by Joey Lawsin
Scientists also argue that mathematics is not science since it fails to produce new scientific discoveries. However, scientists fail to admit that Math, which is the hallmark of science and technology, produces new discoveries based on scientific data and empirical formulas. Calculations, graphical models, and equations have been the essential mathematical instruments that helped science produce new discoveries. Without these mathematical and technological tools, science is helpless and useless.
In contrast, the argument that mathematics has never produced any new discoveries actually diversified into various branches; from number system to algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, statistics, topology, kinematics, dimensional analysis, units of measurement, binary algorithm, and dimetrix. In other words, since time immemorial Mathematics has been creating new unique disciplines of study which produce new discoveries and inventions. These by-products, from the first counting system to the higher math of today, were once individually considered as new discoveries at their own pace and time. Math has been producing new discoveries. Math even discovered science.
In addition, equations like in the laws of motion could not have been formulated if calculus was not first discovered by Newton. And the great pyramids in Egypt could not have been built if the "Pythagorean formula" was not first discovered. Computers would not be invented if mathematical electronics were not precisely calculated. These are just proof that mathematics produces new "scientific" discoveries every now and then.
Remember also that primitive and ancient civilizations, through trials and errors, discovered and developed new inventions through simple ancient math and raw technology in order to fill up the needs of man; and science was totally out of the picture at that time. This shows that mathematics and technology exist even without science. However, science can never exist without mathematics.
Mathematics is the language of logic and reasoning. Science, to be credible and rational, needs both logic and reasoning. Math doesn't need science. It doesn't need proof and disproof due to the fact it is universally 100% self-evident. Few examples that come to my mind are points, lines, distances, volumes, weights, angles, the Pi, the Pythagorean Theorem, and the Inverse-square law. Based on Creation by Laws, The formulas or equations in math are actually fundamental laws of nature. Mathematical Laws are Natural Laws.
Meanwhile, science is not always self-evident. Why? First, it simply attempts to answer "how things work" but could not explain "why things work". Second, scientific theories are relative thus metamorphically inclined to revision from time to time. They are not universally factual because some don't work when certain parameters or conditions are changed. And finally, mathematical laws are present universally and they precisely work without exceptions. Mathematics can even answer both questions of "hows and whys".
Science usually takes pride in its scientific method, a set of steps religiously followed in experiments like in the investigations of its imaginary elements such as atoms, forces, black holes, dark matters, and other mysterious scientific phenomena. Its list of procedures has basically eight parts, namely:
1. Define the problem (objective),
2. Gather data or information (resourcing),
3. Form a hypothesis (an intelligent guess),
4. Test the hypothesis (experimentation),
5. Analyze the data (formulation),
6. Publish conclusions (peer review),
7. Retest results (repeatable),
8. Falsify (disprove the hypothesis),
9. *Codify (see physical validation).
This list of procedures can also be used to give scientists a taste of their own medicine.
Let us examine the origin of the universe. Scientists believe that the birth of the cosmos started from the Big Bang where imaginary particles, fields, or even strings were produced overtime from nothing. They formulated this hypothesis by observing patterns and investigating cause and effect. However, there is no way that the origin can be reproduced nor repeated in a laboratory. The original event is not testable and therefore not directly observable. This theory evolved without supportive evidence or even contrary evidence. If the birth of the universe cannot be tested, repeated, observed, and falsified, then it becomes obvious that scientists also harbor fallacious assumptions, incompetent assertions, and deceptive expositions. These distinctive characteristics are definitely the hallmarks of pseudo-science.
Furthermore, remember Einstein's famous equation, there are at least three parameters for either matter, energy, or light to exist. One can't exist without the other. At least there must be two of something to exist and evolve. However, there are more to these three parameters in order to exist. For someone or something to exist, aside from being a matter, one must come with pressure, gravity, speed, acceleration, time, and temperature to name a few. A thing will not exist without all of these parameters - The Big Bang Dilemma.
