Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle named after the 14th century
mathematician and friar, William of Occam. Ockham was the village in
this English County where he was born. There are many resources to
investigate this man and his theories. This is not about him but his
thinking. Thinkers are important to the world. Over thinking something
can be the death of it.
Most people have never heard of this and
yet with the logical thinkers of today it is almost built into our
genetic code. We know things without realizing how or why we do. The
universe as a whole is almost emanating this into our very souls. Our
brains absorbing codes that alter our thinking giving the same idea to
the masses at the same time. I don't completely understand everything.
When I hear something my brain lets me know that logically the
information is even viable. The brain will calculate out many different
scenarios. You will start to evaluate your own opinions, theories and
reason as to why one thing sounds right vs. the other. The Occam's razor
is a logical way of thinking.
Short excerpts from the 14th century theory:
"If
you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you
should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
"Keep things simple!"
You
have heard many of these concepts built in to many popular slogans and
methods of achieving a goal. The Occam's Razor does not only have to
applied to only scientific experiments but it can be applied to every
day life.
This is a great scholarly way of looking at things.
The way you look at things dictates how you decipher, translate and
learn things. Then if you can learn things you can implement them into
discovering the worlds secrets.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Ancient Astronauts and Contemporary Skepticism
Over the course of the past year, I closely assisted a colleague in
writing a series of ten articles covering diverse aspects of my ancient
astronaut theory. All ten of those articles circulated widely around the
globe and view counters on many sites indicated plentiful readership,
but feedback to me, or to her, from anywhere, was non-existent. There
was neither criticism nor acclaim from anyone. Just silence. I was
starting to think that perhaps no one in world wants to take ancient
astronauts seriously.
In an attempt to make some progress, I decided to pay sixty dollars for a review of my ancient astronaut website. Of course, this was to be a review by skeptics; a review by New Age believers would be worthless. Their blog's description was "critical reviews of paranormal claims on the Internet." The intermediary granted them five days to perform their review but that has long since come and gone, and not a word from them. My website presents a vast amount of evidence and, in truth, I could not expect anyone to produce a good critical review in just five days. No one, including myself, would want to see quickly prepared and frivolous arguments, else I would make them look ridiculous in my counter arguments. Moreover, some of my evidence comes from Spanish-language sources and, to start, they would need time to verify that none of it is a hoax. They are welcome to all the time they need.
What to expect from this blog is uncertain. There are skeptics who are as narrow-minded in their thinking as their New Age counterparts, and then again, there are skeptics, like me, who objectively evaluate the evidence to arrive at the truth. Was there a real ancient astronaut? To help the skeptics answer that question, I will give them some ideas on how to refute my theories. Here, solely for space considerations, I will concentrate on the archaeological evidence, leaving aside ideas on how to refute the cryptology and theology evidence for another day.
My website reproduces engravings from the Tiwanaku civilization in Bolivia. One of those engravings depicts the alleged ancient astronaut as an aquatic with a three-pronged tail, with each of the three prongs ending in a pod. How do the skeptics refute that? Easy. They simply need to demonstrate that the shape of those pods resembles some form of animal or plant life to be found in that region. In other words, they need to find a terrestrial source for those engravings, otherwise my extraterrestrial arguments remain unharmed.
The timing of the Tiwanaku sky-god drawings coincides with the timing of the Nazca Lines in Peru, so the ancient astronaut of both places has to be one and the same. For Nazca, the skeptics will find many ready-made arguments, but I consider all of them weak. The mentality of the people of Nazca cannot be assumed to be unique in human history. It has to be demonstrated that people elsewhere also believed that the sun, moon, or sky-spirits had physical eyes that could observe ground drawings. Alternatively, it has to be demonstrated that the people of Nazca worshipped birds, believing them to have cognitive intelligence.
The recorded engravings on the cosmological Sun Disk, alleged alien artifact, may prove to be the biggest challenge for the skeptics. How are we to believe that the Andeans of the early sixteenth century a) knew that the Earth was round, b) knew that it was possible to orbit the Earth, c) knew that sunlight striking the moon could reflect back to strike a spaceship, d) knew that the dark clouds along the Milky Way contained stars within, and e) knew that water formed the basis of plant and animal evolution? Here the skeptics would need to find parallels in the history of western civilization. I look forward to their response.
In an attempt to make some progress, I decided to pay sixty dollars for a review of my ancient astronaut website. Of course, this was to be a review by skeptics; a review by New Age believers would be worthless. Their blog's description was "critical reviews of paranormal claims on the Internet." The intermediary granted them five days to perform their review but that has long since come and gone, and not a word from them. My website presents a vast amount of evidence and, in truth, I could not expect anyone to produce a good critical review in just five days. No one, including myself, would want to see quickly prepared and frivolous arguments, else I would make them look ridiculous in my counter arguments. Moreover, some of my evidence comes from Spanish-language sources and, to start, they would need time to verify that none of it is a hoax. They are welcome to all the time they need.
What to expect from this blog is uncertain. There are skeptics who are as narrow-minded in their thinking as their New Age counterparts, and then again, there are skeptics, like me, who objectively evaluate the evidence to arrive at the truth. Was there a real ancient astronaut? To help the skeptics answer that question, I will give them some ideas on how to refute my theories. Here, solely for space considerations, I will concentrate on the archaeological evidence, leaving aside ideas on how to refute the cryptology and theology evidence for another day.
My website reproduces engravings from the Tiwanaku civilization in Bolivia. One of those engravings depicts the alleged ancient astronaut as an aquatic with a three-pronged tail, with each of the three prongs ending in a pod. How do the skeptics refute that? Easy. They simply need to demonstrate that the shape of those pods resembles some form of animal or plant life to be found in that region. In other words, they need to find a terrestrial source for those engravings, otherwise my extraterrestrial arguments remain unharmed.
The timing of the Tiwanaku sky-god drawings coincides with the timing of the Nazca Lines in Peru, so the ancient astronaut of both places has to be one and the same. For Nazca, the skeptics will find many ready-made arguments, but I consider all of them weak. The mentality of the people of Nazca cannot be assumed to be unique in human history. It has to be demonstrated that people elsewhere also believed that the sun, moon, or sky-spirits had physical eyes that could observe ground drawings. Alternatively, it has to be demonstrated that the people of Nazca worshipped birds, believing them to have cognitive intelligence.
The recorded engravings on the cosmological Sun Disk, alleged alien artifact, may prove to be the biggest challenge for the skeptics. How are we to believe that the Andeans of the early sixteenth century a) knew that the Earth was round, b) knew that it was possible to orbit the Earth, c) knew that sunlight striking the moon could reflect back to strike a spaceship, d) knew that the dark clouds along the Milky Way contained stars within, and e) knew that water formed the basis of plant and animal evolution? Here the skeptics would need to find parallels in the history of western civilization. I look forward to their response.
Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other "Relativistic" Effects
Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects
(A Scandal in the "relativistic" family)
Ravil Kalmykov
The requirement of Einstein's second postulate regarding constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames is a singular deviation from the canons of classical mechanics. It creates a basic distortion in the habitual representation of space and time. Persons beginning their study of special relativity, should be ready to experience a surprising metamorphosis.
However one of problems of science consists in the exceptional number of these novel theoretical representations. It is no secret that physicists-theorists are at times ready to bring down a huge cloud of new and absolutely mad hypotheses on heads of unsuspecting people. The problem facing the general scientific community in maintaining a healthy world outlook consists, whenever possible, in limiting the revolutionary aspirations of some of the excessively zealous authors with their novel and singular concepts, to a pragmatic and necessary minimum.
In opinion of the author of this article, not all is right with special relativity. They have obviously overdone the scale of novelty and have run counter to the requirements of the principle of necessity. One should try to find a more simple theoretical explanation, which is less bulky and less burdensome for the human mind.
Historically, the first idea that came to the minds of physicists was that in a condition of relative movement of inertial systems with near-light speeds, a transformation of space is inevitable. So the formulas of Lorentz's transformations were born. However people have the right to question why it was decided to begin with spatial distortions and not with time? Apparently, the human mind is arranged to begin with something small, close and clear. Probably, changes in space are perceived to be easier than changes in time.
However, it turned out that transformations in space were not sufficient, and it was necessary to subject time to distortions as well. But what else distorts? According to the Lorentz transformations, a double change in time takes place: time intervals are reduced, and there is the phenomenon of "the relativity of simultaneity". Thus, the initial "cautious" idea of transformation of space to which physicists have so amicably clung has generated a whole bouquet of shocking effects. We have a right to ask: what would be the result if we started with the other end? The author tries to prove below, that another theory leads to a result that is simple, has a minimum of novelty, and is more sparing of human credulity.
In stating the contents of special relativity one usually finds the relativity of simultaneity right at the beginning. But it has for some unknown reason only a qualitative character. The existence of this strange effect is only mentioned. The quantitative formula is deduced much later, after calculations of the reductions of space lengths and timepieces according to Lorentz's transformations. As a result, it is given a "third-rate" dependency. After all of that, it is forgotten.
The author sees a basic mistake in this fact. He considers that value of this phenomenon is wrongly underestimated. Actually, it is the main thing (and as it will be shown below – the only thing). Therefore it should be investigated first, and deeply. As to the concrete formula describing the phenomenon, it will be found in the thought experiment of Einstein's train.
Direct derivation of the scale of infringement of simultaneity
This well-known experiment has a train, which we will consider as having a relativistic speed. There are two observers. One is in the middle of the train, the other – at the station. All is organized in such a manner that during that moment when the observers are opposite each other, they simultaneously receive two light signals, emitting earlier from the two ends of the train. Each draws a conclusion about the ratio of the moments of emission of these signals.
With the observer who is in the middle of a train, all is simple: both signals have in his opinion, traveled identical distances (half the length of the train), and were received simultaneously. This means that he considers they were emitted simultaneously as well.
A more difficult situation exists with the observer at the station. First, he understands that during the moments of release of the signals, the middle of a train was some distance away from him. Thus, the head of the train was closer to him, than the tail. As a result, the light signal from the tail covered a greater distance and required a greater time interval. Hence, it should have been emitted earlier than from a head.
