Featured

THE LOGICAL WAY TO SAVE THE WORLD

This is the site where we try to discern the truth of things by the use of available information, pure logic, and absolutely nothing else. You may be surprised by some of the results.

Some weeks ago, having just watched Greta Thunberg’s appeal to the United Nations [ https://youtu.be/TMrtLsQbaok ] a friend asked me “So Mr Logic, what’s the logical way forward with all this?” Well, in the time-honoured tradition, I have risen to the task.
It has always seemed to me that logic requires a degree of clarity. To that end, I propose that we first state/accept that, as a result of human activity global temperatures continue to rise with potentially catastrophic results.
[Please note that I am starting from the premise that global warming is real and a deadly threat based on the observation that the scientific evidence is overwhelming and compelling to the extent that there is no rational/logical way to contest it!]

                                                     THE QUESTION

In line with what I was asked, I would like to propose that we define the question to be answered to be: What is the best strategy to employ in order to prevent a global warming catastrophe?

                                    UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

OK, my attempt to use logic to define the main cause of this problem is probably the first part of this blog that is likely to be controversial. You see, it is not the fact that we are increasing, year on year, our level of industrial activity that is inherently harmful. We could, in theory, double our energy usage whilst cutting CO2 emissions significantly! It would simply require the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables! Wind and solar power for example.
The same goes for the population explosion. Just like more industrialisation, having more people doesn’t help, but you could double the world population and still cut back on the emissions, that having even more people might be expected to create, if you could just modify their behaviour sufficiently.

Untitled2.pngUntitled.png

So, although there are many bad things happening that contribute to global warming, they are not the real problem. The real problem, although something that may seem obvious when revealed, remains hidden from view for most of us.
Perhaps an anecdote would help here.
When I was about five I sat in front of our black and white TV whilst a woman spoke of her devotion to Jesus. To my utter astonishment, she said something that, to my innocent mind, seemed impossibly strange. She said, ‘I choose to believe’ and throughout the conversation, she said it several times. You see, in common, with Greta Thunberg I have a type of autism that, whilst it may render us less able to do certain things than would be the case if we were ‘normal’, it does, perhaps, enable us to excel in others. We see the world through the filter of logic and we never, ever get to choose what we believe. What we believe is imposed on us by evidence and logic alone and we don’t get a choice in the matter. So, to see an adult actually indicating that what she believed was determined by how she felt about something, seemed utterly ridiculous to me then and frankly, in that respect, nothing much has changed since then.
I now believe [based on the available evidence] that the biggest single source of humanity’s problems, past and present, is this tendency for ‘normal’ people to ‘choose to believe’. To select those things they choose to believe are true or false based primarily on how those choices make them feel, leaving them wide open to all sorts of confirmation bias, conspiracy theories, propaganda and indoctrination. Open to all sorts of, what to us ‘logicals’, appear to be absolutely ludicrous mystical and irrational belief systems. At its core this explains why Germans thought they were better than Jews, Jews better than gentiles, Turks better than Armenians, Japanese better than Chinese, whites better than blacks and so on… why the majority of people walk around thinking that there is an invisible man who magicked the universe into existence and, for some reason, loves us. This, of course, being why we have suffered centuries of religious conflict, the burning of witches, self-flagellation and the enthusiastic activities of the Spanish inquisition, for example. So it’s not people that are the real enemy, it is the way they think! When I watched Greta Thunberg’s address I felt her rage and her frustration, but I saw something else. Confusion. Her mind simply could not make sense of a world where people ignore its slow, but inevitable destruction. I know all this because, unlike her, I’ve been around a long time and I have had time to work it all out. I remember that same confusion that I felt when I first realised that the USA and USSR were building enough bombs to kill us all several times over. That is probably why she said, “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency, but no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil.” She was wrong, however. President Trump, for example, is more than capable of understanding the situation, a child could and Trump is not necessarily evil. What is happening here is this. He believes his route to a successful, and possibly two-term presidency, lies through an extensive ‘rejuvenation’ of the American economy via reindustrialisation and that acting to reduce carbon emissions is incompatible with that aspiration, so what does he do? He chooses to believe the global warming doubters and he chooses to believe that there is no real danger at all. That global warming is all mostly fake; exaggerated etc!

