An 'atheist' just mean 'not theist'. It is what someone is not and not what someone is. It is an antagonism to a beleif rather than a knowledge of any sort. So it is merely a religion that is standing upside down.An atheist/skeptic sits there with hands folded ready to hear of the next argument for god so he may debunk. He does not participate of the truely more challenging part: blowing the bubble. He opts to the easier one: bursting bubbles. Most of these bubbles can easily burst on their own. So we hardly need any atheists/skeptics in our society. All of us should participate on search for knowledge.Our atheists seems completely unaware that the fact that a beleiver in an idea is unable to convince other people does not mean that what he beleives in is a lie. Before calculus was invented in 17nth centuary, no one could argue eloquently that earth's gravity acts on moon. However people beleived this for thaosands of years before! It was Newton who nailed it once and for all.One of the 'straws' that atheists are fond of knocking down is the claim that the probability of leaving things forming through random processes is next to zero. Indead this is their bread and butter. To many atheists, the failure of this argument breaks theism. But what if this is realy not the true reason our hearts draw us to God? Infact I tend to see it as a failure of language on the part of theists but they have a point.Lets consider a dice with 10 sides. You throw it ten times and writting down the numbers sequentially. When you zoom in, voila! It is the value of pie correct to 10 decimal places. The fact that we will say 'wow' realy has nothing to do with the less probability. Yes, it is highly unlikely, but as unlikely as getting any other number. The 'unlikely' is just the vain, interlectual attempt to formalise the wow wow thing about getting pie through random throws.The reason why it is like a 'wow' to get pie by random processes comes about when we try to UNDERSTAND why it happened the way it happens and this is where atheists die a sudden death. That it happened randomly is not an EXPLANATION. It is just another way of DESCRIBING the process. 'random' has a zero explanatory power to anything. We use this word when we donnot know the details of causes. It is an hallmark of ignorance, not knowledge.For every throw you make, something drives the dice. The wow thing about getting pie is that this force that drove the dice must have worked just like the brain of Archimedes! That it occur 'randomly' is not an objection but just a lable we offer when we are lazy to work out the details. To an ET, the brain of Archimedes can still as well be described as random when he is thinking! 'Random' just mean that we are not recognising any pattern (of which it can be there). 'Random' is subjective.So that is the true reason we invork God: we see what it looks like just what a mind would do, not 'unlikely' events. It is for positively explaining the origin of something and not denying something, random. The true reason for God comes when we try to say what happened and not it did not happen. The 'unlikely' argument stops at saying; 'it COULD NOT occur by chance' i.e what it COULD NOT happen as opposed to what it could happen. The reason for God is what we know that it happens, invention, and not what we think it does not happen, formation via 'chances'. Then the onus shifts clearly to atheists to illustrate how what looks like the works of a mind can happen by 'chances'. So far, no atheist has ever even remortly demonstrated this.
Read more…
And perharps modern science as a whole! This is not to say that mathematical physics is not helpfull at all, no no no! It is a pack of valid description of the world. Be attentive with your club in your hand. When the physicist points to an experiment set up, take notes. When he calculates the paths and tragectories, take the equation. When he begines to INFERE invisible things, release the club on the numbskull! This latter case is where mathematical physics squarely joins the folder of RELIGION. (and I am not saying religion is bad, it is PERSONAL)When you zoom in the lense from ever since the work of Newton on gravity (not the 3 'laws' of motion), mathematical physicists have been trying to tell you that intellectual reasoning from equations is the same thing as reality. They say because flies like $hit so much, discovering a bull'$hit out there in the field is the same thing as discovering flies, including invisible ones. The sect encountered a dramatic turn in the works James Clerk Maxwell. Eventually, mathematical physics is been perfected into a full blown religion through string theory.To put my complain in summary, deriving a conclusion from a set of premises and then 'proving' the conclusion does not mean that the premises are correct. Neither do they even mean that the premises have any bearing in reality. Lets look at an examplei)I have 20 oranges in the mouthii)I have 20 oranges in my handiii)Therefore if I spit out the oranges and place them on the table, there would be a total of 40 oranges on the tableSo this is now what the theory 'predict'! Of course this is a mesmerism and if some experimentalist now finds 40 oranges on the table, it will be anounced from the roofs that infact it is possible to place 20 oranges in the mouth!Of course the advocate of the devil will claim that my analogy fails to capture mathematical physics method. The theory, it is said, need to be tested over and over. So let me give one which will pass all the tests.i)All cars have gear switchesii)cars alter the sound when we switch gearsiii)Whenever cars aproach a hill, there is a high probability that the drivers will switch gears.iv)Therfore there is a high probability that any car will alter how they sound as they approach a hill.This prediction will pass all the tests even if all cars in the road have automatic transmition systems. Such is how nature pee on inferances that are tested for 1000 years and found to be true! Beginning from a premise, drawing a conclusion, testing the conclusion (which is dubed 'prediction') over and over, wrong footed us when it comes to unlocking the secreat of how cars works. Yet it is this '$hit is the same as flies reasoning' fuell that propels the engine to the most ridiculus religion ever concocted by a human being.So you might have guessed where the problem lies. There is not always necesarily one way of deriving a correct conclution. Infact, there are countless of ways and mathematics is even worse in spewing endless ways. So they often use a technique termed Occam's Razor. However, this is even a more ridiculus criteria! It is said that the simplest explanation should be taken, nonsense! Is it lazing through explanations that we want or UNDERSTANDING reality? In our case above, if we regard a human being as part of the car system, we will choose the automatic transmission and even conclude that we need no sentient being to understand the car. Then we wonder why the car seems cleverer than it should be!One other thing is that there is a deep problem with 'prediction'. This is even worse when personalities, prestige and careers are involved. The reason is that when we predict something, we tend to see only evidence that confirms the prediction and trivialise, deny or ignore those that donnot fit the theory. Prediction works just like mesmerism. And while the mathematical physicists mock astrologers for not being open to falsifications, they too cannot possibly be immune to this pitfall that obviously ensnare all humans. Not when big names, fame, money etc are other factors that can sneak in other than the desire to discover.THE HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICSEver since Newton inferred Kepler's 'laws', it was like wow! He pulled the rabbit out of the hat! Physicist close exermined why Newton did it. The idea is that two or more seemingly unrelated mathematical equations can be both derived from a single equation, subject to different boundary/innitial conditions. However, mathematical physicst got obsessed with mathematical structures thinking that this is where the secreat lies. They failed to note the glarring PHYSICAL reason. So it is not a surprise at all that the 'train' boarded by almost every physicist heading to 'holy grail of physics' is infact heading to a city called 'ignorance'!At some point, mathematical physicists decided to persue a baseless speculation. While experiments, so they say, should guide them, there is not a tickle of evidence that suggest that gravity is the same force as electromagnetism. The only 'guide' is that Einstein and other big names were trying the same thing. This exactly where they failed to see the correct reason why Newton, Einstein and Maxwell elegantly succeeded: not that because these guys were genius mathematicians but because the unification was an obvious fact. No sane person can doubt that both of kepler's laws were effects of the same phenomenon: gravity. Therfore it is not a suprise that both laws can be described by a single equation. Same applies to Maxwell's unification. It was already known through the discoveries of Oested and Faraday that electricity and magnetism are corelated while Faraday tried to extend the search for such unity with gravity but failed to find the evidence. So what is the need of a math that unite gravity to electromagnetism?
