Educational Pseudo-Science

Well, I guess when taking a harshly critical stance on me ... that's what I do. I'm like a professional Pseudo-Scientist ... which would then go to explain why I can't really make an honest living with it. Ontop of that I'm honest about it; Which bars me from a certain career branch of the "profession" ... . And that's got to be my first stop here.

I mean ... following a theme of the recent writings, there's a certain membrane between myself - my inner machinations - and the world around me. And as this can be looked at as a "thing" where two sometimes contradictary realities "collide", it gives me reason to be conflicted a lot about things I believe (internal stuff) or see/understand/whatever (external stuff).

One thing here is that on the one side I have grown accustomed to certain mannerisms concerning the things I'm certain about. And I keep wondering whether or not that's right or fair. I mean, I recently thought I might write something along the lines of "preaching to the choir" - to not only make a point about some distinctions drawn, but to also move on away from things I don't seem to be capable of changing. After all: It's in each and everyone's own responsibility to acquire access to 'the truths of reality' - as to also not be a prick about it. Which is to say that we have to cooperate; And navigate towards the place where we can make the most of it. Which in turn creates this "mind of hostility" towards entities that would appear to moving the other way.

I mean, this is very seriously not a "two sides" type of situation. I mean, I wrote there: "to not be a prick about it" - while yet I would very well lean into being a prick towards people that ... well, I guess we could say: "I disagree with". But there is a distinct difference there between people that try to find agreements, that so try to do what is necessary, and people who just don't seem to give a flying fuck about it.

Like so: If you want to be rude and not care - that's a you problem; Sortof. But a lot of these types of people seem to hold some influence. That is in part how we would know about them. And I take it with a little bit of relief that it is prophesied that I won't have to deal with that nonsense forever. But for now, I suppose my "quest for common grounds" continues.


After all - for even just personal reasons I want to have tried enough.


Now, the underlying Motto for here is going to be

The Cosmos is more complex than you might think

And as with that membrane I mentioned earlier - there's a membrane here. It's between those that have the mental faculties to know/understand and those that don't. Possibly more than one. Most fundamentally I'd draw it as a separation between people who are curious to answer "those questions" and those that don't. So, on the one side there are people who spend their time learning things that might appear to be useless, like doing Math, but eventually help us advance the frontiers of our understanding at large - and on the other side there are people who tend to say or think or feel that doing math, for instance, is useless.

And what has really grown to be some cancer is this motion of people outside of that bubble of comprehension to try and appropriate what is inside the bubble. It might be a dead horse by now, but it yet makes for a great example: Flat Earth. I mean, the level of comprehension that it takes to point out that Planes are illogical on a Globe Earth because pilots navigate by the Horizon and stuff ... well, is pretty basic. That is, relatively speaking. Relatively speaking I'd say that we all have a baseline level of comprehension - and on a good day or with focus we can increase it - and on a bad day or when distracted we can reduce it. So, basic is neither good or bad. The thing is that a person who is good at math can do a lot more complicated math at that 'basic level' than someone who is horrible at math.
Maybe that's not where you thought this was going - but I thought it prudent to establish this as a concept.

That means, if you want to feel smart about yourself, that we're in a sense all equally smart. And the idea that Planes can't exist on a Globe Earth - it's not unreasonable. It takes some kind of outside the Box thinking to look beyond that which is just being assumed about the world and ... maybe find answers that have eluded us. However ... it's still ... horribly, if not amusingly ... wrong.

The problem seems to be that people who are adamant that the earth is flat ... they want folks inside of the Buble to "bow" to the demands outside of it, without acknowledging any of what is inside of it. And from what I've seen, there's just a point where people 'give up' ... trying to entertain that; Thus, eventually, they'll start throwing shit at these so called "Flerfers".
Now, if you don't exactly know what's inside that Bubble ... that's OK. One thing that is inside the Bubble, that we can agree on, is knowledge of how to make a Plane fly. Less complicated than that is knowledge of how a ship swims. Like so, how a tanker made of steel could actually float on water. I mean, classically one would say that wood swims and steel sinks. So ... how can a tanker made of steel swim?
You might vaguely understand how that works ... and that - I'd say - is supported by the fact that it does, very obviously, work. So your mind 'has' to accept that reality and shape its understanding around that.

But then imagine someone would go on to say that it's just Black Magic. How would you go about telling them that it's not? Given, that you per chance only have a very vague understanding of it.


