Leave a message
|Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:28 am: |
These Humancafe.com forums are now officially closed and archived, read only.
We are now in the winter of our discontent, to paraphrase the state of our current world. But as a new moon starts from darkness a new beginning, so does this Winter Solstice. Out goes the old, in comes the new.
(interactive -Digital Art)
Winter Solstice goddess: Life is Art.
Did we change the world in the past ten years of writing and thinking? Have our thoughts like ripples on a pond touch minds in all corners of the globe? Perhaps.
Perhaps the world was ready for change, so it changed imperceptibly while we watched. We were just there. I did not write this, you did, we did; for I was merely facilitator to your ideas. We touched on ideas of arts and philosophy: ideas of science and cosmology, personal well being in health and mind, ideas on religious beliefs and secular beliefs, ideas on government and personal freedoms, on history and the legacy of wars, and our human rights. All ideas were welcome, but as ideas rather than dogmas, as the only true way to preserve human freedom. In this I believe we touched many. What you read on these Humancafe forums was written truly by the People of Planet Earth, for the people. This is your legacy.
To all who wrote over the decade, we gave it our best shot. If there was one thing I learned, it is that "enlightenment is irreversible." The rest is up to time. Thank you for writing, and thanks to all for your kind attention and love.
A special thank you for my very dear friend Wayne for helping me set up the Humancafe and its forums, and who stood by me like a true friend during times when I needed help in fixing them. Wayne, my brother, we did good.
This forum is now closed, December 22, 1998, to December 21, 2008, archived - read only.
Humancafe - Eds
* * * * * * *
These will remain open Post Scripts and Photo log. Any comments on the archived forum may be added in the open page with suitable references, HTML code, and images as always. As Post function is disabled, please submit any future entries via email to firstname.lastname@example.org, thank you.
Please see the Help/Instructions (tag at bottom) for additional help. Or contact Humancafe editors at: email@example.com with any questions.
|Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 12:07 pm: |
RE Sectarian violence and Apostasy # http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/294/294.html#POST3935
"Dialogue.., Coerced obedience.
If a designer gives the rules and regulations about a design indicating the possible results of potential actions those rules and regulations have to be understood as part of the specification of the design rather than as coercion.
This is self serving reasoning, proving your postulates with your postulates. Coercion is not defined by your 'God' but by the person being coerced, being forced against their agreement. So your axioms of, allegegedly 'God given' rules, coercion are invalid to an outside observer. You may only apply them to yourself, not anyone else. The other will tell you when they are being forced against their agreement, when they are coerced. You may not define that for them. Otherwise, if you define coercion for someone else, you are imposing your rules on them, which in itself is potentially coercive. Why only 'potentially'? Because if the other accepts your conditions, then it is agreement; but if rejected, it is coercion."
This above statement defines exactly why exists sectarian violence: people punish and kill others because they think them heretics or apostates in not believing truly. If your faith in God is judged by others to be wrong, it takes the power of faith away from you and God, but places this power into the hands of those who judged you.
But this is wrong, and only shows the sect's bias against humanity. When this bias is punishing apostasy with death, then the religious sect is no more than a religious cult of total control: it is then no longer a religion if it threatens with death for apostasy, and should no longer be viewed as a religion for humanity; then it is a cult.
|Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 01:04 pm: |
RE http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/294/294.html#POST3940 War and Peace
"Let us not forget what war is. When we were attacked, the whole world was stunned. Let us not forget, that there will always be those who will wish us harm because we are the free."
The troubles begin when the aggressor calls his attack "self-defense." Attacking another is different from defending oneself, or breaking up a fight. The paradox is when the attacker believes his aggression is to either break up a fight (for peace), or in self-defense.
Coercion is valid only insofar as it is used to stop coercion. This is called self-defense. The attacker who uses force is the coercer, always the aggressor. Without paradox for either self-defense or peace, self-defense may not be claimed by the aggressor.
dead or alive illusion
|Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 02:14 pm: |
How do we know we see what we see? When is reality illusion?
In the Wiki it says on Illusion: "An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation." But what if the brain interprets everything that it perceives as an illusion? Is this a philosophical question, same as the question posed on the "word trick" illusion earlier?
How do we know we see what we see? One way is to verify it independently via a third order. For example, if I predict something will happen scientifically, and a second person with same data makes the same prediction, is the factual prediction when it comes true proof of the third kind that it was not an illusion but true? Think about it.
What if all of us three have the same illusion? Is the universe than nothing more than our collective illusion, like the "word trick" or "light trick" illusion mentioned earlier? This illusion may even be proved mathematically correct, and independently verified by multiple observers (Einstein's proven right again!), but though verified independently it could all still be but an illusion. The math itself could be a trick, though totally self-consistent and correct.
What if our universe is really a kind of Maya illusion, so what we think we see as objective reality is already an illusion of some cosmic dream state?
The conjoined image of three especially popular manifestations of the Hindu Divine Mother: Lakshmi (wealth/material fulfillment), Parvati (love/spiritual fulfillment), and Saraswati (learning and arts/cultural fulfillment).
What is really real? Is it ALL illusion, even what was just said? What's the point, if we are staring into a universe that is all an illusion-dream? Dead or alive, it's all the same to this universe, isn't it?
Ivan/better alive than dead
|Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 08:55 pm: |
What illusion is really real?
How do we know we see what we see? One way is to verify it independently via a third order. For example, if I predict something will happen scientifically, and a second person with same data makes the same prediction, is the factual prediction when it comes true proof of the third kind that it was not an illusion but true?
What is really real? Is it ALL illusion, even what was just said? What's the point, if we are staring into a universe that is all an illusion-dream? Dead or alive, it's all the same to this universe, isn't it?
Fair question, but what if what we think of reality is really illusion, which illusions are really real? Think about that too. For example, which is more real illusion of these dualities? Which illusion is the true reality?
- Being a slave to another, or living free?
- Living in sickness, or living in good health?
- Working with a full functioning brain, or one half paralyzed?
- Being abusive, no different from being abused to either party?
- Committing murder, an illusion to the person killed?
- Taking away a mother's child, merely an illusion to the mother and child?
- Living in joy, or suffering in fear?
- Being conscious, or living in a coma?
So which of these 'illusions' are more real? And why should we care if it is ALL illusion, that reality does not matter? Does this not turn the whole universe into a Subjective world, rather than one capable of an Objective reality?
I am not of state of mind at present to argue this fully, but it seems to me that if we care, if we have a choice, if we value some things like freedom or health over things that are their opposites, like life over death; then the end product is that their MUST be a Reality that defines one 'illusion' from another, or Truth from falsehood. Only that makes any sense at all, at least to my simple mind.
I suspect the Eastern philosophy of all-Universal Reality being Illusion had its roots in a Subjective ground foundation, so Maya Illusion, therefore, is itself the illusion of what is 'real'. But that is false, because we care, we reject falsehood, and Truth has an objectivity that transcends the Subjective ground foundation. In fact, this is the difference between a 'faith based' reality and one that is scientifically based, such as followed in Western philosophy (i.e., dogma vs. truth): Because we prefer life, we prefer the truth of an Objective ground foundation, rather than one based on illusion falsehoods. Which is more real? Truth or falsehood?... Think about it... But it doesn't answer if "Einstein was right again!" is really true, or just a hackneyed cliche.
Free speech upended
|Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 12:09 pm: |
Once upon a time there was something called Freedom of Speech. Now in the 21st century the 57 Islamic states in the United Nations of the OIC have successfully passed a resolution to ban free speech. Once upon a time, humanity dreamed of freedom... now the future is back to the past.
UN-acceptable censorship: The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam
|Posted on Friday, January 16, 2009 - 01:02 pm: |
Our world may be a giant hologram - New Scientist, 15 January, 2009
Curious thought, but then one reads the hyperbole:
According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.
If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."
In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface.
The "holographic principle" challenges our sensibilities. It seems hard to believe that you woke up, brushed your teeth and are reading this article because of something happening on the boundary of the universe. No one knows what it would mean for us if we really do live in a hologram, yet theorists have good reasons to believe that many aspects of the holographic principle are true.
Exactly how real is this latest cosmic illusion?
Hologram Artwork in MIT Museum
Put that in your Cartesian-space-time-coordinates of "Einstein's right again!" It seems the universe's super-intelligent computer is putting on a pretty good show. But then it gets really crazy:
Crucially, this provides a deep physical insight: the 3D information about a precursor star can be completely encoded in the 2D horizon of the subsequent black hole - not unlike the 3D image of an object being encoded in a 2D hologram. Susskind and 't Hooft extended the insight to the universe as a whole on the basis that the cosmos has a horizon too - the boundary from beyond which light has not had time to reach us in the 13.7-billion-year lifespan of the universe. What's more, work by several string theorists, most notably Juan Maldacena at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, has confirmed that the idea is on the right track. He showed that the physics inside a hypothetical universe with five dimensions and shaped like a Pringle is the same as the physics taking place on the four-dimensional boundary.
Throw in a few extra dimensions if the theory doesn't fit right, and voila! Forget the gravity waves... what's that?
Mixed pantheon gods
|Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 03:19 pm: |
Why not a pantheon of gods of all religions?
This is a response to "agnostic view" post on cosmology highlighting:
One can mix up any of the above gods with mega-religion gods, such as presented by Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Shiva, Mohammed, Baha-u-Allah, etc., and they come up as a similar pantheon of 'gods' for which the common people will morally act upon their belief-systems.
Taken globally, all religions are 'gods' to their own people who believe in them, so the pantheon of gods is very great indeed! Christians, Jew, Islamist, and all their sub-sects, including Hindu, Jain, Zoroastrian, animists, atheists, are all pantheists in their own way. Each religious 'god' is one more in that pantheon of world-wide religions, each claiming the right or superiority to all others. How is that different from the ancient pantheon of gods? Or how different from the cosmology pantheon, which should include dark-matter and dark-energy, or gravity-waves god? Mix it all up, it comes up the same!
|Posted on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 01:42 pm: |
Pantheism is still with us in the current belief systems of the world.
Pantheism - Yazidi image; Manichean priests, Persia; Heraclitus
Taken globally, all religions are 'gods' to their own people who believe in them, so the pantheon of gods is very great indeed! (from above)
Very good point, that taking humanity as a whole, we are still in a pantheism mode. With our prophets, saints, personality cult worships, legendary giants in history and science, gurus, humanity is still given to worshipping a pantheon of gods, both mortal and immortal, in their religious or popular beliefs.
This pantheism is also true for the sciences on a limited basis, though tempered by the requirements of hard real evidence as proof, and a system of continuous skepticism and inquiry as to the truth of what is being believed. Cosmology is a special case in science because we cannot at close hand examine and test our theories, so it is more easily given over to a quasi-dogmatic belief system as long as all the pieces of the theory fit together; especially if mathematically consistent, which in itself becomes the 'proof' of a theory. The problem with this is if an assumption or postulate is wrong, the whole body of the theory, no matter how elegant, becomes a large fiction in toto, a kind of cosmological pantheon (earlier posted). Some elements of this pantheistic belief system may be valid, and useful, but the justification for the belief system's total body of proof is per force invalid. Then, when these axioms or postulates are taken only on faith, the whole of the science becomes a belief system, usually based on the appeal of a few iconic individuals who made the original assumptions legend, and thus became accepted by the supportive masses. If the math works and is 'elegant' the theory is considered valid, though it may be false; any who then disagree with this belief system may be systematically ostracized by the 'science' community: If scientific inquiry tolerance is negated, it leads to false beliefs, and not science.
Albert Einstein supported World Pantheism; Religious Science emblem; Henry David Thoreau
So has humanity, as a whole, evolved beyond the pantheon of gods belief model? Have we really moved beyond ancient superstitions? It appears that though many believe they are in fact Deists, believing in one God, taken as a whole, the world is clearly pantheistic as a total global belief system. Largely, we have stopped persecuting people for their beliefs; though this is far from universally accepted today given the "war on terror" where fighting an intolerant and unrepentant enemy defines the 21st century. (In fact most of modern humanity has distanced itself from the religious superstitions and intolerance of the past, such as the Medieval Inquisition, or hatred of Jews, or witch hunts, religious hatreds, women degradations, the evil eye, etc., though regrettably not enough.) Those religious clerics who call for 'holy' war against non-believers are clearly out of step with modern humanity in their attacks on our human rights and freedoms of belief, of being Who we are; theirs is the clearest modern indication of pantheism gone bad, because they exhort their followers to coerce with force and violence all those who do not believe in their particular brand of pantheism. But it is all pantheistic superstition, nevertheless. The only way to break this evolutionary hold on humanity, our natural propensity to believe in a pantheon of gods, is to break this cycle of pantheism and hold only one true belief system based upon real evidential proofs that are thorough and incontestably verifiable: the Truth as scientifically derived, without the myths of magic or gods. This should be commonplace, and then humanity can finally evolve beyond its "war on terror" mode, and win this war. To get there from here, it will take a massive re-educational program world wide, where dogma-pantheism is put down, and the truth wins out.
