mental substitutes for scientology

Discussion in 'Life After Scientology' started by TomKat, Sep 24, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    So Bill, I went to this interesting site - and the author goes into a lot of science that, frankly is beyond me. You, if you read it, will find it very interesting if you like all manner of algebraic formulas. He goes through all the basic problems of large animals, the square cube law, scaling etc. and even discusses the possibility of the constant of gravity changing. I will cut and paste a few relevant sections and I apologize for the length of the post.

    http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/index.html

    "DinosaurTheory gives the solution to the paradox of how the dinosaurs and pterosaurs grew so large. Solving the large dinosaur paradox is an important scientific achievement and yet DinosaurTheory is much more than just a discussion about dinosaurs. This is because the large dinosaur paradox has existed for centuries so that now it is entangled with numerous other science incongruities and misconceptions and this has caused considerable confusion. All of this confusion needs to be sorted out so that science can move forward.
    In explaining the solution to how the dinosaurs and pterosaurs grew so large, DinosaurTheory is actually a series of incredibly wonderful and scientifically correct solutions to numerous scientific paradoxes. Consider the fact that most people are unsure if size matters and so they are confused on whether the evidence of the exceptionally large terrestrial animals of the Mesozoic era is indeed a scientific paradox. Can objects be any arbitrary size? Understanding how size matters is actually one of the most fundamental concepts in all of science, but science teachers rarely teach this concept correctly and in turn scientists and engineers make countless mistakes as a consequence of the confusion brought on by the large dinosaur paradox. To give another example, what are the requirements for flight that show why it is illogical to believe that the large pterosaurs could have flown in an atmosphere similar to our present atmosphere? DinosaurTheory brings clarity to the flying pterosaur paradox by exploring the general requirements for all types of flight that includes both flying animals and airplanes. For a third example, when we consider that many millions of years ago the Earth's atmosphere may have been different, we should also wonder why Earth's present atmosphere - mostly nitrogen and oxygen - is so different from the atmospheres of all the other planets? Yet once we have the correct understanding of how planets evolve, the differences among the planets are no longer baffling but rather they make perfect sense. Each one of the solutions to these science paradoxes is an extremely significant scientific breakthrough, and yet within DinosaurTheory there is still much more."

    He says this after several chapters discussing the problems of the size of dinosaurs:

    "This gives us three possible variables that if one or more of these variables were to change then it could change the acceleration due to gravity. However, it is difficult to imagine how either the universal gravitational constant G, the mass of the Earth ME, or the radius of the Earth RE could have changed significantly between the Mesozoic era and the present. Both the physical evidence and simple calculations of what is physically possible confirm that none of these values could have significantly changed during the last hundred and fifty million years. But still, in the spirit of keeping an open mind, let us take a moment to investigate why none of these values could have changed by a significant amount over the last 150 million years.
    There has actually been a suggestion that the universal gravity constant G could have changed. But as stated earlier, our preference would be to avoid hypothesizing a change in a fundamental property of science as a means of resolving a science paradox"

    snip

    "Nevertheless the author is going to rule that the changing gravitational constant hypothesis is not a realistic explanation for how the dinosaurs grew so large. Changes in the gravitational constant G that may, or may not, be possible over vast distances of billions of light years will not work to account for the huge change in the size of terrestrial animals that occurred on the Earth a mere hundred million years ago. Occam's razor directs us to toss out the changing gravitational constant hypothesis; for if we try to use the changing gravitational constant hypothesis to account for the large size of the dinosaurs this in itself creates so many unsolvable problems that it completely muddles our understanding of the laws of reality."

    So - how does he solve the paradox of the size of dinosaurs?

    "For terrestrial vertebrates, it is the net force produced by their weight that often limits their size. But this is not true for species that exist in the water. For the latter species it is not their weight but rather other factors, such as the availability of food that might limit the size of these species. Without the weight limitation some of these aquatic species grow to display gigantism. It is the buoyancy of water that allows the whales, the largest animals of today, to grow so large. Without this buoyancy to counteract gravity, the poor whale that finds itself stuck on a beach is soon having its bones broken from its own weight.
    To produce an effective buoyancy force on dinosaurs the Earth's atmosphere would have to be thick enough to have a density comparable to the density of water. By summing the forces acting on a typical dinosaur such as a Brachiosaurus the density of the necessary atmosphere is calculated as:
    ρF = ρS (1 - 1/S.F.)

    Derivation of Fluid Density Equation
    Fb + FN = Fg

    V ρF g + m gef = m g

    V ρF g + V ρS gef = V ρS g

    ρF g + ρS gef = ρS g

    (ρF - ρS)g = - ρS gef

    ρF = ρS - ρS (gef/g)

    ρF = ρS (1 - 1/S.F.)
    where ρF is the density of the fluid, ρs is the density of the substance submerged in the fluid such as the dinosaur, and S.F is the scaling factor. Inserting into this equation a scaling factor of 3.2 and an overall vertebrate density of 970 kg/m3, the Earth's atmospheric density during the late Jurassic period can be calculated to be 670 kg/m3. This says that to produce the necessary buoyancy so that the dinosaurs could grow to their exceptional size, the density of the Earth’s air near the Earth’s surface would need to be 2/3’s of the density of water"

    And what planet in our system has that sort of air density and is of a similar size to earth?