Maybe it's always been the case, a case only exposed by the internet, that people have a certain mistrust unto people occupying such Bubbles. It is also very simple - if you think about it. Given that you can't tell what's going on inside one such Bubble, implicitly, you can neither confirm nor deny any claims made beyond a certain degree. For all you care, Astrophysicists might collect their data by drawing Pentagrams on the floor while chanting demonic incantations.
While eating Babies ... maybe.

Part 2

Now, telling folks to be weary of "forces" that try to corrode our trust across such borders feels dodgy to me. Like so I might be going onto a lengthy rant - as I probably have done a few times - but alas, it's time to move on.

I've had conversations with people that then were baffled to find out that I'm a seriously committed believer. And this is a little bit odd. There sure is a strong tendency that atheists have, that sees religiosity and science to be at odds. But then, the same seems to be true for religious people as well. Being myself religious, I suppose I ignored that side of the coin. I mean, I'm religious and I'm not anti-science.
Now, either side has their own reasons to doubt the other. Atheists/Scientists tend to try and explain reality without the need for a God in their theories - and that doesn't vibe with Religious people. Religious people tend to try and explain reality with a God - and that doesn't vibe with Scientific people. I mean, last time I checked, God is very particular about being open about His existence.

So does the implied existence of God lend itself to a lot of baseless assumptions; All justified in as far as people willing to just run with it are found. And the same can also be said about atheists and their dismissal of the divine.
But well ...

Could it be that a theory of everything cannot be found ... because an accurate theory of 'Everything' will ultimately have to account for the divine?

It almost seems fair ... that reality would function on Laws both "bright" and "dark"; To say that some might just remain to be obscure forever. Or at least "for so long".

But well.


One thing that has bugged me since I first heard of it was string theory. My issue with it was entirely motivated by my religious convictions. In that regard, my dismissal of it as a legit theory is, we might say, absolutely baseless or unsubstantiated. To my understanding it however crosses "the line" ... where people try to construct an 'atheistic universe'.

Well. Quantum Mechanics on the other hand ... . Well. I mean, for once, I feel a little bit Gaslighted by people who will impose the idea that we don't understand it as some kind of universal Law. I find QM to be very intuitive. A lot of people however will insist that it is/they are not.
So, do I say that I understand QM? Maybe. But also certainly not at the Level some would require me to for that to be proven. But this ... 'gut feeling' of mine has made me curious or suspicious. I mean, given that I seem to understand these things - without an ability to do anything with it - I wonder what I'm supposed to do about it.
The thing being that when I just ... blurt out opinions ... it's really just that. Another ignorant person trying to make sense of things beyond their scope.
And looking back, I was for a brief time part of the "Einstein was wrong, actually" camp. Entirely based on feelings. By now I can't really tell anymore what I was thinking.


The way this word salad so far is to come together into a point of some sort, is around the idea that the Cosmos, as created by God, is reflective of God's concept of Reality. Like when people analyze fictional works they ever so often get to talk about the Authors - to derive explanations for certain things from how they thought, I think that to properly understand reality, we need to understand how God thinks.

But how could we?
I mean ... take my piece on the sanctity of Lust. That story unfolds around emotional ideas; Things we can barely maintain any kind of quantifiable understanding of. But we can understand the basic principles. Causality chains of emotions, one thing leading to another; Like ... love turning into hate - fear turning into fun ... things like that.
It would seem to mostly be an intimate thing - and we, by all the things that influence our emotional sphere, are probably incapable of relating to the emotional sphere of the Absolute.
Anyhow ... what I want to shift the focus here on is: Sacred Geometry.

I absolutely, one hundred percent, think/believe that Sacred Geometry is nonsense. It is just too ... simple - for God to be even just remotely fascinated by it - so that He might have construct reality around it. But that unfolding of emotions could be compared to Sacred Geometry; Except that shapes and lines are emotional things.
To say, that while Sacred Geometry is nonsense, we can still use it to visualize what's going on. Down to the idea of "Geometric Growth".

Circles can shape Triangles, Triangles can shape Circles - and while the two couldn't be more different, they're yet ... "intertwined". The same goes for emotions and intellectual concepts.

