I've been paid to work on building a quantum computer for 20 years. The pay was steady. It is impossible. Our lab probably laundered 1 billion dollars. It was a perfect scam. The lab management would say it isn't working but it might work when the researchers knew it would never work. When the scamdemic cam down the line I was very ready to see through the lies after about a month. When the lab director mandated vaccines, I retired. I have first hand experience on the lies of modern science, some of which I learned recently. First I learn beyond any doubt that the Apollo missions were faked. The big one, for me as a physicist, was learning, beyond a doubt, that nuclear bombs are a hoax. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fire bombed. The WTC came down with explosives (good scientific papers written on this(and some giant lies)) on Sept 11,2001.
What do you mean that nuclear bombs are a hoax? Would you elaborate please?
I agree the Apollo missions were fake. Sibrel.com is Bart Sibrel's website where is a master
of debunking the Apollo missions. He has many interviews on youtube. https://odysee.com/@BartSibrel:2/Mike-Adams-MM:a7 Good for you to retire. The mandates were completely unconstitutional and outrageous on many counts. I always liked the song, Take this Job and Shove It by Johnny Paycheck. Apropos.
This is a good place to start. Main thing. We need to get over the vastness of the lies we were told in the 20th century. We need to stand over these giant lies and squash them.
Is there a more straight scientific explanation for how a nuclear explosion cannot happen as we've been taught to believe? I could not get thru all the cultural myth references and clever quips in the "Death Object Exploding" pdf.
Let me give it a go. You have a big lump of radioactive isotopes of a heavy metal. Just sitting there. Not exploding but hot and emitting fast particles. How to make this boulder explode? Let it sit until one of its energetic particles triggers the release of another energetic particle. The odds of this new particle triggering another decay is minuscule. If it were highly likely the lump would have decayed completely already. So, atoms in the lump decay but the decay products do not initiate a chain reaction(as described to American school children in the 1960s). If indeed an explosive reaction started the lump would be blown to bits and the bits would be too small and far apart to explode.
The claim is that the lump is wrapped in conventional explosives. When the wrapping is exploded the lump is compressed, the radioactive elements get closer together which allows for a chain reaction to proceed. You cannot compress metals significantly.
This discussion is lame. Maybe that’s the point. There’s no way to make an intelligent statement about nuclear bombs.
the power of the media is mighty. I study physics and worked in physics for 35 years. It wasn’t until 2018 that I questioned the nuclear bomb. It took me a couple of weeks of poking around on the internet to see through the big deception. Sustaining this giant lie is more impressive than the lie itself. Keeping this lie going will be a test of their control of the internet.
Thanks for that clear explanation. How does that relate to the radiation sickness suffered by the soldiers who were witnesses to the first "atom bomb tests" in the Nevada desert? And the radiation that persists in the Bikini Atoll after the atom bomb tests there? Or the radiation sickness of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? Were similar illnesses found in, for example, Dresden, after the firebombing there?
Recently a doctor wrote a very thorough paper of around 400 pages on the injuries at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He looked at hundreds of cases of injury and death. They were all consistent with fire bombing. Radiation levels are slightly elevated by napalm bombs. Today cancer rates are not higher In Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Bikini atoll does not have elevated radiation. It is a very healthy ecosystem. Army observers may have been sickened by their officers with poisoned food or pills. I know army was working on medicine to counteract radiation. That medicine could have sickened the soldiers.
Look at the doe atomic energy commission national network of sites handling processing nuclear materials. Supposedly to build up arsenals for the Cold War.
Thx. It just struck me how weird it is that their are no scientific papers on the physics of nuclear bombs. Many papers on nano thermite and other explosives. A wall of silence around atomic explosions. The shadow government has two kinds of lies. They lie about the evil acts they do, and they lie about the evil that they want to do but can’t because of the laws of nature.
No discussion of the 'fraud' of nuclear weapons can be complete without dealing with the most obvious objection: how do nuclear power plants work? The physics is the same: controlled vs uncontrolled nuclear fission of the U235 (or U233 if you're using a thorium breeder) isotope; less than 5% of the uranium metal in nuclear fuel rods is U235, more than 20% U235 in nuclear weapons (hence the need for 'enrichment'; natural uranium ore consists of approx. 0.7% U235, hence the need to increase it for fuel or weapons grade use).
