The physics of it all

Hello

I was thinking (I know a rare time in my life and a remarkable splodge on my calendar), if I was taught in my school (that's the normal place) the building blocks of my paradigm (how my universe is) and I was the one who pieced it all together (a clever trick by my teachers, making me think and link) then what value/values could I contribute by informing anyone who was even vaguely interested, my thought processes on the subject.

The history of when and where (I tend to link and time stamp my memories by remembering the situation that they occurred in, for instance, I remember that I was driving over the Pennines when I heard, on the radio, that Google had bought YouTube, I was on a course at the time therefore I timestamped it at the time of that particular course and it was November 2006, incidentally about the same time as Amy Winehouse releasing Rehab, I looked it up, just now, and I'm correct, I find this useful). Anyhow, I remember going to stay at my Grandparents when I was eleven, my Grandfather seemed to derive enjoyment from debate, he was always inquiring as to my state of education, and always trying to pick flaws in my argument. One of the discussions that we ended up having, was, after I had asserted that our thought process were just a result of electrical impulses. What happens when we die?
I asserted that the switch goes off, (what I would consider now as a no power state) blackness!
I was eleven. I have only recently recalled the conversation, and only recently reviewed it in its entirety (I know that we do lie to ourselves when we remember things, so I was trying my best to recall his reactions) I do recall him questioning my statement with a tinge of incredulity in his voice, wether it was against his paradigm or my youthfulness that caused this, I shall never know, nor will I know what exactly his belief systems led him to believe what happened when you die.
My point is this, I know that was the moment I realised what I believed.

So starting with the idea that I don't know how things work, and that I would like to. I was off on a journey that would lead to my understanding (I'm perfectly aware that my model probably has flaws and could do with being tweaked, or even that I could be 100% wrong)
Back to the physics thing, having been encouraged to perform the Cavendish experiment:-

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_cavendish_experiment.htm

For a visual of it and a bit of a hint as to the character of the man himself:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdiUoKa9Nw

In my head, I could imagine that there were lots of floating bits of rock hanging round doing nothing, two rocks would be mutually attracted (see the links above for details) and they would come together, this would make them doubly attractive to other rocks/small specks of matter and so the process would continue until you have a (what we would consider) a massive amount of matter (still attracting more 'Stuff'.
In the meantime we were taught about types of energy:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8EEnMwkmZk

OK so now we are accumulating a large amount of matter which, as it flies in, is imparting its energy to the main mass as it joins it (my personal view of a part of how the earth's core could be so hot) add to that the pressure of all the extra bits that have joined the first two rocks all trying to join the centre of mass and we are having a wonderful time getting to get a very simplified version of how our planet was formed.
why would it be spherical? See below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF8aQHwcKN0


Same effect but on a massive scale.

OK that is just the start of what leads me to believe what I believe, but I hope that it demonstrated how the building blocks go together and the foundation of my Paradigm. I realise that you have to be open to the initial premises (even though you go back and prove them to yourself repeatedly), I am also aware that we are not all wired the same way, so we all have a different baseline of understanding, and the way we come to realise our thought processes and learning paths differ from person to person (please can I have a Matrix style input port installed).

What's my point? I am trying to be sympathetic to the people who are struggling to get a grip on what the planet they are existing on is about and how it works, some people do not want to admit that they are 'specks in space' as it leads them to believe that they are not special, but we are special and denying reality will not empower you to contribute to the program (Humanity 1.0) in fact it becomes a little chunk of Malware (Religion 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 also known as Yaweh 1, 2 and 3). Now if you are religious and are offended by that last statement, it was an attempt at humour, and should be treated as such, (Mathew 5.38).

Having watched some of the more thoughtful questions posed by flat earth proponents, one of them posed the question about craters on the moon always looking like they were caused by a perpendicular strike from Meteor/asteroid objects, that actually caused me to think about it and use their 'research' method YouTube.