On the other hand, science was also built on a religious foundation. Most of its forerunners were either practicing mysticism and magic or had been indoctrinated by religious beliefs. The heart of alchemy was accepted by Christianity as spiritual. In astronomy, Galileo, who was responsible for the birth of modern science, claimed that his theory on heliocentrism does not contradict the bible. Other mystical fields of study that eventually transformed into science overtime are listed below.
Alchemy to chemistry
Astrology to astronomy
Acupuncture to medicine
Phrenology to neuroscience
Palmistry to psychology
Theology to science
Aside from the realistic incapabilities of the scientific method, there were also many examples of infant pseudosciences perpetrated by well-known scientists in the academe, universities, and scientific societies that failed to reach adulthood.
The Study: Witchcraft
Conducted by: Joseph Glanvill, Fellow of the Royal Society; Henry More of Cambridge University; and Robert Boyle, founder of modern chemistry.
Conclusion: About every one out of twenty reported cases worldwide on levitations, possessions, and broomstick riding were noted to be authentic that provided proof of the reality of the phenomenon.
The Study: Phrenology
Conducted by: Dr. Franz Joseph Gall one of the leading authorities of his day on the anatomy and physiology of the human nervous system.
Conclusion: He discovered a correlation between certain bumps on the head and one's character traits by carefully measuring the shapes of the skull.
The Study: Homeopathic Medicine
Conducted by: Dr. Samuel Hahnemann upon the idea that like cures like a drug will supposedly cure a disease if the same drug administered to a healthy person will produce symptoms similar to those of the disease. Conclusion: The study attracted wide scientific recognition and was widely taught in medical colleges for many decades. A large statue of Dr. Hahnemann was even erected with the degree of scientific respectability which a crackpot can achieve.
The study: Odic Forces
Conducted by: Baron Karl Von Reichenbach, a respected chemist, metallurgist, and a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences.
Discovery: In 1845 he announced the discovery of a new, totally unknown physical force called Od.
The study: N-Rays
Conducted by: M. Blondlot, a distinguished physicist and the recipient of many professional honors.
Discovery: Fifty years later, the Od episode was repeated by Dr. Blondlot and discovered a new force called N-rays which could be reflected and polarized by well-defined wavelengths.
The Study: Orgone Energy
Conducted by: Dr. Wilhelm Reich, a leading disciple of Sigmund Freud.
Conclusion: Orgone energy is considered the energy of sexual orgasm. It was also said to be the cause of the sky being blue and why stars twinkle at night.
The Study: The String Theory
Conducted by: Werner Heisenberg, a German theoretical physicist.
Conclusion: Fundamentals particles in nature smaller than protons, neutrons, and electrons behave like musical notes, where these notes must be stretched to tension like in a stringed guitar in order to be excited. His theory was abandoned due to the fact of what or who stretches the string to tension.
The Study: The Wormholes Theory
Conducted by: John Archibald Wheeler, an American theoretical physicist.
Conclusion: A spacetravel shortcuts into the fabric of spacetime where hypothetically a tunnel connects two black holes warped into the universe. Exotic matters, which are a great number of imaginary forces that will hold up the walls of the tunnel, have not been found yet even on the drawing board.
I could go on and on to list more academic researches that did not survive. What did all these scientific studies have in common? All of them followed the scientific method but failed.
And btw, what about the theory of evolution .... it speaks that everything evolves from a process called mutation.... if this is the case .... then all of us are by-products of mutation ..... we are all mutants ..... we may look normal but in reality, we are all abnormals .....
Here is a sample of a skeleton and its rendering by scientists ...
