Monday, November 28, 2005 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Royal society: ban science on the web

The Royal Society - i.e. the British Academy of Sciences - has warned that "making research freely available on the internet could harm the scientific debate". It could even lower the profits of printed journals, the society predicts, especially of the non-profit journals. :-) The Royal Society is fully committed to the preservation of the reptiles.

A free access to scientific results on the internet could also threaten feudalism itself and the leading role of the royal family in the world. Instead, the internet may encourage heretics. Prince Charles agrees that science and technology are dangerous. He expressed concern that economic progress is "upsetting the whole balance of nature." In another interview, he said that "if you make everything over efficient, you suck out, it seems to me, every last drop of what, up to now, has been known as culture."

Some observers have pointed out that Charles may have especially referred to one of the royal colonial territories where a few anarchic elements have been trying to become independent for 229 years.

Her eminence Camilla, Duches of Cornwall, also said Her excellence husband was worried about the importance of technology in modern life. He is afraid that the computers who should be our "slaves" could become the "masters" and replace the royal family.

While Prince Charles remains one of the intellectual and spiritual leaders of the modern, post-crucification world and one of the most famous crusaders against the pernicious sins called science, technology, global warming, the Internet, and the emerging political and economic trend called capitalism, he remains very modest. In previously released excerpts of the CBS interview, Charles said he was concerned about being seen as irrelevant:

  • "The most important thing is to be relevant ... It isn't easy, as you can imagine ... because if you say anything, people will say, 'It's all right for you to say that.' It's very easy to just dismiss anything I say. ... It's difficult," the heir to the British throne said.

I hope that a special article at The Reference Frame will convince Prince Charles that he is relevant, indeed. Moreover, it's all right for him to say whatever he wants, especially if it improves his health and good mood. The same rules apply to all members of the Bohnice Institute and Charles deserves at least the same standards.

With all of my respect and admiration for the priviliged genes of His Excellence and His Relevance, Luboš, a vassal

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (8) :

reader nigel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

reader nigel said...

Dear Lumos,

I wrote the comment above in haste and apologise for the spelling errors. I'm not good at four-letter words, which is why I used ** and * for letters I was not sure about. However, some readers may get the drift.

Prince Charles is not all bad, and cannot help being born in royalty. He just says stupid things because he crazes attention despite already being a media personality. At least he has not decided to exterminate millions of people like Hitler and Stalin, yet.

I do get a little impatient after trying to get these people to listen for 10 years using polite rational pleas which they easily ignore.

Best wishes, and apologies once again for my use of * in four letter words,

reader nigel said...

I meant craves, not crazes...

reader Lumo said...

I have nothing about His Relevance Prince Charles! ;-)

reader nigel said...

Dear Lumos,

Pardon me if I misunderstood, being so stupid that I make working mechanisms with testable predictions that work, unlike the opinions of learned people I won't mention here, makes it easy to misunderstand.

The Royal Society, besides wanting to keep science off the internet to keep poor people in many lands in ignorance, also has an ingenious idea to sort out the world's problems.

It's brilliant idea is to stop feeding the poor and let them starve, or to use the people in place of animals, for human experimentation. That saves money and animals from being used for research. How brilliant can you get?

Because testing dangerous drugs on humans will give data more applicable to humans than tests on animals, it will help medicine, so it must be a good idea. (I think they plagarised this from Dr Mengele's propaganda, but let's not mention that aspect, let's be positive and point out the good aspects.) Let's not sneer at other people's errors (like dismissing Kepler's magnetic gravity as crackpot, but let's look at what Kepler did right).

Other Royal Society fellows are working on ways to use nerve gas constructively, to defuse the population bomb by killing millions of surplus population. If it succeeds, it will make the earth a happier place, with more breathing space for the survivors. You can't call them egocentric, ignorant, abusive, paranoid, bullying, fanatics. They have royal affiliation, see?

Best wishes,

reader Quantoken said...

I will not comment on the British Royal Society. I believe scientific research, funded on the public money, should be totally free, accessible and open to the public. If they want to do closed door science, fine, as long as we should also ban public money from supporting such researches.

Does any one notice that Prince Charles went to San Francisco to attend meetings with industry leaders and Peak Oil advocators to discuss the pending world peak of oil production, and remedy solutions. He is completely aware of the Peak Oil crisis. He'd better be! This winter, many people in his Kindom will die due to shortage of fuel to heat homes. For each one extra degree celsius the average temperature this winter will be below normal, 8000 extra people will die. It's a grave picture which is unfortunately the truth.

