One gets the impression that scientists have studied nearly everything possible and are digging deeper and deeper to find something that has not been studied. As an independent scientist, I spend a lot of time looking into the details of science. The details show endless subjects which are not being studied. You find errors and contradictions and answers to them. Science is becoming extremely superficial in skipping over complexities and errors which are difficult to handle.
 
The Big Bang.

The big bang shows how superficiality works. It began with the observation of a red shift for distant stars and galaxies. Red shift means the wavelength of light is longer than it should be, and this is assume to be due to objects moving away from the observer. The more distant objects had more red shift, so they were supposedly moving away the fastest. This pattern looked like an explosion to physicists, so they said the universe was created by an explosion, which they called the big bang. Why is the earth in the center of the big bang? Explosions don't leave matter in the center. Matter cannot be shrunk down to a small size and expanded. Atoms have to be the size they are and no other size. Change the size, and laws of physics don't exist.

Physicists said the universe is 13.5 billion years old, because light from the most distant galaxies is that old. They could not have missed the fact that it took some time for matter to get out there from the supposed center of the big bang. They ignored that factor, because it cannot be explained. If matter moved at half the speed of light, it would have needed 27 billion years to get where it is from the center of a big bang. Scientists don't produce such errors. So after decades of ignoring the fact, they said galaxies got to their present location as a result of the universe expanding rather than through the motion of matter; and they called it inflation. What was supposed to have expanded? You can't expand an atom, or it isn't an atom. You can't expanded the solar system, or planets don't orbit sun. You can't expand a galaxy, or stars don't stay in the galaxy.

If some space expanded and some did not, how can there be two types of space? No one has ever said there is. If all space expanded, no one would know that it expanded. Expansion would be nothing more than an attempt to redefine a meter. There has to be something that does not expand as a reference for measurement to know that anything expanded. If the size of particles with mass did not expand, and everything around them did expand, then laws of physics do not exist. Ignoring these questions is superficiality. Inflation is nothing but a nine letter word with no consideration of details.
 
The Asteroid Belt.

More important is the asteroid belt, because it is critical to the evolution of terrestrial life. Scientists have been assuming for centuries that the asteroid belt was caused by a planet exploding. Now they say that it was not caused by a planet exploding but by the gravity of Jupiter. If Jupiter created the asteroids, why aren't the rocks round instead of jagged? Gravity is uniform on a small scale, which means it should have created round asteroids instead of the odd shapes that exist. Why aren't the asteroids all the same size or similar? One of them is Pluto, and numerous other asteroids are out there near it. Why were the asteroids scattered all over the solar system? Why didn't other planets create asteroids?

The only thing gravity can do is create a pulling force. If Jupiter created a pulling force on the asteroids, why are they orbiting the sun instead of Jupiter? Why didn't the sun create asteroids due to its stronger gravity? Gravity is extremely weak from millions of miles away. Why would it cause minerals to aggregate with strong bonds while being pulled toward a planet which they never got near?

The reason why it matters is because the exploding planet layered soil on planet earth allowing terrestrial life to begin. When the earth formed, it did not create soil. The clay was mixed with silica to form shale, which would not support terrestrial life. We are told that the soil on earth resulted from plant roots breaking down rocks. Plants do not grow on rocks; they need soil to grow in. Plant roots nurture bacteria by excreting nutrients for them. If the roots are not killing bacteria, they are not breaking down rocks. Clay has a totally different chemical composition than rocks. Clay is high in aluminum. Rocks are low in aluminum. Roots cannot increase the aluminum.
 
Terrestrial Life.

Terrestrial life began 543 million years ago. At that time, the oceans contained soft bodied fish. Bones could not evolve, because the buoyancy of the water created no need for them. Gravity acting upon the first amphibians was needed to cause bones to evolve. So where did boney fish come from? They would have resulted from the amphibians moving back into the oceans and evolving into boney fish. The first amphibians evolved into reptiles, but not mammals. Mammals evolved after boney fish migrated back onto land creating a second type of amphibian. This sequence is shown by two dots which humans have below their front teeth. These dots can be felt with the tongue. They are remnants of hooks used by ancient fish to catch prey. Nature reduced the hooks to small dots and left them there for about 400 million years. Evolution left the DNA in perfect form for 400 million years. Evolution could not reduce the ancient hooks further, because there is no map for evolution other than selective advantage. There was no further selective advantage to reducing the hooks, after they became small dots. Evolution discards no DNA, because it cannot determine whether it is being used for something. So it keeps adding more DNA and discards none. Ninety percent of DNA is not being used, but it cannot be discarded.
 
DNA Coated with Proteins.

The integrity of DNA is maintained by coating it with proteins. Some areas of DNA are left exposed to function in metabolism and allow necessary evolution to occur. Stem cells show this. The DNA of stem cells is not coated with protein, so tissues can be created from stem cells. After tissue exists, proteins cover much of the DNA, which prevents the tissue from being converted into other types of tissue. Each type of tissue from the same person has the same DNA, but the exposed areas vary from tissue to tissue. Each tissue is a different phenotype of the same genotype.

