Friday, May 5, 2017

out on an e=mc^2 limb

Out on a limb...

No, this is not a review of a Mathew Brodrick movie.

I'm about to commit credibility suicide as a scifi author, perhaps even more suicidal than trying to review a ?three? decade old movie (a fun movie, by the way, about evil twins, crazy brothers, and a pinch of a quirky romance).

E=MC^2.

It has profound implications that reach far beyond Iran and North Korea.

For those that believe in God, the equation looks something like this.

If God created the universe, then the power of God is greater than or equal to all the energy in the universe (orbiting planets, burning suns, orbiting electrons...) plus the mass of the entire universe (from black holes to every speck of dust between the stars) times the speed of light squared.

God >= EofUniverse + MofUniverse * C^2.

A very big number, but acceptable if you believe in an all powerful God.

But if you believe only in science, then it gets a little bumpy from here.

The big bang bumpy.

According to E=MC^2, the energy that existed before the big bang is the same equation that lets you estimate the minimum power of God.

That's still a really really really big number, but this time without a good source. It's so big that it can't possibly be a 'rounding error' and looks an awful lot like a mistake big enough to prove a theory wrong. The big bang answers nothing, in other words, because it can't account for even one percent of where any of this energy came from, all it can answer is what happened to all that power after it was created.

Enter vacuum energy.

In the space between stars, that vacuum averages an atom or two every few feet. That's not exactly what anyone is really calling the source of vacuum energy. That's a vacuum in the same way that what we use to clean the floors is a vacuum. It's figurative, not literal. Vacuum energy is theoretical, namely because it doesn't exist in practice, but it's popular because it solves the God-level math error in the Big bang problem. The theory goes that true nothingness is the source of near infinite energy. Well, maybe, but I'm skeptical.

Vacuum energy

Imagine nothing, absolutely nothing for billions of light years in every direction. No energy. No heat. No mass. No nothing. (As an aside, what is the max speed of nothingness, and how would you know, and if it had speed would it still be nothingness? :)

If you dropped a particle into that much nothingness, vacuum energy would, in theory, rip it apart like a reverse black hole... much like a deep-sea fish might explode if you pulled it up onto the boat, or an astronaut might explode if he did a space walk without a suit. Or, best analogy, a helium party balloon will stretch until it explodes, usually long before it gets high enough to touch clouds. One can argue, convincingly, that the energy is not in the vacuum itself, but in the astronaut, fish, or balloon instead. Explode vs ripped apart. Exploding comes from forces within, where ripped apart are forces acting from outside. To the observer, they look the same.

So, for me, vacuum energy doesn't work, but because it solves the big bang energy problem nicely, many are deeply invested in it. But even a vacuum of one atom per cubic yard is impossible to produce here on Earth, let alone a vacuum at absolute zero, so any real answer one way or the other is unlikely to ever happen. (If you had a container that you could pump every atom out of, the container itself would be made of countless atoms, making the size of the container bigger than the sun in order to average less than an atom per foot, assuming no atoms fell off the walls of the container, which is equally unlikely)

E=MC^2.

It's so simple and elegant a formula that really the only wiggle room left in the equation is in C^2.

C, or the speed of light is a constant. But maybe not. If we could make it equal zero then we could create all the mass (m) we want and it would take (M*zero^2=0) no energy. In an absolute vacuum, the speed of light might actually be zero.

Consider, if light is a particle, then it may well be ripped to shreds in a pure vacuum. Light can't escape a black hole, so other things having a similar property are possible, if unlikely. Being instantly destroyed would give it a speed of zero. And if it was a wave, it could not pass through a medium of absolute nothingness for the same reason that sound stops traveling at the edge of space. By the way, this idea of even light particles being shredded by a pure vacuum would also give you a 'background radiation' type noise along the lines of the 'proof' of the big bang. The edges of our universe that touch into nothingness would be slowly shredded (evaporated or sublimated may be more accurate a visual representation), with some of that feeding back into the universe as background noise.

The math here works... sort of... but fuzzy.

But the instant that mass is created, the vacuum is destroyed and the speed of light gets insanely big again. And as for the instant mass, it is either put all in one place (maximum-gravity black-hole-of-all-black-holes, maximum 'vacuum energy' too) in which case it is likely big-bang exploded and the speed of light increases along a curve at the rate of the explosion... Or the mass is everywhere all at once, in which case the speed of light is instantly big and not much of a bang happens until much later. By the way, this 'dust cloud' model is how we see stars and solar systems being born, so, IF it is one of these, it's more likely a dust cloud of an atom every foot all at once (which we have billions of examples of) instead of a singularity 'big bang' that hasn't happened once outside a computer model.

An argument can be made that light would travel as a particle through a pure vacuum at the speed of light, since it would presumably enter with that speed and encounter nothing to destroy it or slow it down. Semantically, once a particle is in a vacuum it is no longer 'pure' and hence no longer exists. Put another way, if the particle exists then the vacuum can not, and if the vacuum exists then the particle can not. They are mutually exclusive, like dark or light. I buy that, but it destroys the theory of 'vacuum energy' entirely (I believe vacuum energy is wrong, but it's impossible to 'prove' it).

And some might be thinking... if mass or energy can be created 'on the cheap' wherever light has a speed of zero, then suns and black holes can make infinite mass and energy... but they don't seem to. Most explain this away by saying that the speed of light inside these super massive bodies isn't being slowed but more accurately time dilated. In other words, TIME has slowed for the photons inside such high gravity bodies and only appears slow or stopped to us outsiders; inside the black hole, from the photon's perspective, light is still screaming along, it's just time that has stopped for it instead. I kinda buy that, though it makes my head hurt.

Another 'flaw' is there's likely a zone around black holes where not only the speed of light it 'time dilated' to zero, but pure vacuums also exist, after all, black holes are considered to 'vacuum' up stars. If vacuum energy exists it should be there... but it doesn't seem to be.

So, to recap, about the only way (if you take God out of the equation) that you can create the entire universe using zero energy (because if you used any energy at all you have to then answer the 'well, where did that original energy/mass come from') is if you can somehow make the speed of light equal zero for at least a fraction of a second. Otherwise it violates E=MC^2 and you have to come up with where the mass of the universe or an even C-squared bigger amount of energy came from....

The 'flaw' of the big bang theory is the 'where did the exploding stuff come from,' and it's a God-level amount of energy/mass to explain away.


That is...Unless E=MC^2 is wrong....

Or, at the very least, it's incomplete. :)

I think there's more to that equation... and just perhaps a scifi author found it, but more on that a little later. I'm still weighing the credibility suicide of rewriting the world's most famous equation just so the ending of my book will work. I'm leaning towards it may be worth it.

the low bp fog is lifting

And the fog is lifting... but I don't want to jinx it.

For at least the last year, but most likely the last two years or more, I've had low blood pressure. By low, I mean a few times a year I would actually faint and land on the floor. Once a month a wall would hold me up.

Ideal BP is anything from 90/60 to 120/80. Average for me was in the 80s / 50s, which is well inside the fainting zone low. But fainting is not the only side effect, it also made me very lethargic and unable to focus, mentally.

Once I knew what was wrong, or more accurately the symptom of what was wrong, I did what every writer with a writer's insurance does, looked for cheap fixes on the Internet.

Salt. Check, tried it but it doesn't work well enough and comes with side effects too.

Lemon. Check, it works a little, no side effects, but doesn't keep me in the right zone.

Coffee. Check. Been doing that all along, but drinking even more coffee than I already was can't possibly be good for anyone. Any doctor in the world would say I'm taking an unhealthy or even a lethal dose of coffee already. If anything, I need to cut back on that addictive muddy water, not double up on it.

Basil. My first experiment with basil was a nightmare. I used too much and I went right past normal and into hypertension and stayed there for two days. I've never in my life experienced hypertension. It was Terrifying, but clearly this was my 'silver bullet' because it lasted for two days and a little went a long way.

I just had to get the dose right.

Because I had such a powerful reaction and it stayed in my system so long, this meant I would have to start extremely low, keep with it for a week, then increase a tiny bit and test for another week. Time consuming, but the safe approach.

I don't want to jinx it, but I think I've done just that and found the right dose.

For an entire week (since last Friday) I've been in the 90s/60s, right where I want to be.

The dose, 3/10ths a tsp per day. It sounded metric so I was pretty sure it had to be wrong :) , but that seems to do the trick and the fog that has clouded my head for the last two years is lifting.

Now, I still don't know, and probably will never find out, what the underlying problem was, but basil is covered by my insurance (10 cent seed pack at the dollar tree with my insurance card).

Oddly, after spending the last two years in a lethargic fog, returning to my real normal feels like I'm lacing my coffee with speed.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

climate deniers

Re: "climate deniers"

A climate scientist, a politician, and a 3rd grader are asked to find the temperature of a glass of water.

The politician asks his largest donors what answer will be most profitable to them, and gives that answer.

The climate scientist takes twenty readings from around and above the cup, averages them together, then adds in an adjustment factor.

The 3rd grader sticks a thermometer into the cup and reads out the number.

