In 2010, researchers at the University of Buffalo, led by physicist Dean Stojkovic, came up with a crazy-sounding idea that the early universe was one-dimensional – essentially a line – and then subsequently expanded into two and then three dimensions as we know it now.
This hypothesis could be used to tie together general relativity and quantum physics which up to now have proven impossible to rationalise into a single working theory.
The idea of lower (and higher) dimensional space is also a central part of string theory, so there is a possibility that this idea supports that also. Of course the problem with these ideas is that they tend to be very difficult to prove through observation or experiment, which is why it has been impossible for a number of different arguments to be decided one way or another.
Recently though, Stojkovic and others have formulated a test that could prove or disprove their ideas. Through the use of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) it should be possible to detect whether or not gravitational waves are detected coming from the early universe. Gravitational waves could not exist in lower dimensional space and so should be absent as LISA looks back in time.
The pin to burst this bubble is that the LISA project has just been closed down after withdrawal of funding due to cuts in NASA’s budget. The project was a collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA), who hope to continue with a cut-down version.
Research from Columbia University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science shows that the hole in the ozone layer is linked to climate change all the way to the equator. The results link the hole to changes in air circulation systems and rainfall patterns.
This is a startling discovery and one entirely missing from studies of climate change modelling and investigations. If the study is backed up, it could have huge impacts on the sources of climate change and call in to question the role that greenhouse gas emissions really play.
Naturally, we can rely on the climate-change deniers to use this to attack the whole notion of anthropomorphic climate change. But whether it’s ozone depletion or carbon emissions, it’s still anthropomorphic.
It also doesn’t alter the need for us to change our habits. Environmental issues are connected with efficiency and responsible use of limited resources, not just ‘tree-hugging’ for the sake of it.
The new “Terror Alert” system for the U.S. has just two levels instead of the old system that had five colours ranging from Green to Red (Highest). The new states will be ‘Elevated’ and ‘Imminent’.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is reported as saying that the level is currently at an “elevated baseline” and went on to explain that the threat is -
at its highest since Sept. 11, 2001 because of the increasing number and types of international and homegrown threats. This does not mean there is a specific threat of an imminent attack.
How transparent can you get?
First they use highly charged words designed to communicate that a threat level is higher than ‘average’ and can’t describe any other situation. Secondly they then describe the ‘baseline’ as ‘elevated’.
Okay so a baseline by definition can’t be ‘elevated’, otherwise it’s not a ‘baseline’. But I guess that just wouldn’t scare people enough and ‘imminent’ doesn’t mean something is actually ‘imminent’, but it sure sounds scary too huh?
Homeland Security = FUD.
All of the ‘security’ organisations are playing this card. Get people scared enough and they’ll let the security forces do anything it seems. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt; the only thing we have to fear are the fear-mongers themselves.
The US government is reported to be pushing ahead with a new ‘Internet ID’ scheme. This will provide people with a unique ID that can then be used to do all kinds of useful things like access health information, check and file tax returns and err… provide linked tracking information to security forces.
That last point is being downplayed by everyone naturally. This is just a way to make it more convenient for citizens to access information – right…
Senator Barbara Mikulski was kind enough to let the cat out of the bag with her somewhat confused comments.
“Protecting civil liberties is important,” Mikulski said. “But the first civil liberty is to be able to have a job, lead a life, and be able to buy what you want in the way we now buy it, which is through credit cards.”
I hadn’t realised that buying things with credit cards was a ‘civil liberty’. I better check my copy of the U.S. constitution to find out where that is. I guess it must be lodged in the section that guarantees that obscenely rich banks must be bailed out when they destroy the economy and that obscenely rich oil companies need tax breaks…
The Senator continues though:
“We’re going to support the FBI,” said Mikulski, who heads the Senate subcommittee that oversees the FBI’s funding. “We’re going to support the growth of the FBI.”
Ah! Now we see it. Forget protecting the civil liberty to consume. What we’re really doing here is helping law enforcement agencies. Bring on that old Police State boys – we’re back in business!
