Man Fires At McDonald's Window Over Breakfast Menu

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) ―Police said a customer fired one or two shots into a Salt Lake City McDonald's after the driver of the car he was in was told the restaurant was not serving lunch yet. Police said the female driver of a white Dodge Intrepid pulled up to the drive-thru and ordered from the lunch menu early Sunday but was told only breakfast was available.

Police said two men then got out of the car and one pulled a sawed-off shotgun from the trunk, shooting into the drive-thru window once or twice, The Salt Lake Tribune reported Monday. No one was injured.

The car then left the scene.

Mad cow disease suspected in Spanish doctor's death

From Per Nyberg

(CNN) -- A Spanish pathologist who specialized in a human strain of mad cow disease died Saturday, and officials suspect the disease played a role in his death, officials said.

The doctor was head of the anatomy pathology section at the University Hospital Principe de Asturias in Alcala de Henares, outside of Madrid, according to the Madrid regional government's health office. He died Saturday night, at the hospital where he worked, officials said. The doctor's name was not released at the request of his family.

Several samples have been sent off for testing, the office said, but results are expected to take a month.

The doctor was well known both in and outside Spain for his work in the pathology field. His speciality was the human strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

It is not known how the doctor might have contracted the disease, but the health office said it was not thought to be through ingestion of contaminated meat. Authorities are investigating whether the doctor had been exposed to contaminated human tissue through his work.

Since 2001, 702 Creutzfeldt-Jakob cases have been reported in Spain, of which 87 have been reported in Madrid. Five people have died.

Cannibal Mom eats her friend

By Will Stewert

A CANNIBAL mum axed a friend to death, cooked her body and ate the meat — while the killer’s young son looked on.

Olesya Mostovschikova, 27, told police she rowed with Tatiana Romanchuk, 32, during a booze-up.

Officer Oleg Lobach said Olesya calmly told cops: “I took the axe and hit her a number of times on her head.

“Then I cut off her ears, gouged out one eye, cut off an arm and a hand. I then cooked the parts in the oven.”

Another friend, who is being treated as a witness, claims that she was forced to eat the flesh.

Cops say Olesya’s son, seven, witnessed the murder and the cooking. He is now in care.

Locals at Irkutsk, in Siberia, Russia, found Tatiana’s legs in a rubbish bin.

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

By Lisa Zyga

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale


As scale decreases, the number of dimensions of k-Minkowski spacetime (red line), which is an example of a space with quantum group symmetry, decreases from four to three. In contrast, classical Minkowski spacetime (blue line) is four-dimensional on all scales. This finding suggests that quantum groups are a valid candidate for the description of a quantum spacetime, and may have connections with a theory of quantum gravity. Image credit: Dario Benedetti.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Usually, we think of spacetime as being four-dimensional, with three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this Euclidean perspective is just one of many possible multi-dimensional varieties of spacetime. For instance, string theory predicts the existence of extra dimensions - six, seven, even 20 or more. As physicists often explain, it’s impossible to visualize these extra dimensions; they exist primarily to satisfy mathematical equations.

As if extra dimensions weren’t strange enough, new research has probed an even more mind-bending possibility: that spacetime has dimensions that change depending on the scale, and the dimensions could have fractal properties on small scales. In a recent study, Dario Benedetti, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, has investigated two possible examples of spacetime with scale-dependent dimensions deviating from classical values at short scales. More than being just an interesting idea, this phenomenon might provide insight into a quantum theory of relativity, which also has been suggested to have scale-dependent dimensions. Benedetti’s study is published in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

“It is an old idea in quantum gravity that at short scales spacetime might appear foamy, fuzzy, fractal or similar,” Benedetti told PhysOrg.com. “In my work, I suggest that quantum groups are a valid candidate for the description of such a quantum spacetime. Furthermore, computing the spectral dimension, I provide for the first time a link between quantum groups/noncommutative geometries and apparently unrelated approaches to quantum gravity, such as Causal Dynamical Triangulations and Exact Renormalization Group. And establishing links between different topics is often one of the best ways we have to understand such topics.”

