Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights — Page 21
A very interesting discussion about the dirty realities of how science works:
Over the next 50 years, I foresee science becoming more and more biased by capitalistic forces, skewing our overall worldview to one which favors the corporate collective ego.
The materialist metaphysics that's prevalent in science doesn't just exist because it's reasonable, but because a mystical worldview is fundamentally threatening to business as usual ($$$). The materialist metaphysics helps business earn lots of money, and business re-invests this money back into more materialistic forms of research, creating a vicious circle of materialism, blind to higher consciousness truths.
So on the surface those people who trust in science (including the scientists themselves) end up thinking that materialism is getting more and more validated when in fact that's only happening because non-materialistic findings are being ignored because they don't feed the capitalist agenda. To put it simply, truth is bad for business.
Almost everyone knows that religion gets corrupted by ego because that's old news. What's new news is that science gets corrupted by ego in just the same way. The problem with atheists railing against religion is that it makes them blind to parallel dynamics occurring within science. The devil (ego) doesn't care whether your favorite ideology is religion or science. He will find a way to delude you with it all the same.
Always be skeptical when you hear an ego quoting scientific research as if it were objective fact. People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Jordan Peterson come to mind here. People like that love to weaponize science to advance their own agendas.
P.S. Don't make the mistake that I am an enemy of science. Just the opposite. Every time I speak against science it's because I want science to be pure and unbiased. I speak against its corruptions and lack of self-awareness in the same way that Martin Luther spoke against the Catholic Church. But as always, the problem with calling out corruption inside any institution is that one gets seen as an enemy of that institution. Every institution has a collective ego which stubbornly defends itself — warts, corruption, and all.
Here's a fantastic high level overview of spirituality & human cultural evolution:
The structure of reality in a nutshell:
"Then Moses said to God, 'If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them? God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM.' And he said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
— Exodus 3:13-14
Dragonflies have puzzled me for a long time. You see, they used to have a 2 foot wingspan! (Meganeuradae)
So have pterodactyls. Can you imagine one of these beasts (Quetzalcoatlus) — the size of a giraffe — flying through the air?
And finally we have the walking giants, like the Patagotitan, larger than a blue whale.
How could such large creatures exist given Earth's gravity? And why are there no such large animals at all any more? No mammal, no reptile, no bird, no insect even comes close.
So with that in the back of your mind, now consider this unorthodox idea:
A few more detailed videos if you want to go down the rabbit hole:
- Explaining the Expanding Earth - With Peter Woodhead
- Earth Expansion Tectonics Lecture by Dr James Maxlow
Evidence in favor of a growing Earth:
- Continent borders seem to line up perfectly at an Earth radius of ~50%.
- Fossil record of monstrously-sized dinosaurs and insects which seem anatomically impossible given Earth current gravity. Why are all of today's creatures far smaller than those of the past? This trend is very noticeable with no good explanation. This is easily accounted for by reducing Earth size by ~50% (not just radius but mass too).
- Why aren't giant dragonflies still a thing? We still have dragonflies today. What is stopping them from growing 2 foot long? Other animals which used to be giant-sized, like giant sharks and giant crocodiles, are also now small. Why?
- It seems that ancient fossils are only found on land. No ancient fossils are found in the oceans.
- Dating of the sea floor shows it to be extremely young. The oldest sea floor is only 180 million years old and much of it is newer. There is no billion year old sea floor rock.
- Stretch marks seem to radiate outward as if the Earth was a slowly inflating balloon.
- The theory of plate tectonics is less than 100 years old. It was extremely controversial when first proposed, and rejected by most geologists. It only became accepted by scientific consensus in the 1960's. And to this day the theory contains inconsistencies.
- Plate tectonics and continental drift theory would have us believe that continents slide and rotate around almost randomly, which looks absurd and nonsensical. Why would continents float around and rotate?
- It makes little sense why Pangaea would form on the early Earth. Why would the Earth be so lopsided, with 1/3rd solid continents and the other 2/3rds solid ocean? It makes more sense that the distribution of land and water on the early Earth was uniform.
- There is no strong empirical evidence of subduction (land sliding back inside the Earth's core). No good theory as to why subduction would happen given the density of the underlying rock.
- Evidence for spreading ocean floor is much more significant than evidence for subducting ocean floor. The notion of subduction could easily just be a cop-out hypothesis designed to save the otherwise nonsensical theory of plate tectonics.