Read more…
One reason why human is never allowed yet to monkey with reality and do miracles is that he donnot yet understand how the universe works. And this is not the only teleological explanation I can offer for natural phenomena. It is not wise to allow those who are yet to understand a bicycle to operate with a neuclear power plant.You might have guessed what I am trying to say. At the heart of performing miracles is a beast termed ENERGY. This guy is a good servant but a bad master. Fuck around and the world will end in a supernova in one extreem and a big crunch in the other extreem.It has now been demonstrated that information is convertable to energy! This has very interesting consequences. First of all, it shows that information is a form of energy or better yet, energy is just a form of information! If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then information cannot be created or destroyed. This simply mean that everything that is there, including you, is eternal. Now lets compare with what Jesus said:"It is easier for heaven and earth to disapear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" Luke 16:17This is now known to be a physics fact!"Man does not leave by bread alone, but by every word that comes out from the mouth of God"If information can be converted into energy, then this is essentially true! Farthermore, the account of genesis where God is said to creat by mere command can now be understood if God was simply commanding angels and the angels are 'Maxwell's demons'. The demon Maxwell was contemplating on was one that could divide the sea that is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium so that the temperature gradient is created where there was non. It was demonstrated even more spectacularly as the experimenters was watching the Maxwell's demon from remort. It is now know that if someone say:"let the heat below seperate from the heat above so that the the temperature below is greater than the temperature above"It will be done so!Realy? But it is more tricky than that. You must first creat countless maxwell's demons (tiny angels) and your brain must be full of energy. Your 'voice' must thunder like a supernova. Then it is not literaly so. Your brain must be able to supervise every act done by the 'angels'. In other words, a god like that described in old testament can do that precisely!INFORMATION VS ENERGYYou may at first think that this is an idea so mind bending that only god can understand. Then you are fat incorrect. Lets warm the floor by provoking an intuitive link. Lets consider your watch. You can drop it down and according to the second law of thermodynamics, if it breaks down, it won't get repaired spontaneously. However, the watch is unrepairable only if there is no information partaining to where everything fited. But information is a kinda the 'watch' in the head. If through information, we create 'order' from 'chaos', then information must be a certain energy that can potentialy flow at the opposite of the 'arrow of time'. But to truely repair the watch in a negentropic way, you must creat with the mind (magic). Then the 'watch' in the brain must disapear (this explains forgeting). The increas in the entropy due to the watch in the brain disintegrating compensates the decreas in the entropy in the 'real world' as the real watch 'spontaneously' reintegrate!!So you see the reason why you forget; to create! In order to forget something, something real must come out of your brain to the outer world. So forgeting is realy not a 'deleat' button. It is a 'cut and paste' button. However, the CODES can change. To put it in other words, every time you forget something, something/someone else instantly learn it! Information, like energy, is a matter of transferring. To use this to explain telepathy, consider the fact that it is not always necesary that you are remembering something. During the moments when you are not remembering, the information can as well has been deleated, er cutted and pasted to someone else. This is not magics, it is 100% logics. Farthermore, it is not even quantum mechanics, it is thermodynamics, 100% classic and can be explained using blind and dead jiggling balls!
Read more…
A close cousin of 'passage of time' is the 'existence of space' misnomer. Now you have probably heard the mathematical physicist issue a joker card when asked what the original singularity was expanding into during the aleged big bang:"It is a misconception to think that big bang happened in any location. Rather, space and time itself was created during big bang therefore there was nothing for big bang to expand into"This no answer-answer is cabable of being debunked by 9 year old child but he often lacks proper words. It is ridiculus that someone from university can offer such an answer. It only show that when we learn EFGH, we forget ABCD.In summary, (to help the 9 year old with words) once we view a set of locations as an existent thing on its own, and term it 'space', at once, outside of 'space' becomes absolutely necesary. The only 'thing' whose outside of is inconceivable is nothingness, that which is absolutely devoid of any boundary, both visualised and as described by an equation. You cannot, for instance assign curvarture to nothingness as it immediately becomes an ontological contradiction.The problem is that when a mathematical physicist think of locations, he visualize a series of dots. That is what he saw his professor do it regularly on the black board. So obsessed with blackboards is the guy from Harvard that when he comes out of class, he sees blackboards everywhere. He is so used to stars as white dots on blackboards that when he comes out there to view through his telescope, he thinks that the dark background countering stars is a blackboard. But nature pee on such idiots.Sane people know that 'locations' don't have to exist for things to be located. It is not even paradoxical for 'location' is an abstract concept and not a dot. A dot is placed merely to aid human calculations and not for nature to be cabable of locating things.
Read more…
"I think I know what a clock is, therefore I know what time is" EinsteinDoes this show that Albert was smart, or does this show that he could not differentiate the concept of breakfast from toast he munches every morning?Of course Einstein was a champion of the 'passage of time' cult. It was unwittingly invented by mathematical physicists as a convinient poem but it was Einstein who tried to litteralise. Time, however does not pass for the simple reason that we must not allow it. We use the word 'pass' LITERALY. We call a spade a spade.PASS: For an object to enjoy this propety, we need another object standing, call it P. Then we need at least 3 locations lieing along straight line, A, B and C. Let B be in the midle of A and C. Let P be at B. Then we say that an object has passed by P if it was at location A at one moment and at location C at some other moment afterwards.If this way, Einstein and Minkowski had taken time to understand 'pass', they would easily realise that 'passage of time' is a ridiculus idea. They didn't do such. Neither do many try. It is belitling for guys in university to warm the floor by revisiting kindagarten. They deal with EFGH, so they might as well forget ABCD. Here, in universities, we deal with lagrangians, hamiltonians, curved spaces etc. We need no such nagging questions as definitions of words.TIME DOES NOT CHANGEA not too distant cousin of 'passing time' is the equaly ridiculus 'change in time'. Again we only need a tour back to kindagarten.CHANGE: An object is said to change if it has one characteristic at one moment and then it has some other characteristic at some other moment afterward.So it is the onus of the proponent of 'changing time' to show us what colour time had yesterday and what color it has today. Of course if time is a clock, as said by Einstein, this is not hard to show. But then what comes of his lofty 'time dillations' and 'time bending'. Of course clocks will bend under strong gravitantional pull. This was known even before Newton. Then to illustrate 'time dillation', all you need is to use a clock with an old battery. Do you beleive this? Are these basic kindagarten stuffs that sends pple sound waaahs and aaaahs when they hear 'time dillation'? I don't think so. They confuse the time which does not pass with the stupid clock in the pocket of a mathematical physicist. But it is not their fault. It is only when cornered by a smart person do Einstein admit that he is talking solely about clocks!TIME AS A FIELDThis is precisely the understanding of mathematical physics. However, they hardly teach this way to the ley people. It requires one to be farmiliar with the language used in Maxwell's theory. The space around a bar magnet is full of imaginary tiny magnetometers. We ask: what would a real magnetometer indicate at that region? Similarly, the space of relativity is riddled with invisible clocks trains and rulers. This is what is called spacetime. Its too bad that the ley person thinks that it is an harmock that supports the earth like a tortoise ready to turtle all the way 'down'.To understand this very well, recal that to argue that time does not change, I had to define 'change' by resorting to different moments. My point is that 'change' is not the mere synonym of 'different states' but a whole sentense need to be constracted to define the word 'change'. We cannot use the same analogy that: different states of coin=>change in coin, then different moments=>change in time. To refute this, we only need to show that the fact that there are different planets does not mean that anything changed to bring about the differences.So then the die hard advocate of the devil will have to construct a whole sentence: time changes in that different moments occur at different moments. But this is internally inconsistent for the simple reason that it uses the word 'moment' twice in a sentense with two contradictory meanings. It is at this point where Minkowski escapes to hook once and for all by admitting that the first 'moment' is not the same as the second. By so doing, he declares that there are two 'times', the so called PROPER TIME and the COORDINATE TIME.So then 'change in time' of Minkowsk is not realy self riferential. The guy merely has two clocks. One is on the table and the other one is hiding in his sleeve to be used only when cornered. To the careless laypeople, he can still convince them that time changes by merely pointing at the ticking clock. To the carefull guy, he needs an OBJECTIVE proof that the two ticks are realy occuring at the different moments. Then he pulls out his 'proper time' out of the sleeve. You see? This is the true clock, if the other ticks were at the same moment, this other clock would indicate so. Round and round we add the tortoises of clocks. It turtles all the way round!Having said this, it might now be tempting to think that when I say that time does not change, or pass, I mean that different moments of time all occur at the same moment in some other time frame we might term 'proper time'. Indead such is what Minkowski would mean by 'time stopping in the black hole' or that there was no time before big bang, but this is not what I mean. In my case, where I call a spade a spade, it merely leads to the next question: do time ocur? I say nope! And indead this is the major reason I disagree that time changes. Recall that in my definition of 'change', I use properties. It then follows that that which lacks properties cannot be termed to changes. Moments are neither things nor properties of things. They are more akin to prepositions.
