"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or fill in the blank is:
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." - H. L. Mencken
I would add irrational and highly delusional to the mix when faith requires one to accept magical violations of the well known, well tested or easily demonstrated laws of Nature. - PWL
"Science is Progress and the Future. Faith is regression to the Dark Ages." - PWL
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi
"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis
"Nullius in verba. Take no one's word for it." - Motto of the Royal Society
"I'm trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS." - Richard Feynman
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas Henry Huxley
“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein
"Science is empirical. Knowing the answer means nothing. Testing your knowledge means everything." - Lawrence Krauss
"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency." - Stephen Jay Gould
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of Carbon Based Life on Earth.
There would be NO GREEN without the ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT CO2. MORE CO2 = MORE PLANTS. Inconvenient FACTS of PLANT BIOLOGY. More CO2 = More Plants = Cleaner Air. More CO2 = Plants = More Food For Humans. More CO2 = A Good Thing.
GROWING MORE PLANTS WITH CO2 IN GREENHOUSES TODAY
“The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. Read the rest of this entry »
“Adnan Oktar (born Ankara, February 2, 1956), also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya, is a Turkish proponent of Islamic creationism, anti-Zionism,[1] and, more particularly, supports Old Earth creationism.[2][3] Oktar denounces Zionism as racism and Freemasonry, and Darwinism as the source of terrorism.[4] He has created controversies in the past few years by sending out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and USA.[3][5] Oktar had defended his views by litigation; he is responsible for the blocking of numerous, high-profile Web sites in Turkey. Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s look at some of the reasons why climate change is natural. Original bullet points are from Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation, highlighting, links and commentary below the line in each point are by pwl. I’ll be updating this page to flush out the commentary for most of the items as the days go on. Whenever possible I will quote actual scientists who have expertise on a particular point or set of points, and even better I will post a video of them discussing the issues directly. If you have any additional points, counter points, corrections, better links, or additional links you’d like to have added please make a comment.
In compiling this assessment, I am grateful to the real hard-working academic researchers and professors; the integrity and arguments of Roger Helmer MEP; the ‘Friends of Science’ organisation for providing facts and myths on climate change; the United States organisation, ‘No Cap-and-Trade Coalition’; for the detailed research by Dr. Singer in his editing of the report, ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’, (The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), published by The Heartland Institute in 2008 and also his report with Dr. Idso, ‘Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)’, also published by the Heartland Institute in 2009, where many of the central arguments are drawn from. Also, the work and insights by Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s report ‘Climategate: Caught Green-handed! Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate Scandal’, Science & Public Policy Institute, 2009 have been useful. I have attempted to credit all other researchers and organisations in the content of the report. Other valuable papers include Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner in Executive Intelligence Review, 22 June 2007 and John McLean’s paper ‘The IPCC can’t count its “expert scientists”: Author and reviewer numbers are wrong’ in January 2009, all of which I have used to compile my pamphlet.” – Jim McConalogue
01) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
“Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (the act or process of deriving a conclusion), that make information relevant to the support or disproof of a hypothesis. Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis.
“A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between alleged facts and a hypothesis will determine if that person takes the facts as evidence. … A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between alleged facts and a hypothesis will also determine how a person utilizes the facts as evidence. … In summary, beliefs or assumptions about causal relationships are utilized to determine whether facts are evidence of a hypothesis.
Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event. … Note that a causal relationship between the facts and hypothesis does not exist to cause the facts to be taken as evidence[1], but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish facts as evidence.
Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.”
Many of these 100 Reasons provide alternative interpretations of the data or counter evidence that falsify the man made global warming climate change hypothesis.
02) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
03) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
04) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
05) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
06) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
07) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
08) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
“The belief that the ends justifies the means may be the true root of all evil.” – Troy Brumley
“Al Gore, First Emperor of the Moon, Head Authority on Mann-Made Climate Change“
“In the United States of America, unfortunately we [alarmists] still live in a bubble of unreality [see photo above]. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate [for the ends to justify the means and thus] to have an over-representation of factual presentations [aka exaggerate aka lie aka ignore counter evidence aka commit fraud] on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview. “
Conversation with Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg.
Part 1 of 8.
“The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least.”
