Tag Archives: science

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

 

SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT TOO MUCH SMILING CAN CAUSE PERMANENT DISFIGURATION

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

“Science” is the religion of Materialists who worship “The Creation” called the physical universe, but does not acknowledge a “source” of all that has been created.  All “good science” is supposedly based on an “observation, analysis and catagorization of the characteristics and behavior of  physical universe phenomenon AND the creation of theories or hypotheses to explain the mechanical function of the phenomenon.

Therefore, anything which cannot be “observed” in the physical universe is either 1) doesn’t exist or 2) is mysticism, superstition, witchcraft, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…..

Based on my definition of “science” above,  I’ve discovered a new “scientific theory” which PROVES my new theory.  I call it “The Theory of Permanent Disfiguration by Excessive Smiling“.

(AS YOU READ THIS POST, I AM PREPARING MY ACCEPTANCE SPEECH FOR THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE.)

Here is undeniable, empirical, photographic PROOF of my Theory:

SAMPLE 1:  PROOF OF DISFIGURATION FROM EXCESSIVE SMILING

SAMPLE 2:  PROOF OF DISFIGURATION FROM EXCESSIVE SMILING

PSYCHOSIS REDEFINED

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

psychosis redefinedThe original definition of the word “psychosis” came from the Greek word, psykhe– “soul”, i.e. psyche + -osis.  Greek psykhosis meant “a giving of life; animation; principle of life.” Definition of “-osis” in English: Denoting a process or condition.

The word “psychosis” in Earth “science” was invented in 1841 by German physician Karl Friedrich Canstatt (July 11, 1807,—1850) in his work Handbuch der Medizinischen Klinik. He used it as a shorthand for ‘psychic neurosis’. At that time neurosis meant any disease of the nervous system, and Canstatt was thus referring to what was considered a psychological manifestation of brain disease. (i.e. “brain” = “spirit or soul”.) Earth science cannot perceive a psyche, soul or spirit. So, all manifestations of the “psyche” are incorrectly attributed to “the brain”, which is a physical universe object.

A “psyche”, soul/spirit, is defined as an “Is-Be”, or Immortal Spiritual Being, in the book Alien Interview.  It is not a brain. An Is-Be is an eternal source of creative thought, animation, energy, and perception in the physical universe (and others) including all sentient life-forms. An Is-Be exists whether it is inhabiting a biological body or not. Collectively, all Is-Bes creating and perceiving interactively may be the source and cause of entire universes.

ALIEN INTERVIEWThe human Earth population are spiritual prisoners on Earth. Earth is a “prison planet” of the Old Empire government of this region of space, and beyond. The most common types of “psychosis” manifested by Is-Bes on prison planet Earth, are described in the book Alien Interview.

As a personal study exercise, I have taken the liberty of creating my own definitions, and abbreviated names, for  various types of Is-Be “psychosis” on Earth, based on descriptions of “untouchables” from the Alien Interview book, as follows:

“PP-Be” = Generic Prison Planet Is-Be, i.e. any Is-Be inhabiting a biological body on Earth, or disembodied Is-Be controlled by the amnesia / hypnosis machinery of the prison planet.

“Crim-Be” = Criminal Is-Bes such as common murderers and thieves, congressmen, military contractors, corporation CEOs, pharmaceutical companies, con-artists, etc..

“Perv-Be” = Sexually Perverted Is-Be such as rapists, child molesters, sex-slave traders, patriarchal priests, secret cult members, various politicians, sexual predators, sex drug pushers, or those who use sex as a weapon of control or to inflict pain.

“War-Be” = Military/industrial/Political/Banker Warmonger or Soldier Is-Be.

“Bank-Be” = Bankster Is-Be such as any banker, stock trader, land speculators, fiat money creators, etc. who create an alleged “valuable means of exchange” which is not supported by actual goods, services, food, survival necessities, etc., required for life of biological bodies and the maintenance of the planetary environment.

