Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

2012 - 2013 SciMail

LATER Bad Neuro-Sci? No AGW in USA Jet? Don't Pray? Impact? Pray! Ice-Age Soon?
Big-Sci Probs BigBang Probs Planets/Sun Summer School No BigBang? Universe/Brain?
Universe+Stars? New Theory? Universe+Stars? Nicotine? Bad Scientists? EARLIER


plse use "MAIL PERCEPTIONS" to input

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:03:44 +0100
Subject: FWD - "So neuro-science is JUNK?

Ha! Think we'd already come to that conclusion about a lot of mainstream science's fake discoveries (like "black holes", "dark matter", "dark energy" etc) - Ray
Most brain science papers are neurotrash: Official
Don't believe everything you read ...

The team, researchers at Stanford Medical School, Virginia, Bristol and the Human Genetics dept at Oxford, looked at 246 neuroscience articles published in 2011 and and excluded papers where the test data was unavailable. They found that the papers' median statistical power - the possibility that a study will identify an effect when there is an effect there to be found - was just 21 per cent. What that means in practice is that if you were to run one of the experiments five times, you'd only find the effect once.

A further survey of papers drawn from fMRI brain scanners - and studies using such scanners have long filled the popular media with dramatic claims - found that their statistical power was just 8 per cent.

Low statistical power caused three problems, the authors said. Firstly, there is a low probability of finding true effects; secondly, there is a low probability that a "true" finding is actually true; and thirdly, exaggerating the magnitude of the effect when a positive is discovered.

There were further problems that led them to believe the power is even lower than they suggest. They noted:
[T]he summary effect size estimates that we used to determine the statistical power of individual studies are themselves likely to be inflated owing to bias - our excess of significance test provided clear evidence for this. Therefore, the average statistical power of studies in our analysis may in fact be even lower than the 8-31% range we observed.

Publishing is a highly competitive enterprise, with certain kinds of findings more likely to be published than others. Research that produces novel results, statistically significant results (that is, typically p < 0.05) and seemingly "clean" results is more likely to be published. As a consequence, researchers have strong incentives to engage in research practices that make their findings publishable quickly, even if those practices reduce the likelihood that the findings reflect a true (that is, non-null) effect.

The paper is titled Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience and is published in the May 2013 edition of Nature Reviews' Neuroscience journal. The conclusions have wide implications for the field.
(more at page ...)

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:36:57 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Report: Global warming didn't cause big US drought

Well, we know one thing for sure: it's been much hotter at times in the past - some dry, some wet (which is why you can find salt-layers _and_ coal/vegetation layers deep underneath our soils). - Ray
Report: Global warming didn't cause big US drought - April 11, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Last year's huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn't caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.

Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation's midsection.

Thursday's report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn't see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn't have been forecast.

"This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years," said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event."

Researchers focused on six states -- Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa -- but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.

He said the jet stream that draws moisture north from the Gulf was stuck unusually north in Canada.

Other scientists have linked recent changes in the jet stream to shrinking Arctic sea ice, but Hoerling and study co-author Richard Seager of Columbia University said those global warming connections are not valid.

Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn't. So that means it was a random event, he said.

Using similar methods, Hoerling has been able to attribute increasing droughts in the Mediterranean Sea region to climate change and found that greenhouse gases could be linked to a small portion of the 2011 Texas heat wave.

Another scientist though, blasted the report.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a federally funded university-run research center, said the report didn't take into account the lack of snowfall in the Rockies the previous winter and how that affected overall moisture in the air. Nor did the study look at the how global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the jet stream north and the rainfall away, he said.

"This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming," Trenberth said in an email. "That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia."

Hoerling noted that in the past 20 years, the world is seeing more La Ninas, the occasional cooling of the central Pacific Ocean that is the flip side of El Nino. Hoerling said that factor, not part of global warming but part of a natural cycle, increases the chances of such droughts.

Some regions should see more droughts as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said. But the six state area isn't expected to get an increase of droughts from global warming -- unlike parts of the Southwest -- Hoerling said.

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:41:19 +0100
Subject: FWD - "Dangers? No place in the Solar system is safe from a `Jet'

Just re-saving some sci-records and had almost forgotten the shock the astro-community showed at this event:

RAS - 18 February 2005
Brightest explosion ever observed overwhelms telescopes ...a flash of light from across the Galaxy so powerful that it bounced off the Moon and lit up the Earth's upper atmosphere. ...The light detected from the giant flare was far brighter in gamma rays than visible light or X-rays. (more ...) - 25 Feb 2005
Scientists have detected a flash of light from across the Galaxy ... brighter than anything ever detected from beyond our Solar System and lasted over a tenth of a second. NASA and European satellites and many radio telescopes detected the flash and its aftermath on December 27, 2004. The light was brightest in the gamma-ray energy range, far more energetic than visible light or X-rays and invisible to our eyes. Such a close and powerful eruption resurrects questions on the nature of gamma ray bursts and their potential effect on earth. Could a very close gamma ray burst, or one with even larger influx of gamma rays, have disturbed the atmosphere and be responsible for one of the mass extinctions known to have occurred on Earth hundreds of millions of years ago? ... (more ...)

