Chandrakanth Natekar

This conversation is closed.

Example of our scientific foolishness! Note: Please go on add the examples of scientific foolishness of this egoistic material world.

The entire scientific world knows that brain and spinal cord constitute the central nervous system. The brain contains some 50 billions nerve cells, or neurons. Each neuron is linked to thousands of others. Tiny electrical signals pass through this vast network, carrying human thoughts and memories. Nerve signals also come into the brain from nerves all over the body, and go out from the brain to the muscles. A nerve signal is a tiny pulse of electricity that travels very fast, almost 100 meters per second along a nerve cell.

When there is flow electricity in every human body do we need earthing or not? Why have we disconnected ourselves from earthing? When there is tension in mind earthing is a must. Otherwise we may witness brain haemorrhage. Even the computer cannot properly function without earthing. Then what about a human being? The shoe that we wear, the roads that we build, the house where we live, and the tall buildings that we construct… everywhere we have insulated ourselves from earthing. What development we have done in this world when we cannot understand the minute law of earthing?

Our sincere call to the world is to end this illusive journey. Now, there is an immediate need to do a soul searching. We need a new beginning to raise the world unto the infinite height of the absolute science. We must realize that inventions and discoveries are an outcome of unselfish people’s selfless mind. Let us give justice to them by elevating the world into a new height by digesting the true value of science. Let us usher in a new legend of renaissance in the world. Without violating the natural laws of cosmic creation, let us re-construct the world into an innovative height, so that at least the future generations can enjoy the true glory and the infinite happiness of life.

  • thumb
    Apr 6 2011: Science fails for me because it removes mystery by providing a dull and mechanical guess.

    The legacy of science is finer and finer measurement - not explanation, not enlightenment.

    Scientific "advancement" is akin to digging in the sand; the only real outcome is that the hole gets bigger..
    • Apr 14 2011: isn't solving a mystery the whole fun of having a mystery?

      if i tell you my name are you disappointed because now you know, the mystery as to what my name could be no longer exists?

      i disagree completely, the aim of science is to understand, then use this knowledge to make improvements, then try to understand the next mystery that has unfolded as a result of the discovery.

      to continue your digging analogy - not so, we must develop ways to support the sides of our hole as we go down, and we learn that there are other soil types under the sand and pass that mystery on to the geologists so they can work out why sand doesn't continue all the way to the core.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2011: Ask yourself! How the simple electrons maintain perpetual motion for billions of years? It is not only electrons, even the atoms in the matter, matters in the planet, planets in the stellar system, stellar systems in the galaxy, galaxies in the cluster of galaxies, cluster of galaxies in the super clusters also maintain perpetual motion for billions of years. This everlasting phenomenon clearly illustrates that there is one unrecognized fundamental force in nature, which perpetually refuels everything from the minute elementary particle to vast cosmos and connects all the visible and invisible properties of nature as one integrated unit. Let us together investigate the hidden root of this unknown fundamental force that dominates the universe. In my hypothesis, ‘Perpetual Motion of the Universe and Quantum Entanglement’ I have named it, ‘Balancing Force’.

        Please check the link below:

        Nikola Tesla's Energy Innovations

        You can also check my book on science through any search engine. Meanwhile, if complete any book on science please forward me. Let me learn from you. Thank you.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: Ben - I like my hole analogy a lot better before you started talking about soil types and engineering.

        I recognise the knowledge collected through the application of the scientific method and its importance to the improving of many facets of existence.

        I also understand the enjoyment some folk get from refining details.

        Ultimately, for me, science is the measuring of the material world and gives me, personally, very little in the way of inspiration or fulfillment.

        I still believe that scientific discoveries are not objective truths we discover, rather they are finding ways to rationally explain what we always expected to find in the most consistent way possible. Nothing awe-inspiring or gob-smacking in that.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 15 2011: Please check the following link

        and also realize that already nature has rejected the illusionist theory of gravity. Now, pseudo scientists are telling that gravity is a weak force. Weak force or strong force but there should be a hypothesized particle GRAVITON.

