Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

A recent US research done at the DZero experiment at the Tevatron particle accelerator, operated by Fermilab in Illinois, US suggests that there may be not one but actually 5 ‘God particles’ known in physics as the ‘Higgs Boson’.

The Higgs boson’s nickname comes from its importance to the Standard Model; it is the sub-atomic particle which explains why all other particles have mass.

It is quite problematic to this Standard Model if there turn out to be actually 5 different particles responsible for the occurance of Mass. As it stands mass is on itself still the greatest mystery known to science.

Philosophically the search for an endpoint, for one particle that solves all solutions into a single model of representation: it seems like a ghost hunt to me.

The things is, when one assumes the existance of infinite in scaled proportions there is no reason why every particle isnt in its turn detemined by other particles that define it. Thus, by finding the particle that defines one on a larger scale one doesnt actually EXPLAIN anything since that particle in turn is defined by other particles. One would theoretically be witchhunting in the sense that the hunt never ends and goes on into infinity.

However, that is not even the relevant point here. The relevant point is that this research claims to have found 4 competitors for the higgs boson position. That makes the entire Standard Model sort of obselete, because the model supposes a single source for the phenomenon of gravity.

Atomization: its risky for family life.

Read more about the Dzero experiment

Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University in Canada wrote a study about the relationship between electromagnetic fields and diabetes in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Her conclusion was that electromagnetic radiotion does seem to have a causale effect on cells and is the cause of diabetes type 3. The devlopment of a new type of diabetes perhaps caused by a generation of people who only sit in front of their computers.

While I do not have the means to back up her claims – I leave that to the scientists – I would like to point out that I personally always feel much weaker after sitting behind the computer all day. Of course that is partly due to the non-activity and unnaturalness of the position, but still it cant be healthy to have your face in front of a screen all day. Another thing that often bothers me is that, even if you have a somewhat silent computer, it still produces a consistant level of noise that effects the body as well.

What are the long term results of this electromagnetic radiation? Nobody really knows. All we do know is that our society has a real obesity problem and that the number of cancer cases has not decreased but rather shrply increased over the decades. So whatever causes cancer: it just got worse.

Now what could we actually do about this situation? I have thought out some very simple solutions that might be of use to combat a whole spectrum of problems that emerge from the fact that biollions of people, day after day, are exposed to these forms of pollution.

1. I never understood why the computer has to be so close to the user. Have these people never heard of remote controls? Why would anyone want to sit next to or in front of a low level vacuum cleaner sort of sound all day? Its a serious level of noise pollution that will surely effect the human body one way or the other. Simply make remote controlled computers and hang the computercvase itself in the cellar than you also dont need such ridiculously large coolers.

Of course another solution for this is cloud computing. There is no actual need for everyone to have a computer. But cloud computing has political problems. Who controls the information, who owns iit, etc.

2. Why cant there be a device that *translates* the visual input of a screen to our eyes without having a large electromagnetic radiation by having a screen in front of your eyes. Without going into the idea of direct computer-brain interfaces: these will be possible but are potentially extremely dangerous. What actually causes the electromagnteic radiotion of a screen and do we really need screens? What could be an alternative? I haven’t sorted out this part of the problem yet. We need to find an alternative to screens without allowing direct computer-to brain interfaces which at this stage I think are simply far too dangerous.

I do think, though, that the keypoint here is the eye. We dont want to bypass the eye.We need to find a way to connect the eye to the computer. So the brain can keep it independency and the eye can directly receive the visual signals without the use of a screen.

Martijn Benders, Novo Universalis

Novo Universalis is an international think tank consisting of writers, scientists, poets and philosophers who want to help contribute to solving world problems.

According to a recent study of the Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors mammograms and other breasts scans clearly play a role in the development of breast cancer in women. This is because the breast tissue seems extraordinarily sensitive to ionic radiation, in the sense that this radiation can cause genetic mutations on a microscopic level, which then develops into cancer.

“Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment,” cellbiologist Paul Yaswen of Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division.

Now, of course the majority of people getting these scans are people who are under the suspicion of having cancer already, but even then the radioation could speed up the cancer growth process.

To make matters even worse, all western airports have started using radiation as a preffered method to stripsearch people for illegal objects. The thetawaves uch airport scanner use have been proven to cause genetic mutations on a cellular level too.

Isn’t it about time that science develops a new method to scan patients for cancer? Isnt it WAY as important to find a new method of discovery as finding the mythical cure for this disease? To do so one only has to set up laboratorium conditions in such way that one is able to discover exactly which types of radiation do not cause mutations or, if all of them do, if heatmaps or soundmaps could be a reliable option. Sound? Yes, when whales can detect miles of surroundings and map it with sound, there is no reason why humans can’t be accurately mapped with the same methodology.

Let’s see them develop an ultrasoundscanner against cancer and you will see that the number of patients decreases substantially.

More information about this problem on the PubMed website

Martijn Benders, Novo Universalis

Novo Universalis is an international think tank consisting of writers, scientists, poets and philosophers who want to help contribute to solving world problems.

Novo Universalis wants to present a new theory about the birth of the Universe, why?

We are a think-tank of poets, artists and philosophers and our goal is to solve all world problems, including problems of scientific and religious nature. The birth of the Universe is one of the significant events to solve.

Why would we need a new theory about the birth of the Universe?

In December scientists have finally discovered evidence for the theory that the Universe is expanding at accelerating speed. This is strange, since the Big Bang in explosion model would not produce a Universe that expands at accelerating speed. Space has little resistance, but the debris we call stars would eventually slow down. That they do not slow down but accelerate is strange, because accelerating requires energy. Where is that energy coming from? The current generation of scientists invented ‘dark matter’ to explain this acceleration but this explanation does not satisfy us. A new theory is needed.

So what new theory do you want to present?

The Universe was not produced by a ‘Big Bang’ in the classical sense. It was the result of two ‘meta particles’ colliding and producing a super collision reaction. The idea that the Big Bang is a singular phenomenon is largely based on monotheistic thought patterns. What happened here is that two meta-particles (from now on called ‘Novounitrons’) collided at massive speed and produced what we know now as ‘The Universe’. We are, therefore, all living in a giant collision reaction. Because of this the particles do not expose behaviour as expected, and hence they can accelerate rather than slow down because the reaction is still taking place.

We all live inside a massive collision reaction?

Yes. Caused by the Novounitrons, which collided at incredible speed. This also explains the conditions necessary to form black holes. We stimulate scientists to investigate the accelerating speed at different parts of the universe. They will find that the Universe expands much more faster into some directions than into other ones. This is because the Big Bang was not a classical explosion but a high speed collision one.

So what exactly are these Novounitrons and why have we never seen one?

We are living inside of the debris of two Novounitrons. The reason we can’t see any other ones is that they are so incredibly huge and incredibly far away. There is no need for parallel universes as there is with more classic black hole theory. But in our opinion every sun is a black hole in a parralel universe, and vice versa. Stars therefore don’t die, as these scientists seem to think, but they rather fase in and out of different parallelities.

So what is the purpose of these Novounitrons?

They are the particles of one Meta-atom of the Meta-Universe.