In his study, Benedetti explains that a spacetime with quantum group symmetry has in general a scale-dependent dimension. Unlike classical groups, which act on commutative spaces, quantum groups act on nocommutative spaces (e.g. where xy doesn’t equal yx), which emerges through their unique curvature and quantum uncertainty. Here, Benedetti considers two types of spacetime with quantum group symmetry - a quantum sphere and k-Minkowski spacetime - and calculates their dimensions. In both spaces, the dimensions have fractal properties at small scales, and only reach classical values at large scales.

“In simple words, the relation between quantum groups and noncommutative geometry is as follows,” he explained. “Classically, we know that certain spaces are invariant under the action of some classical groups; for example, Euclidean space is invariant under rotations and translations. A quantum group is a deformation of a given classical group, and is such that no classical space can have it as a symmetry group. The invariant space has to be as well a deformation of a classical space, a deformation that makes it noncommutative. No relation of all this to fractals is known, but in my work I've found that they do have a common property, that is, a non-integer dimension (at some scale).”

Compared to a Euclidean sphere, a quantum sphere’s curvature and uncertainty make it a noncommutative space. When calculating the spectral dimension of the quantum sphere, Benedetti found that it closely resembles a standard sphere on large scales; however, as the scale decreases, the dimensions of the quantum sphere deviate and go down to zero. He describes this phenomenon as a signature of the fuzziness, or uncertainty, of the quantum sphere, and also as resulting from fractal behavior at small scales.

In the second kind of space, k-Minkowski spacetime, the dimensions also deviate from the constant behavior of classical Minkowski spacetime. While the latter always has four dimensions, independent of the scale, the number of dimensions in the quantum version decreases to three as a function of the scale. In both k-Minkowski spacetime and the quantum sphere, the dimensionality becomes non-integral, which is a typical signature of fractal geometry.

Benedetti’s results match previous approaches to quantum gravity, which also point to the emergence of a ground-scale spacetime with fractal properties. Together, these studies may help scientists understand the unique Planck scale properties of spacetime, and possibly tie in to a quantum theory of gravity. For instance, as Benedetti explains, the fractal nature of quantum spacetime might enable gravity to cure its own ultraviolet behavior by dimensional reduction.

“The main problem with gravity is that apparently it cannot be quantized as other field theories; in jargon it is said to be non-renormalizable,” he said. “This problem is specific to four-dimensional spacetime. If spacetime had only two dimensions, then quantum gravity would be much simpler and treatable. The problem with a two-dimensional theory is that it is unphysical, as we see four dimensions at our scales. Things can be solved combining four and two dimensions at different scales. That is, if gravity itself provides a mechanism by which the dimension of spacetime depends on the scale at which we probe it (four at our and larger scales and two at very short scales), then we could have a physical theory (compatible with observations) that is free of quantum (short scale) troubles.”

More information: Benedetti, Dario. “Fractal Properties of Quantum

Ron Paul questions Bernacke

Super-sized Supernova Explosion Observed Start to Finish Including Black Hole Ending

ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — In the first observation if its kind, scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science and San Diego State University were able to watch what happens when a star the size of 50 suns explodes. As they continued to track the spectacular event, they found that most of the star’s mass collapsed in on itself, resulting in a large black hole.

While exploding stars – supernovae – have been viewed with everything from the naked eye to high-tech research satellites, no one had directly observed what happens when a really huge star blows up. Dr. Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute’s Faculty of Physics and Prof. Douglas Leonard of San Diego State University recently located and calculated the mass of a gigantic star on the verge of exploding, following through with observations of the blast and its aftermath. Their findings have lent support to the reigning theory that stars ranging from tens to hundreds of times the mass of our sun all end up as black holes.

A star’s end is predetermined from birth by its size and by the ‘power plant’ that keeps it shining during its lifetime. Stars, among them our sun, are fueled by hydrogen nuclei fusing together into helium in the intense heat and pressure of their inner cores. A helium nucleus is a bit lighter than the sum of the masses of the four hydrogen nuclei that went into making it and, from Einstein’s theory of relativity (E=MC2), we know that the missing mass is released as energy.

When stars like our sun finish off their hydrogen fuel, they burn out relatively quietly in a puff of expansion. But a star that’s eight or more times larger than the sun makes a much more dramatic exit. Nuclear fusion continues after the hydrogen is exhausted, producing heavier elements in the star’s different layers. When this process progresses to the point that the core of the star has turned to iron, another phenomenon takes over: In the enormous heat and pressure in the star’s center, the iron nuclei break apart into their component protons and neutrons. At some point, this causes the core and the layer above it to collapse inward, firing the rest of the star’s material rapidly out into space in a supernova flash.

A supernova releases more energy in a few days than our sun will release over its entire lifetime, and the explosion is so bright that one occurring hundreds of light years away can be seen from Earth even in the daytime. While a supernova’s outer layers are lighting up the universe with dazzling fireworks, the star’s core collapses further and further inward. The gravity created in this collapse becomes so strong that the protons and electrons are squeezed together to form neutrons, and the star’s core is reduced from a sphere 10,000 kilometers around to one with a circumference of a mere 10 kilometers. Just a crate-full of this star’s material weighs as much as our entire Earth. But when the exploding star is 20 times the mass of our sun or more, say the scientists, its gravitational pull becomes so powerful that even light waves are held in place. Such a star – a black hole – is invisible for all intents and purposes.

Until now, none of the supernovae stars that scientists had managed to measure had exceeded a mass of 20 suns. Gal-Yam and Leonard were looking at a specific region in space using the Keck Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii and the Hubble Space Telescope. Identifying the about-to-explode star, they calculated its mass to be equal to 50-100 suns. Continued observation revealed that only a small part of the star’s mass was flung off in the explosion. Most of the material, says Gal-Yam, was drawn into the collapsing core as its gravitational pull mounted. Indeed, in subsequent telescope images of that section of the sky, the star seems to have disappeared. In other words, the star has now become a black hole – so dense that light can’t escape.

Dr. Avishai Gal-Yam’s research is supported by the Nella and Leon Benoziyo Center for Astrophysics; the Peter and Patricia Gruber Award; the Legacy Heritage Fund; and the William Z. and Eda Bess Novick Young Scientist Fund.

Follow the Bailout Cash

By Michael Isikoff and Dina Fine Maron | NEWSWEEK

There was plenty of outrage on Capitol Hill last week over the executive bonuses paid out by AIG after getting federal bailout money. But another money trail could make voters just as angry: the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

While a few big firms, such as Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, have curtailed their campaign giving, others are quietly doling out cash to select members of Congress, particularly those who serve on committees that oversee TARP. In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG "counterparty." "This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions," says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it's his "policy to accept legal contributions.")

The cash flow is already causing angst inside the Beltway. "The last thing I want to do is wake up one morning and see our PAC check being burned on C-Span," said one bank lobbyist, who asked not to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Financial Services chair Rep. Barney Frank both said recently they won't take donations from TARP recipients. But House Democratic fundraisers have quietly passed the word that the party's campaign committee will resume accepting them—but down the road, not right now. Said one fundraiser, who also requested anonymity, "These are treacherous waters."

Drexler's Dark Matter Probably Causes the Stunted Mass-Growth of Galaxy Clusters Observed by Harvard

From Newswire.com

SILICON VALLEY, Calif., March 18 (AScribe Newswire) -- A discovery was recently reported of the stunted mass-growth of galaxy clusters during the last 5 1/2 billion years, by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. This finding appears to involve the mysterious anti-gravity dark energy concept originally conceived to explain the 1998 supernova-based discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

The Harvard researchers used NASA's Earth-orbiting Chandra X-ray Observatory to measure the hot gas in over 80 galaxy clusters in order to estimate the rate of mass growth for groups of galaxy clusters.