        Nevertheless, in the area 51 everyone knows that the entire universe stands and moves on the electromagnetic force and its quantum tunneling system. Already levitating globe and other materials are already available entered the market which materially rejects the gravity. In the area 51 some of the hidden hands that controls the world and its financial system are already developed electromagnetic weapon but they are not ready to release this eternal secret that disclosed by the Nikola Tesla for their personal growth. They know very well that people are fools and what we teach them through the curriculum nonsense, they believe. This area 51 gang has dev eloped several electromagnetic weapon which can even to generate earthquake, tsunami and so on.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: @ Richard - I am very aware of the scientific method and I'm not disputing that science has provided explanations in an empirical sense.

        You are misreading my message - science has not explained the universe, life and existence at all - it is simply a powerful, methodical measuring tool. Enlightenment is not the acquisition of more facts, so I'm not sure why you believe science has enlightened us (although, this is really an argument about semantics).

        I am also intelligent enough to know when my opinions are my opinions and when they should be kept to myself - especially if there is a chance I may pass them on to a student.

        I also understand that people believe very different things. I think you could probably still find more than a few folk who believe in many things that science simply refuses to acknowledge because it has no ability to measure or explain them (conveniently blaming a lack of evidence).

        These things make me an excellent teacher - I teach science to the science-minded. I teach language skills to the writer and speakers. I try to foster open-mindedness whenever I can but that is the hardest one of all as often, people like to pick one team and only root for them.

        I'm not sure that it is me with closed mind here, Richard..
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: Hi Scott and Jim, I read that letter by PZ Myers and guess what? I dont know what conversation it was in, but Scott and I had the exact same talk as Emma and the Moon rock lady.

          It was a question about something and Scott said I dont know I wasn't there. I replied that is an extraordinary statement. You were not there for the Christchurch earthquakes, the Pike river mine disaster, well nigh everything we read in the papers or see in the news. If we only know that which we witness personally we pretty much know nothing. Not even that the world is round.

          And Scott you cant enthuse kids about science by faking it.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: This conversation has nothing to do with creationism - let's be very clear about that.

        I'll reiterate again for those people who skim read previous comments - I'm a professional and I keep my opinions separate from my job, even when I feel very strongly that I am right.

        Also, I'm beginning to see that my mind operates differently from yours, Rich. Perhaps I'm more artist than academic.
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: Yep I'll go with that. We think way, way different. I am not artistic at all. In the sense that I appreciate art and music greatly (some of it. I also have strong likes and dislikes there), but have absolutely no talent for either, (unless you count singing in the shower).

          But so far as science is concerned my views and understanding are clear.

          You say “science has not explained the universe, life and existence at all”. I disagree. It has explained them in a far better way than any belief or faith has.

          "I think you could probably still find more than a few folk who believe in many things that science simply refuses to acknowledge because it has no ability to measure or explain them (conveniently blaming a lack of evidence)"

          Belief in something without evidence is faith. I dont know what you mean by "refuses to acknowledge"? Science deals in probabilities not absolutes. Like if you say science “does not believe in the Loch Ness monster”, what science actually says is the Loch Ness monster probably doesn’t exist. It says that because of the lack of evidence of its existence.

          This is not a “convenient blame” to not acknowledging the monster. It would believe it if someone produced some evidence of it, which hasn’t been refuted. Science is impartial in its beliefs. It doesn’t “refuse to acknowledge” despite evidence. People of faith on the other hand refuse to give up their belief despite evidence to the contrary.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: Well returned. I agree with your points about the scientific method being open when the evidence is available and robust. In terms of the big WHY, I sit in some grey area between science and faith, although I would not describe myself as religious at all.

        Creationism was mentioned earlier by another TEDder and I get just as angry at that kind of psuedo science as any thinking person and I can't say enough how much I disagree with that particular pile. Thankfully this doesn't seem to be an issue in NZ schools (at least, that I'm aware of).