Read more…
The 'immaterial' redefinition of 'spirit' renders physics forever unable to verify the existence of what ancient men sought when the conceptualise 'spirit'. Over the years science eroneously came to be identified with antagonism to everything 'spiritual' to the extend that to even the spiritual, anything that is science cannot possibly be the spirit. But science simply means 'knowledge'. We don't decide beforhand what it is that we are seeking to know. As such, a 'knowledge beyond science' is actually oxymoron.From ever since the dawn of history, 'spirit' rifers to that which can exist in our midist but which cannot be perceived using our five sences. Over the years, physicist were eventually forced to admit that there are infact such things. By this time, however, people had redefine 'spirit' to mean 'that whose knowledge of existence cannot be infered by any objective means!' Science then, and even philosophy is antagonism to spirituality. What a lack of wisdom from the part of modern spirituality. This is in stark contrast to how ancient world understood. 'Spirit' is that imperceivable thing whose existence is inferrably by a carefull use of your mind."The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear it sound but you cannot tell where it is comming from nor where it is going to. The same is for everyone born of spirit" John 3:.8He used the subtlest thing that was known in his time; wind. It is clear that in today's world, he will use the even more subtle things as quantum field, x ray etc. The bottomline is that 'spirit' is that whose existence cannot be perceived directly but is inferred by what it does to its surrounding such as 'blowing trees'. The ancient 'wind' was so apt that infact originaly, 'spirit' literaly meant wind. The hebrew word for spirit, 'ruach' simply means 'wind'. Spirit is not necesarily ontologically different from matter. The 'immateral' definition of the modern times is misguided. What we need is not any other unknown or unknowable medium to act as spirit but rather, a different understanding and/or different perception of what we know. The ancient men did not think that God is more arcane than wind, rather, they thought that wind is more arcane than we think today. In today's world, if a stuff is taken over and studied by science, and then relabled with different names, it is automatical perceived as mundane! This is shamefull because it is so no matter how less we understand the thing in question. This include gravity, matter, plasma, sun etc.NEUTRINO FIELD AS SPIRITNeutrino is the most spirit-like substance known to physics. It is also one of the least understood in physics. We now know that there are trillions of neutrinos that pervades the whole cosmos. Every minute, zillions of neutrinos pass through your body. Yet neutrinos can never be seen, tested, heard, smelled or touched. The neutrino wind slips past your body like any other ghost would! A ball of neutrinos will be an 100% ghost for all relevant purposes. It happens this way becaus our five senses, infact all operates by modulating the electromagnetic field. So all it takes for a substance to be unseen is simply to be electromagnetically neutral in the fundamental or at least to have its electric charge being extreemly tiny. This is what we have come to understand from the physics of radioactivity and quantum electrodynamics. We nologer need to say that something is unseen for reasons unknowable by science. This latter answer belong to the science of the days of Descartes; not after the discoveries of Roetgen, Beckuerel Ratherford etc.CONSCIOUSNEES IN NEUTRINO FIELDThis is where the trick is on the part of the spiritual guys. This is one reason they contrast physics with spirituality. This eventually lead to the pointless issue of whether we are matter or a soul. Originally, the issue was whether we will leave after we die. Thus the relevant thing is whether our consciousness is TRANSFERABLE to some unseen realm where it can go on ableit without us perceiving the reality of our gone person. So it is not an issue at all that our consciousness is caused by matter. The issue is whether it can also be caused by something unseen. This in turn translates to whether our matter is convertible to something unseen, of which the answere is a solid yes! If our matter is convertible to neutrino, and our matter infact causes our awareness, then our awareness is transferable to the neutrino field. The question of some other arcane entity as 'soul', entirely different from matter, is irrelevant because all we need is a way in which awareness can go on after death and it can do so even if our awareness is presently caused by neurones (is in our electromagnetic realm)There is a reason why me must endow consciousness with matter. But once we have done so, the dichotomy: spirit vs matter becomes obselete. Ask yourself this way: If neutrinos cannot interact with electromagnetic field inherent 'between' atoms in objects, how does object realy distinguish what objects from what objects? What exactly is this unseen entity dubed 'electromagnetic field?' Well, this, not neurones, is the treshold of consciousness. Neurones merely inherit this property we term it as 'knowing' from quantum field. From a very fundamental level, particles exhibits knowing like properties and these properties insures that a realm is teaming with consciousness potential. So it takes neutrino field only to dodge the electromagnetic field for us to intuite that it is cabable of awareness.
Read more…
Falsification has ever since been the rocket that propels science. Yet it seems that even the top scientists donnot realy understand the very foundation of science. It is not a surprise because the foundation of science is philosophy and the modern scientist has been trained to look down upon philosophy.If you ask many people, the reason why telepathy, telekinesis etc is not part of science, they will often tell you either of the two answers, depending on whether or not they beleive in it: Scientists are simply biased or there is no enough evidence to support the claim. Though the second is wrong, and perharps also the first, even the top scientist can be tempted to say it. 'Magicians', countless of times have stormed into the house, wave a magic wand and utter, 'abrakadabra' only for all candles to turn off in the room! This is a confirmation of telekinesis. However, non of the proponents of telekinesis agree that in case the 'magician' waved the magic wand but did not succeed in turning off the candles could falsify telekinesis. This the only reason telekinesis is not considered as science.Wikipedia has some long, good article termed 'pseudoscience'. I tend to agree in what the guy categorise as 'pseudoscience' but I don't agree with what wikipedia call it 'science'. The falsifyability criteria is not always adhered to even in mainstream science! In one of ways of distinguishing pseudoscence from science, wikipedia states:"over reliance on confirmation other than falsification"However, it is well known that our scientists are more prone to confirmational bias than even religion! They donnot even hid it, and the same same wikipedia states that when an experiment disagree with established theories, it should be kept there to hang around and labled: 'not yet confirmed findings'. It is the beleiver in the paridigm's status quo who must measure it, and the tape is streatchy! The bottomline is that a finding that disagrees with establishment must be kept on the pending till someone finds a far fetched way of debunking it. How about when the promised 'messiah' as higgs are found? It is never kept there for endless time to wait for confirmation. Next year, someone is being awarded with a noble price!With this, it is not a surprise at all that some physicists are thinking of removing falsifyability as a valid criteria in science. It is not a surprise because all along, they have been realy doing a lip service to falsifyability criteria. They just mension it once in science introduction and then throughout the course, they talk solely about confirmation. It is this double definition of science that makes his ability to harvest the best from all universes unlimited. Those arguing against falsifyability realy have a very big say in debates for they have numerous examples in theoretical physics to support themselves with. Dark matter and dark energy being the leading examples. Essentially, General relativity is realy unfalsifyable, as long as its proponents are allowed to invent any form of matter wether or not it is known to exist. Unfortunately, 'dark matter' is a huge loop hole that drive physicists to similarly introduce theories of that standard and deny falsifyability by pointing out that established theories, GR and QM are realy unfalsifyable as well! These low (scientific) standard theories include cosmic inflation, multiverse, string theory, supersymmetry etc.One other reason why the oponents of falsifyability have a big say is that the falsifyability criteria is infact a very limiting one for science. Many speculations that makes perfect sense has to be excluded from science if falsifyability criteria is rigidly applied. Lets take an example of the claim that there is life in another planet apart from the earth. We cannot meaningfully falsify such a claim no matter how many planets we may check. Should we then remove falsifyability criteria from science? Nope! The claim that life exists in other planets is not a scientific claim! A proper scientific claim is a negation: 'there is NO life in any other planet apart from the earth" (compare this with the Einsteinian barrier). As far as what we know from the planets we have explored, the claim agrees with the experiments! The negation is falsifyable. Should we descover life in pluto, we revise our science: there is life ONLY on earth and pluto. That is true science. Every time we look through the telescope and discover a new star, we ammend our claim about the size of the universe. Science should be cabable of continually improving by abandoning former beleifs and must not fear being proven false. Science is the game of two male sheep fighting on top of the hill. As long as the sheep retreats backwards down the hill so much that the hill prevents them from seeing each other, the fight ends! Each of the sheep gets convinced that the other has surrendered!