It is accepted that a qualitative conclusion of this situation that two simultaneous events in one reference system (train) are not at all simultaneous in another (station). That due to the fact that there was a mistiming of clocks in the two systems. But for some reason, this is not quantified. This is obviously the place to deduce a concrete quantitative ratio of the scale of infringement of simultaneity or the change in time rather than later, in the Lorentz's transformations. Here, in our opinion, is an obvious deviation, from proper experiment. For a meticulous observer at the station, it would be natural to "take the bull by the horns" at once, and to try to deduce the required quantitative ratio.
A little about the nature of the relativity of simultaneity. Actually, it is a question of relative displacement (shift) of events of some interval of a time scale in the transition from one system to another. The size of this displacement depends on the position in space (along an axis of mutual motion of the systems). This displacement (we shall name it a discrepancy of events in time) leads to an interesting quantitative phenomenon.
The observer at the station wishes to calculate the size of the discrepancy using elementary improvised means, without the use of the Lorentz transformation formulas, but being guided by Einstein's postulates. At the same time, our observer is so enamored with space that he does not wish to transform its characteristics without due cause. Station inspectors, as a rule, have plenty of time so time is no problem for them.
Let's represent a situation at the moment of emission of a signal from the tail of the train in fig.1:
Fig. 1. Einstein's train
Here O - position of the middle of a train; O?- position of the observer at station;
A - position of the head of the train; B – position of the tail;
AB = l – length of the train; BO = OA = ; V – speed of the train.
The Signal from the tail should reach the observer at the station in the following time interval
= = = From here =
The time necessary for the arrival of the signal from the head of the train is calculated in a similar fashion.
(The moment of emission of the signal will be different, but the situation will be similar, therefore it is possible to use the same fig.1)
= = = It is received =
The difference between the two intervals is calculated easily
?t = – = - = (1)
So, for the observer at the station that received the simultaneous arrival of the signals, the signal from the head should have been emitted before the signal from the tail of the size, ?t (1). From here, without resorting to a transformation of space, he reaches an elementary conclusion about mistiming of clocks (discrepancy of events) in two systems in any two points, A and B on the axis of their mutual motion. From formula (1) it is obvious that the size is proportional to the speed of relative motion of systems and the distance between the investigated points on the axis of motion, l.
Where is the mistake?
As we see, the observer's result does not coincide with what ensues from Lorentz's transformations. It is easier, and is not concerned with the deformation of space and time scales. Who is right?
Let's remind ourselves that the transformation formulas were derived from an interpretation of Michelson's experiment which showed that rays moving in different directions in a frame of reference were received simultaneously regardless of motion of the source.
Let's recap this situation, remembering the relativity of simultaneity. In the system attached to the interferometer, the ray of light, having run over the course of the interferometer and having reflected back from a mirror, comes back to the initial point, the starting point.
In stationary system in which the interferometer is displaced, the event – the light beam does not return to the starting point, but to another, because during the time of travel ?t of this beam, the interferometer itself was displaced in space by l = V t. An important result is found here. According to the relativity of simultaneity, in this other point the displacement (shift) of events takes place in the time scale. That is, the event at this point occurs earlier on the clocks of one system than on the clocks in another. In particular, when the process of movement in one system is already finished, it still continues in the other!
There is a very puzzling methodological problem: given these conditions, to broadcast events from one system to another. How can we carry out direct comparisons of space and time? There is a suspicion that physicists have given insufficient thought to this question. Really: except for one initial moment all events in two moving systems do not synchronize, and the size of the discrepancy is not constant, continuously progressing with the increase in relative displacement of the systems in space.
The serious analysis of this problem leads to a sad fact: it is impossible to reach a situation when the beginning and the end of any physical process is synchronized in both systems. One moment, only the beginning or the end ofa process can coincide. In Michelson's experiment, only the beginning coincides. In Einstein's train experiment, only the end coincides.
Let's recollect that the analysis of Michelson's experiment resulting in the Lorentz's transformations were calculated from a simple right angled triangle. On the hypotenuse of this triangle, the transverse light beam in the system of the stationary observer moved (see fig.2,) in a continuous line). However the presence of a displacement (shift) of events on the time scale considerably complicates this situation. The return of a light beam in the moving system arrives earlier (point A). At this moment in the stationary system, the beam continues to run cheerfully on the hypotenuse (to point A'). At what moment should the stationary observer determine the length that has been traversed by a ray of light, and the time interval expended for it (at point O' or point A ')?
Our poor stationary observer will certainly as himself this question: if the beginning of motion in both systems is synchronous, and the end is not, how dos this look to the moving observer? The stationary observer will want to try to diagram his version of the process in his own system, taking into account the displacement (see fig.2, a dotted line).
Fig. 2. Motion of the transverse beam in Michelson's experiment
He will certainly not be enthused by the comparison of the two diagrams. In his opinion, the braking process in the direction of motion in moving system are obviously observed. And also acceleration takes place in the opposite direction, considering a change of sign V in the formula (1). In particular, in the mutual displacement of the two systems V ' there is a slowing down from the starting point. To the fixed observer, it is clear why it occurs:
, And in view of the discrepancy t ' = t + ?t, then
- From here is given the illusion of the delay of motion.
And with movement in the opposite direction, V changes to minus and the size ?t becomes a negative value (see the formula (1)), that generates the illusion of acceleration.
An uncomfortable conclusion inevitably follows from this situation. If it is impossible to determine the beginning and end of any process, the spatial positioning and timing of all its intermediate stages and all local events occurring in the framework of the two systems moving with near-light speed becom highly problematic. In this connection, that charming simplicity which authors of special relativity attribute to the Lorentz transformations is difficult to understand. Obviously, these transformations should be reconsidered. It is necessary to subject special relativity to serious modification. What will the occur to its well-known effects and paradoxes?
Problem of direct comparisons in details
Let's try to consider a simple example from the very beginning, given theexistence of the relativity of simultaneity. In a classical example with a moving rod, we shall try to compare the results of measurement of its length by two researchers. In the system of the first researcher moving with the rod, the process of measurement is very simple: it is possible use a ruler and to note on it position at the ends of the rod. In system of the fixed researcher observing the rod moving at near-light speed, the situation is little bit more difficult. He must organize a special measuring experiment.
Experiment 1. The first researcher arranges flashes of light to occur simultaneously at two ends of therod. The second researcher must mark these flashes on a ruler, for example, by means of a photosensitive cover. For simplicity in the thought experiment, we shall assume that the rod travels very close to the ruler, therefore the delay between the moment of flash and the act of measurement can be neglected.
Fig.3. Experiment 1
The first researcher synchronizes time at the ends of the rod and creates simultaneous flashes. But the second researcher is indignant: in his system, the flashes were not simultaneous. That is, he registers a flash at one end of the rod, then after a pause, on the other. He quite reasonably considers result of experiment incorrect because during the pause the rod was essentially displaced in space. This ill-fated experiment shows a discrepancy of events at the ends of the spatially extended rod – the result of the relativistic effect called by us, the - relativity of simultaneity.
So, experiment 1 is defective. Researchers agree to make it otherwise.
Experiment 2. Now the second researcher organizes a simultaneous flash of light along the in his system. For this purpose, he projects a large number of parallel rays of light from one source perpendicular to the motion of the rod. He needs only to mark the edges of the shadow of the moving rod on his ruler. Again, we consider that the rod moves vary close to the ruler of the second observer.
Fig.4. Experiment 2
The act of measurement is accomplished. But now the first researcher is indignant. He is disappointed that the rod in his system was not illuminated simultaneously along all its length. This is again the effect of the relativity of simultaneity: instead of simultaneous flashes it has turned into a kind " moving flame": first one end has been illuminated, and then the light beam has run speedily along the rod to other end. As a result, there was a time lag between the illumination of the two ends. If we consider that during this lag, the ruler of the second researcher was essentially displaced in space in relation to the rod. The result of the measurement, in the opinion of the first researcher, was incorrect. Again, the same discrepancy of events at the ends of the rod! It turns out, that a pause in the act of measurement as the result of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity is the cause.
What is the result? If we consider the situation correctly and take into account the relativity of simultaneity it is necessary to say that it is impossibe to simultaneous fix the ends of a rod in two systems at once. In systems moving relative each other it is impossible to directly compare lengths of the segments located along the line of motion.
Similar reasoning leads to the same conclusion with respect to time intervals. the discrepancy of events at makes it impossible to simultaneously determint the beginning and the end of a time interval in the two systems.
It would be reasonable to consider that nothing unusual occurs in the scale of space and a time in general. There is only the of displacement of events on the time scale. Thus, the basic impossibility of direct comparison of lengths of segments and time intervals forces us to radically change the attitude towards the Lorentz's transformations equations and the well-known consequences of special relativity. Due consideration of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity leads us through necessity, not only to reconsider all former calculations, but also to cancel all other "relativistic" effects. For all these imaginary "reductions", the paradox of "twins" and other amusing things it is sadly necessary to throw them out of the basket of history. In case of the "twins" all that happens is simply another is displacement on the time scale. When returning, the sign on the speed becomes negative, and displacement occurs in the opposite direction. As a result, there will be no difference in age when they meet.
So, the special theory of relativity reduces to only one phenomenon – spatially caused displacement of events on the time scale.
It is the only new element to be brought into classical mechanics. Thus, the minimum requirement is reached. It is necessary to alter transformations for coordinates and time. There is a reason to avail oneself of the formula of the discrepancy of events, determined by us in the example of Einstein's train. As the result of the new transformations, one system will determine:
x' = x - t
Where = dx/dt ;
For the other system ,:
x = x' - 't'
Where ' = dx'/dt' Thus it is important to note, that = - ' only in the combined origin of coordinates of the two systems at the moment of intersection. Generally they are not equal.
In view of the change of direction of vector ' to the opposite in the second case, it is possible to write a scalar,
x = x' + 't'
From the formulas in particular, it follows, that in the system moving in the other direction on axis X, events advance relatively, and in an opposite direction, they are delayed. And it is the sole effect which has a place in reality.
This situation may surprise some; some will be certainly upset or annoyed. The author perceives all this with a large degree of condescension because he considers this annoying misunderstanding only as one of the many problems in the methodology of physics in the XX century, mentioned earlier.
The new transformations open the gate for other methodologies and philosophies in physical research. Actually it is a question of refusing the current domination of neo-positivism in favour of materialism.
It is interesting to see how physicists will look to science fiction writers.