If the `flash' had been from a nearer source the whole Solar System could've been affected.  And if the `Jet' was a galactic one - maybe a light year or more across and effectively a `beam' of extremely hot plasma and hard radiation moving at a speed close to that of light - our Sun and all the planets could be vaporised when it arrived.

(reports and URLs at -; comment at

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:34:17 -0000
Subject: FWD - "Asteroid Threat: Nasa chief's advice - just pray

As you might know, I've collected items on this subject for more than a decade.  The early ones were jokey; Gov't reps and agencies [MSM] ridiculed all warnings.  Maybe more realism today - Ray

That's reassuring: Nasa chief Charles Bolden's advice on asteroid heading for Earth - just pray

Head of Nasa made statement at hearing held to establish what was being done and how much money is needed to better protect the planet for asteroids and meteors

Last year, in an effort to tackle the 'myths' surrounding the belief that the world would end on December 21st, Nasa set up a website to debunk theories about 'Mayan Prophecies', and even released a video explaining why Armageddon was not imminent.

Nasa chief Charles Bolden was somewhat less reassuring, however, when asked this week for advice on how to handle a large asteroid headed toward New York City.

His suggestion: Pray.

Mr Bolden gave his stark advice to lawmakers at a US House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on Tuesday, telling them that all that anyone in the US, or indeed anywhere, could do about unknown asteroids or meteors on a collision course with earth is offer up a prayer.

Last month an asteroid, estimated to be have been about 55 feet (17 meters) in diameter exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, generating shock waves that shattered windows and damaged buildings.

More than 1,500 people were injured.

On the same day an asteroid, which was discovered by scientists last year, passed about 17,200 miles (27,681 km) from Earth, closer than the network of television and weather satellites that ring the planet.

US House of Representatives Science Committee chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, called the hearing held on Tuesday in response to the events of last month.

The hearing was held to establish what was being done and how much money is needed to better protect the planet.

"We were fortunate that the events of last month were simply an interesting coincidence rather than a catastrophe," he told the committee.

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat, told the hearing that the events: "serve as evidence that we live in an active solar system with potentially hazardous objects passing through our neighborhood with surprising frequency."

Nasa has found and is tracking about 95 percent of the largest objects flying near Earth, those that are .62 miles (1 km) or larger in diameter.

"An asteroid of that size, a kilometer or bigger, could plausibly end civilization," White House science advisor John Holdren told legislators at the same hearing.

But only about 10 percent of an estimated 10,000 potential "city-killer" asteroids, those with a diameter of about 165 feet (50 meters) have been found, Holdren added.

On average, objects of that size are estimated to hit Earth about once every 1,000 years.

Although it may seem like the stuff of science-fiction disaster movies, experts are seriously considering how to deflect or destroy meteorites or asteroids set on a collision course with our planet.

The ideas range from the outlandish to barely plausible, but no single idea - as Russia discovered to its cost last month, appears to provide all the answers.

Sun-powered space lasers, gravity tractor beams, or a nuclear device have all been suggested by people attempting to solve the problem of how to stop asteroids and meteors from hitting the earth.

In addition to stepping up its monitoring efforts and building international partnerships, Nasa is reported to be also looking at developing technologies to divert an object that may be on a collision course with Earth.

However most monitoring systems are considered to be inadequate.

Bolden told the committee: "From the information we have, we don't know of an asteroid that will threaten the population of the United States but if it's coming in three weeks, pray."

White House science advisor John Holdren told the committee: "The odds of a near-Earth object strike causing massive casualties and destruction of infrastructure are very small, but the potential consequences of such an event are so large it makes sense to takes the risk seriously."

The asteroid that exploded over Russia last month was the largest object to hit Earth's atmosphere since the 1908 Tunguska event when an asteroid or comet exploded over Siberia, leveling 80 million trees over more than 830 square miles (2,150 sq km).
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:19:13 -0000
Subject: FWD - "Asteroid threat" (rare honesty here

Large asteroid colliding with Earth probable this century - video (1 min)

Physicist and former Nasa astronaut, Dr. Ed Lu, discusses the possible threat that near-Earth asteroids pose to our planet. Lu claims there is a 30% chance of a five mega tonne impact happening this century. He says technologies exist that may prevent impacts to Earth, but without years of advance notice there would be 'no option'."


Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:49:27 -0000
Subject: FWD - UK tabloid spills the beans re: Climate Scam

Some time ago got impatient with the airy-fairy `estimates' and `forecasts' emerging in MSM re: climate-change (I was a believer in global-warming at the time - which maybe shows how crappy the media coverage was).

So began to look at `hard-science' records of past climate over short, medium and long timescales, compiled at

Any conclusions? Yup - first: from the records Earth has a long-term `warm/hot climate mode' (maybe ten to twenty degrees warmer than now; over billions of years - see graph `Geological_Timescale-temps.jpg'); a medium term `ice-age climate mode' (maybe twenty to fifty [or a hundred?] degrees colder than now; over last half a million to 1.5 million years); and a short term `interglacial-temperate climate mode' (four to ten degrees warmer than now - see graph `Easterbrook_GISP2-ice.gif').

Any predictions?  Yup, although speculative - first: if those very long-term stimuli were somehow to return then Earth _might_ return to the `warm/hot climate mode' - however that seems unlikely since those stimuli were probably orbital (distance from Sun) and/or Solar (higher solar irradiance) and are not present now, nor likely to return soon;

second: our present inter-glacial mode is exhibiting signs of instability and in the past million or so years that has always caused a `tipping-point' to be passed, resulting in an abrupt descent into `Ice-Age' conditions.

So the signs aren't good - and any real warming would be welcome - Ray
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along
By DAVID ROSE, PUBLISHED: 23:37, 16 March 2013 | UPDATED: 10:55, 17 March 2013

No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well ... what do YOU think?

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the `scientific basis' for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The estimates - given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty - suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.

But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the `95 per cent' band completely.

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC's landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University's Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.

But he now says: `The odds have come down,' - adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now `looking iffy'.

The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world's average temperature since January 1997 - as this newspaper first disclosed last year.

At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.

Its source is impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office `HadCRUT4' database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.

Predictions of global warming, based on scientists' forecasts of how fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to Britain's Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

The current Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6?billion a year - leading to a combined cost of £110?billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain `biofuel' ethanol.

Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed `climate sensitivity' - how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2.

Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: `The fact that global surface temperatures haven't risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.'

And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: `The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.'

James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent `warmist', recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look `increasingly untenable', with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: `This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone's economic or energy policy.'

"I said the end wasn't nigh ... and it cost me my BBC career" says TV's first environmentalist, David Bellamy

This graph shows the end of the world isn't nigh. But for anyone - like myself - who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view, possibly the most important thing about it is its source: the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.

The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.

The awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.

As the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC's doom-laden prediction.

Yet this prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our countryside and billions in unnecessary `green' taxes that make our industry less competitive and add up to £100 a year to household energy bills.

Man-made global warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for dissent. Tragically, the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out of the window along with the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to test new theories.

Opponents of man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I learnt to my cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to what is now the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter to hear a presentation on global warming.

As the face of natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they wanted to enrol me in their cause. But when I read the so-called evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to `sign up'.

I rapidly found myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific community. When I helped some children campaign against a wind farm as part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails criticised me. I realised my career at the BBC was over.

But scientific theory should be tested. That's why I question the science which casts carbon as the villain that will bring about the end of the world.

Open discussion: David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air

Geology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm.

It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon.

There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse. The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.

Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between the sun's activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the `carbon' orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.

But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest - it's a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.

The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life's limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth's history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.

1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming `ice age' as they have been lately about global warming - as the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates. Caption - Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the `next ice age', now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot

Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.

Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong `meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it'. But, it lamented, `scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections'. It said the planet was already `a sixth of the way towards the next ice age'.

While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted `the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded', along with `droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes'.

Also see for text versions of more Ice-Age Warnings in '70s media, and for Newsweeks 1975 scare article headlined "The Cooling World"

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 22:55:40 -0000 Subject: Big-Science keeping problems a bit quiet?

Doing a search today (re: particle physics), found that all the problems we'd discussed are indeed admitted by Big-Sci - but a bit quietly:
[ see and and maybe all the rest ]

That problem about `dimensionless constants or numbers' (in `other problems' above) has been a scandal for ages; i.e. Big-Sci's `theories' _should_ allow them to predict how the universe is constructed and operates - so they _should_know all those "constants of nature" without having to measure them - but they don't!  As Einstein himself admitted back in 1954.

And most of the other significant ones were discussed by you and other readers - see ansci902.html#no-bb and ansci8.html#grav-t and maybe more controversially: creation.html#apr10

Strange that the mainstream media (MSM) never looks at these problems - maybe because they might undercut all the claims made by Big-Sci (and their political masters) that they know what they're doing?

Ray D

Date: Thur, 14 Feb 2013 10:33:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: Wolfram Science Summer School 2013

The eleventh annual Wolfram Science Summer School (formerly the NKS Summer School) is in a few months, and we would like to invite you to apply.

The three-week, tuition-free summer program will be held at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts from July 1 through July 19, 2013.  The Wolfram Science Summer School is hosted by Wolfram Research, makers of Mathematica and the computational knowledge engine Wolfram|Alpha, and Stephen Wolfram, world-renowned author of A New Kind of Science (NKS).

We are looking for highly motivated individuals who want to get involved with original research at the frontiers of science.  Our participants come from many diverse backgrounds, but share a common passion to discover and explore cutting-edge ideas.  Over the past 10 years, they have included graduate students, undergraduates, professors, industry professionals, artists, and even a few exceptional high school students.