Viruses show something similar. Viruses adapt to a particular type of tissue. They cannot attack other types of tissue. You would think they could, because they move easily from cell to cell. But they have to hijack the DNA to replicate themselves, and different areas of the DNA are exposed for different tissues. So viruses can only take over the type of tissue which they are adapted to.

The evidence that the fist amphibians evolved into reptiles is that reptiles did not evolve well. Their DNA would have been heavily coated with proteins limiting their ability to evolve. Mammals could evolve much more easily, because drastic evolution stripped proteins from their DNA allowing it to change more freely. The process of amphibians going into the ocean, evolving into boney fish and boney fish evolving into a second type of amphibian produced such extreme evolution that it stripped proteins from a large part of their DNA.
 
Modern Biology.

Biology was vastly different during the dinosaur years than it is now. Biology was modernized when the dinosaurs died out. Dinosaur biology was shaped by nonwoody brush, which dinosaurs used for food. The nonwoody brush was thick and hard to walk through, which is what made dinosaurs large. They needed a lot of size and strength to walk through the thick brush. Land surfaces were almost flat when terrestrial life began. Tectonic plates were thin. When they collided, they matched perfectly and stuck together creating low hills but not mountains. All land masses were combined into a form called Pangaea. Plants first evolved into nonwoody brush. The brush would not grow on the hills, because water would run off. This left space on the hills for conifers to evolve, which occurred 300 million years ago. Mammals had to be small to go under the brush and within it. Flowing plants slowly evolved but had very little space between the conifers and nonwoody brush. Then everything changed 65 million years ago, and modern biology evolved. It is theorized that an asteroid triggered the change. It might have, but the resulting evolution into modern biology was shaped by grass.

The important characteristic of grass is that it can absorb water above the ground. This allows grass to effectively use light rains and even dew drops which run down thin leaves to be absorbed near the ground. Grass replaced the nonwoody brush allowing mammals to walk over it. Flowering plants took off, because they could grow through the grass and above it. Broadleaf trees grew above the grass. Gilled mushrooms grew within the grass exploiting wind which sweeps the spores out. Dinosaurs could not survive with grass, because it would leave their eggs exposed, and the new vegetation would be inedible compared to nonwoody brush. The new plants produced sugary solutions, which allowed yeasts to evolve from molds.

During dinosaur years, energy storage did not exist as polysaccharides or fats. Mammals and dinosaurs were too long-legged to have fat. Fat would have made them shorter, like mice or elephants. It appears that yeasts evolved fat, and then the genes were transferred to other species. Yeast produce a lot of fat, because they need a place to dump the acetic acid which results from glucose breakdown. They breakdown glucose as fast as possible to prevent other organisms from using it. They convert some to alcohol, which they excrete to inhibit growth of molds and bacteria. They excrete acetic acid for the same purpose, and they convert some of the acetic acid to fat. While doing this, they repress the TCA system, which has the purpose of breaking down two carbon compounds into carbon dioxide. No other species repress their TCA system, so it is unlikely that fat production evolved in any other species but yeasts.

Now days, we can view evolution in vastly different terms than we could just two decades ago. We used to be limited to Mendelian inheritance, where all evolution had to flow along lines of descent from parents to offspring. We now know that horizontal transfer carries genes between all species. This is visible because of genetic modification of crops. The transferred genes show up in numerous species surrounding the crops. Natural versions of horizontal transfer are also visible. This used to be called "convergence of evolution." By coincidence and luck, unrelated species supposedly evolved similar properties. Such coincidence and luck do not exist. Evolution is too demanding for that. The similarities are a result of horizontal transfer of genes between species. Virus are the usual carries of genes between species. It is assumed that molds and bacteria can also do this. This means that fat metabolism could have evolved in yeasts and then be transferred to animals by viruses.
 
Hydrocarbons.

Oil and coal are referred to as fossil fuels based on the assumption that the source was plant material acted upon by heat and pressure to form hydrocarbons. That isn't possible. Hydrocarbons are high in energy, while biological material is much lower in energy. The hydrocarbons of oil and coal are mostly carbon with hydrogen attach. There is a lot of energy in the hydrogen. Biological materials are mostly carbohydrates. This means there is oxygen with the carbon and hydrogen. Oxygen is at a very low energy state. So there is a lot less chemical energy in biological materials than there is in the so-called fossil fuels. Heat and pressure cannot increase the chemical energy, because they act upon nuclei, while chemical energy is in the electrons. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei to increase the energy of electrons which orbit them short of a nuclear reaction. The only known way to increase chemical energy is through light. Photosynthesis does this. Light can nudge electrons which orbit nuclei to increase their motion. But the wavelength needs to be just right. Then the electron gets nudged on one side of its orbit only. If the electron gets nudged on both sides of its orbit, one effect nullifies the other.

