A National Academy of Science Published An Article That Reveals
Science Is Based On "Alternative Facts"
NEWS RELEASE - Mount Laurel, NJ - When I saw the movie titled “Concussion”, it inspired me to write the peer-reviewed article titled “Who Is Telling The Truth, Nature Or Man?” which was recently published in the international science journal, News Of Biomedical Sciences. Ironically enough, the formal recognition of a fundamental omission error of how science is being conducted by the National Academy of Science of Belarus with an international editorial board and council of scientists marks a significant development towards the advancement of science for only science can correct itself. The publication of this article demonstrates to the public that some scientists have the integrity to act responsibly in accordance to their discipline’s practice of acknowledging a new discovery that supersedes previous knowledge regardless of how inconvenient such a discovery may be, while others do not have the same high standards.
As discussed in the article, the omission error that science is built upon is blatantly transparent to the extent that anyone without scientific knowledge can conduct a simple keyword search on the internet in order to confirm for themselves what the art of science has overlooked without needing to read a single scientific document or book.
Cite: Morales, M.S., Who Is Telling The Truth, Nature Or Man?, News Biomed. Sci. (2016) Vol.13, No. 1. P. 86-90. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18914.53447
Please visit Prephysics.com for links to articles written about the Tempt Destiny experiment findings.
The following email correspondence thread encapsulates the current hypocrisy of science and the dawn of the advance of science into two dichotomous fields of natural study. This dialog begins with ResearchGate.net (RG) confirmation of their censorship of my discovery of what Einstein had suggested nearly a century ago as "hidden variables" that he and his colleagues, and generations of scientist since, have not accounted for. In response to RG's preventing me to support my findings, Geoscientist Heath Watts sought to confront me about my research. Despite his insults, I pointed out how he could support his assumptions by trying to invalidate my findings. As those before him, Nobel Laureates and the like, who chose to be willfully ignorant of unambiguous empirical evidence in order to maintain the status quo and their livelihood, he too failed to support his position when given the opportunity to do so.
I CC this correspondence so that those informed (PhDs) cannot claim ignorance of the evidence and the situation at hand in hopes that these noteworthy practitioners of science will act as their practice dictates. I feel that transparency is the only way to advance our knowledge of how we came to be and that is why I wrote my (highly controversial) article in a way for the general public to understand my findings and provide the means for all to verify for themselves how we have perceived the Nature of our reality ass backwards. As the empirical evidence has shown and without ambiguity the effect we call existence, regardless of scale (microscopic or macroscopic) or locality, cannot be causal of existence, Nature prohibits this.
Please note, I began my research as a believer in God only to be told by Nature (unambiguous empirical evidence) that it prohibits the existence of a deity being causal of our existence. As can be confirmed by all via the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see pages 88-89: http://physiology.by/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Morales_WHO-IS-TELLING-THE-TRUTH.pdf), there are two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive laws that govern our existence. God, as commonly understood, has nothing to do with our existence for if God is indeed omnipotent we could all conrinue to live without the two acts of selection, such is not the case.
To members of the media, please let me know if you have any questions and if you wish to cover this story.
NOTE: My research has been self-funded by me and my desire to learn from Nature what science and religion has failed to teach.
