SH Archive Moon Landing Video. Is this how it happened?

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: milhaus
Date: 2018-10-31 15:03:19
Reaction Score: 1

Your say "they faked it", the moon landing, JFK assassination, etc. Who faked it? How? Why?

The magic of Hollywood, in conjunction with the governments? To enslave a population so that they go to work in their cubicles everyday and hand over half their earnings to their slave masters, not knowing they are free range slaves? Is that the idea?

I no longer buy it. While it is true, there is a subplot below that storyline. Perhaps delving into metaphysics can shed light on what that subplot is.

I mean, you answered your own question. And the deeper answer is that this is spiritual warfare. That's why they want control of your mind and that is why I am warning you not to mix yourself up too much with their latest operation. Take it or leave it.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Searching
Date: 2018-10-31 15:33:51
Reaction Score: 5

@Magnus

...It looks like @KorbenDallas just wants to ignite discussion, independently of his opinion.

Yes, we know it's fake. We can regurgitate the same ol' conspiracy theories the way normies quote wiki, or we can come up with new, interesting angles to discuss. I don't have answers, just unconventional thoughts. I'm open to all ideas, no matter how unlikely they may seem at first glance.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Casimir
Date: 2018-10-31 15:51:27
Reaction Score: 9

But, Im not watching any more videos on the moon landing, in support of it, or showing it to be a hoax.

I mean I feel your sentiments, but I can't see how adding evidence to or against your belief could be bad for you. Even if you load the video and click through a few times just to see the different angles, you might see something that stimulates your mind and opinion- same goes with research into anything. If you only research or read publications that might agree with you, you're depriving yourself of at least half the information already. Self censorship will only ultimately be a detriment to you. People are a lot more open-minded here, and that's because, as far as I can tell, many want to read information potentially leading to the truth- despite what flavor it is or what camp it might land you in.

We can gauge vector and no know speed or anything else, OR we can map their speed, but not their vector/trajectory, OR we can determine their placement *at that moment* but nothing more, because once we do, they .. change and we lose them.

This is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more you know about the particle's momentum, the less you know where the f**k it actually is and vice versa. All of these neat little quantum properties really get my mind going. It's interesting you bring this up, just the other day I was thinking how where modern science fails is measurement. Math is beautiful and hard to disprove as its pure logic. In my opinion, math has spiraled so far away from experimental physics its insane- and I think that's one of the tools those in control use to hold back progress. Think of String Theory, the scientists that actually understand and can perform the math required to even barely explain String Theory can be counted on 2 hands- and one of the biggest reasons String Theory isn't widely accepted is because of this inconsistency between the complexity of the math, and our ability to perform experiments to empirically prove our math.

I forget which post I saw the comment on, but someone mentioned how fundamental particles are largely comprised of empty space- they used electrons for example. To the point that 99.999999999999999999999% of all reality you are even seeing is actually empty space. Personally, I am of the opinion the space is not empty, we just have no idea what we are trying to measure in there and its easiest to just say "well its clearly empty, nothing to see here." Sorry to further the slightly off-topicness.

Onto the actual video, I really find it interesting with the framing of the mountain range backdrop parts. There is a GREAT video on the moon landings and the Hollywood expertise that went into them. Kubrick's Odyssey by Jay Weider. I had trouble finding the actual movie on YT, there are videos about the movie I haven't watched over, I actually torrented the movie a year ago or so. If you can get your hands on it, or pay YT $2.99 to watch it, I swear its worth your time. I found it so compelling because its hardly a debate on the science of getting to the moon, see Dave McGowan for my fav debunking of that, its more about the filming techniques used. He does a great job of showing the example, going over the filming technique, then shows the clip again. One of those once you see it you can't unsee it type things. There's also some interesting tidbits on the symbolism Kubrick put in the movie in general.

