A Proper Gander At Propaganda


PLEASE NOTE: This is not a conspiracy theory blog.

This website exists to serve as public resource for reverse imagineering world-wide culture, one that takes a critical look at the numerous artifacts and other types of relics that represent our shared collective international heritage. This blog is dedicated to examining social engineering and the use of tax funded governmental propaganda, and the mainstream media, as international human resource management tools.

About The AA Morris Proper Gander At Propaganda Podcast: Coming to you from one of the suburban metropolitan melting pots of international culture, outside of one of the multimedia capitals of the world, New York City, the Proper Gander at Propaganda podcast is meant to be a filter free look at our shared international cultural heritage, our shared social media infused and obsessed present, and what our children and their children could be looking forward to. This link will bring you to the podcast page of this website, with embedded squarespace audio: link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast/

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

AA "The Proper Gander" Morris

Article Index Link  •  Tip Jar Link: For those who wish to support independent media.

Web addresses: www.aamorris.net or www.aamorris.com


Science as Religion: May The "Force" Be With You. The Origins of Einstein's Thinking.

"Vis viva (from the Latin for "living force") is a historical term used for the first (known) description of what we now call kinetic energy in an early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy.

Proposed by Gottfried Leibniz over the period 1676–1689, the theory was controversial as it seemed to oppose the theory of conservation of momentum advocated by Sir Isaac Newton and René Descartes. The two theories are now understood to be complementary.

The theory was eventually absorbed into the modern theory of energy though the term still survives in the context of celestial mechanics through the vis viva equation."

Conservation of Momentum Means Conservation of Energy

No wonder why Einstein's theories are illogical and cartoonish. These ideas area based not on demonstrable natural principle, but on Metaphysical and mystical choice. A magical "Force" is conjured into existence when an object moves. Extra energy magically can appear or so it would seem. Is this really what these people thought? We can demonstrate how the conservation of energy and momentum works. We cannot demonstrate Einstein or Leibniz's mysticism, despite mathematical "proof" and equation, that is evidence of nothing but more circular reasoning. Math like all language can be wrong and can represent an incorrect view of reality. We can lie with math as easily as we can lie with all of our art (man made) forms, languages allow for lies.

Mathematical equations are models and are not real. These human creations model proportions. Nature does not use a ruler or a calculator, Nature does not use math, we do. Nature does not need to count.

The idea of a Living Force was the theory of Gottfried Leibniz that there is a creative force. The theory was eventually absorbed into the modern theory of energy. But it is interesting to think that if the idea had be maintained instead of having E=MC² energy equals mass times the speed of light squared we would have had the Living Force equals mass times the speed of light squared.

"And Also With You. "

Please check out the video above, here we can see how circular reasoning and talking about models rather than reality leads us astray. The Vis Viva 'controversy' is often overlooked. Historical context and the origins of scientific thought matters. These ideas and theories can only really be understood when put in the proper context. Mainstream media productions and University courses too often ignore the basic and very real history of the ideas they peddle. Vis Viva was supported by an experiment that involved brass bales and a bed of clay. Gravity itself was the means of propulsion. This fact is overlooked as well. There is no real magic here. Gravity is demonstrably an accelerated phenomena that can be modeled with time squared. Is it not redundant to then square this value again?

"The French mathematician Émilie du Châtelet, who had a sound grasp of Newtonian mechanics, developed Leibniz's concept and, combining it with the observations of Willem 's Gravesande, showed that vis viva was dependent on the square of the velocities."

Vis viva - Wikipedia

Copyright 2012 Plan on this assignment taking 30 minutes. You need to take notes while you watch the video, do the work sheet, and fill out the google form.

Ours is An Age of Digitally Reinforced Mental Darkness

Despite all the impressive progress, both technologically and socially, the 20th century and this early 21st Century is what a Dark Age of thinking looks like.

This is a preview. The actual article is still to come.

As usual please excuse any typos you may encounter. Spell check is an evil gremlin indeed. We will correct them as we find them. Thank You AAMorris Staff.

