Fascinating …

Let me say at the outset that there are no UFO’s, and interstellar visitors cannot exist. The distances are too great, and even if such travel were possible, there would be no reason to visit here. At the outset of such a journey, no intelligent life would have existed here, and so there would be no reason for this destination.

I do suspect that intelligent life abounds in the galaxy and universe. But it’s a frustration, as I will never know for sure, as there will be no “Contact.”

I am curious about ‘seeding’ – the idea that life on one planet can seed life on another. So a scientist finding a rock in Antarctica showing evidence of microscopic life on Mars is intriguing, to say the least. But there is not enough evidence to test the hypothesis at this time, so it is idle speculation for sci-fi buffs. And fun.

All that said, there is an “Area 51” in Nevada, and top secret programs were run from there. They did reverse engineering of foreign technology (other countries – not planets), and developed high-speed aircraft that looked like flying saucers at certain angles. They had tunnels through which they transported rockets. Aircraft crashed, and civilians coming upon the crashed aircraft had to be bought off to keep them quiet. The U.S. government never officially acknowledged the existence of the facility, and its airspace was off-limits, all the way to outer space.

We know this now because parts of what went on there have been declassified and some of the men who participated are now allowed to talk. And they have.

Reality bites, but has no teeth

The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Ron Suskind quoting an anonymous “Bush aide” (probably Karl Rove) in a 2004 New York Times Magazine article.

The above quote came to mind as I read today that a British panel has concluded that the scientists whose emails were released in the “Climategate” “scandal” have been vindicated.

Here’s an NPR link, among scads of others. NPR was unable to voice any healthy skepticism or do any thoughtful analysis in real time, when it mattered, but now performs “journalism” by telling us what reality really was. In the U.S., there are no meaningful barriers against the public relations industry. These are the engineers who manufacture our reality, giving us WMD’s and incubator babies, Tweets from Iran and yellow ribbons tied to trees. News and public relations are virtually indistinguishable.

The revelations of the British panel do not matter. The “scandal” oddly resembled a high-level covert operation, with sophisticated hacking and thousands of hours spend poring over emails to find those perceived as damaging. It was a considerable investment of time and money by unknown actors, and the release date was timed to foreshadow the Copenhagen conference, where nothing got done.

Vindication is a clean-up operation. Operation Climategate achieved its purpose. They created the reality, and it is even somewhat interesting now that we are now studying that reality. In the meantime, the engineers have moved on.

A counterintuitive study by Pew

A while back Bill O’Reilly got his panties in a twist when he found out that the vast majority of social studies teachers at an Oregon college were Democrats. He assumed hiring bias, and did one of his patented ambush interviews with the department head to make his point.

I suspect that if they did a study of the business school at the same college, they would find a preponderance of Republicans. There’s no bias involved – just an attraction of certain types of people to certain professions. I am a CPA, and a European-style socialist. But the vast majority of accountants and CPA’s are conservative and Republican. The profession does not attract many socialists, and tends to favor black/white thinking – hence, conservatives.

Pew Research did a study that gave me pause for thought – I never would have guessed this. Among the general public, 23% consider themselves Republican, 35% Democrat. Among scientists, the numbers are wildly skewed – only 6% Republican, and 55% Democrat. When pressed as to which party they “lean” to, it gets even wilder: 12% Republican, 81% Democrat.

There have been some self-selected and non-scientific polls showing that in journalism, most reporters are Democrats. Conservatives assume hiring bias, but a more likely explanation is that more Democrats are drawn to journalism than Republicans. I might even take it a step further – given their exposure to a wide variety of issues and people, and the need to examine all sides, journalists develop a more open and questioning thought processes (or had that tendency to begin with), and end up as Democrats because the party is less doctrinaire than the other.

But that’s just a guess. Regarding the wild skew in the number of Democratic scientists, I’m both surprised and at a loss. Hard scientists are trained in hard science, and would, in my mind, tend to be apolitical. There is no political indoctrination going on in science classrooms … maybe I’ve hit on something there.

Maybe not. I’m stumped.

Why do people laugh at creationists?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The above video is part of a larger series which you can access by Googling its title. I thought it would be four of five parts, but then started seeing “Part 28”, and realized that there are more parts to it than I will ever see. Part four is notable because of the magnitude of the error made by “Dr.” Kent Hovind in estimating the amount of water it would take to cover the earth to a depth of one molecule. Almost as large as the magnitude of fraud behind his “doctorate” degree.

Another Government Lie Exposed

Vodpod videos no longer available.

In the above scene, Dr. Emmett Brown is transporting his dog, Einstein, one minute into the future. Einstein arrives shortly after this cut ends.

Not so fast! Schechner at the blog Overthinking It has a few questions. He is troubled by the fact that Einstein arrives in exactly the same place as he departed from. Making a few rudimentary calculations, he figures that the earth would have moved 1,123.17 miles in space – this taking into account only the rotation of the earth on its axis and its orbit around the sun, with no mention of the distance traveled by the solar system itself, or the galaxy.

He arrives back at the parking lot exactly one minute in the future – well, not exactly. Schechner calculates that the departure and arrival watches might be off just a tad, say ~1 millisecond. For a dog to travel 1,122.17 miles in one millisecond, he would have to travel six times the speed of light in a vacuum – backward. Since we all know that is impossible (at the very least, he’d be traveling backward in time – not forward), there is only one conclusion to be drawn:

The movie is a hoax!

And the two sequels as well. Another government lie.

Bush: An Intellectual Tragedy

Will computers and human beings merge?

I actually have a slide in my talk that showed a computer that interfaces with us as a genetically designed species. If we can capture how diatoms lay down their silica circuits, we should be able to write a genetic code for making a computer chip – one that has nice interfaces for us as a species.

What do you mean – nice interfaces?

We can expand the power of the human mind by having plug-in modules. If you want to learn to speak French, you use your silica-based computer that is genetically driven – whether it’s a small, add-on chip that gets planted in the back of our skulls, or it’s something engineered into us. Our biggest limitation is mental. I would be happy to have five times the brain capacity I have. As I get older, any increase would be nice. If we came up with a magic pill to increase our memory, people would take it. And if there is some genetic engineering that would work, I think most people would do it. That is the direction that humanity will ultimately go, for sure.

But that’s still the future. In the near term, most of the focus will be on things like limb regeneration and eliminating late-onset dementia.

Limb regeneration?

Yes, A lot of other species do it, and a lot of these processes are based on stem cells. If we don’t understand stem cells, which are the translators of the genetic code, then we are wasting our time trying to understand the genetic code. There is probably nothing more important to study about human biology than stem cells. The fact that it has been blocked by the Bush Administration on religious grounds is one of the intellectual tragedies of the century.

From an interview with Craig Venter, genetics pioneer, Rolling Stone Magazine, 11/15/2007