Part 3

So I was thinking: If I dig into my "gut feeling" - in science terms - what can I come up with? Well, first of all not much. My mind simply lacks the terms - the concepts - to have the most basic of ideas. I mean, the Einstein doubts ... give me a decent baseline. I could think of what I understood about his theories and compare them to my gut feeling and find it wrong. Now I can however tell that what I understood about his theories was basically nothing. So me feeling that they're wrong - that was just a failure on my part. Not a failure in terms of me not functioning properly, but a failure in terms of not having the right stuff for my functioning to come to anything of relevance.

Somewhat unrelated to that - I found it useful to think of Gravity as magic. I mean, it is after all the one fundamental interaction that ... is a bit like water. Water being the odd element out as it expands when turning into a solid; While anything else expands when "unturning" from a solid.

And it's ... "one of those things". I mean, it seems like every science communicator ever would at some point tackle Gravity and come to highlight the fact that all stuff falls equally fast, regardless of mass. That goes to highlight the fact behind Newtonian Physics, where Gravity is essentially ... well. It's a property of mass - that any mass has a gravitational field and a gravitational field attracts all mass equally. So, it doesn't matter how "heavy" a thing is to fall towards another another mass. It just does.
Comparing it to magic then, does I think go a long way in hammering that home.

The reason why is because we're used to understanding weight as a property of Gravity. Things fall - and heavy things are heavy. And the primary challenge when trying to understand Gravity, is to break that intuition. A thing isn't heavy because Gravity has a stronger pull on the thing, but because we need to use more force to counter its Gravitational motion.
So, gravity "pulls equally strong" on a 1 gram thing as it pulls on a 1 ton thing. Eventually there's something about the "reverse gravitational pull" of the thing - but that only translates into a "stronger pull" if the attracting object is also moving towards the attracted.
So, since both masses are 'accelerated' at the same rate - that is: They merely move towards the attracting object - it's "like magic" because to us the reality is that it takes more force to move more massive objects.
So, weight is merely that - Gravity just "pulls" at masses "equally", regardless of "how heavy", but we have to use force relative to their masses to counteract that motion.
A scale then has some kind of internal resistance. Like in the olden days, literally counter-weights. At first that again seems counter-intuitive because Gravity pulls at both weights equally. So, if one kilo 'falls' as fast as one gram, how does the kilo still tip the scale in its favor?
Well: Because 1 gram accelerating downward at [speed] doesn't create as much kinetic energy as 1 kilo accelerating downward at [speed]. So, the one kilo falling at [speed] 'pushes' the scale downward, thus lifting the other side up. We have to push onto that other side with an "equivalent force". And one gram doesn't do it!

That's another "magic" property of Gravity it would seem. That it doesn't actually 'pull' things. It merely 'accelerates' them. By that virtue, things tend to fall faster and faster. And to make sense of it, Newton had to invent a whole new type of math.


So, these "useless details" are important when trying to make sense of the observed reality.
I mean - asking us for our opinions on how true or false Newtons findings were ... most of us might dismiss these ideas because our intuition tells us otherwise. And if our intuition DOES tell us otherwise, and we rely on that intuition, all conclusions that follow the observations would seem ... irrational. "Weight still works the way it does" ... so ... "who cares?".

Well, anyone who has to make accurate calculations - would ... have to understand what happens; Or at least 'how to' do the math. And that is I think a common phenomenon. That sometimes people know the how, but not exactly the why. And I find myself on the other side of that. If I don't understand the 'why' - I'm usually confused about the 'how'.

And subsequently, to me, it's always like a major act of utter selflessness if I tell myself that "it is as it is".


And somewhere therein resides the importance of education. At first only in the simplest form: The conveyance of observable facts. The stuff that just is, whether it makes sense to your intuitive understanding or not. But eventually that should also entail a certain disclaimer; That things that seem counter-intuitive indicate that OUR understanding is flawed.

Which may be counter-intuitive in and of itself, because intuition is supposed to help us make sense of reality. But if we misjudge the facts, our intuition has a chance of being wrong.


Fun fact: relativity implies that a thing falling towards another thing, is physically identical to that other thing falling towards the thing. So, once you fall from any given height, the physical impact is the same as though the planet itself were to fall towards you. And after some time of falling, that speed is high enough for your little body to have nothing to stop the planet from squashing you into a stain on its surface.

Part 4

Now, I can't really give you any practical examples of how this matters. I'm not educated enough in those regards. But yea, for GPS to function - whether you think we need it or not - Einstein's equations are necessary. I guess we could also tweak the systems until they work ... "as you do" - but I'm sure there are things where we don't have the luxury of sufficiently large wiggle room for that.

