|LATER||Extinctions||New Moon||UK/USA Cold||Pope error?||Mercury?|
|Sci-Secrets||Mysteries||Fanciful Science||Real Science||Birch Talents||One Leg|
|Sol `Storm'?||Fly Gyro||Varying Sun||Half-lives||Galactic Jet?||Impact `Error'|
|Core+PoleFlip||Fake `Big-Sci'2||Great Void||Hot Corals||Transplants||Fake `Big-Sci'|
|ET Signals?||Hot Volcanoes||Einstein+QM||Astro-Edu||UK's DNAs||EARLIER|
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 08:03:03 +0100
Subject: Sixth great extinction? - Or a "natural ripple"?
"Humans creating sixth great extinction of animal species, say scientists
Study reveals rate of extinction for species in the 20th century has been up to 100 times higher than would have been normal without human impact".
The problem with this article, as with most which are intent on getting money, power or influence, is that it's oversimplified to the point of stupidity and downright lies (in order to grab and convince the lowest common denominator - the people with no information, little education and/or no time to investigate).
In reality Earth's biosphere (all Life - from below the deepest oceans all the way up to the top of the atmosphere, the edge of deep space) is an inter-locking system containing an unknown number of multiple subsystems which interact and inter-depend in ways we have no way of realizing or measuring, never mind understanding or predicting.
They are called "self-organizing systems", as is the total biosphere, and we now know that they operate so as to regulate their own environments and their own growth-stability - as some scientists say: `choosing a critical path balanced between order (death by equilibrium - of cold or heat) and chaos (death by disintegration or lack of atomic / molecular stability)'. That self-ordering criticality [SOC] is more pronounced for the bigger and more complex systems (as the `Gaia Hypothesis', now proven to be true, describes pretty well).
So far so good - but what campaigning scientists `forget' to mention is that all self-organizing systems also have regular ripples of extinctions - most of which you couldn't find a cause for, mostly because the "real" or "original" cause of a ripple of extinctions might be a tiny event involving only a few life-forms.
Luckily most natural phenomena tend to follow a `power law' - see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Power_law which, put simply, says small events happen often, large events more rarely.
As you can see from the extinction graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg, major extinctions have occurred about every 50 million years (maybe a bit less), with a possible gap (or only "minor" events) from 200 million yrs ago to 62 million yrs ago.
From that graph alone we could've anticipated a major extinction event on Earth about now - even without humans.
As there is no way that modern science can yet identify - never mind quantify or predict - the levels of interlocking complexity and interdependence in Earth's biosphere, all claims by self-interested scientists are unscientific - indeed most are downright lies. Like the claim in the article above.
PS - it is obvious that human encroachments and pollution of habitat are affecting identifiable species of wild-life. What is not so clear is which way the total swing is moving - i.e. some species are profiting by human activity (like urban foxes, and maybe hundreds of various invertebrates, bacteria etc.), while others are not - especially those which have evolved by specializing, so painting themselves into a corner - like tigers, elephants etc.. - see genes6.html#all
So it's likely that a major extinction event would affect such vulnerable species - because that's what `ripples of extinction' do.
PPS - Maybe see `Extinction and self-organized criticality in a model of large-scale evolution' [PDF] by Ricard V. Sole´ and Susanna C. Manrubia
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:59:57 +0100
Subject: Re: New Moon and mass killings / mood-flips
Hi, here's the site root-article (updated over some years)
but maybe bear in mind the difficulties in identifying a perpetrator who genuinely `flipped' rather than planned it, or reacted to a specific event.
My own impression is that depressive types seem prone to go over the edge at New Moon, while over-bearing types might get unstable at Full Moon.
Even so, expect most folk to only get a mild sensation of `elation' at Full Moon, and an opposite `down' feeling at New Moon.
PS - maybe scroll down that page for some police / medical / hospital reports.
From: V A tc******
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: New Moon and mass killings / mood-flips
Do you have a valid hot link for this info?
I am curious, . . .
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:30:59 +0100
Subject: New Moon and mass killings / mood-flips
The connection didn't hit me until just now - so here's the updated quote (from fertility page):
Update 18 June 2015 - Events have prompted reviews of recent indiscriminate mass shootings / killings which seem to fit the `mood-flip' / depression profile:
Columbine - April 20, 1999
Virginia Tech - April 16, 2007
University of Alabama - February 12, 2010
Tucson - January 8, 2011
Aurora - July 20, 2012
Sandy Hook - December 14, 2012
Charleston - June 17, 2015
Checking with a Moon-phase calendar shows all are in the New Moon period.
BTW - there also seems to be some folk who flipped at Full Moon - others seemed to've been triggered by a specific event, so Lunar phase was irrelevant - RD
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:49:05 +0100
Subject: "June nights could be coldest since records began
Add yesterday's story re: USA's last ten-year cooling, and climate looks a little more unpredictable?
UK weather: June nights could be coldest since records began as summer takes time to heat up 22:42, 17 JUNE 2015 | BY ALISTAIR GRANT, RUTH HALKON
June is on course to be the coldest month in 24 years - with the coldest nights since records began
June is on track to be the UK's coldest summer month for 24 years
Instead of sitting in a beer garden enjoying a cool gin and tonic as the sun goes down, Brits have spend this month huddling inside and wondering where they put their winter coats.
So it comes as no surprise that the Met Office has said this June is on course to be the coldest summer month for 24 years.
And freezing after dark temperatures could mean June nights are the coldest since records began 105 years ago.
An average temperature over the whole month below June 2012's 12.3C would make this the coldest summer month since June the average of 10.9C reached in June 1991.
The UK's minimum temperature from June 1-15 was 6.6C which is 2.2C below usual.
If the trend continues for the rest of the month it could easily come below the lowest June night temperature yet, recorded in June 1916.
The Met Office said it expected temperatures to be 0.5C higher once traditionally warmer weather from the second half of June is added to figures from the first half of June.
Met Office forecaster Nicola Maxey said there was no sign of the country heating up any time soon.
She said: "There is an indication the June as a whole may have a below-average temperature. It has been below-average so far away from the South-East."
Arctic air meant freezing temperatures were recorded as far south as Yorkshire on Monday morning, with -0.7C at Kielder Castle and Redesdale Camp, Northumberland, and -1.5C at Braemar, Aberdeenshire.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:54:51 +0100
Subject: "Pope: Climate change a moral issue and due to human activity
Sorry Francis - `one of the world greatest climatologists' disagrees with that - as we don't know what causes `normal' and ongoing climate change, or how much, then all speculations about human causes are unjustified. I.e. unscientific. See quote below:
"Climate - even under its natural development alone - varies continually. Each year, each decade, each century, each millennium, since long before any question of impact of human activity, has produced a somewhat different record. It is important to gauge the magnitudes and time-scales of these variations, since planning should not be based on expectations of return to some non-existent norm. And the magnitude and extent of any changes attributable to Man's activities - or even whether any such effects are occurring on more than a local scale - cannot be determined without knowing the range, and the likely timing, of changes due to natural causes."
- Hermann Flohn, in `The Climate of Europe: Past, Present and Future', p. 25
as quoted at try-logic.txt
Pope: Climate change a moral issue and due to human activity
Eric J. Lyman, Special for USA TODAY 4:57 p.m. EDT June 15, 2015
VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis says most climate change is due to human activity and calls it one of the most important moral issues facing society, according to a draft leaked Monday of his long-awaited encyclical on global warming.
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:14:06 +0100
Subject: "Mercury Sole Survivor
Depending on the nervousness of the scientists you're reading, you'll find that our Solar System is stable - or unstable. And both seem to be right - that is, at the moment the planets don't seem to be in danger of colliding with each other. But that's probably only because there were a lot of planetary collisions before now that wiped out the erratic planets.
Does this article (seemingly re: Mercury but really about the whole Solar System), remind anyone of the still pertinent history as told by Velikovsky?
Mercury Sole Survivor of Close Orbiting Planets Around the Sun
by Nola Taylor Redd, SPACE.com Contributor | June 12, 2015 06:30am ET
The vast quantity of planets and planetary candidates identified by NASA's Kepler spacecraft has revealed an array of systems. Some have Jupiter-sized planets close to the sun, while others show only a handful of planets. Almost none resemble our solar system.
In an effort to establish how the sun and its planets compare to the newfound systems, a pair of astronomers suggest that our early solar system may have contained as many as four planets orbiting closer to the sun than Venus, and that a series of cataclysmic collisions left Mercury as the last one standing.
"In a highly destructive regime, we're left with one survivor," Volk said.
Mercury, it seems, is the reigning champion.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:51:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: "Stars forming in the Taurus Molecular Cloud
Yup, science advances - but majority of recent science is still `Top Secret'; there are thousands of patents in USA (and probably in UK and Europe) which are officially suppressed and unknown to the public - because although science advances, human nature doesn't.
See F.A.S. Report on Secrecy
From: Roy MacK****** Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:16 PM
Something else is happening now. The speed at which science is amazingly increasing its presence, the rate at which knowledge is being developed like a nuclear explosion is revealing a new world dramatically different from that of only twenty years ago. Time is short, very short......
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 20:13:16 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: "Stars forming in the Taurus Molecular Cloud
Hi Roy. It's not as straightforward as one might think. We shouldn't underestimate the power of irrational fear in the science establishment.
