Posts Tagged '“science”'

Jalal ibn Saeed – I like this guy

Alhamdulillah :)

Jalal ibn Saeed discusses Re: Zakir Naik Exposed: Scientific Errors in Quran, Pt.1]


Jalal ibn Saeed discusses Re: Zakir Naik Exposed: Scientific Errors in Quran, Pt.2

And this is very interesting too (requires that old skills known as thought and reflection)…

Orthodox Jew Who Didn’t Reject Islam [because…]
Will try and comment on this later.


Nature – Where lobbox flows freely and comes ever so naturally.

Got a lot of “science” to moan about today…

Take a look at this from the “periodical” called Nature (27th March)

Link on pic points to:

And what Nature definately WON’T be looking at is the political/and neoLiberal economics that is largely responsible for half the worlds population not having satisfactory water/sanitation.

 And whoever accused Nature (or the BBC) of MASSIVELY spewing out inflated and grossly proposterous speculation should be ashamed of themselves…


Well OK, maybe not then.

Hey, let’ get in on the act. Let’s point to the latest born baby and say something like “LOOK! The last human!!!”. I mean come on, for pity’s sake!

But wait… There’s more from Nature.

Title: “The appeal of sugar goes beyond taste”  Excerpt:  Researchers have found that mice prefer sugary water even if they lack a gene needed to taste it.  Although the mice could not taste sweets, reward centres in the brain reacted when the mice drank water spiked with sucrose, but not when they drank water mixed with a low-calorie artificial sweetener. The results, published this week in Neuron 1, suggest that mice can detect calories without relying on their taste buds — a finding that could change our understanding of the sugar cravings that can plague dieters and contribute to obesity. 

And of course the worthy scientists knocked out the mice’s nasal receptors so the mice couldn’t smell it. They did knock out the nasal receptors – didn’t they? OOPS! And they visually blinded the mice so there was no chance in the mice being able to detect some kind of difference in refractive index change of the sugar sulution and non-sugar solution. They did blind the mice didn’t they? Oh Dear! And they remembered to sever the remaining oral sensors in the mice to that the mice couldn’t tell from the viscoscity and texture of the solution that it was different from the viscosity/texture of the non-sugar solution. They did destroy all oral sensors didn’t they? Crumbs! And they remembered to remove the nerves from the teeth of the mice, so that the ion balance and electrical conductivity of those nerves on drinking sugar solution wouldn’t help the mice learn which was the sugar solution and which wasn’t. They did remember to destroy the mice’s teeth nerves didn’t they? Doh! And obviously they screened the rest of the mouse’s DNA (a task that took Celera  nearly a year to do) to make sure the alteration to what they thought was solely a taste related gene (becasue they know the exact funcition of every gene you see, and no gene could ever be polyfunctional*) hadn’t caused any effect anywhere else in the mouses genome. — sniff sniff, something’s hit the fan! —

Why is it that the proportion of “science” apprears to be complete junk?

But there’s even more…

 The article goes on to say… “They did not, however, favour water sweetened with sucralose, (I’ve got a feeling we’ve been here before) a low-calorie artificial sweetener. This suggests that the mouse body does not learn from the taste, but rather from the calories in sugar.

Notice the article of course does not say… “They did not, however, favour water sweetened with sucralose, an man made trichloro organic artificial sweetener. This suggests that the mouse body does not learn from the taste, but rather from the calories in sugar.”


Rodents don’t like sucralose. Food containing sucralose will not be raten by household rodents. Great for all them hungry Indians and Chinese. And sucralose is lower-calorie than sugar. Hourray!

All hail the cleverly named “sucralose” Only it will allow us to consume multiple more nutrients that some sponging Africans, and we won’t get fat.  And get this… sucralose is completely safe, afterall wikipedia says so. Wikipedia also says the case is proved after “110 studies in humans and animals.” – and that will be made up of 110 studies in animals and 0 in humans, or is that 110 studies in humans and 110 studied in animals, or some other combo? – well, it doesn’t say so obviously it’s not important is it?

Some time ago, The CIA were fingered for altering wikipedia pages in order to demonise the Iranial PM, Ahmadinejad. Of course it is unthinkable that sucralose’s (or “Splenda” as is the other name manufacures Tate & Lyle call it) wikipage has suffered a similar fate, what with a piddly sales revenue of $212 million in 2006 (Johnson,Avery, “How Sweet It Isn’t”, Wall Street Journal Marketplace Section, April 6, 2007 p.B1 )

* sarcasm.

This is what science has become? Re: teleportation.


Re: teleportation/science.

Read this New Scientist ‘showroom’ article.  Teleportation: fact or fiction?

In order to detect anything, you must interact with it. By interacting with it you alter at least one of its energy states and therefore on detection, it is no longer is a true reflection of what exactly it was previously. On the large scale of course the change in energy is effectively meaningless, but the smaller something is and/or the fewer energy states it has, e.g. a ‘typical’ photon. In detecting (and characterizing) photons, operating on the qunatum level, the error associated with such processes is no longer insignificant.

To detect if a photon has been ‘transported’ would involve even more significant errors as the photon has to be detected and then characterized, the data of which is then processed and ‘re-asssembled’ soomehow somewhere else. The alternation of its initial quantum states (and quantum theory itself is only an approximation), is going to be very significant indeed.

Then of course, you have the problems of insrumentation accuracy, and software accuracy. It is reasonable to assert, by any means of confidence, that to conclude a photon or even photons have been transported is utter lobbox and that ‘researchers’ who triumph these results are simply hiding in the very dense pea-soup of error.

