I'm an independent scientist, which means I'm free from forces of intimidation acting upon most scientists.

Science is rapidly deteriorating into a tool of propaganda for power mongers, as bureaucrats dry up funding for real science and pay only for outcome-directed research. Heavy handedness is also increasing drastically, as scientists who criticize too much lose their jobs. This situation created a need for me to take up various errors in science and explain misrepresentations.

The global warming fraud shows publicly what is happening throughout science. An agenda is forced onto real scientists and the public in contempt for rationality and evidence. Everyone is forced to submit to a fake consensus based on intimidation. (How the Firing Works)
(See also Oreskes.)

The public doesn't understand how science is deteriorating, because they equate technological advances with science. Technology produces a product which tests its adequacy, while science produces knowledge, which is abstract and questionable. So I attempt to describe what is happening in science in terms the public can understand. (see How Did Science Go Wrong?)

I criticize at the level of abstract basics. This includes laws of science, logic of assumptions and philosophical definitions. Superficial arguments too often contradict underlying science or logic. Explaining the basics helps people evaluate for themselves.

In graduate school, at the University of Arizona, I studied yeast physiology and stumbled onto the basic control mechanisms for mushroom formation. But I was forced into seclusion by mental pain, so I moved onto the previously vacated family farm, in South Dakota, and did mushroom research. Mental pain is not depression or schizophrenia. It is memories of pain too close to the surface and contacted by external stimuli.

Being independent allows me to explore the details of total morel mushroom biology in ways which are not possible at universities. Not the least problem at universities is that grant providers in the bureaucracies do not allow exploratory research which they assume to be a waste of time. They assume research is acquiring numbers with high technology, not an involved procedure of study.

After getting significant results with mushrooms, I attempted to publish in the science journals but was locked out. Science is a good-old-boys club, and I was an outsider. So I put the results on the internet. I then discontinued laboratory type research, because it is quite demanding without assistants.

In studying the morel mushroom I found unprecedented evolution, as the morel is in the process of evolving from a yeast. This is probably the first time in hundreds of millions of years that a single celled organism evolved into a multi celled organism, and it is occurring now. The recent and rapid evolution shows effects unheard of in biology. University scientists who study the morel are not aware of the morel evolution and they create irrational explanations for their unusual results.

For the detailed science of this subject, check the web page titled Biology on my morel mushroom web site.

I find that I must revert to philosophy to explain the overwhelming corruptions and what can be done about them. There is one answer, and it is highly effective. No corruption can stand up to truth.

But truth can only be significant when the underlying reality is correct. I refer to the underlying reality as basic reality. Basic reality is the reality upon which other realities depend. Generally, this means starting with philosophical definitions, such as those for reality, truth, reason, etc.; but in science, it also means using basic principles as the determining influence.

Basic principles explain cause-and-effect relationships. But as science gets more and more corrupt, the basic principles and cause-and-effect relationships are more often ignored or contradicted. It means science is reverting back to the hocus pocus and charlatanism which it was supposed to replace.

There is a tendency to substitute a social analysis for basic reality describing results but not causes. This leaves a void. It doesn't explain why problems exist or what the answers would be.

(Parenthetical note: The "climate change" fraud demonstrates these points in spades. The basic science cannot be touched. Nothing could be more of an obvious fraud than applying the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to heat in the atmosphere, when it was designed to quantitate radiation from a surface. A three dimensional gas is nothing resembling a two dimensional surface in emitting radiation. Avoiding this and all other basic points of science while fighting to the death over the economy, energy sources and transportation shows the aversion to the basic, abstract truths of science and how they are handled through logic applied to laws of nature.)

Problems cannot be solved without correcting basic realities. The alternative is to expect someone to solve the problems, such as Congress, by pushing a magic button. It never happens. The public has the primary responsibility for solving problems through rationality which defines the causes and solutions. Reason only gets effective at solving problems when it gets basic enough.

Bigots do not understand that truth can only come from the bottom of society, because power corrupts. Bigotry is the subconscious, and partly conscious, assumption that power is virtue and powerlessness is corruption. It makes gullible persons vulnerable to being controlled by frauds due to a worship of power. And it causes power mongers to view the bottom of society as worthless eaters who need to be exterminated. The carbon dioxide fraud would not exist without such motives.

In 1982, I was reading a magazine called Science Digest. An article said astronomers observed masses flying out of quasars at ten times the velocity of light. Other physicists said it must be an optical illusion, because relativity indicates that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

I was thinking about Einstein's equation which says that the energy in matter is equal to its mass time the velocity of light squared. It occurred to me that he would have had something if he hadn't squared the velocity of light, because nothing can move at velocity squared. He would have then been saying that there is enough energy in an atom to accelerate small particles to the speed of light. But the apparent reason why he squared it was because he was making a vague parallel to the equation for kinetic energy, which has mass times velocity squared in it.