Untitled 3.pngUntitled 4. png.png
Now I don’t propose that I know the source of this phenomenon. It may have evolved along with our increased intelligence because it helped counter the adverse effects of becoming aware of the somewhat bleak and irrelevant true nature of our existence. For example knowing that if we are lucky, we are going to grow old, no doubt suffer and then die! I suspect that it is quite possibly, partially subconscious, but the fact that people can often be heard to say, “I choose to believe” would tend to suggest that somehow, it is also often the product of some sort of conscious intent. In any event, the reason why this happens is not something I am able to discern, the fact that it does is, nonetheless, an observable fact.
So, that, believe it or not, is the real reason why we have a global warming crisis. Armed with this knowledge a number of approaches to solving this problem might be suggested and that is the subject of the next section.

                                                               THE SOLUTION

You could try, maybe through education, to change the way people think, so that they all become logical beings like me and possibly Greta, but even if that was desirable, changing a world dominated by Dr McCoys and Capt Kirks into one full of Mr Spocks is something we don’t have the time or the means to do!
You could continue to rail against the behaviour of the general public, demanding, begging and cajoling them into changing their selfish ways, but there’s a reason why that has and will continue not to work. Sure you can tell Mr Jones that from now on he should cycle to work in the rain, no longer jet off to sunnier climes for three weeks a year with his family and of course give up the burgers and the Sunday roast. The problem is that humans are basically selfish beings. They don’t want to give up their creature comforts and constantly telling them that they should tends to just make them feel guilty. At least that is the case with the ones that believe you until of course, they choose not to! Disseminating information about required/desirable lifestyle changes is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but in the long run, doing so is not going to save the world. In the end, most people will simply choose not to believe you!
What about civil unrest? Just recently, in London, we had people interfering with transport links. I saw pictures of people sitting on the tops of tube trains, for example, successfully creating a considerable amount of transport disruption. So, let’s put ourselves within the mind of one of the passengers. Maybe late for work he/she gets a dressing down from the boss. “That’s the third time you have been late this week, you know about the protesters. What, you think this is some kind of charity? Just get your arse out of bed and get here on f***ing time” Or imagine you’re trying to explain it all to your inconsolable daughter whose birthday party you just missed. It’s the sort of thing that makes people very angry. Even people that might previously have believed in the cause. This situation, within their minds, creates a kind of uncomfortable dissonance. They believe that there is a global warming problem, but at the same time hate the people that are trying to do something about it and suddenly, to the angry traveller, the protesters now seem like a bunch of extremists. So one of two things can occur within the traveller’s minds to resolve this dissonance problem:
1. Conclude that, given the importance of the global warming problem, their blind rage is unjustified.
2. Choose to believe that their rage is justified because the extremist’s concerns are not!
Want to guess which they will choose?
Well, even though I like to keep my personal feelings and opinions away from this website, I think I should say, just to be clear, that the protesters who carried out these selfless acts, knowingly put themselves in grave danger for a cause that they believed in. They knew they were unlikely to get out of the situation, unscathed. They couldn’t even have been certain that they would survive it, but they did it anyway, not for their own benefit but, rightly or wrongly, for the benefit of all. I can’t think of a better definition of courage than that.

A climate change protester being dragged off the top of a tube train before being punched, kicked and stamped on by an angry crowd.

Untitled 7

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/oct/17/protesters-dragged-off-dlr-train-as-extinction-rebellion-delay-commuters-in-london-video

So, although I’m sure you are already aware of where I’m going with this, just to be clear I would like to say that, laudable though these protesters actions may be, it is sadly the case that they may also be counter-productive. You see, they may not just be turning the public against themselves, they may also, inadvertently, be turning the public against what they believe! That there is a climate change emergency!
So what, you may ask, would work?
As you might suspect, saving the world is never going to be simple or easy, but I believe there is a path that, logic would seem to suggest, is the one most likely to be successful. Rather than dive straight in and start preaching I think, lest my proposal seem a little outlandish, I should firstly set out some of the circumstances that have led me to the above conclusion.
1. To cut a long story short, I wrote a book, got trolled by a troller on the Amazon review page, I complained to the Amazon complaints department and got nowhere. Then I wrote an email directly to Jeff Bezos, the man who owns Amazon and is possibly the richest man in the world. To my surprise, he responded and ordered the offending insults removed. The point being that I am not famous or even particularly well known, so if I can do that…
2. Based on my observation of human behaviour, I have come to the conclusion that most people are largely driven by their emotions. You can tell them, the people of the UK for instance, that among the many deaths (34,361) so far, approximately 27,000 people have drowned, many of them children, whilst trying to illegally migrate to the UK. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/the-list-europe-migrant-bodycount)

