Concentric circles discovered in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the after-effects of the Big Bang – display evidence of events that took place before most scientists believe the universe came into being.
The discovery has been posted online on the website arXiv.org by respected scientist Professor Roger Penrose from Oxford University and Professor Vahe Gurzadyan from Yerevan State University, Armenia.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334027/Universe-shows-imprints-events-took-place-BEFORE-Big-Bang-say-scientists.html#ixzz18M8gE3x8
The controversial finding points to the existence of a universe that did not begin 13.7billion years ago, as is generally accepted, but is instead a cycle of so-called aeons.
Readers of my blog know that I do not believe the universe came into being with a big bang. It just doesn't ring true. Rather it came about as a result of a quantum fluctuation in the eternal and infinite blackness, producing the world we think of as real and a parallel world of matter described in terms of negative dimensions that include 'i' the square root of minus one. This other world cannot ordinarily be perceived by humans because our senses are not yet equipped to receive the signals although I believe that our brain has the capability to do so when triggered by evolutionary processes. The whole universe is energetically zero and if an observer were to look at it from the blackness, he would see nothing.
One of the hypotheses I make is that the blackness is populated with an infinite number of such universes and that each is composed of these two parts which I shall characterise as 'real' and 'spiritual'. If I am correct, the physical properties of matter in the universes will be the same; the same dimensionless constants will apply and the electrons will have the same electrical charge etc.
In the creation process, the quantum fluctuation produces a 'real' particle and a 'spiritual' particle in an, as yet, unknown exothermic reaction, creating both matter and time. The excess energy triggers further splitting and so on, so that the universe expands for ever. The excess energy in the 'real' world is channeled back to the 'spiritual' world, maintaining equilibrium, through the actions of black holes.
Collisions between universes is rare but when they do, they result in an amalgamation. The creative waves of each universe approach each other and the universes open up to each other because they are totally compatible, producing a bigger universe. This will be seen as 'inflation'. Although one universe may be billions of years older than the other it makes no difference because at the point of contact, they are both creating new matter at time zero. However, the cosmic background radiation as observed from either one of the original universes will show irregularities.
One further point. During amalgamation, information can be transferred from the older to the younger universe so that, for instance, the possibility exists for evolved life to pass from one to the other.
Friday, 17 December 2010
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Harrier Jump Jet
Another tragedy. The Harrier Jump Jets are about to fly for the last time to save money. A superb piece of equipment designed and built in the UK, it was so impressive the Americans and others bought it. In another demonstration of crass stupidity, the British have not built on their success and developed this aircraft for modern warfare, unlike the US who have made modifications to enhance its performance.
This dereliction of duty follows on another flying tragedy; that of Concorde. Another British (and to be fair, French) design that was at the forefront of aeronautical engineering was left to whither and die rather than lead the way to a new generation of ground breaking aircraft. Now I expect the Chinese, the Russians and the US to lead the way and the Brits will have to import the new technology rather than exporting it.
I despair at the succession of British politicians who let slip the advantages forged for us by UK educated scientists of the highest order. It's no wonder they want to go abroad where their skills are appreciated.
We once led the world in Nuclear Technology, now we lag behind Iran because of mostly Lemming (Labour) governments listening to the stupid 'green' arguments. The result is we will have to buy technology from France, which because of the time scales involved will lead to a hiatus in energy supply and a landscape full of bloody windmills. The science averse members of parliament have bought into the climate change, caused by man, argument tying the country into unnecessary commitments on carbon emissions and other stupid legislation to do with sodding footprints. Sometimes you just want to shake some of them until they rattle.
This dereliction of duty follows on another flying tragedy; that of Concorde. Another British (and to be fair, French) design that was at the forefront of aeronautical engineering was left to whither and die rather than lead the way to a new generation of ground breaking aircraft. Now I expect the Chinese, the Russians and the US to lead the way and the Brits will have to import the new technology rather than exporting it.
I despair at the succession of British politicians who let slip the advantages forged for us by UK educated scientists of the highest order. It's no wonder they want to go abroad where their skills are appreciated.
We once led the world in Nuclear Technology, now we lag behind Iran because of mostly Lemming (Labour) governments listening to the stupid 'green' arguments. The result is we will have to buy technology from France, which because of the time scales involved will lead to a hiatus in energy supply and a landscape full of bloody windmills. The science averse members of parliament have bought into the climate change, caused by man, argument tying the country into unnecessary commitments on carbon emissions and other stupid legislation to do with sodding footprints. Sometimes you just want to shake some of them until they rattle.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Some thoughts on the Democratic process
Three thoughts on Democracy.