I think the reason people are still so easy to believe the moon landings is they don't really have a reason not to. They've been told that's how it was all their lives, many older folks still have the memory of seeing it on TV burned in their minds as well. Couple that with how much information about space is simply out there, GPS, awesome telescope photos like Kepler, "rovers". Another huge factor of confusion that the moon landing rests on is again the math. We have the ISS, astronauts, GPS, photo satellites that can take 4k pictures of your fingernail. Leaving the atmosphere and coming back is a regular thing- clearly a lot of the math has been figured out. Because of this, everyone can assume 1969 was when we really got a handle on this. This is where common knowledge stops. I'd say 99% of the population don't know NASA "lost" all evidence of their calculations and plans for the Apollo missions. 99% of the population don't know or have forgotten the LCROSS experiment where we fired a giant-ass bomb at the moon expecting it to cause a HUGE plume see-able from earth but when it hit actually did exactly nothing.

Personally, I am of the opinion we didn't go to the moon in 1969, at least for all to see like we are told to believe. Technology today works so well because of our understanding of mathematics, it all really comes down to that. Math is logic as a language, and its rare that you have to "go back to the start" with math because of this foundation- all you can really do is admit your current understanding of math is not complete. The fact we are communicating with each over with computers over the internet is further proof of math's power. The most-wise ancients all strongly advocated that geometry is a fundamental key to understanding the worlds around you. Because of all this I can't help but believe in a circular rock earth and the heavenly bodies we've measured in the sky from time immemorial. Can I prove they are actually heavenly bodies and not lights fixed to a firmament? No, but things like our knowledge of spectrography and the RIDICULOUSLY tedious and precise methods employed in astrophysical calculations (that work) lead me to believe otherwise. Again, this is all based on what the public knows, who knows if there are furthered sciences out there TPB could fake spectrography with etc.

Back to the string theory experimentation, who's to say if these handful of physicists that understand it or other leading researchers in other fields are not making simple little changes (not backed by math or logic) to their theories the same way monks played with their manuscripts? How many people are actually able to fact check the math these theoretical physicists that ultimately can say whatever they want, as long as we don't have the means to experiment it out? After you leave math behind, or nobody is "smart" / allowed enough to check it, science becomes religion and you can do things like the Apollo missions. I firmly believe this is why math and science are so mistreated by the education system these days. Type your shit into the calculator it will tell you the answer for you, google the fact you're researching and some other guy can tell you why its true. A firm foundation in math and true empirical scientific philosophy will make you less easily fooled in general- of course TPTB would slowly steer our information age society away from it.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2018-10-31 16:35:59
Reaction Score: 9

@Casimir: Regarding theoretical physics, it is liberating when one realizes that physics has been in a state of delusions ever since Einstein.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Nikola Tesla was an opponent of the entire mental gymnastics that came with Einstein et al.

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

Of course, there is something solid to physics - namely everything that can be empirically observed. But even with the simplest of interpreations it already starts to become absurd.

As a layman that can't understand modern physics at all, it is nevertheless quite easy to discern for me.

Physics is basically just creating fantasy constructs nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of all papers aren't based on anything empirical.

But that is the definition of insanity.

No one can find dark matter, and no one ever will. I just read an interview with theoretical physicists defending dark matter. Even journalists are not buying this stuff anymore.

Physics is simply taking the existing physical models with the idea to solve the "fundamental problems" - because every physicist knows that the models can't explain things. So they add another layer of complexity, and then another, and another.

Now physicists are already looking for an alterantive to dark matter, and they will find it, because in physics you can find things by simply inventing them in your mind.

This broken model of reality has permeated everything, and it is precisely this absurdity that makes it possible for people to believe in Space. There is nothing as complex as physics. But the emperor is naked.

Look how Feynmann struggles with explaining the most basic things:


Look how NASA resorts to cooking to explain a comet - even though it promotes an entirely false concept of comets as ice-balls:


They can only resort to explaining things on an infantile level, because they don't have a concept that can be scientifically and rationally explained - itt's all full of inconsistencies.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Searching
Date: 2018-10-31 16:56:57
Reaction Score: 6

@Casimir: Regarding theoretical physics, it is liberating when one realizes that physics has been in a state of delusions ever since Einstein.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Nikola Tesla was an opponent of the entire mental gymnastics that came with Einstein et al.



Of course, there is something solid to physics - namely everything that can be empirically observed. But even with the simplest of interpreations it already starts to become absurd.

As a layman that can't understand modern physics at all, it is nevertheless quite easy to discern for me.

Physics is basically just creating fantasy constructs nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of all papers aren't based on anything empirical.

But that is the definition of insanity.

