quote:
We cannot assume anymore that if it is scientific it is the truth.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
With the passage of time and learning of more circumstances, I now see that the inappropriate switch of a double-filtered image for the real image was motivated by financial and self interests, and not by either dishonesty or incompetence in the ordinary sense of those words. It is difficult to be objective about intrinsically subjective matters when jobs and careers are at stake.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, now we are getting closer to the truth of the matter. (BTW, I am not using truth in the sense of absolute truth, but in the sense of scientific truth - what the scientist would call a fact.) There are two required aspects of a crime, the motivation and the act. Taking someone's else purse out of a store is not criminal if one believed it was their's. I believe it is the crime of science when a scientist states something as fact when he knows it is not a fact. It is the same as murder to me - the murder of truth. And it is like manslaughter when a scientist states a fact when it is actually a theory or opinion. The truth is not murdered, but slaughtered none the less.
It seems to me that the study of "evolution" is turning out to be a study of vested interests. We have the opposing physical and metaphysical viewpoints. Each one has it's share of incompetence and outright liars. And the corrupt. I suppose we should just stand around and wait for someone to have a good idea, but meanwhile thousands of thousands of people are dying. The "truth" of science has become a matter of life and death.
I don't see religion (all religion as one) in competition with science. Religion in the most general sense is metaphor just like much of science is a metaphor. The battle being waged by both of them is really a battle of the incompetent and corrupt among them. Those who do not know what they are talking about.
One of the primary observations of religion is wholeness. And it just isn't true that religious knowing is only faith, a deep analysis shows that direct experience is the ultimate turht in religion too. There are many different names for this wholeness. There is only one wholeness. Science would do well to study and acknowledge what religion has to say about wholeness, that wholeness taken apart is not wholeness. The whole that is greater than its parts is not one of its parts. That what we symbolize as reality is just an metaphorical illusion.
But illusion is all we have,and it has served us well. And yet the mistake being made by far too many is the assumption that the illusion is real. In fact, by acting as if it were real, we make it real. But then there is delusion. Delusion is believing that the taken apart is ALL that is real. And they miss out on what everyone else had to say.
We have found this wholeness. The vacumm of empty space is not empty, it is full. Just like they said a thousand years ago. The Void is a fullness, what science now calls a plenum. But our Bable language has created many names for the Dirac Sea of quantum foam in the quantum vacuum by the ZPE, depending on what one is looking at/for. But it is there nonetheless.
One of the measured qualities of the vacumm is called non-locality. A photon once entangled with another photon remains entangled even when separated in space. They remain connected, not at the speed of light, but instantaneously. They act as if they are a single entity.
So this is our starting point. Not a nothing, but a something that is everywhere all the time. A No-Thing. And the real question is how did No-Thing become Everything. This is an important question, because the answer describes the very first principle of our existence. The very first thing to happen establishes a principle. How did the whole differentiate into parts? Once we grasp that, then the next question is what came next? Was there a second principle or was there a reiteration of the first principle? A complementary principle for example? So we would start with a whole which differentiated and then re-integrated into mini-wholeness.
Meanwhile, I happened across an astrophysicist's opinion of quantized redshift. He writes that it has gone nowhere, witness the quietness. He dismisses it as bad data, and bases his opinion on the fact that none of the papers made it past the referees.
.
