-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Weird
- Start date
- Status
‘Breathtaking’ adjustments to Arctic temperature record. Is there any ‘global warming’ we can trust?
by James Delingpole7 Feb 2015
Here’s a video that you absolutely must see.
Not, I hasten to warn you, because it’s exciting, well-produced or informative; rather, because of the fascinating light it sheds on the debate about global warming in general and also, in particular, on the ongoing controversy about whether organisations like NASA and NOAA are playing fast and loose with the world’s temperature data sets.
According to the video’s creator and star, Dr Kevin Cowtan, the latter suggestion is a nonsense. Using charts of South American and global temperatures, he painstakingly refutes suggestions by Christopher Booker and also (though tragically I don’t get a mention) by me that there is anything suspect, let alone corrupt or fraudulent, in the adjustments that NASA and NOAA have been making to the raw temperature data from weather stations around the world.
If you stumbled on it by accident on YouTube I think you’d be quite persuaded. Cowtan’s tone is soft and reasonable; the science, as he presents it, seems to stack up: a) there are perfectly valid reasons for these adjustments, to do with homogenising the raw data when it looks out of kilter with neighbouring but possibly more accurate weather stations, and with the changing nature of measuring equipment and b) the adjustments are, in any case, minor – altering the raw data by no more than 3 per cent.
When you Google “Dr Kevin Cowtan” he appears reassuringly neutral in this affair. He works in the Department of Chemistry at the University of York, his current speciality being X-ray crystallography. A proper scientist, then, with no dog in this fight. Or so it looks until you scroll down a bit and see that his other area of research is “climate science.”
My climate science research focuses primarily on problems which are relevant to the public understanding of climate science. With my colleague Robert Way I have been investigating biases in historical temperature record from weather stations. Our primary work concerns temperature change over the past two decades. The main temperature record providers show a slowdown in the rate of warming over this period, however when biases in the temperature record are taken into account, we find that part of the slowdown disappears.
I am also involved in climate science communication, and am contributing to a massive online course run by the University of Queensland. I can offer undergraduate projects in this area for students who are interested to develop science communication skills.
So, not a neutral party after all then, but someone who depends for part of his livelihood on the lavish funding available in academe for those who promote the climate “consensus.” Perhaps, in the interests of full disclosure, he might have mentioned this detail on his YouTube biography. But I mean that only as a very mild and largely inconsequential criticism. What matters is not what Cowtan does for a living (“the motive fallacy”) but whether or not he has got his facts right.
And according to this counterblast from Dave Burton – a US computer programmer, sea level specialist and IPCC expert reviewer on AR5 – he hasn’t.
Burton’s key point is this: where Cowtan claims that all NOAA’s adjustments have done is increased warming by a modest 3 per cent, in actuality they have increased it by 35 per cent. So, far from Cowtan’s assessment that these adjustments are “inconsequentially tiny”, they are in fact quite massively distorting.
Might it be that they reached such wildly different conclusions by using different data? Er, no. Burton reached his conclusions by creating a spreadsheet with decadal data digitized from the exact graph used in Cowtan’s video.
Now I appreciate that in the context of the broader climate debate this might seem a trivial dispute. But I’ve been at this game long enough to be able to assure you that these faux rebuttals like the one offered by Cowtan are absolutely integral to the ongoing survival of the alarmist ‘consensus.’
As far as the warmist propaganda machine is concerned it really doesn’t matter two hoots whether or not Cowtan has got his facts right. What matters is that whenever the inconvenient subject of doctored temperature data crops up again, the alarmists have their ready-made get out. From a proper actual scientist. So he must know – right?
You can be sure that, if it hasn’t already, Cowtan’s dodgy rebuttal video will soon be linked to by the usual warmist sockpuppeteers in the comment threads below every relevant article. What none of them will mention, of course, is the Burton counter-rebuttal to the Cowtan rebuttal. Integrity has never been these people’s strong point. It’s winning the propaganda war that counts.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the case for a fraud trial against the climate data record gatekeepers seems to be getting stronger and stronger.
Paul Homewood, the blogger who noticed the discrepancies with the Paraguay temperature records, has now turned his attention to the Arctic region. His conclusion after studying the charts before and after is that the scale and geographic range of these adjustments is “breathtaking.”
In nearly every Arctic station from Greenland in the West to Siberia in the East, the data has been adjusted to make the warm period in the 1930s look cooler than it actually was. This, of course, has the effect of making the Twentieth Century warming look much more dramatic than the raw data would suggest.
Will this scandalous apparent evidence-tampering ever get much coverage in the mainstream media? It certainly ought to. Think about it: if Homewood (and Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard, et al) are correct, then what it essentially means is that the entire global warming scare has been sold to us on a false prospectus.
But it won’t, of course, because the mainstream media – in large part, at least – remains wedded to the Man Made Global Warming orthodoxy and therefore only really likes to run stories that prove how totally wrong, evil, and swivel-eyed climate change deniers are.