No one can find dark matter, and no one ever will. I just read an interview with theoretical physicists defending dark matter. Even journalists are not buying this stuff anymore.

Physics is simply taking the existing physical models with the idea to solve the "fundamental problems" - because every physicist knows that the models can't explain things. So they add another layer of complexity, and then another, and another.

Now physicists are already looking for an alterantive to dark matter, and they will find it, because in physics you can find things by simply inventing them in your mind.

This broken model of reality has permeated everything, and it is precisely this absurdity that makes it possible for people to believe in Space. There is nothing as complex as physics. But the emperor is naked.

Look how Feynmann struggles with explaining the most basic things:


Look how NASA resorts to cooking to explain a comet - even though it promotes an entirely false concept of comets as ice-balls:


They can only resort to explaining things on an infantile level, because they don't have a concept that can be scientifically and rationally explained - itt's all full of inconsistencies.

Science and "magic" are almost interchangable. Chemistry's roots lay in Alchemy.

If we only take into consideration what we can see and verify, then I think we are missing an entire realm of possibilities. For example:

Can we physically prove thoughts exist? That is to say, if a brain were dissected, where are the thoughts? No one can physically point to a thought in the brain, and yet, we know we have them.

Likewise, there are many who believe the body has chakras. The Hindu and Buddhist's religions believe that the alignment of these 7 wheels within the body leads to enlightenment. Judaism and Christianity also hold great stock in this, but they are known as the 7 deadly sins. Some interpret those 7 sins as the 7 seals of Revelation. Once the seals have been broken, the 7 deadlly sins conquered, the chakras, or wheels can begin movement, aligning one with Source.

If one were to autopsy a body, though, could he find physical proof that these chakras exist? No.

Perhaps it is time to examine the Metaphysical.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Casimir
Date: 2018-10-31 17:12:11
Reaction Score: 6

Physics is simply taking the existing physical models with the idea to solve the "fundamental problems" - because every physicist knows that the models can't explain things. So they add another layer of complexity, and then another, and another.

What a great and succinct way to put it. Now, education's hand in the increasing difference between a layman and scientist aside, its fun to take a look at the immediate world around you. Then imagine telling someone "By the way, the standard model of physics has determined literally everything in the universe is speeding away from everything else at an increasing rate, oh and 99.9999% of everything you see is barely tangibly there." This is actually what you'll read in a physics textbook. Anyone of any background and read those 2 statements and see how contrived it seems. There's clearly something missing to our understanding.

Can we physically prove thoughts exist? That is to say, if a brain were dissected, where are the thoughts? No one can physically point to a thought in the brain, and yet, we know we have them.

Thoughts are electrical signals in your brain. My question is why is there a brain to think in the first place? I think Douglas Holfstaeder's strange loop theory of consciousness hits the nail on the head with how symbols arise and eventually link together in a way they reference themselves- and a conscious mind slowly creeps out underneath the tons of layers of interconnected complexity. He has a good thought experiment in his book Godel Escher Bach about an ant colony, and if it is actually conscious or could achieve it. Where ants and their patterns are symbols like our brain's neurons and neural networks.

Perhaps it is time to examine the Metaphysical.

I truly believe metaphysics and physics are the same study, its just a matter of measurement and experimentation that's the difference. We simply don't know enough about how to measure the physics, the definition of what you're thinking about just becomes metaphysics. It's all discussing the same thing, similar to how science and magic are 2 paths to the same destination. I firmly believe "ancients" had higher technology unfathomable to us and they discussed and experimented in ways we can't imagine. Do I specifically think they were out there resolving Hamiltonians, not necessarily, but they had other symbols/abstracts that lead them to the same heights.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: milhaus
Date: 2018-10-31 17:28:42
Reaction Score: 3

@Casimir: Regarding theoretical physics, it is liberating when one realizes that physics has been in a state of delusions ever since Einstein.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Nikola Tesla was an opponent of the entire mental gymnastics that came with Einstein et al.



Of course, there is something solid to physics - namely everything that can be empirically observed. But even with the simplest of interpreations it already starts to become absurd.

As a layman that can't understand modern physics at all, it is nevertheless quite easy to discern for me.

Physics is basically just creating fantasy constructs nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of all papers aren't based on anything empirical.