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
“I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute … it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”
“This is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”
- Steven Weinberg, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin, 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics
Anthropomorphic Global Warming Hits Gilligan’s Island with a vengeance.
“Just like in real life with Anthropomorphic Global Warming the professors hypothesis of the island sinking is proven false due to bad data collection, misinterpretation, and above all fear based soothsaying of the future when it’s not prudent nor scientifically possible.
Fear NOT, CO2 is life as it’s an essential plant nutrient needed for our friends the plants to grow strong and lush. CO2 is needed to feed the ever growing human population.
Gilligan’s Island Sinking due to Global Warming (AGW)?
From: MountThor | October 09, 2009 | 291 views
Unfortunately Warner Brothers chose to prevent even a fair use of Gilligan’s island from occurring. There are 98 episodes of Gilligan’s Island of about 25 minutes each for a total of about 2450 minutes. The video which was deleted was about 8 minutes and 40 seconds, say 9 minutes… that’s less than 0.37% of the total footage ever shot and broadcast which makes the amount I used fair use under international copyright laws. The copyrights were left intact as were the shot titles and a thank you for usage was added to this descriptive note (not that that is necessary for fair use situations). The footage was ONLY used since it provides a public commentary on the politics of global warming and how the data the so called science is based upon is flawed as was the science the professor used in his conclusion that the island is sinking was flawed.
I refer you to: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html where you’ll see that this limited in size video expert for non-profit review and critique and commentary meets all the criteria for fair use.
I subscribe to the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video.
This documentary is a good companion to the latest documentary,”The Great Global Warming Swindle” recently shown on CH 4 UK and is available on Google video. The hoax of Global Warming / Green House was exposed 19 years ago by CH 4 UK in this documentary entitled Green House Conspiracy. Those who subscribe to the rubbish trotted out by Al Gore and his mindless followers are not new they were the same arse clowns who were telling us we were all going to freeze to death 30 years ago.
What The FUCK? Almost every aspect of this video from 19 years ago is exactly the same as it is today!!!! Wow, nothing has changed. The warmies are still crying wolf. I wonder who let them out of the asylum?
The Solaranite Theory of Climate Change starts around 3:00 into the flick.
Solaranite Theory of Rapid Anthropomorphic Climate Change: “Take a can of your gasoline. Say this can of gasoline is the sun. Now, you spread a thin line of it to a ball, representing the earth. Now, the gasoline represents the sunlight, the sun particles. Here we saturate the ball with the gasoline, the sunlight. Then we put a flame to the ball. The flame will speedily travel around the earth, back along the line of gasoline to the can, or the sun itself. It will explode this source and spread to every place that gasoline, our sunlight, touches. Explode the sunlight here, gentlemen, you explode the universe. Explode the sunlight here and a chain reaction will occur direct to the sun itself and to all the planets that sunlight touches, to every planet in the universe.“
The details of the Solaranite Climate Change Theory come to light in this following riveting conversation. Pun intended.
Eros, the leader, confronts a group of skeptical earthlings with the true nature of his plan. The scientific minds of Earth are on a treacherous course of weapons discovery that will eventually lead to a bomb that could explode the whole universe, the “Solaranite Bomb”.
Colonel Edwards: Why is it so important that you want to contact the governments of our earth?
Eros: Because of death. Because all you of Earth are idiots!
Jeff Trent: Now you just hold on, Buster.
Eros: No, you hold on! First was your firecracker, a harmless explosive. Then your hand grenade: you began to kill your own people, a few at a time. Then the bomb. Then a larger bomb: many people are killed at one time. Then your scientists stumbled upon the atom bomb, split the atom. Then the hydrogen bomb, where you actually explode the air itself. Now you can arrange the total destruction of the entire universe served by our sun: The only explosion left is the Solaranite.
Colonel Tom Edwards: Why, there’s no such thing! Why, a particle of sunlight can’t even be seen or measured.
Eros: Can you see or measure an atom? Yet you can explode one! A ray of sunlight is made up of many atoms.
Jeff Trent: So what if we do develop this Solaranite bomb? We’d be even a stronger nation than now.
Eros: “Stronger.” You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The impassioned plea continues with an appeal to intelligence and metaphor.