Ladies and Gentlemen: As the pass of the Thanksgiving day of 2005, we have officially ended an era where the oil production catches up with the exponential growth of oil demand, and started an era where the oil demand is instead pushed down to meet the ever dwindling world oil production level. It's an un-precedent crisis facing the humanity, one we are totally unprepared for.

Look at today's energy price on Bloomberg. In just one day, electricity price shots up over 30%!!! The only cause is the weather in North East America is a bit chill than the mild fall we had experienced so far. We hardly entered the winter yet!!! Electricity can not be stored so its price instantaneously responds to the demand. Natural gas has a slightly bigger buffer so we do not see the effect yet. We will see in a few days what happens with gas price.

And Bush is still draining our precious Strategic Petroleum Reserve to suppress gasoline price for some political game. Those SPR are supposed to be reserved from some real crisis, which has not even begin to unfold yet!!!


reader nigel said...

Dear Quantoken,

You know in Maxwell's theory as written by self-taught Heaviside as four vector equations, two are divergences describing charges (for electric field E and magnetic B), but two are time-varying, namely Faraday's curl.E = -dB/dt and Ampere's curl.B = ui, to which Maxwell adds a 'displacement current' term to allow current to continue flowing while there is a capacitor with a vacuum gap in the curcuit, curl.B = ue.dE/dt. This Maxwell's full curl.E equation is:

curl.B = u(i + e.dE/dt)

where u is magnetic permeability, e is electric permeability, and i is electric current in the wires.

This means that the 'displacement current' flowing in the vacuum between the two capacitor plates has an equivalence to i of:

i = e.dE/dt,

again remembering e is permittivity not charge.

Catt shows that Maxwell got his interpretation of this "displacement current" wrong, by ignoring the time it takes light speed electricity to flow along the capacitor plates. His co-authors Drs. Walton and Davidson mathematically worked out how the transmission line theory of Heaviside can be applied to explain the charging curve of a capacitor, which is compared to reality and is a correct prediction. Catt's error follows from Heaviside's false idea that the light speed electricity Poynting-Heaviside vector is the same as light, with the two conductors guiding the light which travels in the insulator between them. This is false, as we know electricity originates as electrons in conductors and such like, although it is true that the measured speed is that in the insulator not the wires. What is going on is plain from quantum electrodynamics, gauge photons are being exchanged via the insulator between the two conductors.

This is why parallel wires carrying currents attract/repel.

In addition, the radio transmitter and receiver aerial form a capacitor with air as the dielectric. The radio waves are displacement current energy, detectable just when the varying current varies the electric field across the transmitter aerial. In the same way, the displacement current flows in the capacitor only while the field in the capacitor plate is varying, due to its charging up or discharging.

Maxwell's error was fiddling a theory to fit Weber's 1856 observation that 1/(root of product of permittivity and permeability) = c.

This fiddle is like the application by Rayleigh of a wave equation to sound without understanding the pressure and force mechanisms involved in particulate (molecular) sound waves

Planck showed the resolution to the problem with the wave model of light by the quantum theory, while Bohr had shown that Maxwell's light theory was incompatible with the atom. Nobody corrected Maxwell's false theory, however.

In reality, "displacement current" is the gauge boson, causing electromagnetic and gravitational forces, and all radio and light waves. Emitted by spinning charges with no oscillation, it is undetectable radiation.

Best wishes,

reader nigel said...

Dear Lumos,

I deleted my first comment above as it had a few typing errors. Corrected version:

You've really blown it this time! If you come to England when he is king, you may be locked up.

The royal society is big wigs like Sir G.I. Taylor whose explosion maths leaves something to be desired:

The tragedy for them is the concept of science as a FREE or OPEN endeavour that ANYONE can participate in.

This is why they want to ban science from the internet, they are unable to judge what science is, and get confused by what they see.

Really, the world needs to ban the Royal Society from imposing its half-assed imperialist dictatorship, class segregration, and 'I'm affiliated to Royality so I'm right' horseshit on the world.

"If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday... beetles could do that ... he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!" - self-taught mathematician Oliver Heaviside (left school at 13), "Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1", p337, 1893.

Best wishes,