Saturday, December 29, 2007

The Weather (continued)

As late as the 1960s, science clearly defined the Coriolis effect as just what it is, an effect. It results from the Earth’s west to east spin. It has to be accounted for when launching a rocket. If the rocket is launched due north, it’s landing point will be east of its departure point because it will be traveling east at the same speed the Earth was moving when it departed, but as it moves north, the Earth’s speed is lessening, which means it is traveling increasing faster than the Earth is rotating. Thus, it will land east of where it took off. This is not the result of a force, it is the result of an effect due to the rotation of the Earth, and was clearly labeled as such in the dictionaries of the time. In fact, during the period of change, most dictionaries cautioned that it wasn’t a force, but merely an effect.
Now, it’s universally accepted as a force, which goes to show, science can petty much get away with anything it wants and we’ll sit here like the dummies we are and accept it.
How did the Coriolis effect become a force? It has to do with the jet stream.
For all those amateur meteorologists who’ve ever seen the majority of the clouds traveling west to east, opposite the direction the Earth is turning, and fleetingly wondered why they aren’t spinning with the Earth, the answer is coming up. The movement of the clouds, though, is nothing compared to the speed of the jet stream. First encountered by high-flying B-29s at the end of WWII, it really came into the conscious debate with the beginning of the jet age in the mid-fifties. The jet stream in the U.S. moves from west to east, providing a tail wind to jets from the west coast.
Up until the jet stream intervened, meteorology was simply fronts moving between highs and lows. Now, combined with the fact that the clouds went in an opposite direction than would be intuitively expected, the table was set for the real explanation for the wind, the Coriolis force. Instead of a rocket taking off and, due to the Earth’s spin and its diminishing circumference, landing to the east of where it took off, the rotation of the Earth was forcing the rocket to veer to the east.
Sound like the same? Sure does except now it’s not a result of the Earth turning, the Earth doing something, forcing the rocket to veer east, it's the result of the Earth's rotation forcing the rocket east and therefore the result of a force. This rote piece of nonsense, the Coriolis force, mindlessly repeated, is taken as fact and is the founding principle of meteorology. Now instead of using a realistic explanation for why clouds and the jet stream move from west to east, an explanation that is by no means difficult, one that is indisputable, we have the clouds and the jet stream being pushed east by the Coriolis force.
And once we have a force, we have something that can be measured, if only by reference to the self-referential force itself, measuring the supposed force by what it does.
Once we have something that can be measured, we have empirical science.
(To be continued)

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Weather

Who would expect the ultimate admission that science is nothing but a bunch of consensual bull then in its treatment and ultimate acceptance of the “science” of weather?
Weather is not a science, never has been and never will be, yet science treats it as a science. Oh sure, forecasting weather patterns has become more accurate with satellite tracking, but that’s all it is, more accurate tracking of existing weather, not, shudder, forecasting, something that to science is akin to the robed arm pointing to the heavens and citing incantations.
Weather became a science, the science of meteorology, only after science prostituted itself at the throne of Newton. In return for recognition as a science, weather agreed to go along with science’s absurd insistence that the spinning planet has no effect on weather, an offshoot of Newton’s explanation for the tides, that they merely waxed and waned in response to the movements of the moon and sun. The rotation of the planet could not be affected by the weather, although we’ll clearly see it is, because if weather affected the rotation, it would have long since slowed the planet to a halt.
In short, science is too lazy to look for the actual cause of rotation, and will do anything to avoid reality.
(To be continued)

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Field Replacement (continued)