Einstein's Hidden Variables Censorship
Begin message (from last message to first):
From: Manuel Morales
Date: January 4, 2017 2:17:43 PM EST
To: Heath Watts <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Yael Niv <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, joachim RG <JoachimPimiskern@web.de>, "Joshua W. Shaevitz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Federico Del Giorgio Solfa <email@example.com>, Leonardo Cannizzaro <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dennis Soku <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, gibji nimasow <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Peter Eyerer <email@example.com>, Agnieszka Najda <firstname.lastname@example.org>, MOHAMMAD HAMAD AL-KHRESHEH <email@example.com>, Louis Brassard <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ilana B. Witten" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "J.B. Mandumpal" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Raul Simon <email@example.com>, sergey nikitin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Zaal Kikvidze <email@example.com>, barry hammer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, asmat ali <email@example.com>, "Tank, David W." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, oluwafemi samson balogun <email@example.com>, "Daniel I. Rubenstein" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ivo carneiro <email@example.com>, Silvia Dari <firstname.lastname@example.org>, jose jorge <email@example.com>, arif jawaid <firstname.lastname@example.org>, MD PhD <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, MOHAMMED SALEEM ALI SHTAYEH <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ERIC STEVEN HALL <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "Jordan A. Taylor" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, dejenie <email@example.com>, "Kennon O'Kennon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lindy McBride <email@example.com>, "H.E. Lehtihet" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Cantu <email@example.com>, octav olteanu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Daniel N. Osherson" <email@example.com>, Erkki Gmail <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "A. El-Mowafy" <email@example.com>, Sabine Kastner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Jonathan W. Pillow" <email@example.com>, "Wang, Samuel S." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Daniel COURGEAU <email@example.com>, bernd Schmeikal <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Helena Pestana <email@example.com>, "Peter J. Ramadge" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Cori.Bargmann@rockefeller.edu" <Cori.Bargmann@rockefeller.edu>, Kandarpa Kumar Sarma <email@example.com>, "Murthy, Mala" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Michael V. Romalis" <email@example.com>, "HENGKY S. H." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, DONALD HAMILTON <email@example.com>, HOSSEIN ABEDI <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Takeshi MATSUISHI <email@example.com>, Anil RG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, mohamed el naschie <email@example.com>, "Germina K. A" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, costas drossos <email@example.com>, walid abdallah <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ljubomir Jacić -VTS <email@example.com>, ARMIN HALLMANN <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ZERAOULIA ELHADJ <email@example.com>, "Murphy, Coleen T." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Naomi E. Leonard" <email@example.com>, ankush sachdeva <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Deborah A. Prentice" <email@example.com>, Muralidhar K C <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ResearchGate Community Support <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, beata RG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RAVI SHARMA <email@example.com>, sribas RG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Robert F. Stengel" <email@example.com>, JAMES BOWMAN <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Barry L. Jacobs" <email@example.com>, mohaled dallel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Kenneth A. Norman" <email@example.com>, Pereira Jr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Concha Diez-Pastor <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, garimella manohar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, sebastian tanco <email@example.com>, Robert Boroch <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ahed Alkhatib <email@example.com>, Suresh Vatsyayann <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "H. Sebastian Seung" <email@example.com>, giuseppe laquidara <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Nick Turk-Browne <email@example.com>, ONITRA WILKERSON <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Barbara Sawicka <email@example.com>, abhay saxena <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Arnon Edelstein <email@example.com>, Claudio Messori <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Philip N. Johnson-Laird" <email@example.com>, IRINA PECHONKINA <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Djoko Markovic <email@example.com>, "Alexander T. Todorov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Maurizio Pea <email@example.com>, cecilia lewis kausel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eleni Vervenioti <email@example.com>, Eugene RG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, De Vuyst Rita <email@example.com>, Fadel Djamel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Stock, Jeffry B." <email@example.com>, RONAN MICHAEL CONROY <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, anup rg <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Einstein's Hidden Variables Censorship
All I ask from practitioners of the art of science is to act like scientists by refuting or accepting unambiguous empirical evidence. Is that too much to ask for? By refusing to act like scientists, we are showing the public that science is in contempt of its own practice.
Fortunately, the National Academy of Science of Belarus actually practices what they preach by publishing my article which revealed that the current investigative methods used in science are incomplete thereby making theories confirmed by such methods speculative at best. By having a National Academy of Science peer-review and then publish such an article proves to the public that science does indeed have integrity worthy of respect.
In essence, scientists that refuse to accept what they wish not to contest are in fact practitioners of anti-science.
ANNOUNCEMENT: I have been invited to be a speaker at a Theoretical and Condensed Matter Physics conference in New York City come October of this year. If you think what I have stated thus far is a game changer, you have seen nothing yet.
