Climate scientists do it for the money!

I am sure if you are anti AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or man made global warming you subscribe to the theory that the reason why so many scientists agree that global warming is man made is because that’s where the money is.

Research done suggests that 97% of scientists support man made global warming.

Ok lets take a look at this logic.

If proponents of this theory are to be believed it means that a significant proportion of that 97% are more interested in money than in scientific truth.

The theory goes like this. To get grant money a scientist must apply. An applicant that supports AGW is more likely to get grant money therefore most climate scientists submit papers supporting AGW.

In short a very large percentage of climate scientists are dishonest. Isn’t that what  Global Warming Deniers believe?

So if we assume that a very large percentage of climate scientists are dishonest and they are in fact only following grant money (I used to believe this until common sense got in the way). Then we must believe they are intrinsically dishonest.

BUT if they are intrinsically dishonest why do 97% support AGW surely they would go wherever the money leads. Governments aren’t the only source of grant money. Large corporations provide grant money, universities provide grant money interested groups provide grant money. There are dozens of different sources of grant money for a scientist whether they are climate scientists or not.

Many of those organisations on the surface don’t believe in AGW. They have vested interests in AGW being wrong. Oil Companies. Insurance Companies. Political Parties etc etc.

Lets assume that say 60% of climate scientists are dishonest and only follow the money. So for every 100 climate scientists who agree with AGW 60 are dishonest and only do it for the money (the other 40% are just easily led).

This means that of the 3% who are against AGW 1 is easily led the other 2 out of the 100 are dishonest.

But if 60 out of 100 are just plain dishonest, Why do most of them side with AGW when there is plenty of money available to anyone with a science degree who is willing to denounce AGW.

Why? because the very clear majority of climate scientists are in fact honest and therefore believe that AGW is real.

I used 60%. You can use whatever percentage you think makes sense. The answer will always come out the same.

The claim makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Time : is it real?

This is my theory of the non-existence of time.

Time is said to be the fourth dimension. I am going to introduce a new idea. Time is not a dimension. Time is not a thing at all. Time does not exist.

What do we know about time?

Well the first thing we know is it is hard to discuss time without referencing time. Time is integral to the way we think. So please excuse some of the circular references, I am sure you understand why.

Time moves forward. We can’t back it up, not for even a femtosecond. We also know time is dependent on gravity. As we move out of the gravity well of Earth time speeds up.

We have learned two things about time

We know time can be influenced. And, without time nothing could change. The universe and everything in it would be static.

But what is it actually. What makes yesterday different from today. What makes a second ago different from now?

The answer is surprisingly simple. Everything!

The entire universe changed dramatically in the last second and we barely noticed it. The universe you live in this very second is different to the one you were in just a moment ago. At this point you are probably thinking uh oh crazy guy. But if you will just ponder it for a moment you will know I am right.

It is different because every atom has changed, every photon has moved, every energetic action has changed. The sun and all stars have changed, planets have moved, wind has blown, electrons have moved (in an indeterminate way). Everything is different.

So now you see what I mean by the entire universe has changed. Everything in it is slightly different.

And that took time to happen! Or at least that’s the way we think of it.

Without time nothing could change. The universe and everything in it would be static.

So far all I have done is reconfirm what we call time. So now we will explore the theory of the non-existence of time.

Imagine this. Every single molecule in your body stopped moving. Every atom stopped vibrating, every electron stopped spinning. Nothing moved, absolutely nothing. Now imagine this continued for a year of everyone else’s time. For one year of normal time you were in a completely motionless state.

After twelve months, everything resumed moving. How much time would have passed for you? None, that’s right, between stopping and starting no time passed. You didn’t age, you didn’t breathe, your hair didn’t grow, and your thoughts resumed exactly where they stopped.

For you not even one second of time had passed, while for the rest of us time marched on a full twelve months.

Did you time travel?

I am going to take what I said before and change it just by one word.

Without motion nothing could change. The universe and everything in it would be static.

So time is really synonymous with motion. In fact what we call time is just our way of measuring motion. If so then why does time move at different rates dependant on the strength of gravity?

It helps to understand how we ultimately measure time. At the most precise level we measure time by counting the vibrations of an atom. An atom that vibrates at a very stable rate.

Atoms are influenced by gravity. It is my contention that the vibration of the atom changes based on the strength of the gravity field it is in. All matter changes based on the gravity field it is in. Because space changes based on the strength of gravity. Therefore a clock in orbit runs at a different rate than a clock on earth. Measuring the difference would make you think the rate of time was different. But it is not, just the rate of vibration is different.

Ultimately does this theory of the non-existence of time change anything? No it doesn’t, time is still a very important measure of the rate of change around us.

What it does do though is answer one question!

Can we time travel?

Yes we can, by influencing the rate of change of everything in our vicinity. My fanciful example above of a complete atomic stasis is one way, changing the gravity field is another way, although it is measured in fractions of a second. Possibly high speed close to the speed of light will work.

This though is a one way ticket. We can only ever go forward by slowing our personal clock (motion). We can never go back again, there is nothing to go back to. Because there is no such thing as time.

Time is not the fourth dimension. Time is what we humans use to measure motion.

Big Bang – What triggered it?

The currently accepted theory for the beginning of the universe is “The Big Bang” where the universe was once crammed into a space immeasurably small, called the singularity. It then exploded and the resulting plasma from the explosion expanded and cooled and then coalesced into what we now call the known universe.

I have a problem with this. Go figure hey I have a problem with much of science!

Not that I want to hand a gimme to creationists but I have to ask the question “What triggered the Big Bang?”

Let me explain further.