But that is the definition of insanity.

No one can find dark matter, and no one ever will. I just read an interview with theoretical physicists defending dark matter. Even journalists are not buying this stuff anymore.

Physics is simply taking the existing physical models with the idea to solve the "fundamental problems" - because every physicist knows that the models can't explain things. So they add another layer of complexity, and then another, and another.

Now physicists are already looking for an alterantive to dark matter, and they will find it, because in physics you can find things by simply inventing them in your mind.

This broken model of reality has permeated everything, and it is precisely this absurdity that makes it possible for people to believe in Space. There is nothing as complex as physics. But the emperor is naked.

Look how Feynmann struggles with explaining the most basic things:


Look how NASA resorts to cooking to explain a comet - even though it promotes an entirely false concept of comets as ice-balls:


They can only resort to explaining things on an infantile level, because they don't have a concept that can be scientifically and rationally explained - itt's all full of inconsistencies.

Not to mention that the main prophet of this religion was paralyzed and had to speak through a computer by moving his tongue against his cheek. Wrote a great number of books as well. I just wonder how he was able to actually perform any experiments. But, well said. It's surrounded by absurdities.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2018-10-31 17:55:44
Reaction Score: 10

There's some good evidence that the real Hawking died in the 1980s when he was very ill:

During a visit to CERN on the border of France and Switzerland in mid-1985, Hawking contracted pneumonia, which in his condition was life-threatening; he was so ill that Jane was asked if life support should be terminated. She refused, but the consequence was a tracheotomy, which required round-the-clock nursing care and the removal of what remained of his speech.[274][275] The National Health Service was ready to pay for a nursing home, but Jane was determined that he would live at home. The cost of the care was funded by an American foundation.[276][277] Nurses were hired for the three shifts required to provide the round-the-clock support he required. One of those employed was Elaine Mason, who was to become Hawking's second wife.[278]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

I don't like Mathis, but this time he is spot on.

In reality, Hawking died back then, and for some reason they managed to replace him with whatever figure they came up with. It was exactly after the above mentioned crisis that both Hawking and his wife switched their partners. Too much coincidences.

When you look on Youtube, there are a couple of very revelaing apparences of New Hawking, it seems they tried to keep him from publicity as much as possible. I find it hard to believe New Hawking was anything but an actor, but maybe they really found someone who was also disabled.

Hawking is the perfect symbol for "science". They couldn't let him die. Instead, they created a myth.

To this day, no one else in the world has managed to live 55 years with such a debiliating disease.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: milhaus
Date: 2018-10-31 18:04:31
Reaction Score: 1

There's some good evidence that the real Hawking died in the 1980s when he was very ill:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

I don't like Mathis, but this time he is spot on.

In reality, he died, and for some reason they managed to replace him with whatever figure they came up with. It was exactly after the above mentioned crisis that both Hawking and his wife switched their partners. Too much coincidences.

Oh, yeah I completely believe that he was replaced.
What don't you like about MM? I think he has put out a lot of good research except for his conclusions. Whether that is intentional or not I don't know.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2018-10-31 18:11:12
Reaction Score: 1

I think he is too quick with his conclusions, most often I think he is plain wrong about someone being an actor or something being staged.

Edit: With my comment I wanted to say I don't often agree with him.

Oh, yeah I completely believe that he was replaced.

It's even obvious from simply looking at the images from Hawking over time. Really fascinating.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Searching
Date: 2018-10-31 18:55:23
Reaction Score: 3

There's some good evidence that the real Hawking died in the 1980s when he was very ill:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

I don't like Mathis, but this time he is spot on.

In reality, Hawking died back then, and for some reason they managed to replace him with whatever figure they came up with. It was exactly after the above mentioned crisis that both Hawking and his wife switched their partners. Too much coincidences.

When you look on Youtube, there are a couple of very revelaing apparences of New Hawking, it seems they tried to keep him from publicity as much as possible. I find it hard to believe New Hawking was anything but an actor, but maybe they really found someone who was also disabled.

Hawking is the perfect symbol for "science". They couldn't let him die. Instead, they created a myth.

To this day, no one else in the world has managed to live 55 years with such a debiliating disease.

