June 21, 2021

There hasn't been an iota of correct physics produced since Newton's laws in 1687. Doesn't physics look like super-human progress, day after day? It would have to be fraud to look that way, and it is. Real science is hard grind, not glamor.

The key ingredient that corrupts science is outsiders picking sides and imposing the results. They suppress real science and bring false science to the surface. Truth cannot be determined by picking sides; it can only evolve when all criticism is freely produced.

It means no one is going to get to the bottom of this subject by picking the right experts. But if criticism is freely available, the truth will rapidly evolve. Ignorant corrupters fall flat in an instant when knowledgeable persons are free to criticize. It takes a railroad job of suppressing criticism to produce errors, and that's exactly where science errors came from.

Physics is not real science

Physics is primarily where science errors are extreme. The rest of science has been basically correct with errors around the periphery, except there has been a recent trend towards increased errors promoted throughout science, as incompetent corrupters try to use science to monger power.

To briefly summarize the errors in physics, they start with the misdefinition of energy as an incorrect formula for representing kinetic energy. The formula representing kinetic energy (KE=½mv²) doesn't look right, because it has velocity squared within it, while nothing can move at velocity squared. I show simple mathematical proof of the error.

That error began with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in 1686 suggesting that the conserved quantity of motion was mass times velocity squared (mv²). Then James P. Joule supposedly proved Leibniz to be correct by stirring water in a wooden bucket in 1845. Joule did not have a functional experiment. He said he accounted for environmental influences by doing an extra run, which was an impossibility.

Physicists to this day claim that Joule type experiments prove what kinetic energy is. But it takes two data points to prove what kinetic energy is, while those type of experiments only produce one data point. Also, experiments cannot determine what kinetic energy is, because elastic force cannot be separated from inelastic force during experiments. Elastic force acts upon container walls and accelerates mass. Inelastic force creates heat. Therefore, only mathematics without experimentation can determine what kinetic energy is. Physicists miss all of that.

The next major error in physics was the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 attempting to determine if there is an aetheric medium in space conducting electromagnetic waves. Interferometry was supposedly used to compare light waves. No result was found, which was and is interpreted to mean there is no aetheric medium. The absence of a result is not science. It takes a result to show that the experiment works. In fact, there is no such thing as interferometry, because light waves do not interfere with each other. Vision would be impossible if light waves interfered with each other.

Having gotten by with that much nonsensical contrivance, physicists were primed for relativity, which has no relationship to anything in laws of nature. Supposedly reference frames shift to create a constant velocity for light at all receiving points which do not have a constant velocity. Shifting reference frames for universal qualities is not science.

All hell broke loose for physics fraud around the turn of the 19th century. Background rationalizations for relativity were being promoted for some time before the concept was locked in by an incompetent working at the patent office. University physicists needed to keep their hands clean by having a nothing-nobody as the supposed originator of the related frauds.

Quantum mechanics had a more serendipitous origin, as Max Plank was suggesting that it could not be the real explanation for some confusion. The fakes in physics ran with it as if it were real science, while it took Max Plank ten years to agree with them. The plank formula was then labeled a photon as a quantity of light.

The photon concept contradicts the wave concept of light, as physicists recognize. But they use both concepts as a method of defining quantum mechanics apart from the real characteristics of light. Light decreases in energy the farther it gets from the source, while photons do not.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant was then given quantitative definition based on Plank's constant. The result is that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is off by about a factor of forty at normal temperatures. That doesn't say much for Plank's constant. But it does wonders for the claims about greenhouse gases in showing forty times too much radiation being given off by the surface of the Earth.

Plank's constant attempts to explain why the frequency of light determines how much energy an electron acquires in shifting its orbit. The energy of the electron is associated with the frequency of light; so each frequency of light supposedly has a defined amount of energy. What they got wrong is missing the fact that the frequency determines whether light can bump an electron on the same side of its orbit several times to get the energy level up—not that the light contains that much energy in some incongruous form.

With that much error corrupting every element of physics, there is no physics analysis which is free from corruption apart from Newton's laws which are primarily the basis for engineering. Engineers are vastly different from scientists in that they apply math to technology; they don't evaluate. They have to use trial-and-error procedures to fit the math to the result, since complex physics is useless for practical purposes.

If for example engineers use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to determine radiation emissions, they have to establish a reference to work with and then make adjustments for deviations, such as emissivity or absorptivity. Absolute values disappear in that process. Everything is referenced to some transportable measurement. Engineers can use an erroneous ruler as long as they all use the same one. Scientists cannot and still have science, because science requires universal knowledge that is the same everywhere.

Biological errors are more peripheral, though increasing

The most elaborate process in biology is respiratory ATP synthesis. Biochemists were honing in on the process with a logic explaining how a high energy electron, usually sourced from NADH, could energize three ATP molecules. Recently, "biophysicists" took over the process and turned everything upside down. They claim the energy is transferred to ATP through "binding force" from rotating proteins. That means kinetic energy is transformed into chemical energy—an impossibility.

Kinetic energy is in the motion of nuclei, while chemical energy is in the motion of electrons circling nuclei. Nothing can be done to nuclei short of nuclear explosions that would influence the energy of electrons which orbit them. Only light can add energy to orbiting electrons, though transference of energy can occur between electrons through exchange mechanisms without a net increase in energy.

The key component of respiratory (modern) ATP synthesis is the porphyrin ring structure. It evolved over two billion years in cyanobacteria. It allows high energy electrons to replace low energy electrons in ATP synthesis. Biologists don't know that. They used to know that the porphyrin ring transferred the energy to ATP in some mysterious way, until the biophysicists redesigned the subject, leaving out the porphyrin ring as if it were irrelevant to the process.

The main question in mycology for the past seventy years has been the causative mechanism of differentiation. Yeast scientists were focused on that question during the 1950s and beyond. They knew there was a trigger mechanisms to start the process of differentiation (formation of a new structure such as a spore or mushroom), because once it started, it would progress to completion. But they could not determine what the trigger mechanism was. They tested every chemical imaginable and none would trigger the process.

In 1968, a botanists in the Netherlands, A.F. Crows, looked at some physiology graphs which showed a peak in the ATP level just when sporulation of bakers yeast occurred and suggested that the energy peak was the trigger mechanism. Two years later, my research showed direct evidence of the ATP link. A depletion of nitrogen promoted spore formation in the yeast that I was studying. A shortage of nitrogen inhibits molecular synthesis but not ATP production. With ATP not being used but still being produced, a peak in the ATP level occurs, and it promotes sporulation.

Those results disappeared as microbial physiologists turned to molecular studies. Real physiology is difficult to research, because multiple systems need to be studied and often with time intervals for measurements. Physiology is the integration of biochemical processes. More than one process has to be studied at the same time to determine how they interact. Otherwise, assumptions have to be made for relationships.

Molecular biology requires assumptions to be made for relationships, because the study of molecules does not directly show relationships. To a large extent, the result of molecular biology is like producing a puzzle with a thousand pieces and dumping them onto the floor. Putting the pieces together is not generally done, because technical science is studied by looking through a straw with little knowledge of surrounding subjects.

Mycologists do not study physiology and are not familiar with the complexities of microbial physiology, because they work in botany departments. Filamentous fungi cannot be put in water for research as bacteria and yeast are. So they don't get studied at the physiological level.

An important subject not being studied by mycologists is the nature of the hygroscopic surface. Molds will tolerate drying on a surface and then absorb humidity from the air as it increases. Occasionally, fungi lose that ability when it is not needed, as did the primary foot fungus.

When filamentous fungi resist drying, they will not tolerate organic acids. Benzoic acid and citric acid are often used as food preservatives for that reason. Organic acids will carry a hydrogen atom into the cells lowering the internal pH with no ability to excrete the excess hydrogen ions. Almost all cell membranes have the ability to pump hydrogen ions through them, but not the surface of those fungi that resist drying. Something about their surface does not allow hydrogen ions to be pumped out of the cells. The related physiology has not be studied.

Mushroom scientists are looking for a substance that causes a mushroom to form. It's as ridiculous as looking for a substance that causes a tree to form. During the 1980s and 90s, they thought it might be acetylene, since someone found acetylene in the peat moss that cases mycelium in the growing process. Now they assume it might be a bacterium.

Croes work and mine show that it is a peak in the ATP level that triggers the process. While we studied yeast, it is now highly apparent that all fungi including yeasts, molds and mushrooms use that mechanism to trigger differentiation. The need is obvious. Only when all requirements are well met will the ATP level reach a peak level. Direct observations show that spore formation by molds only occurs after some abundant growth has occurred and always where oxygen is most available.

The growing procedure for mushrooms shows the result. After mycelium covers the compost, peat moss is layered over the top. A lot of water is used, which seals out most of the oxygen and creates extremely slow growth. When the mycelium reaches the surface, mushrooms form on the surface. The only difference between the surface and below the surface is availability of oxygen. The only thing oxygen does is produce ATP. If a substance in the casing layer were causing mushrooms to form, the mushrooms would form below the surface instead of on the surface.

Evolution scientists are never physiologists. Physiology is highly informative of evolution, because there is a lot of detailed information in physiology. So I fill in some of the obvious blanks in evolution physiology. I ended up in evolution physiology by studying two species of extreme evolution.

In graduate school I studied a yeast (Nadsonia) that forms a spore outside the cell instead of within the cell. No other known yeast does that. I found that the peculiarity was resulted from adapting to growing on tree exudate. Usually, exudate is too short-lived to allow adaptation to it. But Nadsonia forms a spore when nutrients become unavailable. In using stored up cell material for spore formation (endotrophism), the total mass shrinks. And since yeasts have hard cell walls, the cell mass must move into a smaller space to form a spore. So a chamber is created outside the original cell for the spore to form in.

My yeast results showed how mushrooms form—through endotrophism and a peak in the ATP level—so I studied mushrooms to evaluate the mechanism. Since the morel mushroom was extremely mysterious, I studied it. I found that it evolved from a single-celled yeast over the past 50 thousand years emerging from the ground about 20 thousand years ago. It evolves in front of the ice cliff of each ice age. Yeasts will not tolerate drying, and only the cold, humid air sweeping off the ice allows a yeast to evolve at the base of trees without drying out.

Mushroom scientists claim the morel has an evolutionary age of 129 million years. They see a relationship to cup fungi in the ascospores and imagine the cup fungi to be related to the morel because of the ascospores. Then they added "phylogenetics" to the assumptions and got the usual absurdities.

Phylogenetics has been destroying the taxonomic keys for several decades. What phylogenetics means is looking at the DNA of some small structure or function (such as ribosomes) and deducing genetic age from the mutational differences. It's like trying to buy a house by looking at one square inch of the surface. Detailed studies of the DNA can be highly informative, but phylogenetic studies are way to simplistic to be reliable.

To study the scale of evolution biology requires an agriculture background, which never seems to occur. Biologists get too much wrong due to missing reality in the relationship of biology to soil. An example is the morel mushroom. It only grows in sandy soil or equivalent, because it does not tolerating drying having the physiology of yeasts. Morel scientists never noticed that the soil type or intolerance of drying matters. Sandy soil is needed, because it lacks capillary action which dries out soil by moving water upward. Morels follow river basins, which is where the sandy soil is located.

Morel scientists claim a leaf mold (Costantinella cristata) is a conidial stage of the morel mushroom. Leaf molds must tolerate drying, and they are decay organisms. The morel, having yeast physiology, is not a decay organism. Also not noticed is that conidia evolved 200-300 million years ago. The window for evolution closes, which means conidia would not have been evolving even at the claimed 129 million year age of morels. But not knowing the morel evolved recently from a single celled yeast, morel scientists get too much wrong.

Evolution scientists never quite notice that evolution must be shaped by environmental influences. An example is the strange guesses for the size of dinosaurs, such as maybe the size conserves heat or improves digestion of plant material. Theorists look to the dinosaurs instead of the environment. The size was required to tromp through the heavy brush that covered the lowlands, which was also not noticed. Dinosaurs are shown as standing in grassy plains and looking up to tall trees.

Grass did not exist until the end of the dinosaur era. Then a long-legged dinosaur evolved (Anzu wyliei), which looked like a large chicken. It means grass began to form and change the shape of dinosaur evolution.

The biological transition after dinosaurs died out is never described realistically. There was a modernization of biology that resulted from grass replacing the nonwoody brush which was holding back all evolution. Grass allowed flowering plants to take off, which were extremely rare during dinosaur years. Broadleaf trees allowed sugary solutions to be produced resulting in yeasts evolving from molds and gram positive bacteria evolving from streptomycetes. Gilled type mushrooms evolved in the grassy ecosystems. Mammals diversified from a single type that was restricted to moving underneath the heavy brush to roaming freely through the newly evolving grass.

During dinosaur years conifers were evolving on the increasing hillsides. Only at the interface between the conifers and the heavy brush of the lowlands could diverse species evolve, and it wasn't much space for diversification. That space allowed two related mushrooms to evolve: the puffball and the bolete. They would have evolved about 300 million years ago, since that is the age of conifers.

Those mushrooms have very unusual tissue which does not dry out like the tissue of gilled mushrooms. Those mushrooms can grow for a month or longer, while gilled mushrooms dry out in a few days requiring very rapid growth and spore emission.

The tissue of puffballs and boletes also evolved away flavor, an extremely demanding accomplishment that does not occur with gilled mushrooms, as a method of preventing animals from eating them. Chew marks are seen on the surface, which means animals take one bite and walk away. The bolete (Boletus edulis) develops flavor after it gets large to attract animals to eat the spores and carry them around.

Biologists know that mitochondria evolved as a proto-bacterium that entered the cells of higher organisms, but they can't figure out what the origins were. Evolution physiology clarifies that subject. It shows that modern respiration evolved in the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescence, about 6-700 million years ago, and it, or a close offshoot, would have entered eukaryotic cells to form mitochondria.

P. fluorescens is the oldest recognizable bacterium (other than cyanobacteria). With its long evolution it adapted to all relevant habitats including water and soil, and it blows in the air like mold spores.

E. coli evolved a symbiotic relationship to animals, which evolved during the "Cambrian explosion of life" beginning 541 million years ago. Modern respiration was needed to provide rapid production of ATP, before animal motion was possible. So animal evolution was held up both by the need for modern respiration as well as the improved ecology that began 541 million years ago.

The Cambrian explosion of life was obviously created when a planet exploded between Mars and Jupiter providing a thin layer of clay over the surface of the earth and critical minerals. Minerals were scarce having been leached from ancient oceans through precipitation. Terrestrially, there was nothing but shale or its products. Even volcanic ash did not exist, because volcanic activity did not begin until tectonic plates got thick enough to create buckling and mountains as they collided. For these reasons, there was no terrestrial life until clay and minerals were added to the surface of the Earth by the planet exploding.

For several centuries, scientists knew the asteroid belt was created by a planet exploding. Only recently did scientists decide that there was no planet that exploded. No credible explanation was produced for the absurd change in science; it resulted from a recent trend of reversing as much science as possible to make it compatible with incompetents who pushed their way into science.

Also known by science until recently was that the Earth started with a reducing atmosphere dominated by hydrocarbons. Oil and coal are the remains of that set of conditions. To claim fossil plants created oil and coal is reductionistic science. The energy state of biological material is more oxidized, meaning lower in energy, than hydrocarbons. Nothing but radiation can increase chemical energy. Moving chemical energy from one set of molecules to another does not explain hydrocarbons, because the low-energy products would be highly visible, and they aren't. The reason why plant material is found in coal is because some of the liquid hydrocarbons flowed into the vegetation, not because decaying vegetation increased its chemical energy to form coal.

In the spirit of fraud Yellowstone was recently declared to be a super volcano, when it was obviously an asteroid strike. There is no lava at Yellowstone. A super volcano without lava would be like an ocean without water.