Fake tests are used by corrupters of science to reduce the demands to a level of muddle that they can manage. Only in physics were fake tests possible until recently. Significant criticism has to be prevented before fakery can occur in science. The darkness of physics made fraud a push-over from the beginning. In recent decades, fake testing has spread to other elements of science due to increased corruption by incompetent power mongers who have been taking over science.

James Joule  The first example of a fake test was James P. Joule stirring water in a wooden bucket in 1845 to supposedly measure and verify the erroneous equation for kinetic energy. Joule did not have a real experimental design. The heat produced by stirring would have been so miniscule that it would have disappeared into the environment as fast as it was produced. Joule said he took care of environmental influences by doing an extra run, which was an impossibility. Yet to this day, physicists claim Joule showed what kinetic energy is and produced a number for its relationship to heat.

Physicists miss two major facts which reduce Joule-type experiments to fraud. One is that it takes more than one data point to determine what kinetic energy is; and two, elastic force cannot be separated from inelastic force through such experimentation. Elastic force creates force acting upon the solid masses of the container, while inelastic force adds heat to the water. The ratios vary with conditions including velocity of stirring and cannot be measured.

Michelson-Morley  The next fake test was the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which supposedly showed there is no aetheric medium in space conducting electromagnetic waves (light). Supposedly, interferometry was used, and an absence of a result showed there is no aetheric medium. The absence of a result is not an experiment, because it doesn't show that the test will do anything. There is no such thing as interferometry, because light waves do not interfere with each other or there would be no such thing as vision.

Interferometry was supposedly used again to measure gravity waves in recent times. The claimed measurement of gravity waves wasn't even a pretense at credibility. The claims stretched absurdities beyond ridiculousness, presumably to prevent real criticism within science. There were dozens of technological complexities involved which stretched the requirements beyond what technology would do by factors of millions, billions and trillions.

Prions  Fake testing entered the biological realm with the claimed determination of prion proteins being the cause of transmissible encephalopathies (such as mad cow disease). Claiming a protein is the causative agent for a disease makes a mockery of all elements of pathogenicity. There has to be genetic material to define a disease organism, before evolution can occur. And a protein is extremely vulnerable to damage everywhere along its path of transmission including the atmosphere and the blood circulatory system of animals. But supposedly, several tests by one laboratory showed the causative agent was a protein. There are no tests sitting on the shelf for answering complex questions in science. It takes many laboratories many years to develop procedures and standards for valid testing in biology.

Covid  A recent example is the claim that a test indicated that getting the Covid virus disease does not produce as good immunity as a vaccine. A century of immunology is contradicted by the claim. A fake test supposedly showed that the antibody attaches to the antigen better with a vaccine than with an actual, live-virus disease. There are infinite variables that determine infectivity and they are constantly changing. Therefore, immunologists have to look at the total results. But rationalizers try to pick apart minutia that is variable and has no definitive meaning. To make a test meaningful would require many laboratories many years to develop standards and procedures. Otherwise, some quack can imagine any result with no real scientific basis.

The real science of the subject is that a live virus disease produces many layers of immunity consisting of a wide variety of proteins within cells and circulating in the blood. Some of the proteins recognize large antigens such as whole viruses to create a degree of cross immunity for similar viruses. T-cells will pick up that type of information and produce a much faster immune response than immunity that has to start from scratch.

The reason why some persons (most persons) are not affected much by the Covid virus is probably because of previous contact of other viruses. A vaccine does none of that. It only uses one small molecule (antigen) to produce one antibody for attaching to one small area on the virus (the spike protein) and produces no broad-based immunity. A vaccine will stop the disease, but claiming a live-virus disease produces inferior immunity based on fake science is disinformation.

Anyone who had the disease needed effective immunity to overcome the disease. Any weakness in the immunity and the disease wins and the person dies. The survivors have to have strong immunity after surviving the disease.

Carbon Dioxide  The most extreme example of fake testing now days is global warming. Tens of thousands of studies have been published on something that does not exist. There is no such thing possible as a greenhouse gas, because there is almost no radiation available of the type that is absorbed by carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases (SCGGs). The SCGGs will only absorb long wave (low frequency) radiation (infrared radiation), which is only emitted by cold substances. Cold matter emits almost no radiation.

On top of that, there is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere, as emitted radiation cools transparent gases constantly. The air cools 20 degrees or more during clear nights, because a transparent gas emits radiation immensely more readily than the surface of opaque solids such as the Earth's surface, where the supposed radiation comes from for creating a greenhouse effect.