Oil and coal originated with a reducing atmosphere. This means hydrogen attached to carbon, such as methane, propane, etc. Oxygen very readily combined with the hydrocarbons creating water and carbon dioxide. The water created the oceans. Not all of the hydrocarbons were volatile. Some stayed underground as oil and coal. Some or all of the oxygen was probably in the form of sodium perchlorate. This is a solid which would have easily broken down into oxygen gas and sodium chloride. This is apparently why there is so much sodium chloride in the oceans.

How could physicists have missed the fact that heat and pressure will not increase the chemical energy of biological materials? So physicists don't know what chemical energy is. Isn't the purpose of quantum mechanics to study the electrons which orbit nuclei? The only thing physicists can tell us about quantum mechanics is that it involves an uncertainty principle. It appears that the uncertainty principle means they don't know what chemical energy is.
 
ATP Synthesis.

Physicists do the same thing in studying ATP synthesis. There are several proteins involved in the last step of synthesis of ATP. Some of the proteins spin very rapidly, and biophysicists study them. ATP provides chemical energy for cell metabolism. It has three phosphates linked to each other in a row. The third phosphate is removed to yield energy to biochemical reactions. To restore ATP, energy has to be provided for re-attaching the phosphate. The source of the energy is carbohydrate metabolism. It yields a high energy electron which is carried to the respiratory chain system, where it spins through three cytochromes yielding some of its energy to ATP synthesis in each one. Three ATP molecules are energized by each high energy electron. It is not known how cytochromes harvest a fraction of the energy from the high energy electron. Perhaps light is used, since light is the only known way to increase the chemical energy of electrons. Maybe there is a replacement process of electrons in the cytochromes. But one thing that is not happening is what biophysicists say. They claim the energy which goes into ATP comes from the rotating proteins and involves "binding force." Whatever binding force is, it is not a source of chemical energy. Nor is the kinetic energy of rotating proteins. Kinetic energy cannot be converted into chemical energy, because it is located in the motion of nuclei which cannot significantly influence the motion of electrons spinning around them.

There is always a lot of mumbo jumbo surrounding subjects like this, so one sees reference to the chemical energy of batteries being similar to ATP synthesis. There is no relevant chemical energy in batteries. Pouring sulfuric acid into a battery is not producing chemical energy. Batteries deal with electrical energy only. Electrical energy deals with the linearized motion of electrons which are not spinning around nuclei. The purpose of the rotating proteins in ATP synthesis is to move reactants into place rapidly, not to energy the ATP. (Some biologist hate the word purpose. They say it is a reference to God. The dictionary has about five definitions of purpose. One of them is quite suitable for biological processes.)

The rotating proteins involved in ATP synthesis evolved in a bacterium called Pseudomonas fluorescens about 700 million years ago. This bacterium is the oldest significant species by the criterion that it never branched on the evolutionary tree, it just kept acquiring more properties. Blue-greens are older, but they became trivial due to a highly stable ecological niche. Pseudomonas fluorescens has two polar flagella which rotate to give it locomotion in water. It is also the most prevalent bacterium in the soil. It breaks down proteins in spring soil. Its polar flagella use rotating proteins which are quite similar to the rotating proteins used for ATP synthesis. This similarity is not a result of convergence of evolution. It is transposed evolution.

The flagella proteins of Pseudomonas would be the source of the rotating proteins used for ATP synthesis. The reason is because such evolution would have been too disruptive within the metabolic machinery of ATP synthesis. Other species needed ATP, and it would have been created without rotating proteins. The proteins simply move reactants into place, so respiration can occur more rapidly. Otherwise, simple diffusion would be required, and it would be much slower. The rotating proteins could evolve for locomotion within Pseudomonas without disrupting metabolism. Then adapting them to ATP synthesis would be a much smaller step than originating them. The adaptation of the rotating proteins to ATP synthesis would have occurred within the cells of Pseudomonas due to its extremely diverse physiology and nutrition allowing it to resort to a variety of energy sources while adapting.
 
Morel Mushrooms.

I study a mushroom called the morel. It was a single celled yeast a few years ago. There has apparently not been a single celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism in hundreds of millions of years. So the morel is an extremely informative lesson in biology. It is still a yeast in its physiology, which shows that physiology cannot change easily, while macro-morphology can. The morel shape is a hollow bulb with deep ridges. It produces ascospores, like yeasts, which means the spores are inside the cells near the surface.

Mushroom scientists claim the morel is an ancient cup fungus because of its ascospores. The problem is, there is no such thing as an ancient cup fungus—not as large as mushrooms. The cup shape is an attempt to cope with ascospores. But it is a failing attempt, and the creatures die out in about two ice age cycles. Ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. For some unknown reason, the morel re-evolves from a yeast during each ice age cycle. There are two cup fungi which are remnants of morel-type evolution during previous cycles. The surface of the spores shows the same pattern. There have probably been dozens of such cup fungi in the past, but they died out due to the difficulty of surviving with ascospores.

