Hopefully, I will be back to blogging more regularly now that my wife's health has stabilized. In the last month, she made two trips to the emergency room. Both were the results of side effects from medication that was prescribed to her by her doctors. Now that she has successfully weaned herself from those poisons, her health has markedly improved.
To the amazement of her doctors, the progression of her ALS has stopped completely. I attribute this to a home brew treatment that consists of a daily dose of sodium chlorite and oxygen therapy. In addition, she takes some B vitamins and the amino acid l-Arginine for circulation. Thanks to everyone for the words of encouragement. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year
Happy new year to everyone. May 2012 be the year of AI breakthroughs.
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
I am happy to report that the progression of my wife's motor neuron disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS) seems to have stopped and she has even regained some lost functionality. This is amazing considering that there is no FDA-approved cure. She owes her improvement to a common, highly oxidizing chemical known as Sodium Chlorite (NaClO2). NaClO2 is a bleach-like disinfectant used in the food industry and elsewhere. My wife has been taking a diluted solution of NaClO2 for the last four weeks and, aside from the side effects of fatigue, nausea and headaches, she's seeing significant improvements in muscle strength. What's amazing about this is that, a couple of months ago, her disease was progressing so fast that her neurologist pretty much told her to prepare to die.
A Hypothesis
There is a half-baked theory among the cognoscenti that the chlorine in NaClO2 combines with taurine in the body to produce TauCl, which acts to reduce inflammation. I personally don't buy this theory. I've been researching how the body's immune system handles infection and I found that, in case of attack by a pathogen, the immune system manufactures hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at the site of the infection. Now, H2O2 is a very unstable and highly oxidizing compound that is used as rocket fuel in high concentrations. H2O2 wants to get rid of its extra oxygen atom to obtain the much more stable H2O. So its fair to assume that H2O2 immediately reacts with other substances in the blood. The resultant oxidized molecules apparently serve as chemical messengers to summons white blood cells (neutrophils) to the site of infection and this is what starts the inflammation.
Apparently, in the case of ALS, a malfunctioning immune system erroneously attacks its own motor neurons in the spinal cord. Nobody knows why but, if we can somehow trick the system to stop its production of H2O2 in the spinal cord, the inflammation would subside and this would give the neurons time to regenerate. We would have a therapy that would at least slow down the progression of the disease. I am proposing that the way to do this is to increase the number of immune messenger molecules in the blood so as to fool the system into thinking that it does not need to produce any more H2O2 in the spinal cord.
I believe that NaClO2 and H2O2 are similar in that they want to get rid of their extra oxygen atom. I may be wrong but I hypothesize that the intravenous injection of a weak solution of H2O2 directly into the blood would do wonders for ALS patients. Indeed some ALS patients who have undergone H2O2 therapy have reported excellent results. The problem with either sodium chlorite and hydrogen peroxide is that they are not proprietary compounds that the pharmaceutical industry can make money with. So there is no money in it for them. So ALS patients are on their own.
It's slow going but if my wife's condition continues to improve, I should be able to get back to my research soon. I'll keep you posted.
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
I am happy to report that the progression of my wife's motor neuron disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS) seems to have stopped and she has even regained some lost functionality. This is amazing considering that there is no FDA-approved cure. She owes her improvement to a common, highly oxidizing chemical known as Sodium Chlorite (NaClO2). NaClO2 is a bleach-like disinfectant used in the food industry and elsewhere. My wife has been taking a diluted solution of NaClO2 for the last four weeks and, aside from the side effects of fatigue, nausea and headaches, she's seeing significant improvements in muscle strength. What's amazing about this is that, a couple of months ago, her disease was progressing so fast that her neurologist pretty much told her to prepare to die.
A Hypothesis
There is a half-baked theory among the cognoscenti that the chlorine in NaClO2 combines with taurine in the body to produce TauCl, which acts to reduce inflammation. I personally don't buy this theory. I've been researching how the body's immune system handles infection and I found that, in case of attack by a pathogen, the immune system manufactures hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at the site of the infection. Now, H2O2 is a very unstable and highly oxidizing compound that is used as rocket fuel in high concentrations. H2O2 wants to get rid of its extra oxygen atom to obtain the much more stable H2O. So its fair to assume that H2O2 immediately reacts with other substances in the blood. The resultant oxidized molecules apparently serve as chemical messengers to summons white blood cells (neutrophils) to the site of infection and this is what starts the inflammation.