I mean ... people like to say that certain things just can't be "scienced". Things that we'd say "need Love". But that is also a science. Like ... Plant Growth. However, if you had to feed an entire civilization - I'm sure you couldn't quite possibly give each and every Plant the Love it needs. You'd rely on science to figure out what happens to work the best. That doesn't say that they don't need Love - but a large amount of the Love they need can be quantified. Like ... they need some amount of Water. At large, some plants will do better than others - and if you wanted you could go into a field and take care of as many plants that don't do so great as you're capable of. And the same is also true for Machines.
I mean ... if I had to produce like ... 40k pamphlets, I certainly wouldn't want to babysit each and every sheet through the machine. I'd like to just push the button and ideally ignore any outliers that don't come out perfectly. Precision is however still key - in setting the thing up properly for instance. Beyond that, the machine also needs to be constructed so it can deal with the stresses they're expected to deal with. And Love flows into it, as over time we learn how to improve our ... mechanisms.

And here the thing is ... we shouldn't have to explain why accurate information on how things work is a good thing.
Regardless of how it's not the only thing.

And so, yea, this is a rant in its own right. So, maybe we have to stress that things do in deed need Love. That certainly would be true to the trend here - that of moving away from the cold, sterile "science" of things - so that the sciences can be open to the things it cannot comprehend. But that also isn't the problem of science - that's the problem of us.

Like so does science need Love.

And still ... my head is like ... on fire; Like ... my spidey senses go haywire - trying to explain why we can't rely on intuition alone; And how the extended logic of figuring things out properly ... IS science.
I mean - there seem to be so and so many people that just don't seem to WANT to get it.
And I suppose ... it's not like we should be bothered by it. I guess ... if there's no practical reason for you to properly understand how Gravity works, for instance - that's OK. But once you start acting as though all of it is nonsense ... we have a problem!


I suppose that in the end, if it makes you feel better, we can say that scientists also just intuit stuff. But they're just deeper in the specifics of any one given thing - and therefore more capable of doing it.

I ... am deeper into some other stuff. And because of that I have this strange relationship to both sides of this issue; That more often than not makes me feel left alone. And that's weird because I tend to know things better. Sort of. Except when I don't. And that drops me into this ... "boy who cried wolf" type situation. But that only re-enforces to me, that I need to be mindful of what I say. And so is all this also just a disclaimer.


I mean, I'm curious. Looking at Galaxies - there seems to be a consistent 1:8 relation between their "core" and their "body". And what's up with that? I tend to think, that there is more to spacetime itself than meets the eye. Well, duh. Anyway - it is through this lens, that I understand that there, to me, is simultaneously something utterly fascinating but also utterly wrong about the idea of "empty space". By 'empty space' I mean the idea that there's by and large just matter in space. And sure enough, there's a lot actually. But ... that's not what I'm thinking about.

"Classically" I'd try to formulate "that" by comparing "it" to water. The idea being, that the forces that hold molecules together could counter-act gravity; Similar to how stuff floats on water. It might seem nonsensical because Neutron Stars exist, but that might just be a case of sinking steel. So, when stuff is exposed to a large enough "shear" in gravity, so that the other forces have to bend - well, that stuff would break apart. But what if the shear isn't strong enough for that just yet?
I'd say that ... nothing special is going on there, other than an increased amount of stress on whatever compound we're thinking of. And between that understanding and what my gut feeling seems to stress ... I'm confused.
Overall I so have this crazy theory - that stuff can so float on gravitational thresholds. That's at least what came to mind when looking at this 1:8 ratio - but it also doesn't seem to line up. If so Stars floated at a certain distance around a Black Hole ... why are there also a lot of stars at a shorter distance? It would so appear to be just a remnant of how Galaxies form ... . That instable Orbits decay towards the center - and beyond a certain point that pull is weak enough for things to stabilize somehow.

This is one instance where I struggle with myself. I have it ever so often that I'm convinced of an idea, then I for instance do a fact check - come to some contradicting finding - and ... then have to wrestle with my own conviction. Sometimes I lean more - and other times less towards it.