Sure, they will acknowledge it’s a bad thing and ponder it for a moment but show them this:

Untitled 10.pngThe body of just one of the many innocent children that have died this way and suddenly the ‘normal’ people are all mortified. This terrible, sad picture then appears on the front of every national newspaper and is the main subject of every news broadcast in the UK for almost a week!
3. For the reasons I have set out above, it would not be possible to basically shame enough people in to giving up the things they love. Sure some will, but nowhere near enough. You can’t expect to change human nature overnight so all you, at best, could hope to achieve would be a slight slowing of the process, but there is a group of people who could very easily stop global warming and these people are the politicians. Shouting and ranting at politicians, for the reasons set out above, will not work. They will follow to where they believe their best interests lie. But they all have an Achilles heel. Even dictators must try to remain popular if they want to stay in power and in democracies the vote is everything.
So what I propose is the following. We need to persuade people to just do the one simple, painless and yet most powerful thing they could ever do to help solve this problem. Draw an ‘x’ in the right box! How do we persuade them? Well, we know that people are generally driven by their emotions so rather than fight that tendency I would suggest it be accepted and used just as it has been by propagandists over the centuries to our and, of course, humanity’s advantage. So sure, tell people about and explain climate change:

Untitled  20.png

 

But far more effectively, show them climate change:

BLOG1.pngBLOG 2.png

An island home before being completely submerged by rising sea levels.

Show Them:

blog 5blog 4blog 6blog 8

Safe Britain where Annie Hall was recently swept away and drowned by floodwater.

blog 10.png

 

Lives destroyed:

blog 13.png

blog 12.png

blog 14 .png

Show Them:

What happens when your hunting grounds just melt away.blog31.png

blog 30.png

There are more harrowing pictures that I could have shown you, but those of you who have got this far are not the ones that need convincing and the climate change deniers? Well, they won’t be reading these words, will they!
So, you might ask; why I don’t do this myself? The answer is that to be effective this sort of stuff would need to be popping up on the computer screens of the world on a regular basis. Maybe once a week. For this to work, it would have to be carried out on a very large scale. That would take money and expertise that I just don’t have, but I have already communicated with someone who does!

And Jeff Bezos recently donated $2 billion via the Bezos Day Foundation set up to help the homeless.
Bill & Melinda Gates recently gave $35 billion to their Charitable Foundation and others.
Warren Buffett also chipped in with $37 billion.
In 2017 Mark Zuckerberg donated $1.8 billion to his foundation. Back in 2013, $1 billion.
It is believed that that Elon Musk’s Foundation secretly hands out billions on an annual basis.

These are the people who have shown, by their actions, that they are caring individuals concerned for the well-being of others. People that could provide the funds and expertise to do this:
To create a completely non-political, one issue website/blog that would be boosted/pushed to nearly every personal computer in the world.
So far we have seen some very compelling television programs outlining the nature of global warming and the need for urgent action, but what has been largely missing is clear, easy to follow instructions on precisely what the viewers should be doing about it. This blog, as well as ‘showing’ global warming should, most importantly, be identifying the politicians who are taking appropriate action and those that are not and then indicating, purely on this basis alone, who those concerned about climate change should vote for and against. Who they should support or oppose. This would give almost everyone a very easy way to do something effective about global warming.

At the time of writing we, in the UK are now, as a result of the up and coming general election, being bombarded with environment centric sound bites. ‘A greener economy’ ‘self-sustainable’ ‘tackling the climate emergency’ are phrases that British politicians are now shoehorning into their public speeches. Just one example of the misleading nature of these sound bites, as we see yet another price increase in the cost of train travel (announced today 30th Nov 2019) forcing more people out of the trains and into their cars, is the fact that the installation of solar panels in the UK has recently fallen by 94%. And the reason? A government pledged to, and repeatedly promising “a greener economy” has cut solar panel installation subsidies and feed-in tariffs. [This is a non-politically motivated, unbiased fact!]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-solar-panel-installations-fall-by-94-as-subsidies-cut
And here is another one:
A well known British politician is now promising to plant 2,000,000,000 trees by 2040. That represents the entire paraphernalia of digging a small hole and planting a tree occurring 190 times a minute for every minute of every day and every night for the entirety of every year until 2040. That’s just over 3 a second. Clearly, that is not going to happen, but even if it did and in fact even if the entire UK economy was to somehow become completely carbon neutral tomorrow, it would make almost no difference to the climate crisis at all!