(A Scandal in the "relativistic" family)
Ravil Kalmykov
The requirement of Einstein's second postulate regarding constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames is a singular deviation from the canons of classical mechanics. It creates a basic distortion in the habitual representation of space and time. Persons beginning their study of special relativity, should be ready to experience a surprising metamorphosis.
However one of problems of science consists in the exceptional number of these novel theoretical representations. It is no secret that physicists-theorists are at times ready to bring down a huge cloud of new and absolutely mad hypotheses on heads of unsuspecting people. The problem facing the general scientific community in maintaining a healthy world outlook consists, whenever possible, in limiting the revolutionary aspirations of some of the excessively zealous authors with their novel and singular concepts, to a pragmatic and necessary minimum.
In opinion of the author of this article, not all is right with special relativity. They have obviously overdone the scale of novelty and have run counter to the requirements of the principle of necessity. One should try to find a more simple theoretical explanation, which is less bulky and less burdensome for the human mind.
Historically, the first idea that came to the minds of physicists was that in a condition of relative movement of inertial systems with near-light speeds, a transformation of space is inevitable. So the formulas of Lorentz's transformations were born. However people have the right to question why it was decided to begin with spatial distortions and not with time? Apparently, the human mind is arranged to begin with something small, close and clear. Probably, changes in space are perceived to be easier than changes in time.
However, it turned out that transformations in space were not sufficient, and it was necessary to subject time to distortions as well. But what else distorts? According to the Lorentz transformations, a double change in time takes place: time intervals are reduced, and there is the phenomenon of "the relativity of simultaneity". Thus, the initial "cautious" idea of transformation of space to which physicists have so amicably clung has generated a whole bouquet of shocking effects. We have a right to ask: what would be the result if we started with the other end? The author tries to prove below, that another theory leads to a result that is simple, has a minimum of novelty, and is more sparing of human credulity.
In stating the contents of special relativity one usually finds the relativity of simultaneity right at the beginning. But it has for some unknown reason only a qualitative character. The existence of this strange effect is only mentioned. The quantitative formula is deduced much later, after calculations of the reductions of space lengths and timepieces according to Lorentz's transformations. As a result, it is given a "third-rate" dependency. After all of that, it is forgotten.
The author sees a basic mistake in this fact. He considers that value of this phenomenon is wrongly underestimated. Actually, it is the main thing (and as it will be shown below – the only thing). Therefore it should be investigated first, and deeply. As to the concrete formula describing the phenomenon, it will be found in the thought experiment of Einstein's train.
Direct derivation of the scale of infringement of simultaneity
This well-known experiment has a train, which we will consider as having a relativistic speed. There are two observers. One is in the middle of the train, the other – at the station. All is organized in such a manner that during that moment when the observers are opposite each other, they simultaneously receive two light signals, emitting earlier from the two ends of the train. Each draws a conclusion about the ratio of the moments of emission of these signals.
With the observer who is in the middle of a train, all is simple: both signals have in his opinion, traveled identical distances (half the length of the train), and were received simultaneously. This means that he considers they were emitted simultaneously as well.
A more difficult situation exists with the observer at the station. First, he understands that during the moments of release of the signals, the middle of a train was some distance away from him. Thus, the head of the train was closer to him, than the tail. As a result, the light signal from the tail covered a greater distance and required a greater time interval. Hence, it should have been emitted earlier than from a head.
It is accepted that a qualitative conclusion of this situation that two simultaneous events in one reference system (train) are not at all simultaneous in another (station). That due to the fact that there was a mistiming of clocks in the two systems. But for some reason, this is not quantified. This is obviously the place to deduce a concrete quantitative ratio of the scale of infringement of simultaneity or the change in time rather than later, in the Lorentz's transformations. Here, in our opinion, is an obvious deviation, from proper experiment. For a meticulous observer at the station, it would be natural to "take the bull by the horns" at once, and to try to deduce the required quantitative ratio.
A little about the nature of the relativity of simultaneity. Actually, it is a question of relative displacement (shift) of events of some interval of a time scale in the transition from one system to another. The size of this displacement depends on the position in space (along an axis of mutual motion of the systems). This displacement (we shall name it a discrepancy of events in time) leads to an interesting quantitative phenomenon.
The observer at the station wishes to calculate the size of the discrepancy using elementary improvised means, without the use of the Lorentz transformation formulas, but being guided by Einstein's postulates. At the same time, our observer is so enamored with space that he does not wish to transform its characteristics without due cause. Station inspectors, as a rule, have plenty of time so time is no problem for them.
Let's represent a situation at the moment of emission of a signal from the tail of the train in fig.1:
Fig. 1. Einstein's train
Here O - position of the middle of a train; O?- position of the observer at station;
A - position of the head of the train; B – position of the tail;
AB = l – length of the train; BO = OA = ; V – speed of the train.
The Signal from the tail should reach the observer at the station in the following time interval
= = = From here =
The time necessary for the arrival of the signal from the head of the train is calculated in a similar fashion.
(The moment of emission of the signal will be different, but the situation will be similar, therefore it is possible to use the same fig.1)
= = = It is received =
The difference between the two intervals is calculated easily
?t = – = - = (1)
So, for the observer at the station that received the simultaneous arrival of the signals, the signal from the head should have been emitted before the signal from the tail of the size, ?t (1). From here, without resorting to a transformation of space, he reaches an elementary conclusion about mistiming of clocks (discrepancy of events) in two systems in any two points, A and B on the axis of their mutual motion. From formula (1) it is obvious that the size is proportional to the speed of relative motion of systems and the distance between the investigated points on the axis of motion, l.
Where is the mistake?
As we see, the observer's result does not coincide with what ensues from Lorentz's transformations. It is easier, and is not concerned with the deformation of space and time scales. Who is right?
Let's remind ourselves that the transformation formulas were derived from an interpretation of Michelson's experiment which showed that rays moving in different directions in a frame of reference were received simultaneously regardless of motion of the source.
Let's recap this situation, remembering the relativity of simultaneity. In the system attached to the interferometer, the ray of light, having run over the course of the interferometer and having reflected back from a mirror, comes back to the initial point, the starting point.
In stationary system in which the interferometer is displaced, the event – the light beam does not return to the starting point, but to another, because during the time of travel ?t of this beam, the interferometer itself was displaced in space by l = V t. An important result is found here. According to the relativity of simultaneity, in this other point the displacement (shift) of events takes place in the time scale. That is, the event at this point occurs earlier on the clocks of one system than on the clocks in another. In particular, when the process of movement in one system is already finished, it still continues in the other!
There is a very puzzling methodological problem: given these conditions, to broadcast events from one system to another. How can we carry out direct comparisons of space and time? There is a suspicion that physicists have given insufficient thought to this question. Really: except for one initial moment all events in two moving systems do not synchronize, and the size of the discrepancy is not constant, continuously progressing with the increase in relative displacement of the systems in space.
The serious analysis of this problem leads to a sad fact: it is impossible to reach a situation when the beginning and the end of any physical process is synchronized in both systems. One moment, only the beginning or the end ofa process can coincide. In Michelson's experiment, only the beginning coincides. In Einstein's train experiment, only the end coincides.
Let's recollect that the analysis of Michelson's experiment resulting in the Lorentz's transformations were calculated from a simple right angled triangle. On the hypotenuse of this triangle, the transverse light beam in the system of the stationary observer moved (see fig.2,) in a continuous line). However the presence of a displacement (shift) of events on the time scale considerably complicates this situation. The return of a light beam in the moving system arrives earlier (point A). At this moment in the stationary system, the beam continues to run cheerfully on the hypotenuse (to point A'). At what moment should the stationary observer determine the length that has been traversed by a ray of light, and the time interval expended for it (at point O' or point A ')?
Our poor stationary observer will certainly as himself this question: if the beginning of motion in both systems is synchronous, and the end is not, how dos this look to the moving observer? The stationary observer will want to try to diagram his version of the process in his own system, taking into account the displacement (see fig.2, a dotted line).
Fig. 2. Motion of the transverse beam in Michelson's experiment
He will certainly not be enthused by the comparison of the two diagrams. In his opinion, the braking process in the direction of motion in moving system are obviously observed. And also acceleration takes place in the opposite direction, considering a change of sign V in the formula (1). In particular, in the mutual displacement of the two systems V ' there is a slowing down from the starting point. To the fixed observer, it is clear why it occurs:
, And in view of the discrepancy t ' = t + ?t, then
- From here is given the illusion of the delay of motion.
And with movement in the opposite direction, V changes to minus and the size ?t becomes a negative value (see the formula (1)), that generates the illusion of acceleration.
An uncomfortable conclusion inevitably follows from this situation. If it is impossible to determine the beginning and end of any process, the spatial positioning and timing of all its intermediate stages and all local events occurring in the framework of the two systems moving with near-light speed becom highly problematic. In this connection, that charming simplicity which authors of special relativity attribute to the Lorentz transformations is difficult to understand. Obviously, these transformations should be reconsidered. It is necessary to subject special relativity to serious modification. What will the occur to its well-known effects and paradoxes?
Problem of direct comparisons in details
Let's try to consider a simple example from the very beginning, given theexistence of the relativity of simultaneity. In a classical example with a moving rod, we shall try to compare the results of measurement of its length by two researchers. In the system of the first researcher moving with the rod, the process of measurement is very simple: it is possible use a ruler and to note on it position at the ends of the rod. In system of the fixed researcher observing the rod moving at near-light speed, the situation is little bit more difficult. He must organize a special measuring experiment.
Experiment 1. The first researcher arranges flashes of light to occur simultaneously at two ends of therod. The second researcher must mark these flashes on a ruler, for example, by means of a photosensitive cover. For simplicity in the thought experiment, we shall assume that the rod travels very close to the ruler, therefore the delay between the moment of flash and the act of measurement can be neglected.
Fig.3. Experiment 1
The first researcher synchronizes time at the ends of the rod and creates simultaneous flashes. But the second researcher is indignant: in his system, the flashes were not simultaneous. That is, he registers a flash at one end of the rod, then after a pause, on the other. He quite reasonably considers result of experiment incorrect because during the pause the rod was essentially displaced in space. This ill-fated experiment shows a discrepancy of events at the ends of the spatially extended rod – the result of the relativistic effect called by us, the - relativity of simultaneity.
So, experiment 1 is defective. Researchers agree to make it otherwise.
Experiment 2. Now the second researcher organizes a simultaneous flash of light along the in his system. For this purpose, he projects a large number of parallel rays of light from one source perpendicular to the motion of the rod. He needs only to mark the edges of the shadow of the moving rod on his ruler. Again, we consider that the rod moves vary close to the ruler of the second observer.
Fig.4. Experiment 2
The act of measurement is accomplished. But now the first researcher is indignant. He is disappointed that the rod in his system was not illuminated simultaneously along all its length. This is again the effect of the relativity of simultaneity: instead of simultaneous flashes it has turned into a kind " moving flame": first one end has been illuminated, and then the light beam has run speedily along the rod to other end. As a result, there was a time lag between the illumination of the two ends. If we consider that during this lag, the ruler of the second researcher was essentially displaced in space in relation to the rod. The result of the measurement, in the opinion of the first researcher, was incorrect. Again, the same discrepancy of events at the ends of the rod! It turns out, that a pause in the act of measurement as the result of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity is the cause.
What is the result? If we consider the situation correctly and take into account the relativity of simultaneity it is necessary to say that it is impossibe to simultaneous fix the ends of a rod in two systems at once. In systems moving relative each other it is impossible to directly compare lengths of the segments located along the line of motion.
Similar reasoning leads to the same conclusion with respect to time intervals. the discrepancy of events at makes it impossible to simultaneously determint the beginning and the end of a time interval in the two systems.
It would be reasonable to consider that nothing unusual occurs in the scale of space and a time in general. There is only the of displacement of events on the time scale. Thus, the basic impossibility of direct comparison of lengths of segments and time intervals forces us to radically change the attitude towards the Lorentz's transformations equations and the well-known consequences of special relativity. Due consideration of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity leads us through necessity, not only to reconsider all former calculations, but also to cancel all other "relativistic" effects. For all these imaginary "reductions", the paradox of "twins" and other amusing things it is sadly necessary to throw them out of the basket of history. In case of the "twins" all that happens is simply another is displacement on the time scale. When returning, the sign on the speed becomes negative, and displacement occurs in the opposite direction. As a result, there will be no difference in age when they meet.
So, the special theory of relativity reduces to only one phenomenon – spatially caused displacement of events on the time scale.
It is the only new element to be brought into classical mechanics. Thus, the minimum requirement is reached. It is necessary to alter transformations for coordinates and time. There is a reason to avail oneself of the formula of the discrepancy of events, determined by us in the example of Einstein's train. As the result of the new transformations, one system will determine:
x' = x - t
Where = dx/dt ;
For the other system ,:
x = x' - 't'
Where ' = dx'/dt' Thus it is important to note, that = - ' only in the combined origin of coordinates of the two systems at the moment of intersection. Generally they are not equal.
In view of the change of direction of vector ' to the opposite in the second case, it is possible to write a scalar,
x = x' + 't'
From the formulas in particular, it follows, that in the system moving in the other direction on axis X, events advance relatively, and in an opposite direction, they are delayed. And it is the sole effect which has a place in reality.
This situation may surprise some; some will be certainly upset or annoyed. The author perceives all this with a large degree of condescension because he considers this annoying misunderstanding only as one of the many problems in the methodology of physics in the XX century, mentioned earlier.
The new transformations open the gate for other methodologies and philosophies in physical research. Actually it is a question of refusing the current domination of neo-positivism in favour of materialism.
It is interesting to see how physicists will look to science fiction writers.
Is Passive Solar A Viable Home Heating Option In Cold Areas?
Passive solar is a method of using the energy from the sun to heat a home. It is extremely popular because the process is free once a passive solar home is created.
Is Passive Solar A Viable Home Heating Option In Cold Areas?
Passive solar can be used to heat a home in colder areas, but you have to go into it with reasonable expectations. While the cold climate is a hurdle, the real issue is going to be the length of time the sun beats down upon your property. If your home receives only four or five hours of direct sunlight a day, forget it. You will never produce enough energy to keep the home warm for sufficient periods of time.
Passive solar design is very popular in warm to mild climates because it is more or less a free method for warming a home. The manipulation of the position of the home and placement of large windows in the south facing wall is typical strategies for dealing with the issue. Obviously, large windows in a cold climate are going to result in significant heat loss regardless of the quality with which they are built. So, what can you do?
There are two primary approaches to creating a passive solar design that works in the winter. One is the use of a large Trombe Wall and the other is the greenhouse approach. Let's take a look.
Trombe Walls are popular in passive solar designs because they effectively convert sunlight to heat and are interesting from an aesthetic view point. Typically, a Trombe Wall is 8 to 12 feet in length on the south facing wall of a home. In significantly colder areas, the wall is going to need to be much larger, perhaps the full length of the home depending upon energy analysis and the cold weather expected. An energy audit of the home is the only to arrive at a definitive answer.
You are also going to have to incorporate a flip strategy for the heat. As the sun enters the glass plate and heats up the masonry of the wall, you risk losing vast amounts of it through the glass surface. This means you need to create an air circulation method whereby you draw the hot air into a secondary space behind the wall. This can simply be a closed off room or a space intended for the purpose. The circulation should be done on a timer similar to the solar thermostats used on solar hot water panels. The point is to keep the built up heat from escaping back into the environment.
The greenhouse approach simplifies matters. The essential idea is to build an insulated greenhouse to collect and store the heat of the sun during the day. Often called a sunspace, the greenhouse is similar to those used for plants. Even in cold climates, the sun will produce a magnificent amount of heat. Again, the problem is keeping the heat from escaping once it has built up. Since the sun has to come in through a transparent surface, you inevitably have the problem of the heat escaping through the same. The best option is to use a controlled timer to blow the air through to the house once certain temperatures are reached. It is not very efficient, but you have little choice.
An alternative to passive solar heating in very cold areas is biomass. Corn burning furnaces are popular. They are a much cheaper solution as are the corn kernels. This biomass energy is also much more reliable and, personally, it is the way I would go.
Is Passive Solar A Viable Home Heating Option In Cold Areas?
Passive solar can be used to heat a home in colder areas, but you have to go into it with reasonable expectations. While the cold climate is a hurdle, the real issue is going to be the length of time the sun beats down upon your property. If your home receives only four or five hours of direct sunlight a day, forget it. You will never produce enough energy to keep the home warm for sufficient periods of time.
Passive solar design is very popular in warm to mild climates because it is more or less a free method for warming a home. The manipulation of the position of the home and placement of large windows in the south facing wall is typical strategies for dealing with the issue. Obviously, large windows in a cold climate are going to result in significant heat loss regardless of the quality with which they are built. So, what can you do?
There are two primary approaches to creating a passive solar design that works in the winter. One is the use of a large Trombe Wall and the other is the greenhouse approach. Let's take a look.
Trombe Walls are popular in passive solar designs because they effectively convert sunlight to heat and are interesting from an aesthetic view point. Typically, a Trombe Wall is 8 to 12 feet in length on the south facing wall of a home. In significantly colder areas, the wall is going to need to be much larger, perhaps the full length of the home depending upon energy analysis and the cold weather expected. An energy audit of the home is the only to arrive at a definitive answer.
You are also going to have to incorporate a flip strategy for the heat. As the sun enters the glass plate and heats up the masonry of the wall, you risk losing vast amounts of it through the glass surface. This means you need to create an air circulation method whereby you draw the hot air into a secondary space behind the wall. This can simply be a closed off room or a space intended for the purpose. The circulation should be done on a timer similar to the solar thermostats used on solar hot water panels. The point is to keep the built up heat from escaping back into the environment.
The greenhouse approach simplifies matters. The essential idea is to build an insulated greenhouse to collect and store the heat of the sun during the day. Often called a sunspace, the greenhouse is similar to those used for plants. Even in cold climates, the sun will produce a magnificent amount of heat. Again, the problem is keeping the heat from escaping once it has built up. Since the sun has to come in through a transparent surface, you inevitably have the problem of the heat escaping through the same. The best option is to use a controlled timer to blow the air through to the house once certain temperatures are reached. It is not very efficient, but you have little choice.
An alternative to passive solar heating in very cold areas is biomass. Corn burning furnaces are popular. They are a much cheaper solution as are the corn kernels. This biomass energy is also much more reliable and, personally, it is the way I would go.
Eugenics and the Future of the Human Species
"It is clear that modern medicine has created a serious dilemma ... In the past, there were many children who never survived - they succumbed to various diseases ... But in a sense modern medicine has put natural selection out of commission. Something that has helped one individual over a serious illness can in the long run contribute to weakening the resistance of the whole human race to certain diseases. If we pay absolutely no attention to what is called hereditary hygiene, we could find ourselves facing a degeneration of the human race. Mankind's hereditary potential for resisting serious disease will be weakened."
Jostein Gaarder in "Sophie's World", a bestselling philosophy textbook for adolescents published in Oslo, Norway, in 1991 and, afterwards, throughout the world, having been translated to dozens of languages.
The Nazis regarded the murder of the feeble-minded and the mentally insane - intended to purify the race and maintain hereditary hygiene - as a form of euthanasia. German doctors were enthusiastic proponents of an eugenics movements rooted in 19th century social Darwinism. Luke Gormally writes, in his essay "Walton, Davies, and Boyd" (published in "Euthanasia Examined - Ethical, Clinical, and Legal Perspectives", ed. John Keown, Cambridge University Press, 1995):
"When the jurist Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published their tract The Permission to Destroy Life that is Not Worth Living in 1920 ... their motive was to rid society of the 'human ballast and enormous economic burden' of care for the mentally ill, the handicapped, retarded and deformed children, and the incurably ill. But the reason they invoked to justify the killing of human beings who fell into these categories was that the lives of such human beings were 'not worth living', were 'devoid of value'"
It is this association with the hideous Nazi regime that gave eugenics - a term coined by a relative of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1883 - its bad name. Richard Lynn, of the University of Ulster of North Ireland, thinks that this recoil resulted in "Dysgenics - the genetic deterioration of modern (human) population", as the title of his controversial tome puts it.
The crux of the argument for eugenics is that a host of technological, cultural, and social developments conspired to give rise to negative selection of the weakest, least intelligent, sickest, the habitually criminal, the sexually deviant, the mentally-ill, and the least adapted.
Contraception is more widely used by the affluent and the well-educated than by the destitute and dull. Birth control as practiced in places like China distorted both the sex distribution in the cities - and increased the weight of the rural population (rural couples in China are allowed to have two children rather than the urban one).