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on December 13, 2015 at 12:30pm
"To those who beleive, no proof/ explanation is neaded. To those who doubt, non will work"Time will come when you will drag such foolish, wishy washies of quotes to where they belong: dustpin folders. It divide the world between die hard fanatics and the narrow minded incorrigibles. It eleminates all the intelligent people from the soup in the midle ground; the critical yet open minded.Q:Why haven't ETs visited us?A:They have done so but the government hide the evidence.This ad-hoc requires a skeptic to be extreemly open minded to swallow it. If the evidences offered for UFOs are anectodal, then the claim is self refuting. What is the government hiding if it is people themselves who report UFO sightings? There is a reason why it is dangerous for mainstream science to persistently refuse to acknowledge such apearances from the sky. If they cannot somehow control the apparition, soon the evidences mounts to the extend that even a child can debunk our science. Imagin, for instance, goverments trying to conceal the reality of earthquakes or eclipses.Why would an ET come all the way from Andromeda only to come and play games with the people they were trying to visit? It make sense that if you are going to visit Andromeda, you will make yourself known to them. The last thing you will do is to play an hid and seek game there. Aparently, there is not any good reason at all as to why you will not make your presence unambiguous in Andromeda. Much worse, why will you opt to reveal yourself to the governments and fail to do so to the people when the governments fail to disclose your presence?THEORIES OF UFOScientific claims are often accompanied by an elaborate theory. Theory is of crucial importance in testing claims. Infact, it is the theory itself that we test. Many proponents of what mainstream science will term 'pseudo science' are yet to understand the importance of theory. Theory allows us to check that our claims are internaly consistent.Theory goes into details to answer such things as:1.) What is the mechanism of UFO's cloaking and decloaking?2.)What energy, if any, do UFO use?3.)How do we fly a UFO?4.)Why is a UFO of a particular shape?5.)Why do ETs cloak at all?6.)Why do they not directly reveal themselves to the public?7.)What physics do they use to circumvent Einsteinian barrier?Theory allows us to relate apparently unrelated occurrences and thus use what at first seems irrelevant. For instance it is the fact that we have a good theory of gravity that made physicists see that galaxies rotates in strange ways and thus suggests dark matter. If we didn't understand gravity to some extend, the bizare spinning would prove nothing. We will not be able to relate two apparently unrelated things; spinning galaxy and dark matter. We would not even notice that there is anything anomolous in how the galaxies spins.Theory helps to answer questions in a non ad-hoc manner. For instance, when we answer why we don't see UFOs by saying that they are 'beyond our senses', it looks like just releasing a joker card when cornered! Instead, explanations need to be given in the theory and not spitted out as ad-hocs to seal the cracks when what we claim lacks visible evidence. There is, however a very good theory of invisibility which UFOLOGISTS should use. In case a UFO has to travel faster than light, it has to overcome friction as much as possible. Friction is offered by the electromagnetic forces. The best way to overcome electromagnetic friction is to turn to UFO to be electromagnetically neutral. However, as a matter of physics fact, electromagnetically neutral object cannot interact with light, which is an electromagnetic wave. Anything that does not interact with light is both invisible and offers no friction with anything perceivable. You see? The invisibility is not the true aim, it is just the unavoidable consequence of avoiding friction. In this theory, it does not apear at all that I am trying to use invisibility just to avoid my theory being falsified by lack of direct measurement. However, when you offer no explanation, it looks exactly that! It looks that UFO is cloaking and decloaking any time it suits the UFOLOGIST. It looks highly dubious. Farthermore, I can also show that becoming electromagnetically neutral is a way of circumventing Einsteinian barrier! You see, with a single theory, I kill 3 birds with a single stone! Without any theory, UFOLOGIST is forced to invent 3 unrelated ad-hocs to save his claim. This makes his claim highly dubious.
Read more…
It was predictable that physicists would eventually be regarded as devil worshipers or some other fanatics. On the largest part, the bozos termed experts have themselves to blame. They sell physics cans with different information on the can pertaining what is inside the can. The can pic has rice, when you open the can, you find worms.The whole problem comes about when lay people buy into physics jargon as energy, space, time, dimension, vibration, resonance etc without caring much to know what these terms mean in physics. For instance, do physicist use the word 'energy' to rifer to a ghost? Do they use it to lable a vague mystery boiling somewhere in his head when he lacks any better word?The even more formidable word in this case is 'dimension'. It has become a chewing gum in the mouths of mystics. It is an abrakadabra of a word use to explain everything and to understand nothing. Like a woshing eagle, the mystic snarched the word off the physicist's mouth, concocted his own meaning, then whenever he hears a physicist utter the word, his buttocks rises up and down. Are they at long last discovering the holy grail of mysticism: multidimensional reality? What he does is quote the physicist use 'dimension' but off the context.So yes, physicists at CERN are indead trying to check if other dimensions exists. But the word 'dimension' does not mean the mystic one: the seat of evil spirits. While 'dimension' is full of fantasies in mystics, it is trivial in physics. If there is another dimension, out of it, angels won't appear. You will get the same same boring particles buzzing in: bosons, gluons, photons. So if you are not interested with these 'ons', leave the physics's version of 'multidimensional reality' to particle physicists.WHAT EXACTLY IS DIMENSIONHere is where we must force the professor to stop pointing to that picture in the can and open the can. Space dimensions are any of the axi that are all mutualy perpendicular to each other. When you try to construct these, from a glance, you find that you can't get to fit more than 3 lines this way. So incase we want to squize another? At once, our physicist exchange the hat and then try to pull the rabbit. You are now taken on a tour to the world of a paper. 'Space' morphs from a concept into a solid on the table. It can now imprison some bedbugs and prevent them from seeing the '3rd dimension'. But unfortunately, we cannot see ANALOGIES in the laboratory, we see the ACTUAL thing and the few intelligent guys in the back there will go murmuring. They know that professor realy has to stop at illustrating WHAT HE WILL SEE in the laboratory more than WHAT HE WILL NOT SEE there.Or do you think this can realy happen? Use analogies to illustrate and use the real world to prove what we cannot illustrate in the real world?? Of course we have to stand with a club ready in the hand. Before our guy ask for money to build a huge behemoth as CERN, he must tell us what exactly he is going to SEE there. Not what he is going to INFERE with his futile reasoning. Then when you corner the guy this way, he now illustrate the goose, not the golden eggs. You realise that all he will see are events going in in 100% 3d world. So our professors tell us that 3d events plus unsubstanciated opinions=multidimensional reality!NON EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRYBut must the fourth dimension etc resort that directions we cannot even, in principle, point to them? The answer is naughtah! This is particularly sharp when we have in mind how string theory will eventualy explain the invisibility of the seven dimensions; their compactification and SMALLNESS rather than their ORIENTATIONS. The extradimensions are said to curl like epididimis. Clearly, physicists are treating 'dimensions' as PHYSICAL OBJECTS, sort of like strings!!It may come to you as a surprise to learn that we can draw all the lines such that they are all visible and that they are infact more than 3! The trick is that geometry need not be EUCLIDEAN. It is the fifth euclid's postulate that limits how much dimensions we think a paper has. It says you can but draw only one line through a given point parallel to a given line. This in turn mean that we can but draw only one line that is perpendicular to a given line in a 2D paper. The point is that we challenge this by showing that we understand the MEASURE of 'perpendicular' a posteriori but not a priori and that our measuring instruments can contract or expand depending on where they are in space creating illusion that a paper is 2d when it is infact 3d!HOW STRING THEORY ARRIVES AT 12 etcEventually it is the KINETIC energy of the vibrating string (having no potential energy). However, this ought be tricky cause we know that conservation of kinetic energy is expressible as mc^2=mv^2 mu^2, which is cunningly like a PYTHAGOREAN RELATIONSHIP, hence the mere need to have 12 distinct strings each moving at a generaly unique speed, when we sum their kinetic energies satisfies the same equation as a single, 12d string regardless of how it might be oriented in space!!HOW TO 'PROVE' MORE THAN 3DWe just exermin the energy of photon to see if it exeeds mc^2 mvx^2 mvy^2 wvz^2, of which we find that we have to make the assumption that we are dealing with a SINGLE string and not a SET of them. If there are infact 12 such strings, or just 12 LEVELS OF VIBRATIONS of such as string, then the string will satisfy the equation even if it were infact 1D, let alone 3d!