Replacing actors happens all the time in tv and movies. The character Darrin in "Bewitched" was taken over by another actor in 1969 the same way Hawking was replaced in "reality".

The stakes are higher in the play of life, though. A script is written, and a vital character's absence is no reason to discontinue the storyline. Just replace the actor.

In what way does art differ from reality? The age old question, does art imitate life or vice versa is inconsequential. They are one in the same. Art is just short for artifice, trickery, and we have been tricked into thinking "reality" and art are separate, yet our reality has become the reality tv show, "The Apprentice".

This leads to the question, who are the actors in this movie we call life? I think we all are. We pretend as though we are our bodies, that our existence began when we entered this realm, but that is only because we have no recollection of our existence before we entered these bodies. That is by design.

Much like people continued to watch Bewitched as if Darrin had not changed, they also treat their reality in a like manner. Most cannot see Hawking was replaced. They don't want to see that the president is a reality tv actor playing the same role he always has. They do not want the illusion ruined.

Is that to say all of Hawking's science was a lie? No, not any more than Einstein's theories were all bogus. I believe Einstein's first law of thermodynamics to be accurate. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Matter is just energy that takes different froms. The Bible supports this.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you... Though there are as many interpreations on this verse as there are people, I believe that we existed before we entered these boielectric avatars and that we will exist after we exit them. We are energy playing in a 3D environment. We just don't remember.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: milhaus
Date: 2018-10-31 19:37:48
Reaction Score: 3

Replacing actors happens all the time in tv and movies. The character Darrin in "Bewitched" was taken over by another actor in 1969 the same way Hawking was replaced in "reality".

The stakes are higher in the play of life, though. A script is written, and a vital character's absence is no reason to discontinue the storyline. Just replace the actor.

In what way does art differ from reality? The age old question, does art imitate life or vice versa is inconsequential. They are one in the same. Art is just short for artifice, trickery, and we have been tricked into thinking "reality" and art are separate, yet our reality has become the reality tv show, "The Apprentice".

This leads to the question, who are the actors in this movie we call life? I think we all are. We pretend as though we are our bodies, that our existence began when we entered this realm, but that is only because we have no recollection of our existence before we entered these bodies. That is by design.

Much like people continued to watch Bewitched as if Darrin had not changed, they also treat their reality in a like manner. Most cannot see Hawking was replaced. They don't want to see that the president is a reality tv actor playing the same role he always has. They do not want the illusion ruined.

Is that to say all of Hawking's science was a lie? No, not any more than Einstein's theories were all bogus. I believe Einstein's first law of thermodynamics to be accurate. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Matter is just energy that takes different froms. The Bible supports this.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you... Though there are as many interpreations on this verse as there are people, I believe that we existed before we entered these boielectric avatars and that we will exist after we exit them. We are energy playing in a 3D environment. We just don't remember.

You should read Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard if you haven't already. What you're describing is what he calls the hyperreality.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Searching
Date: 2018-10-31 20:11:54
Reaction Score: 7

You should read Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard if you haven't already. What you're describing is what he calls the hyperreality.

Thank you for this. When I wrote the post on "The Man in the High Castle", I stated that I found the word "simulation" to be lacking. Simulacra may be the accurate term I have been in search of.

Simulacra - copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original.

I hypothesize that this "reality" is a simulation of sorts, but what are we simulating? I do not believe this is a simulation of another 3 Dimensional existence. That is to say, I do not believe there is a 3D place this realm has been modeled after. It is not like when Neo is taken out of The Matrix only to find he is in another 3D form. I think when we exit this 3D experience we return to our true source, which is energy or light. Simulacra is much more accurate than simulation.

This reminds me of The Gnostic text, "On the Origin of the World", which crudely summarized, states that we are but a facsimile of a facsimile of a facsimile of a facsimile..... Each copy of a copy degrades more and more, and we are very far removed from the Original, The Source.

I'm also reminded of Nietzsche's, "Twilight of the Idols", which suggests most philosophers rely too heavily on language and reason, and ultimately arrive at a distorted copy of reality. Which is what we do when we refer to this realm as a simulation.