Modern medicine and the welfare state collaborate in sustaining alive individuals - mainly the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, the sick, and the genetically defective - who would otherwise have been culled by natural selection to the betterment of the entire species.
Eugenics may be based on a literal understanding of Darwin's metaphor.
The 2002 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say:
"Darwin's description of the process of natural selection as the survival of the fittest in the struggle for life is a metaphor. 'Struggle' does not necessarily mean contention, strife, or combat; 'survival' does not mean that ravages of death are needed to make the selection effective; and 'fittest' is virtually never a single optimal genotype but rather an array of genotypes that collectively enhance population survival rather than extinction. All these considerations are most apposite to consideration of natural selection in humans. Decreasing infant and childhood mortality rates do not necessarily mean that natural selection in the human species no longer operates. Theoretically, natural selection could be very effective if all the children born reached maturity. Two conditions are needed to make this theoretical possibility realized: first, variation in the number of children per family and, second, variation correlated with the genetic properties of the parents. Neither of these conditions is farfetched."
The eugenics debate is only the visible extremity of the Man vs. Nature conundrum. Have we truly conquered nature and extracted ourselves from its determinism? Have we graduated from natural to cultural evolution, from natural to artificial selection, and from genes to memes?
Does the evolutionary process culminate in a being that transcends its genetic baggage, that programs and charts its future, and that allows its weakest and sickest to survive? Supplanting the imperative of the survival of the fittest with a culturally-sensitive principle may be the hallmark of a successful evolution, rather than the beginning of an inexorable decline.
The eugenics movement turns this argument on its head. They accept the premise that the contribution of natural selection to the makeup of future human generations is glacial and negligible. But they reject the conclusion that, having ridden ourselves of its tyranny, we can now let the weak and sick among us survive and multiply. Rather, they propose to replace natural selection with eugenics.
But who, by which authority, and according to what guidelines will administer this man-made culling and decide who is to live and who is to die, who is to breed and who may not? Why select by intelligence and not by courtesy or altruism or church-going - or al of them together? It is here that eugenics fails miserably. Should the criterion be physical, like in ancient Sparta? Should it be mental? Should IQ determine one's fate - or social status or wealth? Different answers yield disparate eugenic programs and target dissimilar groups in the population.
Aren't eugenic criteria liable to be unduly influenced by fashion and cultural bias? Can we agree on a universal eugenic agenda in a world as ethnically and culturally diverse as ours? If we do get it wrong - and the chances are overwhelming - will we not damage our gene pool irreparably and, with it, the future of our species?
And even if many will avoid a slippery slope leading from eugenics to active extermination of "inferior" groups in the general population - can we guarantee that everyone will? How to prevent eugenics from being appropriated by an intrusive, authoritarian, or even murderous state?
Modern eugenicists distance themselves from the crude methods adopted at the beginning of the last century by 29 countries, including Germany, The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Venezuela, Estonia, Argentina, Norway, Denmark, Sweden (until 1976), Brazil, Italy, Greece, and Spain.
They talk about free contraceptives for low-IQ women, vasectomies or tubal ligations for criminals, sperm banks with contributions from high achievers, and incentives for college students to procreate. Modern genetic engineering and biotechnology are readily applicable to eugenic projects. Cloning can serve to preserve the genes of the fittest. Embryo selection and prenatal diagnosis of genetically diseased embryos can reduce the number of the unfit.
But even these innocuous variants of eugenics fly in the face of liberalism. Inequality, claim the proponents of hereditary amelioration, is genetic, not environmental. All men are created unequal and as much subject to the natural laws of heredity as are cows and bees. Inferior people give birth to inferior offspring and, thus, propagate their inferiority.
Even if this were true - which is at best debatable - the question is whether the inferior specimen of our species possess the inalienable right to reproduce? If society is to bear the costs of over-population - social welfare, medical care, daycare centers - then society has the right to regulate procreation. But does it have the right to act discriminately in doing so?
Another dilemma is whether we have the moral right - let alone the necessary knowledge - to interfere with natural as well as social and demographic trends. Eugenicists counter that contraception and indiscriminate medicine already do just that. Yet, studies show that the more affluent and educated a population becomes - the less fecund it is. Birth rates throughout the world have dropped dramatically already.
Instead of culling the great unwashed and the unworthy - wouldn't it be a better idea to educate them (or their off-spring) and provide them with economic opportunities (euthenics rather than eugenics)? Human populations seem to self-regulate. A gentle and persistent nudge in the right direction - of increased affluence and better schooling - might achieve more than a hundred eugenic programs, voluntary or compulsory.
That eugenics presents itself not merely as a biological-social agenda, but as a panacea, ought to arouse suspicion. The typical eugenics text reads more like a catechism than a reasoned argument. Previous all-encompassing and omnicompetent plans tended to end traumatically - especially when they contrasted a human elite with a dispensable underclass of persons.
Above all, eugenics is about human hubris. To presume to know better than the lottery of life is haughty. Modern medicine largely obviates the need for eugenics in that it allows even genetically defective people to lead pretty normal lives. Of course, Man himself - being part of Nature - may be regarded as nothing more than an agent of natural selection. Still, many of the arguments advanced in favor of eugenics can be turned against it with embarrassing ease.
Consider sick children. True, they are a burden to society and a probable menace to the gene pool of the species. But they also inhibit further reproduction in their family by consuming the financial and mental resources of the parents. Their genes - however flawed - contribute to genetic diversity. Even a badly mutated phenotype sometimes yields precious scientific knowledge and an interesting genotype.
The implicit Weltbild of eugenics is static - but the real world is dynamic. There is no such thing as a "correct" genetic makeup towards which we must all strive. A combination of genes may be perfectly adaptable to one environment - but woefully inadequate in another. It is therefore prudent to encourage genetic diversity or polymorphism.
The more rapidly the world changes, the greater the value of mutations of all sorts. One never knows whether today's maladaptation will not prove to be tomorrow's winner. Ecosystems are invariably comprised of niches and different genes - even mutated ones - may fit different niches.
In the 18th century most peppered moths in Britain were silvery gray, indistinguishable from lichen-covered trunks of silver birches - their habitat. Darker moths were gobbled up by rapacious birds. Their mutated genes proved to be lethal. As soot from sprouting factories blackened these trunks - the very same genes, hitherto fatal, became an unmitigated blessing. The blacker specimen survived while their hitherto perfectly adapted fairer brethren perished ("industrial melanism"). This mode of natural selection is called directional.
Moreover, "bad" genes are often connected to "desirable genes" (pleitropy). Sickle cell anemia protects certain African tribes against malaria. This is called "diversifying or disruptive natural selection". Artificial selection can thus fast deteriorate into adverse selection due to ignorance.
Modern eugenics relies on statistics. It is no longer concerned with causes - but with phenomena and the likely effects of intervention. If the adverse traits of off-spring and parents are strongly correlated - then preventing parents with certain undesirable qualities from multiplying will surely reduce the incidence of said dispositions in the general population. Yet, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The manipulation of one parameter of the correlation does not inevitably alter it - or the incidence of the outcome.
Eugenicists often hark back to wisdom garnered by generations of breeders and farmers. But the unequivocal lesson of thousands of years of artificial selection is that cross-breeding (hybridization) - even of two lines of inferior genetic stock - yields valuable genotypes. Inter-marriage between races, groups in the population, ethnic groups, and clans is thus bound to improve the species' chances of survival more than any eugenic scheme.
Jostein Gaarder in "Sophie's World", a bestselling philosophy textbook for adolescents published in Oslo, Norway, in 1991 and, afterwards, throughout the world, having been translated to dozens of languages.
The Nazis regarded the murder of the feeble-minded and the mentally insane - intended to purify the race and maintain hereditary hygiene - as a form of euthanasia. German doctors were enthusiastic proponents of an eugenics movements rooted in 19th century social Darwinism. Luke Gormally writes, in his essay "Walton, Davies, and Boyd" (published in "Euthanasia Examined - Ethical, Clinical, and Legal Perspectives", ed. John Keown, Cambridge University Press, 1995):
"When the jurist Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published their tract The Permission to Destroy Life that is Not Worth Living in 1920 ... their motive was to rid society of the 'human ballast and enormous economic burden' of care for the mentally ill, the handicapped, retarded and deformed children, and the incurably ill. But the reason they invoked to justify the killing of human beings who fell into these categories was that the lives of such human beings were 'not worth living', were 'devoid of value'"
It is this association with the hideous Nazi regime that gave eugenics - a term coined by a relative of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1883 - its bad name. Richard Lynn, of the University of Ulster of North Ireland, thinks that this recoil resulted in "Dysgenics - the genetic deterioration of modern (human) population", as the title of his controversial tome puts it.
The crux of the argument for eugenics is that a host of technological, cultural, and social developments conspired to give rise to negative selection of the weakest, least intelligent, sickest, the habitually criminal, the sexually deviant, the mentally-ill, and the least adapted.
Contraception is more widely used by the affluent and the well-educated than by the destitute and dull. Birth control as practiced in places like China distorted both the sex distribution in the cities - and increased the weight of the rural population (rural couples in China are allowed to have two children rather than the urban one).
Modern medicine and the welfare state collaborate in sustaining alive individuals - mainly the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, the sick, and the genetically defective - who would otherwise have been culled by natural selection to the betterment of the entire species.
Eugenics may be based on a literal understanding of Darwin's metaphor.
The 2002 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say:
"Darwin's description of the process of natural selection as the survival of the fittest in the struggle for life is a metaphor. 'Struggle' does not necessarily mean contention, strife, or combat; 'survival' does not mean that ravages of death are needed to make the selection effective; and 'fittest' is virtually never a single optimal genotype but rather an array of genotypes that collectively enhance population survival rather than extinction. All these considerations are most apposite to consideration of natural selection in humans. Decreasing infant and childhood mortality rates do not necessarily mean that natural selection in the human species no longer operates. Theoretically, natural selection could be very effective if all the children born reached maturity. Two conditions are needed to make this theoretical possibility realized: first, variation in the number of children per family and, second, variation correlated with the genetic properties of the parents. Neither of these conditions is farfetched."
The eugenics debate is only the visible extremity of the Man vs. Nature conundrum. Have we truly conquered nature and extracted ourselves from its determinism? Have we graduated from natural to cultural evolution, from natural to artificial selection, and from genes to memes?