Mathematics or Metaphysics? Modern Cosmology is a Religion.

Does E = MC 2?

Or is it E = 1/2 MV2?

What about the Original Model  E = MV?

Models Get Messy

The use of the square in the equation models an acceleration or rate of change. E = MC 2 makes use of C (the supposed fixed velocity of light). How is this logical? Why square the mythical velocity of light? What is that  meant to model?  Einstein himself, assumes a fixed and constant value for the velocity of light. He does not assume it is an accelerated phenomena like gravity, does he?

What is Squaring Velocity Meant To Model?

If we use V for velocity and we consider a body in motion, this kinetic equation models something we can demonstrate and so it makes sense. We can see how we might want to square the time component of velocity to represent an acceleration, like if we choose to model the effect of the phenomena we term gravity, which has a constant rate of change. We can see how the formula is not a universal statement by any means, but instead is one example of how we can model many kinds of motions that have changes in velocity. If there is no change in Velocity, then there is no reason to square that value.

Squaring The Area of A Square

Why square a value at all? What is it meant to represent and what are we supposed to be modeling? If we have an area that is literally a square, we can measure one side of it and then square that value to find the area. Here we can see the idea that we are using math to model. If we square time, like in the gravity acceleration equations, we can model a constant rate of change. But what are we supposed to be modeling when we square velocity? What does any of this have to do with the supposed velocity of light? Light is thought to propagate with a constant and fixed velocity, so why would anyone square this value? What is this meant to model?  Why bother to represent the measure of velocity in this manner? In other words why is C squared in "E=MC2"?  Is this supposed to be some reference to how radiation works? Why is this not clearly stated and communicated? 

Every cult needs an unsolved mystery after all.

This article will examine these and other questions.

Mythical Geniuses Who Patch The Patchwork

Much is made of the work of Albert Einstein and much of it is simply misrepresented and wrong. We recommend reading the man in his own words as the modern image of him is more myth than not. Charges of plagiarism have merit. And the version we end up hearing about represents the work of many Relativists. Einstein's work, while very flawed, is not what most think it is. In fact there is good reason his work was embraced by the Heliocentric minded academics, there were and are many problems with the accepted  Cosmological model and there has been for centuries. Many of the experiments like the Michelson Morley interferometer ones are misunderstood and usually taken out of context. Lorentz and Poincare and others published "Einstein's ideas" before he did, they just did it in languages other than German. These apologists had to come up with (ad-hoc) explanations to justify belief in the Heliocentric model, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Einstein is presented to the public as an idol that represents the combined work and thinking of all these men.

These absurd and fantastic ad hoc explanations now serve as foundation for much of modern thought in many ways. These pulp science fiction ideas pave the way for such daydreaming Metaphysical speculation as Time Travel and Multiverses and all sorts of other quantifiable nonsense that has been tacked onto the basic (and flawed) Heliocentric model. The current Big Bang Universe is a far cry from Newton's concepts. There was a really good reason why Einstein came up with the concept of "Curved Space" and it has nothing to do with genius and everything to do with patching the patchwork.

Does E really equal MC Squared? What experiment proves this? We shall examine the Brass Ball and Clay experiment and show how this experiment simply shows the effect of gravity and nothing more. The Vis Viva Controversy and the work of Leibniz and others will also be looked into. This article will begin to build a foundation that will lead to an article that will attempt to describe what Gravity  might actually be. We believe the idea "unidirectionally sound".

This article examines one portion of the patchwork quilt of conflicting ideas we know as Modern Cosmology.

Some Background:

MEET ERIC AT THE 2015 ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE - http://energyscienceconference.com http://ericpdollard.com - This presentation by Eric P. Dollard has been uploaded by others and was mistitled as "The Theory of Anti-Relativity". That title is actually a paper by Eric and this presentation is the History and Theory of Electricity.
http://EricPDollard.com - Join the growing number of supporters for Eric P. Dollard at his official homepage. This presentation is on the Origin of Energy Synthesis. This is the only version of this presentation authorized by Eric P. Dollard.