“Para-Be” = Parasitic Is-Be who cannot produce anything but can only bleed the labor, inventions or work from other Is-Bes using aesthetic lies, trickery, deception, false promises, treachery enforced on the “host” by legal and military force. Example: attorneys, priests of religion or science, politicians, bankers, gamblers, drug sellers, etc..

“Sci-Be” = Priests and/or practitioners of Western “science” or “medicine” on Earth.

“Art-Be” = Any of the numerous Artist / Performer Is-Bes such as painters, dancers, singers, writers, musicians, etc., whom the Old Empire deemed to be “untouchable” or useless to their totalitarian society.

“Worker-Be” = Slave Is-Bes who do manual labor in mines, on farms, in factories, etc., to feed the bodies and create wealth for the Para-Bes, Bank-Bes, etc..

“Psycho-Be” = chronically destructive, anti-social beings who cannot be corrected, changed or repaired.

“Rev-Be” = Is-Bes who are revolutionaries or political/military enemies of the Old Empire

“DEF-Be” = Is-Bes who are members of the Domain Expeditionary Force who have been captured on or near Earth, given amnesia and placed in biological bodies as part of the prison population of Earth.

“Smart-Be” = Is-Bes who are brilliant inventors, managers, thinkers, creators, etc.

“Dumb-Be” = Is-Bes who have sunken below the level of sentient awareness.

BOOK OF THE DAMNED

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

“I think we’re property.

I should say we belong to something:

That once upon a time, this earth was No-man’s Land, that other worlds explored and colonized here, and fought among themselves for possession, but that now it’s owned by something:

That something owns this earth—all others warned off.

Nothing in our own times—perhaps—because I am thinking of certain notes I have—has ever appeared upon this earth, from somewhere else, so openly as Columbus landed upon San Salvador, or as Hudson sailed up his river. But as to surreptitious visits to this earth, in recent times, or as to emissaries, perhaps, from other worlds, or voyagers who have shown every indication of intent to evade and avoid, we shall have data as convincing as our data of oil or coal-burning aerial super-constructions.

But, in this vast subject, I shall have to do considerable neglecting or disregarding, myself. I don’t see how I can, in this book, take up at all the subject of possible use of humanity to some other mode of existence, or the flattering notion that we can possibly be worth something.

Pigs, geese, and cattle.

First find out that they are owned.

Then find out the whyness of it.”

—-  The Book of the Damned, by Charles Fort, [1919]

__________________________________________

Charles Hoy Fort (August 6, 1874 – May 3, 1932) was an American writer and researcher into anomalous phenomena.
“A procession of the damned.
By ‘the damned’, I mean the excluded.
We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded.”
– opening lines of The Book of the Damned

“The title of the book referred to what he termed the “damned” data – data which had been damned, or excluded, by modern science because of its not conforming to accepted guidelines. The way Fort saw it,mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe. He also compared the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists, implying that the supposed “battle” between science and religion is just a smokescreen for the fact that, in his view, science is, in essence, simply a de facto religion. This is a theme that Fort would develop more heavily in his later works, New Lands and Lo! particularly.

Fort was one of the first major writers to deal extensively with paranormal phenomena, and in that aspect at least, The Book of the Damned should be considered an important work. It should be viewed as a formulative work, perhaps understandably, as it is his first major book. Though Fort’s uniquely acerbic writing style is already in evidence, and there are plenty of interesting phenomena to read about, Fort’s theories (as such) are only beginning to be developed.”

Fort’s comment on Darwinism:

“Darwin & Evolution In mere impressionism we take our stand. We have no positive tests nor standards. Realism in art: realism in science – they pass away. In 1859, the thing to do was to accept Darwinism; now many biologists are revolting and trying to conceive of something else. The thing to do was to accept it in its day, but Darwinism of course was never proved: The fittest survive. What is meant by the fittest? Not the strongest; not the cleverest – Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive. “Fitness”, then, is only another name for “survival.” Darwinism: That survivors survive.” (Damned, pp. 23-24)

Science-fiction writers of note including Philip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, and Robert Anton Wilson were  fans of the work of Charles Fort.  (SEE WIKIPEDIA.ORG ARTICLE ABOUT CHARLES FORT)