To ensure prosperity without destroying ourselves.

Both

To support a dire human necessity - the curiosity. Exploration - the way to support the curiosity, belongs to the spectrum of the so called "heterostatic behaviour" whose biological "aim" is not evident at a glance, but which may lead to the positive transgression - achieving a new, higher level of organization.

Dear Victor,

My answer: to support the explanations of phenomena and processes and to inspect and correct them on the basis of old and new knowledge.

Why old ? Example:

Interpreting CERN's experiments, Kaufman's experiments or other experiments with charges as allegedly having anything to do with special relativity, as the relativists pretend nowadays, is a scam!

Everything that has to be studied with charges, have to do with real force fields of electromagnetism. It should be studied with electromagnetism.

The electric field of fast moving charges will deform, because the limited propagation speed "c" of the fields will be retarded with respect to the actual position of the charge, as when a fountain would move.

A moving fountain that would expell water in all directions, would show a picture similar to the annexed one.

This is also what happens in CERN's experiments, Kaufman's experiments or other experiments with charges.

Therefore, the interpretation must be seen in that context, and the results precisely explain these experiments, without any special relativity, because there are no light beams exchanged. It is only coincidence that the special relativity calculus give a Lorentz factor, and that with electromagnetism for retarded fields, a similar factor is found.

The issues that I explained above are already known since the end of the 19th century, but forgotten.

You find an excellent book that explains that here:

https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Electromagnetic-Induction-Gravitation-Gravitational/dp/0917406230/ref=sr_1_2

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Der einzige Weg für die Wissenschaft heißt: "…new knowledge…"!

1. Standardmodell

Im Jahre 1993 Prof Till Kiersten, Leiter des Galex-Neutrinoexperiments schrieb:

https://imageshack.com/a/img856/6369/1p0e.jpg

"Wegen der extremen Temperaturabhängigkeit des 8B-Neutrinoflusses bedürfe es nur einer Reduktion der Zentraltemperatur der Sonne von 15,6 auf 14,7 Millionen Grad, um diesen um einen Faktor 3 zu erniedrigen…"

Dann stellen sich hier die Fragen:

- wie genau kennen wir die Zentraltemperatur der Sonne?

- was wissen wir über den Sonnenzyklus?

Es kann doch nicht sein, dass die schwachsinnigen MHD-Fäden, die von leicht eingebildeten Astrophysikern auf unsere wehrlose Sonne aufgewickelt werden, das ganze Wissen der Menschheit über Astrophysik bedeuten!

https://imageshack.com/a/img137/1882/alfaomega.jpg

Die Feldstärke der Sonnenflecken ist 4000 mal grösser als das Hauptfeld!!!

Hier kann ich nur sagen:

- der Stoff war gut. Wie ist die Adresse des Dillers?

2. Geodynamo + Plattentektonik

Wie um Himmelswillen wollen die Geophysiker aus derselben, irrsinnigen Idee der Mantelkonvektion der Erde die Plattentektonik und gleichzeitig das Geodynamo zusammenschustern? Wir haben nur ein Modell des Elektromagnetismus, einen einzigen Maxwell. Dieser dreht sich im Grabe um, wenn er hört was man ihm in die Schuhe schiebt.

https://imageshack.com/a/img35/4188/wht7.jpg

Wie soll das Magnetfeld des Uranus aussehen wenn man die gleiche konvektive Denkweise einsetzt?

https://imageshack.com/a/img255/7/uranusmagnetavocado.jpg

3. Origin of the moon

Hier schon ohne Kommentar…

https://www.academia.edu/36503339/APOLLO_17_already_in_the_seventys_delivered_tips_and_proofs_of_the_internal_structure_of_the_moon

https://www.academia.edu/37890549/DOPPELLSYSTEM_ERDE-MOND_AUF_DER_UMLAUFBAHN

Schöne Grüße

T. Tumalski

Dear Tierry,

No objective truth requires support if it is really the objective truth.

I think that, if an honest person requires supporting a statement, this means that he admits originally that this statement may be not true.

Meanwhile, the validity of the majority of “accurate” scientific conclusions, excluding the exact mathematical solutions, requires verification, and the history of science had multiply proved this assertion.

The entire history of science is the sequence of downfalls of false “truths” and survival of a minor number of eternal verities.

Regards.

Dear Victor,

What is an "accurate" scientific conclusion? How to determine that objective truth is really objective truth?

The fact is that many observations are indirect observations, in fact, all are, but some are more indirect than others.

The point I made is that nowadays' "science" rather forgot to understand the phenomenology in physics, and just use mathematical patterns which they patch right or wrong on events, by "explaining" them ad hoc.

This problem occurs in nowadays' theories of gravity, electromagnetism and in cosmology.

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Thierry,

For me, it is surprisingly that nobody writes that the science destination is the improvement of the living conditions, life prolongation, and notices on the possible dangers from nature. Meanwhile, just such main pursues we have for an object when aspiring to reveal the mechanisms of natural phenomena. For example, the LOH-Theory is aimed at understanding of the causes of aging of organisms, optimal nutrition, and ways of life prolongation. It was written that, in ancient times, people could live for a long time, and we believe that the quality of life could be significantly improved and life could be prolonged, and we propose possible ways to do this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266393167_OPTIMAL_NUTRITION_AND_CELLULAR_LIFE_PROLONGATION_IN_THE_LOH-THEORY_CONTEXT

From the same theory, it follows that not proteins but DNAs are determining for life and, therefore, when developing the artificial nutrition, it is necessary to remember that the nutrition should be chiral and should include P(+5 valent) and N(+5 valent) and C(-4 valent) (unfortunately, some designers of artificial nutrition don’t take these rules into account.

When developing the understandings in the fields of catalysis and related phenomena (for 60 years), we aspire to upgrading and reduction technologies in their costs through understanding of the phenomena rather than through formulation of arbitrary models.

Our theories have an important feature: all they have real observations or measurements rather than assumptions or so-called models in their ground. "Accurate" scientific conclusion should, in my opinion, have no model or assumption in its basis.

I think and even I can write that I am sure that people always will be mistaken in their extrapolation of the natural phenomena or processes outside the really measurable or observable fields, if the mean of the extrapolation has a model (an assumption) in its ground; the mistakes can be revealed not immediately but sooner or later they will be revealed. I am convinced that, in our time of the occurrence of a majority of available real measurements and observations, the models are the whip against science, although they so far remain to be useful in the area of engineering.

When developing the PFO-CFO Theory, we bear in mind to warn people well in advance about possible dangerous events from the Sun, because who is prevented, is armed.

The PFO-CFO theory doesn’t allow knowing when and by what way the natural laws were created, but we believe that, being once created, they can’t be violated; according to the PFO-CFO Theory, the Universe beginning was not infinitely long ago but the actual time of its beginning is unknowable for people.

Thank you.

Dear Victor,

Maybe nobody wrote that (except Senem) because it was not part of your options... Your examples are indeed interesting to show your point, and indeed, the phenomenology of physical processes of Nature are to be found prior to the models, which indeed have the aim to make predictions, an important part of science as well.

However, I don't think that "the science destination is the improvement of the living conditions, life prolongation, and notices on the possible dangers from nature".

Many scientic advancements just befall scientists. What about "mind control", "cloning", "mixed cloning human-animal", "late term abortion", and so on?

The ethical debate if that particular science is beneficial to humanity and if it accounts for the improvement of living conditions only follows afterwards, and is not directly part of the same science domain. It is related to culture of the moment, which is the addition of historical culture, religion, pressure groups, politics, finances....

This being said, your work, part of a very complex domain, is certainly valuable for humanity.

Best regards,

Thierry

I have a strong conviction that only science and scientific methods can take us to the Ultimate Reality. For controlled experiments enable us to have the right dialogue with Nature, while the precise, logical language of mathematical modeling forms the lingua franca that helps us to decipher Nature-experimenter dialogue.

This is how I describe it to my college classes: Science basically involves developing an infinite series of successive approximations, each one a better description/explanation of some aspect of the universe around us. New observations and new data may support the current paradigm, which makes the paradigm more certain (but never conclusively proved). Or they may disagree with some aspect of the current paradigm, and (if confirmed) require a change. Sometimes just a minor tweak/modification to the paradigm is needed. Sometimes the old paradigm must be discarded and replaced with a completely new one; these usually are referred to as scientific revolutions. Some classic examples include heliocentrism in astronomy 4 to 5 centuries ago, evolution in biology in the middle 1800's, quantum mechanics and both special and general relativity in physics in the early 1900's, and plate tectonics in geology in the middle 1900's. But each new paradigm is just a better description/explanation, and someday it probably will need to be modified or replaced with something even better.

Dear Richard!

Oh, if it were so!

Unfortunately, Science, at times, wanders from the way of adequate knowledge and "develops" imaginations for a lot of decades, and not always "each new paradigm is just a better description/explanation..."

Granted my description of science was a sanitized version -- the way it is supposed to work (and usually does). But I agree there have been instances when science has wandered astray down side paths for non-scientific reasons; however they generally self-correct in the long run.

For example, consider Lamarckian evolution and Lysenkoism. At the time Lamarck proposed inheritance of acquired characteristics, it was a valid attempt to explain how organisms developed various traits. But later it was replaced with evolution via natural selection as developed by Darwin and Wallace, since this turned out to be a better explanation. Lysenko's revival of Lamarck's ideas would be one of these unscientific side-paths, since the only reason it lasted for decades in the Soviet Union was because it fit Soviet ideology.

During a scientific revolution, one often finds the old guard digging in their heels and refusing to even consider the new alternative, for no other reason than that they have spent their whole professional careers adhering to existing ideas. Consider the rejection by most North American geologists of continental drift, from the time Wegener proposed it in the early 1900's, until all sorts of new evidence came rolling in during the 1960's and 1970's, making plate tectonics (with continental drift as one aspect) the new paradigm almost overnight. Or the geological establishment ridiculed Bretz's megaflood model for the Channeled Scablands for decades; now we find evidence for ice-dam collapses and ensuing megafloods in many, many places. (I especially like that Bretz lived to see his ideas vindicated and was awarded the Penrose Medal -- supposedly lamenting after receiving it that "all my enemies now are dead, so I have no one left to gloat over.")

The point is, these side tracks have been only temporary diversions, so in general we do progress to better and better approximations. Occasionally we may take one step backward, but sooner or later we make up for it by taking two steps forward.