From what I have seen, websites like rational wiki can be lumped in with contrail science, metabunk and a host of other well known mainstream disinformation websites and i'd also count wikipedia and a whole lot more. It's easy for them to muddy the waters of information and truth by not only supporting nonsense theories and keeping the good research from people but also constantly attacking the theories that people should be checking out to give them true reality.
I've seen it myself on social media and my blog and weatherwar101 does a great job of highlighting how big the disinfo operatives are. They swooped down on me as soon as I started supporting his research and theories as it is the only one that matches what i've been recording in the sky for the last 3 years:
Psyop Disinformation, Obstruction, and Terrorism
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
The fact that websites like rationalwiki open with such un-scientific comments like "(the society set up to worship its inventor, Dewey Larson)" and "The theory is wrong in every detail, and is trivially proven so with simple and obvious experiments. This has, of course, not given its proponents the slightest pause." shows that there is a hidden agenda against the truth as any proper scientist would look at all of the evidence and not go on the offensive and slate everything related to the theory.
Attempting to edit any sense into articles on websites that are attacking RS theory is a bit like swimming upstream, with psyop agents throwing obstacles in the way and telling you to swim in the other direction! The agenda against the truth is so much bigger than anyone realises.
It disturbs me as well that the mainstream just doesn't want to know but in an entire system that is "backwards", the ones in charge just don't want their slaves thinking for themselves, getting in a boat and sailing upstream away from the waterfall the "ops" are telling you to go with the flow towards. You just have to check out their pages on Geoengineering and chemtrails to see why so few people are waking up to the fully controlled weather all around them, refusing to look for themselves or check out years of undeniable evidence, instead preferring to check out "rational" websites like this to be told, "go back to sleep, everything is still "normal"..... nothing to worry about here!"
When it comes to irRationalWiki and Larson...
“Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
As we said in the farmlands of Connecticut where I grew up, I no longer waste my time trying to "teach a pig to sing." It's a lot of work, and annoys the pig. Satz wanted to sue them for libel, but apparently they get a LOT of that because they have a department of people set up to handle it. They are nothing but a "troll site," so don't waste too much time there.
Jan Sammer, however, has been working on a detailed bio of Larson for the Wikipedia and could use some support there to keep the page alive (they kept deleting it in the past, because it did not have any links and they will not allow RS theory on there, because it is considered "personal research").
I've been reading some of his writings
he is big on phase symmetry
I know RS says frequency is derived from s/t units and not the bottom line
similar to Mathis's charge isn't the bottom line
but if we consider writing the universe program in "cobal" instread of 0101010"s or (0,1,0),(0,1,1)etc
then it's just a translation problem
and he might be bringing some new or helping to flesh out RS
i do like his styleForums:
I post a comment on Google+ to the following post:
Is Einstein's Relativity a Political Ideology?
In the real world, the speed of light (relative to the observer) does depend on the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Unfortunately we all live in Einstein's world where the speed of light is, by postulation, independent of the speed of the light source, and space and time are disfigured so as to form an efficient "protecive belt" around the false postulate:
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."
Imre Lakatos, Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: "All scientific research programmes may be characterized by their 'hard core'. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this 'hard core'. Instead, we must use our ingenuity to articulate or even invent 'auxiliary hypotheses', which form a protective belt around this core, and we must redirect the modus tollens to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced, to defend the thus-hardened core."
Banesh Hoffmann is quite clear: the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light unless there is a protective belt ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") that deflects the refuting experimental evidence from the false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
See also the following two texts:
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."
my comment was simply "check out Dewey B. Larson's 'Reciprocal System of Theory' " with a link to a youtube video of Dewey's 1978 Conference Keynote Address, and someone else posted a link to RationalWiki's view of Larson. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Theory
It disturbs me on how much mainstream scientists can not see what we see in Larson's theories. Have anyone here seen this, tried to edit these pages?Forums:
I have changed from a CAPTCHA to a registration code system for creating new accounts, both here and on rstheory, to try to reduce all the bogus account creation by spambots and comment spammers. You can just copy and past this registration code into the registration form:
RS2 Registration Code: ogtczyctezyqjylgForums: