When basic science goes topsy-turvy

I have nothing against homeopath. I haven’t researched it enough to form an opinion on the subject. So that is not why I am pulling up this video.

It is because it is an excellent example of basic science, basic arithmetic and basic logic failing on so many levels. Yet the message is presented in a way that it actually convinces people. It resembles many presentations I have attended in Scientology where concepts are convincingly presented to people that are already indoctrinated to swallow the bait – hook, line and sinker.

It’s called confirmation bias, “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

When you are sold on one almost true concept, the next slightly less true concept becomes easier to swallow. And down a slippery slope one goes until one are ready to accept that 1=0 like in this video:

Just for fun, how many errors can you find in this video?

43 thoughts on “When basic science goes topsy-turvy

  1. “When you are sold on one almost true concept, the next slightly less true concept becomes easier to swallow.” The bane of noise and volume of marketing messages. Whether for a cult or to promote a fixed idea.

    This video is this persons interpretation of Homeopathy. If a person lines up on one side or the other, for or against, then all information will be pulled in to support the preconceived idea. Sometimes the fact supports both sides and neither side will acknowledge it allows applies to the other.

    The idea of like heals like. Both sides actually claim this high ground. Allopathic medicine trying to stimulate an immune response to justify vaccinations. Homeopathic medicine trying to stimulate an increased immune response to heal that which is causing the symptom. Neither side will accept that this principles applies to both and is more interested usually in being right in their use of this principle and the other method being wrong.

    I watched the video. What I saw was how that person has decided to adopt a rationale for her belief. I have seen great response from homeopathy. I would also admit that most “homeopathic” remedies available over the counter in the US do not work as those produced by German pharmaceutical companies do. A small substance and shaking the mixture is not what makes an effective remedy.

    A truth ignored by this presentation is that in the entire universe IF we accept that there is only this small quantity of matter then the greatest ingredient is not energy. It is SPACE. Whether that space is a nothingness or merely a place holder for something unknown I don’t know. What I do know, from a science background, is that there is almost NO study of this major ingredient we refer to as space.

    1. What would be incredible interesting would be to study what lies within that “empty” space that we can’t “see” neither measure.

      1. TC – That could possibly be a study into the greatest mystery of the universe. Who knows? I do know everything I have studied is laid out and predicated upon explaining with mass and energy to “explain” the void. From a purely scientific study how do we explain how one type of music sings to me and another sings to another. If we were just mass and energy would we have such variance.

        Another comment on the original homeopathy idea. Modern medicine and biology is still coming to an understanding of epigenetics. Those outside, external, influence that either turn on or turn off genetic triggers and functions within individual cells and groups of cells acting in a coordinated fashion. I believe the future will find both pro and con factors for homeopathy and allopathy. We will find our understanding quite different as the facts unfold before us.

        1. Still Awakening: “From a purely scientific study how do we explain how one type of music sings to me and another sings to another. If we were just mass and energy would we have such variance.”

          I think there may be a scientific answer to the question “If we were just mass and energy would we have such variance.” The video below is a talk by Edgar Mitchell, one of the astronauts who went to the moon and had a peak mystical experience in outer space. He then dedicated his life to finding an understanding of what had occurred.

          You mentioned epigenetics – that is explained by the scientific theory in this video, as is paranormal or psi phenomena. And according to Mitchell, this theory now has scientific evidence that supports it. It seems to support homeopathy too.

          1. I will comment further later today. I am very familiar with the Institute of Noetic Sciences having been following them for over 5 years. This discussion is related to basic science and the psi phenomena is beyond that. Epigenetics needs no more than basic science. It is a biological fact and they have measured genetic switch on/off for many things from toxic molecules, metals, altered food proteins, etc. We need no further input from the consciousness side to understand basic sciences. If the advanced idea is valid it will also be valid at a basic science level.

            1. “Epigenetics needs no more than basic science.”

              Per my understanding of Dr. Mitchell’s talk, psi phenomena may also need no more than basic science.

