A scientist holds an apple in his hand. He sees that if he moves his hand away, the apple falls.
He tries with a stone and sees that it falls off, tries with a piece of wood and the same thing....
He tries with a lot of different materials and sees that they always fall.
On the basis of these experiments, he generalizes and says: "The Earth attracts ALL materials". (That's a theory: something a scientist states based on observations).
He has not tested with "all", because it is impossible, he cannot drop all stones from the Earth. He has only done a number of experiments that he thinks are sufficient.
Science (except mathematics, which is why it is called "exact sciences") never says that "such a theory is true", because it is impossible to prove it. It only says "on the basis of the experiments we have done, and on the basis of our knowledge, this theory is true".
But tomorrow it may appear:
An experiment with a stone they hadn't tested and it doesn't fall.
Someone who knows more and takes into account something that had not even occurred to the previous ones that could have a significant influence.
(See explanation below).
Battleground between truth and falsehood with no clear, certain victor.
Except in mathematics, where truth is demonstrated in a sure and irrefutable way, in the rest of sciences it is not so, because they are "experimental" sciences, that is, they discover more or less truth depending on the amount of effort, knowledge and will that is put into the experiments. That is to say, (and it is evident), that we cannot be satisfied with 20 studies that affirm that eating tuna is good for baldness, because we also have to know who has financed those studies, how many bald people have been tested, for how long, etc. An example of the above is the unreliability of medical studies, as Dr. Gérvas denounces.
The sciences that deal with living beings (agriculture, medicine, veterinary medicine, psychology, sociology,...) it is more difficult for them to elaborate true theories because living things are much more complicated than dead things.
Theory: "By eating such and such an acidic thing we make our body more acidic". But it turns out that lemon juice, well acidic, everyone accepts that it does the opposite.
It turns out that soil bacteria are capable of making transmutations of chemical elements (at room temperature), which nobody knows how it happens, but it is well proven to happen (as Kervran demonstrated).
There are people who, inexplicably for science, live without eating, levitate, are able to see with their eyes covered,...
There are devices, which undeniably work, but which official science does not know how, such as this device against dampness in walls.
See also " the wonders that the body is able to do", it is not known how. Or " brain death is not death". Or how the dogs survived, and without apparent brain damage, which Quinton (and other more recent researchers), bled completely to the point of abolishing the pupillary reflex; because for a certain time they were without blood or red blood cells (which theoretically are those that transmit oxygen to the brain).
Theories that refer to material things are more reliable than those that speak of immaterial things.
When Hamer says: "Whenever there is a stain in the brain CT in such a place there is such a disease", it is a theory that can be easily checked whether it is true or not. When he says: "Whenever there is a spot on the brain CT in such and such a place there is such and such an emotional shock", well, it is more difficult to prove. He made some correlations disease / psychic shock on the basis of interviews with his patients. But as a psychologist, he can be mistaken and see something in the patient that is not there, just as the patient is capable of deceiving himself and not seeing something inside himself that is there or seeing something that is not there. It is more difficult to be mistaken or deceived by material things.
Because of the obvious difficulty, it is very difficult for science to find theories that cover events far apart in time. "You have glaucoma because you ate a lot of lettuce as a child" (a very difficult theory to elaborate). When cell phones (cell phones) appeared, it is clear that it was not 50 years ago that they were proving that they were not harmful to people in the long term. They were put on the market as soon as they wanted.
Another difficulty science has in developing true theories is that it is impossible to observe something without more or less altering it. (How hard it is for naturalists to get animals used to their presence, their cameras, etc.) We don't say the same thing in private as when a camera is recording us. (Even material particles are altered when we observe them - Heisenberg's principle).
The scientist, in elaborating a theory, is never sure that he will not forget an important factor. Moreover, in order to test the validity of his theory, he may unintentionally choose certain experiments that will not disprove it, and if he had chosen others, they would disprove it, because perhaps the latter would have more relevance to the factor he forgot. A hypothetical example: a scientist elaborates a theory, hypothesis: "the more milk, the worse the bones". To test it, he follows the lives of 1,000 people and sees that it corroborates his theory. But perhaps this scientist followed the lives of 1,000 women treated with chemotherapy. If he had studied 1,000 people without this treatment, perhaps his theory would not have been corroborated. In addition to the error in choosing the people to study, perhaps (for sure) it is the sugar that people put in the milk that is harmful to the bones. A factor that he has forgotten and that may be more relevant than the one he chose.
