I don't know if there's an easy way to find an answer to this, but this is something that has been haunting me for a long time. I read the universe in a nutshell and a brief history of time when I was a teenager, and I was in awe about the world of theoretical physics and astrophysics...
Fast forward a few years, I start to see holes in everything…
Fast forward a few more years, and I'm so cynical that I start making predictions that run counter to mainstream science (e.g., predicting that the "faster than light neutrinos" would turn out to be bullshit, which came true a couple weeks later), and I start seeing more and more of these "just bet on the opposite" predictions coming true.
Right around that time or slightly before then I started down this path of "what if everything we were told is bullshit", so I started searching for clues, things that there would be no way to even know what to search for, and my first breakthrough moment was something called "phantom time hypothesis". This notion that at least a majority of the "dark ages" could've possibly not even existed, I started questioning everything at that point, wondering if Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed or the Roman empire, etc. I was at this point where I realized "well I guess they could just make up a story for every artifact we find and tell everybody that's official history".
I've spent a lot of time researching into the "mud flood" and the possibility of recent global resets, etc., but there is no complete picture to be had.
It's only 10% of the battle to know that much of what we have learned is fake. The other 90% is the hard part, and I feel like I'm 10% down that path... which puts me at about 19% of the way down the path figuring out some semblance of our real story :/
But then I started thinking about something even more sinister… Imagine you knew how things worked, like let's say that you knew how to generate energy, in the form of heat, output from a metal (e.g., what we about as a "Uranium isotope"). Now imagine you make up a science to explain this, but the science you make up masks the rest of the story, while allowing for experimental proofs of your theory to succeed. IOW, there could be some underlying science that we don't even know about, but, as long as we're able to generate heat from this metal, we believe the story as it's told.
IOW, imagine everything we were told about how "nuclear power" works was completely made up, including the notion that there are neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. This seems completely ludicrous until you imagine going back in time with something like a green laser pointer and telling some troglodyte that it's a bunch of miniature people holding leaves in front of miniature camp fires inside of this tube you're holding; and that that's where the green laser is coming from. And that if they push the button on the back it pokes the miniature people with a needle to encourage them to make a fire. So, as an experiment, you tell the troglodyte to push the button, and, lo and behold, the green laser comes out, so of course you must be right. How would they know? More importantly, how is this any different, other than the level of complexity involved in the story that's being told and the experiments used.
We have to at least be open to the possibility of this, at least with regards to any science that cannot be directly observed with simple magnification (e.g., without a scanning electron microscope or large hadron collider).
alot of what you said makes sense. I think theres a few specific areas of mainstream science that were hijacked. Modern history is a complete fabrication, your right literally any story could have been fabricated
I also think physics is being completely manipulated the deeper you go down. Personally i think Einstein wasn't trying to "prove" anything with general relativity, I think he created it to disprove the electric universe theory or shift people away from exploring it. what if he was wrong and we built entire areas and fields of science off that instead of looking into whats actually going on.
with in Biology also theres the big issue of virology, no matter what i look into or read about now it all leads me back to the fucking the germ vs terrain theroy and thats a tough pill to swallow.
this is without even going into the social sciences😑. TLDR the cake is a lie
I absolutely agree, especially pertaining the Einstein bit. In fact, even though I didn't mention it, one of my biggest moments of disillusionment was when I learned that the most interesting theories Einstein "came up with" were actually lifted directly from Ernst Mach.
I don't know if there's an easy way to find an answer to this, but this is something that has been haunting me for a long time. I read the universe in a nutshell and a brief history of time when I was a teenager, and I was in awe about the world of theoretical physics and astrophysics...
Fast forward a few years, I start to see holes in everything…
Fast forward a few more years, and I'm so cynical that I start making predictions that run counter to mainstream science (e.g., predicting that the "faster than light neutrinos" would turn out to be bullshit, which came true a couple weeks later), and I start seeing more and more of these "just bet on the opposite" predictions coming true.
Right around that time or slightly before then I started down this path of "what if everything we were told is bullshit", so I started searching for clues, things that there would be no way to even know what to search for, and my first breakthrough moment was something called "phantom time hypothesis". This notion that at least a majority of the "dark ages" could've possibly not even existed, I started questioning everything at that point, wondering if Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed or the Roman empire, etc. I was at this point where I realized "well I guess they could just make up a story for every artifact we find and tell everybody that's official history".
I've spent a lot of time researching into the "mud flood" and the possibility of recent global resets, etc., but there is no complete picture to be had.
It's only 10% of the battle to know that much of what we have learned is fake. The other 90% is the hard part, and I feel like I'm 10% down that path... which puts me at about 19% of the way down the path figuring out some semblance of our real story :/
But then I started thinking about something even more sinister… Imagine you knew how things worked, like let's say that you knew how to generate energy, in the form of heat, output from a metal (e.g., what we about as a "Uranium isotope"). Now imagine you make up a science to explain this, but the science you make up masks the rest of the story, while allowing for experimental proofs of your theory to succeed. IOW, there could be some underlying science that we don't even know about, but, as long as we're able to generate heat from this metal, we believe the story as it's told.
IOW, imagine everything we were told about how "nuclear power" works was completely made up, including the notion that there are neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. This seems completely ludicrous until you imagine going back in time with something like a green laser pointer and telling some troglodyte that it's a bunch of miniature people holding leaves in front of miniature camp fires inside of this tube you're holding; and that that's where the green laser is coming from. And that if they push the button on the back it pokes the miniature people with a needle to encourage them to make a fire. So, as an experiment, you tell the troglodyte to push the button, and, lo and behold, the green laser comes out, so of course you must be right. How would they know? More importantly, how is this any different, other than the level of complexity involved in the story that's being told and the experiments used.
We have to at least be open to the possibility of this, at least with regards to any science that cannot be directly observed with simple magnification (e.g., without a scanning electron microscope or large hadron collider).
alot of what you said makes sense. I think theres a few specific areas of mainstream science that were hijacked. Modern history is a complete fabrication, your right literally any story could have been fabricated
I also think physics is being completely manipulated the deeper you go down. Personally i think Einstein wasn't trying to "prove" anything with general relativity, I think he created it to disprove the electric universe theory or shift people away from exploring it. what if he was wrong and we built entire areas and fields of science off that instead of looking into whats actually going on.
with in Biology also theres the big issue of virology, no matter what i look into or read about now it all leads me back to the fucking the germ vs terrain theroy and thats a tough pill to swallow.
this is without even going into the social sciences😑. TLDR the cake is a lie
I absolutely agree, especially pertaining the Einstein bit. In fact, even though I didn't mention it, one of my biggest moments of disillusionment was when I learned that the most interesting theories Einstein "came up with" were actually lifted directly from Ernst Mach.