Read more…
The failure to find superparticles in Large Hardron Collider is tempting physicists to redefine what physics is all about! The details is a long story but to put it in summary, they are simply trying to turn physics into a full blown religion! The fact that late upto the 21st centuary, physicists at a 'high rank' such as Sean Carroll donnot seem to understand science is plain ridiculus.Supersymmetry, unlike standard model is not a theory that was concocted to explained any previously observed phenomena. It is an 100% mind made based on what a profesor think that the world should be; 'natural'. There is this problem that lots eat the mind of physicists. Certain constants of nature appears so cleverly fine tuned. One of the most rapant ones is the mass of higgs. no explanation ar
Read more…
Often the establishment boasts that Einstein's theory of relativity has passed all tests with flying colors. However, what you are never told till you press the preacher against the wall is that what they are testing is just a set of equations developed by a physicist termed Hendrik Lorentz, not Einstein's theory!! Lorentz first deduced the equations having a theory in his mind and since that theory deduced the correct equations, it might as well be the one that experiments proves!There are several reasons why Lorentz's theory should be revived and Einstein's mesmerism be thrown to dustpin. To list just a few:1.)Lorentz's theory contains aether and hence waves in 'vacuume' are intelligable.2.)Relativistic quantum mechanics is infact Lorentz's theory quantised, not Einstein's theory!3.)Lorentz's theory does not absolutely forbids faster than light travel, hence more intuitive and has no problems with quantum nonlocality.4.)Lorentz's theory has no paradox!To elucidate point 4, Einsteinians infact resorts to Lorentz's theory to resolve the otherwise fatal twin clock paradox! The Einsteinian magicians secretly exchanges the hats and goes ahead to pull the rabbit out of it to the amazement of the uncarefull crowd! Thanks to the massive ignorance on Lorentz's work.To almost anybody, Einstein was unothordoxed thinker who challenged the physics establishment of his time. Since when? The theory would have taken centuaries to be swallowed. Infact Einstein was an establishment champion. His philosophy thought physicists that when established theories contradicts each other, it is our brains, not the theories, that is the problem! This is what the establishment want to hear! That is why his theory was instantly accepted.LORENTZ'S THEORYWhenever our rulers moves through the aether, it contracts in the direction of travel. Then the clocks are slowed down and object's inertia increases. Lorentz's explanation is common sensical and straight foward. However, it challenges the legitimacy of our measuring devices in helping us unclock the true knowledge about the universe. This is not what the establishment would want to hear! It bellitles their rulers, clocks and beam balances! Lets listen, for instance, from the horse's mouth:Q: Albert, what is time?A: I think I know what a clock is, therefore I know what time is!Then with a sleigh of hand, he changes how you think about space and time! Knowing clock comes prior to knowing time?? Actually, this lunacy was started by Lord Kelvin when he utters:"If I cannot measure it, then I donnot know it yet"Since he was an high priest, the next breed simply parroted him. Thus an absurd philosophy of measurement is the rocket and the fuel that propels the religion of mathematical physics. Measurement climbs to the status of a ritual, laboratory to the status of a temple and mathematicians are high priests.But does what Kevin and Einstein say tickle any sense? Do you have to weigh the earth to prove that it is heavier than you? When this philosophy matured, it gave birth to such amusing ideas that the profesors creates the world by merely measuring it! They are nolonger just priests, they are now gods and the ruler is a magic wand! The equation is an abrakadabra!We can go on to use a rubber as a ruler if we know not what length is till we measure 'it'. Make sense? If the profesor can streatch a ruler, of course his theory will pass all tests!EINSTEIN'S THEORYWhen we move, nothing ever happens to our rulers, clocks or whatever. Rather, the way we perceive the stationary rulers and clocks changes. Then the stationary ruler appears shorter. His aim was to say that it is all relativistic like appearance, just like the sun appears to revolve around the earth, not an actual, physical events. We don't perceive the train move with us, we perceive the standing by guy speed backwards. Then the standing guy doesn't perceive himself move backwards, he perceives the train move foward. Such were the naive analogies that seems to have been brewing in Albert's mind.THE TWIN CLOCK PARADOXUnfortunately, the above analogy fails at a crucial point. While relativity of velocities is self explanatory even to a nine year old, the relativity of space and time hits an unsurmountable paradox. Notice that in the train case, if the standing observer sees the train head northwards, the moving observer will see the stationary guy head southwards, no contradiction. However, in the case of clocks, each observer will see the other clock tick slowlier than his own! To solve this, Einsteinian is forced to say that in cases where the effects are measurable, it is only one clock that will tick slowlier. Unwittingly, he returns to Lorentz's theory!! Then he says that Einstein's theory has no paradoxes. This terrible type of fallacy is yet to be named by philosophers but it is rampant in mathematical physics. We embody two contradictory theories as though a single one. We hide another card under the sleeve. We pull out a proper one when cornered!RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICSPaul Dirac was just massaging a Lorentz's equation to create a Lorentz invariant version of quantum mechanics. It has nothing to do with Einstein's theory. It is just Lorentz's equations. It is no wonder it permits absolute simultaneity and Einstein was never pleased with it and he termed it as 'spooky action at a distance'. In Lorentz's theory, there is no paradox. The Einsteinian barrier is only apparent. It is not a law of nature. It is just hard to detect things moving superluminary because our clocks and rulers malfunctions.LORENTZ'S GENERAL RELATIVITYUnlike Albert, Lorentz didn't leave to generalise his theory. If he does, it is remarkable. His aether will move to objects. The 'curvarture' will just be due to using curving and streatching rulers. There will be a conceivable BACKGROUND that is flat. The absence of such a background in Einstein's theory is what makes it unquantizable! This background is reintroduced in string theory. So again, they unwittingly return to Lorentz's world view!CONCLUTIONIn the end, Lorentz, the inventer of the working equations, will win! It is his equations that passes the tests and yet he gets almost no credit!
Read more…
At the heart of the insight of quantum mechanics is to treat various frequency levels as directions in some strange space which they term it as Hilbert Space. The idea is that if nature recognises an Hilbert Space other than just the usual space, then it can easily treat waves as particles albeit inhabiting an Hilbert Space. So QM says that waves are also some strange particles. This means that though they spread everywhere, comingling with other waves, nature does not forget that the all waves belong to a single set, the particle! It does this because though the waves may spread in our world, they are on the same point in an Hilbert Space! To make the Hilbert Space realy similar to the usual space, we must have what coresponds to the common rule that we cannot fill the same region of space with two objects. This rule would be Pauli Exclusion Principle.A question that arises when we think that objects are infact waves is why they donnot simply interpenetrate each other. The rule that insures this is Pauli Exclusion Principle. This principle is thus of great importance as it explains solidity. A quantum state is a unique point in an Hilbert Space. When the principle states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, it means the simple rule that no two objects can fill the same region of space. However, in the latter space, we have a total of seven dimensions, 4 for the usual space and 3 for the space of vibrations. The 3 axi forming the space of vibrations are the 3 levels of vibrations akin to the 3 primary colors that will form the rainbow. The whole of the 'rainbow' is the total of the space that the fermions inhabits.
Read more…
The idea that we can voluntarily control the non contact forces of nature appears too magical to be true yet it is infact what we are doing on daily basis if we have freewill. Infact the question is not whether or not telekinesis is possible. The question is how strong is our telekinetic force? As we think frewillingly, we modulate the electromagnetic forces emanating from our brains. This in turn affects how atoms in our vicinity vibrates albeit by tiny amounts. This is a small telekinesis. In some cases relevant to us, how strongly we can move objects around is not as important as the fact that we can move them at all.Science often tend to explain us into a world that is pushed by blind forces. However, there are few things as certain to us as our own freewills. One day, a scientist termed Laplace exclaimed: give me the position and the momentum of each and everyone of the tiny corpuscles making up the world and I will predict everything in future. Then there arouse a beleif amongst physicists that the world is, in principle, deterministic. It is only that it is difficult in practical sense. Such a universe is irreconsilable with freewill. The great mathematician, Henri Poincare hammered a very long nail on the coffin of determinism when he shows that even given 3 initial and/or boundary conditions of such corpuscles, one cannot compute a state of their future! This makes determinism a lion without teeth! Without a math tool to compute the future states of what we think is already determined, determinism fits squarely under the blind faith folder!FREEWILL AND LAWS OF PHYSICSMany people think that freewill has to necesarily violate the laws of physics. Nothing can be more misconceived! Let me illustrate it for you. Consider two hydrogen atoms each with an electron orbiting around a nuclear of its atom. We want to alter the electrostatic force that the electron experience! We freewillingly push one away from the atom by telekinesis. As long as we do it in pairs, non of our actions violates any law. In one atom, we push the electron away from the nuclear while at the same time we are pushing the other electron towards the center in the other atom. 'We are using the energy from the second atom'.That we can control the electrostatic forces appears alien at first yet that is what you are doing when you voluntarily move your hand. You pump ions in your head as you think by altering how electromagnetism works from a very fundamental level of reality. You alter the force that electrons can experience. You infact do things that you at first may think that only God can do!Once we understand what we are in this sense, the mindset is nolonger that of wondering wether soul, god, angel etc exist. Wether or not a soul existsts is the question of whether or not a coin is spinning on the table! Why not just spin it? We shift from hopless beleivers and doubters into towering creators! Indead, the idea that we have no ability to determine how nature works is based on a misunderstanding that we exist somehow independent from nature, a sort thinking that we are to nature as smock is to an engine. Not so, we are part of the nature itself. Our plans are plans of nature. Our worries are worries of nature. Our likes are the likes of nature. As we act frewillingly, the nature is at work through us.
