The Frankfurter

I’ve decided on a lexical innovation describing the political left – ‘Frankfurters’. No more marxists, etc – just label them Frankfurters. It identifies them genetically as coming from the ‘Frankfurt School’, and at the same time is a mocking way of naming them.

Update: Western education systems – sausage factories producing “frankfurters”, or “frankifurters’ in kindergarten. Graduates? Frankigrads!

Posted in Philosophy | 1 Comment

The Frankfurter Fabrication of History – Climate History, That Is

One of the baleful effects the Frankfurt School exerted on the western scientific institutions can be seen in the adjustment of temperature data by the Australian BOM, as reported by Jennifer Marohasy, and others (see Watts Up With That).

The real tragedy is that these bureaucratic functionaries, the result of a concerted educational process driven by the Frankfurt School, actually believe what they are doing is moral and correct. They actually believe the Earth is warming up from human burning of hydrocarbons and coal, and cannot understand why Mother Earth is not performing as expected; so they assume that the actual measurements have to be wrong and need homogenisation. This is the predictable result when objective facts are denied and denigrated.

Never having been taught how to think, only what to think, our government scientists and climate alarmists in the political and educational classes are reaching an existential crisis or tipping point – the destruction of their belief system by Mother Nature. They seem not to realise that Mother Nature is callous and amoral, and hence they are unable to adapt to changing circumstances. They are truly living fossils, incapable of adaptation.

Posted in Climate, Science | Tagged | Leave a comment

Sharks and Tree Rings

(H/T Friends of Science)

“I accept that changes in climate are causing ocean updrafts that draw killer sharks into the atmosphere and then drop them on populated areas, but I don’t believe human activity is the cause.”

“Out here in Oklahoma, we have the same problems that the rest of the country is experiencing, with wind-borne sharks crashing through billboards and attacking folks on their way to work and so on. We have yet to see a single study, however, that connects any of these shark conditions specifically to our local fossil-fuel industries.”

“Tree-ring studies done on petrified wood from Utah reveal six-inch-long fossilized teeth of the Megalodon, the largest shark in the history of the earth, embedded in the trunks of ponderosa-pine trees more than three hundred thousand years old—trees that lived a thousand miles from the nearest ocean! So tell me: did my S.U.V. cause that?”

More here at The New Yorker

Posted in Climate, Science | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Baleful Influence Of The Frankfurt School

Gilad Atzmon posted an important talk presented at the Alterity Conference, Genoa, Italy in July 2014 by Michael McAnear, PhD, here.

If you are wondering what has happened to science and the subjugation of empiricism by scientific political correctness, then read the transcript of the talk and follow it up by becoming familiar with the goals of the “Frankfurt School”. Remember, it sprung up during the time of the Weimar Republic. The mind set isn’t a recent phenomenon either but goes back to the days of Plato.


In The Culture of Critique, the third book in the trilogy, MacDonald addresses the Frankfurt School. Relying mostly on primary sources from its leaders and on secondary sources usually from Jewish scholars, MacDonald marshals a wealth of evidence to conclude that its methodology and approach was purposefully unscientific and driven by morals. Its vaunted “Critical Theory” aimed at transforming society according to moral principles. “From the beginning there was a rejection of value-free social science research ([dismissively termed] ‘the fetishism of facts’) in favor of the fundamental priority of a moral perspective in which present societies, including capitalist, fascist, and eventually Stalinist societies, were to be transformed into utopias of cultural pluralism (157).” (My emphasis LH)

Moral behaviour is the religious mind at work – where preconceptions determine outcomes, where authority trumps empiricism.

Posted in Philosophy, Science, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Fallacy of Radiometric Dating

A wide spread belief that radiometric decay is time invariant has led to the general acceptance of absolute dating, yet some laboratories report significant variations in the decay rate, some due to the sun’s rotation, or solar flares , and Forbes Magazine reports “Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All”.