It would be interesting to return a thousand years form now and see in which direction humanity finally evolved. Was it for universal Truth? Or did they regress back into a pantheon of new gods? What do we really believe?
|Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 12:41 pm: |
No Gravity Waves detected in Pioneer Anomaly in latest papers.
See Astronomy forum page: http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/70997-nasa-baffled-unexplained-force-acting-s pace-probes-10.html#post1423727
Toth and Turyshev do exhaustive analysis of RTG heat onboard the Pioneers in paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.4597v1 . They show the axis of spin is stabilized towards Earth (not sun) so anomalous acceleration from onboard heat recoil is towards sun, not Earth. Further analysis is forthcoming, spin analysis should be considered if spin-up or spin-down is anomalous, onboard heat may cause other considerations beyond mere recoil to effect Pioneer Anomaly.
This study neither proves nor disproves a Variable G hypothesis: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300
Quantum Logic Gates
|Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 08:21 pm: |
Quantum computation as geometry
Michael Nielsen is one of the world's leading experts on quantum computing. In a recent work he notes that "finding the best quantum circuit to solve a particular problem is equivalent to finding the shortest paths between two points in a particular curved geometry. Intuitively, this problem is like an orienteer or hiker trying to find the shortest path between two points in a hilly landscape, although the space we are working in is harder to visualize. There’s some technical caveats to the result, but that’s the general gist."
This is posted here with regards to the solution of the Billiard Problem and Work with Squaring of the Circle posted on this site. This work relates to the article above and as noted has implications for the design of quantum logic gates
|Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - 12:13 pm: |
Mars density is puzzling, if...?
Per this page in NinePlanets it shows the range of densities for 11 major bodies in the solar system, where density for Earth, Venus, Mercury is over 5 grams per cubic cm, while Mars, the Moon, and other moons are below 4 g/cc. This is strange especially because the gas giants (taken as total density including their very large atmospheres) show up as very low densities, For example, Jupiter's density is 1.31 g/cc, and Saturn's is only 0.70 g/cc, which is lower than water's density (on Earth) of about 1 g/cc.
Dust storm on Mars: how can it be so dense in an atmosphere about 1% of Earth's air density?
So if Mars' density is lower than Earth's, presumably for the same reason the Moon's is lower, it's because they are smaller bodies gravitationally, so formed less dense in the early solar system. But then when one sees an image like the one below and it becomes a wonder that Mars' planet density is so much lower than Earth's, since it appears to be as rocky as our world.
Mars rover Opportunity about to plunge into Victoria crater
One possible explanation is that the ratio of density between Earth's 5.5153 g/cc and Mars' 3.934 g/cc is about 1.40. This means that as a mass to volume ratio, Earth is 1.4 times denser per volume than Mars. But observations of Mars dust storm behavior, such as above and image of Martian dust-devils, and the rocky composition of the planet, as shown in Victoria crater, would lead us to think that possibly the density of Mars is greater than what we had calculated in relation to mass and volume. Our Moon is known because we had been there. Now we had been to Mars as well, but do we really know its density as a body? The answer should be a simple "Yes" because it works out arithmetically. But it may still be wrong.
The way it could be misleading us into thinking Mars' density is only about 70% of Earth's, while it might be closer to about 90% of Earth's density or more, is if Newton's G used to calculate Mars mass is not a constant. How can this be? Only if the gravity G factor at Mars is greater than at Earth's orbit. (The variable G idea had been discussed at length on this and other forums.) For example, if Earth-G equivalent at Mars was about 1.4, then Mars density would be 100% of Earth's density (3.934 x 1.4 = 5.51), which could be true if Newton's G is not a universal constant but grows with distance from our Sun at about 1G per 1 AU. Mars is about 1.5 AU, so a G nearly 1.5 times greater makes sense, except that we have no positive proof this is so. The only anecdotal evidence is such as stated above, and it seems to make the very low density giant planets more plausible if their higher G levels out the solar system's planetary playing field. So, bottom line, very low density may appear locally as higher density 'clumping' if the molecular structure in a higher G gives them greater density than calculated. But how to measure this?
Of course, this neither proves nor disproves a variable G scenario, but offers an alternative view only.
Our Moon's density is well known, being a local body with same G as Earth. But do we really know Mars' density? Does it make sense?
|Posted on Monday, February 09, 2009 - 01:22 pm: |
Listen to these primeval sounds in the linked image
BBC- Composer's Neanderthal recreation
Neanderthals are us?
|Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 01:03 pm: |
First draft of Neanderthal genome is unveiled (NewScientist, Feb. 12, 2009)
Early glimpses of the genome, which was sequenced by Svante Pääbo, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and colleagues, have already cast new light on the ancient human species that went extinct more than 25,000 years ago.
Previous mitochondrial analysis of Neanderthal DNA has uncovered no sign that Neanderthals and humans interbred sufficiently to leave a trace. A preliminary analysis across the new genome seems to confirm this conclusion, but more sequence data could overturn this conclusion.
A Neanderthal recovered in Spain, seemed to have the human version of gene linked to language development, Foxp2, leading some researchers to speculate that Neanderthals communicated much like humans.
The same individual probably had a gene mutation for type O blood and at least one copy of a mutation that, in modern humans, would produce fair skin and red hair - possibly an adaptation to a cold climate with little sunshine.
Distant cousins after all, once removed? Perhaps, if this study has any merit: Pintubi-1 skull, Current Anthropolgy.
This just in, BBC science news: Neanderthals gave us disease genes - and our pale skin, hair, and type 2 diabetes?
The last Neanderthal
|Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 12:21 pm: |
What killed off the Neanderthals? Was it climate change, or more complicated?
Principal sites showing most recent evidence of Neanderthals -BBC News
Professor Chris Stringer, of London's Natural History Museum: "For many years, people assumed that it was an overall superiority of modern humans: that modern humans were more intelligent, that they had better technology, or had more effective adaptations.
But an exceptionally cold and variable climate might have driven the disappearance of Ice Age animals upon which the Neanderthals relied for food.
In addition, climate change probably cleared Europe of its forests, creating an open environment that did not favour the Neanderthals. Had the role of our ancestors in the Neanderthal extinction been overstated?
In fact, it may have been a whole patchwork quilt of reasons why our very distant 'cousins' the Neanderthals became extinct as an early human species.
"I think what we have managed to show is, in a sense to simplify the equation, and I think we can be reasonably certain it was not the effects of abrupt catastrophic climate change and Heinrich Events were responsible. Now, that does not mean that climate was not involved at all.
"It is entirely possible that you had a combination of factors, perhaps competition from modern humans at a time of limited resources. Because climate is deteriorating at that time - we are moving into the glacial maximum. So resources are scarce, but, on the other hand, climate alone is not the most parsimonious explanation. So I think the jury is still out on the factors that may have been involved."
"It is quite sobering that at one point in the history of the planet, there were different types of us of which one - possibly by chance - survived. In other words, we might be the Neanderthals discussing this today."
It appears more complicated, as per this new study:
New findings: Scientists Identify Neanderthal Genes in Modern Human DNA (Scie-News, January 2014)
The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility.
Dr Reich explained: “this suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility.”
This male offsprings 'hybrid infertility' may be primary cause of Neanderthal extinction, along with other probable causes such as food supply competition, interspecies warfare (including possible castration of male captives), transmitted diseases and climate change. If so, the Neanderthal women's X chromosome transmitted most of the genes to modern humans, while their males' chromosome receded into extinction. All we have left is their pale skin color and straight hair in Europeans and Asians, along with some predisposition to certain diseases, like type-2 diabetes.
In love and war... We appear their descendants.
Ethics & markets
|Posted on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 12:54 pm: |
You can't deregulate criminality.
Global Downturn: in graphics - BBC
What would the Chicago Boys think of Stanford, or Bernie Madoff? Or Enron?
Free market economics can only work in a highly ethical environment of mutual trust. Thieves and rogues do not make a free market work, they steal from it and drive it into ruin. Don't they teach Ethics at university anymore? Or are we back to being primitive men?
Think about it. A crime is a crime no matter what is the regulations.
|Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2009 - 12:26 pm: |
Three things to consider on this issue of "who's in?" --(see "Last call" post above)
1) Is religion compatible with constitutional law, democratic principles, and natural rights of man (woman) of the Enlightenment?
2) Is the 'Separation of Church and State', or personal beliefs and law as future values for progressive society?
3) Are six points of 'Contest 2' compatible with our First Principles of the Judeo-Christian values upon which is founded our civilization?
This is a fulcrum point in history: Either humanity progresses forward upon the civilization foundations which came from our Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian civilization, that which gave us the Enlightenment, upon which were built modern constitutional representative government, and human rights of freedom; or humanity regresses back to the ancient paradigms of slave-like submissions to potentates and strong men who rule over us as subordinate subjects with no regards for our rights as individual human beings. Equality of humanity had been a long time in forming. Do we want to give it all up now to some ancient dogmas dating back to a 7th century mentality, when the master-slave paradigm ruled societies, women are held in contempt, where child slavery was common, raping and looting was religiously sanctioned, when homosexuals were called perversions and killed, when a show of joy and laughter was punished? Is this the 'morality' we want for our future generations?
This is a great moment in history.
After the Storm
|Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2009 - 02:34 pm: |
This site has hosted some of the greatest minds in current society. On it were explored concepts of philosophy, science, math, geometry, the law, religion and faith.
During the conversations, often heated, vastly different points of view dialoged.
For the most part all supported the concept of separation of church and state, progressive Western Judeo-Christian civilization and the need to balance the competing aspects of society such as religion, science and the law.
Much was learned during these discussions and it is fitting that this postscript be added as the site goes into cold storage and a new age dawns following the economic crisis that engulfs the world.
Where we go from here will be decided by the people under the rule of law in accordance with the rules of a representative democracy.
The old system, fueled by greed and individuality has failed us. Unchecked by the governments of the West, the titans of the financial industry have driven this planet to the bring of economic collapse and devestation.
For a time we sacrificed our freedoms to CEOs in the name of greed and to get a slice of the pie for ourselves. In many cases we were sold a bill of goods.
What comes now will be different than what went before. The core beliefs of the free market system and economic engine that powered the great economic expansion have been called into question.
Like the days before the first great war of the 20th century, great changes are in progress. The old guard in the fincial industry failed us and as a result will never be trusted again.
I suspect that after the economic pain fades this lesson will linger in the minds of generations from decades to come and that thos eon Wall Street, will go down in history as the mena nd women that almost destroyed a planets economy in the name of greed.
|Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:49 pm: |
Geert Wilders on Freedom of Speech: "Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left"
Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.
As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.
Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?
This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.
How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that - I quote - “Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.
Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?
Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.
Read it all.
|Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 12:19 pm: |
(interactive - video)
To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone) - Wiki
"Respectfully submitted for your perusal: a Kanamit. Height: a little over nine feet. Weight: in the neighborhood of three hundred and fifty pounds. Origin: unknown. Motives? Therein hangs the tale, for in just a moment we're going to ask you to shake hands, figuratively, with a Christopher Columbus from another galaxy and another time. This is the Twilight Zone." - (opening narration)
Sharing their advanced technology, the aliens quickly solve all of Earth's greatest woes, eradicating hunger, disease, and the need for warfare. Soon, humans are volunteering for trips to the Kanamits' home planet, which is supposedly a paradise.
All is not well, however, when a code-breaker discovers the Kanamits’ true intentions: Their book, "To Serve Man", is a cookbook, and all their gifts were simply to make humanity complacent, much like fattening pigs or cows before they are slaughtered.
Beware of 'good books' that promise to solve all your problems, they may be your last fare.
Are you being 'served'.. or 'ob-served' in your complacent submission?
Free speech 2
|Posted on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 - 12:38 pm: |
Freedom of Speech, Geert Wilders Welcomed in Washington
Geert Wilders Welcomed in Washington, Shows 'Fitna' at the Capitol (Human Events, March 4, 2009)
“Hate speech” doesn’t refer to obnoxious behavior that everyone will recognize -- calls to violence, racial slurs, etc. Rather, “hate speech” laws such as those advocated by the OIC -- with a willing audience in the Obama administration -- are tools to silence dissent and outlaw unwanted political opinions. Global jihadists are wielding those tools. “‘Hate speech,’” said Wilders, “will always be used against the people defending the West...
More on Wilders's speech in Sunshine State.
I had the privilege of living in Israel for a few years, and since then I have visited Israel many, many times. I love Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area – the Middle East – that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.
The so-called ‘Middle East conflict’ is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.
Read it all.
24 June, 2011, update. Chalk one for Freedom of Speech: Geert Wilders Acquitted in 'hate speech' trial.
|Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 02:07 pm: |
If you're old enough to remember... our days of innocence, circa 1959
Back and white TV, 5 minutes to 'boot' up
At the burger hop, 25¢ burgers
Simple days, the daily milk man
Battling the blackboard in school, "I will not..."
|Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 12:26 pm: |
A History of Optics and Modern Science, by Fjordman
This is necessary reading, especially for this reason:
(interactive - Wiki)
Ibn Sahl's manuscript showing his discovery of the law of refraction
"I had heard several people, even individuals otherwise critical of Islamic culture, state that the scholar known as Alhazen in Western literature in the eleventh century did important work in optics. Yet it was an indisputable historical fact that photography, the telescope, the microscope and other optical advances happened in Europe, not elsewhere. Exactly what did Mr. Alhazen do, and why did the science of optics stagnate in the Middle East, if we assume that the region played a leading role in medieval times? ...
Hero of Alexandria did some optical work, but arguably the greatest Greek optician was Ptolemy. Claudius Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, was a Greek mathematician and scholar who lived in Alexandria in Roman Egypt in the second century AD. Ptolemy’s work represented the culmination of Greek scholarship in several disciplines. Most people know that his great astronomical treatise, completed around AD 150 and later known as the Almagest, was the dominant astronomical text in Europe until the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, and even longer than that in the Middle East. It included and superseded earlier Greek astronomical works, above all those by Hipparchus from the second century BC. While geocentric (Earth-centered) Ptolemaic astronomy is widely familiar, some readers may know that he was an excellent geographer for his time as well. ...
After Ptolemy, the legacy of Greek Antiquity was passed on to medieval times, to the Middle East and to Europe. According to scholar F. R. Rosenthal: “Islamic rational scholarship, which we have mainly in mind when we speak of the greatness of Muslim civilisation, depends in its entirety on classical antiquity…in Islam as in every civilisation, what is really important is not the individual elements but the synthesis that combines them into a living organism of its own…Islamic civilisation as we know it would simply not have existed without the Greek heritage.” ..."
Read it all. This is a most important, fascinating history of Optics and the developments of modern science. Never mind Eastern influences on early science, it was the later Western influences that propelled the world into it modern future, while the old East stagnated itself in mind locked dogmas.
Jupiter & volcano plumes
|Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 12:16 pm: |
Volcanic plume spins counter-clockwise?
Very interesting discovery: Volcano plumes spin up a storm
"It is conventionally thought that a volcanic plume rises straight up and spreads out in a rough circle. But when Pinaki Chakraborty at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and colleagues studied hourly satellite photos of the 1991 eruption of mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, they noticed that the margins gradually separated into five lobes. They saw similar shapes in photos of five other volcanoes.
The team's calculations show that this is caused by anticlockwise rotation in the plume, which creates a centrifugal force that throws the lobes outwards. The rotation occurs due to interactions between the updraught of the plume and horizontal wind patterns (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature07866)."
Think back to Jupiter's giant red spot, how "interactions between the updraught of the plume and horizontal wind patterns", and it somehow begins to make sense: Jupiter's Red Eye is a giant raging volcano.
Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#Great_Red_Spot
(click to enlarge)
Note how it spins counterclockwise in the high winds upper atmospheric strata? This may indeed be a massive super volcano on Jupiter. However, how does the Red Spot compare with Jovian spin? From Wiki page:
The GRS rotates counterclockwise, with a period of about six Earth days or 14 Jovian days.
Something to think about... thanks.
|Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 12:27 pm: |
There comes a time to speak out for American freedom.
"Why should the west always adjust? If the Muslims of seventh century mindset want to participate on the international stage then they are the ones who must adjust.
Perhaps sending a dictionary in their own language might be a good first step since it is apparent that we do not have similar definitions for the same words. Also this idiot at the CSM needs to get a clue western civilization is worth defending and protecting, it is the very thing that enables him/her to write that fluffy bunny piece.
1 Clash of Civilizations:Something we have been dealing with for almost 1400 years, this is not new news.
2 Secular: As in values that are common to humanity, may or may not have religious foundations.
3 Assimilation: Yes you blend in and become something more than what you were, still unique, but now united by a common ideal and culture.
4 Reformation: This is for that which is not ossified. Something I fear has happened long ago to Islam. No I don't think reformation is a viable option for Islam, it needs to be broken completely. Why bother offering it as an option?
5:Jihad: No one can argue with an internal struggle if you are human you have experienced this.The theocracy of Islam has, today, in its present day interpretation,has a direct command to jihad. Jihadists are simply doing as their religion commands, time to admit the truth here.
6 Moderate: There is no room in a free society, plural or otherwise for pure Islam. It is the antithesis of such a thing. Those who do not practice pure Islam are always a liability to such a society. They can easily be called to the pure practice of this seventh century cult.
7 Interfaith/Multifaith: What a line of crap. How completely useless is this so called dialogue with Muslims. Unless a theology is criticized and dissected openly and publicly, there is no "inter" anything.
8 Freedom: Yes it means I am free to be licentious if I choose to be. Condi Rice once said "American freedom is for Americans" I whole heartedly agree.
Not everyone can handle this brand of freedom. It is apparent Muslims never will, so if they don't like American freedom they should pack their bags and leave. But make no mistake Americans will fight for their right to American freedom. I have no desire to see American freedom imposed by Americans on anyone. You want freedom, stand up and fight for it. It will be all the more precious if you spill your own blood and that of your children.
9 Religious Freedom: Is this not self explanatory? The most persecuted people on Earth right now are Christians and animists in Africa. Anyone and everyone should have the right to build, speak about, and celebrate their faith or lack thereof freely and without fear. Muslims are not oppressed they are oppressors. For the record I am Pagan.
10 Tolerance: Now why is it anyone's business how another believes? Why does faith or lack of faith have anything to do with trust? Is the integrity of an individual or community defined by religion?
I'm confused here, unless there is a totalitarian theology who's dogma expressly forbids tolerance, it shouldn't be an issue."
(Getting off my soapbox and going to bed)
From a commentary at: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025451.php
Read it all.
|Posted on Monday, April 06, 2009 - 12:30 pm: |
Earthquake predicting (2006 post by Ed) - revisited - also here.
Earthquake Warning Was Removed From Internet
Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for “spreading alarm” and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.
(interactive- La Repubblica, more photos)
BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7985958.stm
A desperate search for survivors is on in the mountain city of L'Aquila in central Italy after a quake killed at least 91 people and injured 1,500.
Radon gas may be a clue to future earthquakes? Any way to reduce such earth motion tragedy, to save us from such natural destructions and suffering, would be a great advancement in science. It may avert much suffering in the future, if so.
More here: Italian authorities dismissed quake warning
Also see: Earthquakes in 3D by Iris
tell us how
|Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 01:16 pm: |
Is the world a better place?
"shaped the world for the better"?
Cairo slave market
Slavery still exists today, maybe more than ever: Shadowy figures lurking on the fringe - CNN News video
Don't think modern day slavery is extinct. Quite the opposite is true, as per this article: The Dark World of the Arab Child Slave Trade, Front Page Magazine
Tell us if... how?
|Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 12:46 pm: |
Earthquake to hit Iran by end of April?
It appears to be this article's claim based on 'cloud' formations over an affected area, as described:
"Quake scientist predicts Iran will shake in late April"
(interactive -click image to earlier post by Ed)
See above earthquake predicting also.
According to Guo, the pressure that builds up in rocks before an earthquake causes electromagnetic disturbances which influence cloud formation overhead. The characteristic shapes can be seen in satellite pictures and act as an early warning signal of tectonic stresses.
Good call. April 30, 2009: Southeastern Iran just experienced 5.6 earthquake: Iran earthquake - as predicted?
|Posted on Friday, April 24, 2009 - 11:38 am: |
Predicting the next 'big one' - continued from above
Earthquake center -USGS
Are we getting closer to real time earthquake predictions?
This article seems to say we are: Detecting Earthquakes Before They Strike
Pretty cool if it can work, saves lives.
|Posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 01:08 pm: |
Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point by P. Horava
Wiki on E.M. Lifshitz
Another aspect of gravity which might be strongly affected by the anisotropic scaling at
short distances is cosmology. In the high-energy regime relevant at early times, the effective
speed of light in gravity models with anisotropic scaling approaches infinity, and the spacetime
manifold exhibits the preferred foliation by constant time slices. This modification of the laws
of gravity changes the notion of locality and causality in the early stages of the universe, and
can lead to new perspectives on the puzzles usually solved by inflationary scenarios.
Absolutely spellbinding paper on Lifshitz point quantum gravity theory. Read it all... if you can... and then 'renormalize' your brain.
Lifshitz Point -click for more images
Or, think of the condensed energy of the 'early' universe as "closer to the Sun", and the diffused energy of the present universe as "farther from the Sun", and the two theories merge easily into a more facile 'renormalized' theory of quantum gravity.
Your choice. For more on 'renormalization' see Wiki.
Deep space 'renormalized' gravity
|Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 01:02 pm: |
Test of the Big Bang: CMB per NASA's Universe 101 page.
(interactive - click image)
CMB per "Planck: The future of probing the past" - NewScientist
This is a follow up on earlier post: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/97.html#POST3172 , where the Boltzmann constant was applied to Earth's interior and black body temps.
"If Boltzmann's constant represents the electron, what is its macro equivalent represented by mass? So I did something, more a doodle, to figure this out. I know electron mass is m_e = 9.109E-31 kg. So dividing Boltzmann's number by this I got:
1.38E-23 J/K divided by 9.109E-31 kg = 0.1515E+8 J/K for kg. mass."
If 0.1515E+8 J/K is for kg mass, then multiply by CMB of 2.725 Kelvin, we get:
0.4128E+8 J for kg mass.
This might mean, thinking outloud, that this is the CMB energy equivalence in Boltzmann units, where in the CMB E=0.4128E+8 Joules.
What does that mean in terms of the Axiomatic Equation and G conversion for the CMB?
E = hc/(l*proton_m) = (1-g)c^2, as (kg'/kg adjusted), so that
0.4128E+8J= (6.626E-34*3E+8)/(1.32E-15*proton_m), so solving for proton mass, we get
proton_m = 3.648E-18 kg (for CMB mass at 2.725 Kelvin)
Can this now be configured into Newston's G equivalence?
G^2 = g c^2 pi^2, where Earth's g is proton-to-proton g=5.9E-39 for proton_mass = 1.67E-27 kg, so that the proton_m=3.648E-18 kg equivalent is:
5.9E-39/1.67E-27 = g'/3.648E-18, where
g' = 1.289E-29
So using this value to figure Newton's G in CMB:
G^2 = 1.289E-29(9E+16)(9.9) = 114.85E-13, or 11.485E-12
taking the square root: G = 3.389E-6 for deep space 'renormalized equivalence' gravity
Why is this significant? Because once more, it shows how (MOND) deep space gravitation Newton's 'constant' is some 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than found on Earth, viz. G=6.67E-11. This was also hypothesized in Mining 'deep space' gravity post, where deep space G (viz. G-deep space = 0.347E-6) was figured using the needed intergalactic G to redshift light at z. Is this another strange 'coincidence'? By this reasoning, it would appear that CMB is nothing more than the real answer to that old Olbers' Paradox, all ambient cosmic light redshifted at z.
Of course, if this is true, then the CMB temp is merely 'background' heat of the universe, deep space G is five orders of magnitude greater than here (aka 'dark matter'), cosmic light redshift is a function of deep space G (no space expansion, no 'dark energy', e.g, no Big Bang), and when Herschel-Planck's probes look deeper into deep space, they will reach far deeper than the alleged 'Big Bang' origin 13.7 billion years ago. Great times to be around.
Think about it!
|Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 07:58 pm: |
Per domain stats, so far this month: 24 May, 2009:
Viewed traffic: * 2750 Unique visitors; 6980 (2.53 visits/visitor); 20954 (3 Pages/Visit); 41063 (5.88 Hits/Visit)
*excludes robots, worms, etc.
So there are people reading from around the world, we're on all major search engines:
|Network.net 5236|| Commercial.com 4623|| Germany.de 518|| Russian Federation.ru 463|| Italy.it 361|
|India.in 317|| Slovak Republic.sk 196|| Israel.il 194|| Poland.pl 188|| Romania.ro 175|
|Thailand.th 131|| United Kingdom.uk 123|| Brazil.br 108|| Ukraine.ua 103|| Pakistan.pk 101|
Even China is in the top 30 (though their net is censored), not counting all smaller samples <100 here omitted. Does this make a difference? We don't know at this time, so stay tuned. We will leave this site open for as long as possible for future readers to visit here, ideally in perpetuity.
(Forum stats for 2008)
|Posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 - 01:06 pm: |
Are Blueberries on Mars a 'strange' life form? What are these 'perfect' little spheres, or spherules, made of?
(Video- Space.com - click image)
Mars Rover tracks through Martian 'blueberries'
If these Martian 'hematite' spherules are antiferromagnetic, then it may help explain why Mars' geomagnetism is turned off; it has become one giant Mars Faraday box. But there is something puzzling about that possible phenomenon, that is why would it happen on Mars but nowhere else? Venus or Mercury's lack of magnetic fields don't count because they have such minimal planetary spin; but Mars spins like Earth, so its magnetic field should be active... unless 'somebody' turned it off.
Opportunity finds billions of 'perfectly round hematite spherules' on Mars
Thinking outside the box, for sure, but those little blueberry like spherules may actually give us a clue about Mars' geomagnetic field, or lack of. This image of 'sands on Mars' shows tiny spherules gathering in cavities and blown around by the wind. Intriguing image, since it almost looks like scattering 'seeds' on what is otherwise believed to be a lifeless planet. (Mars blueberries average about 3-5 mm in size, which may be an optimal size for this kind of life, and small enough to be windborne to propagate.) But what if this is a life form we had never seen before, where it lives on oxidized iron, which it oxidizes in (mostly subterranean) water present, and... here is a real stretch of the imagination... magnetic rays are harmful to this life form. We know Earth's early proto-microbial life forms terraformed our world into a living habitat, mostly by locking CO2 into calcium carbonates and crustacean life forms in the oceans (especially primitive corals) and producing free oxygen from plant photosynthesis. These are then protected from the Sun's toxic radiation by our thick atmosphere and geomagnetic field. Could something akin to this have happened on Mars, where free oxygen was locked in by its life forms that used it to oxidize iron, with the opposite effect? It turned off the magnetic field? Also the 'perfect' round spherules is suspicious, since it does not happen of itself in inorganic matter, and may be biological in nature, where organic life has a greater tendency towards perfect round shapes than mineral formations, for example. But here, rather than seeking protection from the Sun's rays, it rather seeks protection from any magnetic field that would keep them out, and thus 'terraformed' Mars into a non-magnetic, solar rays rich bio-habitat.
It was this paragraph in Wiki article on Martian blueberries that made me think of Earth's sedimentary rock deposits:
If Earth's ocean corals and crustacean life forms gather up like so many skeletons in soil and rock formations, could these Martian blueberries likewise be the 'skeletal' remains of a hematitic life form, as a spherules fossil record? However, rather than locking in CO2 in its shell like structure, this life form locks in oxygen to produce what we see a hematite spherules. Blueberries may be Mars fossil records of life, perhaps? Or perhaps, it is still current life, though not as we know it; where here CO2 is left intact as a major component of Mars' atmosphere, but where the O2 is absorbed by its ferric 'life' forms.
Not only are there spherules on the surface but they are also found deeper in the Martian soil. The difference between these and ones which were found at the surface was that they had a very shiny surface, that created strong glints and glares which made them appear shiny or polished. On March 2, Opportunity mission scientists reported that they concluded a survey of the distribution of spherules in the bedrock. They found that the spherules spread out evenly and randomly inside the rocks, and not in layers.
Is this merely a flight of fancy, or could there be an alternate iron feeding life form on Mars, like nothing we know on Earth (Earth's hematite spherules mostly are not 'perfect' round spheres, and some 'concretions' locked in ancient sedimentary stone grow quite large, may be of now extinct 'bacteria colonies' origin), that thrives on direct solar radiation undiluted by a geomagnetic field, and when it dies it leaves behind those perfect little spherules? If this had been going on for millennia, then no surprise that these 'blueberries' would be found all over the planet, concentrated on some parts of it, and embedded deep within its soil and rocks; which are revealed in rocky outcrops just like fossil records of our ancient life forms on Earth. Strange idea to be sure, but it may be something to consider, that life on Mars is iron based.
There may be 'life' in them thar hills!
Eagle Crater panorama, Opportunity landing site
Also see PDF for comparison between Martian and Terran hematite spherules: MORPHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF MARTIAN SPHERULES, COMPARISONS TO COLLECTED TERRESTRIAL COUNTERPARTS. -with more 'blueberries' pictures
... "of bacteria"?.. something akin to stromatolites, or cyanobacteria?
Their scattered position on the deserty grounds, both on Mars and Earth, can be simply the result of the bedrock waethering, or maybe the distribution by water during a time of waterlogging. In any case, their development in both places are bound to the previous presence of abundant water and maybe that of bacteria.
If I may pose an interesting question, off the cuff: Could these spheroidal corpuscles been once a life form on Earth in its early fossil records, say 3 billion years ago, now extinct, and now are badly weathered and deformed? Could this process still be active on Martian subterranean crevasses today, in the presence of vestigial water? ... interesting... This could be 'life on Mars.'
See short 2-mins video of water flows on Mars: Possible Water Flows on Mars seen by NASA Spacecraft
Also see: CURIOSITY Mars Rover, with incredible panorama images (interactive panorama scanning) -2013
|Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 11:40 am: |
We were here, Inukshuk
- Video how Inukshuk is built
Photo from www.Canada-Photos.com (interactive -click image for video)
So it was a pleasant surprise to find these under Lake Huron: Stone Age hunting traps found deep in Great Lakes
During their summer hunts, Inuit families sometimes built stone piles, often in the shape of humans with outstretched arms. The Inuit call these sculptures "inukshuks." They marked good fishing sites, provided shelter from the wind, and sometimes offered a place for hunters to ambush caribou. On the wild arctic landscape they are often the only sign that humans have passed through, a symbol of the traditional Inuit way of life.
Another intriguing find was brought about by a lucky accident, says the team. While they were investigating the site with their remotely operated submarine, its trailing communications cable snagged on a stone. When taking the sub back to free the cable, the operators found that it was caught on another pile of rocks that were seemingly arranged by human hands.
The feature consists of a flat rock standing vertically on top of a pile of other stones. Meadows says it resembles an inukshuk – a type of "sculpture" used by modern-day Inuit to signal that they have been in an area.
'We were here' is our common humanity, everywhere.
|Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 11:07 am: |
Ancient Britain 'pioneers' at end of Ice Age.
Cave record of Britain's pioneers - BBC News
Interest in the site was stimulated by the discovery in 1903 of "Cheddar Man", the complete skeleton of a male individual dating to about 9,000 years ago (after calibration this comes to about 10,000 calendar years).
In the 1980s, excavations uncovered accumulations of human and animal bones and artefacts that appeared to be much older even than Cheddar Man. The discoveries caused a sensation when it was realised many human remains bore a pattern of cut marks compatible with cannibalism.
Cheddar Man was part of another wave of people into Britain
However, researchers were perplexed by the radiocarbon dating results. Although the remains seemed to represent a single occupation level in the sediments, the remains appeared to be a thousand years different in age.
"We had these apparently cannibalised human bones and artefacts and animal remains with signs of butchery. They all looked like they should be part of a consistent population pattern," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum.
It appears 'cannibalism' was endemic to our anicent ancestors, probably due to scarcity of food in Ice Age periods. However, this is not the only explanation, same as it may be explainable for other human cultures practicing cannibalism in more recent times. Anasazi butchery of human bones were found at Chaco Canyon, NM, for example. Mayan practise of 'blood letting rituals' also led to ritualistic cannibalism.
"There are large numbers of cut marks on them and they are almost entirely smashed. And that smashing looks remarkably like the patterns of breakage you get on the animal bones in the cave - which we have assumed to be for bone marrow extraction," co-author Roger Jacobi told BBC News.
But Dr Jacobi said this was not the only possible interpretation: "Another might be that the people were dying away from the cave," he posited.
"Other people are then making the human bones small and compact enough to bring them back to the cave where they are deposited. They cut off the flesh and smashed the long bones to make them more portable."
There may be more than we presently understand about the early Britons and other cultures, but cannibalism is now mostly universally abandoned. The post Ice Age must have been a very harsh time, so humans spread out in migrations to follow game, and each other.
Dense galaxy G
|Posted on Friday, August 07, 2009 - 11:40 am: |
High density G galaxy?
This discovery of high density, fast spin galaxy at 11 bly is puzzling to modern physics. But it is a natural phenomenon for the new emergent physics. Higher density G in lower Energy density galaxy makes sense.
Speeding Stars Baffle Scientists - AOL News
Somehow, high-mass galaxies from the young universe grow in size but not in mass – they spread out but maintain their overall heft – to become the high-mass galaxies we see today.
"It's a bit of a puzzle," van Dokkum told SPACE.com. "We think these galaxies must grow through collisions with other galaxies. The weird thing is that these mergers must lead to galaxies that are larger in size but not much more massive. We need a mechanism that grows them in size but not in mass."
So far, such a mechanism is elusive, but astronomers have some ideas. Perhaps these galaxies expand their girth by merging with many small, low-mass galaxies. Or maybe these galaxies eventually become the dense central regions of even larger galaxies.
"It could also still be that we are doing something wrong," van Dokkum said. "But I think at the moment you could say that the ball is somewhat in the court of the theorists. Hopefully they can come up with some kind of explanation that we can test further."
More galaxy mysteries
|Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:49 pm: |
Something about 'Super Massive Black Holes' at galaxy centers... and Dark Matter
Ghost galaxy NGC2915 (high HI, high DM)
Here are a some space science articles that may shed light on galactic black-holes:
1) 'Missing' galaxy black-holes found: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071025-missing-bholes.html
The newfound quasars confirm what scientists have suspected for years now: that supermassive black holes play a major role in star formation in massive galaxies. The observations suggest massive galaxies steadily build up their stars and black holes simultaneously until they get too big and the black holes suppress star formation.
2) 18 Billion solar masses galaxy found: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080109-aas-massive-black-holes.html
More massive than the sun, astronomers suggest today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society.
Even though researchers suggested black holes up to this mass might exist in quasars, this is the first direct confirmation of such a behemoth.The hefty gravity well is six times more massive than the previous record and is orbited by a smaller black hole, which allowed the measurement of the giant's mass.
3) Galactic black-holes spout polar jets of gas: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081124-mm-black-hole-bubbles.html
The researchers focused on the supermassive black hole at the center of the elliptical galaxy M84, which is about 55 million light-years from Earth. (A light-year is the distance light will travel in a year, or about 6 trillion miles, or 10 trillion km.) They combined data collected by NASA's Chandra X-Ray Observatory and results from a black-hole computer simulation.
They noticed huge bubbles, or cavities, of hot plasma (ionized gas) rising up from the tips of the black hole's pair of laser-like jets. (As material falls into the gravitational clutches of a black hole, the energy can be spit out as jets of radiation and high-speed particles.) They estimate the bubbles are about 13,000 light-years across and they are launched from jets about every 10 million years.
4) What do SMBH eat to become black-hole giants? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13932
Where did the universe's biggest black holes come from? One idea suggests the behemoths began as smaller "seed" black holes that gobbled up surrounding gas. But new computer simulations suggest these seeds were born with practically nothing around them to eat, deepening the puzzle over how the biggest black holes came to be.
Biggest super massive black holes ever, mystery deepens
Also see HC http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/475.html#POST4033 on Galactic 'Black Holes' mystery
Earliest Black Holes - Space.com
But early black holes were not expected to have this same connection. Astronomers predicted that such a connection would develop over time, as the black hole and its parent galaxy gradually reached an equilibrium.
This is simply because of the vast difference in sizes.
"The black hole grows in the center," explained Treister. "But star formation is spread across the galaxy."
For the two to equalize so quickly is surprising.
"Why this connection happens and how it happens so quickly, we don't know," Treister said.
But if they are endemic to galaxy formation, SMBH should be seen at all galaxies, except perhaps 'Dark Matter' galaxies that are not hot enough. Otherwise, when galactic stars shine, all their energy converges somewhere at its center, cancels all lambda there, and total gravity G takes over. Voila! Black Hole!
Also see: Very Early Universe SMBH - BBC: 'Monster' driving cosmic beacon
Detected by a UK telescope in Hawaii, the hole is seen as it was a mere 770 million years after the Big Bang.
...What is a puzzle is the scale of the black hole driving this quasar. It has a mass two billion times that of the Sun.
If standard theory of cosmology is to be believed, that galaxy black holes are formed from massive collapsed stars, the 'early' universe must have been hyper-active with star formation and collapse, if this super-massive black-hole is only 770 million years old after the 'birth' of the universe's Big Bang. ... It just gets crazier... So crazy it can't even be wrong.
Closing in on Early Dark Universe - Space.com
"If we assume dark matter is non-interacting, when people do simulations of the evolution of galaxies such as the Milky Way, there should be many satellite galaxies around it," Loeb said. "However, when people look at the satellite galaxy population of the Milky Way, they find much fewer than the predicted number, and the inferred distribution of dark matter inside these dwarf galaxies is very different than what is predicted for them as well. Perhaps dark matter behaves differently than expected."
Black hole binge could test general relativity - NewScientist
Einstein came out with his theory of general relativity in 1916. It describes how the effects of gravity emerge from the way space-time is shaped. …
Where relativity describes the universe at large scales, quantum describes the universe of the tiny, random particles that make up matter. Efforts to combine them lead to mathematical nonsense. "General relativity must fail at some level," says Cosimo Bambi of Fudan University in Shanghai….
Read it all.
LIGO null result
|Posted on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 12:19 pm: |
LIGO three years later... Null result, nothing there, no gravity waves... nada.
LIGO Hanford Observatory, searching for gravity waves
This is a follow up on this post: "Dead stars provide Einstein test", where his predicted 'gravity waves' were to be detected by LIGO. However, as the article below shows, nothing was found. But that was not a bad thing! Perhaps some newfound science will come of this effort.
Lack of Gravity Waves Puts Limits on Exotic Cosmology Theories - Space.com
This time, scientists are excited to find nothing.
In results announced today, a huge physics experiment built to detect gravitational waves has yet to find any.
Rather than be disappointed by the null findings, physicists say the results were expected, and in fact help them narrow down possibilities for what the universe was like just after it was born.
LIGO has only been running for a few years - the new results are based on measurements taken between 2005 to 2007 - and it is not yet at its highest level of sensitivity. The fact that this first period of observations did not detect gravitational waves allows researchers to rule out the possibility of waves above a certain amplitude threshold. Simply put, if there were any waves big enough for LIGO to have detected them, it would have. Since it didn't, they aren't likely to exist.
In particular, scientists are hoping to eventually find evidence for gravitational waves created by the Big Bang, the explosion thought to have begun the universe. According to theory, the Big Bang would have caused a flood of gravitational waves whose aftermath could still be seen today. This aftermath of many waves of different sizes and directions superimposed on top of each other, much like the chaotic surface of a pond after rain has fallen on it, is called the "stochastic background."
More on LIGO at Wikipedia.
But if there was no Big Bang, what's there to detect? This will go the way of SETI's search at radio wavelength signals, null results. Same with gravity if it is instantaneous, there are no 'waves' to measure. Most likely it is some sort of gravity related 'entanglement' as the communications channel of choice for ETs. But we don't have that technology yet. So... nada, nobody there. Likewise, the 'early universe' is a misnomer, no such thing if no Big Bang.
"Hello, hello... halo?"
|Posted on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 11:15 am: |
"Gravity has to be stronger than predicted by Newton." - NewScientist article
You heard it first here. Tell your friends.
Challenging Newton's description of gravity is controversial. But regardless of where the truth lies, the Milky Way's satellite galaxies have become the latest battleground between the proponents of dark matter and theories of modified gravity.
Indeed, so called 'dark matter' is just higher G ordinary (dark) matter. Variable G is all so much simpler in a simple universe.
This later NewScientist article brings up this issue again: Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories, that something is amiss re 'dark matter' in the galaxies, and perhaps our understanding of gravity is wrong.
'Coarse' sands of Mars
|Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 12:39 pm: |
The 'coarse' sands of Mars?
The Mars rover Spirit had been stuck in a sand trap for four months, and scientists on Earth are trying to replicate conditions here with a sandbox and duplicate robot rover. However, there is a snag, because Mars sands are 'different' from Earth's.
Here is what is significant in the story, that the same consistency of powdery sand on Earth is more coarse than same powdery sand on Mars:
One cause for the delay is the difference between the duplicate rover's performance in the sandbox and the actual rover's driving on Mars. The test bed contains a sand cocktail that supposedly approximates the flour-like soil in which Spirit is stalled.
But engineers noticed that the test rover actually did worse driving through the simulated sand than Spirit did during its last few drives on Mars.
"The loose, fluffy soil we have here on the ground is worse than what there is on Mars," Callas told New Scientist.
Engineers are filling a second test bed at JPL with crushed aggregate, a heavier, courser material. "It gives us a second data point," Callas says. "We don't know exactly what we have on Mars, so we're trying to explore as best we can with the resources we have on the ground."
Engineers will try to recreate the terrain that Spirit is stuck in at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, where similar tests were performed in 2005 (above) to help extricate Opportunity from a sand trap (Image: NASA/JPL)
The other condition is Mars gravity being lower than Earth's, so the duplicate robot in the sandbox weighs less to simulate Mars' gravity. However, that does not obviate Mars gravity G which may be about 1.5 times greater than Earth's. Mars 'sticky sand' may be a G equivalence phenomenon, where in Earth's kilograms Mars sand weighs about 2.25 times (1.5 squared) kilograms on Earth, making soft powdery sand more like granular sand.
|Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 01:17 pm: |
It may have been Zinc sulfide and Carbon dioxide stimulated by ultra-violet light, if this hypothesis is correct:
New Origin of Life Proposed: Zinc & Zap
Mulkidjanian's "Zn world" hypothesis presents a different version of the prebiotic Earth atmosphereâ€”one in which zinc sulfide plays a major role in the development of life. In nature, zinc sulfide particles precipitate only at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Its unique ability to store the energy of light has made it popular in many modern-day devices, from various types of television displays to glow-in-the-dark items (and zinc oxide is used in sunscreen).
Its ability to store light makes zinc sulfide an important factor in the discussion on life's origin. Mulkidjanian explains that, once illuminated by UV light, zinc sulfide can efficiently reduce carbon dioxide, just as plants do.
To test the hypothesis, Mulkidjanian and Galperin analyzed the metal content of modern cells and found "surprisingly high levels of zinc," particularly in the complexes of proteins with DNA and RNA molecules.
"We have found that proteins that are considered 'evolutionarily old' and particularly those related to handling of RNA specifically contain large amounts of zinc," Mulkidjanian says.
To store energy in zinc sulfide which process carbon dioxide in a 'photosynthesis' like manner makes sense as the original trigger to start Life, IMO. Can we still see this process somewhere on Earth, or another world, I wonder?
Furthermore, it is unlikely Earth's early atmosphere was mostly hydrogen, which is very light, given we live in a low gravity G distance from the Sun, and more likely it was mostly 'heavier' carbon dioxide, more like Venus, so this 'Zinc and zap' hypothesis makes more sense. The Sun's UV may in fact be Earth's living start, where our atmosphere was dense with carbon dioxide, later processed by living photosensitive organisms into oxygen, as in our atmospheric composition now.
|Posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 09:56 pm: |
'Cog Stones' are perhaps merely 'anchor stones' for ancient fishing nets?
There seems to be some controversy as to what these 'cog stones' actually represent.
Cog Stones at the Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, CA
See images at: Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast By Hilary Stewart.
See pages 85-87 for examples of how these 'anchor stones' were used by Northwest coastal Indians, which may not be too different from how their southern California cousins in the Organge County area used similar stones. However, here they were mostly notched around the perimeter, hence 'cogs' around the stone, rather than enclosed in a wooden frame, but served similar purpose as anchors for their nets. That these cog stones were found mostly in Bolsa Chica tidal flats or on the Santa Ana river near Costa Mesa merely emphasizes that they served a coastal waters purpose. As tools for fishing they were valuable to their holders, so likely notched differently for personal identification, to go with the owner's nets. Did these cog stones possess shamanistic magic? Probably not any more than any other artifacts of the period, though these were even buried with their holders when they died. So yes, they held some real material and spiritual value, if so.
There are some great pix at Indian Fishing with Net, to get an idea of how they may have been used.
Here is an additional interesting write up on the history and archeology of Cogged Stones, PDF: http://www.pcas.org/Vol34N1/341Krpr.pdf
Though, admittedly, I never saw one in situ, so only know of these stones from literature and museum sources.
|Posted on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 10:14 pm: |
Can you really stand an egg on the Equinox?
Today, Sept. 22, 2009, Autumn Equinox, the answer in at least one kitchen was "Yes", my own!
Here's proof, still standing after 45 minutes:
Egg standing upright on kitchen counter, with a glass of wine.
It was a cause to celebrate, especially since this Equinox day also generated a couple of Sun spots after months of inactivity.
Space weather page showing Sun spots, click image.
Something 'gravitas' is happening on the solar plane with Earth at Equinox...
|Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 12:23 pm: |
The Good Egg Equinox, the next day.
Egg next day having coffee
Next morning the egg was still standing upright defying breakfast, but it will be taken down by lunch, for sure. Neither mini-local earthquakes, my banging around, nor change in weather had shaken its resolve; nor dislodged its mini-tripod surface bumps that blemish the egg's hard shell. Nothing is perfect, not even in science, for the upright good humble egg has lodged itself into our urban myth, that on the Equinox it can stand up, and be counted.
Uhh... a clean counter helps, no salt added. Whimsy of course.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 01:56 pm: |
Europe's future: More Technology, not more people, to solve Europe's Aging Demographics.
Railway across Sudan --desert "railway to nowhere" -- I know it firsthand, where the slow moving train was packed inside, and I saw hundreds of young Sudanese men ride atop the slowly swaying train as we crossed the eastern Sahara on route to Wadi Halfa, the men looking for work in Egypt, or Europe (1987) - it was a hellishly hot tortuous ride, felt like 'nowhere'.
This is true for all developed nations, as much for Europe as the Americas, or Asian advanced economies, that we are all getting older. The consequence of our aging populations is that there will be less younger people to foot the bill for care of retirees, especially their health care and pensions, so an uneven economic distribution results degrading the quality of retired life, with possible negative impact on the health of our economies in the future; which itself may have damaging social consequences. The European Commission's Green Paper on Demographic Change warns that by 2030 the EU will lose 20.8 million (6.8 percent) people of productive working age. This will be true also in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, as well as in Canada and the United States. We are not replenishing our populations through normal historic birth rates, so are sliding down the slope of fewer workers to support more people as 'older workers' reach retirement age. (By some accounts in Italy there are some thirteen villages that are virtually depopulated.) And this is foreseen as a potentially serious problem for developed nations, how it will affect Europe's demographics, both culturally and economically.
The simplistic solution is to bring in more 'migrant workers', or as the EU Paper says (1.2): "ever larger migrant flows may be needed to meet the need for labour and safeguard Europe's prosperity", which is a challenge to integrate these new workers into the social fabric of their host countries. But this has proved problematic, especially if the immigrant population over time proves hostile to the dominant culture which has accepted them. The paper states further: "Given the demographic situation in Europe and its geographical environment, this immigration will also be intended to reinforce the population in general, and not only to supply manpower. This means that the admission mechanisms for third country nationals must be managed effectively and transparently, and proactive integration and equal opportunities policies must be ensured, in order to achieve a balance between the respective rights and responsibilities of migrants and host societies." In a perfect world, one where globalization allows for free flow of workers from around the globe, this idealistic solution with a well integrated migrant work force would not be an issue. But the reality of the past three or four decades shows there are population groups who had migrated to Europe who are either unable or unwilling to assimilate into the ideals of European culture. This becomes socially destabilizing, as recently shown in the Paris 'youth' riots in the banlieux, or rising tide of intra-European Jihad and its adjunct terrorism. A naive idealized melting pot of cultures as 'multiculturalism' may in fact prove detrimental to solving the demographic aging problem for Europe, and other developed economies, if this influx of migrant workers come from cultures inimical to our modern freedoms, especially if the imported culture sees these freedoms with suspicion and hostility. The change to the norms of European culture, the same culture that has been responsible for a Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment, with immense economic and social gains that had made their nations progressive and successful (as opposed to the persistently under-developed countries from which the immigrants came), is now at risk of being reverted back to a less developed era, perhaps by centuries. The end result is a destabilized Europe, which would also apply to other developed nations, and one where the very freedoms and philosophical foundations that enabled their successes, from freedom of inquiry to freedom of speech, and constitutional protections to our human rights equally; all of which are a necessity for technologically advanced societies, not to mention the arts and advanced education; would be thrown into chaotic disarray and all would suffer irreparable damage. More people may not be the right answer to aging demographics.
If European demographics are to experience violent cultural change in the coming decades, then bringing in 'more people' from less developed countries may not be the best solution, and in fact may be the wrong headed approach to the problem. A more level headed approach to the problem can be taken cue from Japan's approach, where increased robot technology replaces the aging work force. This does not of necessity apply to all developed economies equally, since some tend towards more manufacturing production while others more administrative or managerial, such as information technologies, but it is a direction worth considering in principle. The global reality is that economic and social progress followed on the heels of technological innovations, from the Industrial Revolution to modern global interdependence in finance, communications and productions termed 'globalization' as the engine for positive change in societies. This is still distributed unevenly throughout the globe, for both geographic as well as cultural reasons, so some societies remain agrarian while others modernized. But the underlying cause for advancement, even in farming productivity, has been technological capital to give greater yield output per man hour of labor. That is a fact, and all else to do with economic and social success revolves around this important point, that to better ourselves we must use better technology. We all excel differently, and some countries will find their forte in technological innovations, or medical advances, while others in robotic manufacturing or advanced farming techniques. This is part of the whole global picture, that each one will contribute wealth to the whole with what they excel in. And when societies work, this is not only possible but sustainable, that we all work together on a global scale. But where it does not work, where societies are in disarray such as seen in today's parts of Africa or Central Asia, there is a rising tide of violence against human beings' ability to function in a productive manner which results in mass scale social dysfunctions, religious wars, and debilitating mass graft and corruption undermining the public trust. This is also what the developed nations with aging demographics would import if they attempt to solve their problem through more people immigration. Technological advancements and innovation is the better solution.
Rather than add more people to the mix, and watching them mix poorly, or violently, it is far more sensible to restrict population inflows from less developed countries and export instead technological advantages the other way. So rather than import 'more workers for rich countries', Europe and the developed world should focus on better technologies. This brings forth new problems, especially with how to redistribute the wealth added by improved technologies to the population at large, both young and old, to ensure a viable economic system. Without a more enlightened distribution system social inequalities would prevail, which would then undo the gains made. How would the dividends produced by improved technologies find their way into the system, for example? Is it done through forced income redistribution, such as devised under a socialist program, or are there socially acceptable market solutions unhindered by coercive tactics (read 'bank failures' or Enron) so there is more equitable spread from the benefits of innovation. What role does government taxation play in this, or organized labor? Would a national wage insurance and retirement program, or national health care (already exist in Europe), be a way to address these needs? What will our Social Contract agreements allow in response to the new global reality of increased technological productivity, or export of productivity to less developed regions of the world? These are all 'think tank' and public policy issues, but they can and must be resolved in a productive way in this new age of universal information, or distribution of life supporting goods. Where does ecological preservation fit into this new technological age? There is precedent that it not only does fit in, but is a necessity, such as sustainable agriculture, or aquaculture. We are intelligent beings capable of finding solutions, not merely throwing more people at the problem, but by dealing with it in an intelligent focussed manner.
Japan may lead the way (interactive)
Rampant immigration to solve our aging population problems only compounds the problem in the long run. It is a short term, near sighted fix at best, a long term disaster. With better medicines and economic productivity globally, this will soon become a universal problem for the whole world, and we must begin thinking of it globally. Education and training should be at the forefront of this global aging phenomenon, especially in Europe. But this will soon be an Asian problem, and America's problem. Working longer years is only a short term solution, same as increased immigration, both unsustainable. In fact, there should be more jobs that are highly productive for younger workers, and it is their contributions, even if working fewer hours, with advanced technological change that will save the future from demographic social dysfunctions. More people is not the answer, but smarter people is. We can do it, we are intelligent enough to do it, and all it will take in addition to our collective brains is our social will to do so.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a demographic time bomb, as those "in need" will far outstrip those with ability to meet those needs - a demographic socio-economic disaster within a couple of decades - of wars and famines and cultural genocide. There must be a better way.
ASIMO by Honda (interactive)
|Posted on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 12:40 pm: |
About Giordano Bruno: www.giordanobruno.info/raccolta.htm
From "The Infinite in Giordano Bruno" by Sidney Breenberg, (1950,King'sCrownPress, NY.) pp: 154-163; Bruno writes:
"Everything is one; and the knowledge of this unity is the object and term of all philosophies and all natural contemplations..."Being one and the same (infinity), it has not one being and another being..."Unity and identity, I say (is) the same being..."
These ideas are not so far removed from those of Habeas Mentem, whereby unity and inifnity are expressed in the identity of all beings within this infinite unity. Bruno further writes, (Opere Italiane) pg. 71:
" That which is the universe, in relation to the universe, is throughout all, according to the modes of its capacity (interrelationship?) in whatever relation it may be to the other particular bodies; because it is above, below, innermost, right, left, and according to all local differences; and because in the in infinite, there are all these differences, and no one of them."
So Bruno, more a man of our times than of his, was very close to creating a philosophy of interrelationship where infinites define each and every part within themselves, and thus give them identity. To read more about Habeas Mentem please refer to the HumanCafe web page listed below. "In the end, it is all one."
No people on Mars?
|Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 12:47 pm: |
Desert varnish, like stromatolites, may be biological in nature, so Martian 'rock varnish' may be too.
NewScientist, Martian sheen:
It made sense to think that rock varnish had a chemical origin, since many similar-looking coatings were already known to form chemically. Silica glaze, for example, is one of the most common coatings and forms when silicic acid carried in dust and dew condenses onto rock surfaces.
Everything changed, though, when people saw the internal structure of rock varnish. Electron microscopic images taken by Randal Perry and John Adams at the University of Washington in Seattle in 1978 revealed an intricate layer-cake pattern, with black strips of manganese oxides alternating with orange layers of clay and iron (Nature, vol 276, p 489). No other rock coating combines this microlayered mixture of clays and metal oxides.
The implications here were enormous. This microstructure looked strikingly similar to that of fossil stromatolites - layered rock-like structures formed by ancient microbes as they collected sediments from seawater to build themselves a home. Though they still grow today in some isolated spots, stromatolites were one of the first life forms on Earth, dominating the fossil record from 3.5 billion years ago until about 600 million years ago.
[See Mars life? and Macro-microbial life, and Mars bio-blueberries posts on Humancafe forums.]
(interactive - NewScientist article)
Martian sheen: Life on the rocks
No people on Mars? Maybe living organisms moqui 'on the rocks'?
More on Mars' 'stromatolite' evidence of possible life: Mars site may hold 'buried life'
New 'Alexandrian' Calendar
|Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 12:07 pm: |
Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 02:27 pm:
The new 'Alexandrian' Calendar
Astrolabe, British Museum, London
Ancient Egyptians are credited with having invented the 12 month calendar used today, each month of thirty days, later standardized by the Romans, with necessary adjustments on certain months, and leap years. However, this seems a rather poor design that carried all the way into modern calendars without substantial improvements, except to realign it periodically with the astronomical year. The Egyptians apparently wanted to align their months with the lunar cycle, giving it thirty days (vs. 27.3 lunar cycle), but found they fell five days short in the end, so they simply tacked them on. This is the calendar mostly used today throughout the world (with some societies such as Orthodox Judaism and Islamic societies, as well some Asian cultures, or Aztecs in the New World, having their own calendar reckonings). Most of the world lives by the modern Gregorian calendar.
Today's twelve month calendar may have also been developed to accommodate astrological, Zodiac interests, which the ancient world valued, or perhaps designed by referendum of ancient mathematicians and sages, but it can be improved upon rather simply, to give it greater consistency with modern requirements of equal time per period. This is especially true in standardizing computations for interest, rates of return, and other accounting needs; as well as having a more fair calendar for wage compensation and holiday time off from work. Such a Calendar Reform had been proposed, giving it thirteen months of twenty-eight days, four seven day weeks, which tallies to 364 days per year; only one additional day is needed each year with a 'leap day' added to make 365 days, with an additional 'Bonus day' added at leap years. This makes it more equitable in terms of time periods than the current twelve month calendar, which is chaotic. Redesigning popular holidays, however, like the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Easter, Christmas, Passover, etc., would require some compromises, since they may not align on the same dates in the reformed calendar.
So what to call the new added month? Calling it Iskander, named after the ancient name for Alexander (the Great) would seem a good choice, but I would place it midway between June-July, so to split the calendar in two (which leaves the added 13th month less disturbing for existing holy days and holidays, in either half). The leap day needed annually could be added mid year, say in Iskandar, as an extra holiday (to preserve the days of the week consistent with same days of calendar, for all months), perhaps dedicated 'Goodwill day' where people do things of goodwill for others; or volunteer services for betterment of society (such as environmental cleanup, beautifications day, or charitable work helping the needy, for example). Every four years would be the leap 'Bonus day' added, to the last month, also a holiday dedicated to hopes and good wishes for the upcoming new year. This leaves mainly the problem of some holidays, like July 4th, which now falls into Iskander; the old calendar holidays can remain largely intact (except for those that fall into latter half of the year) and realigned with the new structure. The same solstice and equinox dates remain to de-mark the four seasons, though adjusted. The same week as before, with the Sabbath days unchanged. The end result is a symmetrical calendar that retains the same days of the week every year (except for Goodwill and Bonus free days) and greatly simplifies calendar time.
This new 'Alexandrian' Calendar would make good sense for the New Millennium as a natural calendar, to better standardize time. It's about time.
Earth and Moon
|Posted on Monday, September 20, 2010 - 02:21 pm: |
Earth and Moon in orbit
Tidal forces push our moon into higher orbit, though effects will not be visibly obvious for two billion years, diminishing inverse square law effect.
No worries, our Sun may be nova by then, a bigger problem.
|Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 01:56 pm: |
A New (Alexandrian) Simplified World Language?
Geoffrey Chaucer as a pilgrim in the Canterbury Tales
A new "international" World language can be devised, if certain rules apply to make it truly universally acceptable, in the same sense a new 'Alexandrian' calendar can be universally acceptable in the new Millennium. Or in the same sense a new "cosmology" or new world "secular ethics" can be universally applicable in modern times. Taking the Tao path, it would be a language that flows with the least resistance in terms of word-ease 'phonology', grammatical-logic, and poetic-beauty. This last is obviously a totally 'subjective' idea, but on a world scale, words have 'poetic appeal' and find their way into world vocabularies on their own. So without forcing a world language on the globe, there can be a natural evolution towards a universal "international" language, which in modern times of communications and travel, can evolve rather rapidly of its own impetus. This has already happened to some degree with world acceptance of English as a global language, though not officially declared as such, as more and more students around the world opt for learning English as a second language.
But there is one more issue that may help identify vocabulary, which we know is always changeable over time, as evolutionary in any language: the issue of "anagram" ease. This would mean that the largest vocabulary lending itself to introspective "anagrams", of words that communicate subconsciously to the hearers and readers of the language. For example: CAT -> ACT, or ONE -> NEO -> EON, or EARTH -> HEART, etc. So both phonetically and literally, the words lend themselves easily to some subconscious-anagram identity in the user's mind, even if not aware of this. English, at least to those of us who use it, lends itself easily to such anagram inversions, though it may also be true of other languages as well. Grammar is logical, based on Latin grammar, and word phonology seems acceptable to the world, as it is gaining in popularity in business transactions, media communications, science and technology, world-wide-web popular usage, travel and tourism, etc. But that does not mean English cannot evolve further into a "better" universal language, same as it originally evolved from Old English pre-Medieval times to Chaucer's Middle-English; its Pict-Anglo-Saxon-Germanic-Celtic-Roman-Norse roots to later Greco-Franco-Latin influences; to become the language of common usage we know today: Modern-English.
So language evolutions are natural elements of any language, and can be influenced consciously on a global scale with modern communications and technologies to better reflect and accommodate modern needs for a universal international language. Same sense as a new "Alexandrian" calendar can standardize marking time with better exactitude for modern needs, so could a new "Alexandrian" logical-poetic-phonetic language of new-Modern-English become a new-World-Language, borrowing freely from all world lingua franca in its future evolution as truly a universal class language.
It seems we're half way there already... except for the spelling! Viz. "ghoti" => fish. Perhaps Chaucer should have studied spelling from Dante?
|Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 08:59 pm: |
Working while you sleep… ZZZzzzzz…
Here are some links to the 'magic' of solving problems while we sleep:
- Art school in Trastevere, Rome. Sleeping beauty, working
I know for a fact this works, as many of my ideas came to me upon waking up, though some came as epiphanies while my mind was on something totally unrelated, or stranger still up at 30,000 feet flying over the planet and just staring out the window. The human mind is a wondrous thing, often most surprising what we discover.
'Working sleep' may be an important component of the earlier referenced Third, Universal Reason.
While You Sleep, Your Brain Keeps Working
John Cleese on how to put your mind to work, creative time -video (4 mins)
40 Facts about Sleep you Probably Didn't Know…
... So take a nap, and go to work.
Lying to protect...
|Posted on Friday, June 15, 2012 - 02:38 pm: |
Lying to protect...
Lies distort reality
There are times we are forced to lie to someone. Most often it is lying to protect the innocent from aggression. Of course we will lie to the enemy, it is fighting aggression with deception, a totally natural defense mechanism. We will also lie to protect our privacy, quite naturally, as it is to fend off unwanted approach. But lying to another for any other reason, it becomes problematic, and will often have unintended results which will do more harm than any good hoped. The most hurtful is lying to someone you love, in order to protect their feelings. The fall out is very damaging repercussions for both parties, for a twisted reality sets in for both. To the one being lied to, it is especially hurtful.
Within certain cultures, lying is permitted. For example, within the Arab culture there is a tendency for a man to lie to one's wife, almost a religion sanctioned duty, to not hurt her feelings. According to Cleric Sheik Mahmoud Al-Masri, in their scriptures it is said: "Prophet Muhammad said: "You are allowed to lie to your wife, but only about matters of the heart."" Such lying is then woven into the fabric of society, so lying "to protect" becomes a natural part of the culture, and now it works both ways, husbands lying to wives and wives lying to husbands, in order to 'fix' things in matters of the heart. But this kind of lying is not restricted to any culture. All around the Mediterranean there are cultures where bending truth, or 'creative' lying as a matter of principle, is not condemned if it is done right, even admired. Considering the Arab conquests extended from North Africa to Spain to Italy, to Greece and all of former Byzantium (click #2), lying to either make peace between parties, or to protect their feelings, may be ingrained into the fabric of the region. This is notoriously decried by some women, that their men will lie to them 'in matters of the heart', about having lovers, about money matters, about romantic feelings, etc. But in today's gender liberated world, women do the same thing. Lying is a modern two way street. But what happens when one lies to protect the feelings of another?
How easy is to lie to someone you love, to protect them? The truth about deception is that it is relatively easy for humans to lie, almost instinctive. It is also a natural human tendency to lie in order to avoid confrontation. If a lie will protect oneself from a fight, it is understandable. However, there is conflict between when the truth is hurtful and is avoided, or denied, in order to protect oneself (the 'right to privacy' issue), while at the same time this self-protection is damaging to the one being lied to, in order to protect them from the hurtful truth. The person lied to is thrown into confusion, especially if this is someone who deeply cares for you. Do you risk believing them, or do you confront them with evidence of the lie? So the liar, in order to protect oneself from confrontation is no longer 'protecting' the other, but instead is hurting them by either withholding the truth, or plain lying about it, so making the other the fool. This is especially a dilemma for when husband and wife are confronted with a lie. If you care deeply for your life partner, do you lie to them in order to protect yourself, and your partner, from the unhappy consequences of the lie? Or do you eventually face the truth, because the end result of lying to the other is unhappiness and deep hurt? This is a no-win situation, because once the lie is installed, neither party benefits. Contrary to the cleric's claim above, that in 'matters of the heart' it is okay to lie, lying on any level (except to protect the innocent from enemy aggression), there is no cultural justification for lying; it is inherently wrong. Further, the lie injects a poison into their relationship, so the natural loving trust they enjoyed is now darkened with suspicion and contempt.
There is a bigger issue at stake here, when it comes to lying in order to protect the feelings of another, especially if this is someone you deeply care for. Love is very much a matter of trust, but once that trust is violated the person's sense of reality is thrown into chaos. It is said that 95% of lies will never be discovered, so the odds vastly favor the liar. Except, the truth is still more powerful, because it is reality. So the universal order of things puts the odds in reverse, where the virtue of truth once it is discovered makes a 95% chance that the reality of it will correct damage of the lie. On a spiritual plane, lies hurt psychically in ways we do not understand, because truth is being violated deep down inside, for both the liar and the one lied to. The victim may know they are being lied to, but does not have the information with which to confront the lie; while the liar knows in their heart they are lying, and now must continue the lie in order to protect themselves from the guilt they feel inside; the liar is 'boxed in' by the lies, so pathologies set in. There is psychic hurt all around, though the liar may choose to ignore it. But it hurts both of them. Once the lie takes root in their souls, the natural love they felt starts to slip away, where even to touch the other physically becomes uncomfortable, so a coldness settles into their relationship. This coldness is happening at a universal plane, where the reality of their love for one another is thrown into jeopardy, and slowly the love turns cold. This is a much bigger issue than cultural differences of opinion on whether or not it is okay to lie to your spouse, since it now enters deep into their respective psyches, and all reality responds on levels we still cannot understand. So where lying was ostensibly to 'protect' the other from hurt, the end result is a much deeper hurt than we sought to avoid. Do not be a victim, by empowering lies. The reality of it is that lying, at any level except to protect the innocent from aggression, is deeply hurtful and damaging to human beings. Lying to 'protect' the other from hurt is terribly wrong. It should be shunned, replaced with true sincerity and respect for the other human being, to preserve their trust. We deserve no less.
It is not the thing being lied about that is so hurtful, as the lie itself. Whatever happened can be forgiven, and when people truly love one another, it usually is. Give it time. Forgiveness is the greatest test of love, but the perpetuation of the lie is an eternal hell for both of them. Lying hurts. Does one forgive a lie? Like in "love the sinner, not the sin", if the lie comes from weakness, then "yes". Though it hurts, we must forgive the lie.
Also see: 'Sherlock Holmes' and the nude model (fiction, short story)
World illusion as Bullshit
|Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2012 - 10:04 am: |
World of Illusion, when a liar's answer is in fact "bullshit".
As philosopher Harry Frankfurt puts it:
"The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides … is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it … "
In his essay On Bullshit, (originally written in 1986, and published as a monograph in 2005), philosopher Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University characterizes bullshit as a form of falsehood distinct from lying. The liar, Frankfurt holds, knows and cares about the truth, but deliberately sets out to mislead instead of telling the truth. The "bullshitter", on the other hand, does not care about the truth… A quote from Philosophy Now, on moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt's book:
Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception, whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’, as the essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is necessarily false, but bullshit is not – bullshit may happen to be correct or incorrect. The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies.
As Frankfurt describes it, such nonsensical rhetoric is unconcerned with truth and so, unlike a lie, has license to be panoramic, unconcerned with context.
The user is endeavoring to bluff, and the desire for effect is paramount. Whereas lying is austere and rigorous because it must triangulate against truth, nonsense loses, and loosens, the grasp on reality. Therefore, lying is the tool of choice of the weak, as it gives them power they do not otherwise possess. The weaker one feels, the more empowering it feels to lie. But it is an illusory power, one that feeds self-deluding doubt. Denying the power of truth, only weakness remains. Lying is the last weapon of the weak.
So when confronting a LIAR, your question should NOT be 'is this true?' NOR 'is this false?' BUT - 'is this BULLSHIT?'
Therefore, the Bullshitter is always evasive, will never answer a direct question, does not even lie about it, but just talks fabrications of evasive, panoramic nonsense, talking around the subject, with little respect for the truth of what is being talked about. A classic bullshit retort is: "What question? That is not even a question." Then the answer is simply "Bullshit".
Why universe mathematical
|Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 09:21 am: |
Why Universe is mathematical?
The universe exhibits a mathematical foundation, so its fundamental laws govern its activities with surprising precision, and why the language of modern science is mathematical in principle. Going back to the ancient Greeks there was the idea that geometric forms have universal applications in describing reality, which can be expressed with mathematical equations. Perhaps first defined by Galileo, along with Francis Bacon, the effective founders of modern scientific inquiry, measurements and observations can be given mathematical expression to describe real phenomena, itself a revolutionary idea. This idea was further developed by Isaac Newton with his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica to write equations to define with precision and applicability forces of nature, such as gravity, motion and optics, including calculus. Kepler and others further applied the methodology to astronomical observations and had since been carried over into many scientific disciplines, i.e., Maxwell's electromagnetism, Quantum physics, the Standard Model, Einstein's General Relativity, astronomy, statistical analysis, etc. The language of Science had now become firmly mathematical. But why so?
The answer may lie in the basic idea the Universe is totally interrelational, that a simple geometric relationship defines every part of a whole in terms of the interrelated interconnections that compose that whole. Everything is where and what is everything else, so if taken to infinity, it can not be anything else; everything is as the 'pressure' of everything else, geometrically determined, has over time allowed it to be. Though the mathematics describing this "interrelationship" may still be lacking, perhaps nearly impossible due to its complexity, the system defines how every part of the whole is given definition in terms of the whole, to infinity. At bottom, this is a mathematical idea, one which can describe any interconnected system in reality, and one that describes it in elemental terms of its mathematical 'definition' from everything else in toto. If so, then the Universe is inherently mathematical, right down to the Quantum level, and up to infinite cosmological dimensions. Because of its inherent complexity, we default to statistical understanding of it, though the universe defined it in 'real time' constantly and infinitely. But this concept carries over into how universal laws can be modeled algorithmically, and what makes such laws of nature mathematically predictable. Once we discover mathematical expressions for physical laws, they describe with great numerical precision natural reality.
Where this precision fails, perhaps, is where the mathematical expression is incomplete. If the math is faulty, the chosen axioms false, then the expected results will disappoint. This is especially true of large complex systems like forecasting weather or the economy. We simply cannot write equations with total certainty, so we default to statistical analysis, where only an approximation can result. The precision is still there, only we cannot define it exactly. But the Universe can! In its interrelated totality, it already does at every instant in time.
This leads to another phenomenon of mathematics, where our reliance on its real applicability runs up against its incompleteness. It may be totally logical in how constructed but, as Goedel's incompleteness theorem shows, it may not cover every possibility within itself, and thus nor within reality. So if the universal reality is seen only through mathematical expression, something may be missed as to what that reality actually is. Same as ideal geometric forms fail to match reality, so would their perfect mathematical expressions. The universe is too messy, too complex. Therefore, mathematics cannot be totally relied upon to describe all natural phenomena, and it is disingenuous to think it can. Mathematics in physics is basically reductionist, rather than foundational, in how it describes natural reality. But it can be their surprisingly good numerical representation. Best case, we only have a good approximation, predictable to a degree, but the Universe already worked it out totally mathematically, and exactly.
In all, mathematics cannot be expected to totally define natural reality, as it is too complex. But it can distill principles which can be expressed in algorithms to give us a relatively good idea on how works the Universe. That is the beauty and elegance of mathematics! And if so, then the Universe is simple.
Isola Tiberina, Rome
See also: The Three Forms of Reason
Zero times Infinity equals One
Plato's Legacy transcended
Math is a language
Form of Beauty
|Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - 01:46 pm: |
The Form of Beauty
(interactive - short video)
Luis Ricardo Falero reclining nude
There is something universal in humanity's love of beauty. We are all cosmic beings, both in our personal desires for beauty and in our sexuality. The same beauty exists in nature and the wilderness, where we wrote earlier:
There is something in us shared by all, that beautiful things both human and natural create a harmony in us, so we find it beautiful. It is the same for human sexuality, that we find it beautiful. Sex is an intensely personal thing, where we share the body, and our yearning, with the warmth of another human being in a totally intimate contact, of touching and kissing, where the closeness of one comes into deep contact with the being of another, intertwined in the act of love. This sexual contact is a beautiful thing to us, no matter the sex, nor gender, when mutually consentual, as love can be as intimate for opposite as well as same sex intimacy. We are all human beings capable of sexual love. This beauty of love is both in the body as well as the mind, both spiritual and sensual, as a font of intense emotional pleasure because we are intimately human.
The wilderness, life, beauty, is our connection with something deep inside ourselves.
We access such human beauty both in our subjective mind, what we intuitively know to be beautiful, and in our universal mind, what nature's harmony creates its beauty. These are the Living Fountains in a simple universe open to all of us, if we choose to see it. We then wrote:
Through the ages beauty had been personified as our social consciousness, our soul to soul connection. It is all part of our universal life of a totally interrelated, emergent universe. Life is beautiful, infinitely so, because this is Who we are.