The UK contributes barely 1% of worldwide CO2 emissions!

blog 32.png

So there, in a nutshell, is a perfect example of the problem that needs to be fixed. It’s a global problem and I think most people are aware that politicians can’t always be relied upon to honour their promises. However, if enough people around the world, started responding to the blog/website, then it would be a problem that would tend to fix itself. Politicians, seeing what was going on, would soon begin to realise that choosing to believe in the climate emergency, and therefore acting accordingly, would now be the politically expedient thing to do and that putting out slogans and sound bites and then doing nothing or perhaps making things even worse, would not! The world would be watching what they did and not just listening to what they said! You see that fact is, unless the ‘powers that be’ can be persuaded to stop setting carbon neutral targets off in the distance for other people to, therefore, achieve (2050 is a common one) and start taking the sorts of actions that are absolutely required to actually counter global warming, this problem is just going to get worse. Much worse!

Just some thoughts and possible objections:

I suspect that some people would say something along the lines of, “This will never work because people tend to vote on the basis of loyalty to a particular party and expecting them, en masse, to change their voting habits is fanciful and unrealistic”.

To this, I would say that this objection, in fact, highlights one of the reasons why this tactic might actually work quite well. You see, the loyal block votes often tend not to be the ones that finally determine who does and does not stay in, or get into power, and the politicians know this. In the UK we call them ‘swing voters’. Voters for whom political parties are not like football clubs to be supported come what may, but are the ones who will change their allegiance dependent upon how they feel about individuals and/or their policies. These are the people, across the world, a blog like the one I propose would need to be affecting.

Others may ask, “Who is to say what it is the politicians should actually be doing?”

What I see going on at the moment looks a lot like a sort of, ‘scattergun’ approach. Some protesters doing something here, a television programme there, speeches and a whole raft of articles on the internet and in magazines for example. My hope is that this website/blog would draw on the knowledge of the world’s leading experts in order to define exactly what it is that should be done by each and every administration to counter global warming. To develop a surgical approach precisely targeted, through voters, at those most responsible for global warming, with clear and unequivocal requirements. Some ideas might be a requirement to provide significant funding to assist in the installation of solar panels, funded perhaps by putting tariffs on products that result from unsustainable beef production, palm oil and hardwoods derived from the destruction of the Amazon rainforest for example. The imposition of a landing tax at airports to help fund the development of far less damaging aircraft that in turn would, of course, be allowed to land tariff-free, might be a good idea. With political will, a great deal is possible, for example, twenty years from now we could all be flying about in carbon-neutral electric planes. Sounds like science fiction?

 

Blog 33.pngHow about now?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48630656

Then there are wind farms. The UK is such a windy island that we could easily produce enough electricity, from wind farms dotted around our coasts and rural areas, to power the country to the end of the century. The technology already exists and the installation process, given the scale involved, is actually quite straightforward, but nobody has set about doing this or for that matter, is even promising to do so. Perhaps that needs to change, but to be honest, I’m not an expert in these matters and it would seem to me that the best people to determine what the followers of this blog should be requiring of their representatives, should be the experts in the field.

Some might ask, “What about countries like China and Russia whose governments seem largely independent of public opinion?”.

Definitely a problem, particularly since China is one of the worst carbon polluters in the world, but countries like these still rely heavily on the west for their commerce and this gives our politicians considerable power to influence them! Banning or putting heavy tariffs on ecologically immoral products might well have a considerable effect and don’t forget that even if you’re a dictator you still need to worry about your popularity.

