top ten times supposedly established scientific theories have been wrong

1. Scientists are massively implicated in the grotesque mendaciousness of pharmaceutical companies who pretend their products can rectify brain chemistry.

2. Scientists are hugely implicated in helping pharmaceutical companies draw a false linkage from brain chemistry to normal human experiences of life such as stress, sadness, depression, mania, and schizophrenia. This false linkage has been promoted as part of the fifty year marketing campaign for anti depressants and anti psychotics, addictive narcotic substances which have been given cutesy names by those trying to convince people to take them. After fifty years of lies, a growing number of scientists now admit there is no test of brain chemistry that will determine if a person has any particular category of mental suffering. We do not have a test for sanity. The pretence that we do or that we ever did, is a monstrous con.

3. Scientists collude in the lie that children's suffering can be rectified by drugging the kids into a stupor with Ridilin and associated products.

4. Scientists have propagated a monstrous lie in claiming that human beings are defined in their choices by genetic factors.

5. Scientists have proved intellectually and morally debased in their willingness to pathologise and sensationalise human sadness, preferring to interpret the dignity of sufferng as just another marketing tool for pharmaceutical products rather than advocating ways in which we can help each other to deal with our issues.

6. The advocacy by some scientists of the Darwinian claim that life began spontaneously by chance is now looking increasingly like the single greatest wrong turn in analytic, philosophical, scientific and spiritual history. The late British astronomer Fred Hoyle commented: "The chances of life beginning spontaneously by chance are the same chance as that of a tornado hitting a junk yard and assembling a 747 Jet out of the rubbish."

7. String Theory is not true. It has devoured the best minds of a generation, wasted billions of dollars in research grants and man hours, swallowed academia whole, and there's no theory there.

8. Einstein's Relativity Theory and the Standard Model of Quantum Theory contradict each other. One of them by the law of logical contradiction seems definitively false. Both may be.

8. Light has no speed. All theories contingent upon a measurable speed of light are false.

9. Time travel is not possible because the past no longer exists in the expansion. All theories (and fantasies) contingent upon the possibility of time travel are false.

10. The development and dissemination of contraceptive pills has led to a sterilising effect on humans and animals. As hormonal substances from these products leach into the food chain, we are seeing an attendant masculinisation of females and feminisation of males.

11. The barbarism of the modern era holocaust of abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide has largely been facilitated by scientists.

12. The propagation of sex change operations as an option in human treatment has been facilitated by scientists who are as per usual morally debased by their lust for gold and glory. These mutilating procedures which do not actually work, are now being initiated on children as well as adults.

13. The speculative scientific predictions of televisual entertainments like Star Trek, Doctor Who, Time Tunnel et al, which dominated the popular imagination for the past fifty years, have all so far proved a flop. There are no tractor beams. No teleportation devices. No force fields. No time travel. No intergalactic space ships bringing us to other worlds. No visits from alien beings.

how green was my budgie

Greeny Budgie folded back his wings without extending them fully, and gave a little bow.
It was as courtly a greeting as you might see from a State Ambassador standing before Prince Charles at a garden party.
There is majesty in the creation.

light

Scientists disagree about the nature of light.
The current definition prevailing in academe seems to embody contradictions in terms.
Light is considered to be a particle.
At the same time light is considered to be a wave.
Light is also considered to behave differently depending on whether anyone is looking at it or not.
These logical contradictions imply to some that light has not been correctly defined or conceived of at all.
Or that we're not even close.
Definitional analysis of light remains elusive.
Why?
When we experience light, we may be experiencing several things at once, not one thing with mutually contradictory properties.
Some propositions:

1. Light occurs when some sort of an energy, emanates, radiates, or is displaced. The displacement occurs in what may be likenable to a wave form as to its affects on a medium.
2. For light to occur the wave form must manifest in a medium, specifically not empty space but in fact that electro magnetic medium which is the equilibrium at a given moment of those background forces that are detectable in our environment, ie gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and electro magnetism. The combination of these, their moment to moment equilibrium as it were, is itself a medium without which light does not exist. The response of this medium to light energy passing through it, is observable as a wave form but is also what causes light to be attended by characteristics of a particle.
3. For light as we observe it to happen a final element must be present. There is no light as we observe it without the medium of consciousness experienced through what we call eye sight. The observer affects the nature of the reality of the thing observed. If no one is looking at it, light is something else.