If accepted to the Summer School, you will work directly with others in the Wolfram Science community, including Stephen Wolfram and a staff of instructors who have made significant contributions to NKS and Wolfram|Alpha.  You will develop your own original project that could become the foundation of published papers or your thesis.

Take a look at the lecture notes from previous years to get a sense of what topics will be covered:

If you're serious about getting involved with innovative ideas at the core of Wolfram Science and NKS, you should consider applying as soon as possible.

Apply online at:

Todd Rowland, PhD
Wolfram Science Summer School Academic Director

Catherine Boucher, PhD
Wolfram Science Summer School Program Director

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:28:42 -0000
Subject: FWD - "Largest Structure in Universe Discovered
Largest Structure in Universe Discovered
by Mike Wall, Senior WriterDate: 11 January 2013

Astronomers have discovered the largest known structure in the universe, a clump of active galactic cores that stretches 4 billion light-years from end to end."

Ha! That's _way_ bigger than even the `impossible Francis Filament', of which Dr Francis said: (in 2004)
"There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang to form structures this colossal.  In three billion years matter should be able to move 10 million light years at most - you can't make something that's 300 million light years long in the time that's given ... It's impossible. ... there's something badly wrong with the accepted Big Bang theory ... or the universe is much older than we think it is."

Maybe see for more on that.

Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:49:07 -0000

Right Choong - think you've got the right idea.  I.e. the situation isn't clear just now and the best thing is to keep alert. - Ray

BTW re: Sun/NASA notes - it seems NASA is only recently beginning to realize that, while the Sun affects the planets heat-wise and gravity-wise, the planets (with nearly _all_ of Solar System's angular momentum) have a strong affect on the Sun's upper-surface rotation and even its atomic integrity - here's a report that NASA _didn't_ publicise and hid away in the archives:

QUOTE (from 20 Oct 2009 22:03:12 +0100)
Thanks - hadn't seen that. Yup, looks like they're maybe ready to admit the correlation, nearly 70 yrs late for Nelson (and ten to 20 yrs late for me).  I like the confessional tone of this bit - "despite the widely accepted thought that believes otherwise. Evidence of apparent relations between planet positions and solar activity was observed and presented:"

Choong **** **** wrote:
> Right, and December 21 did scare the shit out of some people over here too but I do my rounds as usual equipped with a welder glass and GPS, even stop my bike intermediately to look at the sun and GPS never stop working, everythings fine.

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:33:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: Wolfram Science Summer School 2013

We are pleased to announce the 11th annual Wolfram Science Summer School (formerly the NKS Summer School) and would like to invite you to apply to the three-week, tuition-free summer program, to be held in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Wolfram Science Summer School is hosted by Wolfram Research, makers of Mathematica and the computational knowledge engine Wolfram|Alpha, and Stephen Wolfram, world-renowned author of A New Kind of Science (NKS).

We are looking for highly motivated individuals who want to get involved with original research at the frontiers of science.  Our participants come from many diverse backgrounds, but share a common passion to discover and explore cutting-edge ideas.  Over the past 10 years, they have included graduate students, undergraduates, professors, industry professionals, artists, and even a few exceptional high school students.

If accepted to the Summer School, you will work directly with others in the Wolfram Science community, including Stephen Wolfram and a staff of instructors who have made significant contributions to NKS and Wolfram|Alpha.  You will develop your own original project that could become the foundation of published papers or your thesis.

Take a look at the lecture notes from previous years to get a sense of what topics will be covered:

If you're serious about getting involved with innovative ideas at the core of Wolfram Science and NKS, you should consider applying as soon as possible.

Apply online at:

Todd Rowland, PhD
Wolfram Science Summer School Academic Director

Catherine Boucher, PhD
Wolfram Science Summer School Program Director

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:44:53 -0000 Subject: Re: Re: Slightly off topic, but fascinating!

Good example Bob -
have been reading up on the controversy.  It seems that mainstream science is _not_ dedicated to factual truth but rather to protecting the careers of established professors.  As a result it doesn't honestly reappraise the data and will even try to suppress or distort the facts.

Below are URLs of a great critique of the Big Bang and associated theories.

In summary:
it all rests on the Hubble interpretation of "redshift" as being entirely due to distance and speed (away from us), leading to a presumption that the Universe must be expanding and that, going back in time, it has only expanded for 15 bllion years (apparent radius of visible universe), so there must have been a "start point" 15 bn yrs ago.

But evidence has been accumulating that many galaxies' redshifts (particularly of quasars) are _not_ due to distance and speed away from us but rather to energetic processes going on in those galaxies (esp. in the cores maybe).

So the (probable) true situation is that there's no expansion. and that what we see is merely the visible universe full of galaxies going through their generations.

So there's no constraint on the age of the universe (in fact not much of a clue as to its real age), no known beginning or Big Bang (and no `heat death' end-of-the-universe either).

I.e. As those galaxies evolve from accumulations of dust + gas into ellipticals, then develop spin (due to conservation of angular momentum) to become spirals, then, when really massive and spinning very fast their swollen cores will `jet' away much of their matter as plasma - ideal building material for new galaxies.

Which all sounds like a `Steady State' or `Eternalist' universe to me.
[ BTW - here's Dark Matter/Energy critique, Particle physics critique, Standard Model critique ]

Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2.wmv
Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 2 of 2.wmv

The Big Bang Never Happened series summary in video shorts
Review Top 30 Problems w/the Big Bang (Van Flandern)

rohiller wrote:
> To flip this around, just have a look at the big bang theory which is widely believed. It claims that the entire Universe came into existence due to an exploding black hole in the distant past, but has nothing to say about how this hypothetical black hole was formed or what triggered it to explode. When you dig into it, this is an enormously extraordinary claim, yet it is accepted with no hesitation by almost everyone in the mainstream.

> So, yes, there is a big double standard at work here. IMO.
> Bob

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:58:28 -0000
Subject: FWD - "Human Brain, Internet, and Cosmology: Similar Laws at Work?

Reads almost spookily metaphysical at first sight - but maybe less so re-reading; (but those grants from DARPA [& NSF] and Cisco might make anyone suspicious) - Ray

[PS can maybe imagine why biggest military, gov't & corporates are interested - here's the physical controversy, and the more metaphysical view - RD]
Human Brain, Internet, and Cosmology: Similar Laws at Work?
ScienceDaily (Nov. 19, 2012)
The structure of the universe and the laws that govern its growth may be more similar than previously thought to the structure and growth of the human brain and other complex networks, such as the Internet or a social network of trust relationships between people, according to a new paper published in the science journal Nature's Scientific Reports.

"By no means do we claim that the universe is a global brain or a computer," said Dmitri Krioukov, co-author of the paper, published by the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), based at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) at the University of California, San Diego. "But the discovered equivalence between the growth of the universe and complex networks strongly suggests that unexpectedly similar laws govern the dynamics of these very different complex systems."

Having the ability to predict -- let alone trying to control -- the dynamics of complex networks remains a central challenge throughout network science. Structural and dynamical similarities among different real networks suggest that some universal laws might be in action, although the nature and common origin of such laws remain elusive.

By performing complex supercomputer simulations of the universe and using a variety of other calculations, researchers have now proven that the causal network representing the large-scale structure of space and time in our accelerating universe is a graph that shows remarkable similarity to many complex networks such as the Internet, social, or even biological networks.

"These findings have key implications for both network science and cosmology," noted Krioukov. "We discovered that the large-scale growth dynamics of complex networks and causal networks are asymptotically (at large times) the same, explaining the structural similarity between these networks."

"This is a perfect example of interdisciplinary research combining math, physics, and computer science in totally unexpected ways," said SDSC Director Michael Norman. "Who would have guessed that the emergence of our universe's four-dimensional space-time from the quantum vacuum would have anything to do with the growth of the Internet? Causality is at the heart of both, so perhaps the similarity Krioukov and his collaborators found is to be expected."

Of course the network representing the structure of the universe is astronomically huge -- in fact it can be infinite. But even if it is finite, researchers' best guess is that it is no smaller than 10250 atoms of space and time. (That's the digit 1 followed by 250 zeros.) For comparison, the number of water molecules in all the oceans in the world has been estimated to be 4.4 x 1046.

Yet the researchers found a way to downscale this humongous network while preserving its vital properties, by proving mathematically that these properties do not depend on the network size in a certain range of parameters, such as the curvature and age of our universe.

After the downscaling, the research team turned to Trestles, one of SDSC's data-intensive supercomputers, to perform simulations of the universe's growing causal network. By parallelizing and optimizing the application, Robert Sinkovits, a computational scientist with SDSC, was able to complete in just over one day a computation that was originally projected to require three to four years.

"In addition to being able to complete these simulations much faster than previously ever imagined, the results perfectly matched the theoretical predictions of the researchers," said Sinkovits.

"The most frequent question that people may ask is whether the discovered asymptotic equivalence between complex networks and the universe could be a coincidence," said Krioukov. "Of course it could be, but the probability of such a coincidence is extremely low. Coincidences in physics are extremely rare, and almost never happen. There is always an explanation, which may be not immediately obvious."

"Such an explanation could one day lead to a discovery of common fundamental laws whose two different consequences or limiting regimes are the laws of gravity (Einstein's equations in general relativity) describing the dynamics of the universe, and some yet-unknown equations describing the dynamics of complex networks," added Marián Boguñá, a member of the research team from the Departament de Física Fonamental at the Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

The other researchers who worked on this project are Maksim Kitsak, CAIDA/SDSC/UC San Diego; and David Rideout and David Meyer, Department of Mathematics at UC San Diego.

