"James Webb" for looking into empty skulls

zaslužni član Reputation : 1 Datum upisa : 16.09.2011 Godina : 75

In the sciences that are not based on materially verifiable data - all kinds of things are said.
And it remains for us to believe or not believe the so-called authorities in those sciences.
I stopped believing them a long time ago, and now I was challenged to make this video by the circus around the James Webb telescope.
In order to explain to you why I am speaking publicly on this topic, I will take as an example several world-renowned scientists.
The first is C. G. Jung.
Carl Gustav Jung dealt with diseases of the soul, and he admitted that he did not know what the soul is.
From a psychological point of view, the technical term "psyche" is used to describe the disembodied nature of the human being. Philosophers, priests, anthropologists and poets use the technical term "soul" for this.
The famous Carl Gustav Jung was a person who was interested in the disembodied nature of the human being, both when this disembodied aspect can be viewed as the psyche, that is, in a quasi-scientific way, and as the soul, that is, in a quasi-non-scientific way.
He studied medicine. As a psychoanalyst, he was interested in both: the psyche and the soul. So for the same thing, sometimes as an academic and sometimes as an esoteric. He traveled a lot, saw many rituals, talked to many shamans and remained confused about the psyche/soul for the rest of his life.
He himself said the following:
"If the human psyche is anything, it is immensely complicated and of unlimited variety that cannot be reconciled with a purely instinctual psychology. I can only stand in the deepest admiration and awe, looking into the abysses and heights of spiritual nature, whose extraterrestrial world contains an immense wealth of images, which millions of years of living development have accumulated and condensed organically.
My consciousness is like an eye that contains almost the outermost spaces, but the psychic non-ego is what fills this space non-spatially. And these images are not pale shadows, but quite powerful psychological states that we can only misunderstand, but can never deprive of their power through denial.
Next to this impression I could place only the sight of the starry night sky, because the equivalent of the inner world is only the outer one, and just as I reach this world through the medium of the body, so I reach that world through the medium of the soul."
If Carl Gustav Jung knew how the brain works - he would know that the soul
it doesn't exist, but there is only work-operational ability
brain, and based on that ability - how someone understands and accepts what in life.
--------------------------------
Albert Einstein claimed something about the curvature of time and space, and there is neither the former nor the latter. In order to prove his claim, he falsified the results of a solar eclipse observation from 1919.
Then Steven Hawking told us something about the Cosmos:
I thought he won a Nobel Prize for a theory, and then he gave up on that theory. But I was better informed: that he "left" us without the Nobel Prize.
Basically, he was one of those who stubbornly tried to create a "Theory of Everything":
by explaining the fictional fundamental interaction of four basic forces in nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force of the atomic nucleus and the strong force of the atomic nucleus, and to unite the theory of relativity with quantum physics.
Of course, they will never succeed because:
The Big Bang Theory is wrong.
The theory of relativity is wrong.
Gravity is not a force but an effect.
There are not 200 subatomic particles in atoms, but there is a psychology of chemical elements and there is neither time nor space.
To put together (Theory Of Everything). They considered a fifth force, but gave up. Although they should have introduced Logic as the fifth force.
Astrophysicists are still looking for the graviton as the carrier of Gravity, they don't know what Dark Mass is, they don't know what Black holes are, whether it exists and what Ether is, they don't know exactly what the Cosmos is and what the Universe is, they don't know why everything in the Cosmos spins and they don't know why the Cosmos is expanding.
It is peculiar that they do not admit that there is something before mathematics and telescopes: what I call God; as a set of all possibilities and intelligence for all possible solutions in this reality.
If astrophysicists knew the difference between the terms "Universe" and "Cosmos", they would not be ashamed to say "Absolute" or "God" for the Universe.
But the more valuable instruments are at their service, the more they confirm as shallow-minded.
Now they have the "James Webb" telescope and are scratching their heads wondering how to get rid of the "Big Bang" theory.
They claim that the "Universe" is older than they thought it was. And on what basis did they estimate his age before, and on what basis now with "James Webb"?
Based on the old telescopes and this new one, that is. based on old and new calculations, how long does it take light from the galaxy they think is most distant to reach earth?
Why to Earth? Wouldn't they consider their "Universe" older if they were at the other end of the "Universe" with the "James Webb" telescope?
If the Cosmos has a space-time end at all?
The second thing is this: what does the light of a distant galaxy tell us?
How long, according to some of our units of time, which does not exist, does the light of the galaxy travel to us, so that we can see it and estimate how old it is?
The problem is that we do not see the galaxy as if its light reached us, but we see it because we glanced at it.
This means that all we see now in the Cosmos is the present, not the thirteen and a half or, with “James Webb”, 18 billion Earth years long journey of light from that distant galaxy to us. You do not believe me? So here it is:
Stargaze without a telescope. You see there are many of them. And you assume that some stars are further than the ones you estimate to be the most distant. If a star is, according to the valid measurements of astrophysicists, billions of light years away, you still cannot see it, even though its light has reached Earth. What it means?
You don't need a telescope to amplify its light, you need a telescope to amplify your sense of sight.
Just like when you are old you need glasses to read fine print.
Let's take it this way: It's night. You took a break from observing the sky at the astronomical observatory. When you return to the telescope, you look above it at the sky and see a couple of nearby stars. Or a bright light that you already know is a galaxy, say xy321. When you look at it through a telescope, you see many stars of that galaxy.
Have they been standing in front of the telescope waiting to show themselves to you, or are they always there spinning around the centre of the galaxy. They are always there. Both when you see them and when you don't see them.
When people build a telescope stronger than “James Webb”, they will see galaxies even further away from Earth and "conclude" that their "Universe" is 22 billion Earth years old. Etc. Depending on the strength of the telescope. Why not 44 billion, because the solar system is not the centre of the Cosmos?

:copyright:: I Ging Studio Solothurn:
"James Webb" for looking into empty skulls
*
By Dragoljub M. V. P.
Serbian, graduate father,
writer and musician.

www.iging-studio.ch
www.flyingjoymaker.com

@serb001
March 17, 2024

» „James Webb“ za pogled u prazne lobanje
» „James Webb“ für den Blick in die leere Schädel