Creating beauty: Not all art is beautiful, sometimes it needs to tell an ugly story. But when focussed on beauty, or beautiful prose or music, it brings out a spiritual feeling that transcends the ordinary, and communicates that same feeling to its recipients. Perhaps that is what defines "beauty" in the first place, that it connects us somewhere deep within ourselves into that 'emergent' Mind of the universe, so it moves us, and others admire the work. When a sculptor brings life to form, or a painter sees with the soul, we see it and we 'know' it instantly. It is beautiful.
Adam and Eve, after the fall
Who wrote William Shakespeare?
|Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2014 - 02:27 am: |
William Shakespeare enigma - Who wrote 'Shakespeare'?
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon
Actors imitate life. But what about writers? There had been brewing for nearly four centuries as to who actually wrote the Shakespearean plays. Could they really have been penned by the son of an illiterate glove maker and wool merchant, rudimentarily educated at the grammar school of his small agricultural town, a London stage actor who had never traveled abroad? In The Enigma of William Shakespeare, it says: "All of Shakespeare's belongings were carefully listed on is three-page will, without any mention of books or manuscripts. Were they left to Susanna, his elder daughter? If so, they would surely have been distributed among her descendants. Intrigued by this mystery, an 18th-century cleric checked all the private libraries within an 80-kilometer radius of Stratford-upon-Avon without discovering a single volume that had belonged to Shakespeare." Indeed, where are his works, his sonnets and poetry, and his monumental creations for the stage? In fact, most plays were published after his death (1616), after 1623, but originals were never found. Nor did Shakespeare leave any books of any kind.
We know from William Shakespeare biography he was baptized 26 April, 1564 at Holy Trinity Church of his home town, Stratford-upon-Avon, but nothing is known of the date of his birth, as records were not kept then. He was educated at the local grammar school, so he could read and write, perhaps learned some classics. After marriage to Anne Hathaway from another small village, and three children (1583-1585), Shakespeare seems to have dropped out of view for a few years before resurfacing as a horse attendant for some of London's theaters. In 1592 there is then evidence he earned a living as an actor and playwright in London, and later became a successful business man. Within five years, it is said 15 of the 37 plays written were published (1597), and by this time he was able to purchase the second largest house in Stratford, a remarkable feat for the son of a simple leather merchant. By 1600 his writing theme seemed to have changed from comedies (A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado about Nothing, As You Like It), to more historical inspired stories (Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth), so he had evolved as a playwright, now very far removed from his simple grammar school education of his home town. He died April 1616, though the burial took place on the 5th, the date of death is on the 23rd by tradition, but it is in fact unrecorded, so unknown. So mystery shrouded his last days as they had his beginnings, and in his will to his daughter Susanna, which instead of voluminous written works he had created, merely consisted of "All the Rest of my Goods, Chattels, Leases, Plate, Jewels & Household stuff whatsoever after my debts and Legacies paid & my funeral expenses discarded" as listed in his Will; his wife Anne only got his second-best bed. Could this be the same William Shakespeare who wrote all those erudite works left the English speaking world, and the whole world in translation, for generations to marvel at his eloquently brilliant mind, one at home in the subtle mannerisms of court life, with intimate knowledge of the Classics, history (Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Henry V, Hamlet), foreign lands (Merchant of Venice, Two Gentlemen of Verona), and the tragedies of their times (Anthony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear); and we be not left wondering who exactly was the playwright who on his Last Will and Testament barely signed his name (William) Shakspeare? That a writer's signature varies, or appears illegible, is hardly a case against him. Or was it perhaps not him at all, but that another 'Shakespeare' was the true playwright?
There are doubts that 'Shakspere' wrote Shake-Speare: no letters written by him were ever found. The same question was made in the recent film Anonymous (2011), which though a work of fiction, raises doubt of Shakespeare's authenticity as the author of his famous plays. In the story, the authorship is credited to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who took great pains to conceal his identity, and instead the plays' authorship was assumed, with the help of poet and playwright Ben Jonson, by a stage actor, William Shakespeare. Upon further scrutiny this in fact does not hold up, as this computer analysis repudiates alleged authorship: Was the Earl of Oxford the True Shakespeare? Oxford had too many mismatches to conclude he could have been the real author behind Shakespeare's plays, as did Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe; Sir Walter Raleigh came in closest in matching, but this does not conclude his anonymous authorship; William Stanley was not mentioned. In fact, there are many contenders offered, perhaps hinting at a colossal coverup of the true identity of some of the greatest literature the world had ever known. But there is one theory that sort of makes sense, on some elementary level, that the works of the London actor turned business man, who is globally knows as the playwright William Shakespeare, not the man, may be a composite figure, hidden behind the veils of that Elizabethan era notion, where gentlemen of aristocracy were deemed inappropriate to write vulgar stage plays to amuse the masses, as it was beneath their dignity, unworthy of their station in life. But like all forbidden things, therein lies the greater attraction, that to write, however secretly, lends prestige and humility to the author. Prestige because it is only in the privileged circles of those who know, and should know, that the truth circulates; while humility, not to crave attraction, but the opposite, to hide from view, so the general public does not know. That is, in some reverse snobbery for the select, the ultimate achievement of genius, that its authors remains anonymous. And if nothing else, Shakespeare's plays are true works of genius.
Let us indulge in some speculation, that the works known to us as the plays and sonnets of 'William Shakespeare' are the product of collusion by two, and perhaps three, authors who had sworn to remain 'anonymous' as was the privilege of their rank. By contrast to our modern age, where anyone can seek popular adulation, from presidents to Rock Stars, that there is no shame is seeking such stardom, the Elizabethan age, especially amongst the aristocracy, saw such public attention to be considered vulgar (though stage acting was all the rage). But if the works are spread between fellow collaborators who are initiates into the secrecy, then their labors gain value for their valor rather than their populous appeal. That there would be applause from the audience is assumed, if the works are good. So based on this supposition, who could have worked with whom, to produce works for the stage of the highest caliber possible, unimpeded by social gossip or convention? They would have had to be gentlemen in the truest sense of the word, well bred and educated, and they would have known each other. They were writing not for public acclaim but for literary legacy, to be remembered 'anonymously' forever, because of their great work. That is pride of the highest order, and swashbucklers like Sir Walter Raleigh would not likely be accepted; these members would have held high office, not chasing El Dorado, and been keenly aware of the responsibility of their office. But it is also a pride that had to be kept private, or else in their age, their positions, they would have garnered scorn. So who could they be?
These are people who William Shakespeare would have liked to know, and perhaps because of his association with London theater, he may have known some. But they are not likely to have accepted him into their inner circle, he being a commoner of limited education and means, so if he knew them, they made no case of it; he was never mentioned. In fact, when Shakespeare died, no one made news of it, nor was his funeral attended, which is odd for so great a talent if it were him. So the first person struck from the list is Mister Shakspear himself. Sir Walter Raleigh as mentioned was too much the adventurer, more suited for later centuries to open up the Americas, or the Arctic. A likely prominent literary figure of the age was John Milton, author of Paradise Lost and the Areopagitica (1664), but he came late, born 1608, died 1674, so he likely was not there. Furthermore, his writing was verbose, whereas Shakespearean plays are economical, full of wit. Of the four primary candidates often mentioned, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Robert de Vere, and William Stanley, two had associations with London theater. These two were William Stanley (1561-1642), 6th Earl of Derby, who sometimes signed his name "Will" or W.S., and Edward de Vere (1550-1604), 17th Earl of Oxford, who sponsored and patronized companies of actors, and also was a poet and playwright; Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) does not fit the profile, and Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who could be a candidate. Mentioned also were secret societies, like the Rosicrucians, or Freemasons, or myriad other candidates; but this is dismissed off hand, as it is an unnecessary red herring. But Ben Jonson (1572-1637), the poet and playwright, knew Shakespeare, had cast him in his first play (Every Man in his Humour), though he may not have known the others, except casually at the theater. So the process of elimination casts out Milton, Raleigh, Marlowe, and Jonson. This leaves three names: Edward deVere, William Stanley, and Francis Bacon. If there were others, they remain lost to history; except perhaps _5th_Earl_of_Rutland, Roger Manners (came later -1576, died early -age 36). But these show promise, at least superficially, that they may have been collaborators. Let us look as some positive and negative aspects to this hypothesis.
There are two criteria that may further reduce the candidates of real authorship of Shakespearean plays, besides education and aristocratic breeding: travels abroad and friendship with the theater, or each other. Milton traveled abroad, both to France and Italy, so he appears a likely choice, except he came too late, born after Shakespeare plays had already made the stage. Both Edward de Vere and Francis Bacon had traveled abroad (unlike William Shakspear), and both had been to France and Italy. The 17th Earl of Oxford, De Vere traveled abroad in 1575 with Queen Elizabeth's letters of introduction to foreign monarchs; Francis Bacon had traveled to Italy, places like Rome, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Pisa, Verona, and Padua, so he knew of those lands, including France, Paris, Poitiers, Tours. However, _6th_Earl_of_Derby,William Stanley also traveled to Italy and France, and Egypt, as well as Damascus, so there is that connection. Remembering Derby also had a theater connection puts him in a better light; Francis Bacon wrote plays for the court. So these three are coming together on this issue of travel, especially the Italian connection prominent in Shakespeare's plays. Othello, for example, starts in Venice but moves to a military encampment in Cyprus; Anthony and Cleopatra is set in Rome and Alexandria, Egypt. If one's travels set the stage, then both William Stanley and Francis Bacon have the travel history; De Vere's travels were mainly Italy and France, but not Africa, which could weaken the 'Oxfordian' argument. But the question remains: did they know each other?
There is evidence that Edward de Vere and Francis Bacon knew each other; both were members of the Elizabethan court, and both were brought up at the William Cecil's mansion on the Strand after Queen Elizabeth appointed Cecil as Master of Wards (1558), the queen's chief minister. It is noteworthy that William Stanley married Elizabeth de Vere (1595), daughter of Edward de Vere and Anne Cecil. So they all knew each other, rather intimately. Also noteworthy was that Elizabeth de Vere was reputed to have had an affair with Sir Walter Raleigh, the adventurer. If so, this was a triumvirate that had turned into a family affair. All these names seem intimately interconnected in life, so why not on paper? Especially, if there is a social prime directive in Elizabethan society that gentlemen do no write vulgar stage plays, under penalty of censorship (later argued against by John Milton), or treason, and there is this strong passion for theater, then why not write furtively, secretly, and make the world your stage? Travels abroad, court intrigue, suppressed passions, put it all on paper, and watch the people laugh, or cry. That must have been the reason why William Shakspear was not William Shakespeare. The evidence, though not hard evidence but circumstantial, points to a triumvirate of writers comparing notes, drawing on shared experiences, and tongue in cheek, like a writing team writing sit coms, writing about the vagaries of the world they knew. William Shakspear of Stratford-upon-Avon did not have the depth to do this, nor the travels, nor the education; but these three did. And they had fun doing it. On the negative side, the controversy of who wrote Shakespeare had attracted quacks and pseudo intellectuals who perpetrate 'conspiracy' theories and only add to popular mythology. (Another negative often mentioned, was Shakespeare's last play, believed written about 1610-1611, titled The Tempest, written after De Vere died (1604), and is believed to be patterned after the wreck of Sea-Venture off Bermuda (1609); however, the play is set in the Mediterranean, with the Duke of Milan and King of Naples, so remote from Bermuda in the Atlantic; and the other two could have written it.) And what of the afore mentioned computer analysis, that Earl of Oxford, or Francis Bacon, had too many mismatches? Could the computer misread? Except for the Oxfordian and Baconian proposals, the rest can be dismissed as geomancers.
Oxford, Bacon, Derby, and Marlowe (clockwise from top left, Shakespeare centre) have each been proposed as the true author
But that leaves the question: whose hand wrote it down? Until hard evidence shows up, and these three, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, and William Stanley are only 'persons of interest', we cannot know who penned the Shakespearean plays, nor sonnets. Perhaps all three shared manuscripts? (The other group was a theater crowd: William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and possibly Christopher Marlowe, as these were younger, more involved in writing plays or performing on stage.) Though the mystery deepens, and haltingly unravels, the question of authorship is still an unknown. Who wrote? Did William Shakspear of Stratford write it? Unless he was hugely self-educated, it is highly unlikely (the killing blow is he had no books, no manuscripts, not even letters). Did Sir Walter Raleigh participate? Probably not, his adventurous spirit might have been a risk. Was Ben Jonson in on it? Not likely either. So who was William Shakespeare? At this time, unless it was all three of them, we still cannot know.