Part 5

So, while there are still unsolved mysteries ... my theories aren't therefore correct. And I've been long enough in crazy-town to not fancy my way back into it. However, I'm quite comfortable with some of my beliefs - enough for me to just desire some peace and quiet with them.
But yet I feel challenged in some of them - and to get defensive about it seems to be a normal reaction. That becomes problematic once my defense is ignorant unto the substance of the challenge - but sometimes I just don't want to care either. And that's a little bit troubling. In ... both ways.

There certainly is no shortage in nonsensical challenges these days.
And for opposition conjured in bad faith ... there's no reason to assume that they will ever stop coming; Regardless of well established our facts are.

And there's an effect to that relentless onslaught of ignorance that I want to dub "bullshitification". Bullshitification is a process whereby ignorant challenges are being refined to a point of purity. So, people start with a nonsensical claim ... and arguments that support that claim are being thrown about. People then take it upon themselves to debunk those claims - and over time some arguments prove to be more difficult to debunk than others. Be it just a matter of complexity. Those then make up the foundation of "the next generation" of bullshit claims; Until at the end we're left with some opposition of what we might call "Utter Bullshit". That classification however defies the comprehension of those that fell for it - because to them it are the things that could not be debunked. That however fails to recognize all the things that had to be ignored to get to that point.

I mean - the amount of times that I've heard the argument that "Water is Level/doesn't curve" is ... like ... "Godless". And it's as easy as to put water into a vessel on a centrifuge, but they'd probably just be like "duh, but that's artificial". And then dealing with the statement that Gravity isn't a force ... doesn't make it easier as we'd argue that it's the same thing.
Like, the arrows of acceleration point outward rather than inward - but well.
And any experiment to show that water bends to Gravity would ... be like ... "there! The Ocean!".

How to deal with Bullshitifcation ... is ... I don't know.
I mean, it does help us move forward. Unless people refuse to learn - and don't let go of the Bullshit.


But so, in closure, here's my theory of Dark Matter:

Well, it's not so much a theory. But for once I don't think that MOND is correct because MOND is ... I'd call it an "Empty Space" theory. If I recall correctly.
So, I believe there's 'more', rather than 'less'. It might not be a particle either.
I however arrived at the following ... well, adjusted for my level of expertise ... it has to be phrased as a question: How do the Planck units inform our understanding of Spacetime?

From what I gather, Planck units aren't a thing until they're necessary; And we recognize them as necessary because they explain certain things that wouldn't be possible otherwise. But do we understand ... what it is, about spacetime, that "makes it so"?

I mean - speaking of Dark Energy; The thing is that space expands. And how does that work?
Well, sure, we don't know. That's why it's called Dark Energy, as of yet. But so I'm thinking: For once it doesn't affect the relativity between matter, gravitationally, within a given proximity. If space however expands - as like a property of space - then the very space we exist in ... constantly becomes "more" - and at the same time has to move away, because the 'volume' yet remains the same.

So, the problem with my understanding here is that I would think of space as more than just vacuum. The fascination I have for 'empty space' is the idea that it is after all just vacuum. Whatever 'vacuum' is in that regard.

Hard to say - but ... for the Planck length to be effective, there has to be some 'thing' that prevents 'stuff' from manifesting between certain points. And if space expands, while the Planck length does not - well, there is for once an understanding of expansion. Else ... we had no way of knowing. I assume. But at the same time that means that space 'grows'. Unless it doesn't, but we wouldn't know that because the places where we could check that are too far away. Ignoring the fact that we wouldn't know how to check in the first place.

But this is to me what sums up a part of this mystery. So, the warping of space-time, the motion of objects through space - everything that does in any kind of way have some unresolved relationship with the Planck units - may be in some way connected. Having affects on or being affected by 'something' that we don't know of just yet.

Like so ... the 'creation' of space as implied by Dark Energy.
Like so, do we exist on a fabric that constantly moves 'through' us? If so, how does matter stay in place? Well, relativity! Gravity and stuff stuff. But ... could there be some kind of friction? Maybe space only emerges below a certain Gravity threshold ... or so: Once two objects move away from each other faster than they're attracted to each other - there is a point where the two Gravitational fields meet. So, "points of least Gravity". Some of them might be "stable" - as the objects move away from each other below the speed of light, like ... normally - and others might be "instable" ... as in: space getting more or less torn; Like in theory there could be points free of Gravity because no Gravitational field could reach it. Except ... spacetime seems to be capable of spontanously spawning matter.

And with this annihilating comment, I think I can call it a day.


Umbasa!