The final example of the ignorance arising from the failure to recognize the Earth’s field, and thus field replacement, is one of my favorites because it actually deals with proof of the field’s existence (when I was young, science would not even admit a planet was hot in the interior). It also deals with science’s process of monkey see, monkey say.
Telescopes have been around for hundreds of years. The most distinctive aspect of a telescope is how we use it. We point one end to the sky and peer through the other end. Always have, always will. Well, not really, because along about the time I was born, a guy named Grote Reber invented the radio telescope. This took radio signals from the sky and represented them graphically, providing a second source of information about the dots of light we see in the heavens.
By the time the radio telescope came along, Hubble’s red shift had been converted into the theory of the expanding universe (when we realign the colors in a later chapter, we’ll see that this should actually have been the theory of the contracting universe). The problem with the theory of the expanding universe was that it had not been proven conclusively, which in scientific terms means, proven to the satisfaction of the consensus. In short, all sorts of people trying to make their bones were casting around for the big bang proof.
As the radio telescope was put more and more into use, depicting stars in a new way by pointing the radio receiver at them much the same as we historically did with telescopes, it dawned on the users that there was a low level of electrical activity that registered even when the telescope was not pointing at a target. Find a blotch of empty space and this low level radio interference made its presence known. As the existence of this background radiation from outer space became widely know, the question arose, what is it, where does it come from, why is it there.
What better set up for and ah ha moment. On the one hand, science had background radiation (I don’t know how the radio signals turned into radiation, but its slowly become cosmic microwave background radiation), on the other, it had an incessant need to scientifically prove the big bang theory. Why, it was decided along about the time I graduated from law school, the background radiation was nothing more than the radiation left over from the big bang, and the big bang was now proven to be the truth. What could be greater?
Well, the crushing realization that this background radiation registered uniform while the galaxies were here and there, all over the place. If the radiation were leftover from the big bang, then it should be irregular. Oh, what to do, what to do?
Ever willing to face any and all obstacles, read possible disagreements with its own theories, science began to lobby, read Announcement of Opportunity, for something that would demonstrate its original thoughts on the background radiation were correct, and that something was the COBE satellite, which to keep costs at a minimum, was set to cost a mere thirty million, not including launching costs. The idea was that the background radiation was going through the Earth’s atmosphere, which was causing it to become regular. If the background radiation could be measured from space, it would prove to be irregular.
Now I don’t know which planet anybody else grew up on, but I grew up on the planet where the stars twinkle. The stars twinkle because of atmospheric interference. The starlight doesn’t become uniform as it passes through the atmosphere, it becomes irregular. Although I can, for some reason, never find information on what stars look like from space, I can guarantee that they don’t twinkle. Once they hit the atmosphere, they twinkle.
At least a few astronomers know this. These astronomers use the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics system to see without atmospheric distortion. A computer uses models to determine the distortion on a bright guide star and then applies those distortions to a fainter object, creating an image of the fainter object as if it was not coming through the atmosphere.
If astronomers know that the atmosphere distorts, how can a bunch of them come up with a multimillion-dollar project based on the fact that the atmosphere doesn’t distort? Oh, I don’t know, maybe the same way they say anything they want and we believe them hook, line, and sinker because we’re just too afraid of science’s superior knowledge to ask a question. So ever onward and upward with the COBE satellite, the satellite that will answer our final question of where we all came from, an explosion a long time ago in a universe that didn’t yet exist.
Guess what? The experiment was a grand success. It demonstrated ripples in the cosmos, irregular background radiation that matched the irregular placement of the galaxies in space. Hooray! Science even matched up the blue radiation where there were galaxies and the red radiation where there were no galaxies along about the time I retired using a comparatively cheap balloon it floated some twenty-three miles above the Antarctic carrying an extremely sensitive microwave telescope. Hooray again!
Let’s look a little more closely at the “telescope” we’re using. It’s been demonstrated time and again that the telescope is not a telescope, but a radio telescope that simply picks up radio signals. It is estimated that radio signals are the radio signals in the environment and they can come from radon, or broadcast signals or the local garage door opening, although these radio signals are insignificant enough to be excluded. The telescope also picks up signals it zeros in on, signals from the galaxies. In what universe is it written, however, that the background signals, the 3% constant hum, comes from the area the telescope zeros in on. In short, what justifies the bald assumption that the background radiation is from space?
The second assumption is that the Earth is not emitting a field!
If we are blind to the Earth’s field, we’ll be blind to the background radiation a radio telescope is picking up, and we’ll use the mistake to further complicate our ignorant ruminations.
The radio telescope picks up the background radiation from the Earth’s emission field, proving that field exists. It is uniform because it is not moving through the atmosphere. However, when we measure the background radiation after it has gone through the atmosphere, it measures as irregular, as is the case with everything else that goes through the atmosphere.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Field Replacement (continued)