        To refer to your Loch Ness Monster example, let's just say, I want to believe but find that I can't until presented with irrefutable proof. Preferably 1st hand proof. You know how I feel about 2nd and 3rd hand reports..
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: Most definitely agree with the wanting it to be true statement. I try not to be that way. I guess that is the origins of many superstitions.

        I have always found the idea of 'signs' interesting, you know when someone interprets some (often random) event as having meaning or divine significance. I can't help but think that is exactly when your statement comes into play. Badly wanting to believe, people are more inclined to see faces in their cereal.

        I can also see how a series of coincidences might lead someone to believe in something that isn't real - Joan of Arc, for example.

        The idea of aliens, for example, fires my imagination, but I cannot believe in them because there is absolutely no objective evidence for their existence. Far more likely to be a misinterpretation on the part of the observer than actual ET life, or like you say, the product of a desperate desire to believe.

        Having said that, I try to keep a part of myself open to any possibilities. The universe is vast and we still haven't got much of a handle on it.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: @ Richard - I think that the scientific method is extremely valuable in the classroom.

        In these days of internet and information access, more and more, teaching is moving away from pure content and more towards the processes behind learning and discovery, and the skills necessary to be an effective researcher.

        The trend in NZ schools is moving towards teaching a process - Inquiry, SOLO taxonomy -where kids are taught to follow a series of steps designed to aid in the discovery of information, asking useful questions, verifying the validity of information (especially important in the internet age as there are a lot opinions out there, as this thread alone has proven) and reflecting on what we know and have discovered.

        Faith can be a powerful thing - in both positive and negative ways - but I believe it is something that must be taught at home, or by the church. It has no place in the classroom, in my opinion, and although we have Bible in Schools programmes running in many NZ schools, thankfully I have never had to deliver them - I would find that next to impossible to teach. Way too many inconsistencies and questions.

        I teach at primary level and it is very funny hearing some of the kids' questions and the Bible teacher's attempts to answer such innocent, direct questions about something even the preachers are vague about.
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: Scott you dont have to tell me about faith. I had plenty of it as a child. Upto about 6 I accepted everything told to me as gospel truth. At 8 my faith got its first shock with Santa being exposed. This prepared me somewhat to the Bible's 6 days and 6 nights of creation being wrong. By 12 I was in turmoil. When I look back on it I feel I would have been better off if my agnostic Dad had told me straight off and had prevented the indoctrination in the first place. But it gave me an understanding about why people believe. I can put myself in their shoes.
          I have no problem with a secular Christmas. We dont have enough things to celebrate as it is.

          But this discussion was about science not faith. I still have a hard time with your "Science fails for me because it removes mystery by providing a dull and mechanical guess.
          The legacy of science is finer and finer measurement - not explanation, not enlightenment.
          Scientific "advancement" is akin to digging in the sand; the only real outcome is that the hole gets bigger.."
    • thumb
      Apr 17 2011: continued...

      TT network
      In a TT earthing system, the protective earth connection of the consumer is provided by a local connection to earth, independent of any earth connection at the generator.
      The big advantage of the TT earthing system is the fact that it is clear of high and low frequency noises that come through the neutral wire from various electrical equipment connected to it. This is why TT has always been preferable for special applications like telecommunication sites that benefit from the interference-free earthing. Also, TT does not have the risk of a broken neutral.
      In locations where power is distributed overhead and TT is used, installation earth conductors are not at risk should any overhead distribution conductor be fractured by, say, a fallen tree or branch.
      In pre-RCD era, the TT earthing system was unattractive for general use because of its worse capability of accepting high currents in case of a live-to-PE short circuit (in comparison with TN systems). But as residual current devices mitigate this disadvantage, the TT earthing system becomes attractive for premises where all AC power circuits are RCD-protected.
      Earthing system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      • IEC terminology|
      • Other terminologies|
      • Properties|
      • Regulations
      In Argentina, France (TT) and Australia (TN-C-S), the customers must provide their own ground connections. Japan is governed by PSE law, and uses TT earthing in most ... - Cached
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2011: There is absolutely no weight of evidence supporting the claim that we somehow need to be in constant contact with the Earth. The two articles (and their subsequent links) were trying to sell me something, and used their own, exclusive 'research' to validate their claims. The only article that had any real science in it was Wikipedia, and it was discussing earthing schemes used in national power grids. is a link to a paper about how to tell the merit of a scientific claim, and has under the related articles section a number of links to other papers discussing various aspects of evidence, validation, and their application to the scientific method.