PS: I have personally visited the Kori nuclear reactor complex near Busan, Sth Korea, and seen its blue Cherenkov radiation glowing waste pond as tonnes of spent nuclear fuel sit in powered cooling ponds for the next two decades. Is that just a VFX while they secretly burn coal and gas in the background to supply 43,000 GWh/yr for Busan and Ulsan's heavy industry and 4 million people?
Thank you for this detailed account of you seeing Cherenkov radiation. Very cool(hot?)! I've studied Cherenkov radiation and seen pictures of it, yet never saw it in person. Coal fired plants produce giga watts but you can't arrange for a mountain of coal to explode in a fraction of a second. The physics of slow burning/decay is entirely different from the physics of explosions. Nuclear explosions are a little like the official story of 9/11. So many pieces of the official story are just stupid. The official method is get and stay really scared and don't talk.
The proposed mechanism of nuclear explosion is this. Enrich radioactive material by removing stable isotopes and adding unstable isotopes to the blob. When the blob of heavy metal is enriched and hot from decay, compress it to make the atoms get closer together. Solids, and in particular metal, is very difficult to compress into a smaller volume. It is impossible to compress a metal by more than 1% with chemical explosives (my estimate). The atoms are 1% closer. How much of a difference would that make, in your opinion? Is that amount of compression really sufficient to make a blob decaying over a period of years decay in a fraction of a second? But lets say the nuclear decay lit off. It would start with one atom decaying. The claim is that those decay products hit another nucleus and trigger a decay of that nucleus (not very likely, most likely the decay neutron/proton and radiation would pass through to blob unhindered). An explosion is very very unlikely. For the sake of discussion, let's say a very small grain of the entire blob (though billions of atoms) all decayed in a flash. The power released would blow the blob to bits (that was some fun to write). The bits would scatter like shrapnel and the compressed blob shattered would be no more.
Not to mention when witnesses went into Hiroshima and Nagasaki they said the cities were in the same condition as the 60 other Japanese cities that were firebombed with devastating consequences during world war 2. There was no sign of a blast. No sign of an explosion.
To reiterate for the purposes of clarity: Basically you're saying the alleged criticality of high-enriched uranium (or plutonium) does not lend itself to a self-sustaining chain reaction (a nuclear bomb) as we've been led to believe, but low-enriched uranium still works as advertised to create heat for nuclear power plant energy production.
I'm still not fully persuaded, but I do not really know the truth of the various alleged 'criticality' accidents across the decades, particularly the two alleged fatalities at the Los Alamos laboratory in 1945 (Harry Daghlian) and 1946 (Louis Slotin) pertaining to the mishandling of a critical plutonium core (which became to be known as the "Demon Core"). Hands-on criticality experiments ceased after these two incidents. Criticality is an important objection to the "nuke fraud" argument, because that is precisely how a subcritical mass of fissionable metal (e.g. plutonium) is forced into criticality, that is, a self-sustaining chain reaction.
One facet you have omitted is neutron reflection, usually utilising beryllium metal shielding, which forces neutrons emitted from a uranium or plutonium core to be reflected back onto itself, thus hastening the inevitable self-sustaining chain reaction alleged to be the source of a nuclear weapon's power. So your argument about density is thus dismissed. Metal enrichment density is irrelevant when the core is surrounded by a neutron reflector, as is the case in "Fat Man" bomb designs. The metal does not need compression, only their released neutrons, "compressed" or confined to the fissionable metal itself, so the chances of encountering another U235 or Pu240 atom are greatly increased.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to discuss and think. I will read the book you provided above and see whether there is any detail or more persuasive refutation of my objections thus far.
Neutron reflection is news to me. But I'll do some off the cuff speculation. The only part of a beryllium atom that could reflect a neutron (a neutral particle, interacting with the strong force only) is its nucleus; the nucleus is approximately 1/10000 the radius of the atom; atoms are mostly empty space. The speeding neutron would have to pass through (1/10000)^2 beryllium atoms before "reflecting". Without looking into this notion of neutron reflection any further, it seems like more Secret Society bullshit.
What is the deal breaker for me is that the supposed explosive chain reaction would not be uniform across the blob. Some small part would go off first, and that small part, given the great release of energy from nuclear decay, would shatter the blob, held together with the much weaker chemical bonds.
This is a fun and important subject. Thanks for engaging. Have a good evening.
That's a very shocking thing to hear from a scientist. Do you mean there are NO nuclear weapons at all? Is that why the US has been so reckless in antagonizing Russia in the past year? Do you mean humans have not stepped on the moon yet? What do you think about theories that the earth is flat?