More than a century ago, scientists determined that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect because of saturation. Saturation means there is so little radiation available for carbon dioxide to absorb that it gets totally absorbed in ten meters of travel through the atmosphere under near-surface conditions; so more carbon dioxide cannot absorb more radiation.

96% Efficiency  Getting by with such absurdities in science and not allowing significant criticism of them shows the extent to which incompetent power mongers have taken over science. Now days, incompetent bureaucrats are always instrumental in promoting (and sometimes imposing) the absurdities due to the darkness and lack of accountability within the bureaucracies.

An example of bureaucratic fraud is the claim that electric vehicles get the equivalent of 100 to 150 miles per gallon efficiency based upon the claim that electric motors get 96-98% efficiency. No transformation of electrical energy into kinetic energy can get more than 40% efficiency at normal temperatures.

It appears circumstantially that someone focused upon the wiring efficiency within the motors, which can lose several percent of the energy that goes through the wires due to heating, as the only energy loss, and bureaucrats fell for it not having a clue as to what an electric motor is.

Addendum: The Nature Of Rationalizing

August 7, 2021

Rationalizers including the CDC have recently been trying to claim that having overcome the Covid disease does not produce adequate immunity to prevent the disease but a vaccine does; and therefore, Rand Paul's claim that he doesn't need to get vaccinated because he already had the disease is wrong. They are trying to limit vaccination as the only reliable fact, while they refuse to study antibody levels which would limit their contriving. There are antibody studies; but only the briefest mention of them can be made without creating too many contradictions to the propaganda.

What the rationalizers are showing is how rationalizing is vastly different from rationality. First, the rationalizers are directed toward their purpose. In being directed, they omit oceans of surrounding realities which do not fit their purpose or contradict it including 500 years of developed scientific knowledge. And of course, they misrepresent doing so, which includes switcharoos on terminology, nouns and subjects being discussed.

With the complexities of Covid science, word salad is easier than usual to use for misrepresentations. It goes like this: First, a claim will be made, such as vaccines provide better immunity than having had the disease. Then the explanation switches to persons who tested positive being compared to vaccinated persons.

Having been tested positive is nothing resembling having overcome the disease. Ten percent of the tests are known to be in error, and most persons who test positive have never known they had the disease. Recently, persons who have been vaccinated are being found to shed the virus with no indication of being infected. That result seems to be due to the virus growing in the upper nose area with very little for symptoms, because the antibodies in the blood do not get to that area easily, and the Corona virus adapted to that weakness.

Another bit of stupid logic is that persons who test positive without showing symptoms may not have enough immunity to prevent the disease. Seems they were already exposed but didn't get the disease based on symptoms. What then is supposed to be prevented by a vaccine? The vaccine is supposedly going to prevent what didn't happen the first time. Logic is twisted by rationalizers trying to get to their end point of promoting something.

All in all, fake studies which don't rise to the level of junk science are being promoted as social realities that people are supposed to live by. What rationalizing amounts to is contradicting established knowledge with trash logic that is not suitable for the purpose.

The established knowledge of the subject says that anyone who actually did overcome a disease needed the immunity which would defeat the virus, or they would be dead. The past few decades of immunology show the extreme complexity of natural immunity with layers and layers of protective mechanisms that natural immunity produces in overcoming a disease, while a vaccine can do no more than produce one antibody directed against one small antigen.

The implication (and sometimes claim) behind the recent attempts to push vaccines above naturally acquired immunity is the background assumption that people overcame a disease without adequate immunity to prevent the disease. What then caused the disease to disappear? Did it run out of gas? Did it die of old age? Those are the types of assumptions made by rationalizers. That's the difference between rationalizing and evaluating. Rationalizers have crap in their heads that sticks out and overwhelms the subject, because they wouldn't be rationalizers if they had brain one.

It's totally inappropriate to delve into a subject or make claims about a study without properly representing every element of the subject that is relevant to the points being made. Yet fake authorities push their stupidity without touching upon ninety nine percent of the relevant material.

But of course, the subject is too important to wait for science to catch up. Propagandists did the same thing with carbon dioxide back when questions existed about the reliability of the evidence such as arbitrary modeling. Supposedly, the subject was too important to wait for better evidence. After railroading the subject, the evidence never improved, while no questioning of the claims is allowed.