              Here’s a much shorter talk describing Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, which I think is a similar phenomenon to epigenetics. And according to Mitchell in the video above, it is non-local and is explained by the new scientific theory he describes:

        2. marildi – This isn’t to be continued beyond this comment here as is off topic. I am very familiar with Dr. Edgard Mitchel (as in PhD Doctor and recently passed on, RIP) and the video that follows is pertinent as to his driving purpose later in life. But my comment of epigenetics has nothing to do with metaphysical. I am talking about human bodies and the epigenetic affects that turn on and turn off genetic pre-programmed commands or sequences of action. Cell apoptosis, or instructed cell death, would be a good example. If a chemical exposure shut off this instruct at a cellular level then a cancer cell does not die. It continues to divide and proliferate and may kill the body. I am talking about chemicals, metals, biological life waste products, etc. The original post is about a presentation of homeopathy which is pathetically described as something other than what homeopathy in regards to human health is. You have gone off on a tangent of “potential” psy or metaphysical adjuncts to epigenetics. Do they exist? Possibly or probably. Is this part of this discussion. No

          1. If you’re familiar with Dean Radin (also from IONS, Senior Scientist there), you may know of his writings and talks about “scientific taboos” – one of which happens to be homeopathy. And even though that video presentation of homeopathy was indeed pathetic, the “scientist” who arrogantly mocked it in the other video was just as pathetic in terms of his closed mind and essentially religious belief in the dogma of orthodox science. These are not attributes of a true scientist, and I think this is pertinent to the blog post in that it considers the other side of the coin. The same goes for the subject of epigenetics. But do as you wish if you don’t agree that it’s on topic.

            Btw, your understanding of epigenetics seems to be the older, deterministic theory, whereas there is now evidence that the subject does have something to do with the metaphysical – and this too has a bearing on both the blog post video and the criticism of it on the other video. Here’s an excerpt from an article regarding the recent research on epigenetics vs. the deterministic model:

            Science has shattered the Central Dogma of molecular biology, proving that determinism—the belief that your genes control your health—is false. You actually have a tremendous amount of control over how your genetic traits are expressed, by changing your thoughts and altering your diet and your environment. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/11/epigenetic-vs-determinism.aspx

            1. marildi – To start, please don’t debase yourself to imply my understanding of epigenetics. This happens to be what I do daily. I never said there was no spiritual, or in the common terms, psycho-social aspect to epigenetics. This discussion was regarding this post on homeopathy which is dealing with the health of a physical body. The only correlation medical concepts with homeopathy and the psycho-social is covered in the field of anthroposophic medicine. The homeopathic formulations for anthroposophic medicine include the adjunct of addressing spiritual, mental and physical handlings. From a homeopathic viewpoint they have different frequencies in the remedies for each of these three areas. I have three personal friends, all MD’s, who are very competent in this field and practice anthroposophic medicine daily in their practices. Two graduated from the University of Chicago School Of Medicine and one is a German trained MD from Munich. I am a regular member of forums on this subject so I am fully aware of more than the physical.

              For the purpose of this post, and what this video speaker purports to be knowledgable of, my statements on epigenitics stand on their own. Nothing outdated or old in my comment. If you have a metal or chemical toxicity causing a medical condition via epigenetics in February 2016 then my data is valid. My advanced degree is in human biology and human health. I live and work in this field daily. I appreciate your input but please do not imply somehow that I do now understand that which I posted.

              I have never stated I agree with, or follow, the central dogma of molecular biology. I would also wish you would consider that in the field of “biology” a dogma may be valid, but in the field of “biological life” there may be other views. Not negating each other as long as we view from the viewpoint of that subject.

              PS: Mercola is a not a correct source for this discussion. I follow his newsletter, on a regular basis, but that does not make it a “source” for scientific knowledge. He is very good at what he does. He also has a business selling products and services from his website and keeping people interested.

              Let us agree that I appreciate your input but that does not make your comments any more or less valid. You may know more specifics regarding scn but for other subjects please just think with what others say as possibly new data and not what you think. You will expand your knowledge and awareness more that way, in my personal opinion. And, yes, my personal opinion may not be correct and have errors and I am willing to live my life with that knowledge.

            2. Still Awakening, sorry for the misunderstanding. I did say that your understanding of epigenetics “SEEMS to be the older, deterministic theory.” That was based on what you said here:

              “But my comment of epigenetics has nothing to do with metaphysical. I am talking about human bodies and the epigenetic affects that turn on and turn off genetic pre-programmed commands or sequences of action.”

              It seemed that you were only validating what is “pre-programmed,” but I can see that it doesn’t have to be interpreted that way. However, next time a lower ethics gradient would be sufficient and appreciated. 😉

              Thanks for telling me about your background. Very interesting!