Of course this doesn’t affect people outside the U.S. We’re all safe and cozy, wrapped in the warmth of our own civil liberties. Yet, when we look at some of the recent news here in Canada and elsewhere, how far down the line would it be before we followed the ‘Land of the Free’?
“A new study in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy shows that the addition of alumina nanoparticles can improve the performance and combustion of biodiesel, while producing fewer emissions.” [ScienceDaily]
This looks like good news until you realise that if this took place we would be dumping tonnes of nano-particles into the environment, something that has already proved toxic to both the environment and humans. This hardly seems like an improvement.
Indeed the article later quotes R. B. Anand, one of the report authors, as saying that nano-particles ”should be used judiciously” because they ”entrain into human bodies”.
Let’s clarify that ‘entrain’ bit. The chemistry definition of ‘entrain’ is “To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current.” [FreeDictionary.com]. In other words, these particles get inside us and essentially poison us.
This might be seen as a reasonable risk to take given that we’re helping the environment by improving bio-fuels.
Bio-fuels do nothing to improve the cleanliness of vehicles or power plants of any type. They burn the same type of fuel as petroleum-based products and while petroleum products release most of their pollution when burned, bio-fuels release large quantities during their actual production too.
The push to market bio-fuels, whether in the form of diesel or ethanol, is a smoke and mirrors act aimed at deflecting the necessity to change our way of thinking. It protects vehicle manufacturers’ interests by lifting the requirement to invest in development of truly clean vehicles and also nicely lines the pockets of that other big industrial group – the farmers.
Oil is not about to run out overnight, despite the high prices caused by the supposed current ‘shortages’. What we need is a concerted investment into research aimed at developing truly efficient and environmentally-friendly power-plants. Electric or hybrid cars don’t help either – they just displace where the emissions are generated.
Hydrogen fuel-cell technology seems to be the best answer, but there is limited investment in this because of the politicised focus on so-called ‘alternatives’ that serve only to protect the status-quo of current big money concerns.
One of the ‘hot topics’ in the current election debates going on here in Canada is which party can brainwash persuade the most aging voters that they are best party to vote for.
The ‘grey vote’ is one considered to be especially important for several reasons. Firstly, unlike younger voters, the older demographic tends to be more diligent about voting. Secondly, this section of the community is one that is growing.
Like many western countries, Canada is facing an aging population and has been for some time. Also the ‘baby boomers’ are set to retire in the next few years swelling those figures. Exacerbating this, more and more of us are being extremely stubborn in living longer than ever before.
The net result of this is twofold. An aging population means that the financial impact of pensions increases dramatically. Additionally the extended lifespan leads to increased medical expenses – a double whammy in terms of the country’s financial budget.
It doesn’t end there either. With the changes in population balance there is another factor that comes into play. Not only do we have more people ‘taking’ from the system in the form of pensions and healthcare – but we also have less people ‘putting in’.
The explanation behind this is simple. Population growth since the postwar ‘baby-boom’ has declined by almost 45% – in other words there are now approximately that many less people paying taxes and taxes pay for healthcare and pensions.
How this works is often ignored or confused (possibly deliberately) but here’s how it goes. When you pay your taxes and your statutory pension and health insurance, it doesn’t go into the equivalent of a savings account or RRSP or any of those things. What it does is pay for all the people who are currently collecting pensions, having healthcare and winter holidays in Florida etc. Then when it’s time for you to kick up your feet in X years time, the people who are then currently paying taxes pick up the tab for your pension, your winter holidays and your turbo-charged zimmer frame.
That all sounds okay, doesn’t it?
It works – but only when the population trend is either growing or at least somewhat stable. Which is exactly what we don’t have. Which is exactly why this doesn’t work.
With fewer people paying taxes and an increasingly elderly population – the only way to make this balance is for the tax payers to pay increasingly more as the ‘burden’ increases. (Remember the first rule of politics – governments have no money!).
So, what is the answer? Well, we could euthanise everyone at age 21, though I imagine that would get us talked about at the very least.
We could cut pensions and healthcare. To an extent this is already being done in many countries through backdoor means; and anyone working now should certainly not rely on there being any kind of ‘state pension’ when their retirement plans come to fruition.
We could make people more financially responsible for their retirement by requiring or ‘encouraging’ people to take out their own pensions etc. This is an option again being pursued by many countries and is a particularly pernicious solution. What’s happening here is that the current crop of taxpayers are being asked to:
- Carry the burden of the cost of existing pensioners through their taxes.
- Pay these taxes but they themselves will never benefit from these.
- Pay, in addition, extra funds into private schemes to try and ensure they can retire with some security
Talk about getting screwed!
Canada has another option that it appears to be using with gusto. I guess you could call it the ‘Pension Immigrant Support Taxation’ plan (PIST – has kind of a good ring to it!).
This plan runs along these lines:
- Recognise the aging population/falling birthrate problem and bankruptcy of current ‘pension planning’.
- Encourage lots of new immigrants to make up the shortfall (hopefully).
- Tax the new immigrants to pay for the aging, long-lived pensioners.
The problem with this scheme is that it requires enough immigrants want to come to Canada – which it has to be said appears to be an attractive destination to many so this may not be a real issue.
The second issue is more subtle. As more immigrants come in they dilute the ‘native’ population. Also very little is done to promote real integration with the existing population and, as many of the immigrants come from cultures with very different social values, this also dilutes the very society that exists within the country. Once ‘immigrants’ become the majority then their values will dominate – politicians are ruled by ‘shout loudest democracy’.
So, do we keep our pensions or our culture?
News yesterday showed that China is the leading investor in environmental technology. The US Pew Environment Group published a table showing that the Chinese invested $54.4bn (£34.1bn) in 2010, up from $39.1bn in 2009 an increase of almost 40%.
Other news discussed the UK’s Royal Society study showing that, at the current rate, China’s scientific output (measured in published scientific articles) will surpass the US within a scant two years! Previous estimates placed this milestone as possibly occurring after 2020.
At the same time as we see this news we also see western cultures increasingly cutting back on basic science research, access to higher education and in many cases completely ignoring any concept of environmental responsibility.
China seems to understand two very fundamental issues that others miss.
Firstly, that education (and especially in areas of science) is paramount in determining a culture’s future role in the world. Without investment in education, a country is destined only to slowly go backwards until it collectively devolves back into the mud and slime from whence it came. This wouldn’t happen overnight of course, and would be undoubtedly accompanied by lots of blustering about how it isn’t really so.
But it’s inevitable. A country or society that declines scientifically is destined to become increasingly dependent on others for any kind of progress. When that dependency becomes total, the end is there.
The second issue that China seems to understand is that ‘environmental issues’ are really just about efficiency. It really is that simple. All the vested interests and their collected bang-drumming buffoons trying to confuse everyone into thinking that environmental is the equivalent of poison. “We have the right to continue to waste precious limited resources in just the same irresponsible manner we have always done” is their cry.
Vested interests are always very good at spreading FUD. That’s the card they always play when threatened. “If we do that the economy will be ruined. Thousands will lose their jobs. Industry will be crippled.” etc. Completely ignoring (and deliberately hiding) the fact that, as with all changes, what really happens is simply a displacement of jobs from older technologies to newer ones.
Acting in an environmentally responsible way and researching technologies to support that position is about looking for efficiencies – being frugal with resources rather than lavishly squandering them like a drunken gambler in Las Vegas. China seems to understand that, where the likes of the US want only to maintain the precious status quo.
As for all the fear for the economy, jobs and industry? Well, take a good look around! Propping up that status quo hasn’t done us much good has it?
That isn’t to say that China is in some way flawless – they have their share of problems and issues certainly. I would like to think that our western civilisations will continue to lead us in to the future. If we collectively have the will and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary, we certainly could. If we can’t do that and cultures like China can - then they deserve to take the lead and humanity will survive.
Looking around I fear that our western cultures have become too soft, too unwilling to take risks and too greedy to take and implement the kind of hard decisions necessary to ensure our cultural survival. Apathy is a way of life heralded by cries of “it’s all good” – when it quite obviously isn’t to anyone who has the eyes to see and the independence of thought to sidestep the brainwashing.
In the last 48 hours I have had email replies to two of the protest campaigns I have signed up for over the last few months.