The earth is round like a ball. Search for images ”nuke bikini atoll” and you will see a mile wide vertical column of water shooting straight up from a bomb the size of a VW bug under 50 feet of water. Images of Nagasaki and Hiroshima days after the “bomb” show all streets clear of rubble. No sign of a blast. Talk of nuclear war by global leaders that never happens might wake up many to the grand magnificence of the lies humanity has been subjected to for god knows how long.
See my reply above to Mary Lou. big government science lies don’t get researched in the past. The Covid pandemic was torn apart on day one on the internet. Sadly many mistake the internet as a scary place full of lies but it’s so much more. Paper journals are a thing of the past. I should write a book on the big lies of the cabal but I’m hoping people figure it out on their own. It’s fun when you see the truth about a story you’ve been told by MSM that always seemed fishy.
Mike, the problem is far more serious;; Alll journals are rigged, including Lancet. All will suppress the best research that runs against the official conspiracy/narrative. All nerds know that journals are funded by big corporations and governments through NGO/Foundations/Trilateral, CFR, that is why peer review fails, not because the evaluators fail to understand your solid points, but because everyone knows the system is rigged by outsiders.
Yes, I can testify to this too. All or most scientists know about these issues. I discussed it with former colleagues. They just don’t see why it’s a big problem or that it makes the findings invalid. Also, there’s absolutely no incentive to fix it. Have also seen data published that was a one off or was later refuted/not reproducible. More on that another time...
"Conclusions: Conflicts of interest (e.g., financial) that abound between health regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry impact what is ultimately reckoned as medical consensus. Outcome reporting bias that is inherent to all researchers to some degree, obscures medical and scientific truth. Advancement of public health requires that researchers have integrity and an openness and willingness to collaborate to resolve contradictory findings. In fact, it is usually through meticulous, rigorous, scientific investigation of contradictory findings that medical science has advanced and contributed to improvements in public health – since medical consensus and orthodoxy can be incorrect."
Another way to evaluate science is to ask "what's it for?" What does it accomplish? What fruit does it bear? If you examine the answers that we are usually fed, they are mostly false. What good are the health and lifestyle improvements that science offers, when the underlying technologies make us sick and destroy the planet? And oh, after accounting for lies, is all this R&D actually being done for OUR benefit? If not, whose?
And what underlies the industries behind science and technology? Well, I've peeked, and it is almost unimaginable corruption.
Totally nailed it. Particularly true in soft “sciences.” An p-values are widely misunderstood and abused. If you haven’t taken a peek at William Briggs’s web site, you should. http://www.wmbriggs.com He frequently deconstructs bad research and statistical design.
Completely agree about statistics. The p-values are definitely abused. Saw it a lot and always asked how it can be relied on so heavily over any understanding of actual functional or biological impacts of the perceived effects.
Very important article thank you. Glad I worked in an honest , no nonsense research lab in the early 80’s . Also glad it was in Dallas / Fort Worth area and not San Diego. Better yet , I’m glad it wasn’t In Chapel Hill.
When you think about it, the one area in which conflict of interest is not only rampant, but actually required, is clinical trials of vaccines and other pharma drugs. It's required that the very entities that stand to gain huge profits when their product is authorized or approved, are the ones that oversee the design, implementation and final analysis of the clinical trials. No independent third parties involved at all.
Non-experts are shaping scientific discussion with little to no experience in the field says new study by John Ioannidis
Be wary of the “science” you trust! “Of 25 massively prolific authors…only 3 had a PhD degree in any subject matter. Only 2 of the 25 disclosed potential conflicts with some specificity.”
Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study
This Easter I have decided to combat my addiction to curse words. Instead of my usual lexicon of interjections and expletives, I will start saying substitutive words like "Pasteur", "Koch" or "Dulbecco," and their corresponding gerunds when applicable.
It's probably a bad tactic to substitute one addiction for another, but at least it will be fun, and fun is always healthy for the the capillaries.
I've been paid to work on building a quantum computer for 20 years. The pay was steady. It is impossible. Our lab probably laundered 1 billion dollars. It was a perfect scam. The lab management would say it isn't working but it might work when the researchers knew it would never work. When the scamdemic cam down the line I was very ready to see through the lies after about a month. When the lab director mandated vaccines, I retired. I have first hand experience on the lies of modern science, some of which I learned recently. First I learn beyond any doubt that the Apollo missions were faked. The big one, for me as a physicist, was learning, beyond a doubt, that nuclear bombs are a hoax. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fire bombed. The WTC came down with explosives (good scientific papers written on this(and some giant lies)) on Sept 11,2001.
What do you mean that nuclear bombs are a hoax? Would you elaborate please?
I agree the Apollo missions were fake. Sibrel.com is Bart Sibrel's website where is a master
of debunking the Apollo missions. He has many interviews on youtube. https://odysee.com/@BartSibrel:2/Mike-Adams-MM:a7 Good for you to retire. The mandates were completely unconstitutional and outrageous on many counts. I always liked the song, Take this Job and Shove It by Johnny Paycheck. Apropos.
Read the free pdf or buy book.
https://archive.org/details/death-object-exploding-the-nuclear-weapons-hoax-by-akio-nakatani-z-lib.org
This is a good place to start. Main thing. We need to get over the vastness of the lies we were told in the 20th century. We need to stand over these giant lies and squash them.
Is there a more straight scientific explanation for how a nuclear explosion cannot happen as we've been taught to believe? I could not get thru all the cultural myth references and clever quips in the "Death Object Exploding" pdf.
Let me give it a go. You have a big lump of radioactive isotopes of a heavy metal. Just sitting there. Not exploding but hot and emitting fast particles. How to make this boulder explode? Let it sit until one of its energetic particles triggers the release of another energetic particle. The odds of this new particle triggering another decay is minuscule. If it were highly likely the lump would have decayed completely already. So, atoms in the lump decay but the decay products do not initiate a chain reaction(as described to American school children in the 1960s). If indeed an explosive reaction started the lump would be blown to bits and the bits would be too small and far apart to explode.
The claim is that the lump is wrapped in conventional explosives. When the wrapping is exploded the lump is compressed, the radioactive elements get closer together which allows for a chain reaction to proceed. You cannot compress metals significantly.
This discussion is lame. Maybe that’s the point. There’s no way to make an intelligent statement about nuclear bombs.
the power of the media is mighty. I study physics and worked in physics for 35 years. It wasn’t until 2018 that I questioned the nuclear bomb. It took me a couple of weeks of poking around on the internet to see through the big deception. Sustaining this giant lie is more impressive than the lie itself. Keeping this lie going will be a test of their control of the internet.
Thanks for that clear explanation. How does that relate to the radiation sickness suffered by the soldiers who were witnesses to the first "atom bomb tests" in the Nevada desert? And the radiation that persists in the Bikini Atoll after the atom bomb tests there? Or the radiation sickness of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? Were similar illnesses found in, for example, Dresden, after the firebombing there?
Recently a doctor wrote a very thorough paper of around 400 pages on the injuries at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He looked at hundreds of cases of injury and death. They were all consistent with fire bombing. Radiation levels are slightly elevated by napalm bombs. Today cancer rates are not higher In Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Bikini atoll does not have elevated radiation. It is a very healthy ecosystem. Army observers may have been sickened by their officers with poisoned food or pills. I know army was working on medicine to counteract radiation. That medicine could have sickened the soldiers.
John have you revisited water?
The best way to retard science and medicine was to change the understanding of the nature of water.
100 reasons water is not H2O
By Peter Peterson
https://projectcognition.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/100-Reasons-Water-is-Not-H2O-by-Peter-Peterson.pdf
We learn water is an insulator
Then in the next breath it’s a conductor
Only the truth is water is inert, always the medium, never reacting, exactly why water can cycle
Water will not conduct a current unless there is a salt added
If no salt is added over a few days the water will decompose the electrodes
Only when there is TDS does a current flow
It’s the added salts or component of the electrodes that conduct not the water
Water has three states
Air
Water
Ice
Air is the gaseous form of water
Air is measured by its moisture or humidity
Air carries stuff
For example: smoke
Air is composed of bubbles
Bubbles carry soot into the air as smoke
Water is liquid or full bubbles or drops
If water is heated bubbles form and leave first as steam and then transform to air
Ice contains both water and air
Drops and bubbles
Oxygen and nitrogen are made from air. They are not constituents of air.
Oxygen is calibrated by its dryness
Medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Industrial oxygen has 0.5ppm of water contamination
Nitrogen is just dirty oxygen
Or oxygen with carbon particles added to smother the combustible effect oxygen has next to sparks and flames.