I went to YouTube and typed in 'how do we explain circular craters on the moon', (30 seconds of my time, I'm a slow typist) and clicked on the top link, 11 minutes 32 seconds later, I had a very commendable explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCGWGJOUjHY&t=555s

What is wrong with that? I found the explanation perfectly rational and I watched a microscopic version of it happening and a video of it happening to the moon. OK thinks I, why would I not believe it? The only answer to that question that I could come up with is if I had enough of an agenda that would make me unwilling to accept it, even then would I be prepared to find some form of experiment (repeatable and convincing) that would prove/disprove it? (Cognitive bias) I find that many of the Flat Earth community who are sufficiently motivated to produce online content would more than likely not seek a reliable solution to this (due to it being contrary to their firmly held beliefs or liable to disrupt a cash flow from their online content (I suspect the latter is more prominent))

Hugs

Once upon a time on a Flat Earth

Eyup
Yes, my blog has been entirely neglected for ages, I know.
However, in my armchair explorer mode I have been watching lots of youtube stuff and have become jawdroppingly stunned at how a certain concept has gone from being mocked, to being more mainstream and widely mocked.
"What are you on about?" I hear, floating on the aether (Michelson and Morley experiment).
By my last reference, you might have gathered that the "Flat Earth" concept is the main target of my pondering.

OK, at school (many years ago) I was taught (and I studied) Physics, as I remember, we (the class) were asked to perform, or were demonstrated, certain experiments, that gave us an understanding of our environment/world/existence. We were shown these (repeatable) lessons in a logical pragmatic order that gave us the tools to build our own paradigm and it gave me the ability to analyse and develop my own understanding of physical conundrums as they presented themselves in my work and life. Not all of my conclusions have been correct and I readily accept that my logic can be flawed, my main method (unless I am being taught) is to try to develop an explanation of my own and then confirm it by looking it up. Works well for me.

What occurs to me, when I am watching some of the more entertaining videos produced by proponents of the planer existence, is that they seem to fall into one of three categories:-

   1: The oblate spheroid idea is fed to you by one or more agencies that have a vested interest in keeping the general populous ignorant.
This includes the conspiracy theorists (NASA, CIA and Illuminate (et al) all have an agenda to keep us from discovering..... err, something), Bible apologists (it says that the earth is flat in the bible, the bible is the word of God therefore if the world is not flat then you are saying that the word of God isn't true........ARRRRRRGH!!!! (head explosion)). 
   2: Non conceptual crowd, the type who can't think outside of the box (literally), presenting the inability to realise that if you are travelling at a constant speed then you do not feel it, we only feel changes in speed (more commonly known as acceleration), or the inability to realise the massive scale of things, (reference, the curvature of the earth, gravity or the distance to the sun).
   3:  The arseholes that couldn't give a shit about reality, as long as category 2 style muggins subscribe to their channels on youtube. (I'm also including some that might be doing it as a "bit of a laugh").

In respect to Cat 1 types, I do remember being a tad susceptible to Arthur C Clark style books when I was about fourteen (and have read some since but without my blind acceptance gland engaged) and to be honest, if you state every possible outcome of a situation, when the outcome is realised, you will have been correct (once). Conversely, if you latch on to every hair brained conspiracy theory, one of them might be correct (WARNING: that doesn't prove you right, it is just means that you threw the dice often enough), I'm going to go with the infinite amount of monkeys analogy here.
As for the Bible saying that the earth is flat (therefore it must be) are we about to reference a book that was cherry picked from Latin into sixteenth century English, in turn the Latin version that was cherry picked from Ancient Greek (with a smattering of Hebrew) derived from recounted tales spoken in Aramaic (or different versions of the above depending on whose narrative you deploy)? Some of the defenders of this stance are young earth creationists who are petrified of anything that could shake their faith or even put a slight dent in their "Truth Armour" (If you honestly believe in God, then fair play to you, but I don't see how, proving that the world is flat, would gain you any smarty points when it comes to checkout time, in fact, if you put yourself in his shoes, who would you rather be surrounded by in the afterlife? A bunch of simpering "yes" men or people who would provide scintillating conversation for the remainder of eternity? (Another topic at a later date)).

Cat 2: The problem with this crowd is Dunning Kruger Effect, it's not a new concept, Messrs Dunning and Kruger have defined it. In layman's terms it is being too stupid to realise that you are stupid, guess what! We all suffer from it to a degree, unfortunately, some people cannot acknowledge this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E 

This is worrying (a touch of introspection required) and begs the question "Am I qualified to be writing this" but should also raise the question (to be asked of the YouTube content producers) "Am I setting myself up for a bloody good mocking?"
In answer to the last one, then, if your content is in opposition to experts that have been peer reviewed and their opinions and theories have stood the test of scientific method and are generally accepted, then YES! You might actually wish to gain an understanding of what they are trying to convey, as opposed to calling them idiots or "debunking" their well established theories. I'm not saying that everyone should blindly accept the theories, and questioning given information is a healthy way of approaching life, but, as with most ideas, to deny the veracity of the idea without presenting a plausible alternative proof to support the denial is five year old style arguing and will probably expose your ignorance (a prelude to mockery).

Cat 3: If I were a conspiracy fan I would be inclined to say that some of these people were milking the gullible and some of them were in league with the content providers for the juxtapositional (how do you like those fruit from the tree of knowledge?) content. Whereas I applaud the production of well presented, simplified and understandable content with the intent of education (some of which I have found useful) and it can be classed as peer reviewed (very loosely, and you then have to consider the level of the peer that is reviewing it) it is, nullified by shoddily researched and basically pseudoscience based claptrap that deserves to be derided and mocked (however, the idiots claiming that they are "woke" will do the counterpoint "debunking" of the more pertinent content).

So, do we need a license for social media? Are we suffering from free speech overload?

(please say yes) 

Quiz

What do the following linked images have in common?

https://goo.gl/images/o9Rd6F

https://goo.gl/images/vafy4V

https://goo.gl/images/wkmbo7

https://goo.gl/images/JTVGNg


Answer: they all show how stubborn a nation can be

Fat Cheque

Evening everybody.

You might not know it, but the people in the village across the pond managed to elect an irate orangutang as their mayor, he has promised to build a shrubbery and keep the neighbours away, OK in election fever, these promises are, on the whole, meant to outline the intent of your basis for holding office, and are, nowadays, accepted as such.

However, the new mayor of Trumpton has, in fact, hoodwinked his followers.

Backing off for a bit here, the worst thing about us people is that we hate being told that we are wrong, and detest having it proven to us. so whatever your own personal views of what is going on in the big wild world, it isn't always the best thing to run up to someone and slap them in the face with the obvious error of their ways, and it certainly isn't best to hope that they will concede to your way of thinking and immediately revise their opinions (however rational you believe them to be), this I have learned the long, exasperating hard way.

My current personal campaign is trying (as nicely as possible) to point out to people, who I know, that repost untrue inflammatory stories on facebook, that fact checking the stories first, might (in some cases) make them think about reposting salacious claptrap, in an effort to uphold other people's opinions of them (in short, not to make themselves look complete dullards on a public forum).

My opinion of recent events are spelled out and I'm entitled to them, for example: I can't see how Brexit is a good thing, leaving the protection of a large club can only deflate our influence on the larger world, we are foolishly surrendering an extra layer of protection (employment rights, trade agreements, rules for industry etc) all of which we had a large influence over, in exchange for a diluted and seriously substandard version of the same, and we have to ask permission for that version instead of having it by default.

I also have trouble in understanding why Americans believe in their president, perhaps it is the wood for the trees version that they get, there is a huge contingent that seem happy to believe that anyone so blatantly corrupt, self centred and narcissistic could genuinely have the nation's interests at heart.

I also don't understand how he has managed to avoid a plethora of defamation cases.

He has tried suing for libel against an architect critic, (The critic wrote about a skyscraper proposal Donald was trying to get permission to build).

In summing up the Judge said:

Judge Weinfeld gave Trump a lesson in the First Amendment and politics: "Men in public life ... must accept as an incident of their service harsh criticism, ofttimes unfair and unjustified – at times false and defamatory – and this is particularly so when their activities or performance may ... stir deep controversy" .... "De gustibus non est disputandum, there is no disputing about tastes."[9]

Judge Weinfeld, then 84, reaffirmed the First Amendment rule that "[e]xpressions of one's opinion of another, however unreasonable, or vituperative, since they cannot be subjected to the test of truth or falsity, cannot be held libelous and are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under the First Amendment."[10]

   

OK that part obviously sunk in, but our (least) favourite corn snack paid less attention to the next bit:

Judge Weinfeld explained that opinions expressed in the form of "rhetorical hyperbole," "rigorous epithets," and "the most pejorative of terms" are protected from liability, so long as the opinions do not veer to into factual accusations, such as accusing someone of a crime, unethical conduct, or the lack of professional integrity in a manner that would be proved true or false.[11]

So he has been corrected on his Rhetorical Hyperbole (Read: outright Bollocks) and he still comes out spouting more of the same, this makes me wonder if his staff actually inform him that he has been rumbled, or do they slide it under his door on neutral coloured post-it notes with the highlighted legend "IGNORE THIS" and, in a smaller font, "at your peril".