This is obviously a joke, but as with most humor, there is an element of truth to it.

It also leads to a point rarely brought up, that maybe measuring the air temperature above the ground (cup) really doesn't tell us much of value to begin with. Perhaps a true measure would be to track the ground temperature a few feet down for a more accurate average instead. But lets set that aside for now and get to what most argue about.


1st

There are two causes, and thus explanations, for shrinking ice packs --the most cited proof of warming-- the 1st is warming. 2nd, is reduced snowfall patterns over winter. Since no month during summer has ever had exactly average rainfall, it can be assumed winters also vary wildly in precipitation too. Simply having more rain in August can decrease ice accumulation over winter. As can precipitation rates changing between night (favoring ice) and day (favoring ice-melting rain). So, for me, studies of icepacks are interesting, perhaps even suggestive... but only proof of 'varying winter humidity cycles', not global warming. That's not to say warming is not real, just that leftover winter ice ain't proof of it.

Stated another way, scientists could trigger another iceage today by building massive humidifiers and pump up the moisture over a continent during winter months (mostly at night or when it's freezing outside) thus burying the entire country under hundreds of feet of snow and ice every winter without altering global temperatures at all (100'=12" perDay over 100 days, mechanically possible at every ski resort in the world). This effect is seen with evaporative cooling towers causing snow during winter. Because it would take until November to melt a hundred feet of snow, you would get a snowball effect adding onto every additional winter... All without actually altering global temperatures directly, just altering global humidity/precipitation, and then only during winter.

In addition, record highs and lows are suggestive, but not proof either. I can have an overcast day that stays at 54 degrees for the entire 24hrs, followed by a day that starts at 75 for 5hrs, then has a storm that pummels it down to 45 for the rest of the day, averaging 51.25 degrees. Just looking at highs or lows does not give you averages and can be highly misleading. "...Record number of highs this year..." means nothing in and of itself.

2nd. We just had an election where pollsters asked 500 people and then used that to guess who would win across +3,000 counties. Wrong!!! It turns out your sample size might have needed to be in the millions to get elections right every time.

The same is true of weather, I just don't buy that we have anywhere near enough 'big data' to predict 50yrs from now with an accuracy of less than +-2 degrees. Sorry. With a planet this size and a data set as relatively tiny as the one climate models are based on, we are essentially asking two aborigines in Australia to predict who our president will be 50yrs from now.

Not really possible.

==side note===
A tale of two climate models.

The first costs $100 trillion dollars and predicts the end of the world in 50yrs because of a 2 degree climate change. With that $100 trillion expenditure, not a single person is lifted out of poverty, no poor person ever gets electricity, indoor plumbing, or air conditioning. GE makes a fortune selling windmills and solar panels and an equal number of gas peaking stations to fill in all the green gaps (when before they would have had to settle for 1/3 the profit by selling only one, far more efficient, coal or nuclear plant) Elon Musk makes another billion dollars every year in taxpayer financed subsides (later called the Musk tax on the poor to fund the hobbies of the filthy rich)

The second climate model cares nothing about 50yrs from now. Its task is modest, just a scientific version of the farmers almanac. This model tries to predict every daily high and low and rainfall for every day of next year, all around the world. If this model succeeds, farmers around the world will ship its creators buckets of cash because, by altering their crops and planting seasons to optimize to the predictions, they'll increase yields enough to end hunger worldwide... while drastically reducing irrigation costs and getting in one or two extra harvests every year, and not waste their time planting a crop doomed to fail. Farmers without access to irrigation will plant with confidence and dependably high yields, even in the most remote parts of the world.

Think of it, if you know you won't get enough rain for corn, you shift that field to something less thirsty. If you know you can count on rains late in the season, and that your first frost won't come until November 30th, that's an extra harvest right there. A harvest no farmer would ever risk today, because such a model does not yet exist.

But you see, climate scientists place all their efforts on the one that can't be tested for 50yrs, instead of the one that can lift staving people out of poverty around the world, but will get tested (debunked) every year.

A farmers almanac model, ironically enough, should be 50 times easier, 50 times less complex, and by reducing the need for irrigation and by making marginal lands farmable and by increasing production around the globe, this modest almanac model will double the carbon sequestration (more harvest = more CO2 removed) by simply sending out a calendar to every state with daily highs, lows, and rainfall clearly marked. It can achieve the goal of its over priced cousin... and make everyone rich in the process. It will lift a billion out of poverty by simply posting its predictions on line.

I can not overstate the irony here.

The makers of the "end of the world" computer model can literally end famine around the world while reducing CO2 and the need for irrigation by shifting their efforts to the farmers almanac model, BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TOO, most likely because the almanac model will get tested every year, but predictions 50yrs out can never really be tested.

This is madness, but it is also where we find ourselves. Any time these EndOfTheWorld climate model scientists want to save the world, all they have to do is make a better farmers almanac. It's just that simple. But to date, nobody has made anything more reliable than that century old paperback.

==end of side note===

I am skeptical of a model that can predict 50yrs from now with an accuracy of +-0.1degree and zero margin of error.... yet can only predict two months from now with a 60% accuracy and even then, it's +-10 degrees every day. If you said 'it predicts a 2.1degree increase over 50yrs with a margin of error of +- 5 degrees,' I'd believe you, but would have zero motivation to do anything about it. So, for obvious --but credibility killing-- reasons, that 'margin of error' disclaimer is left out.

Sorry.

Models are not proof. Leftover winter ice is not proof. They are both suggestive, but not proof. Record highs and lows are not proof. A decade of "farmers almanac" perfect predictions would be credible, but nobody shouting "the sky is falling" has anything close to that.

Sorry.

3rd. If I wanted to scientifically get an accurate temperature of the room you are in to within two decimal points, it would be nearly impossible. A thermometer on the floor would be colder than one near the ceiling. The east window might be 10 degrees warmer than the one on the west, depending on sunshine and time of day. Near your TV and DVR it might be 17 degrees warmer than by the drafty door. Even inside the average 12x12 room, getting an accurate average of every 1.12 million cubic inches to within two decimal points would be nearly impossible... With a planet? Not a chance. 50 miles of atmosphere, churned by a 150mph jetstream, thunderstorms, mountains and trees as heatsinks and radiators, not to mention flocks of butterfly wings flapping every day. Ironically enough, probably the best way to measure the average temp of a room would be to take the temp of the furniture, not the air, something climate scientists ignore.

How many BTUs does asphalt radiate more than grass? We have asphalted the area of Texas, all solar-panel black... are you sure the warming is all coming from CO2? A tiny change in color of the oceans' (plants, plankton, oil, food coloring, iron, salt, ice, foam) can add up to ten degrees air temp change, are you sure the oceans are exactly the same color they always were? Have you bothered to add up the BTUs of all the powerplants in the world? It's not tiny. Still 100% sure the warming is entirely CO2? Burning 20 million barrels of oil a day is roughly 110 trillion BTUs by itself, if that helps.The ocean has millions of known volcanoes and thermal vents. Are you 100% sure none of the warming is from them? The variables are too many, the available data is infinitesimally small and based largely on human assumptions, the margins of error in the calculations are too high to make the output reliable, and the pricetag is too big for such a wild gamble. And lastly, it's not our money/future we're gambling with, it's the 1.2 billion poor who will shoulder 100% of the burden of the gamble (see attached link)

Maybe it is all CO2, and I'm ok with reducing our CO2 output when and if something cheaper comes along. And it will come along... But until then...

The cure may be far worse than the disease.

-------- pardon the extensive quoting but I'm away from a "real keyboard" right now and I wouldn't have said it any better anyway-------

http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/25/energy-poverty-is-much-worse-for-the-poo

Some 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2016 report. About 2.7 billion still cook and heat their dwellings with wood, crop residues, and dung. In its main scenario for the trajectory of global energy consumption, the IEA projects that in 2040, half a billion people will still lack access to electricity and 1.8 billion will still be cooking and heating by burning biomass.

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty , disaster ensues.

It is worth noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's shared socioeconomic pathway narratives for the rest of the century include one, dubbed "SSP5," in which fossil fuels remain cheap, greenhouse gas concentrations more than triple, the average global temperature increases by nearly 4 degrees Celsius, and the rate of economic growth is high. Is that future a hell on earth? Not at all.

The "development first" SSP5 agenda results in the eradication of extreme poverty, greater gender equality, and universal access to education, safe drinking water, and modern energy before mid century, along with a strong build-up of developing countries' human and social capacity. "Lower socio-environmental challenges to adaptation result from attainment of human development goals, robust economic growth, highly engineered infrastructure with redundancy to minimize disruptions from extreme events, and highly managed ecosystems," notes the SSP report. In other words, people living in this economically robust scenario have greater incomes (up from the current average of around $10,000 to about $140,000 per capita in current dollars by 2100) and have access to much more advanced technologies with which to address whatever problems man-made climate change may throw at them.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth."

