But the pressure to conform is even greater for scientists.
Yes, the extra training I mentioned.
Not to mention big egos refusing to be wrong
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
What would happen to you if you so much as whisper the words “free energy”?
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).
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)?
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.
The cage is tight and free thinking is not allowed.
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."
I would argue that PhDs in science are the least likely to see through the matrix.
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.
But the pressure to conform is even greater for scientists.
Yes, the extra training I mentioned.
Not to mention big egos refusing to be wrong
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
What would happen to you if you so much as whisper the words “free energy”?
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).
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)?
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.
The cage is tight and free thinking is not allowed.
I suggest it is more like "the cage is huge, and free thinking is strongly encouraged, but the boundaries are hard and fast."
I would argue that PhDs in science are the least likely to see through the matrix.
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.
But the pressure to conform is even greater for scientists.
Yes, the extra training I mentioned.
Not to mention big egos refusing to be wrong
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
What would happen to you if you so much as whisper the words “free energy”?
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).
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).
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)?
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.
The cage is tight and free thinking is not allowed.
I suggest it is more like "the cage is huge, and free thinking is strongly encouraged, but the boundaries are hard and fast."
I would argue that PhDs in science are the least likely to see through the matrix.
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.
But the pressure to conform is even greater for scientists.
Yes, the extra training I mentioned.
Not to mention big egos refusing to be wrong
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
What would happen to you if you so much as whisper the words “free energy”?
Free energy is a completely misused term. I suggest it was either created as a form of control, or exploited as such by some random persons coining of the phrase.
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).
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).
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)?
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.
The cage is tight and free thinking is not allowed.
I suggest it is more like "the cage is huge, and free thinking is strongly encouraged, but the boundaries are hard and fast."
I would argue that PhDs in science are the least likely to see through the matrix.
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.