As we have seen before, when talking about how science elaborates theories, it is much easier to demonstrate that something is false (it is enough to find an experiment that does not fulfill the theory), than to demonstrate that something is true. The latter can only be done by mathematics. For what was said at the beginning, the rest of sciences only elaborate more or less true theories, never 100% true. In any field, it is much easier to discover a lie than to find the truth (you can catch a liar before you catch a lame man).
Science is unable to tell what is in a place (e.g., in the air of a room). It could tell (with much effort) the composition in basic chemical elements (about 100), but it is impossible to find the compound substances (which are innumerable). This is because there is no "sieve" through which the scientist passes the air and sees "what is left in it". The scientist has to do a different experiment for each type of chemical element or compound substance he wants to detect. Superhuman task. Moreover, he could tell from the sample he has taken, but not from all the air in the room.
It's impossible to say: "this is free of contaminants". You can only say: "this is free of this list of pollutants that we have analyzed". As an example, Dr. Roger Hodkinson on his website says "it is philosophically impossible to prove that 'something' is not present".
It is easier to prove that something "is". It is more difficult to prove that something "is not". "So-and-so has stolen." It is humanly feasible, easy, to find a few facts that prove it. "So-and-so has not stolen." Impossible to prove if we do not have evidence of all the instants of his adult life. "Mobile phones - cell phones - are harmful". It would be possible to prove it. "Mobile phones -cell phones- are not harmful". It is impossible to prove, because there are innumerable ways in which it could happen, and moreover, affecting living beings, of which we know much less than we do about dead materials.
Theories that can neither be proved nor disproved: "Today it is raining because the Martians have opened the faucet", "the rainbow appears because the birds like it". However beautiful they may be, they are not science.
Scientists do not usually fall into this error, but we often do: because we see that one thing happens after another, we believe that the first is the cause of the next. This may or may not be true. But above all, when we deal with living things, there are many chances to be wrong. Scientists make many experiments before affirming anything, we with only one experience sometimes dare to affirm something. For example: "This fertilizer has been good for the plants because they have grown more than last year" (perhaps for other reasons, such as more rain). "This remedy has been good for me" (maybe I have been cured in spite of the remedy, and if I had not taken it I would have been cured sooner).
"This remedy has cured so-and-so, surely it will cure me too". Perhaps we forget (or do not know) many others who "did not do well" and lost precious time or were even harmed, or perhaps were harmed in the longer term and did not observe or relate.
With all the above difficulties that science has in finding the truth, it does not mean that we do not have to look for the truest theory, that we have to accept clearly false theories. Let us seek the truth (only it will set us free, lies enslave us). Let us be careful not to accept false theories that amplify the inevitable difficulties of science to cover its failures, with phrases such as "each case is a world", "we are all different", "nobody is perfect",.... And let's understand the part of truth and lie that phrases like: "scientifically proven", "free of contaminants", "without side effects", "serves as prevention",...
(Speaking of what a physical theory is and can do): "And this is the degree of knowledge of the world that we can expect from physical theories, that which we can expect using the means and capacities available to man; which are reason, logic, mathematics, observation .... We cannot say, therefore, that we are discovering exactly the real world, its functioning, although that is what we intend to do. We can never be sure whether we have really arrived at the full description or not, even in those parts of our knowledge that we believe to be more certain. For we are never quite sure whether our invented characters, the physical concepts whose properties are the physical theories, exactly resemble the real objects we want to describe. That is why many people no longer even ask questions about true reality. It is enough for them to know to what limits a physical theory describes the perceived reality, to what limits they can use a physical theory to predict the behavior of the part of the world they pretend to know with it." ( Source)
In Spain there is a convent of nuns (Poor Clares) who have declared that there is no pope since Pius XII. As a result, their "bishop" has stolen their bank accounts and is trying to expel them from their monasteries. He says they had less than 6,000 euros. (Even more shameful act, for stealing good poor nuns of what little money they had. They are poor: they had to mortgage one of their monasteries). They ask for support (money, materials or diffusion of their situation). Their website is tehagoluz.com and their Instagram account. |
|
As you can see, on 6/14/2024 I've added many articles. |
In Spain you can buy sea water at cheap price at any diet store and some supermarkets. Examples: this diet store, this pharmacy (at higher price), this supermarket. There is also an organic bakery making bread with sea water and sells it too. There are 5 companies bottling and selling sea water because there is a lot of people drinking sea water on a daily basis. If you at your country become a critical mass of people interested in sea water, companies offering it will arise. So, it's in your hands, sharing this information meeting your friends, by phone or social networks, to make the conditions where these companies will appear and make sea water even more available to all the people. |
Work in progress. |