Solar affects are basically plasma effects and hence we are dealing with additions of transient electric fields into the earth-system. Electrical engineer Ralph Juergen’s identified a possible explanation for the Polonium halo issue researched by Robert V. Gentry in which Gentry shows that radio halos didn’t support the idea of constant decay rates. Juergens suggested in a paper published in Kronos Vol.III No 1(Fall 1977)

According to experiments best explained by Gamow’s wave mechanics, an alpha particle escaping from an unstable (radioactive) nucleus does not actually climb all the way over the potential barrier rising above the datum line. Instead, it tunnels through at some level below the top. For example, though the barrier at the boundary of the U-238 nucleus rises past 9 million electron-volts (mev) above datum, alpha particles emerge from this nucleus with energies of only about 4 mev. And since their final (observable) energies are due entirely to electrostatic repulsion in the region outside the barrier, they evidently make their way through the barrier at a level corresponding to 4 mev.

But what is the significance of the datum — the “zero” of electric potential — from which these energies are measured? Clearly, since the data dealt with are derived from terrestrial experiments, this “zero” can be nothing other than an arbitrary value assigned to the electric potential of the surface of our planet — Earth potential.

What, then, if this datum should be shifted – raised or lowered with respect to the nuclear potential well, whose dimensions are apparently unrelated to electric forces – by a sudden change in Earth potential?

The Earth appears to be strongly charged with negative electricity, so that its surface electric potential is low, which is to say, highly negative. Suppose, then, that Earth potential is suddenly lowered by just 1 million volts – this, in all likelihood, an almost negligibly small fraction of the planet’s “normal” negative electric potential. The potential (energy) curve outside our radioactive nucleus presumably must now change and take the form of the dashed curve in the figure. Staying with our example of an atom of U-238, we find that an escaping alpha particle (following the same tunnel as before) emerges to be accelerated through a voltage drop and to a final energy half again as great as before – to about 6 mev. Reference to Figure 1 (main text) suggests that we should suddenly find that the half-life of every atom of U-238 at the surface of the Earth has been reduced from 4.5 billion years to something like 1 second! On this basis, any abrupt lowering of Earth potential by a mere million volts could be expected to produce rampant radioactivity, with consequent lethal or at least strongly mutational effects on all forms of life.

But of course we are probably unjustified in assuming that Figure 1 is applicable to the postulated conditions; it may well be that changing Earth potentials also shift the curve of Figure 1 up or down, right or left, so that changes in half-lives are much less drastic than that just described. And it may be, too, that nuclear binding forces are not entirely insensitive to environmental electric potentials, and that the levels of escape tunnels also vary as datum levels change.

Nevertheless, it would seem that Earth potentials must be taken into account in theories of radioactive decay. And we may be forgiven for suggesting here that parentless polonium, sometime in the past when the Earth’s electric potential was higher than it is today, could well have been a radioactive element with a reasonably long half-life, such that it could survive periods of cooling and crystallization in once-molten rocks.

In 1989 Russian scientists N V Udaltsova, V A Kolombet and S E Shnol published a paper “The possible Gravitational Nature Of Factors Influencing Discrete Macroscopic Fluctuations, in Geo-Cosmic Relations: The Earth and Its Macro Environment. Proc. First. In. Cong. Ed. Tomassen et al, Pudoc, Wagenigen, Holland.

These authors show that alpha particle emission from 239Pu, measured continuously for several months with 1min intervals, varied systematically with the position of the moon, wrt horizon, and considered the effect as gravitational. In the light of plasma physics, it is more plausible the effect is due to changes in the Earth’s electric potential or electric field, as suggested by Juergens, with the moon moving in and out of the earth’s magnetosphere and thus affecting the decay rate. Fluctuations in the E field have effects some 10^39 greater than gravitational ones. They conducted another experiment comparing 239Pu histograms with seismic activity and again noted a correlation, causing them to conclude the effect was gravitational, but as we are now realising seismicity has electrical origins, it is equally likely that the correlation is also electrical.

