There are not many things—if any—more dangerous in any quest
for the truth than conventionality and dogma, and today we’ll begin by giving
you a couple of concrete examples of just how dangerous (stupid and
dangerous, really) those two are, especially when they are working in
tandem. For the common thinker, after all, the simplest connotations of the two
words should suffice in convincing one that both come right from the beginning
with destructively unacceptable conditions. In effect, both conventionality and
dogma, by definition, vehemently oppose originality and impose unjustifiable
boundaries, which are things that need no further qualifications to deter any
sound mind from letting itself to be bound by them. And then there is of course
another sick and ugly consequential fact when conventionality plus dogma are the
underlying forces in any intellectual endeavour: censorship. Now, on that topic
let us be clear about one thing—that in this day and age there is no censorship
in the traditional sciences only a Markus Selmke can be blind enough to not see
it and deaf enough to not hear it. The rest of the world, however, is neither
blind nor deaf, so it knows better—and we, along with it, should thus
conclude today’s introduction: Thank God, and Lucifer, for the existence of the
Internet.
Let us now have a look at the screenshot below.
Read carefully the ‘explanation’ given and then tell me if you
are buying it. We (the Greek and I) haven’t stopped laughing since we first came
across it, a year ago. What can we say? We love it! Especially the brilliant
piece of observation of Marko: “I have noticed that Nautococcus coronas become
circular at midday sun elevations”. No shit!! (Sorry, we couldn’t help
ourselves;)
Anyway, these days we wonder what might have
created our own (black-red arrow marked) elongated ellipse below.
But let us continue, for there is more, and there is fun. Let us have a look
next at the Jovian puzzle below.
Interesting, isn’t it? I mean in spite of the lower sequence
above, which “shows that the aureole presence, size and shape is cloud related”!
Why? Because apparently “those from high object should always be circular”.
(Talking about conventionality and dogma.)
Then let us think next what could have created the elliptical
halo below.
Now this apparently rare elliptical halo is very interesting, from our point of
view (and we’re not kidding this time). Not because it is elliptical (for in as
far as we are concerned the elliptical shape is a non-issue), but because this
particular halo contains two rings, and especially because other halos can
apparently have even three. It is this issue that holds our interest in the
subject, for we believe that we can provide a beautiful explanation for it. We
may talk about that a little later, but for now let us have a good look at the
picture below.
The streetlights in this picture seem to have halos as well—albeit, not
elliptical—and all their halos distinctly show two rings each. This is not a
trivial matter by any means, and we shall come back to it at some point. For now,
though we’d like to show you the final two screenshots on the subject of
oval/elliptical atmospheric phenomena. These two final screenshots are dealing
with coronas.
It is time to conclude this first part in the 10th Day of our
collaborative endeavour, and we shall begin to do that by reminding us all what
is arguably the best advice for any diligent physicist: KISS. Now, in regard to
that I can truthfully testify that we—my Greek and I—have both striven to
respect and follow since the very first day of our involvement in the quest.
Which is only natural for us, since we are both neither more nor less than
common thinkers. And as a direct testimony of that truth, we invite you next to
examine below, at your own leisure, our visual props on the subject we have
discussed thus far.
From time to time I visit two physics forums (namely physics.stackexchange.com and https://www.physicsforums.com/) to see
what and how our conventional physicists are dealing with at any given time.
I’ve been doing this since the day I had returned to the Internet, some 10 or 11
years ago. Occasionally I also take screenshots of threads I find poignantly
interesting, as it happens, and on even rarer occasions I post a question or
offer an answer. Needless to say, none of my offerings is ever welcomed, which
is loudly evident by the fact that virtually all of my postings are swiftly
deleted by moderators, usually within minutes. Of course, these days such events
do not touch me even at some purely metaphysical level of any imaginary kind—let
alone at some tangibly physical one, as such. After all I believe that anyone
can evolve to develop a very, very thick skin after being for half a century in
the opposition of just about everything the overwhelming majority of the world
is following at any given time. In fact, these days I look forward to see how the
current moderating guards of the physics forums are exercising their
conventional powers. A couple of things, for example, never cease to amaze me
about them. First is the incredible amount of time they spend within the digital
boundaries of their respective sites. Second is the even more incredible load of
the same old shit they dig in and out for years and years on end, for some
conceivable purpose, I guess, which nonetheless I myself cannot ever fathom, I’m
sure!
Now, it so happens that this morning I took a quick stroll
through the relatively new threads at https://www.physicsforums.com/ and
there I found, amongst the usual crap, a little gem worth talking about. You can
see it below in all its unrewarded glory, and then I’ll tell you a little more
about it.
Now, when I found this little gem (as I called it) I wanted to send KaylaT a
message of personal approval—since I myself have arrived at the same conclusion,
through a combination of theoretical reasoning and experimental evidence—but
unfortunately she had left this forum immediately after posting this thread
(which happened to be her only one, as well). Interestingly, though, from the
little bit of information she had left on her profile it seems that she was a
physicist herself. From my own personal point of view that is important, for
although I have made the same claim in good faith myself, I would nonetheless
love to either see some corroborating evidence from other sources, or
alternatively to conduct my own experiments with better gear than the one I had
had to use in the experiment below.
To a certain degree I am quite surprised that her post did not
attract a greater array of answers and opposition than those two meaningless
contributions above, which kind of made me think in a somewhat preferential
manner—if you know what I mean. Also surprising has been Selmke’s silence in
regards to my video, which I know he has watched, even if only for a minute or
so. Now, if there is anyone who does definitely have access to top gear, I’m
sure he is. However, since I had promised my Greek about two weeks ago that I
will ignore MS indefinitely, I had to keep my promise (even though he, MS,
continues to this day to send me messages).
Anyway, at this point I’d like to show you my last offering to
https://www.physicsforums.com/, which
took place a while ago and of course suffered the same fate as all the others.
Then, after that, we shall change gear and drive in a new direction. Stay with
us.
If you want to see how the combination of conventionality and dogma are
constraining the free flow of originality in today’s world, I’d advise you to
google something like “refraction in water” and then go to have a look straight
to the images page to see the results in a visual format. To us it was a rather
disturbing experience to see that hundreds upon hundreds of images showed pretty
much the same thing in relation to the simplest demonstrations of how objects
are refracted in water. In essence all those many pictures were very much like
the picture below, in spite of using different props—like pencils, spoons,
drinking straws, etc.
Now you may wonder why that fact was a “disturbing” experience
for our liking, but I am sure that in a few short moments you may wonder no
more.
You see, a few years ago now we had come across the picture
below, and upon reading the conventional explanation—or rather the lack of it,
in any acceptable manner—we were astonished to see the apparent overwhelming
difficulty it presented for the conventional mind.
I can tell you that to us the explanation for the observation above was a real
walk in a park. Moreover, I can also tell you with a healthy degree of
confidence that the real explanation for the refracted otter has absolutely
nothing to do with the tales listed above. Moreover still, I believe that if
we’ll show you a picture and a little video, we have made with exactly that
purpose in mind, you should be able yourself to see the correct explanation for
that ‘mysterious’ refraction’ without either of us having to say one word as a
helping cue. In any event, we should really try this little exercise, don’t you
think?
No comments:
Post a Comment