I hope you are sufficiently interested to read my article titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I have a new take on lung physiology
There is no gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide
Instead the RBCs are rehydrated in the alveoli capillary beds
Just as the ubiquitous saline drip rehydrates RBCs
RBCs have two states
Dehydrated: dark and contracted
Hydrated: bright and plump
The red light monitoring is looking at hydration not oxygen levels
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/we-breath-air-not-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Look at the doe atomic energy commission national network of sites handling processing nuclear materials. Supposedly to build up arsenals for the Cold War.
Thx. It just struck me how weird it is that their are no scientific papers on the physics of nuclear bombs. Many papers on nano thermite and other explosives. A wall of silence around atomic explosions. The shadow government has two kinds of lies. They lie about the evil acts they do, and they lie about the evil that they want to do but can’t because of the laws of nature.
No discussion of the 'fraud' of nuclear weapons can be complete without dealing with the most obvious objection: how do nuclear power plants work? The physics is the same: controlled vs uncontrolled nuclear fission of the U235 (or U233 if you're using a thorium breeder) isotope; less than 5% of the uranium metal in nuclear fuel rods is U235, more than 20% U235 in nuclear weapons (hence the need for 'enrichment'; natural uranium ore consists of approx. 0.7% U235, hence the need to increase it for fuel or weapons grade use).
PS: I have personally visited the Kori nuclear reactor complex near Busan, Sth Korea, and seen its blue Cherenkov radiation glowing waste pond as tonnes of spent nuclear fuel sit in powered cooling ponds for the next two decades. Is that just a VFX while they secretly burn coal and gas in the background to supply 43,000 GWh/yr for Busan and Ulsan's heavy industry and 4 million people?
Thank you for this detailed account of you seeing Cherenkov radiation. Very cool(hot?)! I've studied Cherenkov radiation and seen pictures of it, yet never saw it in person. Coal fired plants produce giga watts but you can't arrange for a mountain of coal to explode in a fraction of a second. The physics of slow burning/decay is entirely different from the physics of explosions. Nuclear explosions are a little like the official story of 9/11. So many pieces of the official story are just stupid. The official method is get and stay really scared and don't talk.
The proposed mechanism of nuclear explosion is this. Enrich radioactive material by removing stable isotopes and adding unstable isotopes to the blob. When the blob of heavy metal is enriched and hot from decay, compress it to make the atoms get closer together. Solids, and in particular metal, is very difficult to compress into a smaller volume. It is impossible to compress a metal by more than 1% with chemical explosives (my estimate). The atoms are 1% closer. How much of a difference would that make, in your opinion? Is that amount of compression really sufficient to make a blob decaying over a period of years decay in a fraction of a second? But lets say the nuclear decay lit off. It would start with one atom decaying. The claim is that those decay products hit another nucleus and trigger a decay of that nucleus (not very likely, most likely the decay neutron/proton and radiation would pass through to blob unhindered). An explosion is very very unlikely. For the sake of discussion, let's say a very small grain of the entire blob (though billions of atoms) all decayed in a flash. The power released would blow the blob to bits (that was some fun to write). The bits would scatter like shrapnel and the compressed blob shattered would be no more.
Not to mention when witnesses went into Hiroshima and Nagasaki they said the cities were in the same condition as the 60 other Japanese cities that were firebombed with devastating consequences during world war 2. There was no sign of a blast. No sign of an explosion.
To reiterate for the purposes of clarity: Basically you're saying the alleged criticality of high-enriched uranium (or plutonium) does not lend itself to a self-sustaining chain reaction (a nuclear bomb) as we've been led to believe, but low-enriched uranium still works as advertised to create heat for nuclear power plant energy production.
I'm still not fully persuaded, but I do not really know the truth of the various alleged 'criticality' accidents across the decades, particularly the two alleged fatalities at the Los Alamos laboratory in 1945 (Harry Daghlian) and 1946 (Louis Slotin) pertaining to the mishandling of a critical plutonium core (which became to be known as the "Demon Core"). Hands-on criticality experiments ceased after these two incidents. Criticality is an important objection to the "nuke fraud" argument, because that is precisely how a subcritical mass of fissionable metal (e.g. plutonium) is forced into criticality, that is, a self-sustaining chain reaction.
