.

Undaunted by her lack of factual information, the first thing Glinda does after coaxing the Munchkins out from their hiding places, is to sing them a song about her assumption, or hypothesis, regarding Dorothy’s crash-landing. She sings: “Come out, come out, wherever you are, and meet the young lady who fell from a star. She fell from the sky, she fell very far, and ‘Kansas’ she says, is the name of the star.”

So, where did Glinda get the idea that Dorothy came from a star? Dorothy never said that she came from a star! But, somehow this all seems very logical to the Munchkins. Even Dorothy doesn’t object to Glinda’s false statement!

In our analogy, Glinda’s assumption that Dorothy fell from a star could be called a scientific theory. The theory proposed by the Good Witch of the North is that Kansas is a star! This theory is based on an assumption derived from an apparent anomaly as measured against her own personal experience and by information received from the Munchkins who are supposed to be a reliable source, but, who did not actually see the house crash because they were all in hiding. In truth, none of them have any familiarity with Kansas or cyclones or farm houses or dogs or little girls, either!

To complicate matters further, Glinda has to put on the appearance that she knows what she’s talking about in front of all her Munchkins followers, even though she is really just making a wild guess. After all, she has a very good job being the protector of the Munchkins, who appear to be utterly defenseless against their enemies, the Wicked Witch sisters. Anyway, Glinda is a good witch, which means she is probably really trying to help, so, they all believe her scientific theory that Dorothy has fallen from a star.

In their cute little minds, the Munchkins have accepted, without question, the logic, which underlies the assumption that is the basis of Glinda’s scientific theory:

SKY equals VERY FAR equals STAR equals KANSAS.

This kind of reasoning process could be called “Everything Logic”; i.e., Everything Equals Everything. This sort of logic might also be the definition of stupidity.

Example: If KANSAS equaled SKY equaled STAR, one could theoretically gaze up into the heavenly firmament to watch Kansas cattle grazing on the twinkling prairies in the stars above.

Unfortunately, much of what we call “science” on planet Earth is based on “Everything Logic”.”

— Excerpted from THE OZ FACTORS, by Lawrence R. Spencer

 

CONSTATATION

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Definition of the word Constatation:

noun: an assumption or supposition that is the basis of an argument, theory or hypothesis.

verb:  expressing an opinion based upon suppositional arguments or theory unsubstantiated by demonstrable evidence.

Examples of Constatation:

Example 1:  

In the year of ‘Our Lord’, 1423 A.D., (in Caucasian European Christian ‘civilization’) it is certain and irrefutable knowledge, guaranteed by threat of pain or death at the hands of the priests of the Catholic Church, who are the one and only official representatives of the Only God, an unseen Male Spirit, who ‘created’ everything that exists in 6 days – that is, the entire universe and everything in it — including the Sun that revolves around the Earth which is a flat, 2-dimensional plane whose peripheral boundaries are unexplored and, therefore, dangerous and forbidden to investigate, and Man (not woman) who was likewise created as a rendering of His perfect likeness, including a multi-purpose device used for self-replication and/or as a self-serving pleasure toy, or by the priests who use it to bugger young boys.

Example 2:

In the year 2011, the priests of Western Science hypothesize, based on a Theory of Evolution — which is utterly devoid of any spiritual concept whatsoever — decree, with the blessings of the aforementioned Christian priests,  that the planet Earth accidentally spawned a myriad of physical biological-chemical -electrical organisms of which the preeminent product is “homo sapiens”, whom are therefore justified in appointing themselves to be the supreme form of life in “The Universe” and are therefore “The Center” of all universes, which is based  on an infinitesimally tiny speck of dust inside of an nearly infinitely large and chaotic space that is absolutely stuffed with eternally burning balls of deadly energy, radiating across intractable fields of indecipherable matter, and monstrously tiny and gigantic objects all swirling about in a inconceivably macroscopic and microscopic continuum which has existed in a state of unmitigated , explosive growth for approximately 4 billion years of “time” -– a concept for which the priests have no agreed upon definition – as the result of an accidental and inexplicable “Big Bang” of pre-existing energy and/or materials of unknown location, derivation, quality, quantity, origin or causation, purpose, rhyme or reason whatsoever.

_________________________

Excerpt from the forthcoming book, THE ORDER OF OMEGA TIME TRAVEL CULT, by Lawrence R. Spencer

SCIENCE TIME vs OZ FACTORS TIME

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Scientists at the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have theorized that the Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of space-time, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine space-time as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the Universe is “timeless.”

It appears that so-called “scientists” are beginning to catch up with me.  Or maybe they finally read my book, THE OZ FACTORS, published in 1997, in which I made the following observations about time:

“HOW OLD IS “FATHER TIME”?

                Time is a subject that is far from absolute. The measurement of time is the activity of monitoring the movement of matter or energy particles through space. In order to establish the passage of time, one must establish an agreed-upon reference point for beginning the period of time to be measured. Then, the increments of measurement must be uniformly consistent throughout the period of time being quantified. This set of qualifying factors, however, applies only to the Physical Universe.

               Does time (as the Munchkins would say) morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably actually, really exist?

               Imagine that you are completely isolated, unable to observe any physical motion whatsoever–no sun, moon and stars, night or day. If you were isolated from your own body such that you could not detect any breathing rhythm or heartbeat or cellular motion of any kind to use as a reference point, would time exist?

               People who have been locked in solitary confinement, whether in a prison or in an isolation chamber, have experienced the phenomenon of “no time”.

               Since many people seem to have an innate, built-in time sense, or a “biological clock”, there may be a subjective awareness of time. But, even so, time is determined by measuring some motion in the physical universe.

               How can the dates of something for which you have no starting point be measured? How can the age of our planet, our galaxy, or the entire physical universe be determined? How can the age of something which does not exist in the physical universe, such as a spirit, be calculated? Logically, an arbitrary unit of measurement must be chosen. Then a particle or object which can move through space must exist. This particle would have to travel at a uniformly predictable rate of speed. The unit of measurement would depend on the magnitude or size of the motion of the particle relative to a fixed point in space, or a fixed point of view.”

— Lawrence R. Spencer, Author

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.