            3. marildi – Understood. As something to think about please consider the following. Part of epigenetic changes is always pre programmed. The “genetic” component is a code much as code is part of a computer program. The “epi” component is external to this code. For homeopathy as the original video is discussing the external component is the energetic component of the homeopathic remedy. There is, and can always be, an external factor of consciousness. That is why I stated in different ways for the purpose of this discussion those are not factors. Otherwise we only see or think of homeopathic outcomes as a placebo affect. It exists but you can’t “prove” it always. I think you understand me more now. 🙂

            4. “Part of epigenetic changes is always pre-programmed.”

              Absolutely. The Mercola quote I posted indicated that too. He said:

              “You actually have a tremendous amount of control over how your genetic traits are expressed, by changing your thoughts and altering your diet and your environment.”

              As I’m sure you would agree, his implication was that genetic traits do indeed exist, including pre-programmed responses to such things as diet and other external factors, in the environment.

              You also wrote: “There is, and can always be, an external factor of consciousness. That is why I stated in different ways for the purpose of this discussion those are not factors. Otherwise we only see or think of homeopathic outcomes as a placebo affect. It exists but you can’t ‘prove’ it always. I think you understand me more now.”

              Right you are about the so-called “placebo effect” not being provable, and that was the other side of the coin that I was looking at – with respect to “science” simply naming the responses they can’t explain but generally refusing to look at the scientific evidence of non-physical phenomena. Dean Radin’s work has produced that, and I think Edgar Mitchell made a good case in the video I posted for there being evidence of much more. I think you would find it compelling.

              And yes, I think I understand you much better. Thanks for the clarifications. 🙂

    2. Hi Still Awakening –

      I understand and agree with you that both homeopathy and allopathic remedies such as vaccinations seek to get the body’s immune system to work against disease. I think this is probably the most important part of any treatment, and any medical research in this area on exactly how this works for any treatment would be invaluable.

      But did you notice the factual errors this person used in her rationale to describe how homeopathy works? If we examine her reasoning, we see a bewildering number of very basic errors, and leaps of logic.

      How can so many factual errors and leaps of logic in someones reasoning possibly lead to correct conclusions?

      Alanzo

      1. Alanzo – I don’t think I ever hinted she lead to correct conclusions. Please see my other post on this subject where I actually write out all the BS she said. I was simply commenting on homeopathy and not relating this to her presentation (which isn’t really even about true homeopathy – not that I have known it to be all a complete true idea either.)

        You and I would probably totally agree that the key to the health of human bodies is the immune system response. Adequate to the circumstance or deficient in capability is the determining factor to life and death in the final showdown.

        1. Sorry I did not see your other response before I asked you that question.

          “You and I would probably totally agree that the key to the health of human bodies is the immune system response.”

          Yes. And the Placebo Effect is real. It works to cure people every day of every possible disease and unwanted condition. If we knew the mechanism behind that, then we could probably save the world.

          Alanzo

          1. “It works to cure people every day of every possible disease and unwanted condition. If we knew the mechanism behind that, then we could probably save the world.”

            It doesn’t seem to be one for one. It seems to me rather that placebo cures every possible nocebo effect. Do we know of an example where placebo cures an organic or genetic ill? Some fact not anecdotal?

  2. Well, the first error would be the “The ‘Mass’ part can be ‘crossed’ out” thing from the E = mc² formula. That would be a basic algebraic error , as one can’t just “cross” anything out of nowhere. And if one says that the “Mass” tends to zero, and that it becomes “zero” indeed , then one is saying E = (0) C² = 0 energy. “You take ‘Mass’ out of the equation as it almost ‘represent’ zero, and all we are left with is ‘Light’, and we are ‘light receptors’ that ‘vibrates’ at a mombo-jumbo frequency………” . My God, Euclid must be twisting in his grave.

    And then, “Diseases are ‘energetic manifestations’, and we take these ‘energetic’ substances and crush them together to form ‘energetic liquids’, which ‘transfers’ that energy to the ‘energetic disease’ and the dog fought with the cat, and the, blah, blah, blah, BIG yawn”.

    By the way E = mc² is meaningless as a ‘formula’. It it just a description of the relation between matter and energy, in that even a tiny bit of mass has inherently within it (due to the strong nuclear force) a TON of energy ready to be released (Atom bomb ? ). That’s all it says. That any one mass has a lot of energy within it , which is true.

    But you would be surprised , Geir , at how frequently this happens at allegedly “professional” academic researches as such, and even with many widely accepted scientific principles , that were based on VERY faulty “experiments” , and even in silly “thought” experiments.