On a side note, when at the end of the 3rd "Matrix" film, Neo discovers he has powers outside of "The Matrix", which leads me to think he never really left the matrix at all.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: milhaus
Date: 2018-10-31 20:32:33
Reaction Score: 3

Thank you for this. When I wrote the post on "The Man in the High Castle", I stated that I found the word "simulation" to be lacking. Simulcra may be the accurate term I have been in search of.

Simulcra - copies that depict things that either had no original, or that no longer have an original.

I hypothesize that this "reality" is a simulation of sorts, but what are we simulating? I do not believe this is a simulation of another 3 Dimensional existence. That is to say, I do not believe there is a 3D place this realm has been modeled after. It is not like when Neo is taken out of The Matrix only to find he is in another 3D form. I think when we exit this 3D experience we return to our true source, which is energy or light. Simulcra is much more accurate than simulation.

This reminds me of The Gnostic text, "On the Origin of the World", which crudely summarized, states that we are but a facsimile of a facsimile of a facsimile of a facsimile..... Each copy of a copy degrades more and more, and we are very far removed from the Original, The Source.

I'm also reminded of Nietzsche's, "Twilight of the Idols", which suggests most philosophers rely too heavily on language and reason, and ultimately arrive at a distorted copy of reality. Which is what we do when we refer to this realm as a simulation.

On a side note, when at the end of the 3rd "Matrix" film, Neo discovers he has powers outside of "The Matrix", which leads me to think he never really left the matrix at all.

I'll try to check out that post you mentioned when I get home. I think you would really appreciate the book.
I have tried to convince others to read it but I guess they are not interested but I recognize a lot of your thought patterns in myself.
The book is actually shown in the Matrix, but I personally feel the movie took the concepts in a misleading direction. Let me know if you read it, though, and what you think of it.

I have heard a similar theory before. Essentially Zion is a false awakening of sorts and Morpheus is an Agent without knowing it. The Matrix is interesting but, personally, I prefer They Live

 

[pushamaku]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: pushamaku
Date: 2018-11-01 04:46:59
Reaction Score: 2

Now physicists are already looking for an alterantive to dark matter, and they will find it, because in physics you can find things by simply inventing them in your mind.

Well said, and I love Miles Mathis' take on this in his critique of String Theory.

Let me now show you a few examples of the absurdities that the standard model teaches. I do this to prove that by accepting these absurdities, it encourages a proliferation of more such absurdities. It teaches the graduate students, by example, that mathematical fuzziness pays and that conceptual rigor does not. Let us start with the "messenger particle," a relatively new beast in the physical zoo. The messenger particle is a photon that tells another particle whether it should move away or move near. The messenger particle was invented to solve the problem of attraction. At some point it became clear to physicists that attraction couldn't logically be explained by a trading of particles. Their old blankets over this problem had begin to wear thin, so they needed a new concept. Enter the messenger particle. With the messenger particle, we no longer have to be concerned with explaining physical interactions mechanically. We don't even have to imagine that movement away in a field is caused by bombardment, which was such a simple concept. No, we can now explain both movement away in a field and movement toward in field as due to information in a messenger particle. This simultaneously explains both positive charge and negative charge. How easy: the photon just tells the particle what to do. Why did we not think of that before?
Once you accept that quantum particles are on speaking terms, physics is so much tidier. There is no end to what we can explain this way. We can have the particles trading recipes, emailing eachother, SMSing, watching TV. It is a theoretical goldmine.
Gluons, weak-gauge bosons, and gravitons are also messenger particles of their various forces. The problem of attraction is solved once and for all, for all possible fields. Gravity is not curved space or a physical force. It is a commandment.