** The complete discussion of this article can be found in the book "Originemology" by Joey Lawsin.
History of the Scientific Method:
300 BC — A geometrical system of theorems logically developed by Euclid from axioms.
1021 — Experimental method combined with observations, experiments and rational arguments introduced by Alhazen
1590 — Controlled experiments by Francis Bacon
1600 — First dedicated laboratory
1637 — First Scientific method by René Descartes
1638 — Thought experiments published by Galileo
1650 — Experimental evidence established as the arbiter of truth by the Royal Society
1665 — Repeatability established by Robert Boyle
1675 — Peer review began
1687 — Hypothesis/prediction by Isaac Newton
1934 — Falsifiability popularized by Karl Popper's
1937 — Controlled placebo trial
1946 — First computer data analysis
1950 — Double masked experiment
Einstein Revealed:
Backed up with the principle behind Originemology and the intelligence Konstant, I can prove that Einstein did not ever use complex scientific methodology in formulating E = mc². He was just intellectually shrewd and knew the tricks of his trade. Einstein well known mass-energy equivalence formula actually originated from someone else ahead of his generation. The two notable original proponents of this theory were Sir Isaac Newton and Giovanni Coriolis. These two great scientists were the source of his formula and deserved the honors to be called the greatest minds on earth that ever lived.
I figured out that the root of the famous equation: E = mc² was derived from Newton F= m x a and Coriolis’ W = F x d. By combining both equations by dimensional analysis and units of measurements, the origin of the formula E = mc² can be computed using the following solutions:
FORMULA >>STATEMENT
W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation
F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation
W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2
W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units
W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents
W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B
W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining
W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying
W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V
W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass
E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)
By using the techniques above, we can also formulate a single equation for the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). The four know elementary forces - gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong - can be unified into a single formula. If you are interested in the solution, please grab the book Originemology by Joey Lawsin.
Another more compelling evidence that proves why science has its own limitations.
As I have said science can't exist without the aid of mathematics and logic. And mathematics truth and logical truth can exist without even engaging in scientific methods. We don't need science to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. The equation is simply a mathematical fact. The Pythagorean theorem thus likewise. It doesn't need science to be a mathematical truth. On the other hand, logic doesn't need science as well. If I say that all dogs bark and all cats meows, I don't need science to prove that these statements are true since these are simply facts of life. A logical truth. Even the statements if "all birds can fly and my pencil can fly, then my pencil is a bird" is a valid logical truth per se. From these examples, we can say that truth is not only scientific, but there are also other forms of truth: mathematical and logical to name a few.
The Paradox of the White Shadow:
1. If I introduce water in a garden hose as input, the water will come out at the other end of the hose as water. (water = water or input = output)
2. If I use marble as input and roll it inside a 12-foot plastic tube, it will exit at the other end of the tube as the same original marble (physical marble = physical marble or input = output).
3. When I speak the input word "hello" in a simple can-string telephone toy, the same word "hello" will come out as an output at the end of the other can. (abstract hello = abstract hello or input = output).
4. However, when I project a real house of my neighbor as an input into a pinhole on a cardboard, the output is not a physical house but a picture of the same house projected as an inverted abstract image on the wall. (the physical house is not equal to the abstract house or output or input != output).
How come in the fourth example, the output is totally different from the input?
Let us see how science explains this phenomenon and why its physics is wrong!
Why light bends or refracts when passing through a prism is because of the speed of light changes. The speed is slowed by the composition of the medium. A convex lens, like found in cameras, magnifying glass, and the eyes, is a good medium used to focus the rays of the sun into a tiny single bright spot on a paper. This spot is the focal point that creates the images in our pictures or photos.
To understand how a lens capture an image, let us use a lighted candle in a dark room and place a magnifying glass between the candle and the wall of the room. By moving the magnifying glass closer to and further away from the candle, a clear image of the candle will be projected on the wall. Notice that the abstract image is inverted, in full color, and in this case smaller than the physical candle. A lens forms a three-dimensional image of a three-dimensional object. However, some scientists argue that the projected abstract image on the wall is a two-dimensional image. This could not be true since our eyes are naturally inborn to see three-dimensional objects in the first place.
Secondly, if our eyes are made up of lenses, how come all the objects we see are not inverted images. Scientists contested that the brain accommodates these inverted images and makes them upright again. That's why we see all things in upright orientations. If their claims are true and correct, then let us go back again to our previous example found in number 4 and look at the inverted image.