One facet you have omitted is neutron reflection, usually utilising beryllium metal shielding, which forces neutrons emitted from a uranium or plutonium core to be reflected back onto itself, thus hastening the inevitable self-sustaining chain reaction alleged to be the source of a nuclear weapon's power. So your argument about density is thus dismissed. Metal enrichment density is irrelevant when the core is surrounded by a neutron reflector, as is the case in "Fat Man" bomb designs. The metal does not need compression, only their released neutrons, "compressed" or confined to the fissionable metal itself, so the chances of encountering another U235 or Pu240 atom are greatly increased.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to discuss and think. I will read the book you provided above and see whether there is any detail or more persuasive refutation of my objections thus far.
Neutron reflection is news to me. But I'll do some off the cuff speculation. The only part of a beryllium atom that could reflect a neutron (a neutral particle, interacting with the strong force only) is its nucleus; the nucleus is approximately 1/10000 the radius of the atom; atoms are mostly empty space. The speeding neutron would have to pass through (1/10000)^2 beryllium atoms before "reflecting". Without looking into this notion of neutron reflection any further, it seems like more Secret Society bullshit.
What is the deal breaker for me is that the supposed explosive chain reaction would not be uniform across the blob. Some small part would go off first, and that small part, given the great release of energy from nuclear decay, would shatter the blob, held together with the much weaker chemical bonds.
This is a fun and important subject. Thanks for engaging. Have a good evening.
That's a very shocking thing to hear from a scientist. Do you mean there are NO nuclear weapons at all? Is that why the US has been so reckless in antagonizing Russia in the past year? Do you mean humans have not stepped on the moon yet? What do you think about theories that the earth is flat?
The earth is round like a ball. Search for images ”nuke bikini atoll” and you will see a mile wide vertical column of water shooting straight up from a bomb the size of a VW bug under 50 feet of water. Images of Nagasaki and Hiroshima days after the “bomb” show all streets clear of rubble. No sign of a blast. Talk of nuclear war by global leaders that never happens might wake up many to the grand magnificence of the lies humanity has been subjected to for god knows how long.
Thank you for replying. Do you have any suggestions on sources for more information on truth about history & science? Any books you'd recommend?
See my reply above to Mary Lou. big government science lies don’t get researched in the past. The Covid pandemic was torn apart on day one on the internet. Sadly many mistake the internet as a scary place full of lies but it’s so much more. Paper journals are a thing of the past. I should write a book on the big lies of the cabal but I’m hoping people figure it out on their own. It’s fun when you see the truth about a story you’ve been told by MSM that always seemed fishy.
Mike, the problem is far more serious;; Alll journals are rigged, including Lancet. All will suppress the best research that runs against the official conspiracy/narrative. All nerds know that journals are funded by big corporations and governments through NGO/Foundations/Trilateral, CFR, that is why peer review fails, not because the evaluators fail to understand your solid points, but because everyone knows the system is rigged by outsiders.
Completely agree. The best evidence is to go looking for any published negative results. You won’t find them.
It's hilarious that every time there's an honest view of something in science, it gets ignored.
Same thing happened in physics, where dark matter based on a concept which is based on solving an issue with the current model.
It was touted as a great discovery, but it really isn't helping physics lol.
We are due for a paradigm change!
Here's a good one on particle physics and quantum theory.
https://youtu.be/lu4mH3Hmw2o
Completely agree. When so much that is false gets pushed all of the real stuff ends up getting buried.
Rob
The best way to retard science and medicine was to change the understanding of the nature of water.
100 reasons water is not H2O
By Peter Peterson
https://projectcognition.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/100-Reasons-Water-is-Not-H2O-by-Peter-Peterson.pdf
We learn water is an insulator
Then in the next breath it’s a conductor
Only the truth is water is inert, always the medium, never reacting, exactly why water can cycle
Water will not conduct a current unless there is a salt added
If no salt is added over a few days the water will decompose the electrodes
Only when there is TDS does a current flow
It’s the added salts or component of the electrodes that conduct not the water
Water has three states
Air
Water
Ice
Air is the gaseous form of water
Air is measured by its moisture or humidity
Air carries stuff
For example: smoke
Air is composed of bubbles
Bubbles carry soot into the air as smoke
Water is liquid or full bubbles or drops
If water is heated bubbles form and leave first as steam and then transform to air
Ice contains both water and air
Drops and bubbles
Oxygen and nitrogen are made from air. They are not constituents of air.
Oxygen is calibrated by its dryness
Medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Industrial oxygen has 0.5ppm of water contamination
Nitrogen is just dirty oxygen
Or oxygen with carbon particles added to smother the combustible effect oxygen has next to sparks and flames.
I hope you are sufficiently interested to read my article titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I have a new take on lung physiology
There is no gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide
Instead the RBCs are rehydrated in the alveoli capillary beds
Just as the ubiquitous saline drip rehydrates RBCs
RBCs have two states
Dehydrated: dark and contracted
Hydrated: bright and plump
The red light monitoring is looking at hydration not oxygen levels
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/we-breath-air-not-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Meyer from 2004 reported a survey of scientists that said
- 15% knew of data that was falsified
- 27% knew of data altered to conform to a certain theory or to increase statistical significance
- 69% knew that contrary data was not reported
- 7% knew of an original study database that was immediately destroyed to prevent reconstruction of findings
Welcome to science!
Yes, I can testify to this too. All or most scientists know about these issues. I discussed it with former colleagues. They just don’t see why it’s a big problem or that it makes the findings invalid. Also, there’s absolutely no incentive to fix it. Have also seen data published that was a one off or was later refuted/not reproducible. More on that another time...
https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/2022/09/21/examples-of-outcome-reporting-bias-in-vaccine-studies-illustrating-how-perpetuating-medical-consensus-can-impede-progress-in-public-health/
"Conclusions: Conflicts of interest (e.g., financial) that abound between health regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry impact what is ultimately reckoned as medical consensus. Outcome reporting bias that is inherent to all researchers to some degree, obscures medical and scientific truth. Advancement of public health requires that researchers have integrity and an openness and willingness to collaborate to resolve contradictory findings. In fact, it is usually through meticulous, rigorous, scientific investigation of contradictory findings that medical science has advanced and contributed to improvements in public health – since medical consensus and orthodoxy can be incorrect."
Thank you. It’s true!
Thank you. The site is formally launching Monday.
That’s great!
Sadly I just learned this in the last 3 years. Hopefully sharing this information will help the country snap out of this vax religion.
We Christians know it is all about "The love of money"
Another way to evaluate science is to ask "what's it for?" What does it accomplish? What fruit does it bear? If you examine the answers that we are usually fed, they are mostly false. What good are the health and lifestyle improvements that science offers, when the underlying technologies make us sick and destroy the planet? And oh, after accounting for lies, is all this R&D actually being done for OUR benefit? If not, whose?
And what underlies the industries behind science and technology? Well, I've peeked, and it is almost unimaginable corruption.
I've hardly scratched the surface.
Totally nailed it. Particularly true in soft “sciences.” An p-values are widely misunderstood and abused. If you haven’t taken a peek at William Briggs’s web site, you should. http://www.wmbriggs.com He frequently deconstructs bad research and statistical design.
Completely agree about statistics. The p-values are definitely abused. Saw it a lot and always asked how it can be relied on so heavily over any understanding of actual functional or biological impacts of the perceived effects.
Very important article thank you. Glad I worked in an honest , no nonsense research lab in the early 80’s . Also glad it was in Dallas / Fort Worth area and not San Diego. Better yet , I’m glad it wasn’t In Chapel Hill.
Thanks so much. Must have been fun to be in Science around that time. Been a slow decline since.
When you think about it, the one area in which conflict of interest is not only rampant, but actually required, is clinical trials of vaccines and other pharma drugs. It's required that the very entities that stand to gain huge profits when their product is authorized or approved, are the ones that oversee the design, implementation and final analysis of the clinical trials. No independent third parties involved at all.
Brilliant
Thank you! Appreciate that.
James Corbett has also done some excellent work on the bogus nature of published "findings."
John P Ioannidis
Non-experts are shaping scientific discussion with little to no experience in the field says new study by John Ioannidis
Be wary of the “science” you trust! “Of 25 massively prolific authors…only 3 had a PhD degree in any subject matter. Only 2 of the 25 disclosed potential conflicts with some specificity.”
Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.517227v1
PDF ⬇️
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.517227v1.full.pdf
Link to the research please. Don't make me go search for it. I am super lazy.
This Easter I have decided to combat my addiction to curse words. Instead of my usual lexicon of interjections and expletives, I will start saying substitutive words like "Pasteur", "Koch" or "Dulbecco," and their corresponding gerunds when applicable.
It's probably a bad tactic to substitute one addiction for another, but at least it will be fun, and fun is always healthy for the the capillaries.
AI is rewriting history and it can rewrite and change anything now