The cup shape is needed to cope with contradictions. The tissue needs to stay well hydrated while spores form, and then it needs to dry out to create shrinkage, which propels the spores out. At the bottom of the cup is heavy tissue near the ground which dries slowly. At the top of the rim is thin tissue exposed to the air, which dries rapidly. Each year there is some place between the slow drying tissue and fast drying tissue which allows spores to be produced and propelled out.

The morel dries out easily, as yeasts do, since they adapted to sugary solutions. So the morel needs almost rainy conditions for three to five days while spores form within the tissue. Then it has to dry and shrink to create a force which propels the spores out. The spores function as projectiles, so they are unusually heavy and contain up to 23 nuclei. The weather is not often obliging enough to get spores out. So the morel produces thick tissued variants for dry years and thin tissued variant for wet years. These variants are phenotypic but not genotypic. This means the variants have the same DNA make-up, but different genes are turned on or off. Human tissue cells do this. They all have the same DNA, but some genes are turned off to create different types of cells.

The phenomenon of phenotypic variation as an adaptation mechanism was bewildering in science in the past. The variations were often assumed to be caused by the environment. Such variations are most extreme were conditions are harsh, such as prairie wildflowers. They show a lot of phenotypic variation. Where conditions are more favorable, there is less phenotypic variation. Garden flowers show little phenotypic variation, because they evolved where conditions were ideal, such as a mountainous area in southern China.

All species have phenotypic variation to deal with short term stress such as seasonal variations, where evolution would be too slow. Humans have two types of muscle cells, which are phenotypic variations. One type is fast muscles for producing quick responses. The other type is slow muscles, which are good for endurance. Each person has a different combination of these. These differences are phenotypic, because they are randomly distributed through the population rather than following Mendelian lines from parents to offspring.

Most mushrooms including cup fungi need to produce spores every year for survival, because the mycelium will not tolerate freezing during the winter. The morel does not get spores produced every year, but it doesn't need to, because it has an underground mass which is spore-like called sclerotia. Sclerotia carries the morel through summer heat and winter cold. But extremely rich nutrients are needed to produce sclerotia. The morel feeds on bacteria during early spring when they are most abundant. It does this by excreting acid, as yeasts do, which kills the bacteria. The cup fungi no longer produce sclerotia, which gives them more flexibility in their habitat, but they have to get spores out every year because of it.

So the morel is not quite a cup fungus, and it is not ancient. Mushroom scientists do not know the purpose of the cup shape when they claim the morel is a cup fungus. They claim the morel has a conidial stage. Conidia are microscopic stalks with spores on them, which molds produce. They evolved about 200 million years ago and earlier. That type of evolution can no longer occur, because there is a window for evolution, and it closes. The window closes, because evolution must build upon pre-existing forms which change over time. The basis for the claim that the morel has conidia is that a century ago, someone used apple compost in the ground to grow morels and covered it with leaves. Later, the conidial fungus covered the leaves. That fungus is commonly found on dead leaves in the forest.

How could mushroom scientists not know that a leaf mold is as far from morel mushrooms as fungi can get? The morel is not a decay organism, as it would have to be to grow on dead leaves. Yeasts do not have enzymes for decay. The Morel will not tolerate drying on surfaces, because yeasts never do. Toleration of drying on surfaces is an extremely demanding property of molds. Yeasts gave up that property to grow in liquids, and they cannot get it back. The leaf mold has complex micro-morphology, which is very difficult to evolve, while the morel doesn't even have stable macro-morphology yet. When morel scientists claim the morel is an ancient cup fungus with a conidial stage, they don't have the slightest idea what the morel mushroom is. This is because they study laboratory procedures rather than a living organism.

You have to have an agricultural background to study the mysteries of mushrooms, because only the agriculturalists study the biology of the soil. You have to understand soil to know what mushrooms are doing there. For example, if you want to find morels, there are hundreds of web sites which will tell you how. They list the trees which morels are near. Every tree is listed. Morels have no relationship to trees. They grow best in the purest sand with no vegetation around. No one has noticed that morels only grow in sand. Sand has no capillary action, because the particles are too large. Therefore, sand does not dry out. Fine textured soil has a lot of capillary action, which causes water to move through it and dry out on the surface. So morels follow river basins, which is where most of the sand is located.

The morel still produces residual autolysis, which is detrimental to it. Autolysis means self-breakdown. All bacteria and yeasts break down as they age to recycle nutrients. The proteins are broken down into amino acids, and genetic material is broken down into monomers with the phosphate removed. Humans do not use genetic material as a nutrient, because removing the phosphate is difficult.