End of quoting

-----lastly-------

Trump saying "China plot" is like "Mexico is paying for the wall" nobody voting for him takes anything he says literally. Mexico may "pay for it" with a tax on remittances, tariffs, NAFTA2.0... But nobody is expecting Mexico to literally write a check or airdrop bundles of cash. His China comment is linguistic shorthand for who is profiting at our dubious benefit. Almost nothing he says can be taken literally, it's almost entirely figurative. Besides, everyone knows global warming is a scam invented by GE to sell windmills and natural gas peaking stations :)

Actually, now that I think about it, decades ago GE was struggling to con people into windmills, since for every megawatt of overpriced wind produced you have to, on average, 'back it up' by selling 3 megawatts of highly profitable natural gas. Wind, in a real world, is best considered 'supplemental' to gas until storage becomes affordable, both of which GE was struggling to sell before buying 1/3 of the US TV networks (NBC) and dedicating it to selling "global warming" for them. After buying NBC as their propaganda arm, GE now enjoys billions in federal subsidies to trick America into a dependency on gas.

To me, windmills are the "free iPhone" scam that locks you into a 5yr plan that costs $3000 more than the same plan if you had your own phone. Free energy windmills are the free iPhone of the energy sector that tricks you into lifetime dependency on their highly profitable gas turbine peaking stations. Plus, to get a megawatt of reliable power out of a gas plant, all you have to do is buy a gas plant. To get the same out of a windmill you have to buy a megawatt of windmill AND a megawatt of gas for backup, that's twice the profit to GE per megawatt of reliable 'capacity'. Win win $$.


I'm also 'confused' on the mechanics of a gas having a 'greenhouse' effect.

The greenhouse effect was best described to me with the following:

Fill a tub with cold water, make a pot of coffee, then pour half into the tub and the other half into a Ziploc bag and put the bag into the tub.

The coffee poured directly in cooled almost immediately because of its massive surface area rubbing against the cold water.

The Ziploc will stay warmer longer because of the greenhouse effect. By limiting the surface area of the two thermal bodies to the area of the bag, instead of the area of a puddle the half a pot of coffee might make if dumped on the ground, it dramatically changes the time it takes to bring both bodies to equilibrium.

This is the same "greenhouse effect" that lets a pound of snow melt in a tub faster than a one-pound block of ice. Each snowflake melts on contact because of its massive surface area, where the block is locked into 6 sides with a billionth the surface area.

Clouds have a clingy structure that can create a layer or barrier and thus do have a physical structure that complies to the greenhouse effect, where humid air does not and has no heat trapping effect. CO2 does not seem to form a layer or pockets that restrict thermal exchanges between air molecules so... It should not have any "blanketing" or trapping effect.

Industrially, CO2 is used as a thermal exchange "fluid", this means it is fantastic at moving heat from one surface to another, the opposite of a greenhouse.

CO2 is never used in Thermoses or between panes of glass in greenhouses to "trap in the heat". In fact, none of the "greenhouse gasses" are used to trap heat in anything that, well, needs heat trapped.

Fiberglass insulation works by slowing the movement of air, but it actually Loses efficiency when that air is replaced with CO2.

If I'm missing something on the mechanics... If CO2 does clump together and mechanically forms cloud-like layers let me know. If there are thermoses out there using CO2 to keep coffee warmer longer, I'll happily eat crow, but it hasn't happened yet.

Industrially, if you want two surfaces to exchange heat rapidly, you put CO2 between them (methane works fantastically too). If you want them to exchange heat slowly, you use nitrogen or krypton. Why would that change in the atmosphere? I could go on with more examples of where CO2 is used for its properties that are exactly opposite to 'trapping heat' but I think I made the point.

I'm skeptical, to put it mildly.

But, all this said, I have yet to meet any fellow skeptic that suggests burning tires are good for you, or pumping mercury into the air is good for your skin. I have never met a skeptic that thinks burning fuels is as good for the air as taking vitamins is for your health. To the contrary, all the skeptics I meet think burning fuels is like smoking, not a healthy choice, but far from the end of the world even if almost everyone did it.

Environmentalist are shocked by hearing this, they actually believe people and businesses are actively trying to destroy the planet and their customers, intentionally. I have met environmentalists that believe forced sterilization and mandatory abortions are legitimate tools for combating climate change, one even considers genocide acceptable in the name of the climate. Every year, an environmentalist group sets fire to a SUV dealership. They do these thing and believe these things because they have lost the ability to be skeptical.

Science used to be the home of the skeptic. Being skeptical of everything used to be the scientific approach. There was a time the outcome of playing a video game wasn't considered 'proof' of anything... and computer climate models are, like it or not, just another computer game we're all supposed to take seriously.

