Science vs Religion

American inventor Howard R. Johnson invented and patented a motor using only magnets.

The motors work.

Mainstream science asserts they can’t according to theory.

Mainstream, or settled, science is a religion where ‘scientific’ laws are deemed inviolate. Religious edicts are inviolate.

Hence there are no axioms in science and thus all scientific theories are ultimately fallaceous because they are only our present-day understanding of natural phenomena in terms of existing knowledge.

Has mainstream science purposfully ignored Johnson’s invention? Or has it secretly improved it and our ruling elite are embarked on a long process of weaning us off hydrocarbon powered motors and fossil fuels in order to slowly introduce the Johnson motor in bikes, cars, trucks, marine engines etc etc?

Having a stupid and gullible mass-media has its advantages, methinks.

But Johnson’s explanation for magnetism is interesting, for it involves a quite different way of thinking.

Physicist Bill Gaede explains magnetism in another way which seems to confirm Johnson’s explanation.

It might help understanding to think of the universe as holographic as desccribed by the late Michael Talbot in his book “The Holographic Universe“. Amit Goswami’s  book “The Self Aware Universe” might also help. More on this in a future post.


About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Science, Scientific Stupidities, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Science vs Religion

  1. malagabay says:

    Thank you! Especially for introducing Bill Gaede…


  2. THX1138 says:

    You might also be interested in the work of Ionel Dinu. Science Journals – Papers written by Ionel Dinu
    “November 9, 2015: Radio Waves – Part IV: On the false Electric Waves of delusio…
    March 22, 2015: Flux Quantization Validates Electromagnetic Induction in the Photoe…
    June 27, 2013: Radio Waves – Part III: The Photoelectric Effect
    May 28, 2013: Radio Waves – Part II
    February 19, 2013: Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory: Can Fields Ind…
    June 20, 2012: A New Theory of Polarization of Light
    May 14, 2013: Radio Waves – Part I
    November 18, 2010: On An Experimentum Crucis for Optics
    March 22, 2010: Rudiments of a Theory of Aether
    May 9, 2009: Aether Thesaurus
    November 13, 2008: The Aether of Space
    October 3, 2008: Optical Phenomena in the Aether
    June 16, 2008: Why No Theory Based On Einstein’s Principle Of Equivalence Can Tell…
    May 12, 2008: New Fundaments for Classical Mechanics
    May 1, 2007: Microscopic Processes in Electrodynamic Phenomena
    January 19, 2007: The Origin of Gravitation ”,%20Dinu


  3. THX1138 says:

    Also, I think we need to get rid of the idea of “particles” like a bad hangover. Check out Milo Wolff’s ideas regarding the Wave Structure of Matter. Although he still takes Einstain seriously, I think he is correct that there is no solid matter, but only constructive interference of longitudinal waves of energy, which cause the effect of matter.


  4. Particles are essentially the extrapolation of Newtonian physics from its natural domain as the interaction between “Gaedeian” shapes (Bill Gaede) or Newtonian bodies to the subatomic world. Problem is that if your only tool is a pool cue, all things end up being billiard balls. So yes, we do need to get rid of the particle meme; but with what?

    Wal Thornhill has gone down one track, the Ralph Sansbury (Spelling?) one in which protons etc are comprised of a smaller particles; maybe.

    Wolff is right, there’s no solid matter per se, but what’s a proton made of? And the wretched things also spin and precess, a ‘fact’ that allows proton precession magnetometers to work. And as far as I am concerned, dropping a ten-pin ball on my foot proves the thing is solid; and smashing it with a hammer still does not make it unsolid, so while the wave structure is logical, then how?

    Which is why I lean towards Goswami’s monistic idealism and Bohm’s holographic universe with its implicate and explicate orders.

    And then we have Sheldrake’s idea of morphological fields, another taboo which needs more study.

    One thing I do know is that gravity has first got to be sorted out, for it alone drives the mainstream scientific paradigm.

    My brain hurts …..:-)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s