As morel mushrooms age in the wild, bacterial decay becomes visible. The type of bacteria which grow on morels are called gram negative, which make people sick. The type of bacteria which grow on other mushrooms are called gram positive, and they are good to eat.

The first bacteria to evolve were the gram negatives. They have lipo-proteins in their cell walls, which are the dread of biology, because they chew through the cell walls of other species. When modern biology began, as the dinosaurs died out, gram positive bacteria evolved. They have different cell walls, which are safe, unless they evolve into disease organisms. In ancient times, carbohydrates did not exist, at least as available nutrients; so the bacteria used the proteins of other cells as nutrients. Modern biology caused carbohydrates and sugars to become abundant, which caused a new type of bacteria to evolve, which are the gram positives. Mushrooms protect themselves from gram negative bacteria by causing gram positive bacteria to grow on their surface. Theoretically, they would do this by excreting a small amount of carbohydrate. Roots do something similar excreting small amounts of citrate, succinate and fumarate to promote bacterial growth. Morels, however, do the opposite. Through their uncontrolled autolysis, they make nitrogen containing molecules available, which causes gram negative bacteria to grow on their surface. If mushroom hunters eat old morels, they get sick from the gram negative bacteria.
 
Energy Misdefined.

Superficiality concealing errors began much earlier in physics than in the biological science, because physics is extremely abstract and difficult to test. Often there is only one way to measure something in physics. In biology, different methods of acquiring information show contradictions and allow truth to evolve along the most logical lines. But even in biology, superficiality and errors are overwhelming the science.

The errors in physics began in 1686, which is before Newton's laws were stated. Gottfried Leibniz described the present concept of energy, which is erroneous. Scientists were using pendulums to study the transfer of motion between objects as they collide. Scientists noticed that both mass times velocity (mv) and mass times velocity squared (mv²) are conserved during elastic collisions. Mass times velocity squared was ignored as an irrelevancy. Rene Descartes published a paper around 1635 stating that there is a fixed amount of motion in the universe, because it is conserved through all interactions. By motion, he meant mv. But Leibniz said Descartes was wrong; it is not mv which is the conserved quantity of motion but mv².

Leibniz used falling objects to make his point. He said that a four kilogram object dropped one meter would produce the same result as a one kilogram object dropped four meters. He then showed that this result conserves mv² but not mv. mv is now called momentum and is considered to be conserved. Leibniz's starting point was not valid. The correct analysis would have been to say a four kilogram object dropped for one second would produce the same result as a one kilogram object dropped for four seconds. This result conserves mv but not mv².

The Leibniz claim was argued for two hundred years, until James Joule supposedly did a measurement to prove it. Joule did not have the slightest ability to make such a measurement. Physicists were trying to determine the relationship between the energy of motion and heat by stirring water in a wooden bucket by dropping weights which turned paddles. They encountered numerous problems which they could not solve. Joule copied them and pretended to solve the problems. For example, the water would accelerate due to the weights dropping faster and faster, which altered the force determination. Joule claimed to stop the acceleration by using more floats than the physicists were using. Supposedly, the physicists were too dumb to figure out how many floats to use, but Joule figured it out. Floats would have been a poor way to add friction to the top and would have had almost no influence further down.

Joule never published his procedure. Instead, he sent a chatty note to a publisher saying he was improving his apparatus for greater precision but wanted to publish a few words anyway. He said he dropped weights 12 meters, sixteen times, to turn the paddles. The increase in temperature of the water was said to be one fourth of a degree centigrade. Doing this would have taken two athletes at least an hour. The heat produced would have dissipated in about 30 seconds. He said he did an experiment to "eliminate the cooling or heating effects of the atmosphere." There is no method of measuring the effects of the atmosphere, and there were no thermal constants for calculating how much heat would have entered the wood and metal. Joule said he measured air temperature to one fiftieth of a degree implying that he had atmospheric conditions under control. But the most stable room temperature varies by about two degrees within it, because air is a strong insulator, and external influences are constantly changing due to day and night differences.

For these reasons, Joule did not have the slightest ability to make such a measurement. Yet he was only off by four parts per thousand from measurements made in modern times. This concurrence does not mean Joule was a wizard; it means the number being used is contrived.

The method of acquiring the number now days is said to be compression of a gas. The number cannot be acquired through that method, because compression of a gas does not produce heat. One gets the impression in reading physics that physicists do not know that compression of a gas does not produce heat. Their method of measuring Joules constant confirms that suspicion.

Heating a gas will increase its pressure, but increasing the pressure of a gas will not produce heat. The force which increases pressure of a gas is elastic. Elastic means transformation into heat does not occur.

This bit of stupidity does not necessarily mean the physicists involved were bold face liars. They could have actually been measuring a temperature increase. The problem is similar to the Ponds and Fleischman experiment, where cold fusion supposedly produced some heat. Demons in the spirit world routinely alter heat and force to create trouble. Exorcists describe this result as routine. During exorcisms, demons lower the temperature of the room and cause objects to fly around.