Monday, November 14, 2016

nukes nukes nukes and other myths

I love science fiction... but unfortunately far too many scientists have based their theories on fiction instead of facts.

Since the 80s, the world has been bombarded by idiots that spout such nonsense as 'we have enough nukes to destroy the world 1,000 times over'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3917480/Could-survive-nuclear-winter-Shocking-video-reveals-black-skies-global-famine-killing-frosts-wipe-millions.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

The latest suggest that, with 'computer models' they have proven that the world would end if just 100 Hiroshima size bombs went off.

Those are around 15 kilotons. 15x100 is 1,500 kilotons. Since a megaton is 1,000 kilotons (in the metric system too) 1,500 kilo anything is 1.5 mega everything.

1.5 megatons is on the low end of a hydrogen bomb. One hydrogen bomb. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated in the air was by Russia called the 'Tsar bomb'. How big? It was roughly 30 megatons, or roughly 2,000 Hiroshima bombs, twenty times as big as what the computer model experts demands would end life as we know it.

So, a single bomb detonated over fifty years ago has already proven that their model is obviously, irrefutably wrong.

But...it...doesn't...stop...there...

Los Vegas is within sight of where they tested (by exploding them above ground) roughly 300 nukes of all kinds, all of them MUCH bigger than the two dropped on Japan. Since the 40s, well over 1,000 nukes have been detonated, most above ground, almost all of them orders of magnitude more powerful than... You get the point, right?

But the stupidity persists. The fear mongering and hysteria over nukes persists.

And, like clockwork, we get models and reports that 'prove' that the sky is falling. Well, don't fall for it.

Entirely too many scientist make models based on fiction, not well-known fact. Willful ignorance, because they had to have looked at these above ground detonations in order to develop these models.

We have, already, detonated more than enough warheads to end life everywhere... and nothing happened at all. This is not to suggest that nukes are some sort of health food, just it is not and never has been the end of the world. Hiroshima is a highly populated state, today, with a barely detectable increase in cancer.

Nukes are not bullets. They may be weapons of mass destruction, but they are really not mass produced. They're not Fords rolling off an assembly line, they're more like science projects or custom built homes. They're all a little different, a little unique. That's why approximately 5-10 percent of them were 'test fired' outside of Vegas or other places to ensure quality controls were always maintained.

We did it.
Russia did it.
China did it.

All the nuclear powers live-test their new designs, and they test lots of them. They test and detonate and adjust and test and detonate until they feel confident that they can rely on them going off and not drop a dud.

Space X had to test lots of engines, costing millions, before anyone trusted them enough to put/bet a payload on it.

Common sense has been driven out of science. Reports like that should be a SNL skit not "news".

It plays well in fiction, and yelling the sky is falling or the world is coming to an end will bring in the federal funds... but that doesn't make it science.

It makes it fiction.

It also makes me doubt climate science models too, but that's a separate issue.

Friday, November 11, 2016

My notes on the Trump victory

Love him or hate him, what Trump did on the 8th was historic. He arguably broke a bigger glass ceiling than Hillary ever could... one most of us didn't even know was there.

First, he defeated two dynasties in a single election cycle. He destroyed Jeb Bush - probably forever - on the national stage. And that ain't small potatoes, that's Huuuge. Even more impressively, he destroyed Jeb even though Jeb out spent him 100 to 1. On top of that, Jeb was the party's 'chosen one' (much as Hillary was) and Jeb was destroyed.

Destroyed.

Jeb never got over 5%.

Destroyed. As in humiliated beyond recovery.

Trump then walked through a river of fire without getting burned alive.

The DNC literally wrote questions for reporters to ask during debates. Reporters literally printed articles written by Hillary staff on command, word for word. 95% of all reporters/editors that donated money, gave it to Hillary, and not one of them revealed it to their audience. 95%, and several were moderators. ALL of the mainstream media parent companies gave to Hillary. All of them. CNN, ABC, NBC, Google, FaceBook, Twitter, GE, FOX... all of them. Hillary broke a record for receiving money from hedgefunds and banks and corporations. Her super PACs out spent Trump 10 to 1. Hillary out spent Trump 2 to 1.

Out spent, entire networks aligned against him, with absolutely NO GROUND GAME at all, he still beat the Clinton dynasty.

He beat a Bush and a Clinton in the same election cycle and they BOTH out spent him. And by "out spent," I mean by a lot. Hillary by 2 to 1 and Bush 100 to 1. This could easily be the formula that removes money from politics forever.

This simply has never happened before. Ever. That means there IS a way to get elected to the highest office in the land without 'selling out'. It has just been done.

It just happened, and half of America missed it.