Channel 4's programme last night on the political situation in Thailand showed yet again how dangerous it is for Nations to trust the people when it comes to their governance. The so called 'red shirts', whose base is in the rural north of the country, particularly Issan, are supporters of the ousted and discredited ex-prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatr. This was a man, intensely disliked by the urbane intelligentsia of Bangkok who was alleged to have conducted electoral fraud, been responsible for the mass murder of thousands of drug dealers so that his family could have free rein, changed the laws of the country out of self interest in a misuse of power that would have made Tony Blair blush. Yet the mainly poor and disadvantaged of the north consistently voted him in office. That he allegedly bribed the electorate with public money to vote for him doesn't stop the pro democracy lobby from voicing their support and denigrating the military for overthrowing him. Thailand, one of the oldest Monarchies in the world has tried to embrace Democracy without success; there being over thirty coups since the second world war. This flirtation with Democracy does not seem to suit a population that has for many centuries been well served by devotion, bordering on worship of the ruling Monarch. Todays ailing King Bhunipol is no exception, a man known to be devoted to both his Country and its people. The people trust him with their interests, trust him to look after them all, so why not stick with the system of Monarchy? The answer, like the main pro-argument for democracy, is that natural succession does not often produce the required result. The King's natural heir is a 'playboy' prince who is not well regarded and people worry for the well being of the Nation when he comes to reign. The people would prefer the crown to pass to Princess Sirindhorn, his second daughter, who has inherited her father's love of his people. It is for this reason that people are very anxious about the present health of the King. His death, as well as bringing the Country to a halt as people genuinely grieve for a man they think of as a God, will also trigger an enormous power struggle. I do not know what the military think of the Prince but one mustn't underestimate the power of his patronage to buy important supporters. One must also consider the possibility that Thaksin Shinawatr and his millions of Bahts may yet return to have some influence in the Ancient Kingdom.
Liu Xiaobo was duly pronounced the latest Nobel Peace prize winner in a move calculated to irritate the Chinese Government. One must have some sympathy for the Chinese Government, having delivered in the last twenty years the highest growth in standard of living of any country on earth. To achieve that, transforming the economy and bringing unheard of prosperity to many, and then have a man feted by foreigners for complaining about the lack of human rights in the country, must be particularly galling. Particularly so when the question of 'human rights' without corresponding responsibility is being discredited around the globe.
Thirdly; the London student riots. I have blogged about this and the disgraceful way people abuse the freedoms they are allowed. We now hear that various anarchist groups are threatening to disrupt next year's royal wedding, thereby destroying an event much cherished by millions of Britains who value the history and cultural legacy of the Nation's monarchy. It is not so different from Thailand, although a system of Parliamentary Democracy has been long established in Britain. It seems to me that this Democratic form of Government has run its course. If the anarchists are allowed to get their way because they have 'Human Rights' then what about the same 'Human Rights' of those who cherish the UK's monarchy and who want to disrupt the anarchists? Allowing the people too much freedom, will inevitably result in the destruction of the very freedom they wish to enjoy.
Channel 4's programme last night on the political situation in Thailand showed yet again how dangerous it is for Nations to trust the people when it comes to their governance. The so called 'red shirts', whose base is in the rural north of the country, particularly Issan, are supporters of the ousted and discredited ex-prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatr. This was a man, intensely disliked by the urbane intelligentsia of Bangkok who was alleged to have conducted electoral fraud, been responsible for the mass murder of thousands of drug dealers so that his family could have free rein, changed the laws of the country out of self interest in a misuse of power that would have made Tony Blair blush. Yet the mainly poor and disadvantaged of the north consistently voted him in office. That he allegedly bribed the electorate with public money to vote for him doesn't stop the pro democracy lobby from voicing their support and denigrating the military for overthrowing him. Thailand, one of the oldest Monarchies in the world has tried to embrace Democracy without success; there being over thirty coups since the second world war. This flirtation with Democracy does not seem to suit a population that has for many centuries been well served by devotion, bordering on worship of the ruling Monarch. Todays ailing King Bhunipol is no exception, a man known to be devoted to both his Country and its people. The people trust him with their interests, trust him to look after them all, so why not stick with the system of Monarchy? The answer, like the main pro-argument for democracy, is that natural succession does not often produce the required result. The King's natural heir is a 'playboy' prince who is not well regarded and people worry for the well being of the Nation when he comes to reign. The people would prefer the crown to pass to Princess Sirindhorn, his second daughter, who has inherited her father's love of his people. It is for this reason that people are very anxious about the present health of the King. His death, as well as bringing the Country to a halt as people genuinely grieve for a man they think of as a God, will also trigger an enormous power struggle. I do not know what the military think of the Prince but one mustn't underestimate the power of his patronage to buy important supporters. One must also consider the possibility that Thaksin Shinawatr and his millions of Bahts may yet return to have some influence in the Ancient Kingdom.