I.e. Hannes Alfvén was an early discoverer of plasma phenomena in space (he'd already won a Nobel for his other work on magnetohydrodynamics) but he was prevented from publishing his plasma discoveries for decades, in fact it was his successors (people he'd trained and inspired) who finally got some published.
But even now Alfvén is bad-mouthed in science circles - because all establishments are fearful and will be spitefully cruel to free-thinkers. And establishments have a very long memory.
You see exactly the same behaviour in cover-ups and subsequent official abuse of whistle blowers - that's fear and spitefulness operating.
From: Roy Mac*****
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:45 PM Subject: Re: "Stars forming in the Taurus Molecular Cloud
Then is it not a straightforward matter of helping these devious individuals become more honest? And how do you do that but by confronting them with their dishonesty ?
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 18:59:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: Pick a Universe - any Universe
Hello Roy - like you say, I try not to shock/antagonize too much the mediocre scientists who make up most of the mainstream - they are easily frightened and cling to their text-books for reassurance.
So I tend to use terms from two good expositions of the status quo and its problems: "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose (a large and comprehensive survey of classical and quantum science and the mathematics underpinning them - plus extensive coverage of the gaps, mysteries and impasses in both areas);
and "The Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin (theoretical arguments from the POV of one who's been engaged in string theory and extensions of quantum theory, with a discursive, accurate and up-to-date survey of existing cosmologic problems).
I.e. - a propos the "second biggest mystery" outlined in my last, here it is in Smolin's own terms:
from p. 120 - `The Life of the Cosmos', by Lee Smolin
"This is indeed a big mystery. Under the right conditions it takes only about ten thousand years for a cloud of gas to collapse under its self-gravity and form a star. Why is it then that five or ten billion years after the galaxies were formed, there remains plenty of gas to form new stars?
There are in fact many galaxies in which little or no star formation is going on. ... They are just more or less spherical collections of old stars moving together under the influence of of their mutual gravitational attraction. For this reason they are called elliptical galaxies.
This heightens the mystery of star formation. If there are galaxies in which the formation of stars ceased long ago, what is special about the spiral galaxies that has allowed them to maintain an apparently constant rate of star formation until the present time?"
As you saw in my last post , that question (re: `virgin hydrogen' production in spiral galaxies) is easily answered with a little knowledge of basic physics (angular momentum) and further extension of ideas taken from plasma physics and its effects, using Halton Arp's connection of widely differing red-shift objects which imply they are in fact physically associated - so red-shifts reflect `activity' and NOT solely distance / speed.
That has huge implications for standard cosmology - demanding reassessment of `big-bang' models; the expansion and age of the Universe and deeper maybe metaphysical problems.
[PS - latest observations show that our own Milky Way galaxy has two enormous `bubbles' of (virgin hydrogen'?) North and South of the galaxy's polar axis, indicating that even low-level or incipient jetting is capable of hydrogen production over the long term. - RD]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: FWD - "Human Origins: The War of Trivial Explanations
If I understand you correctly you were trying to create a bridge between the old nonsense and the electric universe. I don't know if that will work. Sometimes, the best way to help someone wanting to learn how to swim, is just to chuck them into water.....
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:08:14 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: Pick a Universe - any Universe
Hello Roy - you're right in a way. I was constrained by posting to a wide audience most of whom are totally uninformed, especially about plasma physics.
We (you and I) know that many large-scale movement phenomena which Big Sci tries to explain by gravity are actually due to the torques applied by inter-stellar and intergalactic plasma filaments, which can be immeasureably stronger than gravity at any but the longest (galactic / inter-galactic) ranges.
However the creation of any element heavier than helium is supposedly a matter of nuclear fusion inside stars. Strangely enough the `standard model' big-bangers accept the "magic" appearance of a whole lot of hydrogen (and some helium) in the supposedly early universe without explanation.
Even so, for our informed audience I will add that the second great mystery of cosmology - how spiral galaxies can still be generating new (hydrogen-fed and therefore long-lived) stars at a time when all the "virgin hydrogen" should have long ago been burned up into helium and heavier metals - is actually all down to plasma physics.
Spiral galaxies are factories for new stars (whereas elliptical galaxies are merely [unstable] parking lots for old, dying stars) precisely because the cores of spiral galaxies concentrate matter into high density and accelerating rotation (by conservation of angular momentum) until they reach the `jetting point' and distribute much of the core's material N-S in huge intergalactic jets (search for pics - there's lots of them).
The jets are of pure (hottest) plasma - no atoms, merely protons and electrons, with dispersing neutrons. So when those ingredients hit the intergalactic medium and start to cool, they naturally combine into "virgin hydrogen" (with maybe a smidgin of helium being made in the centre of the jet where fortuitous nuclear burning of hydrogen might have taken place).
So plasma physics explains much of what Big-Sci is still ignorant about.
Even so - that doesn't address the initial problem of the laws of physics and why they are what they are - even if we don't know all of them at the moment.
From: Roy MacK*******
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:48 PM
The topic is very interesting, interesting if only because its conclusions are so impossibly unlikely. Once again the work of Smolin is quoted and he was a quantum mechanics theorist. What invalidates so much of this critique is the fact it is out of date. There is no mention of the electric universe, no mention of plasma physics, no mention of the vast transmutation of elements as in cold fusion, biological organisms and electric discharges on an astronomical scale.
It would be very helpful if the ridiculous results were used to substantiate just how out of date the quality of science really is. We need to appreciate how physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy is out of date even now if it is couched in terms of current science theory.
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:17:10 +0100
Subject: Pick a Universe - any Universe
Pick a Universe - any Universe (and it'll probably be DEAD - NO stars, NO life)
Thurs 04 June 2015
Was interested to read that noted theoretical physicist Lee Smolin [see refs Lee Smolin [Wiki] and smolin.txt] has calculated the odds of a universe being friendly to life - as ours is.
He wrote that there's only one chance in 10229 (that's a 1, followed by 229 zeros) that randomly selected `laws of nature' could produce a universe with galaxies of stars (sources of light and energy), along with elements like carbon (bases of Earth-life), silicon and heavier metals (bases of rocky planets), along with vital atmospheric constituents like carbon dioxide (for plants to breathe) and oxygen (for animals to breathe).
Those odds are composed of many separate calculations, one which was earlier discovered by Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle: i.e. the very unlikely reason there's so much carbon in the universe.
The whole thing is a serious problem for physicists - and further considerations make the situation much worse.
The same Fred Hoyle, and colleague Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe (see panspermia.html#data1), later wrote of the even worse problem in biology:
"The outstanding question ... 2000 or more enzymes are crucial across a wide spectrum of [Earth] life ... the chance of obtaining the necessary total of 2000 enzymes by randomly assembling amino acid chains is ... p to 1 against, with p minimally an enormous superastrononomical number equal to 1040,000 (1 followed by 40,000 zeros).
The odds ... are only for enzymes ... if all other relevant molecules for life are also taken account of in our calculation the situation for conventional biology becomes ... intrinsically insuperable."
Those numbers are enormous: it is calculated that all the atoms in the whole observable universe amount to `only' about 1080 - that's a 1, followed by 80 zeros - see http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/
Most scientists are either relatively ignorant and so never think about the problem, or conformist and cowardly and so keep quiet about it (today's Big Science is controlled by politicos: free-thinkers don't get jobs or funding - see badsci.txt for some US/UK background).
However a few knowledgeable scientists have been seriously thinking about the subject for quite a while, following in the footsteps of Peirce:
"To suppose universal laws of nature capable of being apprehended by the mind and yet having no reason for their special forms, but standing inexplicable and irrational, is hardly a justifiable position. Uniformities are precisely the sort of facts that need to be accounted for. That a pitched coin should sometimes turn up heads and sometimes tails calls for no particular explanation; but if it shows heads every time, we wish to know how this result has been brought about. Law is par excellence the thing that wants a reason. The only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and for uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution." - Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)
Today a relatively small number of elite scientists, composed mainly of theoretical physicists, particle physicists, astro-physicists, cosmologists and the like, are not only aware of the problem but are forced to think about it as part of their work, and, like Peirce, they have opted for some sort of mechanism having `selected' the laws of nature as we see them today (maybe because `natural selection' or `evolution' are safe concepts to hold, quite trendy these days).
One group sticks with an easy option: the anthropic principle; its weak [more rational] version says "maybe there's lots of universes or distant parts of our universe where life would be impossible - but - because we are alive, we had to evolve here where life is possible", which doesn't really answer the problem; just holds it at arm's length so to speak.
Another group goes for quantum physics as a mechanism, under a rough heading of multi-verse or many worlds hypotheses (IMHO these explanations are frankly mystical). They all start with the premise that at a quantum event (the famous `quantum leap or jump' when a measurement is taken) the whole universe actually `jumps' or splits into all possible states (that's going to be an infinite number in most cases) but we can only see one result, that of our `selected' universe, the rest of them (an infinite number don't forget) being unseen and unavailable to us. And that's happening millions or billions of times every minute, just here on Earth - so there would be umpteen gazzillions of universes `somewhere' by now, but of course we can't see them - they are supposed to exist on "other planes".
And the (last?) group opts for various sorts of selection mechanisms embodied in the idea of successive `births' of new universes, either by cyclical collapses + re-explosions of a single universe (ours - but NASA now says that can't happen), or, like in Lee Smolin's case, by assuming that "black holes" exist and that each black hole contains a hidden "white hole" which is exploding into a (or more than one) new universe, but they're unseen by us because they exist on "other planes" - perhaps like all those mystical "many worlds").
That's where Big Science seems to be now - and you might have some ideas about how they've performed so far.
For me the important thing is: all their suggestions or claims are of some form of `natural selection' of the laws of nature (maybe because it seems safe to the politicos who hold the purse strings), yet there doesn't seem to be a convincing mechanism for `natural selection' of the laws which doesn't depend on wild assumptions and downright wishful thinking (i.e. they're not supported by _any_ evidence or observations).
And that just leaves us with "selection".
Which might be a bit scary.
PS - check creation.html#cre-ian and even magic2.html#3 for informed updates and re-evaluations maybe more realistic than those of Big-Science.
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:17:00 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: FWD - Really bad news for `Big Science' (and Gov'ts)
Right - details of quantum events are on record mostly, but personally believe some anti-intuitive results of some experiments are routinely omitted (suppressed) from the accounts, which is why I qualify my remarks with "seemingly" or "apparently".
The difficulty is accounting for these events, which is purely a matter of interpretation. I.e. there are now about eight or ten major (conflicting) interpretations, with at least three being versions of the "many worlds" hypothesis (which seems to me to be extravagant and highly un-economic ideas).
However I like David Bohm's rather more modest ideas (below), although they too might seem anti-intuitive to the general public, who are almost wholly unaware of the quantum `facts' as published.
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 11:45:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: FWD - Really bad news for `Big Science' (and Gov't)
Hello Roy, a good place to start is Alain Aspect's own account of the crux experiments - a series of pages beginning at http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/oh/01.html
`non-locality' means an effect has apparently been caused "faster than light" - i.e. between source and destination
`non-causality' means non-linkage of causes and effects (a situation science is maybe rightly unwilling to contemplate)
Aspect poses the potential problems at
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/oh/40.html and if you click thru the pages before and after (using PREV + NEXT) you'll find he also answers them.
I.e. the effect _does_ happen "instantaneously" over arbitrary distances (up to 10 km is mentioned) - so it is much faster than light. However the second measurement, by which the effect is `transmitted' has to be compared with the first by a classical channel of communication - like cable or radio etc. - so you apparently can't use the `faster than light' effect to send any useful information `faster than light'.
From: Roy M****
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: FWD - Really bad news for `Big Science' (and Gov'ts)
The Wikipedia reference re Alain Aspect reports that such particles are advised as movements up to the speed of light not beyond it - as though trying to behave within Einsteinian relativistic boundaries. I am uneasy about a theory which appears to tie itself to such boundaries and which shows little evidence of substantiation.
That said, it does make a certain amount of sense but seems to lack verifiable credentials so, to my mind, it may be true but I cannot say I have seen evidence which I would call 'open and shut'.
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:02:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Re: FWD - Really bad news for `Big Science' (and Gov'ts)
Hi Roy, well, the half-life revelation has many implications, not least being the probable origin of astrology (which was seemingly first for `nations' or large groups, only later being refined to apply to individuals).
In addition it means that most of the hard sciences need to be revised to take account of those slight but significant changes which have probably been affecting things like agriculture (and chemical reactions) on a large scale, both seasonally and during significant one-off alignments of planets;
(which NASA now knows - but doesn't publicize - are directly affecting the Sun's activities and outbursts - See `Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets' a NASA document at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070025111.pdf but don't necessarily believe the "tidal" bit, I suspect they know that's wrong).
In addition, Lee Smolin was very struck by the fact that particles of his own body (and brain) were and are still `entangled' with particles of every place and person he has interacted with throughout his life - a complex situation but one which, if we knew more about these things, might explain many good and bad effects which at present are put down to `temperament' or `psychology' or good or bad `vibes' or even the paranormal.
From: Roy M*****
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: FWD - Really bad news for `Big Science' (and Gov'ts)
I don't pretend to understand properly the nature of the changes you refer to.
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:32:40 +0100
Subject: FWD - Really bad news for `Big Science' (and Gov'ts)
Bad news for anybody who thinks that Big-Science knows what it's talking about.
Let's start gently with a comment about the basis of all science; that is, basic physics, especially particle physics:
"... the fact that general relativity and the quantum are not yet united means that we have no single picture of what the world is that we can believe in. When a child asks, `What is the world?', we literally have nothing to tell her".
p. 258 `The Life of the Cosmos' by Lee Smolin
More comments, from a great scientific (mostly physics) thinker, much unappreciated while he lived - David Bohm (try listening from the 32min 55sec mark in this video, but you'll have to re-listen many times to get the full import of what he's saying):
David Bohm - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
Now, to clarify and confirm what they've said, let's explain in simple terms how and why Big Science is wrong about everything:
Big Science is taught - and almost all scientist think - in terms of `Newtonian atomist' physics, where all atoms of a given element are identical, and all atoms' components (protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos etc.) are identical to others of their kind, with attributes which are absolute and "god-given".
But Bohm, Smolin and others (inc. Leibniz a long time ago) disagreed.
However, what they didn't know, but we do and will tell you, is that we now have up-to-date confirmation that all the elementary particles are not only "unique" (in that they each have a unique `address' and interaction with the universe) but, in addition, all elementary particles react to changes around around them by changing their attributes (ever-so slightly, only enough to change their Plank-scale reactions).
That proof is contained in reports [original and text copy], initially from Stanford and Purdue Universities, that `half-lives' (of unstable elements like all the radio-active ones) are actually observed to change - primarily on a seasonal basis (slower in summer, faster in winter), but also with a secondary 33 day ripple.
[The mainstream scientists involved, stuck in their Newtonian mind-set, could only think of "mystery particles" from the Sun being responsible.]
I dealt with the "mystery particle" falsity in this correspondence:
ansci8.html#fake-sci and www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/may/m27-001.shtml
Yet even now the implications of these discoveries are not realized by Big Science:
they actually mean that all the cells of our bodies, and even our brain cells, are being affected and continually changed by our surroundings, especially by the biggest masses near to us (i.e. the Sun and the planets - see checkalign.html).
These facts are disquieting enough, seeming as they do to confirm many legends and myths, but there are many more implications compelling rethinking in chemistry, physics, medicine, psychology, ecology, and _all_ the geo-sciences.
That will not be welcomed by the `Powers that Be' who presently control Big Science and use it to try to dominate the world.
At the moment our `Big-Science' scientists are really blind, deaf and dumb, stuck in Gov't-compelled ruts of ignorance and suppression of knowledge.
PS - maybe see www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/badsci.txt for an impartial view of `Big Science'
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 18:09:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Surprising Birch Tree
Thanks Mark - had a look and quickly found some nice examples of the mystical side of the Russian character.
"Birch" by Anna German
"White birch tree" by Freestyle
From: Mark Mc****
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Surprising Birch Tree
I know the Russians get all mystical about their birch trees with songs and poems.
Beryoza - [White Birch]
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 14:56:42 +0100
Subject: Surprising Birch Tree
Last night happened to hear a short radio prog describing the birch tree:
"The Essay, The Meaning of Trees, The Meaning of Trees Episode 5 of 5
"The immediate meaning of Birch to British ears is punishment. Frequently in archaeological finds of Neolithic and later peoples, Birch is present as weapons, canoes, spears, bowls, rope, carts, furniture and most importantly its bark and root funguses as antiseptics and wound dressings. She is known as the 'watchful tree' for the lenticels on her oily, almost indestructible bark have been interpreted as eyes' - overlooking everything happening in the forest. But Birch really is a sentinel, when spring comes, the birch is one of the first trees to come into leaf. The silver birch is a symbol of beauty, much prized in literature, poetry and photography. Birch sap can be drunk neat, or used to brew wine, beer or vinegar. Birch wine is said to prevent gall / kidney stones, a remedy for rheumatic diseases, a cleansing mouthwash, and an acne remedy."
- and was surprised by all the uses, many medical, made of its bark, sap, leaves etc..
So today looked it up and think the best recap is at:
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 14:13:19 +0100
Subject: "simple test to see if you have a healthy brain
Ha! I take this sort of thing with more than a pinch of salt - there's most always mis-correlation involved, because nature is deeper and more complex than the brains of ambitious (+greedy) `scientists'.
BTW - In Arabia it was part of the punishment / torture routine for military defaulters (who'd been late or missed parade or suchlike offences). The guy would have to stand on one leg, atop an oil drum or similar, in midday heat and sun, for a _very_ long time. Maybe it improved their brains?
The one simple test to see if you have a healthy brain
So, how long can you stand on one leg?
Scientists believe that the answer to that question is a strong indicator of how susceptible someone is to suffering a stroke.
Researchers from the University of Tokyo asked more than 1,300 men and women, with an average age of 67, to stand on one leg with their eyes open.
They found that those who struggled to balance for 20 seconds or longer (around a third of the study group) fared the worst on tests assessing cognitive function.
There was also an increased prevalence among this group of cerebral small vessel disease or minute haemorrhages associated with a higher risk of strokes.
Study lead Yasuharu Tabara wrote: "One-leg standing time is a simple measure of postural instability and might be a consequence of the presence of brain abnormalities."
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:59:27 +0100
Hi George - I'm not into (baseless) superstitions, numerology or other man-made stuff, I just follow data.
However, have added a rider to posted message; i.e. because there's one less planet involved than in 1859, and the alignments might be less precise, resulting Solar reaction might be a lot smaller.
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 11:07:48 -0400
From: George S*******
Ray , the same dire warnings came June 11,2014 with Friday 13 as the day we lose our communications, our 2012 end of world has come and gone, news people in Florida hungry for a hurricane are now ready to name anything that has alittle wind...
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 08:53:02 +0100
Subject: FWD - `Solar storm' odds-on - maybe like 1859
`Solar storm' odds-on - maybe like 1859
Yesterday posted to some friends: "from the 26th to 29th of this month there's an alignment of Saturn - Earth - Mercury - Sun - Mars which _might_ induce quakes +/or volcanics and almost certainly WILL bring an outburst in the Sun's surface (they take c. a week to develop), the biggest facing to our side - but maybe fortunately it will have rotated a bit by then (although Earth is also orbiting in same direction)".
Now, reviewing the situation in light of the Sept. 1859 `solar storm', which did damage on Earth and today would've done much more damage to electricity grids, communications networks [inc. satellites etc.], and noticing that in 1859 the largest lobe of the explosion was likely pointing AWAY from Earth's direction while next month's expected event will probably be pointing TOWARDS Earth's direction, think an explanation might be useful for folk who rely heavily on grid electricity or have exposed (unshielded) wiring (communications or power) on their premises.
If you get the orrery pics you'll notice their similarity - but the Earth was on the `small alignment' side of the Sun in 1859, while we'll be on the `large alignment' side in three weeks time; i.e. during probable event expected during first week of June.
PS - have used "probable / possible" here because the intensity of the Solar reaction will much depend on the precise line-ups of the centers of all masses involved [so it might be only a `hiccup'].
PPS - there's some background, inc. a NASA report on the 1859 solar storm at checkalign.html#storm
PPPS - thanks to John Walker for the use of his Instant Orrery, at http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Solar/action?sys=-Sf, to create those two images.
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:25:25 +0100
Subject: "Donut-shaped 'compass' glimpsed inside fly brain
Nope, don't think it's a `compass' - but _do_ think it's a gyroscope
Jonathan Webb | Science reporter | BBC News | 13 May 2015
Donut-shaped 'compass' glimpsed inside fly brain
The "ellipsoid body" is tucked deep in the middle of the fly brain
Date: 11 May 2015 12:57:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Ben Davidson (Variable Sun)
Well, I think he and his group are using to the full largely unexplored and even suppressed science.
Some years ago a couple of young experimenters (working, IIRC, under NASA patronage) found that Solar activity, especially SURFACE activity, is correlated with planetary alignments.
Their only problem (apart from their own disbelief) was that they KNEW any such influence must be gravitational (and therefore subject to a long lag) - but it isn't. It's almost instantaneous in Solar (fluid) terms.
The NASA results were quickly moved to hard-to-find locations but, IIRC, they're still available on the NASA web archives. [See above link]
From: Roy MacK****
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 6:28 PM
Thanks very much, Ray - appreciated.
Ben Davidson seems to be quite a character.
Bit by bit too I am starting to understand how it is that he can make the predictions which he does - he seems to use a type of science almost out of this world.
From: Ray Dickenson
Sent: Sunday, May 10,
Here you go:
Ben Davidson: The Variable Sun and Its Effects on Earth | EU2014
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 06:32:03 +0100
Subject: Re: "Mysterious Glow Detected At Center Of Milky Way Galaxy
Fully agree Roy, mainstream `science' is stuck in a mind-set of "hard atomism" (where all matter is solid, generally of neutral charge, and all particles have "God-given" attributes - which the standard model can't explain), and Newtonian ideas of a clockwork universe.
I recall Ian Stewart (of Stewart and Cohen fame) saying and writing that there was no difference between an atom of uranium (say) about to break apart and one that was not - no difference at all. I gently remonstrated with him and pointed out that there has to be a CAUSE of half-lives (of unstable atoms), otherwise they wouldn't exist.
More recently Lee Smolin wrote (in `The Life of the Cosmos') "there is absolutely no evidence that the elementary particles are affected by the environments in which we find them." So even Lee (who is supposed to be a cutting-edge physicist) seems unaware, not only of the mysterious (unexplained) action of half-lives, but of the recently discovered fact that half-lives themselves vary on an annual basis (IIRC twice a year) with a further and `shallower' 33 day ripple superimposed on the annual wave.
To me that's fairly strong proof that the inertial (maybe plus the electrical) effects of our orbit around the Sun (giving the annual effects) plus the Sun's own average rotation of mass (giving the 33 day ripple) are actually affecting all particles in the Solar System, including those of our bodies and brains.
And that fact has implications - which might explain many ancient mysteries.
From: Roy Mac*****
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 1:16 PM
Subject: "Mysterious Glow Detected At Center Of Milky Way Galaxy
I find it difficult enough to comprehend how a star is 'born' in the electrical universe let alone how it might die.... As for black holes, to my knowledge, in the electric universe there is no such thing - it is the same old story of scientists engaging themselves in trying to understand phenomena they have become aware of in outmoded terms.
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 06:30:47 +0100
Subject: "Mysterious Glow Detected At Center Of Milky Way Galaxy
Nope - the glow is most probably the emission of X-rays (actually a "jet" of X-rays and maybe also gamma rays, likely accompanied by outflow of `virgin hydrogen') coming from the Milky Way's north pole.
[Our Solar System is a bit above the galactic plane just now, so we don't get to see the similar jet emerging at the south pole.]
Maybe also check jets.html#point
Mysterious Glow Detected At Center Of Milky Way Galaxy
The Huffington Post | David Freeman | Posted: 05/04/2015
A mysterious glow has been observed at the center of the Milky Way, and scientists are struggling to figure out exactly what's causing it.
One possibility is that the high-energy X-rays that make up the baffling glow are "howls' of dead stars as they feed on stellar companions." At least that's the way NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory put it in a rather playful news release entitled "NASA's NuStar Captures Possible 'Screams from Zombie Stars."
In more scientific terms, the glow may be evidence of dead stars in binary systems siphoning off material from their companions - a phenomenon that is known to release X-rays.
The dead stars might be white dwarfs or small black holes, according to the written statement. Or the glow could be caused by pulsars - the fast-spinning remains of stars that have collapsed after exploding as supernovae - which send out intense beams of radiation. Alternatively, the glow could arise not from dead stars at all but from high-energy charged particles known as cosmic rays.
No one knows for sure if that's what's causing the glow, which is visible in new images taken by NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) space telescope. The images show a region of space some 40 light-years across in the vicinity of Sagittarius A*, the monster black hole at the center of the galaxy.
The uncertainty isn't surprising given the distances involved - Sagittarius A* is about 26,000 light-years from Earth - and the fact that the center of the Milky Way is teeming with old and young stars as well as small black holes.
"Almost anything that can emit X-rays is in the galactic center," Dr. Kersten Perez, a physicist at Columbia University in New York City and the lead author of a paper about the finding, said in the statement.
So what exactly is the take-away from the new research?
"This mysterious emission from the galactic center points out the importance of increased spatial resolution at high X-ray energies which increases the clarity of the images," Dr. C. Megan Urry, professor of physics and astronomy at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. and president of the American Astronomical Society, told The Huffington Post in an email. "NuSTAR's ability to focus energetic X-rays is improving our understanding of the high-energy universe - and in some cases, like this new study of the galactic center, to raise interesting new questions as well."
The paper was published April 30, 2015 in the journal Nature.
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 10:38:17 +0100
Subject: Another trendy "climate change" misattribution
Apr 29, 2015
"Climate change may be responsible for the abrupt collapse of civilization on the fringes of the Tibetan Plateau around 2000 B.C."
Ha! These `experts' just don't do connected thinking - or research!
Quite a while ago picked up some individual articles which seemed to be linked (and were wrongly attributed to humans' tree-burning or separately to "climate change"), which to me are overwhelming evidence for a globally damaging impact event at around 2,200 BCE (i.e. 4,200 years ago).
So collected them with later others. The [rather scary] full account is here, scroll down for our DNA bottleneck prediction.
[BTW - during that investigation felt compelled to comment on the corruption of science uncovered - see 4200event33.txt and scroll to foot]
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 19:38:22 +0100 Subject: Re: "The Earth's Core
Yup, fully agree. However I'm willing to accept that they've found that _something_ is happening to the inner core, which they have dated (by various proxies which may or may not be reliable) as starting c. 600 million years ago, and that they don't know what is happening in that change, and that they don't know what the final result of that change will be.
I.e. it's a big question mark!
From: Roy M******
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: "The Earth's Core
I find it difficult to treat orthodox scientific claims seriously. Talking about the Earth and its core by orthodox scientists whose theories are based on scientific fiction is surely nothing other than the same scientific fiction no matter how you look at it. I would rather spend my time involved with reality which at least would have some credence, some relevance.