The general consensus of the galaxy-cluster researchers and interested cosmologists is that the results are compelling and that the 1998 and recent dark energy manifestations probably represent the same or similar cosmic phenomena. The parallel successes by two different astronomical techniques have confirmed the existence of a very mysterious dark energy and give hope of further scientific progress.

Some relevant published comments by the galaxy-cluster researchers to journalists are as follows:

"Comparing their data to models of cosmic evolution, Dr. [Alexey] Vikhlinin [of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics] found that the most massive clusters are only about a fifth as plentiful today as they would be in a universe without dark energy. 'The clusters', he said, 'are still growing, but very slowly.'"

"'What we find is that the growth of structure [of galaxy clusters] has slowed down during the last 5 1/2 billion years, and this is unmistakably a signature of dark energy,' said Alexey Vikhlinin."

"'This result could be explained as arrested development of the universe,' said Alexey Vikhlinin. 'This stifling of growth is the unmistakable signature of an antigravitational force that astronomers have labeled dark energy.'" (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/dark_energy_astronomy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)

"Dr. [Alexey] Vikhlinin lamented that there were not yet very many such theories to knock down yet, but there were sure to be more on the table soon."

"Vikhlinin and colleagues used NASA's Chandra X-Ray Observatory (http://chandra.harvard.edu/) to measure the hot gas in 86 galaxy clusters. These groups of hundreds or thousands of galaxies are filled with 100-million-degree-gas that can best be detected with X-ray telescopes."

Is there a dark energy theory that is compatible with the supernova-based accelerating expansion of the universe observed in 1998 that also can explain the recent Harvard-Smithsonian discovery of the stunted ordinary-mass growth of galaxy clusters during the last 5 1/2 billion years? Let us try one such theory/explanation as follows:

If for some reason the mass of all the dark matter of the universe were continuously eroding and thus declining, we would not be surprised to observe the stunting of the ordinary-mass growth of galaxy clusters over time. There are two reasons for this:

Firstly, the eroding dark matter mass around each galaxy is about ten times greater than the ordinary mass of each galaxy. Secondly, the ordinary-mass growth of galaxy clusters relies upon the gravitational accretion into the clusters of nearby stars, dust, gas, and galaxies located outside the clusters, which gravitational accretion is significantly restrained by the eroding and declining dark matter mass.

Let us now consider what phenomenon could cause all the dark matter throughout the universe to be eroding and declining, as posited above. There is only one dark matter candidate whose mass is continuously eroding and declining; it is relativistic-baryon dark matter, also known as relativistic-proton dark matter, discovered by Bell Labs-trained Jerome Drexler in 2002. It erodes relativistic mass through a phenomenon called synchrotron emission of photons, which comes about when relativistic protons/baryons dart across transverse magnetic field lines in the cosmos.

Thus, both the 1998 and recent Harvard/NASA dark energy observations can be plausibly explained by means of the erosion of the dark matter mass throughout the universe via synchrotron emission of infrared, ultraviolet, and soft X-ray photons, provided that dark matter is indeed comprised primarily of relativistic-protons orbiting galaxies and groups of galaxies. There is considerable published evidence supporting the existence of relativistic-proton dark matter.

For example, the discoveries of the anti-gravity or repulsive-gravity dark energy phenomenon in 1998 and again recently, using a different astronomical technique, appear to support Jerome Drexler's thrice-published dark matter/dark energy theory (see Drexler's 2003 book, "How Dark Matter Created Dark Energy And The Sun," his 2006 book, "Comprehending And Decoding The Cosmos" and his 2008 book, "Discovering Postmodern Cosmology.")