The first was from Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, on my participation in the campaign against ‘usage based billing’, otherwise known as the ridiculously rich and powerful telecoms companies trying to screw even more obscene profits out of us.
In part Mr. Clement says “It is essential that I hear the views of Canadians on the issues that matter”. A rather startling idea considering how he (and the entire government) completely failed to take into account the views of people on the take over of both Inco and Falconbridge by foreign companies; essentially selling Canada’s mineral wealth overseas.
The second was from Claude Gravelle, MP for Nickel Belt, or rather his secretary, who asks me to provide my telephone number so that she can get Mr. Gravelle to phone me to “discuss my concerns” on the pointless slaughter of Seals.
Gosh! I never realised just what an important person I am! I mean, I must be if all of these politicians are figuratively knocking at my door, mustn’t I?
Sadly the truth is much more simple… it’s election year and politicians are desperate to sell you any bunch of lies they think they can get away with to get you to vote for them again.
Looking at it less cynically though, it does show that if enough people stand up and make our feelings known, eventually those in power have to start taking note. The key reason why we have seen so many governments fail their people so dramatically in the last few years is because of one simple thing – indifference on the part of the people.
When the population as a whole stops standing up for what it wants, then we become prey to any voice that shouts loudly – and a lot of groups are well skilled in making a lot of noise out of proportion to the actual support they have.
I’ll pass my number on to Mr. Gravelle though! 
Plus ça change…
In Canada we’re on the verge of a Federal election and all the parties are going full steam to explain why you would be better off voting for them, while simultaneously avoiding classic foot-in-mouth syndrome by saying absolutely nothing of consequence.
I’ve experienced various elections, national/federal, local/provincial, in two different countries and been an ‘observer’ of many others in nations all around the world, so I think I can consider myself a bit of an ‘expert’ on the process. This allows me to predict the result of this current election with absolute confidence.
Nothing will change.
By that I don’t mean that the current government will necessarily stay in power. What I am predicting is that regardless of who wins, the big picture will stay pretty much the same. Here’s three reasons why – pick the explanation that you like best.
Politicians and political parties are about getting votes. To win any election you are basically chasing as many votes as possible and this means that you will say anything to achieve that end. To maximise votes it’s necessary to present yourself and party as being all things to all people. Taking a stand, courageous actions, strong leadership and dealing with real issues are all fundamentally risky activities. So each party squabbles incessantly over minor differences around the central ground and occupies the same middle-of-the-road, say-nothing, do-nothing territory. The only cure for this is for someone to actually grow a pair, and that would immediately disqualify them by upsetting someone somewhere.
When your party is in opposition, you really don’t have access to all the information and financial picture of what’s really going on within the government. You’re like a schoolkid with their ear to the door trying to understand what the parents are really talking about, but not really ever quite fully catching what’s been said. You see certain things that the general public sees, you know a few more things through internal rumours and whispers – but you really don’t know the true picture. All those ‘behind closed doors’ trade deals, the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours arrangements, that contract for jets that the current incumbents screwed up big time, it’s all outside your knowledge. As you don’t know those things and also don’t have a full set of economic information, you’re forced to make guesses about what you are going to be able to do in power. Then bing! You’re elected, few of your guesses turned out to be very good, so now you have to back-track. The only cure for this is for the current government to let all its rivals have full sight of everything that goes down. Yeah… right…
Politicians are not interested in the general public. They really only care about one thing: lining their own and their friends pockets (the two usually run side-by-side for some strange reason). The net result of this is that they only need you and I, the public, at times of great emergency, i.e. when they want to be elected/re-elected. At any other time they don’t even want to acknowledge the public exists and they sure as hell don’t want to talk to them or listen to them. So, having convinced you to vote them in (or back in) to power, they find great comfort and solace in forgetting that the ‘unwashed masses’ ever existed; and go back to work on the next trade deal that will sell off yet another national asset to foreign buyers while they enjoy the kickbacks. There is no cure for this scenario.
Any one of these scenarios ensures that my prediction is accurate. To many people change is something to fear and dread. People say “‘everything could change” in hushed tones as though this would be the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it(TM). My fear is simple; that nothing will ever change.
Now that is a really frightening thought.