- Newly discovered ringwoodite in the Earth's core contains more locked-in water than the entire surface of the Earth! There is literally enough water in the Earth's core to refill all the Earth's oceans several times over. Think about that. This makes it much more plausible that the oceans leaked out from inside the core over millions of years. Like slowly squeezing a lemon.
- The moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede show similar kinds of stretch marks and signs of growth.
- There is zero direct empirical evidence of what's inside the Earth's core, only vague guesses. Scientists assume they know, but that is merely inference, which can easily turn out wrong. Since scientists have never directly observed the deep inner core of any planet, their models of what's really going on inside are mostly just speculation, which could turn out to be wildly inaccurate. It's conceivable that even if the core was hollow, it would be very difficult for scientists to discover that without actually going there.
- There is zero direct empirical evidence of Pangaea, or how the continents moved, or how they were arranged hundreds of millions of years ago. There are just vague extrapolations based on prevailing continental drift theory, which is precisely the thing being called into question.
- If the Earth used to be smaller, as it grows bigger, its rotation speed will have to slow down to conserve angular momentum. It is well known that the rotation of the Earth has been slowing down, with days getting longer.
I can't say for sure, but it is an intriguing idea that's just unorthodox enough to slip under the radar of the mainstream scientific establishment. It's just the kind of idea that a closedminded academic would dismiss as "pseudoscience" due to lack of understanding of epistemology and how paradigms work.
The reason I'm presenting this idea isn't to get you to buy into a conspiracy theory, but to jostle your worldview and get you to really question what you think you know about reality. What do you really know for sure? I want you to start to notice how giant discoveries can lurk right under your nose, hidden in plain sight. Even if this theory turns out to be false, others like it may not. Most people assume that modern science is so advanced that there's just no room for massive blindspots. This is not the case. It's important to start to see that science is much more messy and complex than people are taught. The cutting edge of science is always wrestling with questions of how to properly interpret the data, which anomalies are worth taking seriously and which are not.
Of course the whole trick here is how do you distinguish between science vs pseudoscience? How do you distinguish between a promising new theory vs a crackpot conspiracy theory? Well... the key point is that it's not as easy as you've been led to believe. All knowledge is nontrivial. There never was a clear demarcation between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, data and theory. You only assumed there was.
So for all you Jurassic Park fans, consider the possibility that if dinosaurs were genetically birthed in a lab today, they would fall dead under their own weight.
My goal here is not to make you feel convinced, but to make you feel doubtful about what you know.
You can find some really good educational channels on Youtube. Here's one that I found recently which I really liked. It covers interesting topics, like this:
Check out their other interesting videos: Wendover Productions
The geography ones are some of the best.
Here's a really intelligent discussion about the ramifications of cannabis legalization:
I don't recommend pot use because it tends to become addictive. I never use it myself even though it is legal in my state. But I do support nationwide legalization because this war on drugs is absurd, counter-productive, and we need to pave the way for legalization of psychedelics, the prohibition of which is a clear violation of 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
— U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment
Anyone who claims that psychedelics are not a religious/spiritual tool is inexperienced and ignorant of religious history and numerous scientific studies. If psychedelics are not an exercise of religion, nothing is. In the future, this will be recognized by the Supreme Court and the criminalization of these substances will go down in the history books as yet another example of 21st century barbarism. We ain't out of the Dark Ages yet.
P.S. Congrats to Canada for finally legalizing cannabis this week!
Notice, you cannot be objective about a thing which you fear or hate.
Corollary: you cannot discover Truth, or embody Truth, so long as there is fear or hate in you. All fear and hate must be surrendered. All! Without exception. Even your fear of the danger of not being able to fear or hate any more.
"Hate" here isn't limited to violent rage. Hate includes: judgment, criticism, condemnation, demonization, anger, ill-will, vengeance, disgust, desire to destroy, having enemies, and justifications for your hate.
Mild forms of fear and hate are still fear and hate. Fear and hate can be very subtle.
All justifications for fear and hate are delusion. All attempts to explain why your fear or hate is valid, "good", necessary, or warranted, are delusion — only doubling down on your position.
Fear and hate are inversely proportional to Truth. The closer you approach Truth, the closer fear and hate drop to zero. Want to know how close you are to Truth? How much fear and hate is in you on a daily basis?
Without fear, there is no purpose for hate.
All fear boils down to fear of injury and death.
When your fear reaches zero, your experience of love will reach infinity. You will love every single molecule in the universe. A heart-wrenching, super-natural degree of love. Metaphysical love.
Strength, is your capacity to surrender fear and hatred. Strength is wisdom. The highest wisdom is the surrender of one's life.