The New York Times has published a study by Dr. Gary Gutting, PhD, that shows that most science is pretty much inaccurate and misleading. Readers of this blog already know this, but it’s good to see it in a (slightly) more mainstream venue.
Gary also links to excellent work by Pub Med.
Readers know quite well that I have carefully deconstructed the pseudo-scientific belief in dark matter timeless time after timeless time again (here and here).
It is important to remember that I am not the only one who is capable of doing this. I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other giants, e.i. Columbia’s flagship mathematician, Peter Woit, who destroys dark matter here. Peter himself links to two others, Jester and Matt Strassler.
I have officially lost count of the nails in the seas of coffins of dark matter, like finding a needle in the sands on the seashore.
Nature reports that physicists can’t seem to get straight what the measurements are of the invisible objects they invented. I’ve disproved the existence of subatomic particles here, and I demonstrated the desperate dishonesty of the scientific establishment here. Unfortunately the latter link no longer contains a working video; it’s very likely that Harvard ordered it taken down due to my bringing attention to the scandal.
Notice that, on the assumption that my thesis is correct, there is no longer any mystery about the measurement of protons, because there are no protons to measure.
We should be very grateful for the work of Ingo Sick and John Arrington, the whistle-blowers cited in the Nature piece.
Update: Hamish Johnston has written a nice piece on how the Nature report radically undermines quantum mechanics.
Just yesterday the New York Times published a study about a species of animal that has achieved immortality. Or, we should say, inertial immortality. Inertial immortality is defined by me as follows: an object is inertially immortal if but only if it exists and will continue to exist unless another object destroys it. Many non-living objects have inertial immortality, e.g. plastic bottles, plastic bins, nuclear missiles, and so on. However, very few living objects have inertial immortality. Alex Chiu claims that he is one such object, but these claims have yet to be reviewed by the FDA or NASA.
Unfortunately, the author of the study, professional tweeter Nathanial Rich, falsely claims that this discovery has “barely registered outside the academic world.” Yet I, who am (proudly) outside the academic world, clearly registered the discovery back when Nathan was in diapers. It would have been nice to receive credit in Rich’s article.
I will end with a striking quote from the leading jellyfish scientist, Shin Kubota, who triples as a professional web designer and singer-songwriter.
Turritopsis application for human beings is the most wonderful dream of mankind. … Once we determine how the jellyfish rejuvenates itself, we should achieve very great things. My opinion is that we will evolve and become immortal ourselves.
Strike that. I will in fact end with an emotional video (different from the one in the singer-songwriter link) of Dr. Kubota presenting his research lyrically.
A few years back, me here at S&MD demonstrated that Jonathan Krohn is hoax. See the studies posted here and here. Well, according to both Politco and Huffingtonpost, Krohn yielded to the moral pressure exerted by my campaign. Granted, he is saving face by referring to his hoax as a matter of “naive[ness]“. But I’m still pleased.
This also verifies my conditional claim, expounded in the second study above: If Jonathan is not a hoax, then he has Chatterbox Syndrome. Since Krohn is a hoax, the anti-cedent of my conditional is false. Now, it is an axiom of human rationality that if the anti-cedent of a conditional statement is false, then the conditional as a whole is true. So: my statement has now been empirically verified.
(1) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, the heavier a pregnant women is, the heavier her baby is likely to be. We already knew this. Newton showed that if you put a heavy object X inside of a lighter object Y, you get the weight of X plus the weight of Y. That gives you the weight of Z.
(2) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, insofar as you continue drinking habits into youth, you feel like you are still a kid. We already knew this. Newton showed that an object that stays at rest does so precisely because it doesn’t do anything new. Those who remain immature, will remain so.
(3) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, the less you sleep, the more obese you are. We already knew this. While Newton did not show it, other people showed that when you sleep, you are not eating. The less calories you consume, the lest you weigh. Mutantis matandis, as they say, the more you sleep, the less you eat!
Today Google is celebrating the 155th birthday of Heinrich Hertz. Never mind that the poor fellow is dead (!).
According to the Christian Scientist Monitor, Hertz (no relation to Heinrich Himmler, who did not like Hertz very much) is responsible for revealing the “invisible world.” Devoted (really devoted) readers of this blog will recall that I’ve taken on this so-called invisible world here, and blown the lid off Harvard’s covering up its unreality here. Recently, of course, Tulane professor John Armstrong has shown that advocates of the invisible world (under the technobabble “electromagnetism”) use phony math. In that post’s comment thread, mathematician Greg Friedman agrees, going further in saying that “the entire subject is a fiction.”
So – why are we celebrating this Hertz character? He has done more damage to science education in the English-speaking world than I care to imagine.
In fact, it hertz me to imagine.