    "To find the answer we look at Venus, the only planet today that comes close to modeling the Earth’s extremely thick Mesozoic atmosphere. Venus’ atmosphere and the Earth’s Mesozoic atmosphere are comparable in thickness since Venus’s is 91 times thicker and the Earth’s Mesozoic atmosphere was a few hundred times thicker than the Earth’s relatively thin present-day atmosphere. Another shared characteristic is the uniformity of the surface temperature regardless of latitude. Like the Mesozoic Earth, on Venus the surface temperature near its equator is only slightly higher than the surface temperature at either pole.
    A primary reason there is almost no variation in temperature over the entire surface of Venus is because Venus has an extremely efficient atmospheric convection current system that uniformly distributes the radiation / thermal energy coming from the Sun. With such a thick atmosphere, there is only one convection cell in each hemisphere carrying the heat from the equator to the one or the other pole. This one cell system is much more effective than the Earth’s present-day three cell system in distributing heat from the lower latitudes to the higher latitudes.
    Likewise it is reasonable that the Earth’s much thicker Mesozoic atmosphere would also form a one cell convection system that would be much more effective in transporting heat from the equator to the poles. Today’s atmosphere, being hundreds of times thinner, is compacted too close to the surface to maintain a thin one cell per hemisphere convection system stretching from the equator to each pole. So the thin present atmosphere forms a three cell convection system."

    So, Bill, thanks for sending me on a quest that lead to a really much sounder conclusion than a change in the constant of gravity.

    Mimsey
     
  2. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Umm, Google it if you are interested . . . I honestly don't have the time to do work for others. It is science I read maybe 20 years ago, and have moved on since then.

    R
     
  3. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    As it happens I'm not in the least bit interested in unsubstantiated and ludicrous statements such as the one you have made in your post. Why should I 'do the work' as you demand? You are the one who is making the claim, and the onus is on you to provide documentary evidence to back up your empty words.

    As it happens I seem to recall something along these lines a few (far less than ten) years ago where the SOL came into question, but it was very soon discovered errors had been made in the calculations and the status quo remains.

     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
  4. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    For you guys thinking that, because Alan or I once studied the errant teachings of the cult of Scientology that any other work we do has to be in furtherance of that scam, are honestly showing an inability to think correctly.

    I once studied Catholicism, also Biochemistry and an array of other Human Potential bodies of knowledge . . . that does not make what I do an extension of those subjects. Indeed, my certification with the International Society for Performance Improvement as a Certified Performance Technologist speaks to the point that what I am involved in no way carrying on the scam of the cult.

    I began in this game of performance improvement a decade before before looking into Scientology, that in the days as an athlete working with Forbes Carlile who at the time was on the faculty at Sydney University.

    So all the other shit and lies being thrown at me are irrelevant.

    R
     
    • Poop Poop x 2
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  5. George Layton

    George Layton Silver Meritorious Patron

    Isn't that what it all comes down to, others inability to think correctly and you have the means to teach them the correct way?
    Spiritual growth happens by living one's life. Can you not see the arrogance of believing you know the means of developing someone else's spiritual growth? The rate at which they expand, what expanse is for them, when it should be brought about, how it should be brought about, do you really believe that is YOUR call? Those are between each person and all that is, and trust me on this, neither you nor Walter are all that is.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  6. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    What is irrelevant @RogerB is you informing this board that you have studied Catholicisim, Biochemistry and "an array of other human potential bodies of knowledge" and reminding us (yet again) that you were once an athlete, presumably back in the 50's ... but it's also a flagrant attempt at a smokescreen.

    You promote knowledgism (here) on every post you make and (like Terril) you tend to pounce when any potential prospects are around, so every now and again someone like me will let any lurkers/newbies know that
    knowledgism is just a knock off of scientology ... because (for some reason) while in guru mode ... you always fail to disclose it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  7. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    So, let me get this straight: "Knowledgism" which, originally, came from Scientology via Alan, and was touted as an improvement, expansion and alternate for Hubbard's "tech", now has NOTHING to do with Scientology, NEVER had anything to do with Scientology and came from some "other" (unnamed) studies...

    Sure. And if anyone remembers the origins of "Knowledgism" or read Alan's early writings (and remembers who his audience was) they are "showing an inability to think correctly".

    Got it.

    New definition of "thinking correctly". Nice.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  8. phenomanon

    phenomanon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Interesting thread.
     
  9. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    Yeah! And it's nowhere near xmas yet! :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • For you For you x 1
    • List
  10. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    If people blindly and unquestionably agree with you then that's "correct" thinking per your flawed logic? Your reasoning is utterly preposterous. I remember a guy from Tilden Nebraska that tried the same angle selling his woo. Caveat Emptor people.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  11. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Note that I don't pounce on every prospect around. If
    someone asks me about Scn, I'll answer. Best I know Roger is the same.
    To call Knowledgism a"knock off" of scientology is to disparage it with words and rhetoric. Its certainly clear that knowledgism
    has its seeds in Scn and borrowed some ideas. That in
    itself is not despicable. This is how human progress in any field is made. New pioneers stand on the shoulders of their predecessors.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • Poop Poop x 1
    • List
  12. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    I know nothing about knowledgeism apart from the fact that it has a really stupid name, but if it has its seeds in scientology then it can't be of much value, since you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Human progress? Give me a break!

    Yes, new pioneers stand on the shoulders of their predecessors, and others have their heads up the asses of dead cult leaders.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  13. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    At some point in scientology/knowledgism followers will be expected to placidly accept that body thetans/spiritual teammates/invisible friends are literally "standing on the shoulders" of everyone @Terril and that is (in part) what bothers many of us, as you well know.

    Encouraging serious mental illness is not acceptable anywhere. Sometimes I think we are too accepting of it around here possibly because so many of us were caught up in the insanity of the cofs and are somewhat immune to seeing people doing it.


    Since escaping the cult I am free to call a spade a spade (or a shovel, depending on my mood of the day) and will continue to do that for as long as I have the energy.


    :toodlepip:
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  14. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    From the fish bowl into the fish bowl...

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page