Drexler's three books provide more than fifteen cosmic-phenomena examples that justify the reliance on relativistic-proton dark matter. These works disclose and explain many cosmic mystery phenomena that only can be explained in a plausible manner by evoking the relativistic-proton dark matter. They include the source of the ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, the nature of the cosmic web, how the big bang satisfied the Second Law of Thermodynamics, how cosmic inflation's hyper-growth of the universe started and stopped and why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Some published relevant comments by respected leaders in the field, about the Harvard-Smithsonian dark energy research, are as follows:

"This is very impressive and important work."

"The results provide a crucial cross-check against the pre-existing set of cosmological results."

"As a result, many astronomers and physicists are desperate for evidence of another explanation. Dr. [Adam] Riess said of the cosmological constant, 'The biggest thing we could learn is by ruling that out.'"

"Indeed, several theorists said the future now looked dim for alternative theories of gravity, in particular a variant from string theory, which incorporates extra dimensions and which predicts enhanced growth of structures like galaxy clusters."

"We've discovered this incredible dark energy; we don't understand what the hell it is."

"'This is very impressive and important work,' says Charles Bennett (http://cosmos.pha.jhu.edu/bennett/), who heads NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a satellite that measures the big bang's afterglow. 'The results provide a crucial cross-check against the pre-existing set of cosmological results.'"

"Theorist David Spergel of Princeton University agrees, saying the fact that different techniques are all consistent is a 'triumph.'"

"He says the new study will help pin down dark energy's properties, paving the way for researchers to one day determine what it is."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF THE THREE BOOKS: Jerome Drexler is a former member of the technical staff and group supervisor at Bell Labs, former research professor in physics at New Jersey Institute of Technology, founder and former Chairman and chief scientist of LaserCard Corp.(Nasdaq: LCRD). He has been awarded 76 U.S. patents, honorary Doctor of Science degrees from NJIT and Upsala College, a degree of Honorary Fellow of the Technion, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship at Stanford University, a three-year Bell Labs graduate study fellowship, the 1990 "Inventor of the Year Award" for Silicon Valley and recognition as the original inventor in 1978 of the now widely used digital optical disk "Laser Optical Storage System" and the LaserCard(R) nanotech data memory. He is a member of the Board of Overseers of New Jersey Institute of Technology and an Honorary Life Member of the Technion Board of Governors.

The Real AIG Scandal

By Eliot Spitzer

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse. But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes—income taxes to sales taxes—to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars—that is, our dollars—flowed?

The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming. AIG was nothing more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no reason or explanation.

So here are several questions that should be answered, in public, under oath, to clear the air:

What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant?

Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties?

What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG's financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real protection? And why shouldn't they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of their own counterparty?

What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn't they almost merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn't get its arms around the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG's business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued.

Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed?

Failure to answer these questions will feed the populist rage that is metastasizing very quickly. And it will raise basic questions about the competence of those who are supposedly guiding this economic policy.

Fermilab Closer To Discovering Higgs Boson 'God Particle'

From RedOrbit.com

The U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced on Friday that physicists have come closer to finding the elusive "God Particle," which could one day explain why particles have mass, the American Free Press reported.

The American research institute had previously claimed it was moving ahead of its European rival in the race to discover one of the biggest prizes in physics, the elusive Higgs Boson particle.

Fermilab reported that its researchers have managed to shrink the territory where they expect the so-called “God Particle” to be found.

British physicist Peter Higgs set out to answer the question that baffled physicists: how do particles acquire mass?

In 1964, he came up with the idea that a background field must exist that would act like treacle, meaning particles passing through it would acquire mass by being dragged through a mediator, which theoreticians dubbed the Higgs Boson.

The Higgs became known as the "God Particle" because it is everywhere but remains frustratingly elusive.

Finding confirmation of the Higgs would answer many questions about the so-called Standard Model, the theory that summarizes our present knowledge of particles
. Scientists throughout the years have narrowed down the ranges of mass that the Higgs is likely to have.