Apparently, in the case of ALS, a malfunctioning immune system erroneously attacks its own motor neurons in the spinal cord. Nobody knows why but, if we can somehow trick the system to stop its production of H2O2 in the spinal cord, the inflammation would subside and this would give the neurons time to regenerate. We would have a therapy that would at least slow down the progression of the disease. I am proposing that the way to do this is to increase the number of immune messenger molecules in the blood so as to fool the system into thinking that it does not need to produce any more H2O2 in the spinal cord.
I believe that NaClO2 and H2O2 are similar in that they want to get rid of their extra oxygen atom. I may be wrong but I hypothesize that the intravenous injection of a weak solution of H2O2 directly into the blood would do wonders for ALS patients. Indeed some ALS patients who have undergone H2O2 therapy have reported excellent results. The problem with either sodium chlorite and hydrogen peroxide is that they are not proprietary compounds that the pharmaceutical industry can make money with. So there is no money in it for them. So ALS patients are on their own.
It's slow going but if my wife's condition continues to improve, I should be able to get back to my research soon. I'll keep you posted.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Hang in There
I'm having trouble focusing on my research. Someone very close to me is dying from ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), also known as Lou Gehrig's or motor neuron disease. There are no known cures at this time, although there has been some progress lately in identifying the physiological causes. I am very depressed and I need to take some time off. I'll be back soon when I feel better. Sorry.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Rebel Column: A New Model of Cortical Columns, Part I
Abstract
The cortical column, a vertically arranged group of interconnected neurons, is considered by many to be the fundamental functional module of the brain's neocortex. The human cortex is estimated to contain as many as two million columns each having between 50,000 and 100,000 neurons. A few months ago, while reading about the Blue Brain Project (BBP), it occurred to me that nobody has come up with a functional model of the cortical column that makes much sense. What I mean is that, sure there are a few theories and models floating around, but nobody really understands the purpose of the column. Since cortical columns are the main constituents of the brain's grey matter, a correct understanding would go a long way toward solving the intelligence puzzle. I began to think about the problem in light of what I have uncovered so far in my own AI research. In this article, I introduce rebel column, a new model of the human cortical column.
Simulating Without Understanding at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
BBP researchers claimed to have succeeded in using a super computer to simulate the cortical column of the rat. If true, it should have been heralded as the greatest advance in the history of neuroscience and artificial intelligence research. After all, to understand the cortical column is to understand a huge chunk of the brain. This clearly is not the case here. Henry Markram, the Blue Brain project director at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, would be hard pressed to describe the actual purpose or function of a column. Other than the usual "it is the functional building block of the brain's neocortex", BBP researchers have diddly squat to say about what it does and why. How does one know whether or not a simulation is working properly if one has no idea what it is supposed to do and why?
So after spending millions of dollars and six years trying to simulate the cortical column, the brightest brains in the field are none the wiser. This is not very promising, in my opinion. And for them to call the project a success is quite an exaggeration, to put it mildly. Lame.
A rebel column is several things in one. It is primarily a sensorimotor unit but it is also a sequence learner and recognizer, and an event recorder and predictor. Every column is organized around a single input event (the main event) which, depending on the column's position in the memory hierarchy, can be either a pattern or a sequence of patterns. Here, a pattern is defined as a group of concurrent signals originating from the sensory layer. While the motor function of the cortical column is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say that an event can also serve as a motor command. In a future article, I'll explain how patterns are formed and how the brain coordinates motor commands.
Columns, Minicolumns, Timing, Sequences and Memory Traces
A rebel column represents a single sequence of up to seven unique events. Why seven? Because that is the capacity of human short-term memory. Knowing this, however, does not explain the apparent neural complexity of the column. What makes a column complex is that the timing of the events in the sequence can vary greatly. Recognizing a sequence of events does not consist of merely detecting their order of arrival but also their precise relative timing. The column accomplishes this feat by using a small population of winner-take-all minicolumns. I say winner-take-all because there can only be a single active detection at any one time. This explains why minicolumns send out inhibitory connections to all their neighbors within a given column. In other words, as soon as a minicolumn recognizes a sequence, it sends a signal to all the other minicolumns to prevent them from activating. The illustration below represents a small horizontal cross section of the neocortex showing nine hypothetical columns, each consisting of 11 minicolumns (small circles). The currently active minicolumns are shown in blue.