So if the radiometric half-life is no longer a constant, but depends on the E field magnitude, then radiometric dating is fallacious. Whether it’s carbon 14 or 239U, 235U or whatever, these isotopes can’t measure the passage of time, and means that radiometric chronologies are basically worthless, since the primary assumption of constancy of decay rates is not met

So how do we date archaeological strata or sedimentary strata? I don’t think we can. And does it matter? No, not really since we can still use the principle of superposition, albeit cautiously, to rank strata in sequence. But arguments relying on carbon dating etc should be dismissed since it is more likely such dates reflect, as Richard Milton impertinently pointed out decades ago, chronological presumptions; dates that support our theory are in the main body of the text, dates that are slightly out, footnoted, and dates seriously in contradiction, ignored – which really sums up the religious or dogmatic mind to a fine degree.

So how can we date things? As it stands today, we can limit retrocalculate using the Gregorian system to 1582 when it was adopted. Before that time things changed, most likely due to the 930 AD event identified by Heinsohn, where I suspect the orbital position, the orbital velocity and the daily rotation might have changed slightly, as well as the earth careening to a new axis of figure to the ecliptic. Which factors were important? I don’t think we can ever know that, though I suspect from vector analysis of the depositional dynamics of Quaternary sediments we should be able to come up with some guesses. For example Greenland is a weird name to give to a white ice bound landmass, so I wonder if prior to 930AD the earth’s orientation was such that instead of being inclined 23.5 degrees to ecliptic as it is now, it might have been zero degrees so that the axis of rotation was vertical? That configuration might put Greenland into a more temperate or tropical location and hence allow it to be green. And if the Piris Reis map showing an ice free antarctic is accurate, then that continent may also have been in warmer latitudes, not from plate tectonics or continental drift, but from a changed axis of spin. One might wonder then if the Romans recognised the seasons? Judging by their attire, one wonders, since we never see paintings or carvings of Etruscans or Romans in winter attire – only in their loose fitting togas, as far as I have experienced.

These conjectures will no doubt cause apoplexy among the usual suspects though if some bellicose religious fundamentalist holding his/her holy book insists I accept their holy dates on pain of death, I suspect I would show extreme cowardice to avoid being burned on the stake or from decapitation as presently practiced by some.

Posted in Geology, Philosophy, Plasma Universe, Science | 1 Comment

Fabrication of Geological Time

Bremen University’s Prof. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn has proposed a global catastrophe that terminated the Roman civilisation ~930 CE from archaeological stratigraphical analysis. He notes the lack of strata containing artefacts from the 4th to 10th c CE, some 700 years of missing data. Evidence for this catastrophe includes the accidental discovery of small Roman aqueducts under 7 metres of quaternary sands and gravels in one of the open-cut lignite mining operations west of Cologne.

Heinsohn also points to at least 4 published catastrophes for the period, 230 in Rome, 530 in Constantinople, 930 in northern and central Europe, and a further 1014 event recorded in Great Britain and also identified by US researchers. However like Heinsohn, I too would regard these separate events as actually being a single event of ~ 930 CE. The reason why is not too difficult to work out and involves understanding how people think, and how, often, belief trumps physical evidence.

The principal reason it is so difficult to find geological evidence, (and I include archaeological strata), for this apparent global catastrophe is the stretching of geological time by Charles Lyell in his seminal text “Principles of Geology”. By rejecting catastrophes totally, and dismissing biblical stories as “literature”, and then assuming that present day sedimentation rates always operated over time, Lyell fabricated a very long geological history which Charles Darwin used to create his subsequent theory of biological evolution. It is important to understand that Lyell was also a devout Christian Methodist, and hence could not conceive of a world view that contradicted his core beliefs. Hence belief trumped empirical evidence. This is not to argue that the Old Testament is the literal truth either, just that it should be accepted for what it is, Jewish history.

The stretching of geological time by Lyell’s methodology has thus led to many chronological conundrums, such as the one highlighted by Heinsohn, and an earlier one I identified decades ago when I noticed that the K-T extinction event also coincided with a large eruption of kimberlites but due to the Lyell factor of time expansion, all those isolated but real geological events made no sense in a causal sense.

The event of 1014 CE was identified as a large tsunami that originated in the Atlantic ocean, but so far no one has been able to pin down the precise location of the impactor.