Colonel Edwards: You speak of Solaranite. But just what is it?
Eros: Take a can of your gasoline. Say this can of gasoline is the sun. Now, you spread a thin line of it to a ball, representing the earth. Now, the gasoline represents the sunlight, the sun particles. Here we saturate the ball with the gasoline, the sunlight. Then we put a flame to the ball. The flame will speedily travel around the earth, back along the line of gasoline to the can, or the sun itself. It will explode this source and spread to every place that gasoline, our sunlight, touches. Explode the sunlight here, gentlemen, you explode the universe. Explode the sunlight here and a chain reaction will occur direct to the sun itself and to all the planets that sunlight touches, to every planet in the universe. This is why you must be stopped. This is why any means must be used to stop you. In a friendly manner or as (it seems) you want it.
Two excellent video series by Norman J Wildberger. Very well done and designed to be easy to comprehend. While they start out very simple and basic they get quite deep yet remain as simple as possible. (The bonus series even gets into Relativity, very cool). Wildberger is the math teacher I wish I had all through high school and since, and now through his videos he can be our math teacher! Gotta love online education.
The first series is on the amazing new (and very old) way of doing Rational Trigonometry without using sin and cosine of Classical Trigonometry. It’s Fantastic.
“The new form of trigonometry developed here is called rational trigonometry, to distinguish it from classical trigonometry, the latter involving [cosine, sin and their fellow] functions and the many trigonometric relations currently taught to students. An essential point of rational trigonometry is that quadrance and spread, not distance and angle, are the right concepts for metrical geometry (i.e. a geometry in which measurement is involved).
Quadrance and spread are quadratic quantities, while distance and angle are almost, but not quite, linear ones. The quadratic view is the more general and powerful one. At some level, this is known by many mathematicians. When this insight is put into practice, as it is here, a new foundation for mathematics and mathematics education arises which simplifies Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, changes our understanding of algebraic geometry, and often simplifies difficult practical problems.
…
Rational trigonometry deals with many practical problems in an easier and more natural way than classical trigonometry, and often ends up with answers that are demonstrably more accurate. In fact rational trigonometry is so elementary that almost all calculations may be done by hand. Tables or calculators are not necessary, although the latter certainly speed up computations. It is a shame that this theory was not discovered earlier, since accurate tables were for many centuries not widely available.”
Exerpt from the Introduction to “Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry” by Associate Professor Norman J Wildberger
Here are a few videos from the Rational Trigonometry series with the full series of 46+ episodes here. These first episodes lay the corner stone of Rational Trig, and it only gets better from there!!! Watch them all a number of times and do the examples. Amazing!
“Why classical trigonometry is hard:
The problem is that defining an angle correctly [in Classical Trigonometry] requires calculus [whereas Rational Trigonometry doesn't]. This is a point implicit in Archimedes’ derivation of the length of the circumference of a circle, using an infinite sequence of successively refined approximations with regular polygons. It is also supported by the fact that The Elements [Euclid] does not try to measure angles, with the exception of right angles and some related special cases. Further evidence can be found in the universal reluctance of traditional texts to spell out a clear definition of this supposedly ‘basic’ concept.” – NJ Wildberger
“Quadrance measures the separation of two points. The easiest definition is that quadrance is distance squared.
… quadrance is the more fundamental quantity, since it does not involve the square root function. The relationship between the two notions is perhaps more accurately described by the statement that distance is the square root of quadrance.
In diagrams, small rectangles along the sides of a triangle indicate that quadrance, not distance, is being measured … .” – NJ Wildberger
“Spread measures the separation of two lines. This turns out to be a much more subtle issue than the separation of two points.” – NJ Wildberger
The spread s between the two lines is the ratio of quadrances. The spread also works out to “square of sine of angle”.
“The spread between two lines is a dimensionless quantity, and in the rational or decimal number fields takes on values between 0 and 1, with 0 occurring when lines are parallel and 1 occurring when lines are perpendicular. Forty-five degrees becomes a spread of 1/2, while thirty and sixty degrees become respectively spreads of 1/4 and 3/4. What could be simpler than that? Another advantage with spreads is that the measurement is taken between lines, not rays. As a consequence, the two range of angles from 0◦ to 90◦ and from 90◦ to 180◦ are treated symmetrically.” – NJ Wildberger
You can find a couple freely available pdf chapters of the book “Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry” here. Make sure to check out Divine Proportions Overview Chapter 1 as it covers the basics with examples.