The human cortical column contains anywhere from 50 to 100 minicolumns, each of which having a unique temporal signature. That is to say, a typical column can recognize up to 100 differently timed sequences based on the same set of seven events. In my opinion, having 100 minicolumns is probably an overkill. I suspect that, during its lifetime, a cortical column can use only a small percentage of its available minicolumns.
Why use multiple minicolumns? Why not have a single minicolumn and use multiple synaptic connections to represent the intervals between events? There are several reasons, in my opinion, having to do with recognition speed, event recording and recall, and prediction.
One of the main advantages of understanding the function of the cortical column is that it is not necessary to simulate every minicolumn in order to obtain the functionality of a column in a computer program. One can implement a cortical column by designing a single basic data structure for the entire column and include an extensible array of properties and variables to simulate the timing mechanisms of the minicolumns. A single flag can represent the currently active minicolumn or sequence. Also, it is not necessary to simulate the neurons down to the underlying biology of their axons, synapses and dendrites.
Coming Up
In Part II, I will go over the sequence learning mechanism of a rebel column, how columns fit within the memory hierarchy and the Biblical metaphors that I used in my research. Hang in there.
The cortical column, a vertically arranged group of interconnected neurons, is considered by many to be the fundamental functional module of the brain's neocortex. The human cortex is estimated to contain as many as two million columns each having between 50,000 and 100,000 neurons. A few months ago, while reading about the Blue Brain Project (BBP), it occurred to me that nobody has come up with a functional model of the cortical column that makes much sense. What I mean is that, sure there are a few theories and models floating around, but nobody really understands the purpose of the column. Since cortical columns are the main constituents of the brain's grey matter, a correct understanding would go a long way toward solving the intelligence puzzle. I began to think about the problem in light of what I have uncovered so far in my own AI research. In this article, I introduce rebel column, a new model of the human cortical column.
Simulating Without Understanding at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
BBP researchers claimed to have succeeded in using a super computer to simulate the cortical column of the rat. If true, it should have been heralded as the greatest advance in the history of neuroscience and artificial intelligence research. After all, to understand the cortical column is to understand a huge chunk of the brain. This clearly is not the case here. Henry Markram, the Blue Brain project director at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, would be hard pressed to describe the actual purpose or function of a column. Other than the usual "it is the functional building block of the brain's neocortex", BBP researchers have diddly squat to say about what it does and why. How does one know whether or not a simulation is working properly if one has no idea what it is supposed to do and why?
So after spending millions of dollars and six years trying to simulate the cortical column, the brightest brains in the field are none the wiser. This is not very promising, in my opinion. And for them to call the project a success is quite an exaggeration, to put it mildly. Lame.
Note: I am not a neuroscientist. I am a Christian researcher and I get my understanding of the brain by decoding certain ancient Biblical metaphorical texts. If this bothers you, please ignore my blog as it is not meant for you. I only write for kindred spirits, sorry. The Rebel Column hypothesis described in this article came from my own research which is not based on existing neuroscience literature. This is my way of establishing prior art (you read it here first). Please make copies. The Rebel Cortex document (pdf) has not yet been updated with this information.Definitions
A rebel column is several things in one. It is primarily a sensorimotor unit but it is also a sequence learner and recognizer, and an event recorder and predictor. Every column is organized around a single input event (the main event) which, depending on the column's position in the memory hierarchy, can be either a pattern or a sequence of patterns. Here, a pattern is defined as a group of concurrent signals originating from the sensory layer. While the motor function of the cortical column is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say that an event can also serve as a motor command. In a future article, I'll explain how patterns are formed and how the brain coordinates motor commands.
Columns, Minicolumns, Timing, Sequences and Memory Traces
A rebel column represents a single sequence of up to seven unique events. Why seven? Because that is the capacity of human short-term memory. Knowing this, however, does not explain the apparent neural complexity of the column. What makes a column complex is that the timing of the events in the sequence can vary greatly. Recognizing a sequence of events does not consist of merely detecting their order of arrival but also their precise relative timing. The column accomplishes this feat by using a small population of winner-take-all minicolumns. I say winner-take-all because there can only be a single active detection at any one time. This explains why minicolumns send out inhibitory connections to all their neighbors within a given column. In other words, as soon as a minicolumn recognizes a sequence, it sends a signal to all the other minicolumns to prevent them from activating. The illustration below represents a small horizontal cross section of the neocortex showing nine hypothetical columns, each consisting of 11 minicolumns (small circles). The currently active minicolumns are shown in blue.
Why use multiple minicolumns? Why not have a single minicolumn and use multiple synaptic connections to represent the intervals between events? There are several reasons, in my opinion, having to do with recognition speed, event recording and recall, and prediction.
- A minicolumn can very quickly recognize a particular sequence if the events arrive at their precise expected times.
- If a given sequence is recognized by a minicolumn, the latter can serve as the memory trace for that sequence. If necessary, the column can be checked later to determine which minicolumn fired last.
- The timing of a sequence is represented by a single minicolumn. This way, the brain can quickly judge or predict the timing of following sequences (other columns) based on which minicolumn fired last.
Coming Up
In Part II, I will go over the sequence learning mechanism of a rebel column, how columns fit within the memory hierarchy and the Biblical metaphors that I used in my research. Hang in there.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Vicarious Systems' Disappointing Singularity Summit Talk
The Wright Brothers of AI
I just watched Scott Brown's and Dileep George's Singularity Summit talk on YouTube. Brown and George are the founders of Vicarious Systems Inc., the Redwood City, CA startup that got funded by a couple of big names in Silicon Valley to develop the next big thing in computing, a machine that mimicks the functions of the human brain. That was back in February. I was expecting a major announcement. I was disappointed. The talk was just hype: "we got something big but our IP lawyer told us not to say anything" kind of thing. Lame.
The main point of their presentation was that, just as the Wright brothers studied nature (the flight of birds) to arrive at the design for their first motorized airplane, they too, are studying nature (the brain) to design the first brain-like artificial intelligence. The suggestion seems to be that Vicarious is conducting pioneering research in AI that nobody else is doing, which is not true, of course. There are many other researchers and organizations in the field, including George's previous company, Numenta, who are using the exact same approach. The main difference is that, unlike the Wright brothers who conducted their research in plain view, Brown and George are conducting theirs in secret.
Vicarious' Chances
So what do I think of Vicarious' chances of solving the AI problem? I'll be blunt. I think they have no chance whatsoever. Zilch. Here's why. Dileep George, the brain of the company, is a PhD electrical engineer and mathematician who believes that math is essential to solving the AI puzzle. This alone tells me that he has no real understanding of the problem. Furthermore, although I think that a study of the brain can eventually lead to a major breakthrough, it is highly unlikely that this approach will lead to a breakthrough in the foreseeable future. The brain has a bad habit of hiding its secrets in a forest of apparent complexity. The Wright brothers never had to deal with hidden knowledge. They, like everyone else, could easily observe the gliding flight of birds and derive useful principles.
As an example, let's take George's adoption of Bayesian inference for sequence prediction in hierarchical memory. Bayesian statistics is the sort of thing that a mathematician like George would find attractive just because it's math. But is it based on the known biology of the brain? Not at all. Can George search the neuroscience and biology literature to find out what method the brain uses for prediction? The answer is no because biologists have not yet discovered how the brain does it. They just know from psychology that the brain is very good at judging probabilities based on experience. That is the extent of their knowledge.
The reality is that brain theorists are using the Bayesian brain hypothesis only as a possible avenue of research. They hope and pray that the brain is using Bayesian statistics but it's just speculation. There is no biological evidence for it. In my opinion, looking into a maze of dendritic wiring to get a glimpse of how the brain handles prediction is an exercise in futility, unless one has a thousand years to work on the problem. Does Vicarious have a thousand years to do research? I don't think so.
Rebel Speech Update
As usually happens when I am trying to implement a major paradigm shift in my work, I am swamped with personal and legal problems that are taking most of my time and have nothing to do with my research. Still, I am making excellent progress with my Rebel Speech experiments and I hope to have an uploadable demo program that anybody can play with before the end of November.
And, by the way, I have changed my mind about turning Rebel Speech and Rebel Vision into a business. I have decided to reveal all when the demo is ready for public consumption.
I just watched Scott Brown's and Dileep George's Singularity Summit talk on YouTube. Brown and George are the founders of Vicarious Systems Inc., the Redwood City, CA startup that got funded by a couple of big names in Silicon Valley to develop the next big thing in computing, a machine that mimicks the functions of the human brain. That was back in February. I was expecting a major announcement. I was disappointed. The talk was just hype: "we got something big but our IP lawyer told us not to say anything" kind of thing. Lame.
The main point of their presentation was that, just as the Wright brothers studied nature (the flight of birds) to arrive at the design for their first motorized airplane, they too, are studying nature (the brain) to design the first brain-like artificial intelligence. The suggestion seems to be that Vicarious is conducting pioneering research in AI that nobody else is doing, which is not true, of course. There are many other researchers and organizations in the field, including George's previous company, Numenta, who are using the exact same approach. The main difference is that, unlike the Wright brothers who conducted their research in plain view, Brown and George are conducting theirs in secret.
Vicarious' Chances
So what do I think of Vicarious' chances of solving the AI problem? I'll be blunt. I think they have no chance whatsoever. Zilch. Here's why. Dileep George, the brain of the company, is a PhD electrical engineer and mathematician who believes that math is essential to solving the AI puzzle. This alone tells me that he has no real understanding of the problem. Furthermore, although I think that a study of the brain can eventually lead to a major breakthrough, it is highly unlikely that this approach will lead to a breakthrough in the foreseeable future. The brain has a bad habit of hiding its secrets in a forest of apparent complexity. The Wright brothers never had to deal with hidden knowledge. They, like everyone else, could easily observe the gliding flight of birds and derive useful principles.
As an example, let's take George's adoption of Bayesian inference for sequence prediction in hierarchical memory. Bayesian statistics is the sort of thing that a mathematician like George would find attractive just because it's math. But is it based on the known biology of the brain? Not at all. Can George search the neuroscience and biology literature to find out what method the brain uses for prediction? The answer is no because biologists have not yet discovered how the brain does it. They just know from psychology that the brain is very good at judging probabilities based on experience. That is the extent of their knowledge.
The reality is that brain theorists are using the Bayesian brain hypothesis only as a possible avenue of research. They hope and pray that the brain is using Bayesian statistics but it's just speculation. There is no biological evidence for it. In my opinion, looking into a maze of dendritic wiring to get a glimpse of how the brain handles prediction is an exercise in futility, unless one has a thousand years to work on the problem. Does Vicarious have a thousand years to do research? I don't think so.
Rebel Speech Update
As usually happens when I am trying to implement a major paradigm shift in my work, I am swamped with personal and legal problems that are taking most of my time and have nothing to do with my research. Still, I am making excellent progress with my Rebel Speech experiments and I hope to have an uploadable demo program that anybody can play with before the end of November.
And, by the way, I have changed my mind about turning Rebel Speech and Rebel Vision into a business. I have decided to reveal all when the demo is ready for public consumption.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Physicists Don't Know Shit
Was it Just a Guess?
The story about the faster-than-light neutrino experiment conducted by CERN physicists is starting to really get under my skin. What this fiasco really shows is that physicists do not really know what they're talking about. They need to answer the following questions:
- Is there a speed limit, yes or no?
- If yes, why?
- If no, why not?
- If yes, why is c the limit?
Obviously, physicists are either not sure or they don't really understand why there is a speed limit in Einstein's relativity. Or maybe Einstein did not provide a good enough explanation to convince them one way or another. Was it just a guess all along with no actual understanding as to why? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Otherwise, this neutrino experiment would never have made the news. Physicists would know that it was either a mistake or it wasn't. Why all the fuss?
Deep Ignorance
From my vantage point, there is no question that physicists don't really understand motion. If you ask any physicist to explain why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, you'll come face to face with abject ignorance if not outright superstition. Is this what we pay our physicists for? Ignorance? Aren't they supposed to understand these things? Their ignorance is deep and in your face and yet, they feel free to conjure up all sorts of Star Trek voodoo physics whenever they feel like it; what with time travel, parallel universes, wormholes, cats that are both dead and alive and all that other nonsense?