For example, this story in Nature, which sought to explain away one of the most embarrassing problems the warmist camp has been suffering of late: the abject failure of their fancy computer models to have predicted the planet’s failure to warm since 1998.
According to the lead author of this widely reported study, one Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, it dealt a fatal blow to the sceptics’ case that the warmists’ computer models were a waste of space.
Unfortunately for Marotzke, his case has now, in turn, been demolished in this article by Nic Lewis.
Professor Gordon Hughes, one of the statisticians who reviewed and confirmed Lewis’s findings has commented thus:
“The statistical methods used in the [Marotzke] paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.”
Damning indeed.
But here’s a prediction. The rebuttal won’t receive nearly the coverage that Marotzke’s original inept paper did.
....just an example of previous posting...
Well I don't believe in any of the Billy Meier claims myself but in fairness to what my friend told me, it wasn't the alien race doing the communicating that supposedly went to war because of religion. It was a separate race of aliens. As I understand it there are multiple alien races that have visited earth according to what was told to Billy Meier. Each for varying reasons or agendas.
I just find the idea amusing given the fact that several times in human history man has also gone to war over religion.
Any who refuses science shall be deemed heretical and shall be subjected to torture and/or death. All in the name of Science of course.
Too laborious to cut and paste all the pictures and graphs but you get the idea.
VR and AI use fractal algorithms to recreate reality.
How special is that.
http://www.mandelbrotgenetics.com/
Mandelbrot Genetics
by Jeffrey Ventrella www.Ventrella.com
Read the Chapter:
Evolving the Mandelbrot Set
to Imitate Figurative Art
in this book
What the hell is this black thing? It looks like a squashed bug in the road. It's quite ugly in fact. But wait a minute. Hold on. It's not ugly. Look more closely.
The images below are high magnifications of the boundary of this thing that we thought was just a squashed bug. They are colorized to make it easier to see the many levels of fractal self-similarity. Because of this endless variety of form, this thing - the Mandelbrot Set - has been called the most complex object in mathematics.
So, depending on how you look at this thing, it can be quite beautiful. In fact, I might even say it's a little bit too beautiful. All this Psychedelic Baroque - it makes me want to do something subversive.
As a young art student, I had a huge appetite for abstract expressionism and surrealism. I would gaze at the paintings of Francis Bacon, Robert Motherwell, and Arshile Gorky . I would marvel at their ability to mix beauty and ugliness in a way that forced my brain to see the world more clearly - more intensely. These artists would paint forms that lay somewhere between abstraction and representation. Gymnastics for the eye-brain system.
Perhaps because the Mandelbrot Set is rather ungainly (when seen in its whole, rendered in black, as it often is) my curiosity was aroused.
When considered as a tool for visual expression, I think the Mandelbrot equation has not yet sufficiently been given a good workout - tweaked, molded, deconstructed - using the tools of visual language. To embrace the Mandelbrot Set is to fall in love with the simplicity behind its incomprehensible complexity. And in doing so, an artist can lose the sense of irreverence that is sometimes necessary to pull something out of context and expand its vocabulary into a new domain. I decided that this would make an interesting challenge. This thing that is so thoroughly complex, exhibiting organization and variety as to create near religious admiration by mathematicians and novices alike - what a great candidate for the subversive act. The Big Tweak.
Epiphany
My discovery of fractal geometry revealed for me a whole new kind of code for the complexity of nature. It initially pulled me out of the visual language space, and caused me to pontificate on the nature of Numbers, the nature of Nature, and the way complexity comes into being. After the hangover of an intoxicating love-affair, I realized that something deeper than mathematical elegance had to be explored.
Fractal Geometry tells us something about process. And this process might in fact have something in common with human creativity and art-making. Thus began a journey for me in discovering ways to use this rich medium for visual expression, where visual language and mathematical language are merged as a single poetic form.
Genetic Code
The Mandelbrot equation is z = z2 + c, where z and c are complex numbers and c is a location in the complex plane being tested. The function is applied many times, with the output value of z from each iteration being used as input for the next iteration. During iteration, if the value of z exceeds a magnitude of 2, then iteration halts and we declare that location in c as outside of the Mandelbrot Set (white). Otherwise, c lies inside of the Set (black).
If the function were iterated only once at each c, the result would be a round shape, analogous to a single cell before subdividing into a multicelullar organism. Each time the function is iterated, the approximation of the Set becomes more refined, and the boundary reveals more bays and peninsulas. Fractal self-similarity increases.
If instead of squaring the value of z, you cube it (z = z3 + c), the result is the form shown here.
Many variations on the function have been explored, and the result is many kinds of "Mandelbrot Sets". These show how much variation there is in the world of iteration in the complex plane. Fractal explorers such as Clifford Pickover have created some pretty cool variations.
In order to implement the Mandelbrot function in a normal programming language, you have to handle the real and imaginary parts of the complex equation, and thus, you end up with code like what is shown below. The exposure of these real number variables sets up the conditions for the subversive act - an act that pulls the equation out of the realm of complex analysis, and tweaks the Mandelbrot Set in ways that are less mathematically understandable, yet visually evocative.