An upright house when seen by the eyes directly is focused as an inverted image and mentally converted as an upright image inside the brain. This is scientifically proven by projecting the same upright house through a pinhole which produces a colored, inverted picture of the house on a wall. Now, here comes the inconsistency, why when you look directly at the inverted image of the house on the wall, your brain doesn't change it into an upright position? Or it does?
Oooppsss, the scenario is a diversification trick. A sophistry. There is nothing wrong with the physics of this model. However, physics ends here. I discovered that the brain has its own natural inner intelligence separated from our brain. Proof that we are governed and created by natural laws. The Theory of Viegenesis. It has the ability to detect consciously and solely decide when an object is inverted or upright whether we like it or not. Humans don't notice this natural inner intelligence until this discovery. It makes its own "decision". So the Study of the Brain comes in next. And the paradox of the white shadow evolves. The "brain" within our brain, which has the ability to manipulate our "outer intelligence", is the intelligence that made the decision of inverting the white shadow. It is NOT us. It's The LAW.
Here is another proof of scientific misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
The Paradox of the Chromatic Particle Wylzan:
Scientists, specifically particle theorists, believe that atoms are shaped like points or dots. The idea of a dot, which can be represented by the outline of a circle or a sphere, has been conceptualized far back the ancient times. Even the model of electrons revolving around its nucleus can be traced back from the medieval idea about planets revolving around the sun. This ancient model has influenced the dogma of science until to this day that it is hard for scientists to pick the figure of a triangle, a square, or any polygon for this matter to represent an atom or a quark. Secondly, if they change the shape of the atom, every theory in science will become disorganized and its principles will become disoriented. And obviously, Physics will have to be rewritten all over again. So with all these premises at hand, we may now conclude that the shape of an atom is somewhat like a circle.
Now, before I present the paradox of particle, let me enumerate the five major questions about a particle:
1. Are there more particles smaller than the flavors of quarks that might be discovered in the future?
2. Are atoms shaped like circles, strings, triangles, or hexagons? We answered this already.
3. Are objects made up of matter and energy, matter only or energy only?
4. If matter is different from energy, then energy might be made up of particles totally different from matter's particles. If this is the case then is everything composed of two different particles?
5. Now, If matter and energy are one and the same, then everything is made up of only one particle. Or, is everything still made up of two particles?
If we represent the latest known smallest particles as circles and arrange them inside a rectangular area, a unit of three circles tangent to each other can be extracted and configured as shown in the illustration below. It is noticeable that an empty (blue) space is present at the center of the three (orange) circles in figure A. The arctriangular space of the blue area is what I coined the arcDelta.
From this illustration, we can at once infer that there are two objects that make up matter: the circles and the arcdelta. The dualpairing of abstracts and physicals. Secondly, the arcdelta when magnified will always have smaller circles and another smaller arcdelta within. This smaller arcdelta when magnified again will contain another much smaller circles and much smaller arcdelta. And this process will go on and on and on... This never-ending circles/arcdelta dualpairing definitely shows a pattern of infinity. This leads us to conclude that the ultimate smallest particle of matter can never be found ever. This is the Wylzan Paradox. And because of this, the other part of matter will ultimately always be made up of empty spaces as well. The Arcdelta Paradox.
To those who love math, here is a puzzle. A circle is made up of three equal arcs, just like the arcdelta is made up of three equal arcs. However, the arcs of a circle are facing inwards while the arcs of an arcdelta are facing outwards. There is a mathematical and geometrical correlation between these dualpair. Can you figure it out?
And here is another interesting question. If the smallest building blocks of matter exist, why can we not throw blue dyes or red paints on these objects for us to see their physical existance? In the first place, all matter are made up of the same smallest particle. The Paradox of Paints. LOL.
The complete mathematical and scientific explanations of the various paradoxes posted in this blog can be found in the books "Lawsinium Paradox" and "Dimetrix" published by Joey Lawsin.