European physicists are also searching for the Higgs, amongst other things, with the Big Bang atom-smasher, the Large Hadron Collider.

However, the LHC suffered a months-long setback after being switched on in September 2008 at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) below the Franco-Swiss border.

Researchers at the rival Fermilab have increased efforts to discover the Higgs before the LHC is back on track in September of this year.

Femilab said in a press release that researchers at CERN had already determined that the Higgs must weigh more than 114 GeV/c2. Calculations of quantum effects involving the Higgs Boson require its mass to be less than 185 GeV/c2.

Physicists at CERN were able to carve out a section in the middle of that range using Fermilab's Tevatron collider, establishing that the particle it cannot have a mass in between 160 and 170 GeV/c2.

Two major research groups have analyzed three inverse femtobarns of collision data, the scientific unit that scientists use to count the number of collisions. They say that each experiment expects to receive a total of about 10 inverse femtobarns by the end of 2010.

Fermilab researcher Rob Roser said a particle collision at the Tevatron collider can produce a Higgs boson in many different ways, and the Higgs particle can then decay into various particles.

"Each experiment examines more and more possibilities. Combining all of them, we hope to see a first hint of the Higgs particle."

Man survives plunge over Niagara Falls

By Gary Bender

(CNN) -- A man went over Niagara Falls and survived Wednesday afternoon, one of the few people to ever survive the plunge unprotected, authorities said.

It is unclear whether the man chose not to aid in his rescue or was physically unable to do so, officials say.

1 of 2

The man was seen entering the icy water just above Horseshoe Falls, on the Canadian side, and apparently jumped in about 2:15 p.m, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Fire Chief Lee Smith said.

Smith said the unidentified man was in the near-freezing water for "40-plus" minutes before he was rescued by Niagara Parks Police and Niagara Falls firefighter Todd Brunning.

Brunning, who was tethered to shore, swam about 60 meters (nearly 200 feet) into the river and was able to get hold of the man and bring him to shore.

Niagara Parks Police initially used a helicopter from a private company, Niagara Falls Helicopters, to attempt a rescue of the man. When that failed, they used the wind from the chopper's rotors to push the man closer to shore, Smith said.

He said the man was "being rotated in a cyclic fashion" by the river's very strong currents.

The man did not aid in his rescue, officials said, though it was not immediately clear whether he was physically unable to or he did not want to do so.

Niagara Falls Fire Capt. Dave Belme said the man was not wearing any clothes when he was rescued, but he added that it's not unexpected for a person to lose things while being washed down the falls.

The man's "chances of survival without the quick response would be lessened," Smith said.

All of the agencies train for situations like this, he said, and they are put to the test about a dozen times a year. Still, he called Wednesday's rescue "amazing."

Disease sucking life out of bat population

By MARIBETH WARD, Staff Writer

First the honeybees were afflicted with a mysterious ailment and now bats are dying. An unprecedented die-off of thousands of hibernating bats in the Northeast has caused biologists and researchers from around the country to try to determine the cause, and to assess the threat to bat populations nationwide.

The disorder, dubbed white-nose syndrome (WNS) because of the presence of a white fungus around the muzzles of some affected bats, is a major concern to the bat conservation community.

Most bats with WNS are little brown bats, but endangered Indiana bats have also died, raising concerns about the impacts on a species already at risk. Other affected bat species include the Eastern Pipistrelle, the Northern Long-Eared bat, and the Small-Footed bat.

The syndrome was first detected at caves and mines in New York last winter, where it is believed to be associated with the deaths of approximately 8,000 to 11,000 bats.

This winter, WNS was again been found at the previously affected sites, and has spread to additional sites in New York as well as sites in Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Approximately 400,000 to 500,000 bats hibernate at affected sites.

Researchers know there is a serious problem -- hundreds of thousands of bats have died as a result -- but they are still baffled by the disease. The fungus is clearly associated with white nose syndrome, but scientists still do not know whether it is causing the disease or simply a symptom of a virus that has yet to be identified.