The point is, we are not checking the truth, we are not admonishing people for veering away from it (or in some cases bending it over a chair and rodgering it senseless) and we should be, the UK had a politician (Profumo) who resigned for lying to parliament in the 1960s (plus cavorting with call girls) we have become too accepting of corruption, inconsistencies within our political systems. 

It isn't "by the people for the people" anymore, it has turned into "buy the people, fuck the people".

Whatever the eventual outcome of Brexit and Trump (which sounds like a dodgy law-firm) I hope that it doesn't involve a nuclear winter or my family and I being excluded from travelling to destinations of our choice in the twilight of my years.

Oh Yeah, KEEP FACT CHECKING

The open door

OK I'm almost excited, (ooh what at? The sarcastic monotone narrator's voice mumbles) I now have an Echo Dot.
So, apart from the initial setup, everything works reasonably well and the limitations that are imposed on the interactions are mainly focused on why it would be a good idea to subscribe to amazon prime, and the inevitable quality (or lack thereof) of my internet connection.
So saying, the purpose of this sojourn into manually entering anything on the keyboard is that Alexa (AKA Skynet) is listening, somewhere there is a log of my voice antics (multiple expletives when I trip over the cat) and a profile that includes my musical tastes, shopping habits and probably my dietary habits too (Alexa knows that you are eating biscuits), there could even be a log of how many times I break wind ("Do you want me to put charcoal tablets on your shopping list?").
Amazon, Google and Apple all initially denied this, but they have admitted to collating data, and that I don't mind, if them collating data makes my existence a little more palatable then so be it, and the data that my mobile phone gives out is more interesting in any case, domestic data is pretty uninspiring, but it is useful in the realms of market research and focused advertising (although you might find it a little intrusive).
The point is, I'm aware of this happening, many are not, they don't think that buying a device and using it, plugs you in to all of the back story, (this is demonstrated by the facebook collections of people posting inappropriate comments that come back to bite them).
So what do you want to do? Be a rebel go off grid and give up your Facebook account? (Please remember that this would also mean that you would have to give up your mobile phone (you can be located to within 20m from your mobile signal) your bank cards (using them can locate your whereabouts and timestamp the usage) avoid all public places with CCTV (facial recognition is getting more accurate) and of course give up working for a living or claiming anything from the government (These will give a "Modus Operandi" to anyone that is interested).
So, no, you're knackered, if you want to disappear, there's probably no reason to, and realistically no means to do so.
Does that make me feel aggrieved? Not really, I'm not on the run from anyone (and don't intend to be) so it doesn't really affect me.
Does it change my perspective? Only that I get a bit miffed that I do a search for something and lo and behold there's an advert on facebook that some of my friends seem to be looking for a similar related item (Hang on, I wasn't on facebook when I was looking, I was googling, now that is disconcerting).
So do I stay in the here and now, accepting that, for the remainder of my life, my shopping will be scrutinised in a way that could be made available for other reasons?
How could the information be used to harm me?
Or are we just glibly cruising toward a future that means that everyone's epitaph will include their favourite biscuits and preferred cat food?

Fake Muse

Having some friends that hail from the tiny island on the left of the Atlantic, I've been paying attention to the situation there, apparently their newly appointed bastion of virtue has been engaging in an ongoing tussle with the fourth estate.
Now here's the rub, most people tend to read the version of the news that most aligns with their sensibilities, and judging by some of my chums on faceplant, they seem to be subscribing to Mein Kampf (or the daily version of it) here we are in the second decade of the third millennium and we are taking to regurgitating hate, bile and untruths purely because it appeals to our paradigm of the modern world. (I can confess to being tempted by some of it myself, and I have had to check myself then check the veracity, then take myself into a corner and have a stern word with myself for believing some of it).