On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Heath Watts wrote:
Yes, I agree and I'm finished, Yael. I don't imagine that this exchange is what Rita had in mind when she started this group. I apologize for feeding the troll. I'm sensitive to the anti-science propaganda in the U.S., which has been increased by the current election.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Yael Niv <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Please stop replying all. This is unsolicited spam. (sent from phone with apologies)
On Jan 4, 2017 09:54, Manuel Morales wrote:
If my claim makes me sound like a fool then please confirm your position by conducting the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life. If you can indeed violate the laws that govern our existence by continuing to live without these origin variables, then and only then, will I have been proven to be the fool you claim I am. See pgs. 88-89: http://physiology.by/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Morales_WHO-IS-TELLING-THE-TRUTH.pdf
"Currently, the scientific method and experiments that you think you've discredited are the best way to understand how nature works."
Really? Then please point out a single experiment or mathematical equation that was conducted or could ever be conducted without a selection, direct or indirect, first being made.
I realize it is inconvenient, if not outright troublesome, to face the fact that current methods used in science are NOT indicative of how Nature works because they are effectual methods thus incomplete methods of our causal reality. Furthermore, since there are two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive origin variables that are necessary to conduct any and all experiments, any experiment that does not factor both variables as causal of the effects observed in an experiment are guilty of omitted-variable bias which can only lead to false-positive results. I have confirmed this observation without ambiguity in my twelve year Tempt Destiny experiment (see pgs. 87-88 of the article linked above).
If you did understand QM you would know it is not a causal theory. It begins with the effect we call existence, that which can be observed our measured, and how such states of existence (effect) interact (cause) with other states of existence (effect), i.e., effect causing effect. By placing cause second to effects we get the perversion of causality we call interaction which is a violation temporal precedence. For example, try to do a single calculation without first making a selection. If existence is self-causal as currently assumed then answer this question:
How much does a direct or indirect selection weigh, what are their scales, and where was the mutually exclusive selection variable you used to read these words located when you used it?
I understand your position of being ignorant of my findings and why you think I do not know what I am talking about. If I am wrong, and you do have the means to prove it by using your own existence via the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life, then why are using words to state your case when mere words or mathematical equations are insufficient to do so? Are you saying that opinions supersede the Nature of our reality? Please read my research before replying. I have found that far too many learned individuals think they know what they are talking about without understanding the mechanics involved in how they are able to know anything at all in the first place.
Case in point, the thought experiment confirms that the acts of selection are not effects of physical cognition and that without these origin variables we die. In your defense and others included in this email, the study of Nature's effects is indeed valid as an incomplete study of Nature, what I call Effectual Science. However, effects cannot be used to establish cause for Nature has shown us, without exception, there are two predetermined (not preexisting) origin variables in Nature that create what we call energy, i.e., E = G2 (see: https://www.academia.edu/3737617/Spin_States_of_Selection_Predetermined_Variables_of_bit_).
On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Heath Watts wrote:
Your reply is full of postmodernist jargon. I initially thought that you at least had a PhD in Mathematics and that you were using it to delve into theoretical physics. Your flippant disregard for the usefulness and methods of science is both disturbing and silly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur with regard to a subject, but to claim that "you have gone beyond" a topic makes you sound like a fool. Most scientists that I know have a very broad interest in science and many other topics; however, they do not claim expertise in other fields based on their hobbyist reading in another field. I have a PhD in Geosciences and my specialty is geochemistry; I use quantum chemistry calculations to study the chemical properties of plant polymers, and I also use the method to study the interactions of metals such as lead and cadmium with mineral surfaces. Although I use quantum mechanics calculations, I do not claim to know everything about quantum mechanics (I know very little about the topic.), and I certainly do not see myself "going beyond" the knowledge of the field.
Maybe you are a rare genius who has discovered a deeper mystery to the Universe than anyone has previously. Alternatively, you could be someone like non-scientists who claim that evolutionary biology, climate science, and germ theory (e.g., vaccinations) are not "real science". It seems that you have swallowed the putrid medicine of postmodernism with respect to science, just as religious fanatics in the right wing have swallowed fundamentalist religion--a belief in postmodernism and religion seem to make it unlikely that one can accept scientific evidence. Postmodernism is a great tool with respect to art, literature, and other humanities subjects, but it is not a tool that we can use to understand how nature works. Currently, the scientific method and experiments that you think you've discredited are the best way to understand how nature works.
