More than ten years ago, I was a witness when Dr Eckart von Hirschhausen used one of his entertainment events (in Gelsenkirchen) to make fun of homeopaths, among other things. As I was already sure at the time that Mr von Hirschhausen was talking complete nonsense in this respect, I avoided all his other events and documentaries as a matter of principle. I find it cheap and dangerous to make fun of one's own professional society without being an expert in the field. Dangerous because, as in this case of homeopathy, the law is on the side of the ridiculed.
Homeopathy is a natural healing method based on plant extracts that are highly diluted with water. Traditional science, which is still passed on to doctors today, assumes that water (like all other substances, including the plant extracts used) consists of molecules (i.e. atomic compounds). If this were the case, the homeopathic natural remedies would hardly contain any molecules of the "healing plants" at very high dilutions. The conclusion of jokers who make fun of homeopathy is then: homeopathy treats patients with pure water and therefore cannot heal (except perhaps a placebo effect). However, homeopaths very often see a real healing effect from their treatment. How can this be so?
Only my Unified Science can provide the solution to this riddle. According to this new description of nature, it is not the molecules of water and plant extracts that we offer to the patient, but much larger energetic portions (the matter-mind quanta), a few nanometres in size. The energetic "memory" of the water, which is activated by shaking the mixture, stores the energetic images of the plant matter-spirit quanta in the substance of the water, which thus retains the healing effect of the plants.
Dr von Hirschhausen is not (or no longer) a joker. He has only too easily taken part in the traditional hounding. The whole "action" is a powerful example of the danger inherent in scientific appropriation. Recently, however, I saw a documentary by and with Eckart von Hirschhausen (on ARD, 12 June 2023: "Hirschhausen - was von Corona übrig bleibt"), which this time presents him totally clueless in the face of the permanent damage that the corona pandemic has caused to many people. So there are signs of a turnaround in the trust that Mr Hirschhausen still has in the (traditional) scientific description of nature. And rightly so. We must once again apply uniform science to understand these late effects of the pandemic. But that would have required its own article on this blog. And a direct engagement of several open-minded scientists.
UP28. What is Energy?
Most of the media, and therefore most politicians, want to scare us into believing that we are living in times of an energy crisis. Energy is becoming increasingly scarce and therefore increasingly expensive, and for many of us it may soon be unaffordable. All this scaremongering is a strong example of scientific appropriation (which I recently reported on_[Link]). The media and politicians use the term "energy", which they have appropriated from traditional science, but none of them can really explain to us what energy is.
1) The fundamental property of energy W:
Energy can only exist in portions (quanta)
(also thought, exchanged, radiated, absorbed).
2) The scientific definition of energy W:
Energy of a quantum is the scaled area A of each quantum: W = FfA;
where the scaling constant Ff is the quantum circulation:
Ff = constant = h/mu= h/ru2tu = ru2/tu = 1.3096*10-4 m2/s.
3) The paraphrased definition of energy W:
Energy is the fuel of all activity in the Universe
(including our thinking, our consciousness and our feelings).
[Technical note: In the Unified Science we have to use the sign W as a symbol of energy, because the traditionally used sign E has to be reserved as a symbol of the electric field. The electric field E has no equivalent alternative, whereas energy has an equivalent physical quantity: it is work. This is why W is used as the energy symbol in our unified science].
UP27. Scientific misappropriation; curse & blessing
After last year's public discussion about the restitution of cultural treasures stolen from many other peoples of the world during the colonial period of our history, we all know what the term "cultural appropriation" means. One takes over the cultural achievements (both the ideas and the objects) of other groups of people and regards (or even sells) them as one's own. Even though you have contributed nothing to their creation. And even though you yourself are usually unable to understand their original meaning and their cultural value for their creators. Nevertheless, the former colonial powers tried for decades to integrate (appropriate) the "stolen culture" into their own cultural description of the world in which we live.
Today, it goes without saying that such an action is fundamentally wrong. However, few of us realise that a similarly wrong action, but on a much broader basis, has been going on unquestioningly since the beginning of the technical-scientific revolution. I am talking here about scientific appropriation, the almost self-evident appropriation of other people's scientific ideas. Yet the scientific description of the world we live in is just as much (if not more so) as the cultural description, a merely intersubjective "vision" of our world, and not an absolute or unambiguous, and certainly not a definitive description of it.
What does this mean in practical terms for all of us? Only the few of us (humans) are involved in the "creation" of the scientific description of the universe. Everyone else tacitly adopts the latest "vision" (ideas) of the scientists as their own description (and understanding) of the world we all live in. The engineers, the technicians, the politicians, but also all other scientifically interested people, adopt the most important ideas of science as their own, and claim that these describe their own "real" world. However, these ideas are never absolute truths. If the scientific paradigm changes, the most important scientific ideas also change. Then even the scientists themselves must change their "vision" (their ideas); and following them, so must all other humans. However, scientists (and especially the older ones) are the most conservative group of people of all. That is why a paradigm shift in science is a very tough process.
But what happens in the meantime, after the new paradigm (with its new ideas, with its new description of the world) is already "in place", but most scientists have not yet learnt about it and have not yet adopted it? I think that in such a case, the younger scientists would have to take the initiative and drive the paradigm shift forward without waiting for the "old guard".
In the meantime, we've just landed in the last few years. My Universal Philosophy of Life is the new paradigm, the new scientific description of the universe and life in it. That is why I try to familiarise young scientists with the ideas of the new paradigm through my online activities, but also through my books. If you also belong to this group, why don't you join in actively, get involved, ask questions, be an ambassador for the new knowledge. Not only "climate change", not only "energy change", but also a "change in consciousness" and also a necessary change in the coexistence of all people in the world, can all only be mastered in time with the ideas of the new paradigm.
And a word to the older ones among us. The First Global Civilisation, which affects all people on earth today simultaneously and equally, is no longer a vision, it has become a reality. The sooner the older generations of us realise and accept this, the less damage we will do to the earth and to ourselves before we leave the earth "as planned".
To summarise, scientific appropriation can be a curse if it slows down the further progress of science. On the other hand, however, unlike cultural appropriation (which, without the consent of the cultural creators, is always a robbery), it can also be a blessing for all students and other users of science, because they do not have to personally re-conceive or make every scientific idea or discovery themselves.
O28. Weather forecasts: basically still just a joke?
The official weather forecast for spring 2023 already took into account an imminent "collapse" of the polar vortex in mid-March. Renewed snowfall at the beginning of April was not ruled out. And it did indeed happen, especially in the Alps, but also in the low mountain ranges.
These forecasts were based on the models currently used by the "weathermen". And they are extremely different. While the European model (ECMFW) predicts an early summer, the Canadian model (GEM) warns of a late winter.
A comparison of the different forecasts shows an enormous discrepancy, from extremely hot weather:
to extreme cold:
How and why did this forecast chaos come about? A dicey and topical question. Especially in connection with two more far-reaching questions: 1. how reliable are the medium and long-term weather forecasts? 2. do they still have any value for the traditional climate models?
The answers to these two important questions are unfortunately negative:
1. the current medium- and long-term weather forecasts are still very unreliable; and
2. they are worthless for a good climate model.
We already know the reason for this misery from the earlier articles on this website with its blog and app. In a nutshell: the Earth is not an isolated island in space. The cosmic winds from all the stars in the Solar System's Cosmic Hierarchy influence the Earth's global climate much more strongly than all our human activities. The "modern" climate optimum is already over and this "cosmic wind" (or more scientifically; the cosmic energy transfer) is weakening. The Solar System (including the Earth, of course) is receiving less energy from outside; it will become much colder again.