The Mandelbrot Set
Genetic Visual Language
As a part of the fractal journey that began in the mid 80's, I had generated a large series of images of a specific treatment of the Mandelbrot equation, resulting in a variety of organic, gestural forms. See my Mandeltweak web page for more examples.
My total mutilation of the equation caused a mathematician who specialized in the Set to disregard my explorations as completely outside of any legitimate analysis from the standpoint of Complex Analysis.
I took this as a sign that I was on the right track, and continued to mutilate the equation, exposing more and more parameters that enabled visual treatment, each parameter representing an adjective - a descriptor - of some visual concept. Little did I know that my irreverence to the mathematics would ultimately make me appreciate it more.
Everything Spins in the Complex Plane
Multiplication of two complex numbers results in rotation in the plane. This may account for the many circular and curvilinear features in the Set. Curiously, even when the function is genetically tweaked as to pull it out of the realm of complex numbers, it still maintains some of the spinning dynamics, as indicated by many of the remote magnifications of these tweaks.
Multidimensional Genetic Space
The relationships between these genetic variations is intriguing, similar to the way Richard Dawkins originally described the biomorphs in his Blind Watchmaker program. Dawkins' notion of a "Genetic Space" inspired me to create an art piece that was displayed at Galery Naga in Boston.
To distinguish my Mandelbrot Art from what so many others were doing (Psychedelic Baroque) I decided to forget about color entirely, and render my images in GRAY-SCALE. Its all about form - morphology.
Using a Genetic Algorithm
Any time you have a set of computer-generated images whose variety can be encoded as a large set of parameters, you have a good candidate for using a genetic algorithm to search the large space of possible images. So I used a variation on the genetic algorithm to interactively search for cool artworks.
Then a question came up: what if I used an image (say, an image of my face) as a fitness metric, to find out if the Mandelbrot Set could be coerced into taking on the appearance of my face? So I developed a way to compare a 50x50-pixel Mandeltweak to a 50x50-pixel image of my face. I then generated a population of Mandeltweaks, each based on a unique genome. A genetic algorithm was used to find Mandeltweaks that most closely-approach the likeness of my face.
The fact that the Mandeltweaks were not able to accurately approach my likeness, and the fact that they have their own genetic signature, which is not at all human - this made for some strange images - looking like a human head at first glance, but upon closer inspection, showing a non-human genetic signature.
Convergence
The scheme is as follows: A population of genomes is created, which starts out completely random. Then, random genomes are chosen from the pool to mate and create an offspring, using crossover. The offspring genotype is used to generate a new Mandeltweak, which is compared to the ideal image and given a fitness value. The new offspring replaces the least-fit individual in the population. This process is repeated many times. Over time, the average fitness increases, as well as the similarity to the ideal image.
It's interesting to note that even though it is common for a Mandeltweak to reach around 90% correspondence (using a pixel-by-pixel comparison between the Mandeltweak and the ideal image), we (humans) can easily tell that these do not look like faces - much less like my face. There are two main reasons: (1) the limitations of the Mandeltweak to visually imitate anything accurately, and (2) the fact that we (humans) have such sensitive facial recognition abilities.
Mandeltweaks have particular attributes that make them unable to evolve to emulate all possible images - although they can approximate certain images to some degree. This brings to mind the plasticity of the phenotype space of real-world organisms. No amount of dog breeding would ever create the likeness of a jellyfish. And certainly there is no way you could breed a dog to look like an icosadodecahedron.
Running Tests
I ran some tests to see how much my Mandeltweak system could converge on recognizable shapes. I included a special tweak based on "Mandelbrot cubed" (which includes many more genes) to see if its larger phenotype space would have any more imitative abilities. And I found that it didn't. Also, since the comparison algorithm does not consider image 'features', many of the distinctive aspects of the image were not picked up, such as eyes, legs, and fingers. And it wasn't able to imitate Mickey Mouse's face, which might be good, since I don't want to get sued by Disney.
Imitating...the Mandelbrot Set?
I ran one test to see if the Mandeltweak system could find its 'mother'. Surprisingly, several tests I ran could not converge on it - even though the Mandelbrot Set exists in this phenotype space. But it tried! The illustration below shows that the population was able to approach the form of the Set, but the most-fit tweak ended up being rotated almost 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and it formed a proboscis that it used to mimic the period-2 bulb of the Set.
I had a suspicion that the "angle gene" - the one that allows a Mandeltweak to have any arbitrary rotation - was the culprit. So I clamped that gene to keep the whole population of tweaks at the default oriention, and ran another test. It quickly found its mother. Everyone was happy.
Consilience
In March '09, the three tweaks below, will be exhibited at the Pence Art Gallery in Davis, California, as a photographic trilogy called, "Fractal Self Portrait".
Here is the accompanying statement to this work:
Math is an unlikely medium for self-portraiture. But I have a special relationship with the Mandelbrot Set - regarded as the most complex object in mathematics. It is a magic piece of clay - pregnant with infinite form. I have tried to coerce it into imitating images of my face, using a genetic algorithm technique that I developed. The fractal details are re-adapted into face-like features. From a distance, one sees references to human heads. But there are obvious signs of a genetic signature that is not human. This is a methodology of genetic mimesis - inspired by evolutionary biology.
In March of 2009 I began developing higher-resolution images.
VR and AI use fractal algorithms to recreate reality.
How special is that.
http://www.mandelbrotgenetics.com/
Mandelbrot Genetics
by Jeffrey Ventrella www.Ventrella.com
Read the Chapter:
Evolving the Mandelbrot Set
to Imitate Figurative Art
in this book
What the hell is this black thing? It looks like a squashed bug in the road. It's quite ugly in fact. But wait a minute. Hold on. It's not ugly. Look more closely.
The images below are high magnifications of the boundary of this thing that we thought was just a squashed bug. They are colorized to make it easier to see the many levels of fractal self-similarity. Because of this endless variety of form, this thing - the Mandelbrot Set - has been called the most complex object in mathematics.
So, depending on how you look at this thing, it can be quite beautiful. In fact, I might even say it's a little bit too beautiful. All this Psychedelic Baroque - it makes me want to do something subversive.
As a young art student, I had a huge appetite for abstract expressionism and surrealism. I would gaze at the paintings of Francis Bacon, Robert Motherwell, and Arshile Gorky . I would marvel at their ability to mix beauty and ugliness in a way that forced my brain to see the world more clearly - more intensely. These artists would paint forms that lay somewhere between abstraction and representation. Gymnastics for the eye-brain system.
Perhaps because the Mandelbrot Set is rather ungainly (when seen in its whole, rendered in black, as it often is) my curiosity was aroused.
When considered as a tool for visual expression, I think the Mandelbrot equation has not yet sufficiently been given a good workout - tweaked, molded, deconstructed - using the tools of visual language. To embrace the Mandelbrot Set is to fall in love with the simplicity behind its incomprehensible complexity. And in doing so, an artist can lose the sense of irreverence that is sometimes necessary to pull something out of context and expand its vocabulary into a new domain. I decided that this would make an interesting challenge. This thing that is so thoroughly complex, exhibiting organization and variety as to create near religious admiration by mathematicians and novices alike - what a great candidate for the subversive act. The Big Tweak.
Epiphany
My discovery of fractal geometry revealed for me a whole new kind of code for the complexity of nature. It initially pulled me out of the visual language space, and caused me to pontificate on the nature of Numbers, the nature of Nature, and the way complexity comes into being. After the hangover of an intoxicating love-affair, I realized that something deeper than mathematical elegance had to be explored.
Fractal Geometry tells us something about process. And this process might in fact have something in common with human creativity and art-making. Thus began a journey for me in discovering ways to use this rich medium for visual expression, where visual language and mathematical language are merged as a single poetic form.
Genetic Code
The Mandelbrot equation is z = z2 + c, where z and c are complex numbers and c is a location in the complex plane being tested. The function is applied many times, with the output value of z from each iteration being used as input for the next iteration. During iteration, if the value of z exceeds a magnitude of 2, then iteration halts and we declare that location in c as outside of the Mandelbrot Set (white). Otherwise, c lies inside of the Set (black).
If the function were iterated only once at each c, the result would be a round shape, analogous to a single cell before subdividing into a multicelullar organism. Each time the function is iterated, the approximation of the Set becomes more refined, and the boundary reveals more bays and peninsulas. Fractal self-similarity increases.
If instead of squaring the value of z, you cube it (z = z3 + c), the result is the form shown here.
Many variations on the function have been explored, and the result is many kinds of "Mandelbrot Sets". These show how much variation there is in the world of iteration in the complex plane. Fractal explorers such as Clifford Pickover have created some pretty cool variations.
In order to implement the Mandelbrot function in a normal programming language, you have to handle the real and imaginary parts of the complex equation, and thus, you end up with code like what is shown below. The exposure of these real number variables sets up the conditions for the subversive act - an act that pulls the equation out of the realm of complex analysis, and tweaks the Mandelbrot Set in ways that are less mathematically understandable, yet visually evocative.
The Mandelbrot Set
Genetic Visual Language
As a part of the fractal journey that began in the mid 80's, I had generated a large series of images of a specific treatment of the Mandelbrot equation, resulting in a variety of organic, gestural forms. See my Mandeltweak web page for more examples.
My total mutilation of the equation caused a mathematician who specialized in the Set to disregard my explorations as completely outside of any legitimate analysis from the standpoint of Complex Analysis.
I took this as a sign that I was on the right track, and continued to mutilate the equation, exposing more and more parameters that enabled visual treatment, each parameter representing an adjective - a descriptor - of some visual concept. Little did I know that my irreverence to the mathematics would ultimately make me appreciate it more.
Everything Spins in the Complex Plane
Multiplication of two complex numbers results in rotation in the plane. This may account for the many circular and curvilinear features in the Set. Curiously, even when the function is genetically tweaked as to pull it out of the realm of complex numbers, it still maintains some of the spinning dynamics, as indicated by many of the remote magnifications of these tweaks.
Multidimensional Genetic Space
The relationships between these genetic variations is intriguing, similar to the way Richard Dawkins originally described the biomorphs in his Blind Watchmaker program. Dawkins' notion of a "Genetic Space" inspired me to create an art piece that was displayed at Galery Naga in Boston.
To distinguish my Mandelbrot Art from what so many others were doing (Psychedelic Baroque) I decided to forget about color entirely, and render my images in GRAY-SCALE. Its all about form - morphology.
Using a Genetic Algorithm
Any time you have a set of computer-generated images whose variety can be encoded as a large set of parameters, you have a good candidate for using a genetic algorithm to search the large space of possible images. So I used a variation on the genetic algorithm to interactively search for cool artworks.
Then a question came up: what if I used an image (say, an image of my face) as a fitness metric, to find out if the Mandelbrot Set could be coerced into taking on the appearance of my face? So I developed a way to compare a 50x50-pixel Mandeltweak to a 50x50-pixel image of my face. I then generated a population of Mandeltweaks, each based on a unique genome. A genetic algorithm was used to find Mandeltweaks that most closely-approach the likeness of my face.
The fact that the Mandeltweaks were not able to accurately approach my likeness, and the fact that they have their own genetic signature, which is not at all human - this made for some strange images - looking like a human head at first glance, but upon closer inspection, showing a non-human genetic signature.
Convergence
The scheme is as follows: A population of genomes is created, which starts out completely random. Then, random genomes are chosen from the pool to mate and create an offspring, using crossover. The offspring genotype is used to generate a new Mandeltweak, which is compared to the ideal image and given a fitness value. The new offspring replaces the least-fit individual in the population. This process is repeated many times. Over time, the average fitness increases, as well as the similarity to the ideal image.
It's interesting to note that even though it is common for a Mandeltweak to reach around 90% correspondence (using a pixel-by-pixel comparison between the Mandeltweak and the ideal image), we (humans) can easily tell that these do not look like faces - much less like my face. There are two main reasons: (1) the limitations of the Mandeltweak to visually imitate anything accurately, and (2) the fact that we (humans) have such sensitive facial recognition abilities.
Mandeltweaks have particular attributes that make them unable to evolve to emulate all possible images - although they can approximate certain images to some degree. This brings to mind the plasticity of the phenotype space of real-world organisms. No amount of dog breeding would ever create the likeness of a jellyfish. And certainly there is no way you could breed a dog to look like an icosadodecahedron.
Running Tests
I ran some tests to see how much my Mandeltweak system could converge on recognizable shapes. I included a special tweak based on "Mandelbrot cubed" (which includes many more genes) to see if its larger phenotype space would have any more imitative abilities. And I found that it didn't. Also, since the comparison algorithm does not consider image 'features', many of the distinctive aspects of the image were not picked up, such as eyes, legs, and fingers. And it wasn't able to imitate Mickey Mouse's face, which might be good, since I don't want to get sued by Disney.
Imitating...the Mandelbrot Set?
I ran one test to see if the Mandeltweak system could find its 'mother'. Surprisingly, several tests I ran could not converge on it - even though the Mandelbrot Set exists in this phenotype space. But it tried! The illustration below shows that the population was able to approach the form of the Set, but the most-fit tweak ended up being rotated almost 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and it formed a proboscis that it used to mimic the period-2 bulb of the Set.
I had a suspicion that the "angle gene" - the one that allows a Mandeltweak to have any arbitrary rotation - was the culprit. So I clamped that gene to keep the whole population of tweaks at the default oriention, and ran another test. It quickly found its mother. Everyone was happy.
Consilience
In March '09, the three tweaks below, will be exhibited at the Pence Art Gallery in Davis, California, as a photographic trilogy called, "Fractal Self Portrait".
Here is the accompanying statement to this work:
Math is an unlikely medium for self-portraiture. But I have a special relationship with the Mandelbrot Set - regarded as the most complex object in mathematics. It is a magic piece of clay - pregnant with infinite form. I have tried to coerce it into imitating images of my face, using a genetic algorithm technique that I developed. The fractal details are re-adapted into face-like features. From a distance, one sees references to human heads. But there are obvious signs of a genetic signature that is not human. This is a methodology of genetic mimesis - inspired by evolutionary biology.
In March of 2009 I began developing higher-resolution images.
maybe we can get some programmers to work it into an Illuminati conspiracy for us
so funny, people don't have internal checks to proof their own logic to avoid the bias of our own biology.
Some people can't handle their drugs, some can't handle their own biology, one of the easiest tells is being a pot head.
Not every one needs an external input for peace of mind, and if you do, as I do, then that denotes something lacking in the biology in the first place.
How many people are honest enough with themselves to come to to terms with it?
Not many im guessing.
so funny, people don't have internal checks to proof their own logic to avoid the bias of our own biology.
Some people can't handle their drugs, some can't handle their own biology, one of the easiest tells is being a pot head.
Not every one needs an external input for peace of mind, and if you do, as I do, then that denotes something lacking in the biology in the first place.
How many people are honest enough with themselves to come to to terms with it?
Not many im guessing.
It is seemingly a quite reasonable philosophy to gauge the human condition based on how our own individual brain interprets it.
Due to genetic similarities our interpretation should be similar enough to be conclusive, conclusive enough that is to understand it.
Here is where bias of human biology sneaks in.
Take a look to your garden to understand this easier if you would.
Take the same exact genetics and clone it and give it two appreciable varying sets of input and tell me of its biological condition at the end of life cycle.
Did the same phenotype express itself in both scenarios?
There are a overwhelming amount of variables that effect our interpretive bias, big data allows us to see it. One real of science would be psychological profiling.
This is where the fractal nature of humanity is exposed.
There is a given set of phenotypes that the human genetic code expresses psychologically, we are always not predestined to express a given one, normally it takes gene expression mixed with environmental input.
That is the fractal nature we express. We are genetic express shaped by environmental inputs. This includes, most importantly, our interactions with humanity, they are for all intensive terms, outputs and inputs that are proven to effect our physiology.
Karma is real. Provable at this point through physiological expression of disorders due to psychological distress through many varying studies regarding subjects such as abuse.
Due to genetic similarities our interpretation should be similar enough to be conclusive, conclusive enough that is to understand it.
Here is where bias of human biology sneaks in.
Take a look to your garden to understand this easier if you would.
Take the same exact genetics and clone it and give it two appreciable varying sets of input and tell me of its biological condition at the end of life cycle.
Did the same phenotype express itself in both scenarios?
There are a overwhelming amount of variables that effect our interpretive bias, big data allows us to see it. One real of science would be psychological profiling.
This is where the fractal nature of humanity is exposed.
There is a given set of phenotypes that the human genetic code expresses psychologically, we are always not predestined to express a given one, normally it takes gene expression mixed with environmental input.
That is the fractal nature we express. We are genetic express shaped by environmental inputs. This includes, most importantly, our interactions with humanity, they are for all intensive terms, outputs and inputs that are proven to effect our physiology.
Karma is real. Provable at this point through physiological expression of disorders due to psychological distress through many varying studies regarding subjects such as abuse.
There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without.
Nikola Tesla
---------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V87VXA6gPuE
Nikola Tesla
---------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V87VXA6gPuE
N.A.S.A Announces That Magnetic Portals Do Exist
N.A.S.A Announces That Magnetic Portals Do Exist
Star-gates, magnetic portals, vortexes in space: Science fiction writers have given the concept of extraordinary openings in space/time all sorts of names to explain how travelers from far distant realms of space, time or both, arrive in Earth skies. However, this is a science fiction ploy to enable a good story, is it not?
It turns out that they do exist although the discovery is said to be in its infancy. A NASA-funded researcher at the University of Iowa has figured outhow to find them. Yes, some people feel this is old news to the “breakaway civilization” of elite humans who have been to Mars and beyond; even the more skeptical of us, wonder if these amazing facts are just now being released by the government but that they have known about them, even used them for years,perhaps with in-put and assistance from cooperating aliens.
However, let’s take a look at the news just released by NASA, it is confirmation that all us “science fiction dreamers” are not such dreamers after all.
“We call them X-points or electron diffusion regions,” explains plasma physicist Jack Scudder of theUniversity of Iowa. “They’re places where the magnetic field of Earth connects to the magnetic field of the Sun, creating an uninterrupted path leading from our own planet to the sun’s atmosphere 93 million miles away.”
NASA’s report: “Observations by NASA’s THEMIS spacecraft and Europe’s Cluster probes suggest that these magnetic portals open and close dozens of times each day. They’re typically located a few tens of thousands of kilometers from Earth where the geomagnetic field meets the onrushing solar wind. Mostportals are small and short-lived; others are yawning, vast, and sustained. Tons of energetic particles can flow through the openings, heating Earth’s upper atmosphere, sparking geomagnetic storms, and igniting bright polar auroras.”
“NASA is planning a mission called “MMS,” short for Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, due to launch in 2014, to study the phenomenon. Bristling with energetic particle detectors and magnetic sensors, the four spacecraft of MMS will spread out in Earth’s magnetosphere and surround the portals to observehow they work.”
Just one problem: Finding them. Magnetic portals are invisible, unstable, and elusive. They open and close without warning “and there are no signposts to guide us in,” notes Scudder. Actually, there are signposts, and Scudder has found them.
Portals form via the process of magnetic reconnection. Mingling lines of magnetic force from the Sun and Earth criss-cross and join to create the openings. “X-points” are where the criss-cross takes place. The sudden joining of magnetic fields can propel jets of charged particles from the X-point, creating an “electron diffusion region.”
To learn how to pinpoint these events, Scudder looked at data from a space probe that orbited Earth more than 10 years ago. “In the late 1990s, NASA’s Polar spacecraft spent years in Earth’s magnetosphere,” explains Scudder, “and it encountered many X-points during its mission.”
“Using Polar data, we have found five simple combinations of magnetic field and energetic particlemeasurements that tell us when we’ve come across an X-point or an electron diffusion region. A single spacecraft, properly instrumented, can make these measurements,” says Scudder.
“This means that single member of the MMS constellation using the diagnostics can find a portal and alert other members of the constellation. Mission planners long thought that MMS might have to spend a year or so learning to find portals before it could study them. Scudder’s work short cuts the process, allowing MMS to get to work without delay,” say NASA reports.
What does this mean? Hey, all good magnetic portals in science fiction offer themselves as shortcuts tonew worlds and new civilizations, boldly going where….
It is high time we found these star-gates for real, and it seems we (ok, actually, Dr. Scudder), has! And with the “signpost” explained above, we can actually find them as they shimmer and undulate in Earths awesome magnetic field.
Is Earth’s magnetic field actually the morphic field of her own consciousness? A subject for another day!
N.A.S.A Announces That Magnetic Portals Do Exist
Star-gates, magnetic portals, vortexes in space: Science fiction writers have given the concept of extraordinary openings in space/time all sorts of names to explain how travelers from far distant realms of space, time or both, arrive in Earth skies. However, this is a science fiction ploy to enable a good story, is it not?
It turns out that they do exist although the discovery is said to be in its infancy. A NASA-funded researcher at the University of Iowa has figured outhow to find them. Yes, some people feel this is old news to the “breakaway civilization” of elite humans who have been to Mars and beyond; even the more skeptical of us, wonder if these amazing facts are just now being released by the government but that they have known about them, even used them for years,perhaps with in-put and assistance from cooperating aliens.
However, let’s take a look at the news just released by NASA, it is confirmation that all us “science fiction dreamers” are not such dreamers after all.
“We call them X-points or electron diffusion regions,” explains plasma physicist Jack Scudder of theUniversity of Iowa. “They’re places where the magnetic field of Earth connects to the magnetic field of the Sun, creating an uninterrupted path leading from our own planet to the sun’s atmosphere 93 million miles away.”
NASA’s report: “Observations by NASA’s THEMIS spacecraft and Europe’s Cluster probes suggest that these magnetic portals open and close dozens of times each day. They’re typically located a few tens of thousands of kilometers from Earth where the geomagnetic field meets the onrushing solar wind. Mostportals are small and short-lived; others are yawning, vast, and sustained. Tons of energetic particles can flow through the openings, heating Earth’s upper atmosphere, sparking geomagnetic storms, and igniting bright polar auroras.”
“NASA is planning a mission called “MMS,” short for Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, due to launch in 2014, to study the phenomenon. Bristling with energetic particle detectors and magnetic sensors, the four spacecraft of MMS will spread out in Earth’s magnetosphere and surround the portals to observehow they work.”
Just one problem: Finding them. Magnetic portals are invisible, unstable, and elusive. They open and close without warning “and there are no signposts to guide us in,” notes Scudder. Actually, there are signposts, and Scudder has found them.
Portals form via the process of magnetic reconnection. Mingling lines of magnetic force from the Sun and Earth criss-cross and join to create the openings. “X-points” are where the criss-cross takes place. The sudden joining of magnetic fields can propel jets of charged particles from the X-point, creating an “electron diffusion region.”
To learn how to pinpoint these events, Scudder looked at data from a space probe that orbited Earth more than 10 years ago. “In the late 1990s, NASA’s Polar spacecraft spent years in Earth’s magnetosphere,” explains Scudder, “and it encountered many X-points during its mission.”
“Using Polar data, we have found five simple combinations of magnetic field and energetic particlemeasurements that tell us when we’ve come across an X-point or an electron diffusion region. A single spacecraft, properly instrumented, can make these measurements,” says Scudder.
“This means that single member of the MMS constellation using the diagnostics can find a portal and alert other members of the constellation. Mission planners long thought that MMS might have to spend a year or so learning to find portals before it could study them. Scudder’s work short cuts the process, allowing MMS to get to work without delay,” say NASA reports.
What does this mean? Hey, all good magnetic portals in science fiction offer themselves as shortcuts tonew worlds and new civilizations, boldly going where….
It is high time we found these star-gates for real, and it seems we (ok, actually, Dr. Scudder), has! And with the “signpost” explained above, we can actually find them as they shimmer and undulate in Earths awesome magnetic field.
Is Earth’s magnetic field actually the morphic field of her own consciousness? A subject for another day!
One of the things that has always blown my mind is the irony of the similarities between those of varying beliefs.
People who ride those of gnostic beliefs claiming to be atheists extrapolating the same conclusion, a projections of their own beliefs.
See if I google or duckduckgo search the article retro posted all I get are links to UFO sites.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Star-gates%2C+magnetic+portals%2C+vortexes+in+space%3A+Science+fiction+writers+have+given+the+concept+of+extraordinary+openings+in+space%2Ftime+all+sorts+of+n
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#...ction+ploy+to+enable+a+good+story,+is+it+not?