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:34:52 +0100
Subject: "The Earth's Core
Sort-of interesting, although first half was mostly what we know from text-books. However, in second half the experts confirm the `pole-flip' seems to be starting (but they don't know its speed or total time-scale) and that we WILL lose much of our protection from hard radiation during the (protracted?) flip.
They also revealed that the innermost core of Earth is not only mysterious, but, from about 600 million years ago, it seems to have started to change to another [physical] state - not known at the moment. The final consequences of this change are also unknown.
The Earth's Core
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the Earth's Core. The inner core is an extremely dense, solid ball of iron and nickel, the size of the Moon, while the outer core is a flowing liquid, the size of Mars.
Thanks to the magnetic fields produced within the core, life on Earth is possible. The magnetosphere protects the Earth from much of the Sun's radiation and the flow of particles which would otherwise strip away the atmosphere. The precise structure of the core and its properties have been fascinating scientists from the Renaissance.
Recent seismographs show the picture is even more complex than we might have imagined, with suggestions that the core is spinning at a different speed and on a different axis from the surface.
Professor of Physics and Fellow of Mansfield College at the University of Oxford
Associate Professor in Seismology at Utrecht University
Professor of Mineral Physics at the University of Cambridge
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:03:39 +0100
Subject: "Scientific peer reviews are a 'sacred cow' ready to be slaughtered
Yup, we've discussed this before (somewhat heatedly maybe).
Another investigator's studies have shown that, not only about half of hard science (physics, astrophys, cosmology) `discoveries' are untrue, either wildly exaggerated or downright lies, but in medicine - where the big money is - the number of false claims can be 80% or more.
Scientific peer reviews are a `sacred cow' ready to be slaughtered, says former editor of BMJ
The peer review process - long considered the gold standard of quality scientific research is a "sacred cow" that should be slaughtered, the former editor of one of the country's leading medical journals has said.
Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claimed that "most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense".
Research papers considered for scientific and medical journals undergo a process of scrutiny by experts before they can be published. Hundreds of thousands of new studies are published around the world every year, and the peer review process exists to ensure that readers can have confidence that published findings are scientifically sound.
But Dr Smith said pre-publication peer review was slow, expensive and, perhaps ironically, lacking in evidence that it actually works in its chief goal of spotting errors.
Speaking at a Royal Society event earlier this week, he said an experiment conducted during his time at the BMJ, in which eight deliberate errors were included in a short paper sent to 300 reviewers, had exposed how easily the peer review process could fail.
"No-one found more than five, the median was two, and 20 per cent didn't spot any," he was quoted as saying by Times Higher Education. "If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don't have evidence of its benefit."
He said the process of peer review before publication could also work against innovative papers, was open to abuse, and should be done away with in favour of "the real peer review" of the wider scientific community post-publication.
"It's time to slaughter the sacred cow," he said, while acknowledging that do so would likely be "too bold a step" for a journal editor to take.
Dr Smith, who edited the BMJ between 1991 and 2004, is a longstanding critic of the pre-publication peer review process. In the past he has bemoaned the delays that the process can bring, in some cases of more than two years, between a paper being completed and its final publication.
His comments come at a time of serious soul-searching within the scientific community, over the quality of much published research.
The editor of the second of the country's two leading medical journals, Dr Richard Horton of The Lancet, wrote in an editorial earlier this month that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue", blaming, among other things, studies with small sample sizes, researchers' conflicts of interest and "an obsession among scientists for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance".
"The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming," he wrote. "In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt their data to fit their preferred theory of the world."
Dr Horton also suggested reform of the peer review process - but to improve it, not scrap it; potentially with the introduction of incentives for scientists who peer review more critically.
Dr Trish Groves, the current head of research at BMJ said that, while peer review wasn't perfect, it was "still the best way to help research funders, conference organisers, and journal editors decide which studies to support and disseminate and to help readers, the public, patients, and healthcare providers decide what evidence to use in decision making."
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:31:58 +0100
Subject: "Mysterious empty region of space defies scientific explanation
In fact this is only the latest of many `impossible structures' which contradict the standard model (i.e. the Big Bang Theory).
[Maybe check our list of `more impossibles' below article]
Mindboggling: Mysterious empty region of space defies scientific explanation
Delila James | April 20, 2015
Astronomers have found an enormous spherical hole in the known universe that defies current astrophysical models. It is known as a `supervoid' because some 10,000 galaxies that should be there are, very simply, not.
The massive blob of empty space may be "the largest individual structure ever identified by humanity," says research leader István Szapudi at the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, as reported today by The Guardian. And the structure is only a mere three billion light-years from Earth.
The monster supervoid is 1.8 billion light-years across and is likely at least partially responsible for an unexplained cosmic `Cold Spot' in the universe. While not a complete vacuum, the void appears to have about 20 percent less matter in it than other regions of space.
Astronomers detected the supermassive void using NASA's Wide Field Survey Explorer (WISE) and Hawaii's ground-based Pan-STARRS1 (PS1) telescope located on Haleakala, Maui. The research raises the possibility that the void may be sucking energy from light that passes through it, at least partly explaining why the region is so much chillier that expected.
"This is the greatest supervoid ever discovered," explained co-author András-Kovács at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary, in a report by The Telegraph. "Giving the combination of size and emptiness, our supervoid is still a very rare event. We can only expect a few supervoids this big in the observable universe."
The astonishing aspect of the supervoid is that the physics explaining events occurring after the Big Bang cannot account for its existence. While Big Bang theory does allow for areas of space that are hotter and cooler, this massive, mostly-empty hole cannot be explained by predicted models.
And stranger yet, astrophysicists say that even at the speed of light, it takes hundreds of millions of years for light particles, or photons, to traverse the void, which is constantly growing along with the expanding universe.
However, scientists, say, the supervoid cannot completely account for the entire giant Cold Spot, suggesting some very exotic physics may be at work.
"This is independent evidence, in case anyone doubts it, for the existence of dark energy," said Prof. Carlos Frenk, a cosmologist at the University of Durham, in The Guardian report.
The research is detailed in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
physics#1 - physics#2 - structure#1 - structures#2 - structures#3 - life-molecules
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:33:57 +0100
Subject: WRONG: "Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago
Another heap of crap! If these people were giving evidence under oath they could be jailed for perjury.
Point 1: they claim that an increase in CO2 is causing ocean acidification that will kill the corals (and maybe most other species).
ANSWER: we can see from the graphs - try this one at www.perceptions.couk.com/glacials.html (it's the same as at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor83826
- that CO2 levels were at least twenty times higher than now (and world temperatures were MUCH higher), when corals were developing and thriving (that's Cambrian and Ordovician times - maybe 400 million to 600 million years ago) as stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral#Evolutionary_history
Point 2: they also claim that ocean acidification (as outlined in article below) is likely to cause an extinction equal to the Permian/Triassic Extinction (the Great Dying - which even killed off many/most insects) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
ANSWER: they have wilfully (and corruptly) misrepresented the P/Tr Extinction - it could not have been caused by ocean acidification. For most land and sea animals to go extinct - even many/most insects, which have been untouched by all other extinction events - the P/Tr event MUST have been caused by truly massive impact(s), followed by hundreds or thousands of years of seismic / volcanic seizures spewing lava and toxic gasses through Earth's many cracks (caused by the impacts).
Maybe `scientists', `journalists' (and politicos) should be held accountable for their lies - just like a citizen in court.
Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe
They call it the Great Dying because it was the biggest mass extinction in history, and now scientists have discovered the first hard evidence that ocean acidification was the coup de grace that killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago.
In a disturbing parallel to what is happening in the sea today, researchers have found chemical signatures in ancient rock formations showing that the oceans at that time suddenly became more acidic, making it impossible for the vast majority of sea creatures to survive.
Scientists believe that the dramatic acidification of the oceans at the end of the Permian period was caused by the continual eruption of super-volcanoes which generated the release of massive volumes of carbon dioxide at a rate comparable to the levels of CO2 that humans are pumping into the atmosphere at the present time.
"The important take-home message of this is that the rate of increase of CO2 during the Permian mass extinction is about the same rate as the one to which we are exposing the ocean to today," said Professor Rachel Wood of the University of Edinburgh.
"We have found that the oceans 252 million years ago experienced dramatic acidification and that this coincided with a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels. The data is compelling and we really should be worried in term of what is happening today," Professor Wood said.
The Great Dying marked the end of the Permian and beginning of the Triassic period, which is why it is also known at the P-T extinction. It was the biggest of the five mass extinctions on Earth, killing off 51 per cent of all marine families, 82 per cent of all genera and between 93 and 97 per cent of all species.
Although the oceans suffered badly - reef-building corals for instance went extinct - it also affected terrestrial life-forms, such as insects, which suffered the only mass extinction in their long history, and primordial forests, which virtually disappeared from the surface of the Pangaea supercontinent that stretched from pole to pole. Scientists believe that early forms of life that existed at that time were already under some stress as a result of the eruption of a network of super-volcanoes called the Siberian Traps, which lasted for up to a million years. One of the effects of this phenomenon was to raise global temperatures and cause significant oxygen depletion in the oceans, making life difficult for Permian marine creatures such as giant sea scorpions and trilobites
The scientists said the P-T extinction was divided into an early die-off, possibly caused by oxygen starvation, and a second, later extinction caused by a dramatic increase in ocean acidity resulting from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forming carbonic acid when it dissolves in seawater.
