Is Science the New Religion?

Helmut Cerncic is a prolific public speaker with an international formal education. In the 60′s he worked at the Institute ofTechnology, in Austria under Professor Klaudy working on experiments involving superconductivity and superfluidity. At age twenty six, Helmut moved to Australia. Five years later after commanding the English language he attended the Institute of Technology, Sydney.

From there Helmut was then admitted to the University of New South Wales studying History and Philosophy of Science (H.P.S.). His MA Hons. qualifying thesis required research of the concepts of Space, Time, Light and Matter. Perusing partially, or completely more than two hundred books presenting the established wisdom of the status quo, Helmut surmised that the concept of the Absolute had been buried beneath the phraseology of several millenia of theological, mystical,and pre-scientific philosophical ideas.

Approaching the ideas as an outsider, Helmut soon realized that a scientific proof of the existence of the Creative Power of the Universe was almost impossible to establish. However, the picture changed as evaluation of results arrived from the L.E.P collider made it for the first time in human history possible to understand in a scientific manner (by observation and experiment and careful evaluation of the data involved to re-establish the existence of the Creative Power).

The ancient sages asked themselves “How did it all come about?”. The answers provided were multifaceted and at times diametrically opposed. Some would argue that space was empty but contained matter; eg: sun, stars, planets. Others, notably Aristotle would argue that there was an “un-caused First Cause” (Ontological Cause). He rejected the ideas of the atomists. Being a good Greek, he called it an Ontological Cause, “Ontos– being Greek for “the Beginning”. Other sources can be traced (and found) thousands of years earlier. The Mayan Priests argued for a monotheistic conception while giving the peasants a plethora of gods. The single god Humab K’n, conceived as the deity of measurement and motion was reserved for the Priesthood only. In a macrocosm, motion is all encompassing. In the microcosm, the soul of humans accounted for consciousness and the development of the mind (via enculturation).

Christian theology became known as the soul of man. However, long before Christianity was written, in the Jewish Talmudic Midrash Literature, in the Book of Mishna we can find the equivalence of Space and Light. From the Middle East to India the avid reader can discern the intricacies of Hinduism. Here we can find Brahma defined as “The Ultimate Reality”. Brahma manifests Himself as Maya– which is defined as God’s Creative Power and God’s Power of Manifestation. The Universe is seen as Maya. On the other hand, ancient Chinese Philosophy involved no conception of a supreme being/creator of the universe. From Confucius to Meng-Tzu and several others, they were content toy produce a fabric to bring unification to society by simply postulating that “All things come from Heaven” or as some would say “Heaven Bestows!”  In ancient Persia Ahura Mazda was the god of light. His counterpart Ahriman being the god of darkness. Greek ideas and concepts were on the most fundamental level either for or against atomism and the void. Plato’s contribution engendered the concept “Universal Consciousness” from whence all individual consciousness arose. As earlier indicated his successor Aristotle pursued a different path of thought, he believed the world operated on the principal of four causes. The first has been mentioned, the others were the material, efficient and teleological cause — from the Greek word “Telos” :ending.

Philosophers and metaphysicists have meandered in the wilderness for millenia unable to provide proof. A plethora of metaphysical arguments where established, but sooner or later refuted. (e.g. The argument from Design, the Ontological argument and a host of others) addressed themselves to the faith of the believer but lacked scientific proof.

From the days of Galileo, early 17th Century — it appears that a pact was made between the church and aspiring scientists, then and now was as follows “don’t dabble in theological matters, concern yourself only with Natural Philosophy and we let you scientists advance”… Then came the great Isaac Newton who did as instructed, the example having been set by the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes who had bifurcated the World, into Matter and Mind, Body and Mind, Corporeality and Spirit and had thereby given rise to a fallaceous conception of the Universe per se, and it’s contents. Newton ever cautious, stuck meticulously to Natural Philosophy, ever since designated as physics.( From the Greek word “Physis” — meaning “nature”)

When Newtown’s fertile imagination sprung forth a philosophy called “Materialism” which works as follows–”Matter always was, Matter always is, Matter always will be”. The scientific jargon common to even fourteen year olds is “The Law of Conservation of Mass”. From High school kids to post-Newtonian “scientists” they all believe this to be an indisputable, incontrovertible, unalterable “Law”. So things stood for a hundred years after Newton’s death, about this time (1820′s) Michael Faraday presented his ideas on electricity. Some four decades later the brilliant James Clerk Maxwell developed his equations based on a profound understanding on what Light is. Maxwell employed a boost symmetry. Faraday had argued that a change in magnetic fields over time generates electric fields.
Maxwell continued that line of thought…. what if, electric fields produce magnetic fields and magnetic fields produce electric fields…. ad infinitum.
It took Einstein’s genius to realize that Newton’s ideas and concepts had to be demoted and that Maxwell’s relativistic concepts of electromagnetism were a better description of the universe, it’s origins and contents than Newton’s relativistic Mechanics.