Liu Xiaobo was duly pronounced the latest Nobel Peace prize winner in a move calculated to irritate the Chinese Government. One must have some sympathy for the Chinese Government, having delivered in the last twenty years the highest growth in standard of living of any country on earth. To achieve that, transforming the economy and bringing unheard of prosperity to many, and then have a man feted by foreigners for complaining about the lack of human rights in the country, must be particularly galling. Particularly so when the question of 'human rights' without corresponding responsibility is being discredited around the globe.
Thirdly; the London student riots. I have blogged about this and the disgraceful way people abuse the freedoms they are allowed. We now hear that various anarchist groups are threatening to disrupt next year's royal wedding, thereby destroying an event much cherished by millions of Britains who value the history and cultural legacy of the Nation's monarchy. It is not so different from Thailand, although a system of Parliamentary Democracy has been long established in Britain. It seems to me that this Democratic form of Government has run its course. If the anarchists are allowed to get their way because they have 'Human Rights' then what about the same 'Human Rights' of those who cherish the UK's monarchy and who want to disrupt the anarchists? Allowing the people too much freedom, will inevitably result in the destruction of the very freedom they wish to enjoy.
Friday, 10 December 2010
Student riots
What a mess. Before yesterday's riots student leaders were asked about their attitude to violent protest. Predictably they denounced it and went ahead anyway, knowing full well that the anarchists and other assorted malcontents would take advantage. Crass stupidity and unrealistic optimism from a bunch with 'previous'. Some of the student leaders will no doubt become socialist researchers and even worse, Lemming MPs.
The politicians were more concerned with the image they portrayed of tolerance to peaceful protest rather than facing the real problem of getting the message over to a bunch of youngsters too full of juvenile idealism to see what any right minded person can- that these fees are essential for well funded universities and the students are getting a good deal for their education. The only people more ignorant than the rabble students were the socialist opposition who disregarding the fact the proposals were very similar to their own, took turns to denounce the plans in the debate. One Lemming, on a point of order even suggested that the bill would lead to civil unrest, a suggestion that invited trouble in its very saying. Irresponsible and stupid said Mr Willet the Government spokesman at the despatch box, winding up the debate and he wasn't wrong.
The widespread rioting and damage will not have helped the debate. I hope that people will now recognise that students should not only not be listened to, they should also not to be trusted with the vote. Only people paying National Insurance should have the vote.
A word about the police. Surely they have a right, when they leave their homes and families to go to work, to be protected from the sort of thuggery witnessed in London yesterday. They were let down by the commissioner of the Met Police who also failed to correctly anticipate the prospect of trouble. If the people of the UK expect to be protected in their homes and on the streets, they owe it to the men and women who put their bodies and lives on the line, to protect them from harm wherever possible. Yesterday wasn't good enough I want to hear more condemnation of the riots from the parliamentarians.
Desecration of the Nation's monuments by these students is evidence enough that the lessons of the past hasn't been heeded. They aren't listening. These people should be arrested and EDUCATED about decency and yes, sacrifice of those who died that they might have their freedom. When I'm king these bastards will be held in stocks in their own town centres and shamed so that their peers can throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at them.
The politicians were more concerned with the image they portrayed of tolerance to peaceful protest rather than facing the real problem of getting the message over to a bunch of youngsters too full of juvenile idealism to see what any right minded person can- that these fees are essential for well funded universities and the students are getting a good deal for their education. The only people more ignorant than the rabble students were the socialist opposition who disregarding the fact the proposals were very similar to their own, took turns to denounce the plans in the debate. One Lemming, on a point of order even suggested that the bill would lead to civil unrest, a suggestion that invited trouble in its very saying. Irresponsible and stupid said Mr Willet the Government spokesman at the despatch box, winding up the debate and he wasn't wrong.
The widespread rioting and damage will not have helped the debate. I hope that people will now recognise that students should not only not be listened to, they should also not to be trusted with the vote. Only people paying National Insurance should have the vote.
A word about the police. Surely they have a right, when they leave their homes and families to go to work, to be protected from the sort of thuggery witnessed in London yesterday. They were let down by the commissioner of the Met Police who also failed to correctly anticipate the prospect of trouble. If the people of the UK expect to be protected in their homes and on the streets, they owe it to the men and women who put their bodies and lives on the line, to protect them from harm wherever possible. Yesterday wasn't good enough I want to hear more condemnation of the riots from the parliamentarians.
Desecration of the Nation's monuments by these students is evidence enough that the lessons of the past hasn't been heeded. They aren't listening. These people should be arrested and EDUCATED about decency and yes, sacrifice of those who died that they might have their freedom. When I'm king these bastards will be held in stocks in their own town centres and shamed so that their peers can throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at them.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
FIFA World Cup
The recent award of the 2018 FIFA World Cup has been awarded to Russia, when the bid from England was widely expected to do much better. The English bid, supported by Prince William, the Prime Minister and International football superstar, David Beckham received just two votes out of twenty four, one of which was from the English representative on the FIFA board. Contrast this with the behaviour of the Russian President, Mr Putin who stayed at home for the vote, leading to much speculation that he didn't attend because he knew the result beforehand.
It can be argued that the English cause was not helped by the Panorama programme that uncovered widespread fraud amongst the FIFA members, leading to the suspension of two of them. Clearly there is something very smelly down in the FIFA woodpile and I feel that the programme couldn't influence a decision that had already been decided. Of course FIFA had to go through the motion to give some legitimacy to the process, but to put the English FA through the trouble and expense of £15m to make the bid seems a high price to pay to simply make up the numbers. According to many, the English bid was outstanding on a number of counts, including financial forecasts and infrastructure, thanks to all the work done in London for the 2012 Olympics. By any measure it ought to have won but FIFA work to another agenda. The President Mr Blatter has always said that he wants to expand the game into the furthermost corners of the world. To this end, the World Cup for 2022 has already been awarded to Qatar, the first venue in the Middle East. All very laudable, but why then ask the English to make a bid?
The bidding process includes numerous fact-finding visits from the Board to the various bidding countries. All very nice with first class travel and five star hotels plus favourable treatment from possible host countries including special tax status for all income. FIFA does as it likes and is largely indifferent to outside comment. Transparency is not obvious.
Who are FIFA and why do they run the World Cup when it was the British FAs that established the rules for the modern game in 1882? The British FAs formed the International arm to the sport in 1886 and FIFA became a member in 1913. FIFA introduced the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930
and its popularity has increased ever since. The original ideals of FIFA could not be faulted. Bringing the peoples of the world closer together with the beautiful game. One of the first principles was to do with integrity and it is built into their code of conduct.
Integrity. We believe that, just as the game itself, FIFA must be a model of fair play, tolerance, sportsmanship and transparency.
Sadly the dream seems to be going wrong, as the present-day competition generates truly huge amounts of money, matched by the huge resentments amongst the losing nations and allowing speculation that the bidding process is open to fraud. That some members might be accepting bribes to influence the bidding process was behind the BBC programme.
Russia can compete for the Jules Verne trophy, in a devalued tournament whilst England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic compete with others for the real World Cup with all the top teams. It is time for the inventors of the modern game to regain control of it's development.
It can be argued that the English cause was not helped by the Panorama programme that uncovered widespread fraud amongst the FIFA members, leading to the suspension of two of them. Clearly there is something very smelly down in the FIFA woodpile and I feel that the programme couldn't influence a decision that had already been decided. Of course FIFA had to go through the motion to give some legitimacy to the process, but to put the English FA through the trouble and expense of £15m to make the bid seems a high price to pay to simply make up the numbers. According to many, the English bid was outstanding on a number of counts, including financial forecasts and infrastructure, thanks to all the work done in London for the 2012 Olympics. By any measure it ought to have won but FIFA work to another agenda. The President Mr Blatter has always said that he wants to expand the game into the furthermost corners of the world. To this end, the World Cup for 2022 has already been awarded to Qatar, the first venue in the Middle East. All very laudable, but why then ask the English to make a bid?
The bidding process includes numerous fact-finding visits from the Board to the various bidding countries. All very nice with first class travel and five star hotels plus favourable treatment from possible host countries including special tax status for all income. FIFA does as it likes and is largely indifferent to outside comment. Transparency is not obvious.
Who are FIFA and why do they run the World Cup when it was the British FAs that established the rules for the modern game in 1882? The British FAs formed the International arm to the sport in 1886 and FIFA became a member in 1913. FIFA introduced the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930
and its popularity has increased ever since. The original ideals of FIFA could not be faulted. Bringing the peoples of the world closer together with the beautiful game. One of the first principles was to do with integrity and it is built into their code of conduct.
Integrity. We believe that, just as the game itself, FIFA must be a model of fair play, tolerance, sportsmanship and transparency.
Sadly the dream seems to be going wrong, as the present-day competition generates truly huge amounts of money, matched by the huge resentments amongst the losing nations and allowing speculation that the bidding process is open to fraud. That some members might be accepting bribes to influence the bidding process was behind the BBC programme.
TIME THEN FOR THE BRITISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS TO START THEIR OWN WORLD CUP STARTING WITH 2018 AND INVITE THE OTHER LOSING BIDDERS, SPAIN, PORTUGAL, HOLLAND, BELGIUM TO JOIN.
Russia can compete for the Jules Verne trophy, in a devalued tournament whilst England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic compete with others for the real World Cup with all the top teams. It is time for the inventors of the modern game to regain control of it's development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