History of The So-Called & Mythical Speed of Light Part 1: Ole Gets it Wrong By 26%

The fine art of apologetics and circular reasoning is on display for all to see if we but look for ourselves. The Mythic speed of light is an idea supported by circular reasoning, or so the history surely suggests. The first supposed determination of this legendary idea is nothing but the result of a model. This is circular reasoning. There was no evidence that the lights in the sky were physical places like the Earth. This is no experiment and is nothing but an example of flawed and circular reasoning based on nothing but the heliocentric model.

We are supposed to accept these observations as facts when the fact is this so-called 'data' is noting of the kind. It is built on one assumption after another with no basis in reality.  Pointing to the phenomena we seek an explanation for as the experiment that proves the 'theory' is not evidence. There was no NASA before the late 20th Century, we must keep this in mind. The subject of NASA and other space fakery aside, the logical conclusion is that there was no reason to think the Heliocentric model was anything but an idea.

Prior to the the Space Race and Atomic Age of Televised Propaganda: Nobody could claim any Empirical Evidence to support the Heliocentric Model, let alone the Big Bang Theory or any of the rest of the patchwork we know as modern Cosmology. This early 'experiment' is officially wrong and yet it is put forth as if it is correct. This is political spin and not science and this is but one example. Mainstream science is filled with apologetics for many of these kinds of obvious errors.

Mainstream Cosmology is A Religion - Models Are Put Forth As Demonstrable Evidence

"Rømer's determination of the speed of light was the demonstration in 1676 that light has a finite speed, and so does not travel instantaneously. The discovery is usually attributed to Danish astronomer Ole Rømer (1644–1710),[note 1] who was working at the Royal Observatory in Paris at the time.

By timing the eclipses of the Jupiter moon Io, Rømer estimated that light would take about 22 minutes to travel a distance equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun. This would give light a velocity of about 220,000 kilometres per second in SI units, about 26% lower than the true value of 299,792 km/s.

Rømer's theory was controversial at the time he announced it, and he never convinced the director of the Paris Observatory, Giovanni Domenico Cassini, to fully accept it. However, it quickly gained support among other natural philosophers of the period, such as Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton. It was finally confirmed nearly two decades after Rømer's death, with the explanation in 1729 of stellar aberration by the English astronomer James Bradley."


The Value For C = Never A Straight Measure

439450 x 10 ^ 6 is Wrong!

A Long History of Never A Straight Measure For the Mythic Speed of Light

The Speed of Light is Just an Idea Like Time & Energy Are

The History of The Speed of Light is filed with misconception and intellectual deception. The experiments that are used to support this idea tend to lack the supporting evidence one would assume one could easily find. As it turns out there are many assumptions and many cases of circular reasoning and literally spinning the wrong results into the right ones.

For More Please Read:

James & The Big Stellar Aberration Lie! Part 1

Three Bears And Goldilocks Indeed: Maxwell Gets It Wrong!

"Maxwell proceeded to calculate the speed of those waves, which of course depended on the numbers that came from lab experiments with electricity and magnetism (not with light!). He got the answer 310,740,000 meters per second. Maxwell must have had an “aha moment” when he recognized that number. He did recognize that number: it was the speed of light! He was lecturing at King’s College, London, in 1862, and there he presented his result that the speed of propagation of an electromagnetic field is approximately that of the speed of light. He considered this to be more than just a coincidence, and commented: “We can scarcely avoid the conclusion that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.” 


see also: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field.pdf

Maxwell Built His House of Cards on Assumptions & Worked Backwards To Get The Result He Desired

"(There has been a tendency in recent years to play down the experimental determination of  electric permittivity ε in the literature. This follows from the tautological fact that in 1983, the speed of light became a defined quantity by virtue of the fact that the metre became defined in terms of the speed of light. The end result is that we have the absurd situation whereby equation (1) becomes an equation linking three defined quantities and hence loses all its physical significance. Under this inferior new way of thinking, the 1856 Weber- Kohlrausch experiment becomes redundant.)"

Modern "Science": Fudging Results & Massaging Math In Order To Obtain The Predetermined Results


"...constant in the luminiferous medium, as is done in section 2 of “The Speed of Light” [7], but that’s not the way that he did do it. Maxwell considered c² to be the speed of a wave in an elastic solid. Using Newton’s equation for the speed of a wave in an elastic solid, he substitutes c². The result in effect is E = mc² as can be ascertained from equations (132) to (135) in his 1861 paper “On Physical Lines of Force” [3]. From this Maxwell establishes a dielectric constant for the luminiferous medium. We can then see that the equation E = mc² becomes equivalent to the equation c² = 1/ µε.

The full derivation is found in Part III of the 1861 paper beginning at equation (105), although it should be noted that Maxwell works backwards from the end result. He starts with the displacement equation (105) containing the dielectric constant and seeks to link that constant to the transverse elasticity of an elastic solid. He then introduces the Weber/Kohlrausch result and substitutes it all into Newton’s equation. In Part III he does not resort to the specifics of the sea of molecular vortices that he postulated in Part I of the same paper, but it would have been better if he had done so. Nevertheless he still establishes that light is a transverse wave in the same medium that is the cause of electric and  magnetic phenomena."


Read more here: https://books.google.com/books?id=OVRNaJZy0CkC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=1856,+Kirchhoff+speed+of+light&source=bl&ots=iI5kL92zHR&sig=ESE6OX-oh9gb23O7Sj8y1iX4wjU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB0r6esJLRAhUDMSYKHf6EAiYQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Square Root of 2 = 1.41421356237

Weber's Value For The "Speed of Light" Is Also Wrong!

1.41421356237 x  299,792,458 m/sec = 423,970,560 m/sec!

3.15 x 10 ^ 8 m/sec & 3.11 x 10 ^ 8 m/sec are still wrong!

"A ballistic galvanometer is a type of sensitive galvanometer, commonly a mirror galvanometer. Unlike a current-measuring galvanometer, the moving part has a large moment of inertia, thus giving it a long oscillation period. It is really an integrator measuring the quantity of charge discharged through it. It can be either of the moving coil or moving magnet type."

Ballistic galvanometer - Wikipedia

Does it make sense to claim the difference in a meter reading in terms of speed?

Does meters per second really make sense here? Using mathematical equation like a stage magician's sleight of hand skill is not science nor demonstrable natural principle.

These measurements come across as arbitrary. What we can actually measure is relative proportions, we cannot measure any sort of absolute numbers in the true sense of the meaning of the word 'absolute'. Nature does not use math, lie or make mistakes, we do.

In the 1700's or so, James Bradley made up an absurd theory in an attempt to salvage the Heliocentric model. Here we get the first modern 'measure' for the mythic speed of light. Circular reasoning and mathematical equations make this number work out to somewhere near the accepted value we all know today. Yet the truth is, Bradley made it up to fit the model. He fudged his results and his Aberration of Light explanation is nothing but nonsense that the subsequent investigators clung to like a religion.

The experiments Maxwell based his assumptions on incorrectly model electric phenomena as an indemonstrable accelerated particle. These experiments are not particle accelerator ones. That would involve things like vacuum tubes and alternating current machines, like the ones Nikola Tesla used.


"A galvanometer is an electromechanical instrument for detecting and measuring electric current. The most common use of galvanometers was as analog measuring instruments, called ammeters, used to measure the direct current (flow of electric charge) through an electric circuit. A galvanometer works as an actuator, by producing a rotary deflection (of a "pointer"), in response to electric current flowing through a coil in a constant magnetic field.

Galvanometers developed from the observation that the needle of a magnetic compass is deflected near a wire that has electric current flowing through it, first described by Hans Oersted in 1820. They were the first instruments used to detect and measure small amounts of electric currents. The name comes from the Italian electricity researcher Luigi Galvani, who in 1791 discovered the principle of the frog galvanoscope – that electric current would make the legs of a dead frog jerk.

