Scientific tales: Why do we use science as the yardstick for truth?

This will be the last article for now on the “Scientific tales” section. The purpose of these articles is to be informed as to demonstrate that scientific knowledge does not reflect truth but rather, a search for answers.

Many times we use “science,” as a way to defy or even shutdown different ideas and philosophies which are non traditional.
We use Science as “truth,” we have been indoctrinated to believe so.

My interest in science grew when I was interested in the topic of time, which is completely misunderstood by science. As a matter of fact, despite all the scientific “progress,” the topic of time remains as one of those untouchable topics which science hasn’t been able to understand. Want a sample? Case closed. Add the second law (entropy) here to make things difficult and we will have several explanations, theories without truthful answers.

What about the age of the Universe?
According to scientists a “baby could be older than his own parents.” 🙂
This is an article by a bona fide Ph.D in physics as far as I know.
What about the planet’s orbits around the Sun?
According to what I was taught as a “truth” the planets had an elliptical and predictable orbit around the Sun. Here is a video with that scientific “truth.”

Now, we can understand that the path of the planets around the Sun is not a predicted path which repeats every time as when the Earth goes around the Sun… It is a spiral…

For those of us who ever thought that the platonic time of 26,000 years would dismiss an “eternally repeating cycle of 5000 years,” it would be good to reconsider; for we are relying on our point of reference or observation being the Earth and we are just beginning to understand that there are many different movements in the celestial bodies. For instance the Earth moves around its own axis and the spiral movement around the Sun is not the same pattern nor the same degree in space, for the Earth does not move in “flatland.” Similarly what we observe on a distant star, is merely subjective according to our position in space.

Moreover, as “it is above so it is below,” therefore, celestial bodies merely reflect the behavior of atomic particles, which we are just beginning to understand under a scientific perspective.

There is a lot to be desired from Science.
Here is one question I sent a group of astronomers sometime ago for their enlightened answer:


Thank you for your question to Ask an Astronomer. It will be forwarded to one of our team members to answer.

“1) The Big Bang. We have extremely strong evidence that the universe as we know it had a beginning, that everything which we can think of, matter and space alike, started off compressed together and has been expanding ever since.”

This is a quote from the question here:

My question: What was the beginning of the Universe? What is the “extremely strong evidence that you have”?

If in fact was an explosion, how the elements which produced the explosion got there? Isn’t this like solving the riddle “who is first the chicken or the egg”?

Finally, How this “extremely strong evidence,” is able to counteract modern views of the “origin” of the Universe cited by scientists like Neil Turok, Paul Frampton and other cyclic models of the universe?

Thank you.

No answer so far.

Finally, I recommend this link for a different view and “research” on what we have believed to be the “true” history of the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.