  3. Geir – I would say when basic science is cherry picked and not viewed in the “whole.” Then we get the apparency it has gone topsy turvy. Same end result – the promulgation of ignorance and dogma. 🙂

  4. This question is for Marildi:

    You haven’t commented on the logical and factual flaws in the talk that Geir posted.

    Do you recognize any of those flaws?

    And if so, what can we say about her conclusions if her reasoning is so flawed?

    Alanzo

    1. I go along with what Still Awakening had to say and have nothing further to add. Do you?

    1. The thing is, Geir, that excepting the E = mc² , all else were assumptions to support the theory. So your question should be, “Has anyone found an ACTUAL fact in her speech ?

        1. Geir : “Also has anyone found an actual fact in Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health?”

          I began as a Book one auditor in the very early ’80s. I’ve read that book cover to cover at least 10x , and accumulated more than 6-7k of Bk-1 delivered hours , plus I personally trained dozens of BK-1 auditors. I only say this , to indicate that my reality with the workability or lack thereof of DMSMH is extremely high.

          Of ALL Scn , Bk-1 is the most workable and easy to do procedure that I have found so far. If LRH would just have stopped after DMSMH – eliminating from it the alleged capabilities of a “Clear” which wasn’t any actual “fact” back then , neither today – he would have been considered today as a genius. I am quite aware , of course , that DMSMH borrowed from many other practices and subjects like “The New Thought” movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s , Korzybski’s General Semantics , Freud’s Psychoanalysis , etc. With that clarification in mind , I do believe that there are many facts within DMSMH.

          The concept of the Engram , for example as a mental picture with parts which are not fully known to the individual , which can unwittingly and unwillingly react upon him and alter his health , behavior and attitudes. That is as real to me as a concrete wall , as I SAW that mechanism manifest itself in my thousand of hours of experience. I SAW the pain and all sensations felt in a past go in full restimulation in people who had not even read the book. And I saw how all of that got blown away with a resulting stable resurgence in the individual. I was the witness of that in hundreds of instances. The Engram , or whatever the hell one care to call it IS a fact.

          The concept of a “Reacting Mind” , call it “The Subconscious” if one care , that can react upon the individual altering his attitudes , emotions , behavior , and health , is a fact to me as well. I lived it with hundreds of patients.

          The concept of the “Secondary” and its incredible effects , are also a fact , and so it is the incredible resurgences that comes about by running them out.

          The phenomena that this Reactive Mind or Subconscious is apparently able to record everything in very specific details like a computer file , which can be accessed by the individual seems like a fact to me. I was able to reconstruct for the PCs incidents like surgeries , Birth , etc in hundreds of instances.

          Things like “Bouncers” ,”Denyers” , and those “Action Phrases” happens in real auditing as DMSMH describes them. The “Somatic Strip” follows the practitioner’s command as it is described in the manual. It always did with me. The technique of “Repetitive Phrase” always worked like magic for my PCs.

          The concept of “Control Phrases” also called “Demon Circuits” is also a reality I was a witness of.

          I produced what can only be called ‘Miracles” with book one. So impressive , that I am afraid I would be looked upon as a “fanatic” if I describe them here publicly as they were THAT unbelievable.

          As much as I criticize Scn and LRH , I am afraid that I can’t with this specific subject. That would be intellectually dishonest for me to do. From my perspective , the things that LRH did wrong at DMSMH were :

          1. To exaggerate a LOT the alleged capabilities of the “Clear”.

          2. To allege that he had brought about many of them. He DIDN’T. There is ABSOLUTELY no records of it at all.

          3. To think that the ONLY aberrative thing is what was done to the individual. The fact is just the opposite ; and I am not saying it just because LRH later on changed his mind about it. I am saying it because it has been my own personal experience that it is that way.

          1. thetaclear: “I SAW the pain and all sensations felt in a past go in full restimulation in people who had not even read the book. And I saw how all of that got blown away with a resulting stable resurgence in the individual.”

            Excellent comment. And I will add that it’s a good example of why I come back to what I KNOW, regardless of how some piece of tech is construed by those who either don’t know or have some biased reason not to.

            Excellent post otherwise too.

            1. Marildi : “Excellent comment. And I will add that it’s a good example of why I come back to what I KNOW, regardless of how some piece of tech is construed by those who either don’t know or have some biased reason not to.”

              Peter : Thanks ; and yes, it all comes down to “Knowing it works for you” by direct personal experience. Wins can’t really be “debated” ; one either had them or not. It is all a personal experience, and a subjective issue.