Read more…
What exactly do quantum mechanics teach concerning the role of observer in reality? That things surreptitiously appear when we look at nothing? Why haven't physicists looked at nothing and created all the dollars they need? Ok it is not something even remortly similar to that. However, it is still a remarkable property of nature.Often you will find a 'magician' claim that when you are not looking at the tree, the tree does not exist! In otherwords, mere observation is more formidable than the word 'abrakadabra'. Then he says that this is what quantum mechanics teaches!! But you should be able to instantly spot a problem here. How will a physicist know that the tree was not there without observing it? The short answer is that this is not what QM teaches. To understand QM, we must close exermine the double slit experiment.Physicists use two methods of knowing to get the way round to knowing what happens 'when we are not observing'. One is INFERANCE and the other is 'direct experience'. If you see smock comming out of a tomp, you can infere that there is fire inside the tomp. But if when you enter the tomp, alas, the smock varnishes and you find no evidence of any fire, then you can guess that your act of entrance to the tomp affected the results of what you were studying. This is the true nature of what QM teaches. It leaves open the question as to whether the conscious observation putted off the fire and the smock or your body's entrance to the tomp did it or something else entirely did it, such as a god or you entered into a parallel world!THE EXPERIMENTThe physicist fires particles one at a time across two slits. One of course cannot observe an almost nonexistent particle shooting at near the speed of light. The particles must be stoped by the screen. After firing several particles across the slit, we observe something strange. A pattern form on the screen which suggest that we morons were infact firing waves all along when we know 100% that we were firing particles!It is here where the drama begines. The physicist now infere that the particle was also a strange wave that somehow went through both slits all at once! But in the sense that we could not observe the particle shooting across the slit due to its smallness and insane speed, the physicist say we did not observe which slit the particle went through (but of course we infered the 'wavicle' by observing the screen) 'Magicians' must be extra carefull at this point because it does not mean that we are not observing the slit in the usual sense of registering it in our awareness. We are! So we place a detector near one slit so it may indicate if the particle went through the slit. You must see that this will still not help us observe the particle in the usual sense. We are still inferring that the particle went through such and such slit.What then QM say is that when our measurement at the slit can tell us which slit the particle went through, the pattern on the screen will be that of a particle that went through that slit. when our measurement cannot tell us which way the particle went through, the pattern on the screen will be that of a wave that somehow went through both slits! So the act of measurement somehow creats the particle, otherwise it would be a wave! 'Measurement' here is not a registration in our awareness. It is more like streatching the tape across the object than obtaining the numbers. You can 'measure' this way even with your eyes closed, just place a ruler against the object. Since the ruler has its own adhesive forces, it affects the thing that is getting in close contact with albeit by tiny amount. It is in such sense do measurement affect the outcome of what we are measuring.NATURE OF REALITYI find QM to confirm what I beleive about reality. Yes, consciousness is a fundamental property in the universe but it is not my consciousness in particular. I say that something is there in that it can appear in an awareness. Not that something is there BECAUSE it is appearing in an awareness. The latter is more of a proof of existence than a definition.To the consciousness itself, we don't asign it a state of existence or a non existence. In is enough to talk of consciousness vs unconsciousness. Do objects exist when we are unconscious? Yes, because even when we are unconscious, we CAN wake. If on the other hand we COULD NOT be conscious, then neither can it be said that objects could exists at all. It is in this sense that existence is related to consciousness.
Read more…
There are 3 common answeres to this:a)We should leave a life full of hope for an afterlifeb)We should wait and see it when we diec)We should leave with the beleive that this life marks the end of everything.I have listed the answeres in ascending level of stupidity! To pat the back of the last, it is often said that if we leave knowing that this life is the only one we have, then we will make the best out of it. Well, let us see if this claim conducts electricity. Lets say you know that TODAY is the end of your life. You will never leave tommorrow. Will you make the best out of today or perharps you will tremble the whole day doing nothing? Secondly, are we supposed to beleive that those who commit suicide think that they are now floating in clouds with bliss? I don't think so!To the guys fetching from the river of 'wait and see', Jesus would say:"You are going to have light just a little longer. Walk while you still have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the darkness does not know where he is going." John 12:35In other words, the 'wait and see' camp say that we can't know if there will be light or darkness. So lets just waite and we will see it in the dark! Then you wonder why I put it in the 'stupid' folder? Here is the verdict: while you are sure you can ponder about afterlife, do it! When you have died and can't think anymore, there will be no one to 'see it'. But even a more important point woshing over the heads of the wait and see camp, consider the high school thought that tommorrow, you will be on tour to a game park. Then you keep wondering about ostriches, leopards etc. When tommorrow comes, allas! You find that it was even more enjoyable to fantasise about the tour than the tour itself! Those who waited and 'saw' missed the truely enjoyable time!Exermine again how Jesus's view of afterlife is dramatically different from what modern man may view it. To many people, when it comes to such things as afterlife, we humans are impotent. Even if a modern man nolonger beleive in God, if there if an afterlife, like a pair of gumboots type god just there at the right moment, something will somehow whisk us like flying witches with their brooms. Voila! We will find ourselves just at the right place! The stupidity of this hope is underscored by the fact that in everywhere we go, we have KNOW the way and make decisions! If you donnot seek to know now, like Jesus said, you will be forced to know it in the dark!!The question of afterlife is quite certain when we think clearly about it! Many miss it because they tend to see death only from birds perspective. That is to say they donnot go deep enough. When the question of if we die, will we leave again, is paused, what comes to minds is brains, neurology, souls etc. In otherwords people try to answere a yes or no question with an 'how' answer!! To the new ager, he is busy trying to answer it with a 'who I am' answer. He kills his hours wondering who he is. But you don't need to know what you realy are to understand that you cannot perish by merely doing a somausoult!To answere the simple yes or no question, just consider the following thought experiment: a person is pointing a gun at your fore head. You donnot know whether it is loaded or not. There he counts: one,...,two,..., then? Alright, either the gun is unloaded and you hear a tickle or it is loaded and you learn of it at some arbitrary future! There can never be just a one possible answere to a yes or no question. Without your experience, truths can never be actualised for you. But you have to deeply meditate on what will happen TO YOU should the gun be loaded so you may understand. You must put yourself in the shoes of a dieing man.The eternal oblivionist will say that after death, there will be nothing! However, a curious thing about the carefull mind is that it draws SOMETHING for every word, including the word 'nothing' or 'no thing'! In other words, there is SOME IDEA that the concocter of the word was riffering so the word may have a meaning. Ideas absolutely presupposes a mind. When someone say that he does not see anything, we know that actualy he is seeing a black thing! For me not to experience anything after I die, I must experience the lack of experience otherwise the idea of lacking experience will have no meaning to the mind!