Does the evolutionary process culminate in a being that transcends its genetic baggage, that programs and charts its future, and that allows its weakest and sickest to survive? Supplanting the imperative of the survival of the fittest with a culturally-sensitive principle may be the hallmark of a successful evolution, rather than the beginning of an inexorable decline.
The eugenics movement turns this argument on its head. They accept the premise that the contribution of natural selection to the makeup of future human generations is glacial and negligible. But they reject the conclusion that, having ridden ourselves of its tyranny, we can now let the weak and sick among us survive and multiply. Rather, they propose to replace natural selection with eugenics.
But who, by which authority, and according to what guidelines will administer this man-made culling and decide who is to live and who is to die, who is to breed and who may not? Why select by intelligence and not by courtesy or altruism or church-going - or al of them together? It is here that eugenics fails miserably. Should the criterion be physical, like in ancient Sparta? Should it be mental? Should IQ determine one's fate - or social status or wealth? Different answers yield disparate eugenic programs and target dissimilar groups in the population.
Aren't eugenic criteria liable to be unduly influenced by fashion and cultural bias? Can we agree on a universal eugenic agenda in a world as ethnically and culturally diverse as ours? If we do get it wrong - and the chances are overwhelming - will we not damage our gene pool irreparably and, with it, the future of our species?
And even if many will avoid a slippery slope leading from eugenics to active extermination of "inferior" groups in the general population - can we guarantee that everyone will? How to prevent eugenics from being appropriated by an intrusive, authoritarian, or even murderous state?
Modern eugenicists distance themselves from the crude methods adopted at the beginning of the last century by 29 countries, including Germany, The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Venezuela, Estonia, Argentina, Norway, Denmark, Sweden (until 1976), Brazil, Italy, Greece, and Spain.
They talk about free contraceptives for low-IQ women, vasectomies or tubal ligations for criminals, sperm banks with contributions from high achievers, and incentives for college students to procreate. Modern genetic engineering and biotechnology are readily applicable to eugenic projects. Cloning can serve to preserve the genes of the fittest. Embryo selection and prenatal diagnosis of genetically diseased embryos can reduce the number of the unfit.
But even these innocuous variants of eugenics fly in the face of liberalism. Inequality, claim the proponents of hereditary amelioration, is genetic, not environmental. All men are created unequal and as much subject to the natural laws of heredity as are cows and bees. Inferior people give birth to inferior offspring and, thus, propagate their inferiority.
Even if this were true - which is at best debatable - the question is whether the inferior specimen of our species possess the inalienable right to reproduce? If society is to bear the costs of over-population - social welfare, medical care, daycare centers - then society has the right to regulate procreation. But does it have the right to act discriminately in doing so?
Another dilemma is whether we have the moral right - let alone the necessary knowledge - to interfere with natural as well as social and demographic trends. Eugenicists counter that contraception and indiscriminate medicine already do just that. Yet, studies show that the more affluent and educated a population becomes - the less fecund it is. Birth rates throughout the world have dropped dramatically already.
Instead of culling the great unwashed and the unworthy - wouldn't it be a better idea to educate them (or their off-spring) and provide them with economic opportunities (euthenics rather than eugenics)? Human populations seem to self-regulate. A gentle and persistent nudge in the right direction - of increased affluence and better schooling - might achieve more than a hundred eugenic programs, voluntary or compulsory.
That eugenics presents itself not merely as a biological-social agenda, but as a panacea, ought to arouse suspicion. The typical eugenics text reads more like a catechism than a reasoned argument. Previous all-encompassing and omnicompetent plans tended to end traumatically - especially when they contrasted a human elite with a dispensable underclass of persons.
Above all, eugenics is about human hubris. To presume to know better than the lottery of life is haughty. Modern medicine largely obviates the need for eugenics in that it allows even genetically defective people to lead pretty normal lives. Of course, Man himself - being part of Nature - may be regarded as nothing more than an agent of natural selection. Still, many of the arguments advanced in favor of eugenics can be turned against it with embarrassing ease.
Consider sick children. True, they are a burden to society and a probable menace to the gene pool of the species. But they also inhibit further reproduction in their family by consuming the financial and mental resources of the parents. Their genes - however flawed - contribute to genetic diversity. Even a badly mutated phenotype sometimes yields precious scientific knowledge and an interesting genotype.
The implicit Weltbild of eugenics is static - but the real world is dynamic. There is no such thing as a "correct" genetic makeup towards which we must all strive. A combination of genes may be perfectly adaptable to one environment - but woefully inadequate in another. It is therefore prudent to encourage genetic diversity or polymorphism.
The more rapidly the world changes, the greater the value of mutations of all sorts. One never knows whether today's maladaptation will not prove to be tomorrow's winner. Ecosystems are invariably comprised of niches and different genes - even mutated ones - may fit different niches.
In the 18th century most peppered moths in Britain were silvery gray, indistinguishable from lichen-covered trunks of silver birches - their habitat. Darker moths were gobbled up by rapacious birds. Their mutated genes proved to be lethal. As soot from sprouting factories blackened these trunks - the very same genes, hitherto fatal, became an unmitigated blessing. The blacker specimen survived while their hitherto perfectly adapted fairer brethren perished ("industrial melanism"). This mode of natural selection is called directional.
Moreover, "bad" genes are often connected to "desirable genes" (pleitropy). Sickle cell anemia protects certain African tribes against malaria. This is called "diversifying or disruptive natural selection". Artificial selection can thus fast deteriorate into adverse selection due to ignorance.
Modern eugenics relies on statistics. It is no longer concerned with causes - but with phenomena and the likely effects of intervention. If the adverse traits of off-spring and parents are strongly correlated - then preventing parents with certain undesirable qualities from multiplying will surely reduce the incidence of said dispositions in the general population. Yet, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The manipulation of one parameter of the correlation does not inevitably alter it - or the incidence of the outcome.
Eugenicists often hark back to wisdom garnered by generations of breeders and farmers. But the unequivocal lesson of thousands of years of artificial selection is that cross-breeding (hybridization) - even of two lines of inferior genetic stock - yields valuable genotypes. Inter-marriage between races, groups in the population, ethnic groups, and clans is thus bound to improve the species' chances of survival more than any eugenic scheme.
Technology and the Pace of Change in our Lives is Becoming More Rapid
The pace of change is accelerating. In today's vernacular, the paradigm shift is happening twice as fast. Technology of today, will be obsolete shortly. In the case of information technology, in less than one year, progress is doubling.
Information technology covers more than computers, software and electronics. Researchers are making vast strides in health care issues, medicine and drugs. They are discovering how drugs work and actually the reason why they work.
Scientists are now working on the human genome. This is our genetic code. Imagine, they are discovering what makes the cells of the body work as they do The genome projected was completed three years ago that is why we can move so much faster now. The amount of genetic data we can decode is doubling every ten months. The price of decoding a gene base pair is declining to less than a penny today. This is dramatic since the cost in 1990 was $10.00 a pair.
It took our researchers fifteen years to sequence the HIV virus. They sequenced the SARS virus in one month and now are capable of sequencing a virus in just a few days. We can now develop models on major diseases. Image being able to reprogram the body to not accept cancer, heart and many other debilitating diseases.
My mind is telling me that is the future of my youth. When baby boomers were young, man went to the moon and technology especially space technology became a paradigm shift. Now the shift has changed and the future is here. Where do you think the future shifts will occur?
Information technology covers more than computers, software and electronics. Researchers are making vast strides in health care issues, medicine and drugs. They are discovering how drugs work and actually the reason why they work.
Scientists are now working on the human genome. This is our genetic code. Imagine, they are discovering what makes the cells of the body work as they do The genome projected was completed three years ago that is why we can move so much faster now. The amount of genetic data we can decode is doubling every ten months. The price of decoding a gene base pair is declining to less than a penny today. This is dramatic since the cost in 1990 was $10.00 a pair.
It took our researchers fifteen years to sequence the HIV virus. They sequenced the SARS virus in one month and now are capable of sequencing a virus in just a few days. We can now develop models on major diseases. Image being able to reprogram the body to not accept cancer, heart and many other debilitating diseases.
My mind is telling me that is the future of my youth. When baby boomers were young, man went to the moon and technology especially space technology became a paradigm shift. Now the shift has changed and the future is here. Where do you think the future shifts will occur?
Is Switchgrass a Viable Energy Crop?
Switchgrass has long been a staple crop of farmers. It is used as fodder for farm animals, fuel, and electrical needs, as a buffer strip and soil erosion control.
However, when President Bush introduced The Biofuels Initiative during his 2006 state of the nation address, he moved this native prairie grass' use as an energy crop to the forefront.
The Biofuels Initiative is a critical part of the president's advanced energy initiatives. It seeks to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil suppliers by more than 75% of oil imports by 2025.
The aim is to accomplish this with the use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses specifically switchgrass to produce energy fuels.
When distilled switchgrass produces ethanol, an alcohol that fuels vehicles. Currently ethanol is blended at a ratio of 15 percent to 85 percent of gasoline and sold as E-85.
Switchgrass or Tall Panic Grass is a short rhizomatous plant. It is highly adaptable for it can be planted in different parts of the country of varying climate conditions. It is also drought resistant.
From planting to care and harvesting, it costs less energy to produce biofuel from switchgrass.
Harvest semi-annually
Switch is a perennial crop, which means it can be harvested twice a year for close to 10 years, before the crop has to be replanted. It also grows fast, absorbs the solar energy, and turns this energy into cellulose. Ethanol is extracted from the cellulose by means of distillation.
High yield per acre
Results from among 19 BFDP (Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program) research sites on both the Eastern and Central United States have shown that switchgrass can be harvested at 15 tons an acre. When distilled into ethanol, this yields 1,500 gallons of ethanol an acre. When averaged on a six-year basis, this means a yield of 115,000 of gallons of ethanol from each acre.
Cost efficient
Results from a study undertaken by the University of California Berkeley, has found out that it takes more energy to produce gasoline than it does to produce ethanol.
Multiple uses
Expected advances in gasification technologies will yield other useful fuels: diesel fuel, methane gas, and methanol.
Environmentally Friendly
Switchgrass poses no danger to the soil's fertility as it even adds organic matter.
Switchgrass has an intricate system of stems and roots. This system reaches into the deeper parts of the soil to hold on to it, stopping soil erosion.
Switchgrass are reliable buffers. Farmers plant these grasses along wetlands and steambanks to filter out pesticides and to prevent these dangerous chemicals from entering the water supply.
Switchgrass removes carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and puts these back in the soil. Fossil fuels, on the other hand release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing air pollution and worsening the greenhouse gas effects.
Financially rewarding
It costs less to grow switchgrass. When you add government tax incentives and grants raising switchgrass will be as profitable as extracting fossil fuels.
These are the present disadvantages of using switchgrass as the main source of biofuels.
The need to improve pretreatment technologies
Current technologies are not efficient in extracting higher yields from switchgrass. R&D efforts should correct this.
The need to allocate land for switchgrass
Is there available agricultural land to plant switchgrass? A system must be set in place to ensure there is land for both switchgrass and food crops.
The use of switchgrass as an energy crop is decidedly viable from the economic, production, and environmental aspects.
However, the success of switchgrass as an energy crop will depend on these key factors: government policies and funding, R&D efforts, technological innovations and vehicle efficiency.
However, when President Bush introduced The Biofuels Initiative during his 2006 state of the nation address, he moved this native prairie grass' use as an energy crop to the forefront.
The Biofuels Initiative is a critical part of the president's advanced energy initiatives. It seeks to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil suppliers by more than 75% of oil imports by 2025.
The aim is to accomplish this with the use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses specifically switchgrass to produce energy fuels.
When distilled switchgrass produces ethanol, an alcohol that fuels vehicles. Currently ethanol is blended at a ratio of 15 percent to 85 percent of gasoline and sold as E-85.
Switchgrass or Tall Panic Grass is a short rhizomatous plant. It is highly adaptable for it can be planted in different parts of the country of varying climate conditions. It is also drought resistant.
From planting to care and harvesting, it costs less energy to produce biofuel from switchgrass.
Harvest semi-annually
Switch is a perennial crop, which means it can be harvested twice a year for close to 10 years, before the crop has to be replanted. It also grows fast, absorbs the solar energy, and turns this energy into cellulose. Ethanol is extracted from the cellulose by means of distillation.
High yield per acre
Results from among 19 BFDP (Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program) research sites on both the Eastern and Central United States have shown that switchgrass can be harvested at 15 tons an acre. When distilled into ethanol, this yields 1,500 gallons of ethanol an acre. When averaged on a six-year basis, this means a yield of 115,000 of gallons of ethanol from each acre.
Cost efficient
Results from a study undertaken by the University of California Berkeley, has found out that it takes more energy to produce gasoline than it does to produce ethanol.
Multiple uses
Expected advances in gasification technologies will yield other useful fuels: diesel fuel, methane gas, and methanol.
Environmentally Friendly
Switchgrass poses no danger to the soil's fertility as it even adds organic matter.
Switchgrass has an intricate system of stems and roots. This system reaches into the deeper parts of the soil to hold on to it, stopping soil erosion.
Switchgrass are reliable buffers. Farmers plant these grasses along wetlands and steambanks to filter out pesticides and to prevent these dangerous chemicals from entering the water supply.
Switchgrass removes carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and puts these back in the soil. Fossil fuels, on the other hand release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing air pollution and worsening the greenhouse gas effects.
Financially rewarding
It costs less to grow switchgrass. When you add government tax incentives and grants raising switchgrass will be as profitable as extracting fossil fuels.
These are the present disadvantages of using switchgrass as the main source of biofuels.
The need to improve pretreatment technologies
Current technologies are not efficient in extracting higher yields from switchgrass. R&D efforts should correct this.
The need to allocate land for switchgrass
Is there available agricultural land to plant switchgrass? A system must be set in place to ensure there is land for both switchgrass and food crops.
The use of switchgrass as an energy crop is decidedly viable from the economic, production, and environmental aspects.
However, the success of switchgrass as an energy crop will depend on these key factors: government policies and funding, R&D efforts, technological innovations and vehicle efficiency.
Besides Potentially Providing Free Cheap Internet Access
SurfBest provides quality, cheap dial up internet access and a fast dial up internet that enables you to start surfing the web quickly. We are cheap web hosting, domain hosting, budget hosting, reseller hosting, linux hosting, internet Access provider. web hosting, cheap colocation, t1 and dialup internet access accounts in the boston, massachusetts area. If one or two people on your network use the Internet just to read e-mail and text-oriented Web pages, cheap access works.
mission is to combine the cheap high speed internet access provider of choice with ... We are cheap web hosting, domain hosting, budget hosting, reseller hosting, linux hosting, internet Access provider. Whether you want a free isp provider, cheap internet access, or to compare discount internet service providers, All Free ISP can help you out. Sign up with UKO2 now for a free ISP account and start to get the benefits of cheap internet access. SurfBest provides quality, cheap dial up internet access and a fast dial up internet that enables you to start surfing the web quickly.
There is no reason to pay this much for internet access when there are fast, reliable and cheap internet service providers. a purpose to provide an easy way to find and review free or cheap Internet access. We simply provide you with a reliable, cheap internet access account. There is a broadband package to suit any budget, so cheap Internet access is definitely available. Go to your favorite search engine and type in Ccheap internet access and see what comes up. These internet access providers have hundreds of internet access numbers to enable easy and cheap local access to almost everyone. In my experienced opinion, and that of many of my colleagues, no greater danger to universal cheap Internet access could easily be imagined.
It is extremely cheap for Europe, where Internet access tends to be a bit of a highway robbery. If one or two people on your network use the Internet just to read e-mail and text-oriented Web pages, cheap access works. web hosting, cheap colocation, t1 and dialup internet access accounts in the boston, massachusetts area. Step up to cheap isp internet access information you can count on from a company you can trust. To us, that has to be the basis of cheap internet access.
How to describe cheap internet access There are a variety of ways to access the internet today. This is because dial up internet access tends to be the cheaper than broadband services such as DSL or cable Internet. While not free, dial up Internet access is generally cheap by comparison to broadband. In this article, you'll learn about the amazing things that these networks can do besides potentially providing free or cheap Internet access. Right now internet access is relatively cheap and, for those who have enough interest in computers to read this newsletter, it is relatively easy.
http://www.access-cheap-internet.com/
mission is to combine the cheap high speed internet access provider of choice with ... We are cheap web hosting, domain hosting, budget hosting, reseller hosting, linux hosting, internet Access provider. Whether you want a free isp provider, cheap internet access, or to compare discount internet service providers, All Free ISP can help you out. Sign up with UKO2 now for a free ISP account and start to get the benefits of cheap internet access. SurfBest provides quality, cheap dial up internet access and a fast dial up internet that enables you to start surfing the web quickly.
There is no reason to pay this much for internet access when there are fast, reliable and cheap internet service providers. a purpose to provide an easy way to find and review free or cheap Internet access. We simply provide you with a reliable, cheap internet access account. There is a broadband package to suit any budget, so cheap Internet access is definitely available. Go to your favorite search engine and type in Ccheap internet access and see what comes up. These internet access providers have hundreds of internet access numbers to enable easy and cheap local access to almost everyone. In my experienced opinion, and that of many of my colleagues, no greater danger to universal cheap Internet access could easily be imagined.
It is extremely cheap for Europe, where Internet access tends to be a bit of a highway robbery. If one or two people on your network use the Internet just to read e-mail and text-oriented Web pages, cheap access works. web hosting, cheap colocation, t1 and dialup internet access accounts in the boston, massachusetts area. Step up to cheap isp internet access information you can count on from a company you can trust. To us, that has to be the basis of cheap internet access.
How to describe cheap internet access There are a variety of ways to access the internet today. This is because dial up internet access tends to be the cheaper than broadband services such as DSL or cable Internet. While not free, dial up Internet access is generally cheap by comparison to broadband. In this article, you'll learn about the amazing things that these networks can do besides potentially providing free or cheap Internet access. Right now internet access is relatively cheap and, for those who have enough interest in computers to read this newsletter, it is relatively easy.
http://www.access-cheap-internet.com/
Lasik Eye Surgery Complications
Undercorrection – this occurs when the expected vision correction falls short of the desired outcome. This occurs more commonly with patients who have a high degree of nearsightedness (only objects close up are clear), farsightedness (only objects far away are clear) or astigmatism (images both far and near are distorted). Why? There is more laser corneal sculpting that needs to occur with patients having higher degrees of vision imperfection. When choosing your Lasik eye surgeon, it's important to ask them what percentage of their patients need retreatment for undercorrection. This should be something that they are willing to freely discuss with you. If not, walk away! This is not to be confused with a planned slight undercorrection for nearsighted patients over forty years old which aids their reading vision. But this is something that you and your Lasik eye surgeon would have discussed before your surgery.
Overcorrection – this complication occurs less frequently than undercorrection and results when the amount of correction (corneal laser sculpting) exceeds what is planned. Slight overcorrection can be temporary and may resolve itself in the first month following Lasik eye surgery. Patients can manage slight overcorrections by wearing glasses until their vision resolves. Some patients with overcorrection may need additional Lasik eye surgery 3 to 6 months following their first surgery.
Dry Eye – many Lasik eye surgery patients may experience the feeling of 'grittiness' in their eyes following surgery. This condition usually resolves itself in 3 to 6 months and may be helped by using lubricating eye drops. Patients using birth control pills and patients going through menopause may experience this condition more often. If 'dry eye' continues beyond 6 months, your Lasik eye surgeon may recommend blocking your tear ducts with tiny silicon plugs to prevent tears from draining away too quickly.
Corneal abrasion – a small percentage of Lasik eye surgery patients may develop a small corneal abrasion (scrape) caused by the microkeratome (instrument used to create corneal flap) used during surgery. This abrasion is generally not serious and will heal quickly. Your Lasik eye surgeon may temporarily place a thin bandage contact lens on your eye to promote healing. While your abrasion is healing, your vision will be blurry.
Night glare – this annoying condition may not affect your vision clarity but patients may see halos or ghosting of images at night during the first month following surgery. Night glare generally improves in 3 months and often disappears within 6 months. Patients with large pupils and more severe vision impairment may be more prone to night glare.