Not to belittle the tragedy, the shooting in Florida was upsetting, even from this detached standpoint, the fact that it was more than preventable makes it worse.
Familiar text follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is the (oh so) well quoted 2nd amendment that so many quote (whilst also advocating the trashing of the 1st amendment in many cases) to defend the ownership of firearms, OK well do something that combines the 2nd amendment and some form of gun control, why don't they refuse gun ownership to anyone not being an active member in a militia? That is what the amendment states, follow it! That should exclude people who aren't "Well regulated" (i.e. not willing to participate, unfit to wield anything sharper than a Big Mac or too enthusiastic about pointy bang sticks).
Obviously, anyone with a criminal background should be (and already supposedly is), a minimum age of 21 (as in the alcohol limitation) anyone who wishes to wave a Confederate flag could be classed as treasonous, (thus automatically excluded) anyone who believes that the U.S. won the Vietnam War (obviously their comprehension of history is indicative of their mental state). Along with "Ancient alien theorists", Holocaust deniers, people who deny the moon landings, Justin Bieber fans and Fundamentalists (any sect, partly because the word "mental " is  included in the title but mainly for the really obvious reason that they are so evidently weak of mind that they just shouldn't be handed a means to force their opinions on others).
I would have included Country Music fans in the exclusions, but the American gun industry deserves a break.
Excluding the morbidly obese (giving them 6 months to qualify) would also put a huge amount of people on a health kick.
Food for thought
Jim Jeffries on the subject

Fear of the bomb

Not sure how many (or either) of my dear readers will remember the wariness that we lived under whilst the IRA were active (due to my chosen career path, I was urged to be constantly vigilante) but I am pretty sure that the rest of the British Isles carried on in their daily routine without breaking out in a cold sweat as soon as they spotted a carrier bag unattended in a public place. Now we are being told that every time we pass throigh an airport we are to be subjected to a violation to our himan rights (the all encompassing excuse being security, the all pervading reason would appear to be profit for all the firms who manufacture the equipment that probes our personal effects) and all due to what exactly, oh yes, the final realisation by a nation, who derives a good percentage of its GDP from being at war, that the world doesn't love them.

Dry your eyes princess, stop trying to drag us all down to your level of populace control (Orwellian at best) and re-assess the situation.

Why? Would be a good question to ask first. What drives people to spread a gospel of hate to the point where men will feel justified to take up arms to battle such.a massive foe? (Looking in a mirror would be a good move at this point).

Oh what's the use? The people who read this probably agree already and the people who need to wouldn't change their mind anyway because they have been brainwashed already. However, (always followed by an apostrophe and an excuse) some people never learn do they? And what I am intimating, dear reader, is that profiling, crowd control, debasement of the human condition (and all who sail in that) are alive and well and those who are basically accepting of "Que sera sera" (not talking Doris Day here) are ruining it for the rest of us.
Honestly, (why do you suspect my word when I pre-empt it with that one?) I was witness to a conversation the other day (please don't request specifics) where a person actually said that he (gender indicative) was wishing that ISIS (oh please, not the first daughter of Geb) were to come to this country, he would "sort them out", OK, I am way ahead of you here, and I have a good guess at what you are thinking, but no! His reasoning behind his ability to "sort them out" was his experience (and this is the most gobsmacked that I have been for quite some time) in "Call of Duty".
Now, what do you do when someone, who obviously, believes that their prowess on a gaming pad (or on a mouse and keyboard) qualifies them to take control of a situation, that many before them have spent years training for, at vast expense and consideration, due to their ability to press reset when the going gets tough?

I have seen trained men (of whom I have a lot of respect for) break down and cry in certain situations, you don't know which of us will crumble nor do you know which of us will become the inspirational person who grabs the situation and turns it to the good or leads others to survival or salvation, I've seen it go both ways and there is no predicting who does what (and that is my only fact in that), so please don't tell me "how you'd handle" so and so or if you would pull the trigger etc. because, unless you have faced the situation and you are referring to that last episode then, I'm really sorry, you cannot tell me how you would react the next time around (anyone out there who can, hand on heart, tell me that they could is obviously a psychopath and you really don't want my name and address).


Must work on my mind ray weapon.

Sorry for any gap in postings but I've been busy, OK?

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4