How Experts Create Stupidity
Today people can use the internet to find the answer to any question and the result is a generation of stupid people with no ability to think.
It doesn’t matter if the expert knows anything about the subject of the question, as long as he is some sort of expert, what he says will be believed. This is true even if the experience of the person and people they know show that the answer is false.
All they need to do is repeat the answer of the expert and they too can become experts. Knowledge without understanding is still ignorance. An answer removes any need to think about the question and consider different possibilities.
Consequently people have lost the ability to think rationally and accurately judge the validity of the answer. The result is a compounding and expanding of bad information that gets further and further divorced from reality.
The study of physics is a prime example of this. Physics is supposed to be the study of the properties in the real world around us but has becomes such a fantasy narrative that they declare that over ninety percent of reality is invisible and undetectable. Instead of questioning the answers previous experts have told them, they add to those answers expanding their world of make believe.
In physics laws are now made based on a lack of evidence, rather than observed evidence. The first law of thermodynamics: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, is an example of a lack of evidence becoming a basic belief of a science supposed to be based observations of reality.
It is a statement of faith but once the experts make these pronouncements they are accepted as true and declared laws.
The evolution of the laws of gravity provides an example of this compounding of errors. The evidence Newton used to create the law of gravity was Kepler’s observations of
orbiting bodies. The velocity of the orbiting body squared times the distance it is from the orbited body gave the same value for all the objects in orbit around it. While a planet orbits the sun in an elliptical orbit and the distance between it and the sun increases, the velocity of the planet decreases.
The planet will delineate an equal area per unit time as it orbits the sun. This is a law of physics based on observation and what it says is that energy will decrease as a function of distance from the source, while the density/strength of that energy will decrease as a function of the square of the distance times pi.
There is nothing in this evidence that includes mass but Newton, an expert, needed a source for his force of gravity and created an equation that includes mass. He created a theory to explain Kepler’s laws but used assumptions not based on observation to create this theory. His first “law” : An object in motion will continue in a straight line unless a force acts upon it, is not something we see in reality, The universe consists of spheres and objects travel in arcs, not straight lines.
The law should be an object in motion will maintain its energy until it gains or loses energy. Planets travel in orbits because they are equalizing with the energy field coming from the sun. When they reach equilibrium their elliptical orbit will be a circle.
Energy is not a function of mass but is attracted to positive mass. Mass produces inertia, resistance to motion, and if the force of mass trying to move an object (gravity) was equal to the inertial mass, objects would not move. Mass produces inertia, energy (v^2) produces motion and the force of energy is greater than the force of mass.
This assertion by Newton that gravity was a function of mass has been accepted as a law by the experts (including Einstein) and used to determine the mass of the planets even though there was no evidence supporting the theory and in fact recent evidence contradicts it.
The discovery of binary asteroids, where one asteroid orbits another asteroid, shows that gravity is not a function of mass but a result of energy (v^2). This evidence from reality has not changed the beliefs of the experts. They still believe that Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus are composed of gas due to the calculations using a theory that has been shown to be wrong.
The asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter where the energy radiated by the sun has weakened, allowing the energy of the matter in the belt to expand. Because asteroids are not only trying to equalize with the sun’s energy, but also trying to equalize with the energy field radiated by Jupiter at times, they have two energy sources which causes them to move in different directions there by preventing them from coalescing into a planet.
When an asteroid is within the larger energy field radiated by another asteroid it will orbit it despite its small mass.
Objects orbit other objects because they are in equilibrium with the energy field radiated by the object and cannot gain or lose energy. Their energy does no become equal to the energy radiated from the source object but with energy field surrounding the orbiting object.
Objects do not transfer energy to other objects but to the energy field they are in.
Einstein created the particle nature of light, photon, based on negative evidence. In the photoelectric effect if light were a wave (as the evidence of interference patterns indicated) there would need to be a delay between when the light struck the metal/crystal and a current was observed.
It would take time for a wave to add enough energy to dislodge an electron from an atom and create a current. No such delay was observed and therefore Einstein claimed that light had particle properties. For this he became an expert and won a Nobel Prize.
In crystals and metals electrons are already disassociated from atoms and held in place by electric bonds. All that is necessary for them to flow and create a current is for that bond to be distorted, as is what occurs, due to mechanical pressure, in the Piezo electric effect.
Energy is not needed to dislodge an electron from an atom in metals or crystals, only to distort a bond.
If waves have particle properties, it was reasoned then particles should have wave properties. This led to one of the most famous (infamous) experiments in physics, the dual thin slit experiment.
An electron was directed towards a screen that had two narrow slits cut in it that were close together.
This electron particle, just like a beam of light, produced an interference pattern on a screen behind the slits, seemly confirming that particles had wave properties. The experiment went on and came to the amazing conclusion that the experiment knew when observers were watching it and changed the results when it was being observed.
This is an experimental conclusion that invalidates all experiments. It never occurred to the experimenters that a single electron in motion creates a changing electric field, which in turns creates a changing magnetic field. The experiment was creating electromagnetic waves which created an interference pattern.
Light is a change in the density/strength of an energy field which in turn causes a change in the electric fields emitted by matter. It is a wave traveling in the energy and matter fields radiated by objects.
As an expert Einstein’s next assertion that the speed of light was constant in a vacuum was accepted without need for evidence. If the energy (v^2) of light declines with distance from the source, how can its velocity (v) remain constant?
This new pronouncement established the speed of light in a vacuum, c, as the reference for all other measurements (relativity). If the speed of an object increased, time and distance expand maintaining the ratio of c.
Since nothing could go faster than the speed of light, Einstein did not accept Newton’s law of gravity (though he kept the source as mass) because gravity, according to Newton, is instantaneous and travels faster than the speed of light.
This led to the next step in Einstein’s trip into make believe. He asserted that because, in a closed container, there was no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration (negative evidence that is untrue), acceleration and gravity are the same.
This is general relativity and means, because the speed of light is constant, when you get closer to a center of gravity causing the strength of gravity to increase, time expands resulting in the
distance to the center of gravity to increase. This is not reality. When ever evidence from reality shows that their theories are wrong, physicists will adjust the evidence to conform to the theory. When the energy released in the decay of radioactive elements did not match that predicted by Einstein’s E=mc^2, a new particle, the neutrino, was created to account for the missing energy.
The particle had no charge, no mass, and traveled at the speed of light. As conflicts arose between these properties and accepted theory, the neutrino was changed to three particles traveling less than the speed of light with mass. It would be a farce if it weren’t so pathetic.
The second law of thermodynamics is about the flow of heat. Heat does not flow, energy does. Heat is kinetic energy which is a product of both mass and energy (1/2mv^2) and in
elastic collisions or radiation of energy, objects do not transfer mass.
When objects collide (convection) they penetrate the energy field radiated by the other object and the energy flows from the object with greater energy per unit mass to the object with less energy per unit mass, regardless of how much mass the objects contain.
After a collision the energy will be distributed equally between the masses of the two objects. This is the law of conservation of momentum and is verified by observation and experimentation.
An object with less kinetic energy can add energy to an object with more kinetic energy. “Cold” can heat “hot”. If you drive your car into the back of a large slower truck you will lose energy (slow down) even though the truck has more kinetic energy and according to the second law should cause the velocity of your car to increase.
The second law of thermodynamics does not conform to reality and yet is a foundation of modern physics. It and black body theory (which has no basis in reality) were used by Planck to create quantum physics which has absolutely no connection to reality but is used to explain any observed discrepancy with accepted theory.
It and the Uncertainty Principle (because you cannot know the exact position and velocity of a particle it doesn’t have them) are the magic spells of physics that make anything true and conform to theory.
Planck’s “law” states that the energy of light is a function of its frequency, the greater the frequency the greater the energy. The observation of energy involves the nature of energy
emitted by an object and the properties observed are a result of the structure of the object, not the energy. The energy absorbed and radiated by an object is a result of the bonds in the object. The quantum nature of light has nothing to do with energy but with the bonds emitting it.
If Planck’s law were true then light having a blue shift would need to gain energy with distance from the source. Light is a disturbance in the energy field and the electric field radiated by objects. Its strength decreases with the decreasing strength of these fields. If the light is radiated in all directions its strength will decrease with the square of the distance but if it is directional, as in a spot light or laser, it decrease will be more linear like the energy field in which it travels.
Gravity is attractive force radiated in all directions by objects. Magnetism is a directional attractive energy force and the correct formula for the force of a third magnet created by two magnets is Fm3= Fm1/d1 + Fm2/d2 where the distances (d1,d2) are the size of the magnetic field radiated by the two combining magnets.
The electric force emitted by matter (there is no electromagnetic force) behaves oppositely to the force of energy. When opposite poles of magnets get closer, the strength of the radiated field increases (bigger magnet) while when opposite charges get closer, the strength of the radiated field decreases (neutron). The opposite occurs when similar poles/charges get closer. It is this opposite behavior that propagates electromagnetic waves.
Another area where an expert’s answer has caused mass stupidity is in meteorology and climate science. An expert will tell you that a thermometer measure the mean/average kinetic energy of the medium being measured, this despite the thermometer having no mechanism to calculate these values.
The measuring liquid in the thermometer exchanges energy with molecules striking the thermometer (convection) and it measures how much energy is contained in the measuring liquid by how it expands or contracts.
A thermometer was designed to measure the flow of energy from one medium (liquid) to another medium (air). A set portion (the bulb) is submerged in the liquid and the measuring liquid exchanges kinetic energy with the molecules striking it. This cause the level of the liquid exposed in the air medium to change and the amount of energy being exchanged with the air molecules also changes.