        Here's a few links to blogs all about science and it's misuse. They're both full of good information about bad science.

        You have laid out plenty of sources for people to check out on their own and come to their own conclusions. So I hope that anyone reading this does go to your links, because it will soon become obvious that the whole idea of 'earthing' yourself has in any way some form of health benefit is false. I'm not here to try and convince you to disregard your beliefs, so I won't try. What I will do is provide a few sources that will lead to an understanding of science and the true nature of reality.

        Thank you for the conversation sir.
        • thumb
          Apr 18 2011: Please check the above reply. i done technical mistake when replied to you. the above reply is actually to your comment.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 18 2011: Gravity is not proven theory and meanwhile, if possible add your thinking IEC terminology| Soon. i am in the process to release hypothesis on the above subject.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 19 2011: Nikola Tesla replied everything. When the Corporate heads came to know about Tesla ground breaking innovations, they almost kept him like a house arrest in one of the hotels in New York city. Today whatever the devices we are witnessing in front our eyes in because of Maxwell and Nikola Tesla. Illusionist theories always helps corporate to grow.

          Do you know how many scientists these illusionist scientific world killed? Gravity does not have any place in Maxwell and Tesla's world of discovery. The entire universe stand and moves based on omnipotent power of the electromagnetic force, not based on Newton's Apple Theory.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 19 2011: Please note that this below material from the same link that you posted as a reply. I am kindly requesting you that please do not send any link without reading. The very meaning of the conspiracy lies in false, not in Truth.

          Field theories

          When he was 81, Tesla stated he had completed a "dynamic theory of gravity". He stated that it was "worked out in all details" and that he hoped to soon give it to the world.[75] The theory was never published.
          The bulk of the theory was developed between 1892 and 1894, during the period that he was conducting experiments with high frequency and high potential electromagnetism and patenting devices for their use. Reminiscent of Mach's principle, Tesla stated in 1925 that:
          Nikola Tesla, with Ruđer Bošković's book Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, sits in front of the spiral coil of his high-frequency transformer at East Houston Street, New York.
          There is no thing endowed with life—from man, who is enslaving the elements, to the nimblest creature—in all this world that does not sway in its turn. Whenever action is born from force, though it be infinitesimal, the cosmic balance is upset and the universal motion results.

          Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it:
          ...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[76]

        • thumb
          Apr 19 2011:

          Tesla also argued:

          I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.[77]

          Tesla also believed that much of Albert Einstein's relativity theory had already been proposed by Ruđer Bošković, stating in an unpublished interview:

          ...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruđer Bošković, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ...'.[78]
        • thumb
          Apr 19 2011: “The theory of relativity is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they metaphysicists, not scientists”.
          - Tesla, New York Times, July 11, 1935

          “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiment, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”. – Nikola Tesla

          “Whatever the future may bring, the universal application of these great (EM) is fully assured, though it may be long in coming”. – Nikola Tesla

          “To say that in the presence of the large bodies space become curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view”. – Nikola Tesla

          “Throughout space there is energy… it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheel work of nature”. – Nikola Tesla

          “So astounding are the facts in this connection that it would seem as though the Creator himself has electrically designed this planet”. – Nikola Tesla

          My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla‏

          The Story of Nicola Tesla (Part: 1/10)

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 20 2011: I can only smile. Anyway, have a good day.