You will find some additional pdf papers by the professor here.
The second series is on the Foundations of Math. An excellent review and introduction for everyone at any age.
Mars Direct is a proposal for a relatively low-cost manned mission to Mars with current rocket technology. The plan was originally detailed in a research paper by Robert Zubrin and David Baker in 1990. The mission was expanded upon in Zubrin’s 1996 book The Case for Mars.
The plan involves launching an unmanned “Earth Return Vehicle” (ERV) directly from Earth’s surface to Mars using a heavy-lift booster derived from Space Shuttle components. The booster is no bigger than the Saturn V used for the Apollo missions. Several launches are made in preparation for the manned mission.
The first of these launches the ERV, a supply of hydrogen, a chemical plant and a small nuclear reactor. Once there, a relatively simple set of chemical reactions (the Sabatier reaction coupled with electrolysis) would combine a small amount of hydrogen carried by the ERV with the carbon dioxide of the Martian atmosphere to create up to 112 tonnes of methane and oxygen propellants, 96 tonnes of which would be needed to return the ERV to Earth at the end of the mission. This process would take approximately ten months to complete.
Some 26 months after the ERV is originally launched from Earth, a second vehicle, the “Mars Habitat Unit” (MHU), would be launched on a high-energy transfer to Mars carrying a crew of four. This vehicle would take some six months to reach Mars. During the trip, artificial gravity would be generated by tying the spent upper stage of the booster to the Habitat Unit, and setting them both rotating about a common axis.
On reaching Mars, the spent upper stage would be jettisoned, with the Habitat Unit aerobraking into Mars orbit before soft-landing in proximity to the ERV. Once on Mars, the crew would spend 18 months on the surface, carrying out a range of scientific research, aided by a small rover vehicle carried aboard their MHU, and powered by excess methane produced by the ERV. To return, they would use the ERV, leaving the MHU for the possible use of subsequent explorers. The propulsion stage of the ERV would be used as a counterweight to generate artificial gravity for the trip back.
The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years.
A team of scientists explore a Mexican cave filled with giant crystals; some of the largest ever discovered. With temperatures near 120 degrees and over 80 percent humidity, the cave [, in the Naica Mine,] is one of the deadliest environments on earth.
The movie “The Core” got it right!!! Giant underground crystal caves!!! Ok, well sort of… heat… space suits… lava… not a geode but close enough for fun…
Favorite lines from The Core: “What would it take you to get it done in three months?” … “Oh, 50 Billion dollars, I don’t know…” … “Will you take a cheque?” … “Why don’t you use a credit card, you’d get miles?” … “hmmm.”
Albert Einstein’s theories rank among humanity’s greatest achievements. They sparked the scientific revolution of the 20th Century. In their attempts to understand how space, time and matter are connected, Einstein and his successors made three predictions…
“The Character of Physical Law is a 1964 book written by physicist Richard Feynman, containing a series of lectures which he gave to students concerning the nature of the laws of physics.”
Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at Duke University, presents examples of cognitive illusions that help illustrate why humans make predictably irrational decisions.
Lecture 1 of 5 of Leonard Susskind’s Modern Physics concentrating on General Relativity. Recorded September 22, 2008 at Stanford University.
This Stanford Continuing Studies course is the fourth of a six-quarter sequence of classes exploring the essential theoretical foundations of modern physics. The topics covered in this course focus on classical mechanics. Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University.
Join Mark Hildebrand on a journey from the open waters of the world’s oceans to sophisticated genetics labs and ultimately to the incredible world of nanotechnology and marvel at ground-breaking applications he and his colleagues are finding for diatoms, one of the smallest and most important marine organisms. Series: “Perspectives on Ocean Science” [9/2004] [Science] [Show ID: 8717]
Join climate modeling expert Guillermo Auad as he explains the various kinds of models that researchers use to understand and forecast climate scenarios and how this science has impacts well outside of the research community. Series: Perspectives on Ocean Science [9/2008] [Science] [Show ID: 14986]
“Canada, is too cold for some or most types of crops. With a warmer climate those types of crops will be possible to carry out [farm] because the forecasts indicate warmer temperatures and more participation in the whole part of North America, including Canada.” – Guillermo Auad, ~21:00 in above video.