Add to that, that a very significant portion of the Republican elite were actively working against Trump, all very publicly, something that has never happened before on such a huge scale. Unprecedented.

Never in the history of the party of Lincoln has this many... Two Republican presidents and two failed candidates... All four voted against their party. That has never happened, ever... Not even Nixon had to overcome such a thing. Trump was literally betrayed by his own party... And he still won.

That is a glass ceiling that has never been broken ever before. And, like him or hate him, he just showed the world how it is done. And he did it without 'big money', massive super PACs, or a sea of dark money. In fact, he ran 1/4 the TV ads Hillary did.

It was not pretty, the first one to run through a glass ceiling is going to get cut up, badly, but he proved it can be done. And how to do it.

I'm talking to you, Gary Johnson, were you taking notes?

Prior to Trump, you could be the president only if the elites of a party 'allowed' it to happen. Today, that rule no longer applies.

Are you taking notes, Rand Paul?

Two dynasties, a fraction of the money, a tiny fraction of the TV ads, a tiny super PAC, almost all the media, banks, hedgefunds, and corporations aligned against him, with the elites of BOTH parties against him, with virtually no ground game at all, zero political experience, and to win and win this big is... it's paradigm shattering.

Unprecedented.

Huuuge.


Were you taking notes Burnie Sanders? Because this is how it's done. This is what it looks like.

It ain't pretty. It's dog-fight ugly. It's like watching a honeybadger fight a pit of rattle snakes. It ain't for the faint hearted, and it was damned sure going to get real ugly real fast. But if you dropped a kitten in a pit of snakes, it would have had no chance at all. With a honeybadger... well, it can win, but it won't be pretty and you damn sure won't want to keep it inside like a pet when it's over.

But if you have a pit of rattle snakes that you need cleaned out, don't bet on a basket of kittens or another rattler, put your money on a honeybadger, it might just be able to pull it off.

I don't think there's many Trump supporters that thought they were voting to send a cute little kitten to Washington, a town infested with rattle snakes like no other. That's why all his hissing and snarling and random violent attacks didn't put them off of Trump. They saw him for the honeybadger he always was. They saw him as the honeybadger they wanted him to be.

Now, I don't know if Trump will 'drain the swamp' any, and frankly, nobody does. I don't know if Trump is a racist, a bigot, or a xenophobe, and EVERYONE that tells you that they know he is, is lying. Because without a lie detector or psychic abilities, it isn't possible to truly know what is in the heart of someone else. Everything we THINK we know is entirely speculation at best... Rumor at worst.


Let me deviate for a second:

I knew someone that told the filthiest racist jokes I've ever heard... and he was the ONLY ONE who stopped on the side of the road, in the rain, to help a black family whose car had broken down.

If you went only by what he said or what you heard him say, he was more racist than the Klan. But on that rainy day, he stood in the rain and tried to help a black family out, then gave them a ride to where they were going, about 5 miles out of his way.

He told another racist joke after he dropped them off. But does that make him a racist? I don't know his heart any better than I know Trump's, but I can tell you that the last man on earth I would have guessed would help a black family out was the man that told the most racist jokes I've ever heard. And to them, to that family, on that rainy day, that racist white man wasn't racist at all.

Should they have refused the help and refused the ride, if they had known? Would their life have been better if they had?

Do actions speak louder than words?

Assuming that Trump is as deplorable as people believe, does that mean he is irredeemably so?

I don't know for sure, I'm not psychic, but I'd be willing to bet that the same man that opened his first golf course to Jews (unspeakable at the time) is someone who is redeemable, whatever his sins.

There are entire black communities with their collective hoods up, in the rain, waiting for some good liberal to stop and give them a hand. They've been waiting for someone to stop or for the rain to let up... for decades.

They've been waiting for a very long time.

Trump is that coming car, his signal light is on, and it looks like he's slowing down.

He may even be able to help... If someone doesn't demand he show them an ACLU card first.

Trump got more of the Latino and black vote than Romney did. It sounds like he might be getting that chance to help.


####

I'm deeply bothered by the riots from the 'loveTrumpsHate' group. There has been millions of dollars in property damage already, and several fatalities. This is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable as a society and it is making Hillary supporters look... like spoiled bigots. Bigots against conservatives.

Republicans are supposed to be 'the home of racists', yet there were NO riots when Obama won. None either time.

It pains me to point this out.

It pains me, because the Democrat party IS better than this. They are not spoiled children, they know better than this.

In the movie Forest Gump, Forest is named after a founder of the KKK, a well known Democrat. 99.9% of all Klansmen ever to run or win office have run as Democrats. They didn't just call themselves democrats like David Duke does, the klansmen won in democrat primaries in landslides, often unopposed.