Corneal flap complication – this occurs when the corneal flap is too small, too thin or is an irregular shape. In some cases the corneal flap may shift slightly following surgery if a patient rubs their eyes during the first 6 hours after surgery. If the flap does shift, 'wrinkles' can form causing distorted vision. A second procedure may be necessary to 'smooth out' the wrinkles and improve vision.
Infection – although this is the most feared complication of Lasik eye surgery patients, it is extremely rare. If your eye is going to become infected, chances are it will happen in the first 72 hours following surgery and will be treated with antibiotic eye drops. For this reason it is very important to avoid eye makeup, hot tubs and swimming pools for at least the first week following Lasik eye surgery.
The risks of Lasik eye surgery are low with an experienced Lasik eye surgeon but you need to be aware of possible complications prior to surgery. Your Lasik eye surgeon should freely discuss all possible complications of Lasik eye surgery prior to surgery. Do everything you can to put your eyes in the best possible hands.
Clean Sources Of Energy To Avoid Contributing To Global Warming
Many people wonder what they can do to help dampen the effects of the climate crisis. One method of doing so incorporates the usage of 'clean' energy; that is, energy that does not contribute to the levels of greenhouse gas present in our atmosphere. There are several sources of clean energy, and although it may cost more, the benefit on the planet's ecosystem is well worth the extra money. Commonly known as 'green power', the Environmental Protection Agency has formed a partnership to help encourage the usage of these alternative sources of energy.
Wind energy is one option when it comes to renewable power. Large spinning turbines harvest the movement of the air, and the energy is transferred into an electricity generator for usage in any application. While it's not available everywhere, wind energy represents one of the fastest sectors of growth when it comes to alternative power sources, and it is consequently one of the most widely used alternative sources. As a matter of fact, since the year 2000, the number of wind turbines present in the United States has more than doubled!
Solar power is another significant source of renewable energy. Solar cells known as photovoltaics are placed on sun-catching areas such as the roof of a house. These cells turn light energy into electricity, and enough electric panels can provide power for an entire home, leaving you independent of the energy companies altogether.
Geothermal energy represents a source of energy that is not commonly discussed. Heat from underneath the earth's surface is harvested as steam, which helps to spin a turbine much in the way of wind power. The spinning motion is sent to an electricity generator, and the power can be used in any modern application.
Low impact hydropower represents another significant source of renewable energy. Incorporating the use of a turbine, hydropower is created in streams and rivers which produce enough of a force to properly spin the turbines. Many aspects of hydropower need to be approved to ensure that the turbines do not significantly effect wildlife that may be living in the area where the energy is being harvested. Most hydropower sources do not dam a river up; they operate with the river in free-flow as to minimize the effect on the environment.
While these sources may not be easy to come by, your conscience can be unburdened regarding the climate crisis by switching to one of these environmentally friendly sources of energy. Do your part in helping to change our planet for the better!
Wind energy is one option when it comes to renewable power. Large spinning turbines harvest the movement of the air, and the energy is transferred into an electricity generator for usage in any application. While it's not available everywhere, wind energy represents one of the fastest sectors of growth when it comes to alternative power sources, and it is consequently one of the most widely used alternative sources. As a matter of fact, since the year 2000, the number of wind turbines present in the United States has more than doubled!
Solar power is another significant source of renewable energy. Solar cells known as photovoltaics are placed on sun-catching areas such as the roof of a house. These cells turn light energy into electricity, and enough electric panels can provide power for an entire home, leaving you independent of the energy companies altogether.
Geothermal energy represents a source of energy that is not commonly discussed. Heat from underneath the earth's surface is harvested as steam, which helps to spin a turbine much in the way of wind power. The spinning motion is sent to an electricity generator, and the power can be used in any modern application.
Low impact hydropower represents another significant source of renewable energy. Incorporating the use of a turbine, hydropower is created in streams and rivers which produce enough of a force to properly spin the turbines. Many aspects of hydropower need to be approved to ensure that the turbines do not significantly effect wildlife that may be living in the area where the energy is being harvested. Most hydropower sources do not dam a river up; they operate with the river in free-flow as to minimize the effect on the environment.
While these sources may not be easy to come by, your conscience can be unburdened regarding the climate crisis by switching to one of these environmentally friendly sources of energy. Do your part in helping to change our planet for the better!
Is Solar Power The Immediate Answer To Our Energy Woes ?
We are looking for an across-the-board solution for our present exorbitant consumption of gasoline and it seems as though there is none, at least for the present. We are looking at Ethanol additive to our present gasoline formulas, but this will only give us better miles per gallon and of course, much cleaner bi-products with its use. Ethanol becomes a temporary
fix...at best. The reason, of course is the need for the corn base sugars(and other similar sugar and starch crops) to produce it. It is a simple deduction that it will eventually begin to deplete the food stock of our nation and also hurt our exports of these grains. We could, with the anticipated increase in need of our corn crop, grow the extra acreage that
would be needed to meet any anticipated needs. We must keep in mind the amount of labor that would be required to accomplish this task. The question remains...Will the Ethanol approach keep the price below our present gasoline prices ?
All in all, we must accept the fact that we will not be able to have our gas and eat our corn muffins too. There are also other crops which can be used to derive the Ethanol fuel, such as soybeans, sugar beet, raw sugarcane, etc.. The fact still remains...the choice will be gas for our automobiles and along with this will eventually come a vast depletion of one or more of our key domestic and export crops. It does not mean that this scenario will eventually come to be, but without other renewable energy fuels developed in tandem, such as the Hydrogen based fuel cell to assist the Ethanol fuel approach, this could lend itself to some key food staple shortages. The final question may be..."Do we prefer wheels beneath our feet, or food in our stomachs." Common sense tells us that at this point in time, we must proceed with great caution. Granted, the very large south American country of Brazil has embarked on their Ethanol program for approximately a decade now, with fairly good results and have enjoyed the weaning from foreign oil. Will it ever be 100% remains to be seen.
Solar energy is one possible approach being tinkered with to produce Hydrogen in order to power our future power plants and it is hoped that electricity, which now helps to deplete our fossil fuels will help us to deliver the fuel needed to produce power for advanced "Fuel Cells" being developed to power the automobiles and trucks, etc. of the future.
Unfortunately, producing Hydrogen by using solar energy electricity is very inefficient. This being said, solar energy is fully renewable and therefore must be considered. Along with the Hydrogen fuel from Solar approach comes recent announcements of some breakthroughs holding great promise using Solar to economically produce the hydrogen needed for fuel cells for both the automobile and our industrial needs and not using up all of our food resources in the process.
fix...at best. The reason, of course is the need for the corn base sugars(and other similar sugar and starch crops) to produce it. It is a simple deduction that it will eventually begin to deplete the food stock of our nation and also hurt our exports of these grains. We could, with the anticipated increase in need of our corn crop, grow the extra acreage that
would be needed to meet any anticipated needs. We must keep in mind the amount of labor that would be required to accomplish this task. The question remains...Will the Ethanol approach keep the price below our present gasoline prices ?
All in all, we must accept the fact that we will not be able to have our gas and eat our corn muffins too. There are also other crops which can be used to derive the Ethanol fuel, such as soybeans, sugar beet, raw sugarcane, etc.. The fact still remains...the choice will be gas for our automobiles and along with this will eventually come a vast depletion of one or more of our key domestic and export crops. It does not mean that this scenario will eventually come to be, but without other renewable energy fuels developed in tandem, such as the Hydrogen based fuel cell to assist the Ethanol fuel approach, this could lend itself to some key food staple shortages. The final question may be..."Do we prefer wheels beneath our feet, or food in our stomachs." Common sense tells us that at this point in time, we must proceed with great caution. Granted, the very large south American country of Brazil has embarked on their Ethanol program for approximately a decade now, with fairly good results and have enjoyed the weaning from foreign oil. Will it ever be 100% remains to be seen.
Solar energy is one possible approach being tinkered with to produce Hydrogen in order to power our future power plants and it is hoped that electricity, which now helps to deplete our fossil fuels will help us to deliver the fuel needed to produce power for advanced "Fuel Cells" being developed to power the automobiles and trucks, etc. of the future.
Unfortunately, producing Hydrogen by using solar energy electricity is very inefficient. This being said, solar energy is fully renewable and therefore must be considered. Along with the Hydrogen fuel from Solar approach comes recent announcements of some breakthroughs holding great promise using Solar to economically produce the hydrogen needed for fuel cells for both the automobile and our industrial needs and not using up all of our food resources in the process.
Thought Control
First of all, you have basic thought control now, meaning you can control and direct your thoughts. You can imagine a friend talking in your mind, for example. Then you can choose to hear music in your imagination. If you are hooked up to an electroencephalograph when you do these things, it will also be clear that these two thoughts are handled in different parts of your brain.
This electroencephalogram, or EEG, is important, because what we can measure, we can use to do things. Think about this for a moment. Modern electronics has made it possible to easily operate things as a response to measurement. A thermostat measures the temperature, for example, and turns the heater on or off according to that measurement. Security lights turn themselves on when light levels get low.
Thought Control Devices
We can already measure and track what is going on in the brain. Is it inconceivable then, to have that measurement automatically trigger some action? For example, even before the electrical patterns of the brain were made "visible," we measured pulse rate with many different machines. Now, what if instead of sending a signal to a monitor telling a red light to go on when the heart raced, the signal told the TV to turn on? Think of anything that gets your heart racing and the TV would turn on, right?
Call it mind power, thought control or whatever. You can see that such a device has been possible for at least a generation now. With new technology, and more detailed measurements of the actual electric patterns of the brain, how much more is possible?
Someday, an electroencephalograph type of device will be able to more directly read your mind. The technology will eventually get to the point where it can print out the actual words you are thinking. We are a long way from that, but we are right at the brink of building machines that give us thought control of the things around us.
You see, even with the crude measurements being done now, as long as we can choose what to think about, and any resulting change in the brain can be measured, the possibilities are endless. For example, we can already see the changes in the brain when a person thinks about music, versus a conversation. An existing electroencephalograph machine, using electrodes attached to your head, could be set to turn on the lights instead of producing a changing chart when you sing in your mind.
For paraplegics without speech, there's real hope in this idea. A patterned alternating of thoughts could be used as a sort of Morse code, spelling out words on a screen. They could actually use thought control to make a message appear! At the current level of technology, this would be a tedious process, but the amazing thing is that all the necessary things to build a machine like this are here right now. It's time for thought control!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