If you truly wish to know how we know what we know, I suggest that you continue your studies. Neuroscience is a fast-developing field that might partially answer this question. However, doing a thought experiment and publishing it in a obscure journal that is not related to the topic is not. Good luck with your studies and I hope that you will actually pursue the subject with seriousness, if you continue to have interest in theoretical physics.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Manuel Morales wrote:
In order to apply my findings to theoretical physics, I first needed to analyze 'how' such a study was being conducted. I quickly came to understand that the study of theories is nothing more than the study of effects being used as a substitute for knowledge of cause. I have studied theoretical physics on my own enough to know I have gone beyond it. My field of research, which I call origin physics, is not taught at universities... yet.
Heath, have you ever ask yourself, 'how' do we know what we think we know? I did, and that is why I have chosen not to spend any more of my time and money chasing after any more degrees to prove to others I have studied it. My research speaks for itself. For the record, I have an AS degree in Photography and a BS degree in Illustration.
So you might be asking, what do my art and photography degrees have to do with theoretical physics? If there was only one thing that I have learned from studying art, which of course science is also, is the gift of insight. That is what I applied to the art of science and to the abstract art of theoretical physics.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Heath Watts wrote:
When and where did you earn your doctorate in theoretical physics, Manuel? You list theoretical physics as an area of expertise on your linkedin page, but you don't mention where you earned your PhD.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:49 PM Manuel Morales wrote:
In keeping with ResearchGate (RG) goals, I have provide the results of my unambiguous empirical evidence which is based on the Nature of our reality not opinions, statistical inference, or ambiguity otherwise known as theory. Some researchers find the peer-reviewed research I have shared at RG to be offensive because it does not allow for the corruption of opinions (this also includes my own). My research revealed that the past methods of investigation used in science are incomplete because they are based on omitted-variable bias or the absence of what Albert Einstein referred to as "hidden variables". The construct of my experiment provided the means for all to confirm, without ambiguity, that there are two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive origin variables (hidden variables), i.e., direct and indirect selection, that give rise to and thus govern our existence.
In presenting my discovery to the RG community I have been called many names and have had many false statements or misrepresentation of my research made to suit RG member's bias. Nonetheless, my response has been to accept such statements and insulting behavior provided they can refute my findings via the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see pgs. 88-89: http://physiology.by/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Morales_WHO-IS-TELLING-THE-TRUTH.pdf).
As RG should know, research is meaningless if it is not valid or non-contestable. Since the arbitrator of my research is Nature itself, which means the findings are universal, then they can be indirectly contested by all via a thought experiment or directly contested by all in real life. To date no one at RG, Nobel Laureate and the like, has directly refuted my findings in real life yet they still contend their opinions supersede the empirical evidence they themselves have failed to contest. When scientists fail to behave like scientists by not contesting or accepting a new discovery that supersedes previous knowledge, then we are no longer talking about science or qualitative research. RG's behavior confirms the corruption of the later.
RG outright refusal to allow me to represent my research, yet continue to post my research at RG so that others can make false comments against it, I find most reprehensible and a core violation of the art of science by impeding its progress in using the bias of who is allowed to support their research and who is not via membership censorship.
By censoring the messenger, RG is censoring the message. If RG insists on denying me access to support my research, this now being the fourth suspension of my account, then I request that ALL of my research be removed from Researchgate.net archives in order to complete your act of censorship of my discovery.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:27 AM, ResearchGate Community Support wrote:
Thanks for getting in touch. We locked your original account and any account created by you after your original profile was locked. We have written to you on multiple occasions to explain why your account was permanently suspended. We suggest that you refer to these previous emails for further details.
RG Community Support
The Tempt Destiny experiment was provided as a means for football fans to support their team and is not affiliated with the
National Football League or NFL teams. All Rights reserved. Designed and hosted by Morales Studio LLC Copyright © 2017