So I looked into the subject. There is a precursor formula for the kinetic energy equation. It says force times distance equals kinetic energy for an accelerating mass. I recognized the force-distance analysis to be erroneous, because the force does not move through any distance relative to the mass it acts upon.

I evaluated the applications of energy and found contradictions everywhere due to the error. I eventually developed two mathematical proofs of the error, as shown on my website titled Energy Misdefined in Physics.

Guess why nothing can move faster than the speed of light. An equation was synthesized, called the Lorentz equation, which limits any velocity (v) to a plugged in velocity for light (c). There's no rhyme or reason for the Lorentz equation to exist—no study, no evidence, no logic, no purpose but to limit the velocity of light.

g  =	1
	Ö 1-(v²/c²)

 

Scientist

Several decades ago, I got a masters degree at the University of Arizona researching a yeast which adapted to growth on trees. I then studied for a year on a Ph.D. degree at the University of California at Davis. But mental pain caused by distracting environments drove me out.

I refer to myself as a scientist, even though I have a masters degree and not a Ph.D. degree, because I do what scientists are supposed to be doing, which includes some critical things which scientists seldom do but should, like exploratory research and opposing corruption in science with basic criticism; and I published my masters research in a science journal, cited below.

The importance of calling myself a scientist is demonstrated by the global warming issue, where uninformed persons impose their global warming religion onto others as unquestionable science, because the IPCC said so.

In other words, authority is not enough. Throughout society including science, there tends to be a disconnect between authority and truth. Authorities are not allowed to produce the degree of criticism that society needs to solve its problems.

I’m a pre-1980 type of liberal, which means promotion of equal opportunity. What's good for the lower classes is good for everyone. Progressive used to mean promotion of development. Now development is assumed to be in conflict with environmentalism.

The irrationality of the carbon dioxide fraud is exactly the same as the irrationality of creationists in claiming all biological life began 6,000 years ago. The fake science is a mockery of rationality and objective reality. It shows that such issues are driven by motives which conflict with objective reality. The motive for the carbon dioxide fraud is population control. Bigots want to reduce the population of the globe to one tenth. They tried to use fake environmentalism for that purpose but were failing until carbon dioxide came along met all of their wildest dreams.

The truth is demonstrated by the fact that nothing the carbon dioxide agitators are attempting to do would reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere the slightest amount. All they are doing is making energy and transportation unavailable to the lower classes.

Even more absurd is the claim that increased global temperatures (with increased precipitation) is a threat to mankind. People could move farther north, if they thought temperatures were too high. But the claim is that species are dying. They sure are, but never due to increased temperatures. Often it's due to stripping of rainforests to produce bio-fuels to supposedly reduce CO2 emissions. The increase in temperature and precipitation which nature produced has been a boon to agriculture; and no one spends $45 trillion to keep species from going extinct while destroying the economy doing it.

I assume the world could sustain 50 billion people easier than it is sustaining 6 billion, if resources were developed instead of squandered. That's not saying 50 billion would be the desired amount. Twenty billion would be the right amount. It would be enough to create a more realistic demand for constructivity, and the numbers would not look much different than now, because there are infinite solutions to problems. Example—external

The reason why people are being told otherwise is because the world is run by fakes who move words around on a page and don't have a clue how anything is produced—like Ehrlich claiming coal was going to run out by 1984. (When someone tells you something, find out what their knowledge base is. Then notice what explanations they produce. Their motives are only as honest as their explanations. Explanations allow others to evaluate, which is the only real accountability there is.)

But it is difficult to get people to sustain a population when their problems are solved. The affluent societies would be decreasing in population if immigrants weren’t taking up the slack. High birth rates only exist where poverty is so extreme that children are needed as a resource for getting work done.

The yeast that I studied, Nadsonia fulvscens, appears to be the only yeast which adapted specifically for growing on tree sap. Many yeasts will grow on tree sap while not being adapted specifically for that ecology.

N.f. stores up cell reserves while nutrients are available and then forms a spore when nutrients run out. To prevent spores from forming while nutrients are available, a product of metabolism, acetate, accumulates in the surrounding medium and represses spore formation. When nutrients run out, the released acetate is metabolized away allowing spores to form.

Through acetate repression of sporulation a maximum amount of cell growth can occur without being disrupted by sporulation. Spores then form in the absence of available nutrients relying entirely upon stored up cell mass. This process is called endotrophism.

Mushrooms do the same thing. They store up cell mass in the mycelium and then use it to rapidly form a mushroom, because speed is important in preventing the mushroom from getting eaten or dehydrating before releasing its spores.

Published Science
Novak, G. E. (1981). Endotrophic sporulation by the yeast Nadsonia fulvescens. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 27, 967-970. Here