The Truth about Motion
Now, if the CERN neutrino physicists really understood motion, they would know that, not only is c the fastest possible speed in the universe, it is also the slowest possible speed. Nothing can move faster or slower than c. It is the only possible speed. Why? Because the universe is discrete. Read Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested in having a real understanding of motion. You don't understand motion even if you think you do.
See Also:
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Sitting on Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time
The story about the faster-than-light neutrino experiment conducted by CERN physicists is starting to really get under my skin. What this fiasco really shows is that physicists do not really know what they're talking about. They need to answer the following questions:
- Is there a speed limit, yes or no?
- If yes, why?
- If no, why not?
- If yes, why is c the limit?
Obviously, physicists are either not sure or they don't really understand why there is a speed limit in Einstein's relativity. Or maybe Einstein did not provide a good enough explanation to convince them one way or another. Was it just a guess all along with no actual understanding as to why? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Otherwise, this neutrino experiment would never have made the news. Physicists would know that it was either a mistake or it wasn't. Why all the fuss?
Deep Ignorance
From my vantage point, there is no question that physicists don't really understand motion. If you ask any physicist to explain why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, you'll come face to face with abject ignorance if not outright superstition. Is this what we pay our physicists for? Ignorance? Aren't they supposed to understand these things? Their ignorance is deep and in your face and yet, they feel free to conjure up all sorts of Star Trek voodoo physics whenever they feel like it; what with time travel, parallel universes, wormholes, cats that are both dead and alive and all that other nonsense?
The Truth about Motion
Now, if the CERN neutrino physicists really understood motion, they would know that, not only is c the fastest possible speed in the universe, it is also the slowest possible speed. Nothing can move faster or slower than c. It is the only possible speed. Why? Because the universe is discrete. Read Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested in having a real understanding of motion. You don't understand motion even if you think you do.
See Also:
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Sitting on Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time
Saturday, September 24, 2011
CERN Shenanigans
The Con Artists Are at it Again
Unless you've been living under a rock the last few days, you probably already heard the news that faster than light neutrinos are threatening to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. I have a very cynical view of this crap. I say crap because that's precisely what it is. I could be wrong but my view is that the crackpots and con artists at CERN and elsewhere are facing the real prospect of seeing their multi-billion dollar budgets slashed due to the current worldwide financial meltdown. This is their way of saying, "look folks, we're doing really exciting physics right now. So keep the money flowing in." Later, they'll have some press conference in which they'll announce that it was all a false alarm and that Einstein's physics is still the best thing that ever happened to humanity. Yeah, right. There is plenty wrong with Einstein's physics but not being able to go faster than the speed of light is not it. You can bet the farm on this one.
No field of science gets away with more in-your-face crackpottery and outright deception than the physics community. Those jackasses are making more money selling crap to an unsuspecting public than any other group in the history of science. If those clowns really understood what they were talking about, they would know that, not only is it impossible to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, it is also impossible to move slower. That's right, there is only one speed in the universe and that speed is c. I just wanted to chime in and let you know what I think.
See Also:
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Sitting on Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time
Unless you've been living under a rock the last few days, you probably already heard the news that faster than light neutrinos are threatening to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. I have a very cynical view of this crap. I say crap because that's precisely what it is. I could be wrong but my view is that the crackpots and con artists at CERN and elsewhere are facing the real prospect of seeing their multi-billion dollar budgets slashed due to the current worldwide financial meltdown. This is their way of saying, "look folks, we're doing really exciting physics right now. So keep the money flowing in." Later, they'll have some press conference in which they'll announce that it was all a false alarm and that Einstein's physics is still the best thing that ever happened to humanity. Yeah, right. There is plenty wrong with Einstein's physics but not being able to go faster than the speed of light is not it. You can bet the farm on this one.
No field of science gets away with more in-your-face crackpottery and outright deception than the physics community. Those jackasses are making more money selling crap to an unsuspecting public than any other group in the history of science. If those clowns really understood what they were talking about, they would know that, not only is it impossible to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, it is also impossible to move slower. That's right, there is only one speed in the universe and that speed is c. I just wanted to chime in and let you know what I think.
See Also:
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Sitting on Mountain of Crap, Wasting Time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