My guess is that the impact craters are actually the Carolina Bays in the US but which leaves a “chronological’ conundrum. I regard the Carolina Bays as true meteorite impact structures, and all the other circular ones as electric discharge craters of varying age. It is important to note that no one has ever seen a meteorite hit the earth at 90 degree vertical angle. All observed meteorites have collided with the earth at a shallow, glancing angle, just as Comet Shoemaker-Levy did when it collided with Jupiter. It’s observations that are primary, not our beliefs of what we think happened in the past.

The real task is to free geology from its Lyellian straight jacket and hence arrive at a more plausible explanation of history rather than the present one which seems to be more directed to political correctness than historical accuracy. Not to be neglected is the effect religious or dogmatic thinking has on our understanding of history, where the dogmatists trump the physical evidence with preconceived belief.

So I suspect Heinsohn is correct in identifying a single global catastrophe during the 1st millennia CE, and my guess is that it also coincides with the termination of the circum-pacific civilisations, the cause of the Australian aboriginal dreatime, and the collision of a meteorite swarm producing the Carolina Bays. Given the Aztec obsession with the morning star, I would also not be surprised if either Mars or Venus played a role in that event.

And science is settled? It is if you are devout.

Posted in Climate, Geology, Plasma Universe, Science | Tagged | 5 Comments

Lightning Energy Sources

The current (pun intended) theory of lightning formation is described by NASA as:

As the ice particles within a cloud (called hydrometeors) grow and interact, they collide, fracture and break apart. It is thought that the smaller particles tend to acquire positive charge, while the larger particles acquire more negative charge. These particles tend to separate under the influences of updrafts and gravity until the upper portion of the cloud acquires a net positive charge and the lower portion of the cloud becomes negatively charged. This separation of charge produces enormous electrical potential both within the cloud and between the cloud and ground. This can amount to millions of volts, and eventually the electrical resistance in the air breaks down and a flash begins. Lightning, then, is an electrical discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm.

A lightning flash is composed of a series of strokes with an average of about four. The length and duration of each lightning stroke vary, but typically average about 30 microseconds. (The average peak power per stroke is about 1012 watts.)

But research at the International Center for Lightning Testing and Research has discovered that storm clouds don’t produce the energy levels needed to generate a bolt of lightning, according to Dr. Martin Uman interviewed in a NOVA Science Now on the US PBS. Martin pointed out that thunderstorms have the energies of an atomic bomb and according to Dr. Joseph Dwyer, a professor of physics and space sciences at the Florida Institute of Technology,

“The problem is, after decades and decades of measurements up in thunderstorms, nobody has ever managed to find an electric field anywhere that big”

Dwyer’s explanation is that the energy comes not from the atmosphere but from cosmic rays arriving from the depths of space. Well almost. The energy comes from outer space alright but from the sun itself via the solar Birkeland currents that enter both polar regions of the earth-system. The energy source is easily explained using plasma universe theory and known as the “electric-sun” model.

Terrestrial lightning surely does not arise from colliding ice crystals in clouds since if that were possible, then snow avalanches would generate electrical effects and the simple act of taking a bath shower would be electrically adventurous. The charge separation observed in clouds is simply due to the formation of plasma double layers around the earth.

It simply means that the current explanation is wrong. It also means the existing climate models are simply wrong as well, since none incorporate the enormous energy sources identified by the electric sun model.

Update: Jennifer Marohasy  recently lamented the fact that climate sceptics are not winning the climate war because, while criticising the mainstream climate models and the IPCC, none of the sceptics have offered an alternative theory for understanding the earth’s climate. Not so, I’ve been pushing the plasma model for quite a few years as an alternative and even been published in two peer reviewed journals though not specifically on the earth’s climate.  The disheartening aspect is that it’s the younger scientists who have the scientific paradigm totally Fubarred, so we can’t rely on Pauli’s paradigm change model, when new paradigms  replace the older ones from the death of  the older generation, to expect plasma universe theory to replace the existing one.

We live in interesting times.

Update 2: The sources of terrestrial lightning are the Van Allen Belts, and the formation of plasma double layers around the earth is due to the massive electrical energy entering and leaving the earth-system via the equatorial and polar regions. Just Google Birkeland’s experiments with his ‘terrella’ model for a visual presentation of the phenomena.

Posted in Climate, Plasma Universe, Science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment