Friday, 17 February 2012

Can we predict the future – NO!

The one thing that is certain about the future is its uncertainty, yet it seems as though sometimes humans are more interested in predicting the future than recognising our past. The future is impossible to predict with any kind of accuracy, because there are far too many unknown variables which can take what we envisage as likely, down unforeseen pathways.

The present changes so rapidly to make the future seem irresistible, and if one could see the future as some have claimed, then it would be a license to become invincible. If someone does actually see the future or has an insight into the future, then this can be used for massive gain.

An example of this is bandied about often today, involves Nathan Rothschild and the Battle of Waterloo, because of his knowledge of the perceived future (it was actually the present but at the time it seemed like the future) he was able to take control of the Bank of England. I believe the story goes that Rothschild send a spy to watch the battle, and as soon as a winner was obvious to come immediately back to England. The spy clearly saw Wellington was winning and left for London a day before the actual news could arrive. Rothschild then played his card, and pretended though never actually stating that he believed Wellington had lost the battle. This inaccurate news sent London’s financial sector of the time into a downward spiral and Rothschild was able to buy up large parts of the Bank of England as well as many other assets. When the news arrived the next day stating Wellington won the battle the downward spiral changed and Rothschild was the only winner. Even to this day the Rothschild’s are one of the most powerful families in the world.

This is not possible today, since we only have time lags of seconds not days, but it is an example of someone with prior knowledge and using it to their advantage, in so doing predicting the future. This is why predicting the future is such big business, but unfortunately unlike Rothschild who had accurate information unavailable to others; this is not the case now and if it was the case, it would be a crime to use it for your own gain.

I can think of three examples showing how difficult it is to predict the future; one is the two world wars, the second is going to the moon, and the third is the Internet.

In 1914 no one would have predicted the dire affects of the Great War, the war to end all wars supposedly, the First World War. The first battle which is eloquently re-enacted in the film the War Horse, was fought on horseback near Mons in Belgium I think (coincidentally the first engagement was also in the same place of the last, I think, though not sure, it was close I believe). If someone could have predicted the future they would have gone straight to tanks and ended the carnage by September.

In the Second World War at the beginning no one could have predicted that using tanks in a pincer formation, attacking narrow areas of the front line, to punch holes in the defences of the enemy could ever work so effectively. Both Erich von Manstein and Heinz Guderian formulated plans to use what was to become known as Blitzkrieg or lightening war, to beat the French and British army’s stationed across Belgium and France. Hitler and his cronies were initially sceptical and it was only because of the extremely unorthodox natures of the attack persuaded Hitler to carry out such a bold move (of which the sly little shit tried to take credit for later in the war). Knowing the future there could have stopped the Nazi’s early on, before they became totally delusional about their supremacy.

Battleships were another part of the Second World War which was shown by the future to be a red herring. Once it was clear air power could knock out any Battleship with limited loss to the attacker, they became obsolete and spelled the end for the great battleships.

The Moon landings predicted a future with colonies on the moon, the possibility of space travel and even holidays in space all seemed likely; even missions to Mars. None of this ever materialised when the price of going to the moon was weighed against the other more pressing matters. Even now no one has been back to the moon for over 35 years.

The last example is at least a positive one, the Internet. I bet the governments of the world wished they could have predicted the power of the Internet sooner; as they are now finding they cannot control this massive leviathan. It is now the biggest and probably one of the most important innovations ever conceived by humans. Yet if we go back to the mid 80’s who would have predicted the power of such a tool, no one I suspect and if anyone did they would have been guessing.

The future can be guessed, it can be speculated, it can be theorised but it can never be predicted accurately, no matter how many models or simulations, theories or conclusions one thinks of. At any moment something unknown can throw all arguments out of the window, from natural disasters, changes in the Universe, the greed of man, to the genius of someone’s mind; anything and everything can or will happen, and this makes predicting the future a flight of fancy as well as an unfathomable mystery.

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Did Aliens help the Ancients?

I watched an episode of Ancient Aliens yesterday and it was what I would call, the good, the bad, and the ugly of cable TV’s documentaries. The premise of the show is to try and prove or at least give evidence to the theory that the ancients had help from an extraterrestrial power. At one time I would believe all this type of stuff but now older and more clued up on science, I admit to being a little sceptical.

Some of the findings on the show are fascinating but others leave a lot to be desired. They make extravagant claims from people who are just authors of their own theories and use them as some kind of likely facts. Which is a bit like taking my wild ideas and concepts and saying they must be true. Maybe they are right especially as far as the buildings and structures, some of the things the ancients built beggars belief. One place I always found fascinating was Tiahuanaco, and now you can add to that Puma Punku, how ancient civilisations built the strange buildings there is unfathomable, as well as the sheer size and may be with the help of aliens, who knows it is just as plausible as any other argument.

Saying that there are other things they then discuss like Moses and his trek through the Sinai Desert, there is no evidence of or any historical reference to a person called Moses in Egyptian texts.

They also use as evidence of extra terrestrial beings coming to Earth, small golden trinkets that look like fighter jets if you use your imagination, you could also say they look like a cloak, it’s all about interpretation.

Some of the supposed evidence I did not perceive as evidence, like a wooden bird with an unusual wing; you can make anything seem like something else if you want it badly enough.

The points that make me sceptical about aliens or extraterrestrials are these:

If they did come, where are they now and why don’t they come on a regular basis and interact with us? I know some would argue they do, but that is not the same way as is supposedly shown in the past.

Let’s pretend they did come why is the evidence is so vague, and look so old fashioned? Surely a species capable of interstellar travel would have to have special alloys, polymers, plastics, or even a version of steel. Since we know plastic is not biodegradable, where is all this type of plastic and if they found a biodegradable plastic how would it survive a long journey through space?

Language – if an advance species arrived they would also have an advanced language, not Sanskrit or Hieroglyphics.

Of course my questions can be used in the same way the supposed evidence from the program is used, but these are questions I ask myself as I watched.

My brother always shouts on about Occam's Razor – the simplest answer is normally the correct answer, and the simplest answer is to say that ancient civilisations found away to build incredible structures and imagine unusual objects because they knew no better. Just because it is illogical today to create a block that weights over 100 tonnes and try to move it, does not mean that the ancients thought the same way. Some blocks were amazingly over 1200 tonnes which just seems inconceivable and would make you wonder how they moved these blocks.

Some of the precision is incredible but this does not make iron clad evidence that it must be because the ancients had help from a higher power. Maybe other programs in the series will give better evidence but after one program I am still sceptical.

The problem with interpreting the past is it is all speculation, no one knows what happened, but one thing is for sure, humans have vivid imaginations, and are capable of amazing feats, that is what makes us so special.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

‘Talhotblonde’ a disturbing documentary

I watched a documentary this morning called ‘talhotblonde’ it was about the disturbing affects of anonymity on the internet. It would be difficult to discuss the doc without spoiling it as I think it is quite sad as well as disturbing. It shows the more morose side of the internet and how some people do not use it for positives, at least not positives for others. It is a sociopathic side of the internet.

Without spoiling the premise, it involves three people in a warped kind of love triangle, in which two are lying, two are friends, and one ends up being murdered. They live as alter egos on chat rooms and pretend to be something they are not. This is using anonymity for nefarious reasons, for selfish reasons, unaware of the damage and harm being caused by such pretence, especially to the innocent.

I personally think it is good you can be anonymous on the internet, I doubt I would be able to write anything if I had to put my name to it, and so it helps me to write about what I write about, to help me get better without it being associated with me. I do not involve anyone else in my blog, it is me and me alone and there for my benefit, if others read then that is a bonus but it is not imperative.

The problem with pretending to be someone else to gain favour from others, which is what happened in this bizarre love triangle, the lies get out of hand and grow to such a size it is impossible to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. When it involves others, abuses their trust by deceiving them, pretending to be someone else so they can use it for self gratification like some do, is disgraceful, especially when innocent people get harmed.

This is what happened in the documentary, two very unhappy people trying to find solace on the internet, took it a step too far and became so engrossed in their deceit, someone was murdered.

At the end of the documentary the innocent people of the different families involved called for tougher action on these types of people, because one of the main instigators in the lies before crime was let off scot free. This is mainly because it is not a crime to pretend to be someone else on the internet, and even though they were indirectly responsible for the murder, they did not actually carry out or instigate the thought process. Should it be a crime and how would it be implemented, is a difficult question? I personally thought it was a crime, at least in Britain, I am sure laws were passed about dirty old men pretending to be young men to lure teenagers, to stop the growing amount disgusting internet paedophilia sickos.

The biggest problem is the innocent get hurt and they become unwitting victims of someone else’s screwed up selfish attitudes. I try to think of myself as a libertarian, but I feel all paedophiles should be lobotomised and castrated, and never let out of prison, but that is getting away from the documentary.

The documentary is disconcerting and shows how easy it is for some people who have sociopathic tendencies, then use the internet for their self satisfying fantasies, and something needs to be done to stop the worst of them harming others.

Sunday, 12 February 2012

The Emperor’s New Clothes, sorry the Artist wins at the BAFTAS

To be honest I quite enjoyed tonight’s awards it was succinct, quite funny, Stephen Fry presented it (he’s much better than Jonathan Ross). Martin Scorsese was awarded the top honour, as well as John Hurt so overall it was good. Then they gave out the awards.

Sorry I know I have said I love and hate films well the Artist is the latter, and is not my cup of tea, a black & white silent movie just doesn’t set the world alight and I found it quite boring. It seems like the latest in a long line of films that are like the Emperor’s New Clothes; how a silent movie can win best screenplay seems a little absurd, especially when it was up against Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris. I agree that Jean Dujardin was excellent in the role as the silent star losing his sparkle, and the dog was good also, but I just have never been fond of silent films apart from Harold Lloyd. So when the Artist won best director over Scorsese’s Hugo, then won best film it seems as though the luvvies had gotten away with giving a film that no one will remember in ten years time a major film award.

I thought Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy would have won more than it did, though this year there was less beating the British drum than there was last year. It didn’t surprise me that Meryl Streep won best actress; I thought she was excellent as the Iron Lady in a not so excellent film. There was definitely a more diverse cosmopolitan feel about this year’s ceremony. I was pleased Drive got nominated for best film surprised that Midnight in Paris or Hugo weren’t nominated. Shocked Brad Pit was nominated when Joseph Gordon-Levitt wasn’t, he was brilliant in 50/50.

Overall it was an enjoyable show, now I fully expect the Emperor’s New Clothes to go on and win a few Oscars as well.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

My Friend

Do be good my friend and savour life in all its glory. Realise your potential and surge forward blessing the world with all your gifts.

Do be happy my friend, love and feel peace every day. Cherish each passing moment and hope and pray others will be happy too.

Do be fair my friend, make sure you give as much as you take. Accept with enthusiastic applause the need for everyone to be equal.

Do be honest my friend, and hope your truth will be heard be many more. Understand and forgive those who are unable to fathom such thoughts.

Do be kind my friend, for kindness is a blessing. Encourage others to show such consideration and empathise with their position.

Do be you my friend; never try to be someone else. Remember what is important, hold true to yourself and you will always feel adoration in your heart and soul.

Sunday, 5 February 2012

Aspartame – A great example of the chaos and confusion seen today

Until this morning I had never heard of aspartame, I now know it is a sweetener used in many products as a replacement for sugar. Now what pricked my attention was an article about scientists who claim sugar is a toxin and should be regulated. Meaning if this was to happen most of the sugar would be replaced with aspartame type substances like sucralose, which is found in most diet versions of carbonated drinks and many other products, especially the diet or light ones.

This is where we come to the chaos and confusion; on one side we have the sugar is bad camp stating too much sugar will have adverse effects on one’s health, which is obvious. Sugar is far worse than fat, because at least fat is difficult to break down and requires fat from the body to do so; meaning fat burns fat. Sugar on the other hand, if taken excessively without being utilized, just turns into fat the body stores. This is why consuming large amounts of white bread, white rice, crisps, and many other products are bad for you and can cause obesity, if eaten to excess.

Sugar in my opinion is a drug as I have mentioned before, it is similar to salt in so much as we need it but we abuse it. From what I have read in the past, the sugar love comes from our ancestors, as they were deprived of sugar most of the time when out hunting or foraging. When they found sugar they gorged on it, knowing they may not be able to find more for some time.

Nowadays we do not have this problem with finding sugars, it is alarmingly added to so many products whether it is needed or not. I was quite surprised the amounts of sugar added to products, so finding a solution that can lessen sugar intake and be less harmful to the body, should be seen as good. To some aspartame falls in that category; it has been used for over 25 years and most people have no ill side effects from taking it.

On the other hand though there are a plethora of articles stating aspartame is dangerous, and can cause many harmful side effects. You can find many articles on the internet claiming how bad the substance is, and how it can cause a multitude of nastiness to your body. According to researchers and physicians, aspartame has the following side effects: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

You can find many articles on the internet claiming the harmful effects of this substance, but who is right and who is just claiming a view point for their own gain. Or are they both right, which would make me think why so much of either product added to our food. It is virtually impossible to by food products without one of these substances added unless you grow your own food or can afford to buy organic or even non processed food.

To many this is not as easy as it sounds, as it requires time, and time is not a commodity many families have in plentiful supply. What needs to happen is for the government instead of regulating sugar, they should put more emphasis on the companies who make the food products, making them more responsible towards the extra ingredients added; sometimes deliberately to entice the consumer into buying more. Caffeine is another example of a drug added to things for example and quite ironically, to headache tablets.

In a way this stems back to the argument of exponential growth and the desire for countries, and companies to have to continuously grow and expand their profitability and wealth. As well as the different government’s looking after the interests of the wealthy few and disregarding the rest

Until we stop the root cause of the harmful way society works then we will always have this chaos and confusion over everything.

Friday, 3 February 2012

Baffling and Confusing

Not sure why I have suddenly gone back to talking about climate change, but it is such a baffling battle ground. How has it got to be so polarised is beyond me. It seems as though, come hell or high water (no pun intended there) whatever your views, no one seems willing to accept anything from the other perspective. One of the main reasons why I was so sceptical about manmade global warming, the original name for climate change, is because it seemed so flawed and implausible. On top of this it seemed as though there was a concerted effort to hide one side of the story and promote the other, showing massive bias towards the illogical notion that manmade CO2 (if you can really call it that, since we don’t actually make it. It’s just a by-product of an energy reaction from biological forms living or dead) is definitely going to cause a catastrophic climb in temperatures over the coming years and decades.

Climate models for as long as I can remember at least since the late 90’s have predicted huge rises in temperature. They said we would never see snow again, glaciers would melt, sea levels would rise, temperatures would dramatically increase unless we took drastic action and changed our industrial backbone.

Now the thing that confuses me amongst many other things and I am sure I could find a myriad of examples over the years, but let’s use the latest one. Supposedly according to many websites, the Earth has not significantly warmed in the last 15 years. This evidence should put an end to the global warming alarmist scaremongering, but it doesn’t. There are still many websites that don’t even mention this evidence and proclaim the Earth is still warming. So who is right, who are we to believe, who is lying here?

Supposedly now I have just checked, it was Phil Jones the guy behind the Climategate scandal, he said it on the BBC. Now surely this should be headline news on all websites, yet it isn’t and this is one of the reasons I have always found the warmist argument strange, as if they are hiding something, like the guilty fat kid caught with his hands in the cookie jar and he has a cookie hidden behind his back. When his mother asks what he is hiding he says nothing at all.

So what can we conclude from all of this? It’s hard to say; really it is something that can be looked at both ways. If you are a global warming alarmist you can say well even though it is statistically insignificant it is still warming and it is still happening. And if you are for the opposite view, then you can say, that the mere insignificance of the data shows that it cannot be a manmade issue, and that it is just a natural variation in the Earth mean temperature.

The biggest gripe I have is the alarmist attitude, the things that supposedly should have been happening or were about to happen were deliberately exaggerated, and so that is why so many people are now sick of the whole global warming debacle. As I said before if they had just been honest from the outset things might have been different.

Thursday, 2 February 2012

Priusa Energy - Energy before the Big Bang

Reading back my god particle post, I think I may have thought of something I have missed or neglected - energy. Does energy fall into the category of part of something larger and made up of parts smaller. To be honest this is a difficult question to answer especially when we aren’t really sure what a true definition of energy might be. We have an Earth based answer about energy, based on the matter we see on Earth, in our solar system, and the small part of the Universe we can see namely stars, galaxies, but what is the rest?

I can think of many ways I could describe energy in a metaphorical sense, but this doesn’t explain energy transference or how energy and matter can change from one to the other. Energy seems to be the reaction of objects and as the reaction changes the object, so the energy seems to change. This is from a universal perspective not an Earth based one. Clearly there are differences even if scientists say there isn’t, because if they were the same then we would be able to explain black holes, and all the unknown things we call ‘Dark’.

Can you take this concept back before the supposed big bang? Energy being the reaction that created the big bang, could the object before the big bang have just been for want of a better word vaporised, or obliterated to such an extent the only energy survived whatever happened.

Sorry I know this sounds incredibly vague, and I know I have many other assumptions about what was before the big bang. Since we cannot comprehend at present what was here before the big bang, in a weird way it could actually be anything. I know this sounds bizarre but it could be a big ice cream for all we know or it could be for want of a better expression what some perceive as God. Or we could just create another ambiguous name for it like we have for Dark Energy, Dark Flow and Dark Matter. The best word to use has been ruined by bloody Toyota for they stupid hybrid car, but the best wording for the energy before the big bang would be Prius Energy, but let’s not use that exact word and call it Priusa Energy, the energy before the big bang.

Alarmists, Exaggerators and Liars

The problem when you exaggerate or lie about an issue that affects the whole world is when you are found out, and unfortunately the likely scenario is totally reversed. We swing from one extreme to the other, and now I can see this happening with Global Warming and renewable energy.

Now because of this alarmist behaviour, any good gained from the whole climate change debacle will be lost and I would think quite quickly. And although I never believed man-made CO2 was causing the planet to heat up, the methodology of trying to get us to reduce pollution and find cleaner ways to create energy were right.

As I have said before maybe if the greedy selfish people who thought, I can make a name for myself and a fast buck or two, had been a little less alarmist and didn’t lie and exaggerate, we could have started slowly on finding newer ways of creating energy. We could have spent the money on figuring out Nuclear Fusion, the only true answer to our energy problems.

Now though, with new data ironically from the people who first caused all this alarm, East Anglia's Climate Research Centre, stating the world has not significantly warmed in the last 15 years. Governments around the world will change their stance and all the money wasted because of a loony concept which was so obviously flawed will be forgotten, and in a way we will go backwards once more.

Think of all the wasted money and what could have been done with it. Think of the financial mess we are in and how this money could have at least kept energy prices down, and invested in more long term goals than just as a way to buy votes.

In a strange way I find it quite sad. It is a terrible problem the blinds humanity, this extremist behaviour, this desire to be right even when the obvious answer is totally different and you are wrong.

The problem these days is the world is now beating as one heart beat, not many smaller heart beats, and when it fails, the affects are felt all around the world not just a small part. And the more technologically advanced we become, the more extremist, alarmist, behaviour will speed up our doom.