But belief in (man-made) teleportation is complete madness!

According to atomic theory, the electron for example, occupies the entire volume of the universe along a density gradient. So, by virtue of the very model we have and that we believe so strongly in, it is impossible to characterise the entire parameter of the electron (its infinite density profle and interactions cannot be mapped) and of course the same applies to any other ‘particle’, such as photon. The end result is teleportation [by which I mean the TOTAL relocation of an ENTIRE ‘body’] is impossible. It is also impossible to create matter and energy at the destination point even if one was to know the profile of the ‘thing’ to be scanned. And then of course, the quantum states are not static, but dynamic due to interactions with the cosmic flux.

Whats more, is that if say a person would be teleported [which they can’t remember – it’s impossible ] then it could not be proved. If science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a soul, then how can it say it has been teleported? If a soul did exist, then does it obey (flawed) quantum ‘laws’ then then how could it ever hope be teleported by a crude machine? As such, any teleported device would be soul-less and therefore, teleportation would not have occured.

At best, teleportion would involve the plucking of the cosmic strings to shape an approximate of the initial object. The final cast of which would always be devoid of its original properties.

What my tinfoil hat says about the univsere: We are all simply semi-localized shadows of different types which vary in aspects of perceptioon such as density and colour. There is no physical substance, merely degrees of resistance to interaction and penetration. Indeed the entire universe is one big piece of fuzz and nothing ‘physical’ can be proved, merely, the degree of fuzziness reduced. 
see the “facts” section – LOL.


More on the NewScientist article…

The title itself poses a question, which has already been shown is a non-starter, involving something that is just plain impossible.

The first four paragrpahs then build up the article ‘set the mood’ (i.e. set the foundations for the con) by paying attention to a movie – a synthesis of fiction – called “Jumper”. And to cement the mood(con) the most potent tool ever to be used against the unwary – that of televisuals – is offered – the ‘trailer’.

Juices flowing, we get this:

“I was expecting the physicists to say that trying to teleport something as complex as a human being would be totally out of the question. So I was surprised when they said they wouldn’t rule it out, even if it is way beyond current technology.” writes David Shiga,’s online reporter. It kinda of depends on which Physicists you ask, now doesn’t it David? So because a select number of people ‘can’t rule it out (!)’ does that make it probable? and you dangle a fish-hook that implies it’s only a matter of technology hummm…

If one reads the linked article about Ping Koy Lam at the Australian National University in Canberra you will see there are a huge number of quuestions that can be raised about their interpretations of that data involving Quantum_entanglement itself highly open to interpretation, but which to me provides support for the ‘one particle universe’ idea (also of course, highly questionable, difference is I do not support it blindly)

“…it requires particles to be sent ahead of time to the location you want to teleport to.” – Ahead of time. Hummm that Silk Street gismo I bought the other day boasted that function! And we can all see that if you sent an object ‘ahead of time’ to its destination, then of course, teleporting it becomes rather dedundant.

Some credit to David is that he symbolizes caveats/ignorance or both by inclusion of ??? occasioanlly in his article and he does say he wasn’t impressed with the trailer (which usually allows you to ‘watch’ the entire movie in 20 seconds flat,  saving you a 1hr+ loss of life irrelevant rubbish)

I’m afraid I call for a total overhaul of Science, away from this complete druvvel and into more real world affairs such as employing it to stop and clean up pollution, to increase land-crop productivity BY NATURAL METHODS which correlate to the ways and means undertaken by natural proccessed –  physical pollination and cross breeding etc. irrigation and so forth.

Let me do a full William Waldergrave here and ask a villiage full of starving Africans not only ‘What is the Higgs Boson, and why do we want to find it?’ but ‘why should be spend money on it while you starve’. It’s someting to my shame, that I’m institutionally guilty of also!

IMO when the science has overcome the politics, either by working with it or through it, then yes, lets indulge in the Higgs Boson and teleportation for fecks sake. 


 I often slate the BBC for its utterly crap job it and its “journalsts” do.  It’s fully deserved and I plan to continue the endevour. But I still read it quite a lot doing a BBCwatch on it if you like – keeping on eye on the sewerage works for you and I. As well as its miserable political news section, its science section is just as crap. 

Reading the latest bit of unchallenging scientific moonery on the BBC, my eyes caught this headline:…

US plans permanent base on Moon    –   05 Dec 06

Wow. Abitious huh? Imagine all the hard planning and those d0ll0r$ being spent. The real thrust of this blog entry is the sequence of headlines which cummarises the pathetic speils the BBC pumps out without a moments contemplation. Still… the contents of the article are also amusing in their own right.

Here’s some extracts…

blah blah blah…The structure of the base and the exact duties of the astronauts stationed there have not been decided…. blah blah blah……Nor is it clear when the base will begin functioning.

comment:> Must be one HELL of a plan!

blah blah blah…The permanent base will be built near one of the two poles, as these are felt to have a moderate climate and more sunlight – essential if the base is to use solar energy.….then….”It’s exciting,” Shana Dale told the Reuters news agency. “We don’t know as much about the polar regions.”

comment:> Yeah. If I was going to build a base on a new ‘planet’ I’d build it in a place we know the least about too! Like I said… one H E L L of a plan.

Then we are treated to some proof by computer graphics… Aaaaa innit cute!


 But get this…. next headline showing how utterly crap the BBC were to simply act as reprinter of words without the slightest challenge to what it was being told.

Lunar dust ‘may harm astronauts’   –  18 Mar 07 |  Science/Nature


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
March 2023