It might be suggested that I am just asking everyone to vote for the Green party or the equivalent, but I think that to work, this site would have to be completely apolitical and focus only on what the people in power are actually doing and those likely to obtain power are promising to do. Given the obvious urgency of the situation (at least obvious to me that is!) I do not believe we have the time to waste on protest votes etc. It seems that the best way forward would be to focus on getting appropriate action as soon as possible.
So I believe this site could perform three vitally important functions. It could:

1. Provide compelling evidence of the horrific damage global warming is already doing.
2. Indicate which politicians are carrying out appropriate actions to mitigate the problem and those that are not, with the strong suggestion that those concerned about global warming should use their votes accordingly.
3. Offer suggestions, provided by experts, regarding the sorts of actions that politicians should be taking.
Just another thought. Although I might be able to do a passable job of running such a site, I am sure that there are those who could do a much better job than me. People who are already respected and listened to. People like Sir David Attenborough or maybe Greta Thunberg herself. After all, it was her speech that prompted the question I have responded to here in the first place. There is also a certain Mr Gates. When he has time away from saving millions of lives by eliminating Polio and improving sanitation for the poorest of us, I am sure he could do a passable job!
So can I now ask you for a favour:

If you have got this far and agree with what I have proposed here, please send this on to your friends etc. The more people that see this the better and the less likely it is that the rest of the Amazon rain forest will end up looking like this: 

blog 40 .pngblog 41.pngblog 44 .pngblog42 .png The Amazon Rain Forest

Did you feel my pain as you viewed these images? If you did then know that the whole world should be feeling that pain right now and that is something you can do something about. Share this with your friends because this is the logical way to save the world!

http://www.lusardibooks.com/

https://www.hayleybuchanan.com/gallery

https://www.amazon.com/ADRIANA-Mark-Angelo-Lusardi/dp/154961990X https://www.amazon.co.uk/ADRIANA-MARK-Lusardi-ebook/dp/B071P31BSH

We Are Not Alone

Featured

This is the site where we try to discern the truth of things by the use of available information, pure logic, and absolutely nothing else. You may be surprised by some of the results.

Irrational belief systems, wishful thinking and straightforward confirmation bias finds its way into many aspects of our intellectual and political lives. The world of scientific investigation, sadly, is no exception in this respect, but in this site an honest attempt is being made to show what things would look like without all that misleading baggage.

untitled

Ok, in recent years there has been a lot of stuff in the media, propounded by scientists and professors and the like, that seems to completely defy the laws of logic and is, at the very least, extremely misleading. A lot of this seems to spring from a peculiar piece of nonsense called:

 

Screen shot 2019-04-28 at 14.41.58

The Drake Equation.

In the early sixties Frank Drake and a group of scientists got together and came up with a way to calculate the number of alien civilizations that are broadcasting their existence to the rest of the universe and it took the form of the following equation:

N= R* fp ne fL fi fc L

Where:

N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life. [10]

fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems. [0.5]

ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life. [2]

fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears. [1]

fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges. [0.01]

fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space. [0.01]

L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. [10,000]

After each of the explanations of what each of the terms represent, I have placed in brackets, the number that the scientists decided would be most likely to be the correct quantity involved.

So if we input the numbers we get this:

N= R*   fp       ne ffi         fc         L

      10* 0.5* 2* 1* 0.01*0.01*10000 = 10

 

So therefore according to Drake, the other scientists and their equation, there are 9 other civilisations in our galaxy alone that are currently broadcasting their presence, with electromagnetic emissions, and are therefore detectable.

So why do I have the temerity to suggest that it is a piece of nonsense you may ask?

Well the answer to that question, I would say, is because of the facts, and with your permission I would like to set them out below.

If we go through the equation the first thing we come to is an ‘R’ representing ‘The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life’ and given the value 10. For me this figure actually appears to be on the low side and, besides that, strangely ignores the fact that many stars exist for billions of years? But this is not anything to do with the reason why I object to this equation.

Next we come to ‘fp’ representing ‘The fraction of those stars with planetary systems’ and given the value 0.5. Well, in view of subsequent astronomical investigations, it looks as though this figure may be on the low side as well, but once again it is not the subject of my objection.

Then we come to ‘ne’ representing ‘The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life’ that is given the value 2. Now I could object to this value in a number of different ways but, in the interests of brevity, I will leave this highly speculative figure uncontested.

The real problem starts here with ‘fl’ representing ‘The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears’ that is given the number 1. You see this whole equation masquerades as some sort of statistical analysis of the probability of alien life existing within our universe and broadcasting etc. But, as any statistician would tell you, when you only have one example of something, in this case only one example of a planet with any life on it at all, you are completely unable to perform any form of mathematical analysis based on this one single example of this event. So the correct number that should appear representing the value of ‘fl’ should actually be ? I.e. completely unknown. Insufficient data!

Next we have ‘fi’ ‘The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges’. But as I have explained above, we have only one example of this and therefore value for ‘fi’ should also be ?.

We have the same problem when we come to ‘fc’ ‘The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space’. With just one example of this event the correct value for ‘fc’ is therefore ?.

Finally we have ‘L’ ‘The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space’. Do I even have to explain to you why I think this makes no sense? Quite apart from the fact that we have only one example of a civilisation releasing detectable signals into space, we also have absolutely no evidence to suggest how long, in our particular instance, this process might continue or even if it might, of necessity, begin, elsewhere, at all!

So the Drake equation, in my opinion, is more the product of wishful thinking than the result of anything like rigorous scientific investigation and, in spite of how it may appear, it is not, in any way worthy of being considered the product of rigorous mathematical calculation. It only looks like maths.

So to clarify things I would like to propose the following as an axiom.

2*x= 2x but 2*? does not equal 2? . Just as anything times 0 equals 0; anything times ? = ?

As the Drake equation, expressed correctly, contains at least 3 question marks, the correct product of the calculation must therefore be ‘?’.

Now in defence of Drake and his contemporaries, I think I should say that it might be that the Drake equation was only ever really intended as a sort of stimulus. A way of getting people to think about the problem, but what I object to is the way that, on many occasions, it has been represented as a sort of mathematical proof of something. I think the only thing that this equation proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that we just don’t know.

You see, if one accepts what I’ve written above, then one must automatically also accept the rather disappointing possibility, that in spite of the vast numbers of stars and planets that exist and have existed in our vast universe, logic would dictate that it is possible that the odds against intelligent life appearing on any of them is equally vast. If this is true then the ‘Fermi paradox’ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) is no paradox at all. The answer to Fermi’s question ‘Where is everybody?’ therefore, logically, could be HERE!

So instead of looking to the skies and wondering why we can detect not the faintest shred of evidence of alien life, in spite of the fact that we know, because of ideas like those expressed in the Drake equation, that the universe is teaming with millions of civilisations, perhaps we should set aside faith like beliefs and return to what I consider should be an axiom in all scientific investigation. If there is no evidence to suggest that something is there, then logic would dictate that one must assume that that is because it is not there!

Apparently all faith has the potential to be misplaced, including faith in what scientists say!

Screen shot 2019-04-28 at 14.41.09

If you liked that please have a look at this:  https://www.amazon.co.uk/ADRIANA-MARK-Lusardi-ebook/dp/B071P31BSH

This: https://www.amazon.com/ADRIANA-Mark-Angelo-Lusardi/dp/154961990X

Or maybe this: http://www.lusardibooks.com

#Scientistsonacid #Arewealone #science #MarkAngelo #reality #alternatereality #spacetravel #timetravel #alienlife #alien #Drake #Drakeequasion #stardust #wearestardust #arewestardust #Sciencefiction #Thetruth #flatearth #fakescience

ARE WE STARDUST?

Okay I have been answering questions on ‘Quora’ a lot, but the problem I’m finding is that people are asking the wrong questions. What about the big stuff I wonder. People often try to answer the difficult ones by simply going with their ‘gut instinct’ etc, “I feel I am loved by a higher power, I know I have been given a purpose, I choose to believe….” but I would like to propose, within this site and as a sort of experiment, to try and derive the answers to all questions, be they large or small, simply by the use of pure logic. The way Sheldon Cooper might! (Please hear the rest of this blog in his voice.)

untitled

 

 

So to the first question:

  ARE WE STARDUST?

People have been asking this question because it is a subject that is broached in my brilliant novel ‘Adriana’ [ see http://www.lusardibooks.com ] It is a fictional work and therefore not everything within it should be taken too seriously, so please don’t, but more than that (no spoilers) I would prefer not to go into here!

Rather than answer the question ‘are we Stardust?’ I think it would be more instructive to ask the question in a different form. ‘Is it reasonable to state that we are; and is it reasonable to state, as often is the case in the media, that all of the matter constituting our bodies was created within a star?’

If you were to count all of the atoms that constitutes what one might call ‘conventional matter’ (Baryonic matter) in the universe (Ignoring, for the time being, strange stuff like dark matter and dark energy) then you could represent the entire distribution of the elements within the universe, in the following manner.

hydrogen

Which probably goes some way to explaining why, constituting the human body, the atomic ratio of the elements is as follows:

untitled 3Life uses what is available! We are mostly water, H2O!

So what is the point of all this?

Well it seems extremely unlikely that any of the hydrogen atoms, in your body, were originally made by a star. You see, just as kids destroy pizza, stars destroy hydrogen; it’s their primary fuel.

[ see   http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/starlife/StarpageS_26M.html ]

But there’s more. Whilst it is very easy to see how carbon could be represented as being dust, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen? None of these elements do we normally associate with dust as they spend most of their time existing, at least on earth that is, as gases. Sure you can combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water. Oxygen will combine with lots of stuff too. One could accuse me of being a bit of a nitpicker with this complaint but why dust? Is it supposed to make someone think of fairy dust perhaps? How absurd!

Finally there is the question of the origin of the subatomic particles involved in all matter that we observe. You see no sub atomic particle, no proton, no neutron, for example, was ever created by a star. For their origin you need to go back to the Big Bang. The material that makes up all of atoms that constitute us, and all the physical things that surround us, is actually very nearly as old as the universe itself and pre-dates the existence of any star!

So the next time you see a well-known professor (like the good ‘Prof Colin Dicks’ in my book) staring up at the sky with tears in his eyes, whilst pronouncing on the glorious revelation that we are all stardust, do please remember that those tears he is crying, consisting mostly of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, may be made of atoms, the majority of which have never been anywhere near a star. (Personaly I blame the song.)

A Star Is Born

untitled 4 Whithin a huge cloud of……..err Stardust?

Well that was a pretty good rant. I hope you enjoyed it. I know I did, but you may be asking yourself, was there any point to it. Well I believe there was, so here comes another one.

You see nearly everyone I know is now walking around thinking that they are star stuff. I imagine them lying in the baths looking down at their belly buttons in awe and wonder, amazed that the entirety of all of them was created within the heart of a star.

The problem is that sooner or later, perhaps due to people like me, people are going to realize that the statement ‘we are all star dust’ that is currently being broadcast, throughout the media, on a regular basis is, at the very least, a little misleading. Perhaps an attempt is being made to beguile, the assumed to be completely ignorant public, with pseudo-poetic insights, but I thought science was all about discerning the truth of things. Wouldn’t it be better if these people left poetry to the poets and concentrated on understanding and then disseminating the actual facts?

So why is that important, one might ask? Well of course the truth is always important but doubly so in our modern world. You see, serious scientists are warning us about global warming, seas polluted with plastic and toxins, the destruction of the rain forests, the possibility of a nuclear or biological holocaust or the extinction of humanity brought about by a celestial event, such as the one that took out most, but not all of the dinosaurs. The list goes on!

Just look around you. People applying scientific principals have been getting at the truth of things quite well haven’t they! Could you build the screen you’re looking at? Yet we live in a world full of people, some of them politicians, who seem to think they know better:

untitled 7untitled 6untitled5

screen shot 2019-01-09 at 14.51.36   The problem is that we need to be listening to what the real science is telling us, but when the so-called experts in the media talk, what in the fullness of time can be shown to be a load of old tosh, then they play into the hands of the conspiracy theorists and trumped up doubters like those indicated above. Everybody who has a vote, has a vote regardless of what they know or understand and every politician isn’t necessarily expert at anything other than perhaps making speeches. So it is important that when the voice of science is heard, it imparts clear and accurate information that we can all, always trust. Break that trust and you create a void that can be filled with the sort of dogma and ignorance that this world has been plagued with for far too long and at a time when we  no longer have the luxury of simply beleiving whatever suits us. A time when our collective ability to understand the true nature of our situation may prove to be a significant factor in determining whether our species (made of stardust or otherwise) actualy has any kind of long term future atall.

If you liked that please have a look at this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ADRIANA-MARK-Lusardi-ebook/dp/B071P31BSH

This:

https://www.amazon.com/ADRIANA-Mark-Angelo-Lusardi/dp/154961990X

Or maybe this:

http://www.lusardibooks.com/

 

#Science #Sci-Fi #Reality #bestseller #Adriana #MarkLusardi #Books #Storyofeverything #psychological #psychologicalsci-fi #Ender’sGame #DanielKeys #MarkAngeloLusardi #reality #quantum #doubleslit #alternateuniverse, #alternatereality #Vert #strangeSci-fi #Delany

#Science #Reality #Stardust #Sci-Fi #Truth #Brian Cox #Adriana #Mark Angelo Lusardi

 

Next blog: The Drake Equation

Apparently we are surrounded by intelligent life thriving throughout the universe. That’s good to know isn’t it!