The mechanics of field replacement are counterintuitive in a world where science never looks below the surface to ascertain what’s really happening, but the building blocks that make it intuitive are clear: a single elementary particle, the electron, with two opposing properties, at rest motion and excess affinity propensity in a universe where the two have a profound effect on each other. Excess affinity propensities attract electrons while flows of electrons release electrons into the environment. Having built a science on the observations of dead men who neither saw nor analyzed reality in a forthright way, but merely came up with ad hoc explanations for it, has produced a stunted science that is neither interested in or wants to examine what is happening, rather one that simply wants answers no matter how anomalous or inconsistent they are in relation to its other answers. Without the knowledge of the existence of fields, we end up with absurdities, two of which I would like to close the chapter with.
All matter on Earth exists in the Earth’s field. While rotation exposes all matter periodically to alternating bouts with the sun’s very strong field, the constant field we live in is generated by the Earth. That field starts out somewhere beneath the Earth’s surface and expands in an expanding sphere out and away from the Earth. Thus the further we get from the source of the field, the more the field diminishes, the diminishing occurring inversely with the square of its distance.
We are all familiar with Einstein’s obsession with relative time and space. After the Michelson Morley experiment failed and science was attempting to find a reason why, it was eventually accepted that the aether didn’t exist and motion was relative. This meant that both distance and time changed with speed. All of modern science is based on Einstein’s relative motion. For Einstein, there was no such thing as absolute motion. An observer in motion is incapable of determining the absolute motion of a second object in motion because, once the two are relative to one another, the distances of the objects, as well as the times, are relative.
Probably the most famous “proof” of this statement is, with the dawn of the space age, the very expensive sending of one clock into space while a control clock is monitored on the surface of the Earth. Because the clock in space is moving faster than the clock on the ground, the reasoning goes that the clock in space will slow down relative to the clock on the ground.
Lo and behold, the experiment was worth every penny because it did slow down. Now we know we live in a universe that no one can understand so science is free to blather on and on with the defense that the universe is stranger than we can imagine and therefore it takes bubbleheads with endless schooling to do the understanding for us.
Unfortunately, with no knowledge of the field being emitted by the Earth, we can all be informed by the abstruse utterances such an absurdity provides unless we’re actually navigators doing something in the real world.
The clocks used in the experiment are the most accurate clocks in the world, which means they are atomic clocks. An atomic clock keeps time by recording emissions from an atomic substance, meaning atoms, at the basis of the clock. What are causing these emissions? The instability of the atom as it exists in the field. The atom is decaying at a fixed rate because it’s in a fixed field. The fixed field is field replacing the electrons that make up the units in its nucleus at a steady rate. As long as the field remains the same, the rate of field replacement will remain the same.
So what happens when we change the rate of field replacement in one clock, place it in an environment with less of a field? The rate of field replacement will slow down. What’s the effect on the clock, which is driven by the decay of the constituent parts of its atoms? Lower field replacement, lower decay, fewer ticks. The clock is going to register fewer incidents of decay than one in a stronger field and is therefore going to actually slow down.
In the experiment, one atomic clock is left in a strong field, and another, several hundred miles above the Earth, in a weaker field, and the one in the weaker field, as a result of the lesser field replacement, simply doesn’t register as many events as the one on the ground, and we base our entire science on this idiocy of ignorance.
Even though our bubbleheads universally accept the clock experiment as absolute prove of relative everything, a Frenchman by the name of Sagnac demonstrated in 1913 that an absolute measurement could be obtained of a moving object by a moving object, inventing the ring interferometer that makes accurate air travel possible today, but hey, don’t expect our bubbleheads flying all over the world for expensive conferences to look up from their bubblebooks to see reality.
(To be continued)