Sensitive galvanometers have been essential for the development of science and technology in many fields. For example, they enabled long range communication through submarine cables, such as the earliest Transatlantic telegraph cables, and were essential to discovering the electrical activity of the heart and brain, by their fine measurements of current.

Galvanometers also had widespread use as the visualising part in other kinds of analog meters, for example in light metersVU meters, etc., where they were used to measure and display the output of other sensors. Today the main type of galvanometer mechanism, still in use, is the moving coil, D'Arsonval/Weston type."

Do Electrical Meters Register Measurements in Terms of Meter's Per Second?

Of course not.

"The basic sensitivity of a meter might be, for instance, 100 microamperes full scale (with a voltage drop of, say, 50 millivolts at full current). Such meters are often calibrated to read some other quantity that can be converted to a current of that magnitude. The use of current dividers, often called shunts, allows a meter to be calibrated to measure larger currents."

Galvanometer - Wikipedia

Comparing Apples to Oranges: A Patchwork of Conflicting Ideas & Not Well Defined Terms

How is the idea of 310,740,000 units of positive & negative electricity moving past a 'point' in a wire during one second of time, somehow equal to velocity of light - which is imagined to be some 300,000,000 meter per second? 

Mathematical points are dimensionless and unmeasurable ideas. Points have no mass, length nor width. A point is an idea. Where are the specific measurements for this famed and important experiment? Where is all the specific data and where are all the clearly reproduced subsequent versions of this mythic experiment? These men seem to be trying to measure ideas rather than real things. How long is a unit of positive and negative electricity? How much space does it occupy? We need to know that in order to have a context as to what some 310 million units of 'electricity' passing over a 'point' means. Was the point at the mid point of the wire? How could anyone measure over 300 million electrical units in the first place, especially back then? Even now such a feat would seem to be more boast than reality.

Light is supposed to have a different length than other types of electromagnetic radiation like say radio waves, which were considered as 'wireless' electricity back in the day. This needs more work of course and this is one reason why this article is still "under construction".

Metrics Are Tied To The Mythic Speed of Light - Modern Science as another version of the Old Age Solar Religion

"A nanosecond (ns) is an SI unit of time equal to one billionth of a second (10−9 or 1/1,000,000,000 s). One nanosecond is to one second as one second is to 31.71 years."

"Light travels exactly 29.9792458  centimeters in 1 nanosecond. This is equivalent to 11.8 inches, leading some to refer to a nanosecond as a light-foot."

Nanosecond - Wikipedia

The idea seems to be that some 300,000,000 meters would pass by the imagined point in one second of time. How is this the right context for such a measure? In other words isn't this an incorrect way to define what would be better termed 'pressure'?

Speed would seem to be the incorrect metric to use to describe this phenomena, despite the official Royal Society Approved Metrics.

Experimenting on a Small Planet: A History of Scientific ...

Nature - Volume 87 - Page 509 - Google Books Result

The Foundation Contains Assumptions of Absolute Measure of Ideas - Which is Impossible

Only proportions can be measured not absolutes, in this (narrow) sense relativity is right.

"Laws" Are Not Principles of Nature - Laws Are Artificial & Subject to Human Error


Outlines of the Evolution of Weights and Measures and the Metric System

No. 522. Measurement of the velocity of light in a partial vacuum.

"Fizeau–Foucault apparatus is a term sometimes used to refer to two types of instrument historically used to measure the speed of light. The conflation of the two instrument types arises in part because Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault had originally been friends and collaborators. They worked together on such projects as using the Daguerreotype process to take images of the Sun between 1843 and 1845[1] and characterizing absorption bands in the infrared spectrum of sunlight in 1847.[2]

In 1834, Charles Wheatstone developed a method of using a rapidly rotating mirror to study transient phenomena, and applied this method to measure the velocity of electricity in a wire and the duration of an electric spark.[3] He communicated to François Arago the idea that his method could be adapted to a study of the speed of light. Arago expanded upon Wheatstone's concept in an 1838 publication, emphasizing the possibility that a test of the relative speed of light in air versus water could be used to distinguish between the particle and wave theories of light.