Read more…
An elaborate explanation of the intelligent designer of life is absolutely necesary in making the hypothesis a truely scientific. Gone are the days when it was a taboo to attempt to understand God! It is quite problematic to question Dawrin on the grounds that natural selection does not explain the true cause of evolution only to account for creation using inexplicable magic wand from an invisible, unintelligable being.At the heart of the problem in the question of whether life arouse from a series of accidents or it was intelligently designed is this very ambiquotus concept 'intelligence'. The philosophers of mind generaly agree that both awareness and qualia are necesary in causing high level of intelligence. However, our scientists are yet to understand qualia and awareness. Therefore they are yet to understand intelligence. Therefore when they wonder wether or not life was intelligently designed, they donnot realy know what they are talking about.Many philosophers will agree that the 'hard question' of awareness is solved by panpsychicsm. That is we identify some level of awareness to all activities of nature. This in turn means that there is a level of IQ in every act of nature! Thus the origin of life is not that much problem. Both the riddle and the question of origin of our own's awareness are solved simultaneously.If you still find it hard to grasp, lets consider what truely intelligence is. When you see a bicycle, you cannot fail to infere that it was made intelligently. What exactly are you seeing? Simple, you are seeing that every part has a purpose. The designer knew beforehand that the bicycle will go on the road, will encounter perssangers etc. You will agree that playing with memory has something to do with intelligence. Playing with knowledge and memory brings about plan, a mock up for the thing that is yet to manifest in the world. So then if we are able to spot plans involved in life creation, then at once, we should consider that as a good evidence that creation of life is an act of intelligence. But then DNA is a towering example.Of cource you know though what happens. We go farther to wonder where DNA came about. DNA together with ribosome, RNA polymerase and chaperone are infact the intelligent manufacturers of life! The biologist, though can try to explain the entire process purely mechanically. But so what? That is also how the try to explain how the brain works. They have no much clue of another factor termed 'awareness' or in short, they donnot truely understand 'intelligence'.But let us still legitimise the egg chicken question of the origin of DNA, RNAp, ribosome and chaperone. Well, it can still be a creation from a lesser complex DNA that exists in a reality interlaced with ours. You can see this pattern: the DNA is less complex, with say 3 billion neucliotides. But alas, it encodes the entire body, which is more complex than itself!Also the question of the true origin of DNA is just the question of the true origin of imaginative and/or creative idea which, even how it comes to our brains, we donnot know! However, we never thus deny that our creative ideas are an act of our intelligence. The bicycle just surreptitiously form in our brain and since we can mimic how the universe works in our heads, we can test it there if it is a good idea. Then we select good ideas. We donot know exactly how we do this. Neither should we think we can easily know how nature did it in forming DNA. It was the same mysterious law that is now at work in our brain.So what else? The bicycle surreptitiously popping to our heads is not much far from how any other natural process form. Yet we call the latter 'imagination'. Even the wind blowing to form sandunes in the desert should be seen as nature imagination! As for mimicking our world to test and select good ideas, think of another world that is interlaced with this one. In this other world, things easily change. It is lesser dense, more dynamic and fluidy. It is the so called 'mental plane of reality'. It is here where things surreptitiously form. The evolve in picoseconds. They are transformed. Good ideas can be selected there. It is this plane that guides the much sloweq evolution of the visible world. It is in that plane where things first form as 'ideas'.
Read more…
Contrary to how you may think, the reason why scientists prifer Dawrin's story of origin of life to the story of a divine creation is not because the former is more plausible. Rather, the latter lacks an elaborate explanation. The intelligent design proponents argue as though to reject Dawrin's theory on the basis that it cannot help us to understand the origin of such complex things as leaving things. However, they posit that an ununderstandable being as God did it in ways that we cannot understand it! So what was the point all along? Why don't we say that things evolved the Dawrinian way but we just can't understand how? Things must remain problematic as long as we use a lack of understanding to make our points.
Read more…
Ever since Newton introduced the 3 laws of motion, it became common to think that the rotation of the earth is due to just the innitial kick that somehow happened at some point in the past. Like a ball kicked in a vacuume, the earth is moved by a concept called inertia.To elude, the obvious day to day observation that without a constant power input, moving things runs steadily slowly and they eventualy stand still, they had to concoct another concept called 'friction'. A fancier way of saying it is that in day to day motion, the kinetic energy is steadily converted to heat energy which is conducted away by the surface in contact with objects. So day to day objects requires steady input of energy to replace the lost energy.So the space surrounding the earth is thought to be nearly empty. However, we know that the earth is a huge magnet and the sun too has its own magnet. Such magnets will still put brakes on earth. Also, we now know that the space is not empty but is full of particles from the sun termed 'solar wind'. So contrary to how you may think, motion of things around the sun together with their rotations is not entirely explicable by Newton's laws etc. It requires quite complex magnetohydrodynamics.At the beginning of quantum theory, a simillar conundrum bedeviled planetary models of atoms. The electron should loose energy in the proces of revolution. A possible solution would be to suggest that atoms are infact tiny motors!The origin of geomagnetism have been a lot coffee time for physicists. At one moment, the center of the earth should be a liquid due to high temperatures. Liquid iron donnot form magnets. However, nowadays physicists beleive that the earth's core is a solid iron, nickel, cobalt etc! A solid as hot as the surface of the sun!Then the way the mainstream explains geomagnetism sounds like the use of the magnetism to explain itself! The magnet causes electric current in the metalic liquid spinning in the visinity of the core. The current then causes the magnetism! Phew!It realy need not be so. Consider carefully the ORIENTATION of the magnet. what electric current causes such? We know that the metalic liquid spinning around the core to create the electromagnet will have to be electricaly charged to begine with. Then the rotation of the earth will be actualy an electric current!It still need not be so. I am pretty convinced that the mantle as a whole has a zero net charge. Then the mantle and the core arrangement is better seen as to either form an electric generator or an electric motor! Lets close exermine in details:THE MOTORhere, It is the permanent ALNICO magnet that causes the core to spin! We are going to use Fleming's left hand rule to determine the plausibility. Place your left thuMb, First fingure and the seCond fingure such that the 3 are mutually perpendicular to each other. Let the thuMb point to the east (where the earth spins to). Let the First fingure point at the north (magnetic north pole). Then the seCond fingure points downwards (the direction of electric current). So if the earth is a motor, the power surply would be positive charges converging to the center. Where they will go is another story. I will explain latter why this is more plausible than the generator.THE GENERATORIn the this case, the spinning core creates the magnetism. We do the same proceedure exept that we use the RIGHT HAND. Then the current will move upwards. The latter seems plausible because if positive charges move to the center, the center will be more positive than the peripheri. This makes the earth look like an atom. Or you can also say that the protons are plausibly denser than the electrons so they are pulled more by gravity itself.GEOMAGNETISM REVEARSALIt is known that after some times, geomagnetic pole do flip. You can understand this in two ways. Either as an axis rotation or that the density of protons in the center reaches a critical point and then they begine to rebound upwards. So it is an incesant in and out pulsation like a geological heart beat.
Read more…
THE PHYSICS OF FLAGELLUM MOTORA big problem with Dawrinism is that there is not always step by step simple roots to building a complex machine. Yes, there are varieties of motors. Some are more efficient than others. However, there is clearly the simplest motor possible. This simplest motor though is still a quantum jump from a no motor and it is still unbeleivable that such can occur by accident.The simples motor must have a rotor, a stator, an axle, power source and power drain. Four related acidents must happen! These requirements are dictated not by me but by 4 laws of physics: Newton's first and third law of motion and the first and the second law of thermodynamics.The flagellum motor is a version of Franklin's electrostatic motor. But the latter is powered by proton motive force. Like I said in the previous post, the later motor should start and stop at the will of the bacteria! This mean we cannot just make it the crude Franklin way that needs to be kicked to start and with no brakes. Such a motor will be useless to the bacteria!To achieve quick starts and stops, the center of the rotor must be made of a charged substance. However, the parts of surface proteins that are on the centre of the protein must be hydrophobic (they must repel water). The charged amino acids cannot be hydrophobic. This means that we must use as few charged amino acids as possible in the center. Priferably only one. There are only two charged amino acids. One is negative and the other is positive. We must not use a random mixture of both negative and positive ones! So we remain with only one option of amino acid: aspartate!Think carefully about this. A protein has to be folded over and over. Originaly, we are given just a giant chain of amino acids. How do we code the sequence in the DNA such that having beeng folded by the chaperone, the hydrophobic proteins lie near the center with aspartate at the center. If you were given such a chain, it will puzzle you!MAKING THE FLAGELLUMThe aim here is to show how realy absurd it is to think that a series of accidents can eventually make such things. Proteins are made when ribosome decodes the information in RNA. The information in RNA is in turn decoded from DNA by RNAp (RNA polymerase).RNAp reads the DNA by moving along it just like a zipper will move along a zip. However, if it merely moved anyhowly, it would never use the billions of codes in DNA to read zillions of proteins in an entire body. It would for instance go round and round rereading the same gene when duplicates of it is required. This mean something must control how RNAp moves along the DNA.The RNAp should be able to jump foward, backwards etc. It do so when a certain protein binds itself somewhere along the DNA. This protein then enables RNAp to begine from there otherwise RNAp cannot bind to the DNA. These 'address' proteins are ultimately generated due to the very job of RNAp itself! So in a roundabout way, RNAp simply controls itself! What it does determines what it will do. It is even perharps aware of itself!It seems to suggest that give genes that are aready existent, that are coding a part of a machine, an entirely different accident need not be done to recreate a perfect copy of that gene working in another system. For instance, protein A is made by fusing protein B and C. Protein D is made by fusing protein B and F. The gene for protein D need not to occur a new. Only F need to be inserted in the DNA. However, a new 'adress' protein is neaded. This is my point.At first glance, this seems to make evolution simpler. Infact, Dawrinist suggests such. Given that the components of the new comming system are already existent in other system we can simply integrate them in the new system. However, things are not any significantly simpler. A lot of unbeleivable acrobatics has to happen.Let us consider the 4 crucial parts of our motor. We wish to integrate their genes in a new system, call it z. Call the gene expression of the stator Y. Then y is already existent in system X. Normally, as RNAp reads through the DNA, just after it finish reading Y, the address protein, p is bound to a specific region that begines a gene that together with Y forms system X. But now another address protein, call it q must first bind to the region that will form part of Z. So a new gene expression exactly for q must accidentaly occur! This gene must be inserted before Y. But The gene for p was also before Y. To ensure that at times, RNAp simply goes straight to where p is bound so it may make system X as usual, another protein, call it unti-q must also accidentally be inserted before Y. Anti-q, binds to q to disable it. But at times, Anti-q is quickly secreted from the nuclear enabling the RNAp to go on to creat Z. So for every good use of an already existent gene, two symmetrical accidents must happen. In our case, 8 accidents must happen. In each accident, some thaousands of codes must be inserted in DNA just at the right places! In our case, it is only 4 parts. In the case of bacteria flagellum, there are over 40 parts! Btw in genetics, proteins such as p are called sigma factors and anti-p are called antisigma factors.TRANSPORT OF PROTEINSHow to transport the proteins to their destinies are entirely differen whole story on its own. Inside the cell are highly perfected roads and very efficient vehicles. These proteins walks to a fro along the roads. These roads are termed cytoskeleton. They are made of wonderfull proteins. Special transporters travel to special destinations.So in addition the gene that specifies the destination of the newly formed protein must also accidentaly occur. If there is no address or a wrong one is given, the entire job was useless. Such a gene will be quickly selected against!