So to me, someone who believes in extra terrestrials based on biblical or UFO fan prophecies are using the same mechanism to come to the same conclusion yet they use different words and even fight about the meaning.
Because in the end angels, devils, God and the heavens all translate to space and extra terrestrials.
They are the external properties of our internal characters, all gnostics and philosophies see them from different lenses but extol virtues of the same human experience
the proverbial devil, the base primitive part of us (basically where we evolved from), seeks to keep us separated.
no one looks at it this way because they are so attached to their own interpretation they aren't willing to see it from another.
If humanity isn't the foundation, what the fuck does it matter.
What is God without humanity, what is Buddhism without humanity, what science without humanity?
They would'nt exist and they would'nt matter. To look at them from any other point of relativity is pure delusion. See none of the above invalidates them, just proves they are reliant on humanity to have meaning and to lose sight on that is to lose sight on meaning itself, thus living in delusion.
What really separates them all? Us, how we use them to look at the world, because they all look at teh same world, different aspects, through different perspectives, they are not mutually exclusive but all valid "threads" being processed by mother matrix herself
I think it is wish to chew on those 0s and 1s for a bit (computer pun just for fun)
People who ride those of gnostic beliefs claiming to be atheists extrapolating the same conclusion, a projections of their own beliefs.
See if I google or duckduckgo search the article retro posted all I get are links to UFO sites.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Star-gates%2C+magnetic+portals%2C+vortexes+in+space%3A+Science+fiction+writers+have+given+the+concept+of+extraordinary+openings+in+space%2Ftime+all+sorts+of+n
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#...ction+ploy+to+enable+a+good+story,+is+it+not?
So to me, someone who believes in extra terrestrials based on biblical or UFO fan prophecies are using the same mechanism to come to the same conclusion yet they use different words and even fight about the meaning.
Because in the end angels, devils, God and the heavens all translate to space and extra terrestrials.
They are the external properties of our internal characters, all gnostics and philosophies see them from different lenses but extol virtues of the same human experience
the proverbial devil, the base primitive part of us (basically where we evolved from), seeks to keep us separated.
no one looks at it this way because they are so attached to their own interpretation they aren't willing to see it from another.
If humanity isn't the foundation, what the fuck does it matter.
What is God without humanity, what is Buddhism without humanity, what science without humanity?
They would'nt exist and they would'nt matter. To look at them from any other point of relativity is pure delusion. See none of the above invalidates them, just proves they are reliant on humanity to have meaning and to lose sight on that is to lose sight on meaning itself, thus living in delusion.
What really separates them all? Us, how we use them to look at the world, because they all look at teh same world, different aspects, through different perspectives, they are not mutually exclusive but all valid "threads" being processed by mother matrix herself
I think it is wish to chew on those 0s and 1s for a bit (computer pun just for fun)
http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/Radin_Physics_Essays-2013.pdf
observation determines results in new double-slit experiments confirming previous results.
observation determines results in new double-slit experiments confirming previous results.
Reminds me of the quote from til the morning comes from the grateful dead in my sig
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The shape it takes could be yours to choose
What you may win, what you may lose[/FONT]"
So in the sum total of the universe we are the eyes of world and what we see and what we do that can be seen matters in the sum total of the universe.
is life without purpose? that would seem the ultimate delision
just like quantum field fluctuation the stars and planets appear to be 'born'.
Core Convection:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/missing-li...theory-explains-earths-magnetic-field-1485623
A Lasting Dynamo:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/201...ry-internal-convection-induced-dynamo-theory/
Double Core:
http://news.illinois.edu/news/15/0209innercore_XiaodongSong.html
Wal’s Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbk1SxQwQyw&index=3&list=FLDlTlFdpcElvHsjH-b6ieBA
Planetary Birthing:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/planet-birthing/
Core Convection:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/missing-li...theory-explains-earths-magnetic-field-1485623
A Lasting Dynamo:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/201...ry-internal-convection-induced-dynamo-theory/
Double Core:
http://news.illinois.edu/news/15/0209innercore_XiaodongSong.html
Wal’s Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbk1SxQwQyw&index=3&list=FLDlTlFdpcElvHsjH-b6ieBA
Planetary Birthing:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/planet-birthing/
see what i mean about tavistock bitches is if you let this thread run forever, trichrider and weird will fill it up with current article
as if cosmology and current media have some meaningful relation......
some people just want to tell you things all the time.... why is that, huh...
"will the real god please sit down" - todd rundgren
as if cosmology and current media have some meaningful relation......
some people just want to tell you things all the time.... why is that, huh...
"will the real god please sit down" - todd rundgren
'tavistock bitches' is a stretch of your imagination.
delusion or paranoia is not cause, it is effect. and in your case projected at what you perceive to be troubling.
i'm no agent or device of any organization real or imagined.
...and you're just wrong. every thought, intent, and action affect all.
you will have a nice day.
delusion or paranoia is not cause, it is effect. and in your case projected at what you perceive to be troubling.
i'm no agent or device of any organization real or imagined.
...and you're just wrong. every thought, intent, and action affect all.
you will have a nice day.
- Status