So:
Light may not be a wave.
What we're calling Light may be three things or more at once.
What looks like a wave form may be the effect of light "energy" (the emanation or radiation or displacement of light) through an electro magnetic medium whose existence as a medium is itself admittedly disputed.
The wave form effect on the medium in which it manifests may be what gives light the apparently paradoxical qualities of particle motion which accompany the supposed wave wherever it is perceived.

Possible steps towards corollaries:
Any point in the universe may provide a limitless variety of measurements in relation to every other point in the universe.
This limitless capacity for alternative measurements has relevance for the postulated affect of an observer on a thing observed.
Different measurements do not necessarily imply that anything meaningful has been measured.
The limitless variety of measurements from a single point to every other point in the universe has led to erroneous postulations of other worlds, aka the Landscape, aka the multiverse, aka the megaverse.
These universes are appealing for atheists as they are now de rigeur in efforts to make the mathematics of Darwinian evolution appear to add up.
The multiverse is a rational dysfunction.
There are no other universes.
Just this one.
With an infinity of measurements and attendant rational dysfunctions possible to go along with it.

a short monograph on mind powers

Are mind powers possible?
Here let the term mean the ability to move a mass through a medium without the application of intervening force save a human will.
I am suggesting that mind powers like these, telekinesis or psychokinesis, as depicted in films such as Carrie or Scanners, do not exist.
Looking on human beings as creatures created by God and subject to his laws, we might agree that God has given us a little help not to commit murder.
This is why we don't have mind powers.
To kill someone takes effort.
We can't do it simply with a thought.
If we could kill simply with a thought, the transgression of the law against murder, would become irresistible.
We are made the way we are made, ie without telekinetic mind powers, so that our actions may be stewarded by our minds.
To transgress the law we must choose to trangress it.
It can't happen by accident, by a momentary irritation by an impulse released in a dream, or on a whim.
Now try a Darwinian or even atheistic perspective.
I consider this perspective to be somehow enabled only by the spiritual perspective which gives us our vocabularies to assess anything.
But never mind that.
Darwinist evolutionary theory as applied to mind powers, how would it work, and what does it tell us?
If one person had mind powers, we might envisage that he could kill at will. That is to say he could affect the physiology of other persons, proximate or non proximate we haven't established, in a harmful way.
This would give him such an evolutionary advantage that ultimately he would dominate all humanity.
More probably as his thoughts ran away with themselves into megalomania, he would kill all humanity.
Briefly in ye wordes of ye olde cliche, he would be king on a field of corpses.
And then he would die.
The first and last of his kind.
Mind powers, I suggest, are therefore also precluded in the human experience when we adopt a Darwinian perspective.
The conception of them as a possibility embodies a logical contradiction as well as a spiritual one.
So they're not there.
We're left with the testimony of some quite respectable figures who have asserted quite forcefully and occasionally credibly, that they believe kinetic motion can be produced by the human mind.
A former leading lawyer in America claims that on one occasion a murderer smiled at him across the courtroom, and motioned him to look at his watch. When he looked at his watch, the hands were spinning.
The lawyer seems to believe the murderer somehow made the hands spin.
Mind powers?
The late Father Benedict Groeschel stated that he had been called to deal with cases of poltergeist activity in supposedly haunted houses and on at least one occasion he had been sure that the activity was caused by the mental telemetries of a resident of the house in question.
A poltergeist is often postulated to be some form of disembodied spirit, moving objects and creating otherwise inexplicable bangs and crashes in a location where it is thought to manifest itself.
As per Father Groeschel, some of the more credible investigators of such things (not the sensationalists who proliferate also in our era) are claiming that poltergeist activity is usually and perhaps always the result of mind powers projected from a pubescent child.
The notion is that pubescent children may temporarily have mind powers which in most cases fade as they leave their teenage years behind.
The more serious and level headed investigators of the phenomena have noted that poltergeist activity often centres around a girl who is resident in the supposedly haunted house.
In this instance I am suggesting that the credible and level headed experts are wrong in their conclusions.
Mind powers are still precluded from human experience for the reasons I have advanced.
This leaves us looking for another explanation for poltergeist activity.
I would revert to the older notion.
Poltergeist activity is caused by poltergeists.
If there are any genuine cases of poltergeist activity, a disembodied spirit will probably be at work.
It may indeed associate itself particularly with a resident of a given house.
It may even be in love with her as depicted in the Old Testament Book Of Tobit.
But it is not her.
And it is not her mind.
I would also postulate the agency of an evil spirit in the aforementioned claimed experience of the lawyer who thought a murderer was able to make the hands of his watch spin from across the courtroom. I doubt the murderer had that power or any other power. But an evil spirit seeking the ruination of the murder's soul might have given him the illusion of such abilities.