And the south, where I live, became much less racist as it became much less Democrat and more Republican. As republicans took over counties, fire hoses were reserved for fires, not flesh.

I like to reject that kind of insinuation, coincidences happen all the time.

The Democrats stopped running Klansmen for office within two years of the first legal abortion clinic opening in Harlem. Coincidence. Today, Half of all black babies are aborted in NY - for a profit - by one of the Democrat party's biggest donors.

Hillary's mentor was Grand cyclops Senator Byrd, the last openly Klan senator in congress. And Bill Clinton's mentor was Fulbright, another Klansman. Obama's reverend Wright was as anti-jew as they come. That makes all three as equally racist as Trump, and it makes Trump as equally redeemable as all three of them. And if it doesn't, it means you might be a bigger bigot than all of them.

I take Trump at his word that he is pro-life because 'black lives matter too'. I think this country would be better off if he gets his chance to prove it, not by his words, but through his actions.

I doubt it will be pretty, in fact, I can promise it will get messy, and you will get embarrassed at times. Trump is like a 3yr old that says whatever comes to mind. It's mostly honest, sometimes funny or embarrassing, and every now and then, it's humbling and profound.

Politicians like to be judged exclusively by their words, not their deeds. Trump is obviously not a politician, and even as president, nobody really expects him to be 'a politician'.

He's asking to be judged only by his deeds, he's asking us to... mostly... ignore his words. His voters have already agreed to that.

He is the first honeybadger to offer to go to Washington, and most of us know it promises not to be pretty to watch.

But maybe, just maybe, he can get the job done where no one else could. A $100 million contribution could make a normal politician sell their soul, the most it will get from Trump will be a thank you form letter.

Campaign contributions are the poison that turns politicians into snakes, and we're about to find out if they mean the same thing to Trump... A man that took a billion dollar loss and just 'walked it off' and made a few more.


I said it months ago, but it needs repeating.

The most qualified person running, by far, was Gary Johnson. He was easily the safest bet in the last 8 years. As a two term governor he had the same qualifications as Bill Clinton, Bush 43, and Ronald Reagan, the three strongest economies in recent time. That's about as good as it gets, if 'qualifications' are predictive of anything.

Hillary, as a reelected senator, "co-president", and secretary of state; her qualifications most closely matched Bush 41 (CIA head, VP, Senate, WWII), Ford, and Nixon, none of which make for something to brag about.

Trump was the biggest gamble.

But the electorate knew Johnson had no chance, Hillary at best would be another Nixon/Ford/WorstBush, so, they made the most rational choice on hand.

That left exactly what happened.

If you couldn't tell, I was in the Johnson camp, for the record. I also voted for Perot twice and would do so again, zero regrets.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Anthony Weiner top 10 list

Top ten reasons Anthony Weiner checked into a sex-addiction clinic:

10: He found out that's where all the nymphomaniacs are.

9: They have free wifi and unlimited porn.

8: Their message therapy comes with complimentary happy endings.

7: It's the only place where he can talk dirty to everyone without getting in trouble.

6: It's around the corner from a whore house.

5: It's where all the fashionable politicians go just before their wife's best friend's election.

4: Someone texted him a picture of Vince Foster... By mistake.

3: He was told it was clothing optional and he was free to take as many selfies as he wanted... As long as he didn't post any of them.

2: John Podesta wrote him a blank check.

1: He always wanted to spend a week with Charlie Sheen :)

Friday, October 7, 2016

What does 'more qualified' really mean anyway? #Trump #Hillary

"Nobody is more qualified" than Hillary.

Nobody.

Obama had only been a senator for a few weeks, so clearly he was unqualified.

Bush43 had never been out of his state, so clearly less qualified.

Bill Clinton was just as unqualified as Bush 43.

But Bush 41 was far MORE qualified. CIA, VP for 8yrs, tons of public service. Decades worth.

Nixon too was far more qualified than Hillary, tons more public service and government experience.

Ford was also more qualified than Hillary.

Reagan was far less qualified as a mere actor and governor. Same with Carter.

So, Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41 are more qualified than Hillary, and can anyone say they were the best presidents? Thought not.

And the least qualified were a mixed bag, having both the best and worst presidents of all time.

So, is Hillary more Qualified than Trump?

Does it prove anything? Does being 'the most qualified" mean anything?

We are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Trump was once so poor, that EVERY bum on the street was one billion dollars richer than he was... and he turned that around with a vengeance and without a bailout!

Qualified?

Which qualification means the most to you?