The next absurdity is one of Feynman's famous absurdities. This one concerns letting an electron going through the two-slit experiment take all possible (infinite in number) paths simultaneously and then summing over these paths to find the wave function. Any idiot can see that this is just a mathematical consideration and has no physical implications, but Feynman was a special kind of idiot. He insisted for some reason that the math was the physics, and all the special idiots since then have taken his word for it. They love to quote or paraphrase him, as Greene does, "You must allow nature to dictate what is and what is not sensible." Which means, "You must allow me (Feynman) to dictate what is and what is not sensible. I am smarter than you are and if you don't allow me to dictate to you, I will browbeat you mercilessly." Even now that Feynman is long in the grave and incapable of personally browbeating anyone, the special idiots still quote and paraphrase and bow to his authority. Feynman himself was bowing to the authority of Heisenberg and Bohr, who first decided, by fiat, that the math of quantum mechanics was the physics. Or perhaps he was only learning from their example. Counterintuitive fiats had made them famous with all the toadies, why not make a few of his own counterintuitive fiats and toadies?
Greene tells us outright: "Quantum mechanics requires that you hold such pedestrian complaints [about things making sense] in abeyance." What could be more convenient for a scientist? He is now in the position of a priest. The priests have always said the same thing to non-believers. "You must not expect it to make sense. You must have faith. Trust the Lord." Trust Feynman. He is smarter than you and understands what you should believe. He has filled the blackboards with Hamiltonians and has cracked safes. He has earned the right to say ridiculous things, like the Dalai Lama or the Buddha or the President.
This is the most important thing that string theorists have learned from quantum mechanics: you do not have to make sense anymore. Any contradiction can be relabeled a paradox, any infinity can be relabeled an axiom, any absurdity can be given to Nature herself, who is an absurd creature, in love with illogic and caprice.

More insights on maths at milesmathis.com.

Edit just noticed you mentioned Mathis in your later post. Personally I believe he's a gatekeeper/disinfo agent, but all of these people have to mix in a lot of truth as well. See this reddit comment on him.

 

[Magnus]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnus
Date: 2018-11-01 05:13:32
Reaction Score: 1

I mean I feel your sentiments, but I can't see how adding evidence to or against your belief could be bad for you. Even if you load the video and click through a few times just to see the different angles, you might see something that stimulates your mind and opinion- same goes with research into anything. If you only research or read publications that might agree with you, you're depriving yourself of at least half the information already. Self censorship will only ultimately be a detriment to you. People are a lot more open-minded here, and that's because, as far as I can tell, many want to read information potentially leading to the truth- despite what flavor it is or what camp it might land you in.



This is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more you know about the particle's momentum, the less you know where the f**k it actually is and vice versa. All of these neat little quantum properties really get my mind going. It's interesting you bring this up, just the other day I was thinking how where modern science fails is measurement. Math is beautiful and hard to disprove as its pure logic. In my opinion, math has spiraled so far away from experimental physics its insane- and I think that's one of the tools those in control use to hold back progress. Think of String Theory, the scientists that actually understand and can perform the math required to even barely explain String Theory can be counted on 2 hands- and one of the biggest reasons String Theory isn't widely accepted is because of this inconsistency between the complexity of the math, and our ability to perform experiments to empirically prove our math.

I forget which post I saw the comment on, but someone mentioned how fundamental particles are largely comprised of empty space- they used electrons for example. To the point that 99.999999999999999999999% of all reality you are even seeing is actually empty space. Personally, I am of the opinion the space is not empty, we just have no idea what we are trying to measure in there and its easiest to just say "well its clearly empty, nothing to see here." Sorry to further the slightly off-topicness.

Onto the actual video, I really find it interesting with the framing of the mountain range backdrop parts. There is a GREAT video on the moon landings and the Hollywood expertise that went into them. Kubrick's Odyssey by Jay Weider. I had trouble finding the actual movie on YT, there are videos about the movie I haven't watched over, I actually torrented the movie a year ago or so. If you can get your hands on it, or pay YT $2.99 to watch it, I swear its worth your time. I found it so compelling because its hardly a debate on the science of getting to the moon, see Dave McGowan for my fav debunking of that, its more about the filming techniques used. He does a great job of showing the example, going over the filming technique, then shows the clip again. One of those once you see it you can't unsee it type things. There's also some interesting tidbits on the symbolism Kubrick put in the movie in general.

I think the reason people are still so easy to believe the moon landings is they don't really have a reason not to. They've been told that's how it was all their lives, many older folks still have the memory of seeing it on TV burned in their minds as well. Couple that with how much information about space is simply out there, GPS, awesome telescope photos like Kepler, "rovers". Another huge factor of confusion that the moon landing rests on is again the math. We have the ISS, astronauts, GPS, photo satellites that can take 4k pictures of your fingernail. Leaving the atmosphere and coming back is a regular thing- clearly a lot of the math has been figured out. Because of this, everyone can assume 1969 was when we really got a handle on this. This is where common knowledge stops. I'd say 99% of the population don't know NASA "lost" all evidence of their calculations and plans for the Apollo missions. 99% of the population don't know or have forgotten the LCROSS experiment where we fired a giant-ass bomb at the moon expecting it to cause a HUGE plume see-able from earth but when it hit actually did exactly nothing.