Physicists tell us we can ignore the laws of physics at the start of the universe that the laws that describe our universe didn’t come into being until after the Big Bang, not long after but most importantly they didn’t exist in the singularity.

They say this because our physical laws don’t make sense within a singularity. Too many impossibilities are raised. but in doing so they admit to one rule still applying. the rule of logic.

If the rule of logic applies. Hence we can discuss the singularity then surely we can discuss what gave rise to the Big Bang.

So now that we have defined it is ok to even discuss the Big Bang or more precisely the singularity that ‘existed’ before the Big Bang then we can discuss the trigger.

When something changes, no matter what it is, whether it be the path of a molecule of air or the thoughts of a blogger or an nuclear explosion. it must be triggered by something. That something can be a lit fuse or a new thought or butterfly flapping its wings or a fracture or an impurity.  Nothing changes without something triggering that change.

So what changed that caused the singularity to suddenly destabilise the singularity and make it burst?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the speed and position of an element at the same time we can know one and only approximate the other. What is not clear is that the element does have a speed and a position we just can’t measure it.

Can this principle apply to the singularity. I don’t think so. From outside the singularity nothing exists and therefore there is no reference frame to make any measurement or observation from.

The logical necessity of a trigger, an external influence on the singularity necessitates that there must be an external force acting on it, that the singularity cannot just come into being and then once it has come into being spontaneously explode.

It is my contention this precludes a singularity, that there was no Big Bang.

That only leaves alternatives. Interestingly it gives us a view at the end of the universe, if the universe did not arise from a singularity perhaps it arose from a big crunch. That the universe is constantly expanding and contracting, this is an old theory that  many discount but this oscillating universe does not need a singularity.





Why do your children resemble you?

In a world where religion rules and genetics don’t apply. You must ask the question…

Why do your children look like you? where do the traits they display in their looks and their actions come from?

Too many idiots in the world

To the author of the above rubbish…

Your an idiot and the only possible purpose of this article is to sucker people into buying junk.

Normal ceramic magnets do not contain anywhere near sufficient energy to be able to pull hydrocarbons apart. to do so even a little bit requires a lot of energy. which is where the energy comes from to propel the car. also pulling the molecules apart even a little bit or a lot means nothing. Its a chemical reaction increasing the surface area of individual molecules will do little if anything.

Ok you want proof. Don’t be a moron do some empirical testing. Get some fuel the best quality you can, place it into a test tube (please observer safety precautions) support it in a stable manner. Very Very carefully mark the level of the fuel. Now place the strongest magnets you can in whatever configuration you think works. Now measure the level of the fuel again. Provided the temperature hasn’t changed (fuel readily expands with temperature) or none has evaporated off. you will notice no difference. Nada, Zilch. yet if the molecules were pulling apart then you must see an increase in the level of fuel because it would take more volume wouldn’t it?

Yes it’s true every material has magnetic properties.. plastic does, cows hide does even little green frogs do. Now if the hydrocarbons had any magnetic properties above that which all non ferrous materials have your should also see the fuel react to the presence of the magnetic field, perhaps creep up the side of the test tube. don’t you think?


Simply chemistry tells us there are no ortho or para hydrogen bonds in hydrocarbons. They occur when two hydrogen atoms form h2 as a hydrogen atom has only one bond it can bond to itself or something else it cant bond to itself AND something else. your diagrams of so called para and ortho hydrogen are not diagrams of them at all but is in fact a diagram of methane, in other words ch4.

Before you insult the world with your total lack of knowledge at least do some real chemistry

Genetics – Where are the missing mutations?

I have been thinking a little about Genetics lately.  As usual questions pop into my head that make me wonder.

This time I began to wonder about the missing mutations.

Mutations are supposedly random variations in the DNA resulting in a variation in the population (people or beetles or whatever) these mutations can either be successful or fail.

For example if a mutation in a beetle makes it brown and birds don’t see it as well against the earth, so more brown beetles survive than say bright red beetles then eventually all the beetles will become brown. That’s a success story, mind you the mutation that caused red beetles is  a failed mutation as the beetle was easily seen and therefore the population of red beetles was diminished.

These mutations must be occurring all the time, but we don’t see that. Why?

Surely say in a population of six billion people we should see huge numbers of genetic variations. Why don’t we see evidence of constant change. why are man and other animals so stable?

These are my as yet unanswered questions.

  • Why don’t we see more evidence of genetic mutations?
  • Why is the gene pool so stable?
  • Why don’t we see more variation in things like skin colour, surely these are simple genetic mutations that would be occurring all the time?
  • When a genetic failure occurs (red beetles) is there some sort of memory of this failure, does our DNA remember to give up on red and not try it again.

It would appear there are rules around genetic mutation, what can be tried what can’t be tried. When something is a failure or when it should continue to develop. If so where are the rules?

Lets look at a finger. One genetic mutation could involve the complete copy of an existing finger or toe.  Yes we see these today, but why does it happen so completely? I mean not only is a sixth finger or toe developed but it works, it has blood flow it has nerves and the brain copes with it and can even sometimes manipulate it. how is it so complete?

What about the original finger, I assume it started out as slight bump. what stopped it growing into a gangling lump of useless flesh. Something that didn’t actually help the person but didn’t actually cause any issues so didn’t cause a reduced chance of mating. At what time is a genetic variation considered a success.

Why aren’t we covered or full of genetic mutations and variations that don’t actually do anything?

It would appear to me that “random mutations” raises many more issues than it resolves.

Copyright © 1996-2010 Yada Yada Yada Blah Blah Blah. All rights reserved.
iDream theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress
404 Not Found

Not Found

The requested URL /cgi-bin/ was not found on this server.

Apache/2.2.22 (Debian) Server at Port 80