Thread: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/359533002/im-a-biologist-and-virologist-i-think-i-know-what
I work in a private hospital in europe, I'm rarely in contact with patients and mostly work on sample analysis and data review, I have the equivalent of 2 Phds and an MD in virology, I never worked on cutting edge genetic research but I am very knowledgeable on the subject Basically a host of things that happened in the last 2 years don't make any sense as far disease containment and "normal" medical procedures go, this is not a secret and is not controversial, indeed right now many of the standards and protocols valid up to 2020 are being entirely rewritten, and to say that not everyone is on board is an understatement. I'm being silent personally because I wouldn't even know where to start, but not a single doctor I know thinks that it's all perfectly organic, scientific and genuine. Something very funky is going on relating to vaccinations, hospital protocols regarding respiratory diseases and basic principles of disease control, something extremely coordinated and not "doctor-lead", this is entirely coming down to us and we don't have a choice in the matter, these decisions are made at the administrative level and forced on all of us
The biggest red flag is the change in narrative related to vaccination induced mutation, basically the ability of viruses to evolve when in contact with ever changing antibodies, it's a recognized and fairly logic risk that was completely uncontroversial up to 2 years ago, bringing up this matter now is an immediate risk as the "consensus" now is that it's GOOD for the virus to mutate, for some reason that changes every 2 days
100% vaccination in the population has never been a feasible nor reasonable nor effective means of preventing disease, yet right now this is ignored (it's the crux of the matter), and I think I know why
I've seen too many unreasonable decisions taken and too many changes in protocol that make a mockery of my field, as such I've gotten extremely cynical on this whole matter, so let me state this clearly:
I genuinely believe a group of disgusting people working in the highest insitutions of medicine and the richest pharmaceutical companies are DELIBERATELY trying to prolong covid as much as possible, destroying everyone and everything in their path to achieve this, for money. They basically want to buy new houses and yachts (that's literally it) and have found an exceptional way to do so, while at the same time patting themselves on the back that they're "saving humanity" so they must deserve these riches, that's what they tell themselves so they can sleep peacefully, they think they are great businessmen/philantropists. They are deliberately trying to make covid mutate, they KEEP running experiments on it trying to force a mutation (for research) and I periodically see articles of these animal test subjects suffering "incidents" where they are freed/lost and a risk arises of further mutation, sooner or later this is going to actually happen. These experiments keep going on all the time and not just on covid, gain of function research is EVERYWHERE and nobody seems to have the courage to say "why are we doing this?", you're told this is the frontier of science and doubting it makes you a target for sticking your nose in a trillion dollar industry and ruin their little scheme. Most politicians from most countries in the world have open ties to this industry, and the arrangements and contracts between governments and vaccine manifacturers are public, they don't even need to hide.
We had been waiting for a pandemic to come, we were ready and able to contain and resolve it, but AS SOON as covid came all power was removed from the hands of physicians and entirely placed into those of management, they set the new standards and forced everybody to comply, the result is that right now the medical profession is being "purged", look at how many medical licenses were removed in the last 2 years, what's going on is terrifying and disgusting. I wanted to get this off my chest, I don't have a lot of proof for this but now I'm 100% convinced that this is what's going on. Just know that most doctors are simply scared to death of even using their brain, they follow protocol and don't question anything. Among those who think, 99% keep it private. The 1% who speaks out are silently removed and their contribution erased, making their sacrifice pointless. I may be one of these in the near future, I may snap and get my license revoked as well and maybe that would be for the best.
I can agree with what you said here. But the pressure to conform is even greater for scientists. Crackpots don’t get funding, as you say. So, even if it’s true that we have the training to see through the matrix, we have the extra dose of fear of ridicule keeping us from seeing through the matrix. Not to mention big egos refusing to be wrong, multiple years invested in training etc.
What would happen to you if you so much as whisper the words “free energy”? Or if you dare to wonder aloud if gravity can be the correct explanation for what holds the galaxies together (if mass, then 98% of it is missing)? And so on. The cage is tight and free thinking is not allowed. I would argue that PhDs in science are the least likely to see through the matrix. Maybe we only disagree on this one point. Shadilay.
Yes, the extra training I mentioned.
I suggest this is part of the training as well. The Matrix's exploitation of the ego is ubiquitous, and we are all trained to exploit it in each other from cradle to grave. The news pushes it, schools push it, church's push it, all of our social interfaces push it. I used to think it was just a part of "the human condition." Now that I have been investigating the mechanisms of The Matrix (report coming out soon, Part 1 here) I am fairly convinced that the ego problem is by design.
Making that case under the evidence I have found would take a while. Perhaps with more understanding on my part I could make a shorter case. The next part of my paper goes into it a little bit
Free energy is a completely misused term. I suggest it was either created as a form of control, or exploited as such by the PTB when some random person coined the phrase. Most popular works on "Free Energy" are, from what I can tell, works of controlled opposition.
Nothing is "free," or alternatively, everything is "free," depending on how you look at it. For example, using "hot rocks" to heat water, to produce steam, to spin a turbine, to produce electricity is "free energy" by all accounts. All you have to do is pick up the Uranium rich rocks and throw them in some water and you can (potentially) have a "free energy" source for many years (centuries maybe).
(Note: I haven't done the calculations to determine if you can actually boil water by just "picking up rocks" (i.e. without modern refinement techniques) but it was intended to be an illustration, not a construction manual.)
Violations of conservation of energy (within what we define as "the physical universe") may or may not be possible, but the usage of the term "free energy" almost never is intended to mean that. It instead means "extracting energy from a reserve that we don't understand," or that we do understand, but it lasts so long, or is otherwise so complicated that it might as well be labeled as "a perpetual source" in effect (not actuality).
Yes, this one is fairly awesome. In my astrophysics/cosmology/GR courses I was always amazed at the dogma. My protests were common, and the responses were often reasonable (because they used critical thinking, i.e. they thought outside of the dogma), but the canned response was always along the lines of, "this is our best theory, that's why we teach it." Never was there an appreciation to think outside of that "best theory," at least not within the scope of the teaching environment.
It is our teaching, all of which is controlled by the agencies that teach teachers, all of which is owned by the Rockefellers et al, that guides these teaching principles, and discourages critical thinking. As I said, it isn't really until graduate school that we are really encouraged to begin to question the narrative, and then only within the scope of the boundaries defined by the dogma.
I suggest it is more like "the cage is huge, and free thinking is strongly encouraged (in ones area of specialty only), but the boundaries are hard and fast."
Perhaps they are at first the least likely to see the cracks in The Matrix, but I suggest that once someone with that training sees a crack, they are the most capable of destroying the entire structure because they have been trained to do so.
This made me laugh. And I agree.
How about this one: According to General Relativity, there is no gravitational force. Instead (as you know), mass warps space, and a straight line is curved in curved space. If the curvature is great enough, the straight line trajectory bends back on itself and we have an orbit. No force. Everyone agrees this is true and that it has been “proven” (light from stars bending around the sun etc). Why then are physicists still trying to unify the gravitational force with the other forces, a la Grand Unified Theories? I have asked many people this (both astronomers and high energy physicists) and I just get blank looks.
In either case (force or curvature), mass has some very curious properties. No explanation for this. I would look there. What is mass anyway?
When I was in graduate school I wrote a paper for my Gen Rel class. I did not (and do not) think the big bang theory is accurate. I made (what I thought) were carefully reasoned arguments about why the red shift is not a measure of how fast something is moving away (if it were, some quasars would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light-if interested see work of Halton Arp- he got thrown off the telescope for suggesting same) and alternative interpretations of the 3 degree radiation. Pretty paltry evidence for such a big, fully accepted theory. My professor’s only comment was that I am very naive.
Original thinking not allowed. This was not the only such incident and why I disagreed with you initially.
I absolutely agree with you that the ego problem is by design. And that the illuminati are in control of what is taught (in graduate schools too).
That's not exactly true. People do not agree this is "not a force" and not everyone agrees that "GR has been proven." Most people who do work on unification theories are looking past GR, or even suggesting that it is completely wrong (see MOND). There are many such endeavors into gravity. Any quantized gravity theory is by necessity a divorcing of the core tools of GR (the rubber spacetime analogy).
That whole rubber sheet thing is used as a teaching tool. Once you get to the point where you start digging into it, people no longer hold onto that very tightly. Physics is a mathematical model of reality. Those ideas that allow us to explain the math aren't really adhered to in the exploration of alternate theories of gravity.
Really the rubber sheet thing is just another word for aether, although so is "spacetime foam" from QED.
GR is taught the rubbery way, especially at the lower level, but it is recognized by those that work on it that that is only a guide to understanding what the math of the theory suggests, and not an essential axiom, nor a fundamental property of the universe.