              As I had mentioned many times at many forums , Scn is workable at many levels, and at so many different situations. I have also said many times , that I believe that Scientology’s tech is workable enough in about 80-85% of its procedures. That’s why I’ve never stopped using it daily in my life , even if I no longer call myself a Scientologist.

              After many years of responsible research , and a full study and application of the Tech , I was able to filter out the constructive parts from the destructive ones, the hype from the ACTUAL results to be gotten , the universal principles from the mere fixed ideas and cultisms. The end result was a very workable set of principles and procedures I use in a daily basis to improve my conditions and that of others ; which after all, that’s what an applied philosophy should be for : to change conditions in life.

              If I were to write an essay about the workable parts of Scn that I have personally been a witness of through my OWN application in myself and in others, it would probably be 20 pages long.

              I was never against Scn as a subject itself ; but only against its destructive parts, that even though are not that many as a percentage of the whole of the subject ; it is enough to create robots to authoritarianisms and strict dogmas , which then result in Human Right abuses.

              Scn has helped me to actually save many lives , including my own. Believe me , I use it every day. I am a VERY strange critic, Marildi. A dichotomy all in itself.

              Marildi : “Excellent post otherwise too.”

              Thanks! 🙂

            2. Peter: “…it all comes down to ‘Knowing it works for you’ by direct personal experience. Wins can’t really be ‘debated’; one either had them or not. It is all a personal experience, and a subjective issue.”

              I wouldn’t say that it ALL comes down to “knowing it works for YOU.” As you clearly described, it’s also a matter of knowing it works for others – based on seeing evidence of it with your own eyes. This includes not only subjective but physical evidence you’ve witnessed, such as your example of pcs not knowing any of the theory of the reactive mind yet demonstrate it to the letter. (I’ve witnessed that too.) And at that point, it starts to move into the realm of the objective and is not just “a subjective issue.”

            3. Yeah , you are totally right about that. My certainty on the workability of Scn is perhaps 80% application on others, and 20% application in myself. When I said “subjective” I meant that there are some wins that just can’t be “proved” , like “Feeling more happy” , or “Feeling more in PT” , or “Having more interest for things” , etc. But for me as an individual , Scn is a VERY objective thing as real as a brick wall.

            4. Totally got you. I had a very similar experience to yours.

              I’m about to go out. Catch y’all later. 🙂

            5. p.s. My flow 2 experience was mainly on word clearing and FDS’ing – and LRH stated that word clearing rivals auditing for gains (as you know).

              Later ‘gater.

            6. “p.s. My flow 2 experience was mainly on word clearing and FDS’ing – and LRH stated that word clearing rivals auditing for gains (as you know).

              Later ‘gater.”

              Yes , indeed ! ; I totally agree.

    2. Geir – How is this? I didn’t count them but basically most of what she verbally stated. Sorry it is long.

      Dr. Werner is actually an optometrist. She is not a PhD doctor, nor any of the three professional degrees that make her a primary care physician. She exams eyes and fits glasses as well as a few other things.

      In the beginning she discusses that water is H2O and light is energy. The truth is that light is a “form” form of energy. She then collapses mass into volume. States the size of a bowling ball and then places her fingers and hands into half spheres with her fingers almost touching. A bowling ball would be bigger. She then says mass is so infinitesimal that it we can almost cross out mass from the formula E + MC squared. She then states that the formula (with mass crossed out) ends up being energy equals the speed of light

      The speed of light and the speed of light squared are not equal by a large amount. If her idea was true then we can summarize it as follows.
      In my example the speed of light is 1,000,000. Mass is 2. So total money (E) is equal to 1,000,000 squared (1,000,000,000,000) x 2 for a total of 2,000,000,000,000. But as 2 is so infinitesimal that we can cancel it out. Total money (E) is equal to 1,000,000.

      Nobody would agree that 1,000,000 dollars is equal to 2,000,000,000,000 dollars.

      She then jumps from high school level science to the stated fact that “god” sends another Einstein call Stephen Hawkings. He gave us (rather than correctly stated that he formulated) string theory, where other energy particles work by vibration. So now we have e=mc squared but mass is still crossed out and the strings vibrate. Then she discussed our body is made of cell membranes, cytoplasm, etc but the mass is not much the the cells have tiny pieces of energy called electrons, protons, and neutrons. (these are actually particles so would not exist it we
      can celled out the mass.) Now she states we are just energy.