Personally, I am of the opinion we didn't go to the moon in 1969, at least for all to see like we are told to believe. Technology today works so well because of our understanding of mathematics, it all really comes down to that. Math is logic as a language, and its rare that you have to "go back to the start" with math because of this foundation- all you can really do is admit your current understanding of math is not complete. The fact we are communicating with each over with computers over the internet is further proof of math's power. The most-wise ancients all strongly advocated that geometry is a fundamental key to understanding the worlds around you. Because of all this I can't help but believe in a circular rock earth and the heavenly bodies we've measured in the sky from time immemorial. Can I prove they are actually heavenly bodies and not lights fixed to a firmament? No, but things like our knowledge of spectrography and the RIDICULOUSLY tedious and precise methods employed in astrophysical calculations (that work) lead me to believe otherwise. Again, this is all based on what the public knows, who knows if there are furthered sciences out there TPB could fake spectrography with etc.

Back to the string theory experimentation, who's to say if these handful of physicists that understand it or other leading researchers in other fields are not making simple little changes (not backed by math or logic) to their theories the same way monks played with their manuscripts? How many people are actually able to fact check the math these theoretical physicists that ultimately can say whatever they want, as long as we don't have the means to experiment it out? After you leave math behind, or nobody is "smart" / allowed enough to check it, science becomes religion and you can do things like the Apollo missions. I firmly believe this is why math and science are so mistreated by the education system these days. Type your shit into the calculator it will tell you the answer for you, google the fact you're researching and some other guy can tell you why its true. A firm foundation in math and true empirical scientific philosophy will make you less easily fooled in general- of course TPTB would slowly steer our information age society away from it.

Didnt watch the video, nor read past your first few sentences.

I posted earlier I dont want to give any energy to something I already know is a lie. And you encourage me to watch the vid *a few times* and see different angles.

Why TF are you encouraging someone to waste their time against their own stated wishes?

Honestly

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Casimir
Date: 2018-11-01 13:06:51
Reaction Score: 6

Didnt watch the video, nor read past your first few sentences.

I posted earlier I dont want to give any energy to something I already know is a lie. And you encourage me to watch the vid *a few times* and see different angles.

Why TF are you encouraging someone to waste their time against their own stated wishes?

Honestly

Honestly, nobody appreciates your hostility. If you're not interested in the thread, don't read it. Sorry for encouraging you to think/waste your time/whatever they call it nowadays. Again, if you don't want to be here, don't- comments like the one's you've posted are merely cries for attention and in no way contribute.

Thanks

 

[Magnus]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnus
Date: 2018-11-01 14:07:15
Reaction Score: 0

Honestly, nobody appreciates your hostility. If you're not interested in the thread, don't read it. Sorry for encouraging you to think/waste your time/whatever they call it nowadays. Again, if you don't want to be here, don't- comments like the one's you've posted are merely cries for attention and in no way contribute.

Thanks

Please dont assume to speak for everyone. Speak and think for yourself.

And check out my contributions. I have uploaded unique images of starforts I took from India.

Thanks

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Casimir
Date: 2018-11-01 14:16:24
Reaction Score: 2

Please dont assume to speak for everyone. Speak and think for yourself.

And check out my contributions. I have uploaded unique images of starforts I took from India.

Thanks

I have seen your contributions on other threads, I specifically mean the non-contributions you've posted to troll and slide this thread. Anyways, with that cleared up- this completely unnecessary back and forth can be over. Thanks.

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-11-01 14:25:48
Reaction Score: 1

Please dont assume to speak for everyone. Speak and think for yourself.

Nah, Casimir most certainly speaks for all of us. There is no need to be so cranky. You are being kinda weird yelling at us because you got asked to watch a video. Lol. It's weird, knock it off

And check out my contributions. I have uploaded unique images of starforts I took from India.

Those were great and I have always enjoyed your input, which makes this kinda awkward you being such a curmudgeon and all.