Ah, so climate warming has benefits for Canadian farming!
Exercise for the Reader (that means you): Identify the assertions, facts, beliefs, proofs or lack there of – then report on them in the comments. How can you prove or falsify any of the statements? If you see a crucial flaw in the arguments do you also see how it flows throughout the conversation? If you see a crucial fact presented in the arguments do you also see how it flows throughout the conversation? Be detailed, cite references, no personal attacks, opinions must be substantiated. Please use time indexes (starting at, ending at, duration) when quoting or referring to material in the video so that others can see that clip.
At about 31 minutes 20 seconds into the interview Richard Dawkins answers a question about history and the validity of the “virgin birth”. Dawkins, in my view didn’t answer that very well.
Yes, one time events in history can’t be repeated by using the scientific method, so how do you test the claims of the “resurrection” of “jesus”?
Well, that’s easy with biology. When a human being dies their body decays. Upon heart dead, brain death and cell death, living bodies decay. Micro organisms immediately start eating your body from the insides out and outside in. Bugs and insects of all kinds begin their feasting on a pretty much set schedule. The body decays. If you’re unlucky enough to die away from a modern hospital emergency room there is no hope, and if you were lucky to be in an ER there is a very small chance they can being you back from some causes of death, like a heart attack, but the percentage is very low.
Laws of science not just rule in possibilities but they rule out possibilities. So nope, no possibility of any resurrection for anyone named jesus in the first century! This is proven by the laws of biology that we know of today. Therefore the resurrection of jesus is simply a bad bed time story written by superstitious folks or by con men attempting to con the masses back in the day. Looks like many are still taken in by this obvious attempt to undermine people’s ability to reason critically with objective reality in mind.
The speed of c, also known as the speed of light, has some very interesting implications.
Einstein’s theories prove that information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of “c” which I suspect no one will deny. Over a 100 years of attempts so far have backed this up.
“Einstein’s theory of relativity together with the principle of causality requires that no matter or information can travel with a speed larger than c.[5][6] Speeds faster than that of light in a vacuum are encountered in physics but, in all such cases, no matter or information is transmitted faster than c.”
Read what I write very carefully.
It’s easy to see that if information from the next nearest star system (Alpha Centauri) which is ~4.2421 light years distant (give or take depending on which source you get the measurement from and on the error amount of plus or minus 0.16 light years) and thus takes ~4.2421 light years to travel from Sol to there and another ~4.2421 years to get back. So if the mythical god was hanging out on that star for a vacation from the annoying prayers on Earth it would take ~8.4842 years for any prayers on Earth to be heard and responded to assuming no delays in gods thought processes upon receipt of the prayer by the magical telepathy. Maybe that’s nothing in god years but that’s a very long time in human years, for most humans a good chunk of their life!
Now the universe is a very big place if you hadn’t noticed. Very big.
The speed of “c”, light, is all that is needed to demonstrate that no god can be omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent since it would take next to forever for god to communicate with parts of itself spread out all over the place across millions and millions of locations and light years.
This doesn’t even mention the “future horizon” problem where parts of the universe are cut off from each other casually therefore making it impossible for even god to see into them or affect them in any manner whatsoever.
Nor does it mention the required cpu and processing power any god would need to watch all these places at once even with the multi-million and multi-billion light year delays.
Nor does it mention that god would only see the past and never know the present at all places at once. The standard model of physics and quantum physics rip the notion of gods to shreds.
The laws of Nature are a harsh mistress for any gods.
This proof depends upon Einstein’s work and was inspired by Victor J Stenger‘s work. I’ve not heard nor seen this analysis anywhere else. I’ve been making these observations public for a few years now online.
Some people’s reactions are quite quaint when they hear this for the first time. Calm your reactive mind and let your rational and thoughtful mind have time to contemplate the consequences and implications of the above for a while, then raise rational criticisms.