      Per her in physics energy can not be created or destroyed. What we do is transform it from one state to another. Truth here is we change or transfer energy to another form of energy and not to another “state.” A state of something is not the same as a form of energy. H2O is water. It may be in the solid state (ice), liquid state (what we drink) and the gaseous state (steam.) The inherent energy as a measurement to do work may be different in each state but we have not converted this energy to another form of energy. If we made the water hydro power to generate electrical energy, or the steam of water to power a piston (mechanical energy) then we have changed the energy from one form to another but never changed the “state” of energy.

      She continues telling us we they do with homeopathy …. is make an energetic substance to be used when we choose to use it. She then states that a disease process is an energetic change. The disease “process” is the sequence of steps that a disease manifests as. If you have severe diarrhea then you are losing body fluids. If unhandled you will continue to lose fluids until you reach a point where the body is so dehydrated that it succumbs. There was no energetic change.

      (If anything there may have been an energetic change of the affected tissue/organ/person either before, during or after the disease process but she made the incomplete or inaccurate statement that the disease process IS an energetic change.)

      She then wants to find the homeopathic remedy that matches your state for the purpose of returning you to an earlier healthy state. True homeopathy will diagnose by miasmas and give the appropriate remedy for that miasma and the body will self correct. This is not the same thing and it is obvious she has never studied and does not practice true classical homeopathy.

      She then says every one of us vibrates with either a plant, a mineral or an animal. Whether that is true or not I do not know. What I do know is that the vibrational composite of each organ system, each meridian system and each person is unique and always changing. It is not constant. Just as within any atom we have a vibration we can measure when we measure the electron. But she has already canceled mass so without using that what is there to vibrate? If there is something there then why would it change vibration? Her example of plant, mineral or animal as a reference would also have been cancelled when she cancelled mass.

      To summarize I found a couple of truth statements. Stephen Hawking’s first name is actually Stephen. (I cannot include her reference to “Einstein” as there is also by that name a person, a theory, a bagel company, etc – so no credit for this as a correct statement.)

      She was correct in that we have light receptors. She only referenced the eyes so I guess the receptors on the skin that cause the creation of vitamin D (which is actually a hormone produced and not a vitamin) within specific cells don’t count. She said the ears are receptors for vibrations when they actually are mere funnels for the sound vibrations. Vibrations can be felt through the body without ears and this is how cochlea implants work. Some animals do not have ears but can “hear.”

      I won’t even give her credit for stating anyone with high school chemistry would understand that H2O is just water. I don’t believe most high school chemistry students would know the difference between deuterium hydrogen ions and regular hydrogen ions. Regular H in H2O is the water we need to drink. Deuterium H in H2O creates what is call heavy water which we can tolerate only about 5% of. Too much and the cells die and thus the organism as a body unit dies.

      From a “science” opinion I give her a flunk. The basic of cancelling mass in the formula and then dropping the speed of light squared to end up with the statement that “energy equals the speed of light.” If that made any sense then the final energy is measured in m/s (meters/second) and that form of energy would not be capable of doing any work and therefore doesn’t fulfill the basic concept of energy.

      So her final formula is the speed of light equals the speed of light and with no mass involved homeopathy returns you to an earlier speed of light state.

      I need another shot of tequila to wash down this bull….. Even after 10 shots of tequila she will not make sense. Maybe she should keep her mouth closed and not display publicly her ignorance.

      1. Good job! Note that she says that she cancels mass because it is so small, but cancelling mass in the equation is saying that Mass=1, not zero. Basically she claims that 1=0.

        Also Hawking (without the ‘s’) did not come up with string theory.

        1. “Good job! Note that she says that she cancels mass because it is so small, but cancelling mass in the equation is saying that Mass=1, not zero. Basically she claims that 1=0.”

          If some quantity tends to zero , as in this case , then Mass =/ 1 (does not equal 1 )

          If Mass is so small as to be negligent ( and more so when dealing with small quantities) , then it tends to zero → = 0

          The E = mc² would become E = (0)c² = 0

          If we use the Calculus limit approach using Weierstrass’s analysis ( or even the Infinitesimal approach) then if Mass tends to zero → 0 , which means that we can “Take ‘m” out of the equation (ignore it even exist) , so we the have

          E = C²

          Which mean that Energy = the Speed of light squared which is a mathematical nonsense.

  5. And now for an Aristotelian Syllogism:

    Premise: All men are tall.
    Premise: David Miscavige is a man.
    Conclusion: David Miscavige is tall.

    That Aristotle sure knew his stuff!

    Alanzo

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s