Read more…
As we zoom in the lense to close exermine life, the wonders never end. According to modern knowledge of cell biology, what Dawrin thought the cell was is, if one may be very kind, hillarius. This was the guy who was fond of saying 'simple things' blindly evolved to 'complex things'. Ultimately then, everything came from a single cell. Was he confusing 'small' with 'simple'. A wrist watch can be more ingeniously made than as system of wrist watches each of which is taken as a black box. It is fractal complexity where the parts are as complex as the whole. Compare it with an hologram where breaking it into pieces does not create small parts but rather, small wholes.Modern scientist can be very hand wavy when he describes complex things to leymen. The common description of leaving things are often on the same par with describing a car as piston, moved by expanding fuel, which then drives the shaft, which then drives the wheels. Of course if you have such a non picture of a car in your mind, you will find it easy to accept an equivalent hand wave of how it might have evolved through pure accidents. You know, it all begun with pushing heavy objects. Then we begun to use logs as wheels, then the wooden wheel evolved in Mesopotamia. Then perharps in some road accident, the wheel was converted to a bisycle type wheel. Wink wink nudge nudge the mind bogling vehicle in the road evolved!It is not at all bad if such careless sweep through a complex matter prepares one to search farther. But problems comes when the bozos ends up confusing themselves as well. So you find them thinking of genetically modifying leaving things!! Thats funny! Boys who are yet to understand how a bicycle works trying to modify a nuclear submarine? When the leymen on the other hand say 'scientist know it' yet they themselves have no clue, then there is no difference between modern science with any other priesthood.The problem with Dawrin's evolution is pretty straight foward even to the extend that a child can understand it. But thanks to the confusing smart scientist. One still has to unwind it with pages and pages. The gist of the matter in summary is that: given an already functioning thing, trying to modify it blindly will most certainly rather spoils it. This is because you will thus have to tamper with the things that were already working.LET NOT DAWRIN UNWITTINGLY DENY HIS OWN DOCTRINEThese biological machinery is built from the blue print of DNA. That is where it is worse to tamper with. To introduce a new working gene in the DNA, we must be carefull not to thus destroy another already working gene. An example will help. Lets say the gene encoding Insulin starts somewhere and ends somewhere. From where it ends, a gene encording ATP synthase begines. To insert our new gene savely, we must put it at the exact middle so it damages neither of the other genes by spliting them apart.The biological nanomachines are not simple. They are composed of many parts working together. Non of which can work without the other! Questions arises as to how the parts were naturaly selected before the other parts came into existence. A Dawrin then may be forced to say that gene A, which codes part X came into being but it could still remain if protein X is not harmfull to the cell. But we have seen that we must insert A precisely in between two working genes. Up until other parts that are supposed to work with A comes into being, a series of accidents must happen in between A and the other two genes! So it becomes a DNA black spot! An accident happening such that it splits say insulin, that gene is selected against. But then if an accident splits A, then nothing happens since after all A is yet to serve any important purpose. So for the whole set of genes working together with A to evolve, accidents must happen only near A yet there is no Dawrinian reason yet as to why A should be selected!! Accidents somehow constrained to happen at only one point along the road are not accidents at all. They are planned! It seems more sensible to say that A is selected for what it WILL do in future and not what it HAS done in past! It is still a teleological evolution.TYPE 3 SECRETION SYSTEM (TTSS) AND FLAGELLUMLet us take a tour to some two nanomachines in nature that each have parts that work together in a remarkable way. I use this because when you ask a Dawrinian where the flagellum came from, he says that it evolved from TTSS and when you ask where TTSS came from, he says it evolved from flagellum! Otherwise ALL biological machines are such ingenious. Nothing at all is peculiar about the flagellum.The flagellum is an electrostatic motor with a drum like rotor connected to a rod that acts as an axle. This rod then drives a whiplike structure that then enables the bacteria to swim like a motor boat!The stator together with the rod looks exactly like an automatic shringe found in the bacteria. So might one had simply morphed accidentally into the other? Lets pull out our binoculous very well. The motor has bearings termed L-ring and S-rings attatched to the outer membrane. The shringe has perfectly similar rings. However, when we close exermine the details of the proteins making the shringe, they differ remarkably from those of the motor. Specifically in the former they are bonded to the rod (which acts as a needle in this case). Then they are pumbs and not just securing pegs! So we have a rivet vs a wheel, functionaly, they are miles apart.So the rings making the outer part of the shringe must be entirely replaced before the motor can even begine to rotate! Even a single protein binding the rod will make the entire motor useless! So the shape similarity between the rings serve absolutely no purpose in making the shift from shringe to motor easy. Farthermore, the rings are made by joining 40 or so identical proteins. Each protein inturn should have hundreds of amino acids arranged in precise ways. So how will these replacings happen like accidents! If they happen one at a time, it will look just like a case of someone bringing bricks slowly, preparing to build a house. What selects the bricks is a usefull 'house' that is yet to be build! No natural selection yet because the motor that is being build is milleniums ahead! If anything such replacements should easier be selected against because, it in the proces, removes the proteins that were acting as pumb in the shringe!Now, lets close exermine the rod. The rod is not build from the same proteins as the needle! So again, what is similar is just the shape! So let us get it clear: are the bozos saying that if there are plastic shringes around, a similarly shaped yet metalic ones will easily evolve from the plastic shringes? Of course you know that the latter needs an entirely different factory.At the inner membrane, the motor has a drum like structure termed MS-ring. Needless to say, the outer part of the motor is not the same as that of the shringe. Even if it were the same, it would even be more amazing. Why should accidents make a pump using a rather complex stator of a motor? That would be like building a house using the body of a car!It might be tempting to think that it begun with a poor motor then Dawrin selected the better ones. When we think more carefully, this collapses in picoseconds! A simply waging flagellum will not only serve no purpose to the bacteria, it would be dangerous. A motor must have a full control before it can be SAVE, let alone serve any use. Without control, the flagellum will drive the bacteria any howly, even to dangerous places. If you have a fully functioning car without a mere stearing wheel, such a car will just not be worthless, it will be dangerous. Such cars lacking stearing wheels will be selected against milleniums before accident #200000000 create a stearing wheel, no matter how complex they are! Cars must also have breaks.This blog is to be continued in the next blog...
Read more…