How then can anything be measured in physics? It can be done by relying heavily upon basic knowledge and finding verification methods. I used the characteristics of a rocket to show mathematically that the definition of kinetic energy is in error.
 
Rocket Equations.

I encountered the error in the definition of kinetic energy in 1983. I was reading an article in Science Digest which said physicists observed masses flying out of quasars at ten times the speed of light. Other physicists said the observation must have been an optical illusion, since relativity says nothing can move faster than the speed of light. So the original authors changed their mind and said their result might have been an optical illusion.

In considering why relativity should take precedence over observation, I noticed that there was something peculiar about squaring the velocity of light in Einstein's equation which says E=mc². Why was the velocity of light being squared, when nothing can move at velocity squared? There seemed to be a strange parallel to the equation which says kinetic energy is proportional to mass time velocity squared. So I looked into kinetic energy to determine why velocity was being squared. The reason is because the equation is derived from a more rudimentary concept of work being proportional to force times distance. When applied to an accelerating mass, force times distance equals ½mv². But there was no logic to multiplying force times distance for an accelerating mass, because the force does not move through any distance relative to the mass it acts upon.

Everywhere I looked, I saw contradictions in the equation for kinetic energy. Rockets created the clearest evidence of an error, because they transform fuel in proportion to force times time, not force times distance. Distance is totally undefined for a rocket, because it transforms fuel in exactly the same way at a thousand miles per hour as it does at one mile per hour. A rocket sees no distance.

So I wrote to several physics departments about the error focusing on the evidence of rockets. Someone at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory responded saying I could prove to myself that the definition of kinetic energy is correct by winding a yo-yo on a taper. I never tried it, but I wrote back describing the evidence of a rocket in more detail. In response, I was sent the rudimentary rocket equations for calculating a force produced by a rocket stating that the equations balance, so there is no error. Balancing the equations was irrelevant to the question, but I now had a tool for proving Leibniz to be wrong. I could use a rocket to create the force instead of gravity in the Leibniz analysis and relate it to fuel use.

When I did this, it showed that one of the masses in the Leibniz analysis had twice as much energy as the other. When the rocket was applied to the Descartes analysis, both masses had the same amount of energy. This shows mathematically that energy is transformed in proportional to force times time and mv, not force times distance and ½mv².

Energy is involved in about ninety percent of physics. This means that most of physics is in error due to the misdefinition of energy. Most of the rest of physics is in error for other reasons, as explained with chemical energy.
 
Measuring Joule's Constant.

I therefore went through the process of measuring Joule's constant, knowing what the outcome would be but wanting to get a better idea of the factors involved. I had been using electronics for creating temperature measuring and controlling devices for mushroom research and numerous other purposes. Temperatures can be measured to six places past the decimal point quite easily with modern electronics, except there is no defined temperature at that point. The most stable temperature is in a mass of metal, where the reading is usable at four places past the decimal point. Beyond that, the numbers roll too fast to read due to the constantly changing temperatures.

For exploratory work, you first evaluate methodology. So I used an electric drill to stir water determining what concepts would need to be controlled and measured and through what methods. I made some calculations to determine what they would look like, and out fell Joule's constant with only five percent error. These materials and procedures were not capable of producing Joule's constant. Someone wanted me to know there was a Joule's constant before I had a method of measuring it. You could throw a rock in a mud-hole and get Joule's constant. I went through the procedure anyway to learn more about it.

I used an electric motor from Radio Shack, which was totally encased in metal and had a diameter of 2.5 cm. This allowed me to insert the motor into a block of aluminum to measure the heat produced. The energy going into the motor was precisely controlled with voltage and amperage regulators. Air temperature is extremely heterogeneous, so I controlled it rather than measured it by using an aluminum hood with heating devices attached. The stirred water was on a turntable with a spring allowing the force to be measured with a pointer. A timer allowed the motor to run for 30 seconds. The short duration minimized external temperature influences.

I got Joule's constant, of course, with an error of 1.5%. This was four times as much error as Joule had using a wooden bucket. Someone wanted me to look like an incompetent and Joule to look like a wizard. The important thing about this measurement is that there was only a 15% difference between the two alternatives for the definition of energy. This means the demons only had to vary temperature and force by 15% to alter the definition of energy. That amount would escape notice without some method of verification.

Another major problem with this type of measurement is that there is no concept in physics for the difference between elastic force and inelastic force in stirring water. Only the inelastic force would add heat to the water, but the measurement would be some mysterious combination of elastic and inelastic force. Joule did not measure force, he allowed weights to move a certain distance. The weights were supposedly not accelerating, which means they produced a constant force, and there is no difference between weighing the weights and measuring the force. Gravity pulling on the weights was producing some elastic force which was acting on the materials. Physicists would say that the combination of the force and the distance produces the heat. But what if they have the definition of energy wrong? Then the force and distance are not producing the heat. Their definition of energy is proven to be wrong through the application of rockets to the Leibniz analysis.