When the level of the measuring liquid becomes constant the thermometer is indicating the temperature of the molecules in the liquid. The number of molecules transferring energy needs to be constant for the reading to be accurate.
In the atmosphere all of the measuring liquid is exposed to the one medium so the measurement is of how much energy the measuring liquid has absorbed from the air, not a flow of energy.
When the air molecules gain energy the volume of the air expands (ideal gas law) and fewer molecules will then collide with the thermometer, transferring energy to it. Unlike the thermometer measuring the energy of the liquid, the number of molecules (mass) transferring energy is no longer constant but has become a second variable.
There is no way of telling how much of the change in the level of the measuring liquid is due to a change in the number of molecules or the energy of those molecules by just looking at the liquid in the thermometer.
The only way to compare the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere is by dividing the temperature reading on the thermometer by the density of the air, getting a number that compares the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume of molecules.
A graph of the temperature of the atmosphere as measured by the thermometer, starting at the Earth’s surface, shows the temperature declining, then pausing, then increasing, then pausing, then decreasing, then pausing, then increasing.
This is not how the flow of energy behaves and it is energy that is being transferred not mass. The mass or number of air molecules continuously declines with increasing altitude and this must be taken into account when determining energy flow.
A graph of the temperature measured by the thermometer divided by the density at that altitude shows that the energy of the molecules increases with increasing altitude (which is why the density decreases). In the troposphere the energy increase is in a straight line because the water in the troposphere moderates the temperature change.
Above the troposphere the energy of air molecules increases in an exponential curve, which shows that it is the sun that is heating the atmosphere, not the Earth. This is confirmed by the types of molecules found at different altitudes. The higher the altitude the greater the energy contained in the molecules.
When those molecules descend they are able to lose energy and convert into more stable molecules. The nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere are being heated by absorbing over ninety percent of the ultraviolet light coming from the sun. (Ozone is not absorbing ultraviolet energy but is created by ultraviolet light splitting an oxygen molecule.)
This energy is converted into kinetic energy of the molecules and in turn heats the surface of the Earth (high velocity gas molecules colliding with the surface) along with the visible light passing through the gases and being absorbed by the surface.
The “experts” pronouncement that the thermometer measure the mean/average kinetic energy of the medium being measured has created the stupidity that is meteorology and climate science.
Do not accept answers because of the status of the person providing the answer. You must think about the question and answer, examining its ramifications and confirming them with evidence and reason in order to understand them.
Is the information from the expert increasing your understanding of the subject or just trying to stop the questions?
Header image: Quizlet
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
ChoppedDog
| #
Major Bust.
Who really benefited from all of the obfuscation?
Strikingly similar to the medical film flam suffered for centuries.
Then there’s the demonization of humanities very real senses and divine connections.
The Puppeteers may be shaking in their piss filled boots…
Ok… they’ve had centuries to gather quite a tool box of tricks….even magic tricks…
Reply
Tom
| #
The very nature of the term “expert” portrays an assumed knowledge and capability of navigating all roads of expertise about a subject. Even the bum on the street who is homeless and a wino could be an expert in living that exact situation. Many experts are pompous windbags and/or baffled for some reason. Who needs these clowns?
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
My late wife’s definition of “expert” — “often wrong, never in doubt.”
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
I take issue with this statement, ” . . . people have lost the ability to think rationally and accurately judge the validity of the answer. ” I don’t think this is true. People have never had the ability to think rationally. This notion that people originally had rationality and lost it recently due to modern conveniences is false.
Human’s are naturally gullible and this natural gullibility is amplified by social interaction as birds of a feather flock together. The only antidote to human gullibility that has ever worked is strict adherence to the scientific method.
I remember when I first encountered PSI. I was excited because the name Principia Scientific contained allusions to Isaac Newton who demonstrated adherence to the scientific method. But it rapidly became apparent that it is just another clown show of pretend experts, the only difference being they were/are predominantly conservative politically.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Of course it is physics and engineering experts who make airplanes fly on hot air of stupidity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wilson,
It was bicycle makers who made airplanes fly. It is physics which tries to figure out why they fly and engineers who make them better at flying. How long did it take for physics to figure out how it was possible for a bumble bee to fly?
Physics is descriptive trying to explain. For physicist a neutron is created by the combination of an electron and proton. It has the mass of a proton and electron and when it decomposes it releases an electron and proton. To them it is obvious that a neutron is comprised of different flavored quarks.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Did you read how the Wright Bros concluded the data they were using to design and construct their first two efforts and to test these two planes found that and discovered that both tests failed.
Hence they concluded the data was faulty and that they had to experiment and generate valid data. And did you read that when it came to the design of the propellor they argued with each other for about six months [As I remember reading].
And, if you read the biographies, which I read, did you note how they had observed (studied) soaring birds like eagles and others, and had seen how .these birds very subtly controlled their flight with almost imperceptible movements?
Have a good day
Reply