          Science do not know what is mass and now they are searching for it through LHC.

          If possible, check this link. This is my book, 'True Nature of the Higgs Mechanism'. Search for a book review in Google, if u wish to search. The editor of JSIR (Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research) Prof. P. D Tyagi reviewed it.

    • Apr 19 2011: "Scientific "advancement" is akin to digging in the sand; the only real outcome is that the hole gets bigger.."

      The life expectancy of the general population has more than doubled in the last 100 years. We have MEDICINE.

      I don't think i I need to explain anything more about "The REAL Outcome of Science"
    • thumb
      May 17 2011: Well said Richard. If it weren't for scientific discoveries I wouldn't have had open heart surgery to repair a hole in the ventricular dividing wall in my heart when I was nine months old. In other words if it weren't for science I would be dead.
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2011: Scott - others have beaten me to it and probably more eloquently, but I can't help responding to your "Science fails for me" comment. I trust Science has not failed you when you heat your home, (or even walk into your home!), turn on a light, cook, use a knife and fork, take medicine, drive, fly, read a book or use a computer. The only link between life as a cave-dwelling forager and our wonderfully comfortable and safe lifestyle is the Scientific process.
  • thumb
    Apr 7 2011: I agree with the intent of your conclusions, I wish that science was more widely accepted and I think it aides a great deal in bringing about our current and future happiness and prosperity. You're absolutely right that electrical activity is occurring in our bodies. There are two big reasons why we don't need to be grounded (in the purely electrical sense). First, the electricity is biological in origin - once the chemicals that generated the electrical impulse are used up, the impulse dissipates. Also, those impulses are minute, far less that would need to be diverted to the ground. There isn't enough electricity and it doesn't last long enough to require a ground escape.
  • Jul 20 2011: NASA. I don't find any logic of discovering or creating a new world in a different part of the universe. Those resources can have far more value if used in improving the life on earth only. There are so many things yet to be done on earth.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: nuclear bombs, mass destruction weapons
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: I think paper books
    these are potential wastes
    this era, we have a lot more other alternatives
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2011: Reading your intro, and looking at the added cases:

    I truly think this is a very bad topic.

    Not that I don't want to discuss errors of science, or see how foolish mistakes scientists can make.

    But the undertone is an utter misconception of science. And it seems that scientific materialism gets confused with economical materialism.

    * Science does not say we must be selfish. On the contrary: we find that collaboration is beneficial, and is even increasing during history (read the "Rational Optimist")

    Your final paragraph is exactly where applied science can serve to the fullest.
  • thumb
    May 17 2011: There is no point in arguing with crazy people. You know who you are.
  • Apr 19 2011: My Idea for "Foolish"science would depend on whether we are talking about pre- or post- Baconian science.
    Surgeons and doctors were naive enough to believe men had one less rib than women for nearly 1500 years because of the story about it in the Bible. It was not until Andreas Vesalius championed true anatomy and gave lectures on dissecting cadavers in his University that Human Anatomy became a real endeavor. His book "De humani corporis fabrica " was published in 1543 the same year as Copernicus'.(also he debunked the idea about any sort of thought emanating from the heart, though of course we still use the metaphor today.)

    For me it has to be Cartesian Dualism, and not just the Idea because of course he didn't know then what we know now. It was his description of the process by which the "soul" entered the pineal gland(simply because the pineal gland is a crevasse in the center of the brain.) which I can't help but laugh at. He made the assertion with no regard to how he believed the intangible soul enters the brain, or where exactly it came from or how it followed the brain around.
  • thumb
    Apr 6 2011: You are talking about post-modern science.

    Science as a tool for primary values and not as a tool of society to enhance the society.

    You are absolutely correct in this ideal, you are now added as a favorite (just letting you know for what it is worth)

    Brilliantly put!
  • thumb
    Apr 6 2011: That's absolutely true. We should thus work for the people so that we can live in a better and smarter world. Not only in the field of science but also in various other fields.