It is a historical fact that Albert Einstein did not start with the world famous equation E=MC2, but presented it as M=L/V2 which proves that from the very outset Einstein’s thoughts revolved around the fundamental laws of physics and not the making of atomic bombs, for, what E=MC2 tells you, is the equivalence of mass and energy; yet the discerning reader will realize that as mass is multiplied by an enormous factor, the speed of light squared– the tiniest amount of mass will generate under the right conditions a humungous amount of energy. It took half to one gram of Uranium to kill 140,000 people in Hiroshima in a matter of minutes. (heat-energy and radiation emitted)

The running of the L.E.P collider produced some astounding results. An electron-positron collision at high energy
produced a flash of light. The electron and it’s anti-particle, the positron have equal mass (9.017g x10- 27)
Mass became Light (pure energy). The conservation of mass had gone severely awry, but worse was to come. Many collisions occured in liquid Helium (-271 degrees) emulating conditions in open Space. An electron and a positron produced enough mass to account for the creation of a proton, an anti-proton and ten (pi) mesons. What comes out exceeds the imput roughly thirty thousand times. La di da, what happened to the cherished law of conservation of mass??

Results at the L.H.C during the last few years have further confirmed what Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek describes as “Newton’s Zeroth’s Law”. In Prof Wilczek’s own words “But if mass is not conserved–and it’s not!— we can seek it’s origin. It’s not bedrock. We can dig deeper.”

NB:The authors of this article, Helmut and Miry’am encourage transcendental intersubjectivity (in plain English, exchange of information and ideas). All commentaries will be treated at their respective merits.



About Helmut Cerncic

An intensive perusal of books relating to more than six fields of learning eg: philosophy, physics, cosmology, ancient theology and neurophenomenology all in the name of ars artis gratis; not as a means to an end but as an end in itself,
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is Science the New Religion?

  1. Jessamine Hess says:

    Cool Blog! Mr Cerncic I feel like I can trust your words. I am in high school and I feel like the science I am being taught is outdated at best. If we were treated like we are intelligent perhaps we would be able to grasp QP! It’s not beyond us and its far more relevant to us than kissing Newton’s arse, in some bullshit for queen and country way.
    I devour all I can on the subject and have read The Lightness of Being four times now.

    F*#k Newton! F&$k faux-physics and the powers that be that want to keep us fat, drugged out on pharmaceuticals, ignorant, apathetic, enslaved to archaic, patriarchal religions.. Praying to a figment of a collective mind who is impotent and imagined at best; when god is LIGHT. It ain’t rocket surgery, is it Helmut?

    Thanks for your blog! Your words are important and mean a lot to myself and my friends.
    Jess and the gang. xox

    • Hi Jess,
      Great to hear from you! The following comments seem to be appropriate:

      1) QFT should be taught in High School, year 11 and 12. No excuses! As to fandangled mathematics. Science, of any kind can be taught in English. The simple point to understand is that 18 year olds leaving high school aren’t burdened with “Medieval” physics. They could spend a year on it for 16 year olds, but then move on to Relativity and Q.P.

      This would teach students for a start where “Mass” comes from. Understanding that would put them on the path to enlightenment. Given the reluctance of educational authorities, to keep up with current science and instead teaching troglodyte physics.
      Humanity could certainly benefit, but alas..we couldn’t move ahead of Britain or the US. After all, the former “colonials” couldn’t possibly be better educated than the “masters”. Thanks again!

      Kind regards to you and the gang!

      • PS, Jess. I recommend to you and your gang the following reading material: (John Gribbin: SCIENCE A HISTORY, references to Newton p. 175-192) . You will be all bursting at the seams with laughter at how a fellow Brit Scientist depicts Newton’s seemingly incongruous existence.

Share your thoughts...

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s