Disclaimer: The articles on this site are intended for a balanced education. Since it is constantly edited, updated, and improved, therefore I recommend that you check back regularly for new items. If you want to use anything here for the purpose of scholarly study, please inform the author by email or cite the source as follows: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.
...
** The complete discussion of this article can be found in the book "Originemology" by Joey Lawsin.
History of the Scientific Method:
300 BC — A geometrical system of theorems logically developed by Euclid from axioms.
1021 — Experimental method combined with observations, experiments and rational arguments introduced by Alhazen
1590 — Controlled experiments by Francis Bacon
1600 — First dedicated laboratory
1637 — First Scientific method by René Descartes
1638 — Thought experiments published by Galileo
1650 — Experimental evidence established as the arbiter of truth by the Royal Society
1665 — Repeatability established by Robert Boyle
1675 — Peer review began
1687 — Hypothesis/prediction by Isaac Newton
1934 — Falsifiability popularized by Karl Popper's
1937 — Controlled placebo trial
1946 — First computer data analysis
1950 — Double masked experiment
Einstein Revealed:
Backed up with the principle behind Originemology and the intelligence Konstant, I can prove that Einstein did not ever use complex scientific methodology in formulating E = mc². He was just intellectually shrewd and knew the tricks of his trade. Einstein well known mass-energy equivalence formula actually originated from someone else ahead of his generation. The two notable original proponents of this theory were Sir Isaac Newton and Giovanni Coriolis. These two great scientists were the source of his formula and deserved the honors to be called the greatest minds on earth that ever lived.
I figured out that the root of the famous equation: E = mc² was derived from Newton F= m x a and Coriolis’ W = F x d. By combining both equations by dimensional analysis and units of measurements, the origin of the formula E = mc² can be computed using the following solutions:
FORMULA >>STATEMENT
W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation
F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation
W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2
W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units
W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents
W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B
W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining
W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying
W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V
W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass
E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)
By using the techniques above, we can also formulate a single equation for the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). The four know elementary forces - gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong - can be unified into a single formula. If you are interested in the solution, please grab the book Originemology by Joey Lawsin.
Another more compelling evidence that proves why science has its own limitations.
As I have said science can't exist without the aid of mathematics and logic. And mathematics truth and logical truth can exist without even engaging in scientific methods. We don't need science to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. The equation is simply a mathematical fact. The Pythagorean theorem thus likewise. It doesn't need science to be a mathematical truth. On the other hand, logic doesn't need science as well. If I say that all dogs bark and all cats meows, I don't need science to prove that these statements are true since these are simply facts of life. A logical truth. Even the statements if "all birds can fly and my pencil can fly, then my pencil is a bird" is a valid logical truth per se. From these examples, we can say that truth is not only scientific, but there are also other forms of truth: mathematical and logical to name a few.
The Paradox of the White Shadow:
1. If I introduce water in a garden hose as input, the water will come out at the other end of the hose as water. (water = water or input = output)
2. If I use marble as input and roll it inside a 12-foot plastic tube, it will exit at the other end of the tube as the same original marble (physical marble = physical marble or input = output).
3. When I speak the input word "hello" in a simple can-string telephone toy, the same word "hello" will come out as an output at the end of the other can. (abstract hello = abstract hello or input = output).
4. However, when I project a real house of my neighbor as an input into a pinhole on a cardboard, the output is not a physical house but a picture of the same house projected as an inverted abstract image on the wall. (the physical house is not equal to the abstract house or output or input != output).
How come in the fourth example, the output is totally different from the input?
Let us see how science explains this phenomenon and why its physics is wrong!
Why light bends or refracts when passing through a prism is because of the speed of light changes. The speed is slowed by the composition of the medium. A convex lens, like found in cameras, magnifying glass, and the eyes, is a good medium used to focus the rays of the sun into a tiny single bright spot on a paper. This spot is the focal point that creates the images in our pictures or photos.
To understand how a lens capture an image, let us use a lighted candle in a dark room and place a magnifying glass between the candle and the wall of the room. By moving the magnifying glass closer to and further away from the candle, a clear image of the candle will be projected on the wall. Notice that the abstract image is inverted, in full color, and in this case smaller than the physical candle. A lens forms a three-dimensional image of a three-dimensional object. However, some scientists argue that the projected abstract image on the wall is a two-dimensional image. This could not be true since our eyes are naturally inborn to see three-dimensional objects in the first place.
Secondly, if our eyes are made up of lenses, how come all the objects we see are not inverted images. Scientists contested that the brain accommodates these inverted images and makes them upright again. That's why we see all things in upright orientations. If their claims are true and correct, then let us go back again to our previous example found in number 4 and look at the inverted image.
An upright house when seen by the eyes directly is focused as an inverted image and mentally converted as an upright image inside the brain. This is scientifically proven by projecting the same upright house through a pinhole which produces a colored, inverted picture of the house on a wall. Now, here comes the inconsistency, why when you look directly at the inverted image of the house on the wall, your brain doesn't change it into an upright position? Or it does?
Oooppsss, the scenario is a diversification trick. A sophistry. There is nothing wrong with the physics of this model. However, physics ends here. I discovered that the brain has its own natural inner intelligence separated from our brain. Proof that we are governed and created by natural laws. The Theory of Viegenesis. It has the ability to detect consciously and solely decide when an object is inverted or upright whether we like it or not. Humans don't notice this natural inner intelligence until this discovery. It makes its own "decision". So the Study of the Brain comes in next. And the paradox of the white shadow evolves. The "brain" within our brain, which has the ability to manipulate our "outer intelligence", is the intelligence that made the decision of inverting the white shadow. It is NOT us. It's The LAW.
Here is another proof of scientific misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
The Paradox of the Chromatic Particle Wylzan:
" If everything that exists is made up of atomic particles and charged spaces, and every space is always made up of the smallest particle and the smallest space, the ultimate particle and space will therefore be an ad infinitum. The paradox of Particle (also known as the Lawsinium Particle)".
Now, before I present the paradox of particle, let me enumerate the five major questions about a particle:
1. Are there more particles smaller than the flavors of quarks that might be discovered in the future?
2. Are atoms shaped like circles, strings, triangles, or hexagons? We answered this already.
3. Are objects made up of matter and energy, matter only or energy only?
4. If matter is different from energy, then energy might be made up of particles totally different from matter's particles. If this is the case then is everything composed of two different particles?
5. Now, If matter and energy are one and the same, then everything is made up of only one particle. Or, is everything still made up of two particles?
If we represent the latest known smallest particles as circles and arrange them inside a rectangular area, a unit of three circles tangent to each other can be extracted and configured as shown in the illustration below. It is noticeable that an empty (blue) space is present at the center of the three (orange) circles in figure A. The arctriangular space of the blue area is what I coined the arcDelta.
And here is another interesting question. If the smallest building blocks of matter exist, why can we not throw blue dyes or red paints on these objects for us to see their physical existance? In the first place, all matter are made up of the same smallest particle. The Paradox of Paints. LOL.
The complete mathematical and scientific explanations of the various paradoxes posted in this blog can be found in the books "Lawsinium Paradox" and "Dimetrix" published by Joey Lawsin.
...
"The Universe runs on Algorithms known as Laws of Systemic Instructions". ~ Joey Lawsin
About the Author :
Joey Lawsin is the author behind "Dimetrix". He is an inventor who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as Homodruinos, and formulated the assertion on "The Pseudoscience of Science". The article above is an excerpt from his book "The Bible proves God does not exist".
 |
Disclaimer: The articles on this site are intended for a balanced education. Since it is constantly edited, updated, and improved, therefore I recommend that you check back regularly for new items. If you want to use anything here for the purpose of scholarly study, please inform the author by email or cite the source as follows: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.