I was inspired by Stenger. For the record I don’t claim that Einstein wrote the proof of what I wrote here in this post and the other posts, I simply state that fact that Einstein’s work proves what I’m saying, his work backs up what I’m saying as does the work of many physicists such as Feynman. The list is quite huge actually.
I do assert that these ideas (no matter how simple they really are) were originated by me as far as I know – I never heard them anywhere. They are obvious to me given the well known and well tested laws of the universe that I’ve been exposed to since I was a young child. When I was in my early teen and pre-teen years (10 to 15) I’d sneak off to the local planetarium almost every day for their show. After a while they simply let me in since I’d seen and paid for the show so many times.
(Recently posted here in a blog comment debate with Richard McCargar, although I’ve been posting this analysis in various forms for many years now).
Local realism is something we live with every day, even if we don’t realize it. The principle of local realism combines two assumptions: locality and realism.
[1] Locality says that distant objects cannot directly and instantaneously influence each other (since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light).
[2] Realism says that the things we measure and sense are indeed really there apart from our measurements, and it’s not just our measurements that make them exist.
More than 2 million flights pass over the city every year, most traveling to and from the metropolitan area’s three busiest airports: John F. Kennedy, Newark, and LaGuardia. And all that traffic squeezes through a network of aerial routes first laid out for the mail planes of the 1920s. Aircraft are tracked by antiquated, ground-based radar and guided by verbal instructions issued over simplex radios, technology that predates the pocket calculator. The system is extremely safe—no commercial flight has been in a midair collision over the US in 22 years—but, because the Federal Aviation Administration treats each plane as if it were a 2,000-foot-tall, 6- by 6-mile block lumbering through the troposphere, New York is running out of air.
Another course in linear algebra and matrix theory, which is needed in many fields of science including computer science, climate science, physics, statistics, etc…. It has 35 lectures! They are excellent!
To understand climate science one must be able to comprehend the jargon based language used by climate scientists. This series of of 20 lectures (of about one hour and 10 minutes each) touches on some math topics used in climate science such as those listed here:
Professor Stephen Boyd, of the Electrical Engineering department at Stanford University, gives an overview of the course, Introduction to Linear Dynamical Systems (EE263).
Introduction to applied linear algebra and linear dynamical systems, with applications to circuits, signal processing, communications, and control systems. Topics include: Least-squares approximations of over-determined equations and least-norm solutions of under determined equations. Symmetric matrices, matrix norm and singular value decomposition. Eigenvalues, left and righteigenvectors, and dynamical interpretation. Matrix exponential, stability, and asymptotic behavior. Multi-input multi-output systems, impulse and step matrices; convolution and transfer matrix descriptions. Read the rest of this entry »
A series of ten videos comprising almost 20 hours of lectures on Darwin’s Legacy. Starting with:
September 22, 2008 introductory lecture by William Durham for the Stanford Continuing Studies course on Darwin’s Legacy (DAR 200). Professor Durham provides an overview of the course; Professor Robert Siegel touches upon “Darwin’s Own Evolution;” Professor Durham returns for a talk on “Darwin’s Data;” and the lecture concludes with a panel discussion moderated by Dr. Lynn Rothschild.
“Light will be thrown…” With these modest words, Charles Darwin launched a sweeping new theory of life in his epic book, On the Origin of Species (1859). The theory opened eyes and minds around the world to a radical new understanding of the flora and fauna of the planet. Here, Darwin showed for the first time that no supernatural processes are necessary to explain the profusion of living beings on earth, that all organisms past and present are related in a historical branching pattern of descent, and that human beings fall into place quite naturally in the web of all life.
Now, 150 years later and 200 years after Darwins birth, we celebrate the amazingly productive vision and reach of his theory. In this Fall Quarter course, we will meet weekly with leading Darwin scholars from around the country to learn about Darwins far-reaching legacy in fields as diverse as anthropology, religion, medicine, psychology, philosophy, literature, and biology. With such a broad reach across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, no wonder the theory of evolution by natural selection has been called the single best idea, ever.
The scary bit is that if you loan out your phone to someone you can catch whatever they have: their cold, their herpies outbreak, their cuddies!!! Yikes! Double Yikes!!