"The oceans at that time were definitely starved of oxygen, and we know that for sure. It was complicated because there were several things going on then and they were taking place at different times," Professor Wood said.
"We don't exactly know what the relation was between the eruption of the Siberian Traps, the production of CO2, global warming and the oceans being starved of oxygen - but we believe there was a relationship," she said.
A study of ancient rocks from the deserts of the United Arab Emirates, which were formed on the ocean floor 250 million years ago, have revealed that the proportion of boron isotopes within the rock changed significantly, indicating a rapid shift in the pH or acidity of the surrounding seawater.
This the first real evidence that ocean acidification happened on a dramatic scale at the end of the Permian period, suggesting that it must have played a decisive and possibly final role in killing off the species that were still managing to hang on through all the other environmental assaults they went through during that time, the scientists said.
"Scientists have long suspected that an ocean acidification event occurred during the greatest mass extinction of all time, but direct evidence had been lacking until now," said Matthew Clarkson of Edinburgh University, the first author of the study published in the journal Science.
"This is a worrying finding, considering that we can already see an increase in ocean acidity today that is the result of human carbon emissions.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 15:22:02 +0100
Subject: Head Transplant
I'd thought the recent news-ref was just future-waffle - slightly shocked to read latest item (nasty little diagram at page).
Man undergoing head transplant could experience something 'a lot worse than death', says neurological expert
Thursday 09 April 2015
Yesterday, 30-year-old Russian man Valery Spiridonov volunteered to become the first person in the world to undergo a complete head transplant. Literally his entire head. On a different body.
The operation will be carried out by Italian surgeon Dr Sergio Canavero, in what he expects to be a 36-hour procedure involving 150 doctors and nurses.
A Werdnig-Hoffman disease sufferer with rapidly declining health, Spiridonov is willing to take a punt on this very experimental surgery and you can't really blame him, but while he is prepared for the possibility that the body will reject his head and he will die, his fate could be considerably worse than death.
"I would not wish this on anyone," said Dr Hunt Batjer, president elect of the American Association for Neurological Surgeons.
"I would not allow anyone to do it to me as there are a lot of things worse than death."
The problem is, fusing a head with a separate body (including spinal cord, jugular vein etc) could result in a hitherto never experienced level and quality of insanity.
Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Centre, who described Dr Canavero as "nuts", believes that the bodies of head transplant patients "would end up being overwhelmed with different pathways and chemistry than they are used to and they'd go crazy."
A head transplant was performed on a monkey 45 years ago in 1970. It lived, but only for eight days, with the body rejecting the new head and the monkey being left unable to breathe and unable to move because the spinal cord of the head and body were not connected properly.
Dr Canavero hopes to complete the operation in 2017.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:38:04 +0100
Subject: "The First People" + Cataclysms
Interesting read - and yup, seen archeological vids of vertical `fossil trees' and at the time wondered how they could be embedded in subsequent `strata' from apparently millions of years later.
"... it is hopeless to correlate earth's epochs with the geologic column since the latter is based on fiction (Huse, 1983:15; Smith, 2012:242). Vertical petrified trees are the whistleblower that exposes the invalidity of the geologic column. Many petrified trees running across multiple geological strata have been observed in nature which could only suggest that these strata formed in a short period of time, a result of a rapid cataclysmal sedimentation for example, but not millions of years (Harold 1969; 1971, Rupke, N.A, 1970).
"The First People"
Thanks to Mathaba Net News
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:47:34 +0100
Subject: "Electrifying new map charts lightning bolts
Nice `world-lightning map' at page [or here: http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2015/04/0406-lightning-map?alias=standard_600x400, and although Africa's tropics figure, as you'd maybe expect, the Americas, North + South, seem to get more, and over wider areas - while Far East, Indian Ocean and the China Sea looks less stormy than I remember.
Electrifying new map charts lightning bolts
Using satellite data, NASA scientists are monitoring lightning flashes from above.
By Shannon Hall, LiveScience APRIL 7, 2015
Every second, as many as 100 lightning bolts strike the Earth. Now, a new map reveals a tally of those flashes over the last two decades, tracing where they strike the planet each year.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:05:20 +0100
Subject: `Overweight' is `Normal' - & Big-Sci is fake
Ha! Folk keeping an eye on trends in (fake) Big Science and (corrupt) Academia are probably already aware. [summary for `drink' - summary for `weight']
[ Recall `Greed is Good' ("The Selfish Gene"), `Black Holes' (really just Jets) and more recently "Dark Matter"?
Yup - all sci-fakes. ]
Why being 'overweight' means you live longer: The way scientists twist the facts
MALCOLM KENDRICK | Monday 06 April 2015
The figures actually show that being 'overweight' is healthier than being 'underweight' or within the 'normal' BMI range - and can lead to a longer life. Dr Malcolm Kendrick explains.
I have been studying medical research for many years, and the single most outstanding thing I have learned is that many medical "facts" are simply not true. Let's take as an example the health risks of drinking alcohol. If you are a man, it has virtually become gospel that drinking more than 21 units of alcohol a week is damaging to your health. But where did the evidence to support this well-known "fact" come from?
The answer may surprise you. According to Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, the level for safe drinking was "plucked out of the air". He was on a Royal College of Physicians team that helped produce the guidelines in 1987. He told The Times newspaper that the committee's epidemiologist had conceded that there was no data about safe limits available and that "it's impossible to say what's safe and what isn't". Smith said the drinking limits were "not based on any firm evidence at all", but were an "intelligent guess".
In time, the intelligent guess becomes an undisputed fact. On much the same lines, we have the inarguable "fact" that being overweight is bad for your health. I should say that, by definition, being "overweight" must be bad for your health - or we wouldn't call it overweight. But we do not define overweight as being the weight above which you are damaging your health; it has an exact definition.
To be overweight means having a BMI of between 25 and 30. Not as bad for you as obesity, but still damaging. Why else would all hospitals and doctors surgeries have BMI charts plastered on the wall with little green squares, orange squares and red squares? Green is normal weight, orange is overweight and red is obese. Even Wikipedia confirms this: "The generally accepted view is that being overweight causes similar health problems to obesity, but to a lesser degree. Adams et al estimated that the risk of death increases by 20 to 40 per cent among overweight people, and the Framingham heart study found that being overweight at age 40 reduced life expectancy by three years."
You can also find papers in prestigious medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama) with the following headline: "Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight and obesity." That certainly suggests that overweight is bad for you. However, if you look more closely at the paper in Jama, we can find these words: "Overweight was not associated with excess mortality." (My italics). Perhaps more extraordinarily, what the researchers actually found was that those who were overweight lived the longest; they lived longer than those of "normal" weight.
You may be surprised to find that you can have a paper in one of the world's leading medical journals entitled "Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight and obesity", which found that overweight people lived the longest. After studying medical research for as long as I have, I am far from surprised. I regularly find that the title of a paper, the abstract, and even the conclusions often bear very little relationship to what the study actually found.
Perhaps you think I am being selective and only choosing one misleading paper. Well, here are the conclusions of another study done in Canada in 2010: "Our results are similar to those from other recent studies, confirming that underweight and obesity class II+ (BMI > 35) are clear risk factors for mortality, and showing that when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality." I love the way they couldn't bring themselves to say "normal" BMI. They had to call it "the acceptable BMI category". This, I suppose, helps to fend off the inevitable question. If people of normal weight have shorter lifespans than those who are overweight, why do we call them normal? Surely we should call them "mildly underweight", at which point we would have to call people who are now considered overweight "normal".
You can see a further example of the weird strangulation of the language occurring a year earlier. In 2009, a German group did a painstaking meta-analysis of all studies on overweight and obesity that they could find. As with most other researchers, they found that being overweight was good for you. Of course, they didn't phrase it in this way. They said: "The prevailing notion that overweight increases morbidity and mortality, as compared to so-called normal weight, is in need of further specification."
In need of further specification? An interesting phrase, but one that hints at the terrible problems researchers have when their findings fail to match prevailing dogma; if the prevailing consensus is "if your BMI is between 25 and 29, it is damaging your health and you should lose weight", then you challenge this at your peril. The end result of this is that the titles of scientific papers can end up twisted through 180 degrees, while in others, the prose becomes ever more tortured.
Despite the fact that study after study has demonstrated quite clearly that "overweight" people live the longest, no one can bring themselves to say: "Sorry, we were wrong. A BMI between 25 and 29 is the healthiest weight of all. For those of you between 20 and 25, I say, eat more, become healthier." Who would dare say such a thing? Not anyone with tenure at a leading university, that's for sure.
In truth, this discussion should not quite stop here. For even when we get into those with a BMI greater than 30, those who truly are defined as "obese", the health dangers are greatly overestimated, mainly because of the widespread use of what I call the statistical "clumping game". Obesity researchers are world-leading experts at the clumping game. In most studies, the entire population is divided ("clumped") into four groups: underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese - obese being defined as a BMI of 30 and above. That means those with a BMI of 31 are clumped together as part of a group which includes those with a BMI of 50 - and above. What does this tell us about the health problems of having a BMI of 31? Well, absolutely nothing.
There is no doubt that becoming heavier and heavier must, at some point, damage your health and reduce your life expectancy. Where is this point? Well, it is certainly not anywhere between 25 and 30, and it could be even higher. Indeed, I have seen research on Italian women showing that a BMI of 33 was associated with the longest life expectancy. In other studies, where obesity was actually further sub-divided, those with a BMI between 30 and 35 lived longer than those of so-called "normal" weight.
So, while I cannot tell you when "obesity" becomes a major health problem, I can definitely tell you that being "overweight" is the healthiest and most "normal" weight of all.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick is a GP and researcher. This article is based on extracts from his book, 'Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense'
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:11:06 +0100
Subject: "Is this ET? Mystery of strange radio bursts from space
Interesting and worth the somewhat dense read. Mind you, it _is_ April the 1st.
(although the abstracts are said to be submitted 17th and 30th of March).
Is this ET? Mystery of strange radio bursts from space
31 March 2015 by Sarah Scoles | Magazine issue 3015.
Mysterious radio wave flashes from far outside the galaxy are proving tough for astronomers to explain. Is it pulsars? A spy satellite? Or an alien message?
BURSTS of radio waves flashing across the sky seem to follow a mathematical pattern. If the pattern is real, either some strange celestial physics is going on, or the bursts are artificial, produced by human - or alien - technology.
Telescopes have been picking up so-called fast radio bursts (FRBs) since 2001. They last just a few milliseconds and erupt with about as much energy as the sun releases in a month. Ten have been detected so far, most recently in 2014, when the Parkes Telescope in New South Wales, Australia, caught a burst in action for the first time. The others were found by sifting through data after the bursts had arrived at Earth. No one knows what causes them, but the brevity of the bursts means their source has to be small - hundreds of kilometres across at most - so they can't be from ordinary stars. And they seem to come from far outside the galaxy.
The weird part is that they all fit a pattern that doesn't match what we know about cosmic physics.
To calculate how far the bursts have come, astronomers use a concept called the dispersion measure. Each burst covers a range of radio frequencies, as if the whole FM band were playing the same song. But electrons in space scatter and delay the radiation, so that higher frequency waves make it across space faster than lower frequency waves. The more space the signal crosses, the bigger the difference, or dispersion measure, between the arrival time of high and low frequencies - and the further the signal has travelled.
Michael Hippke of the Institute for Data Analysis in Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany, and John Learned at the University of Hawaii in Manoa found that all 10 bursts' dispersion measures are multiples of a single number: 187.5 (see chart). This neat line-up, if taken at face value, would imply five sources for the bursts all at regularly spaced distances from Earth, billions of light-years away. A more likely explanation, Hippke and Lerned say, is that the FRBs all come from somewhere much closer to home, from a group of objects within the Milky Way that naturally emit shorter-frequency radio waves after higher-frequency ones, with a delay that is a multiple of 187.5 (arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245).
They claim there is a 5 in 10,000 probability that the line-up is coincidence. "If the pattern is real," says Learned, "it is very, very hard to explain."
Cosmic objects might, by some natural but unknown process, produce dispersions in regular steps. Small, dense remnant stars called pulsars are known to emit bursts of radio waves, though not in regular arrangements or with as much power as FRBs. But maybe superdense stars are mathematical oddities because of underlying physics we don't understand.
It's also possible that the telescopes are picking up evidence of human technology, like an unmapped spy satellite, masquerading as signals from deep space.
The most tantalising possibility is that the source of the bursts might be a who, not a what. If none of the natural explanations pan out, their paper concludes, "An artificial source (human or non-human) must be considered."
"Beacon from extraterrestrials" has always been on the list of weird possible origins for these bursts. "These have been intriguing as an engineered signal, or evidence of extraterrestrial technology, since the first was discovered," says Jill Tarter, former director of the SETI Institute in California. "I'm intrigued. Stay tuned."
Astronomers have long speculated that a mathematically clever message - broadcasts encoded with pi, or flashes that count out prime numbers, as sent by aliens in the film Contact - could give away aliens' existence. Perhaps extraterrestrial civilisations are flagging us down with basic multiplication.
But a fast radio burst is definitely not the easiest message aliens could send. As Maura McLaughlin of West Virginia University, who was part of the first FRB discovery points out, it takes a lot of energy to make a signal that spreads across lots of frequencies, instead of just a narrow one like a radio station. And if the bursts come from outside the galaxy, they would have to be incredibly energetic to get this far.
If the bursts actually come from inside the Milky Way, they need not be so energetic (just like a nearby flashlight can light up the ground but a distant light does not). Either way, though, it would require a lot of power. In fact, the aliens would have to be from what SETI scientists call a Kardashev Type II civilisation (see "Keeping up with the Kardashevs").
But maybe there's no pattern at all, let alone one that aliens embedded. There are only 10 bursts, and they fit into just five groups. "It's very easy to find patterns when you have small-number statistics," says McLaughlin. "On the other hand, I don't think you can argue with the statistics, so it is odd."
The pattern might disappear as more FRBs are detected. Hippke and Learned plan to check their finding against new discoveries, and perhaps learn something about the universe. "Science is the best game around," says Learned. "You don't know what the rules are, or if you can win. This is science in action."
If the result holds up, says Hippke, "there is something really interesting we need to understand. This will either be new physics, like a new kind of pulsar, or, in the end, if we can exclude everything else, an ET."
Hippke is cautious, but notes that remote possibilities are still possibilities. "When you set out to search for something new," he says, "you might find something unexpected."
This article appeared in print under the headline "Cosmic radio plays an alien tune"
Keeping up with the Kardashevs
THE first search for extraterrestrial intelligence, Frank Drake's Project Ozma, looked for radio broadcasts from hypothetical aliens in the 1960s.
Around the same time, cosmologist Nikolai Kardashev began to wonder what a truly advanced civilisation's radio messages might be like. His main conclusion: more powerful than ours. In a 1963 paper called "Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations", he grouped ETs into three categories according to how big their broadcasts could be. The labels stuck, and SETI scientists still use them today.
A signal from a Kardashev Type I society uses a planet's worth of energy, pulling from all its resources - solar, thermal, volcanic, tectonic, hydrodynamic, oceanic, and so on.
A Type II civilisation has a star's worth of output at its disposal. It would have to capture all its sun's radiation, throw material into a black hole and suck up the radiation, or travel to many planets and strip them of resources.
A Kardashev Type III civilisation controls the power output of a galaxy like the Milky Way. If a galaxy was home to just one Type III society, it would be completely dark except for the waste infrared radiation (heat) blowing from their massive engineering projects.
Astrophysics > High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena
Discrete steps in dispersion measures of Fast Radio Bursts
Michael Hippke, Wilfried F. Domainko, John G. Learned
(Submitted on 17 Mar 2015 (v1), last revised 30 Mar 2015 (this version, v2))
Fast Radios Bursts (FRBs) show large dispersion measures (DMs), suggesting an extragalactic location. We analyze the DMs of the 11 known FRBs in detail and identify steps as integer multiples of half the lowest DM found, 187.5cm-3 pc, so that DMs occur in groups centered at 375, 562, 750, 937, 1125cm-3 pc, with errors observed <5%.
We estimate the likelhood of a coincidence as 5:10,000. We speculate that this could originate from a Galaxy population of FRBs, with Milky Way DM contribution as model deviations, and an underlying generator process that produces FRBs with DMs in discrete steps.
However, we find that FRBs tend to arrive at close to the full integer second, like man-made perytons. If this holds, FRBs would also be man-made. This can be verified, or refuted, with new FRBs to be detected.
Comments: Major revision. 4 pages, 5 figures. Added: FRBs tend to arrive at close to the full integer second, like man-made perytons. Comments welcome Subjects: High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena (astro-ph.HE); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)
Cite as: arXiv:1503.05245 [astro-ph.HE] (or arXiv:1503.05245v2 [astro-ph.HE] for this version)
From: Michael Hippke [view email]
[v1] Tue, 17 Mar 2015 23:31:43 GMT (71kb,D)
[v2] Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:23:07 GMT (227kb,D)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:57:08 +0100
Subject: Volcanoes: 10 to watch
BTW: a project on seismic triggers - i.e. of quakes and volcanoes - is available here - Ray D
BTW2 - here's good descriptions of big ones:
"Naked Science - Super Volcanoes" &
"Naked Science - Angry Earth"
The Tambora eruption reinforces the unofficial volcanological axiom: the longer the wait, the bigger the bang. That rule of thumb is borne out by the fact that fully half of the biggest eruptions since 1800 originated at volcanoes that had previously been dormant throughout history. ... While there are too many candidates to keep a serious eye on, the numbers can be narrowed down by focusing on those that have been recently `restless'; perhaps best regarded as the volcanologists' term for `bubbling under'. Beyond that, though, it's anyone's guess.
Bill McGuire is professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL.
Volcanoes: 10 to watch
1 Laguna del Maule (Chile)
Currently inflating at the astonishing rate of 25cm a year, above a growing body of magma just 5km beneath the surface.
2 Uturuncu (Bolivia)
A 70km-wide bulge that has been growing since the early 1990s could culminate in a gigantic eruption.
3 Alban Hills (Italy)
Just 20km south-east of Rome, this huge volcano has started to become restless following more than 30,000 quiet years.