Marrying all forces requires that gravity be a force. The idea of the graviton is, as suggested above in a way an automatic divorce from GR. Any mathematical theory that is proposed must be at least as accurate as GR is within the scope that GR is accurate (which is actually only on relatively short scales without the addition of make believe material and/or energies). Thus a proposed graviton (particle of gravity information, i.e. a force carrier) isn't following a rubbery path, but a path that would look rubbery on a non-quantum scale.
What an amazing question. This question has vexxed me my whole life.
Atm I am thinking perhaps a deformation (change in what is experienced externally) of what would be otherwise chaotic restricted (quantized) waveforms of the universe (i.e. an all pervasive energy field) due to a "knotting" (vortex?) of that same... whatever.
I'm not sure if that came out quite right. It makes perfect sense in my head. :)
Because there is no restriction on the speed of "space," there is no restriction on the speed of quasars. There isn't really even a restriction on objects moving close by either. The speed of light is really more of "the speed of information" (AKA causality).
I did my senior paper on warp bubbles. (Solutions to the Alcubierre metric. Yes, I was that kind of student. My teachers either loved me or hated me.) The point is, it is perfectly fine to get from point A to point B faster than something taking the "normal" path, would travel, at least within the math of GR, because "the speed of light" relies on space; so just change space. The accelerated expansion of the universe (which requires "Dark Energy" if one adheres to GR) is just such a changing of space, therefore there is no problem for distant sources to move faster than light. The only problems come (within our theories) when we ask about the information from those sources. It is the information that reaches us that took c time to get here (according to GR).
Yes, this is mostly true, just not 100% true. I had a few teachers that allowed it, and a couple that encouraged it. I think the PTB (and thus our education system in general) discourage it, and then they pluck up those who succeed at it despite their best efforts, and incorporate them into their control mechanisms. I.e. they scoop up the cream that rises to the top.
Of this I have no doubt whatsoever. I saw many discrepancies between what was allowed, and what occurred in the research-space long before I "woke the fuck up." I thought it was ego that drove people away from looking at evidence of fringe science. Now I realize it has always been something much more sinister.
Yes, I know that invoking the graviton as the virtual exchange particle is an automatic divorce from GR. That’s my whole point. But you are the first person I’ve met who admits that straight up. It seems that it’s swept under the rug. Maybe I just hang out in the wrong crowd. I never had a professor who encouraged original thinking.
Seems that most of physics is about: in this situation, we use these equations, but in this other situation we use a different set of equations. There aren’t even attempts to explain why, we just memorize and repeat on exams.
I also am exasperated with inventions like dark energy and dark matter. How much sledge hammering do we need to do before we go back to the drawing board and examine our assumptions? Seems like the whole thing is a house of cards.
Yes, mass has plagued me too. I also grapple with what is a photon. I like your idea. I read a small book some time ago called, “The Vortex Theory of Matter,” which is similar to what I think you’re saying. He had to invoke the aether, which doesn’t bother me.
I think mass is confined energy. The reason the Rayleigh-Jeans theory of blackbody radiation failed at small wavelengths was because he assumed that the box was much larger than the wavelength to simplify the equations. If you do NOT make that assumption, the energy in the box is automatically quantized due to the boundary conditions. If you shrink the box down to the Plank length, you can derive Plank’s constant. I did this calculation once. I got a number very close to Planks constant but I had problems with coordinate systems. I did the Rayleigh calculation in rectangular coordinates for simplicity (who likes Bessel functions?). But later, (for reasons I can’t recall) I had to calculate the energy of a circuit loop with a single electron and I used cylindrical coordinates, again for simplicity. If I was better at vector calculus, I would redo using cylindrical or spherical coordinates for all.
The point is, that mass can be derived from the blackbody radiation calculation if you shrink the cavity size to the smallest possible size. It is automatically quantized and Plank’s constant arises naturally.
But what is the cavity? Must be the aether. If the aether is some dense probability field that contains all possibilities and if some smallest bit of energy rotates in that field, carving out a space (or bubble) in the aether, that’s matter. It literally IS energy. Confined energy. Think cavitation. The funny part is that the matter is nothing (no thing) and the space is everything. Then gravity is due to pressure of the aether. And a photon is unconfined energy traversing the aether.
But everyone thinks I’m crazy.
PS
Well, then space has some very interesting properties also. What the fuck does it even mean to say the universe is expanding anyway? What the hell is expanding? See, they just keep inventing more shit to prop up the theory (in this case the accelerated expansion to save the red shift/big bang).
Why bother saving GR if people don’t believe it anyway?