This research was supported by multiple grants, including Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) grant number HR0011-12-1-0012; NSF grants number CNS-0964236 and CNS-1039646; Cisco Systems; Foundational Questions Institute grant number FQXi-RFP3-1018; George W. and Carol A. Lattimer Campus Professorship at UC San Diego; Office of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain (MICINN) project number FIS2010-21781-C02-02; Generalitat de Catalunya grant number 2009SGR838; and by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA) Academia Prize funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain.

Journal Reference: Dmitri Krioukov, Maksim Kitsak, Robert S. Sinkovits, David Rideout, David Meyer, Marián Boguñá. Network Cosmology. Scientific Reports, 2012; 2 DOI: 10.1038/srep00793

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:51 -0000
Subject: FWD = "Higgs particle is a bog Standard Model boson, say scientists

Ha! We've recently seen that "supersymmetry" is most likely rubbish, like its earlier "string theory" cousin - and the `Standard Model' is a collection of non-matching imaginary "particle exchanges", each of which has to be manually tweaked (fiddled) to fit with all the rest - which then don't fit reality.

[Nb - under the extract is [links to] a critique of `particle physics' written (by me) some years ago - perhaps influenced by the Profs Stewart & Cohen]
Higgs particle is a bog Standard Model boson, say scientists

Fresh data from the LHC suggest the Higgs boson is unlikely to pave the way to a profound new understanding of nature, Wednesday 14 November 2012 18.00 GMT
The new results, based on far more collisions than were gathered in July, show that all the decays fall in line with the Standard Model. However, neither team updated their results for Higgs particles disintegrating into gamma particles, which may still harbour signs of an unusual Higgs at work.

The discovery of a more exotic Higgs boson would thrill particle physicists and mark a huge leap forward in human knowledge. Some versions of a theory called supersymmetry anticipate five different Higgs bosons. The theory doubles the number of particle types in the universe, shows how common forces of nature once combined as one, and hints at the make-up of dark matter, the invisible substance that clumps around galaxies.
(full article at URL)

Dark Matter / Energy critique
Standard Model critique
Particle physics critique

Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:05:14 -0000
Subject: FWD - "Dark energy map puts the squeeze on dark matter"

Seems more clearly written than most reports of this research - and also like the (nervous but finally somewhat sensible) paragraph quoted below - Ray

"Dark energy map puts the squeeze on dark matter"

"If supersymmetry collapses, the astronomers lose their best candidate yet for dark matter. Theoreticians will undoubtedly dream up another but it means that a radical rethink will be necessary. Maybe it will even drive more people into considering the heresy of re-engineering the work of Newton and Einstein to look for a new theory of gravity."

Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 13:05:45 -0000
Subject: Density of Universe / Distance between stars / More ...

Hi, there's plenty of follow-ups to this story but they're all using the basic info below.  Media hacks are all parrotting this stuff given out by NASA's Fermi-Scope without much thought of the possibly interesting implications:

i) their figures are actually saying that the universe is only 1000 times less dense than an average section of an average spiral galaxy (i.e Earth's location);

ii) the statement that `all the light is still circulating' can't be quite true - since when light hits something it is usually absorbed [although sometimes it's merely `changed': refracted/reflected and changed in frequency (and phase of course)];

iii) there are further implications concerning the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation - which is merely old/cold down-shifted light (electromagnetic radiation).  Like the famous "red-shift", the CMBR is probably NOT evidence of a Big Bang or of anything much.  After all, light is _always_ being generated then eventually getting old/cold or absorbed so even if the Universe were infinitely old the situation could be exactly as we see it;

iv) there seem to be further implications - (needing much more thought) - Ray,0,5891408.story
Astronomers measure cosmic 'fog,' estimate space between stars
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Los Angeles Times
November 1, 2012, 1:30 p.m.

Stars may burn out and die, but their light goes on forever. All the light ever produced by stars is still circulating through the universe, a phenomenon known as extragalactic background light or EBL. This light is a kind of cosmic "fog" that dims light from distant stars passing through it, much like the beams from a lighthouse are dimmed by real fog. Now, for the first time, astronomers have been able to measure the sum total of EBL and to calculate the spacing of stars in the cosmos. They reported Thursday in the journal Science that the average density of stars in the universe is about 1.4 per 100 billion cubic light-years. That means that the average distance between stars is about 4,150 light-years.

To measure EBL, astronomers needed a kind of galactic signpost to allow them to determine how much light from distant stars is being lost. As their measuring marks, a team headed by Marco Ajello of Stanford University chose blazars -- galaxies emitting large amounts of gamma-radiation. Blazars are characterized by massive black holes at the center of the galaxies. As matter falls into the black hole, some of it is accelerated outward at nearly the speed of light. In the gamma-ray spectrum, these beams of light are especially bright and their sources are called blazars. The highest-energy gamma rays tend to pass through the EBL more efficiently that light in the visible spectrum.

Over the last four years, NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has been examining the entire universe looking for, among other things, blazars. The satellite has so far identified more than 1,000 of the brilliant objects. Ajello and his team examined 150 blazars that emit gamma-rays of very high energy -- greater than 3 billion electron volts, or more than a billion times the energy of visible light. The team calculated the amount of gamma-radiation emanating from blazars ranging in age from 4 billion years to 11.2 billion years.

Some of the gamma-rays traveling through space strike photons in the EBL. These collisions form an electron-positron pair, destroying the gamma-radiation. By measuring the attenuation of gamma radiation, the team was able to produce the best estimate of total EBL obtained so far, allowing them to calculate the average star density.

The universe is known to be 13.7 billion years old. During the first 400 million years or so, the universe was composed primarily of pure hydrogen and helium gas and was essentially dark, according to team member Volker Bromm of the University of Texas at Austin. The universe then underwent a very rapid transition to star formation, with those first stars having masses ranging from 10 to 100 times that of our sun. That is when most of the heavy elements in the universe were created, he said. The peak of star formation occurred when the universe was about 3 billion years old, and star formation has been declining ever since.

By measuring EBL, Bromm said, Fermi is providing a shadow image of the first stars. Astronomers hope to see them directly when the powerful James Webb Space Telescope is launched in 2018. ---

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:18:13 -0000
Subject: FWD - "Smokers miss work more often"

Ha!  While I was smoking cheroots, cigars, roll-ups and a pipe, on return to UK took a job with a national comms corporate and left after 5 years.  They gave me a computer print-out of my record to-date and I was slightly surprised to see there was ZERO days off sick in the whole five years.

Was surprised because I knew I'd gotten a bad cold/flu one winter Friday evening driving back from Wales in a cold Landrover - took Monday off and was OK Tuesday.

Meanwhile I knew most of the guys I worked with (smokers and non-smokers) took the maximum allowed days off sick each year - some more (they got warned usually).  I didn't usually take any days off sick because I didn't usually get sick - which was fine by me. - Ray
"Smokers miss work more often, cost UK billions
By Genevra Pittman, NEW YORK | Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:15pm EDT
(Reuters Health) - Smokers miss an average of two or three more days of work each year than non-smokers, according to a new analysis of 29 past studies.

Yup - as a case in point recently found what was the "science consensus" in the 1970's -
(it's a page from `Newsweek' April 1975)
The only things that've changed are the politics - and the politicians need for new excuses to tax ordinary people (but not themselves).

Raven B*** wrote: > Ha, yeah! I know some smokers who are in amazing shape and some who are in abysmal shape. Same with non-smokers. I don't put much stock in most 'studies' because I believe if a group of people, like scientists, go into a study with one result in mind - they will invaribly reach a positive for that result because they'll (conciously or not) choose methods that will support their premise.
> *doesn't put much stock in modern scientists*

Almost forgot - quite a while ago saw a publication from a woman doctor pursuing independent research who found that nicotine seemed to be a protection against memory-loss, Alzheimer's etc.   There was an outcry in UK and the Gov't/ Media tried to supress her findings.

A more recent search finds much more back-up to her conclusions
"nicotinic receptor functioning in learning and memory both in normal individuals and those with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease as well as neurodevelopmental disorders like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. We have also tested the effects of novel nicotinic drugs in humans, designed to produce the positive effects of nicotinic stimulation without some of the liabilities of nicotine itself.
Current research focuses on the importance of nicotinic systems in therapeutic drug development for early memory loss and for impulsivity symptoms associated with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia, and Parkinson's disease."
"One recent study has found that one of nicotine's metabolites, cotinine, may improve memory and protect brain cells from diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Another new study shows that nicotine can help improve some of the learning and memory problems associated with hypothyroidism. Such studies suggest that nicotine - or drugs that mimic nicotine - may one day prove beneficial in the treatment of neurological disorders."
"Nicotine improves human brain performance The brain works better when it gets nicotine - almost like an optimized computer. Nicotine is a "work-drug" that enables its consumers to focus better and think faster. The brain also becomes more enduring, especially in smokers: Nicotine experiments show that smokers in prolonged working situations are able to maintain concentration for many hours longer than non-smokers.
Smoking gives the brain more stamina - Other nicotine tests show results that seriously question the idea of smoking bans in workplaces. Several studies show that smokers' brains have more stamina in long work situations compared to non-smokers, providing the smoker can smoke while working. Smokers can maintain concentration for long hours without getting tired, while non-smokers concentration quickly breaks down. This phenomenon was brought to US public attention in 1976 when environmental activist Ralph Nader suggested in a TV program that pilots should be prohibited from smoking on U.S. airplanes for safety reasons. Immediately after this proposal, the news media received a warning from Dr. Norman Heimstra: "A bad idea," he wrote. (12)

Dr. Norman Heimstra had done the world's first primitive nicotine experiments back in 1967 (13). Three groups of people spent six hours in a car simulator - smokers, non-smokers and "abstemious" smokers. Result: The abstinent smokers fared worst in all tests - but the experiment also showed that smokers fared best when the first three hours had passed. At the same time the study revealed that smokers showed no aggressiveness while driving and handled emergency situations better than the other two groups. "In a critical situation the smoking pilot might well be the best pilot," Dr. Heimstra wrote to the media.

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:03:32 -0000
Subject: Rider to "A small revolt against the new `priesthood of sacred science'

Quick rider to that `science priesthood' item [text version] from Simon Jenkins: at

He's quite right about the power take-over by the men in white coats, only he didn't quite describe how they've done it. The white-coats have done exactly what the priests did before them: In those days virtually _only_ the priesthood received an education; so _only_ the priests could read and write and therefore they claimed that _only_ they knew about the universe.

The results? Henry Thomas Buckle, way back in the 1800's, took a look at the records:

"I need only observe that in this way the Christian priests have obscured the annals of every European people they converted, and have destroyed or corrupted the traditions of the Gauls, of the Welsh, of the Irish, of the Anglo-Saxons, of the Sclavonic nations, of the Finns, and even of the Icelanders.

... the literature of Europe, shortly before the final dissolution of the Roman Empire, fell entirely into the hands of the clergy ... for several centuries it was extremely rare to meet with a layman who could read or write ...

Literature, being thus monopolized by a single class, assumed the peculiarities natural to its new masters. And, as the clergy, taken as a body, have always looked on it as their business to enforce belief rather than encourage inquiry, it is no wonder if they displayed in their writings the spirit incidental to the habits of their profession.

Indeed the aptitude for falsehood became so great there was nothing men were unwilling to believe ..."

Buckle goes on to list the absurdities the priests trotted out to excuse or cover-up their own greed, corruption or sheer ignorance and lust for power - at

With the spread of education, gradually the religious priesthood's grip on people's credulity was broken - but already those with a bit of "extra education" as scientists (or so they thought) were beginning to claim extra knowledge of the universe.

An early example -
"14th Century - King Philip VI of France asked University of Paris medical faculty for the cause of the 1347 Black Death outbreak (when the bacterium Yersinia pestis arrived from Asia, killing one-third to one-half of Europeans within two years). The `medical' answer - published and accepted by the intelligentsia - "A triple conjunction in the constellation of Aquarius (20 March 1345), was the cause of the subsequent pestilence."

[Some more science errors / misunderstandings and downright self-interested ignorance at blinded.html]

And similar gobbledegook is still being sold (and paid for with _our_ tax-money) by fraudsters in the non-science of psychiatry / psychology - as shown at

which ends with:

"It seems that, unlike medical doctors who can bury their mistakes, psychiatrists can lock-up their mistakes and use mind-altering drugs on them to "confirm" false diagnoses.

I hope, in future, that anyone thinking of accepting _any_ dictum from the psychiatry/psychology camp would think again. Their words are about as reliable as politicians' promises - and IMHO for the same reason: they are self-interested professional liars (or fools, of course)."

and pehaps even more so (although apparently with slightly less evil intent) in the arcane subjects of astro-physics and cosmology as shown at

which has these interesting observations:

"And from a physical perspective, we have recent claims of a universe somehow accelerating apart after a presumed 'Big Bang' creation event despite conflicting observations increasingly showing all the stars existing within stable galaxies or galactic clusters threading throughout the universe. The recent law-violating claims of a universe accelerating apart are based on Hubble's largely unquestioned and scientifically unverified assumption that redshifted starlight equals velocity, and the best 'Big Bang' evidence is now actually verifiably erroneously Nobel Prize-awarded microwave noise.

This is undeniably the current state of Cosmology today - and the current destination of billions of public tax dollars earmarked for scientific investigation and advancement. It is clear that vested interests in the scientific community are not about to enact any significant change to this state of affairs, so it is up to an informed and concerned public to do something about this ongoing state of crisis in our science."

"If we simply allow ourselves to take a critical look at a double Nobel Prize-winning observational claim and re-think two highly questionable century-old 'laws of nature', we remove three of today's largest mysteries from Cosmology: the 'Big Bang', 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'. It is worth noting that these Cosmological claims, 'laws' and observations are largely abstract or remote in nature, and so are far more susceptible to being thrown wildly off track, and require extra care and scientific due-diligence.

However, now with appropriate corrective analysis, there is no longer a mysterious infinitely small singularity from which the entire universe burst forth, no longer completely undetectable exotic 'Dark Matter' dominating our universe, and no longer a mysterious law-violating 'Dark Energy' accelerating the universe apart. In their place is a possibly static universe of potentially infinite size and age, within which stars of regular matter undergo continual births and deaths, with gravity-driven dynamics in ordinary three-dimensional space."

Personally tend to agree, as might be seen here

which gives similar reasons for thinking that `astro-phys' has painted itself into a corner - largely due to self-interest and self deception.

Jenkins is right, some scientists - notably the vain, greedy, publicity-hungry ones - have become arrogant and often deceiving in their misuse of public trust.


BTW - definitions of science method and theory

[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson

this page


Share This