4 Campi Flegrei (Italy)
The archetypal `restless volcano' on the edge of Naples has not erupted since 1538, but has shown worrying signs, on and off, since the 1970s.
5 Yellowstone (Wyoming, US)
No eruption for around 70,000 years, but congenitally restless.
6 Mount Fuji (Japan)
Quiet since 1707, but scientists recently warned that the volcano was in a "critical state" with a "high potential for eruption".
7 Mammoth Mountain (California, USA)
In September 2014, up to 300 small earthquakes a day shook this part of the Long Valley supervolcano.
8 Askja (Iceland)
Swarms of small earthquakes and a crater-lake that was ice-free last winter hint at magma on the move for the first time since a major blast in 1875.
9 Mount Paektu (North Korea-China)
In 940 it hosted one of the greatest eruptions of the past 10,000 years; signs of unrest are again evident.
10 Cumbre Vieja (La Palma, Canaries)
A collapse of the unstable west flank could spawn a North Atlantic mega-tsunami.
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 09:03:26 +0100
Subject: "Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'
Yup, and a little reading of the early `entanglement' experiments (by Alain Aspect) and their analyses, using the `Inequalities' formulas of possibilities devised by John Stewart Bell , a deep thinking Irishman (check his lectures(s) on YouTube), shows that Einstein was wrong about Quantum phenomena: the effects _aren't_ "local" but _are_ "instantaneous" over (apparently) arbitrary distances.
That, along with Einstein's failure (in his "Relativity" SR and GR papers) to account for another `instantaneous' effect - that of inertia [i.e. momentum] and all its associated mysteries (Einstein just opted to accept Mach's Principle in its entirety without explaining how it could possibly work "instantly" over at least the radius of the observed Universe - which it does) makes me disbelieve the whole "Relativity" fairy tale.
ScienceDaily | Date: March 24, 2015 | Source: Griffith University
Scientists have for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of 'spooky action at a distance' using a single particle.
An experiment devised in Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle.
In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, CQD Director Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators at the University of Tokyo report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a particle's wave function. According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances, but is never detected in two or more places.
This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory by what Einstein disparaged in 1927 as "spooky action at a distance," or the instantaneous non-local collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.
Almost 90 years later, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors -- which measure wave-like properties -- to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect.
This phenomenon is the strongest yet proof of the entanglement of a single particle, an unusual form of quantum entanglement that is being increasingly explored for quantum communication and computation.
"Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman.
"Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
"However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices."
"Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong."
Maria Fuwa, Shuntaro Takeda, Marcin Zwierz, Howard M. Wiseman, Akira Furusawa.
Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements.
Nature Communications, 2015; 6: 6665 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7665
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:20:14 GMT
Subject: Mail from PERCEPTIONS
At EducatorLabs, we love every opportunity to share educational material with others. Fun and engaging educational material is all the more welcome when it comes to subjects that may prove more challenging for some students, such as astronomy - which can often be difficult to visualize and learn.
We recently collected a handful of excellent online advanced astronomy resources aimed at helping parents and educators that we thought may be of interest to you as you work to bring the subject alive to students.
I've included our collection so far, and would love your feedback. Or, is there another topic that is of interest to you?
Astronomy Resource Collection for Students of All Ages
Ask An Astronomer - CalTech
Jets Observing the Skys
Earth and Moon Viewer
Jasmine Dyoco | email@example.com
http://educatorlabs.org/ | Cultivating. Connecting. Curating.
2054 Kildaire Farm Rd. #204 | Cary, NC | 27518
N.b. - that last one is from the Fourmilab site which has some great tools from John Walker, I used some here.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:44:24 -0000
Subject: "Study Reveals Genetic Path of Modern Britons
Yup, and, having travelled a good deal in Europe, when going from English midlands to the coast of Lincolnshire say, you can see the people you're eating and drinking with getting more Germanic as you go further east.
PS being blond-haired + blue eyed would get mistaken for an Austrian in the Italian Tyrol, but my colloquial Italian (southern variety) would immediately dispel that impression - don't think Austrians bother to learn Italian, even in the Tyrol.
From: Kevin B*****
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: "Study Reveals Genetic Path of Modern Britons
> "such as a massive migration from northern France that accounts for about
> one-third of the ancestry of the average person in Britain."
> Or maybe it's just because the" NORMANS!!!" bullshit is denial, and because the
> bulk of the invaders were "French" barons and petty nobles and commoners, from
> Picardie and Champagne IIRC, and that the "NORMANS!!!" themselves were not
> recent immigrants from Danemark, but "French" from, well, Normandie, after one
> century of a tiny "NORMANS!!!" population intermixing with the locals.
From: Ray D
Date: Wednesday 18 Mas 2015 22h48
Subject: "Study Reveals Genetic Path of Modern Britons
Ha! Some intensive and diverse reporting of this `genetic mapping' of UK.
Fr'instance the BBC's short report leads with a misleading "DNA study shows Celts are not a unique genetic group" (see www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764) BUT reading the more thorough articles in broadsheet + science journals shows almost the opposite.
(BBC seems to have a deep-seated dislike of "Kelts" "Scots" and "Britons" generally); (n.b. `Britons' was the old derogative term used by London-centric writers when lauding the `superiority' of their own claimed Norman ancestry. Funny enough it now seems those "Norman genes" don't exist and never did - read the detailed reports).
Even so the project is broad-brush and seems to've missed the Viking enclave on Anglesey (off coast of N Wales and sharing Viking ancestry with coast dwellers around Dublin, Ireland) AND a similar enclave of blue-eyed folk in N Wales (isolated amid brown-eyed others) who are related to the Tuareg (blue-eyed Bedu of the Sahara).
PS have copies and URLs for the more in-depth reports if anyone's interested.
Study Reveals Genetic Path of Modern Britons
By NICHOLAS WADEMARCH 18, 2015
In A.D. 410, Roman authority in Britain collapsed and Romano-British society disappeared from history under the invading tides of Angles and Saxons from northern Europe. Historians have been debating ever since whether the Romano-British were wiped out or survived by adopting their conquerors' language and culture.
A fine-scale genetic analysis of the British population has now provided the answer. The invaders and the existing population lived side by side and eventually intermarried extensively. The people of south and central England are now genetically well mixed, with Saxon genes accounting for only about 20 percent of the mix, says a genetics team led by Stephen Leslie of the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute in Victoria, Australia, and by Peter Donnelly and Walter Bodmer of Oxford University.
The British Isles were wiped clean of people by the glaciers that descended toward the end of the last ice age, and were repopulated some 10,000 years ago by people who trekked over the broad land bridge that then joined eastern England to Europe north of the Rhine. The researchers say they can identify the genetic signature of this early migration, which survives most strongly in people from the western extremity of Wales.
Another strong genetic signal comes from the Orkney Islands north of Scotland. Some 25 percent of the DNA of Orcadians is of Norwegian origin, which is consistent with Norway's long ownership of the islands.
But the geneticists see no trace of the Danelaw, the Danish rule over northern England from the ninth to the 11th century, nor of the Norman conquest of England in 1066. The numbers of invaders may have been too small to leave a demographic imprint, and in the case of the Normans, who had previously emigrated from southern Denmark to Normandy, it is hard to distinguish their genes from those of the earlier Danish invaders.
The people of the southern and central parts of England form a homogeneous population, but all around the Celtic periphery, in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, lie small clusters of genetically different populations that have maintained their identity over the generations. This is a surprise, given that the Celtic peoples who ruled most of England until Caesar's invasion in B.C. 55 were assumed to be fairly homogeneous.
The explanation may have to do with the reach of Roman rule. In southern and central England, "the Romans controlled that area of Britain and introduced farming systems and roads and broke down many political barriers to movement," said Mark Robinson, an archaeologist at Oxford and a co-author of the study, published in the journal Nature. The population under Roman rule thus became homogenized, whereas those beyond it would have remained politically fragmented, making travel and intermarriage difficult, Dr. Robinson said.
The researchers found that the modern British population falls into 17 clusters altogether, based on genetic relatedness. Though very similar, the groups are genetically distinguishable, and even the main population cluster, that of southern and central England, is distinguishable from the populations of France, Germany and other European countries.
Dr. Donnelly, a population geneticist and co-author of the report, said the study was groundbreaking "because it is really the first time that scientists have looked in great detail within a country at the pattern of genetic variation."
There has been considerable migration into Britain over the last century from many countries of the former British empire and from elsewhere in continental Europe. Dr. Donnelly and his colleagues managed to sidestep this recent churning of the population history by seeking out elderly people who lived in rural areas and whose grandparents had been born locally. Because individual genomes are composed of random samples of the four grandparents' DNA, the researchers were in effect looking two generations into the past and testing the population of the late 19th century.
They analyzed the DNA of their 2,000 subjects at 500,000 sites along the genome, and then organized them into the 17 genetic clusters. They also analyzed the genomes of 6,000 Europeans in the same way, and could thus identify the source populations in Europe from which each of the 17 British clusters was derived. The migrations revealed in that way match the known historical record but also point to events that have not been recorded, such as a massive migration from northern France that accounts for about one-third of the ancestry of the average person in Britain.
"History is written by the winners, and archaeology studies the burials of wealthy people," Dr. Donnelly said. "But genetic evidence is interesting because it complements that by showing what is happening to the masses rather than the elite."