In 1845, Arago suggested to Fizeau and Foucault that they attempt to measure the speed of light. Sometime in 1849, however, it appears that the two had a falling out, and they parted ways pursuing separate means of performing this experiment.[1] In 1848−49, Fizeau used, not a rotating mirror, but a toothed wheel apparatus to perform an absolute measurement of the speed of light in air. In 1850, Fizeau and Foucault both used rotating mirror devices to perform relative measures of the speed of light in air versus water. Foucault used a scaled-up version of the rotating mirror apparatus to perform an absolute measurement of the speed of light in 1862. Subsequent experiments performed by Marie Alfred Cornu in 1872–76 and by Albert A. Michelson in 1877–1931 used improved versions of the toothed wheel and rotating mirror experiments to make steadily more accurate estimates of the speed of light."


The Human Eye Can Be Tricked - Our Senses Have "Resolution" Limits:

Why measuring the mythic speed of light with rotating mirrors and toothed wheels are horrible experiments is explained below:

"Special calibrated strobe lights, capable of flashing up to hundreds of times per second, are used in industry to stop the appearance of motion of rotating and other repetitively operating machinery and to measure, or adjust, the rotation speeds or cycle times. Since this stop is only apparent, a marked point on the rotating body will either appear to move backward or forward, or not move, depending on the frequency of the strobe-flash. If the flash occurs equal to the period of rotation (or evenly multiplied, i.e. 2*π*n/ω, where n is an integer and ω the angular frequency) the marked point will appear to not move. Any non integer flash setting will make the mark appear to move forward or backward, e.g. a slight increase of the flash frequency will make the point appear to move backward.

Strobe lighting has also been used to see the movements of the vocal cords in slow motion during speech, a procedure known as video-stroboscopy. A common use of a strobe flash is to optimize a car engine's efficiency at a certain rotational period by directing the strobe-light towards a mark on the flywheel on the engine's main axle. The strobe-light tool for such ignition timing is called a timing light."

"The origin of strobe lighting dates to 1931, when Harold Eugene "Doc" Edgerton employed a flashing lamp to make an improved stroboscope for the study of moving objects, eventually resulting in dramatic photographs of objects such as bullets in flight.

EG&G [now a division of URS] was founded by Harold E. Edgerton, Kenneth J. Germeshausen and Herbert E. Grier in 1947 as Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier, Inc. and today bears their initials. In 1931, Edgerton and Germeshausen had formed a partnership to study high-speed photographic and stroboscopic techniques and their applications. Grier joined them in 1934, and in 1947, EG&G was incorporated. During World War II, the government's Manhattan Project made use of Edgerton's discoveries to photograph atomic explosions; it was a natural evolution that the company would support the Atomic Energy Commission in its weapons research and development after the war. This work for the Commission provided the historic foundation to the Company's present-day technology base.[2]

Internally triggered Strobotrons (light-output optimized thyratrons) were available[3] as well as CRT-type, grid-controlled Vacuum stroboscopic light sources with fast phosphors.[4]

The strobe light was popularized on the club scene during the 1960s when it was used to reproduce and enhance the effects of LSD trips. Ken Kesey used strobe lighting in coordination with the music of the Grateful Dead during his legendary Acid Tests. In early 1966 Andy Warhol's lights engineer Danny Williams pioneered the use of multiple stroboscopes, slides and film projections simultaneously onstage during the 1966 Exploding Plastic Inevitable shows, and at Bill Graham's request, Williams built an enhanced stroboscopic light show to be used at Fillmore West."

The flowing water in this video appears to have droplets "stopped" in mid-air, however, this effect is achieved by using stroboscopes. Unilux manufactures and sells industrial stroboscopes to view defects in materials moving at high speeds.