A rowboat shows the difference between elastic and inelastic force. If the oars are pulled very slowly, most of the force is inelastic, and it heats the water more than it moves the boat. But if the oars are pulled very hard, most of the force is elastic, and it moves the boat more than it heats the water. Each time the oars are pulled, there is a different combination of elastic and inelastic force. Physicists have no concept of these differences when stirring water.

Physics cannot function as science with such pervasive errors. Physics is not science; it is super engineering. Engineering does not need correct science, and often it benefits from short cut procedures. Trial-and-error methods are used to test engineering, which replaces the need for basic knowledge. Physicists have been replacing science with engineering for so long that they never learned what science really is. Like engineers, they start at the end point and contrive the most expedient way of getting there. One of the differences is that engineering is extremely superficial. Science requires accounting for the details. Another difference is that engineers must replicate what someone else did exactly, while a scientist must question everything.
 
Relativity.

Relativity goes beyond measurement error to total contrivance without measurement or evidence. It starts with an analysis of two objects in motion. Two objects in motion create a bit of complexity, but any scientist could evaluate the relationships. The complexities are then muddled until total nonsense is achieved. The nonsense removes the subject from real science, logic and criticism. Then totally irrelevant claims are contrived out of thin air with no relationship to the starting point or any other point in logic or science. Supposedly, it is all taken care of in complex math which the rest of us cannot understand. Not so. There are supposed to be principles and laws in science. The principles and laws are quite easy to understand regardless of the math. If physicists cannot explain the logic, they are not producing science.

Where did E=mc² come from? Nowhere but Einstein's imagination. It has nothing to do with two objects in motion. Why can nothing move faster than the speed of light? Because of a three component equation which a grade-school math student could write. The equation puts any velocity over the velocity of light and subtracts it from the number one. If the velocity in question is large than the velocity of light, the subtraction yields a negative number. Now put it under a square root sign. There is no such thing as the square root of a negative, so there is no such thing as the velocity in question being greater than the velocity of light. This equation would be just as valid for speeding. If your speed is put in the numerator with the speed limit in the denominator and it is subtracted from one and put under a square root sign, there is no such thing as traveling faster than the speed limit, because there is no such thing as the square root of a negative number.

Physicists don't explain this subject, they simply say that they measure relativity every day and prove Einstein to be correct. Their first measurement was to compare the motion of the planet Mercury based on Newton's laws to its motion based on relativity and see which is closest to the actual measurement. At parts per billion the measured numbers lined up with the numbers derived through relativity. There is supposed to be some meaning to the numbers looking the same. Science isn't making numbers look the same. Science is accounting for accuracy, precision and known laws. The demons will make miniscule numbers look anyway you want them to look.

But now days there is another test of relativity. Einstein predicted that light would bend around large objects such as stars or galaxies, and sure enough, it bends. The first thing wrong with this supposed proof is that it is based upon Einstein rather than a scientific analysis. The reason why light bends around stars and galaxies is because light bends when it passes through matter. It has nothing to do with relativity; it's called optics.

Physicists do not look at each other's math, because it is not really possible to do so. Complex math does not reverse engineer. It can be written in minutes and be impossible to unravel. The main reason is because math is built upon other math and assumptions which disappear and cannot be traced down. As a result, physicists learn to use math as a snow job for promoting preposterous claims such as relativity. There are millions of lines of relativity math written without an error. Relativity is nonfalsifiable, which means it is nonsense. Nonsense cannot be falsified, because it has no logic or relationship to objective reality.
 
Quantum Mechanics

Physicists say light has the properties of both a wave and a particle. It's difficult to determine what they mean by a particle. There are particles which travel with waves, and they have mass. But that isn't what they are saying. They are saying the energy of light exists as particles.

Energy cannot have length, width and depth, as particles have. So why particles? Because additions of energy to electrons is found to have repeatable units. Electrons will jump up to higher energy levels in leaps of consistent quantities. When light adds the energy, it must be of a particular wavelength. The assumption is that the right wavelength has just the right amount of energy in it. Having the right amount of energy looks to them like a packet or quantum of energy.

Physicists misinterpret why the wavelength must be right to bump electrons to a higher energy state. It's not because of packets of energy in light; it's because the wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If the electron is bumped on both sides of its orbit, one effect nullifies the other.

When encountering the absurdity of energy looking like packets, physicists should have said they don't understand the contradictions. Instead, they created a large field of physics based on packets of energy called quantum mechanics. There would have been physicists who could see through the error. There always are. But power mongers overwhelm rational persons in physics due to the exploitability of unaccountable power.
 
Mad Cow Disease.

