Gratuitous sex and violence on television

In Sept 2014 I blogged about the regretful escalation of scenes of gratuitous sex and violence on television. see  here

Last night, viewers complained about the gruesome contents of the new BBC drama, 'Fall' and the too graphic display on the soap, 'Emmerdale'. They follow on a long list of recent dramas that have shocked viewers as the producers forsake decency in the quest for brutal reality. Also on last night was another drama, called, 'Paranoid'. I guess there was a clue in the name and I wouldn't watch, but who do? What sort of people want to watch these pictures of gratuitous sex and violence? not those who regularly used to watch Poirot or Midsummer where murder and mayhem could be skilfully portrayed in a manner suitable before the watershed hour.
Come on TV programmers! Let's have some watchable programmes, like Morse, requiring something resembling a brain to understand the nuances of a plot without a need to witness the crime. Do your advertisers demand 'X' rated shows? Who then? Perverts, criminals and psychopaths?
You could do worse than look to dramatise my own work; merely a suggestion of course.

Grammar or Comprehensive schools

As the Tories look into expanding the number of Grammar schools, the Labour Party shadow education minister has said that the overwhelming evidence points to the benefits of a comprehensive schooling where pupils of all abilities are lumped together. She would say that wouldn't she.
The rump of her argument is that it is discriminatory and therefore unfair to test children at 11 years, thereby subjecting those who fail to a lifetime of stigmatization and under achievement. Almost all those who support this, including the socialist teachers of the NUS, fail to mention that children can be re-evaluated at a later date thereby allowing them to pursue a more academic education.
What I'm sure she really means is that the move to more Grammar schools will further the discrimination of TEACHERS. Leftie teachers will fear that there will be a stigma attached, not to the children, but to the teachers that fail to get positions in a Grammar school and have to settle for second best, teaching in a Comprehensive.

Happiness Index, Gravity and clocks

HAPPINESS INDEX. GRAVITY & CLOCKS

We have all heard the phrase, ‘Doesn’t time fly when you’re enjoying yourself’, but what do we mean by it? Can we describe the sensation of ‘time flying’ in more scientific terms? Conventional scientists might say, ‘no’ but, perhaps, the Davies Hypothesis can, at least, show a way forward.

Remember that we have defined perceived time, T, in terms of the ‘real’ or measured time, the ‘unreal’ time and the ‘imaginary’ time according to the ‘trinitarian’ equation below:

T= ±√[t² + (-t)² + (it)²]

From this we have resolved that:

                       

                                    T = ± t

In other words, in our part of the universe and ignoring the negative answer, we feel time passing at the rate of ‘real’ time, or one second per second. No surprises there. Looking at the Trinitarian equation we notice that the coefficients of each term is unity but must ask the question if this is always the case. It is entirely plausible to assume that the ‘real’ terms always remain the same but what of the third term, the ‘imaginary’ time component. Remember this is the term responsible for dreams; for man’s imagination and spirituality. Below I have drawn a table showing the perceived time for different coefficients of ‘imaginary’ time.

Coefficient	Perceived Time, T
0.05	1.395t
0.1	1.38t
0.2	1.34t
0.3	1.3t
0.4	1.25t
0.9	1.05t
1	1t
1.2	0.9t
1.5	0.7t
1.8	0.45t
2	0
-100	10t
-1000000	1000t

We can see that for coefficient values from 0 to 1, the perceived time is longer than ‘real’ time and therefore time palls. We are not enjoying ourselves. However for coefficient values between 1 and 2, perceived time is indeed shorter than ‘real’ time and we’re having fun. So, we can indeed build an happiness index based on the ‘trinitarian equation’ as applied to time; close to zero, no fun, close to two, ecstatic. (At the figure of 2, indeed, it seems that time stands still.)

What else can we glean from these figures?

We cannot realistically have a coefficient greater than 2 because that leads us into ‘fairyland’, the domain of imaginary numbers. However, we can go below zero into the realm of negative numbers and we show two examples that demonstrate that perceived time stretches out to a large extent when the negative coefficient rises. If we take the example of minus one million, we can see that the perceived time is a thousand times longer.

T= ±√[t² + (-t)² -1000000 (it)²]

T ~ 1000t   (ignoring the other terms as too small)

At this level of misery an half an hour in the dentists chair will seem like ten days.

There is however a more serious side to this; the question of time dilation. Where does science predict the most dramatic slowing down of time? I suggest it is at the event horizon of a black hole where time almost stands still. Could it be that the enormous gravity exerted by the black hole changes the coefficient of the ‘imaginary’ time component; that gravity and time are linked? In these extreme circumstances, the coefficient of the ‘imaginary’ term could run into the minus trillions. Einstein predicted that increased gravity slowed down clocks, now the ‘Davies Hypothesis’ demonstrates how.

'Now. The Physics of Time' by Prof. Richard A Muller

A new book called 'Now. The physics of time' has recently been published by Prof. Richard A Muller of  the University of California, Berkeley.
I haven't read it; I can't afford it, but he is the first senior scientist to suggest that as the universe expands, so new time is created ( and humans therefore feel the flow of time) Hallelujah! Somebody the science world takes seriously has come to this conclusion and agrees with me. I don't know if his book also speculates that time is three dimensional in our universe but if it doesn't he might care to read my humble theory and compare notes.
If you read this, Richard, perhaps you could email me a pdf of your book so that I can see if we are heading in the same direction.

Thanks be to God.

Nobody could fail to have been affected by the rescue of people off the Libyan coast with the loss of at least seven lives. These people were so desperate to leave their tragic situation and face death in search of a better life, they took to the Mediterranean, with no clear plan other than to reach Europe. Those who watched couldn't have failed to see one of the rescued men raise his palms to give thanks to Allah, presumably for his survival.
Now I know it is difficult for those believers who don't question their faith, but couldn't someone ask this man why he felt it necessary to thank his God when so many perished in the sinking and their conditions of life, which prompted their migration under HIS watch were so dreadful. When this man landed in Europe he should have been in no doubt that his failing, hard-hearted God was to be abandoned and that at the very least he should look to the religion of his saviours; better still abandon all notion of a loving and merciful God. He was rescued by people, intent on doing their duty to do good. The world is full of people intent on doing good, bringing up a family, helping others because that is the nature of mankind we all want to see. At times like this we need to make this point; when Muslims come to Europe they ought to reassess their beliefs and they need help to overcome the charge of apostasy.

Keith Vaz

I have listened and read much about the disgraced MP, Keith Vaz. It seems he has literally been caught with his pants down, a disgraceful predicament for a plain parliamentarian but unbelievable for the Chairman of a select Committee, especially the one concerned with home affairs. It seems that, over the years, there has been widespead speculation about his personal life including a friendship with the alleged paedophile, Lord Janner. Apparently the CPS have had many opportunities to bring him before a court but failed to do so. We need to know why and who authorised the non prosecution to exclude them from the enquiries. Someone has got to make a stand and bring these disgusting so called 'top' people to book. Who will accept the challenge?
What I cannot find and it is a striking omission is that there seems to be NO mention that the security services, MI5 or MI6 were involved. How could they be oblivious to the connivances of a man so obviously a security risk? If they were watching him, how did they miss so much and if they didn't miss it why was he allowed to carry on unless they were watching him and his contacts?