There is an extremely absurd error in biology indicating how corrupt biology has become. It's the claim that a brain protein creates a series of diseases related to Mad Cow Disease. Somehow a brain protein from a cow gets into the brain of a human and bumps into a human brain protein creating the disease. Can a protein really tell whether it is being bumped by something from a Cow? The immune system can recognize foreign proteins, brain proteins cannot. The cow protein is supposed to have a wrong configuration. But there is no such thing as a protein having a wrong configuration. Proteins are large molecules. Every amino acid in a protein is put there over millions of years of evolution and has a purpose. These brain proteins have two configurations, because their purpose is to transport materials across a membrane. One configuration picks up a molecule on one side of a membrane, and the other configuration moves the molecule across the membrane and releases it on the other side. One of the configurations is not a disease.

The claimed mechanism for this type of disease contradicts every major element of hundreds of years of biology. The supposedly diseased protein moves out of the brain of the cow by crossing the blood-brain barrier. The disease protein moves through the blood to enter meat which is eaten by humans. The meat is digested, but the brain protein is not. The brain protein circulates through the blood of the victim without being removed by white blood cells, which easily identify foreign proteins and remove them. The disease protein then crosses the blood-brain barrier of the victim and enters the brain. It then bumps into a brain protein of the victim causing it to acquire one of its configurations, which it does several hundred times per second, and the result is a disease. The diseased protein then bumps into more proteins causing them to do what they do hundreds of times per second to spread the disease. A healthy person has this disease hundreds of times per second for each transport protein in the brain.

Where is the line between being diseased and not diseased? None of these facts are considered in the superficiality of modern science. Dozens of studies are published every year claiming that this mechanism causes such diseases.
 
Carbon Dioxide.

With the carbon dioxide issue, we are told that humans are upsetting a delicate balance by adding carbon dioxide to the air. When terrestrial life began and modern photosynthesis evolved, there was twenty times as much carbon dioxide in the air as now. This is because oceans continually absorb carbon dioxide and tie it up as calcium carbonate and limestone. There is so little CO2 in the air now that plants are severely weakened and barely surviving. How long could a person survive eating 5% as much food? That's what plants have to do now. Greenhouse operators often add three times as much CO2 to the air to improve plant grown. In half a million years or less all life will end on planet earth due to a shortage of CO2 for photosynthesis.
 
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.

Physicists round off the corners too much with their concepts, which is good in engineering, but not in science. An example is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It says that a certain amount of radiation will be given off by matter at a particular temperature. Strangely, all matter is the same. This would not be true. Different molecules emit and absorb radiation differently. The constant is expressed as watts per square meter, because opaque solids can only emit radiation from their surface. Then the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is applied to the atmosphere, which does not have a surface and is not opaque, and the same numbers are used. A transparent gas will emit radiation a lot easier than an opaque solid will. We see this with night vision cameras. For example, a TV program showed bats flying around a cave at night. The atmosphere glowed due to the large amount of radiation being emitted from it, while the walls of the cave were black due to an absence of emission.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is applied to the atmosphere in an absurd way. It is used to claim that heat leaves the earth from a height of about five kilometers, because the Stephan-Boltzmann constant says that the amount of heat in question emits from a surface at -19C, and the atmosphere is that temperature at that height. What keeps radiation from being emitted at -18C or +10C. Nothing does. Radiation leaves the atmosphere from all locations. How thick should the -19C zone be, if it is not two dimensional? No explanation. How does heat get into the claimed zone? No explanation. Should the zone be hot due to heat accumulating or cold due to heat leaving? It can't do either one and still be -19C? The atmosphere equilibrates, but a zone cannot equilibrate and still be a zone. No such zone has ever been detected.
 
Phylogenetics.

Phylogenetics is replacing traditional taxonomy with statistical studies of DNA similarities. The problem is that way too little DNA is looked at. It's like buying a house by looking at one square inch of surface area. The second problem is that junk statistics are used to synthesize a meaning. No two phylogenetic studies get anywhere close to the same result due to an absence of objective reality. A detailed study of DNA can produce valuable information on evolution, and much more of that type of work needs to be done. But the superficial phylogenetics is doing nothing but destroying traditional taxonomy.

Bureaucrats in science assume science should look like engineering. Science bureaucrats are scientists who have never spent a significant amount of time in a laboratory. They don't have a clue as to what laboratory science is or the difference between science and engineering. During the sixties they began to require scientists to do their research at a desk instead of a laboratory by requiring them to describe every detail while applying for a grant. In the laboratory scientists could only fill in the blanks with numbers. Then another layer of absurdity was added when bureaucrats required every published number to have a statistical analysis with it. Statistics are not valid for anything but meticulously designed statistical studies. Even then, statistics are extremely subjective due to the judgment which is needed to find methods of acquiring data which will represent complexities. No two persons produce the same methodology or results. Real statistical analysis is so large and complex that it never gets mixed with science. It seems strange that science calculators are cluttered with statistical procedures, when science and statistics can never be used at the same time.
 
What Science is

top