David Blehert, a microbiologist with the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wis., explained that the dead bats are found only at caves where bats hibernate. Bats tend to stay in hibernation through the end of April, so researchers need to use the next two months to collect whatever information they can.

What is more troubling to Blehert is the disease's ability to spread. Imagine a contaminated cave being the center of a bull's eye. The target itself would extend about 150 miles in all directions from the cave.

Indiana bats, protected by the federal Endangered Species Act as well as state laws, range across much of the eastern United States. Indiana supports the largest hibernating population of the species. About 238,000 Indiana bats, approximately 46 percent of the total population, winter in Indiana caves. Another 15 states have populations of hibernating Indiana bats.

Indiana State University's Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation has established a fund for research and response activities related to WNS. Information is available at www.indstate.edu/ecology/centers/bat.htm

In addition, Bat Conservation International has established a Fund for White-nose Syndrome Research. Information is available at www.batcon.org

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working closely with the affected states, where biologists are investigating the geographic extent of the outbreaks and collecting samples of affected bats.

They are developing a geographic database to track the location of sites where WNS has been found, and are collecting information at each site, such as the number of bats affected.

This information will be critical in tracking the extent and spread of WNS and in coordinating research efforts. The Service is also partnering with the Northeastern Cave Conservancy to track movements of cavers who have visited affected sites in New York www.necaveconservancy.org

Fish and Wildlife Services have asked cavers to observe all existing seasonal cave closures at known Indiana bat hibernacula, and when possible, to avoid caves or passages of caves containing large hibernating populations of any bat species.

While caving, anyone who observes a hibernating bat with a white muzzle or other odd white, fungus-like patches should follow the guidelines below.

* Do not touch any bats (living or dead), especially those with a white muzzle/nose.

* If you have a camera with you, please take a few photographs of the potentially affected bat(s).

* Exit the cave immediately, avoiding contact with other bats, and please do not enter any other caves prior to reporting your potential WNS observations to your state fish and wildlife agency or your nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office.

* Anyone who observes any unusual numbers of bats outside during cold weather, especially near a cave or mine where bats hibernate, is asked to report those observations as well. An increased number of bats flying outside and increased reports of dead bats in the vicinity of hibernacula have been observed in affected areas in the Northeast.

Drug from Genetically Altered Goats Gets FDA Stamp of Approval

By Elizabeth Walling, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) In early February 2009 the FDA officially approved the genetically engineered drug ATryn. Developed by GTC Biotherapeutics, ATryn contains the anti-clotting protein antithrombin, which is produced in the milk of genetically altered goats.

The goats come from embryos which have been injected with a human gene and then placed in a surrogate female. When the altered goats are born and mature, the gene causes them to produce a large amount of antithrombin in their milk. This technique of growing genetically altered animals for pharmaceutical purposes is dubbed "pharming." Genetically crossing two species in this manner is cause for suspicion and even alarm. There is no possible way to predict the consequences of this kind of experimentation.

Questions remain as to why such a controversial method is necessary for producing antithrombin. Based on sales in Europe of a similar drug, sales for ATryn are not expected to be sizable. The drug is not designed to replace conventional blood thinners, but instead is made for use only during risky periods of surgery or childbirth. Not to mention the fact that there are alternative methods that use human plasma and cell cultures to produce the protein. While these techniques are more expensive and produce less antithrombin, they are also far less disconcerting when compared to the alternative. It makes you wonder why we must to go to such extremes to produce the drug in this manner.

It can be difficult to control what results from genetic mutation. In the past, there have been cases where animals altered with human genes suffered from unanticipated degeneration. Critics say the kind of suffering some of these animals may go through cannot be considered ethical. The Humane Society of the United States says these practices perpetuate the idea that animals are mere objects to use for our own devices as opposed to feeling creatures.

There are many other concerns related to the way ATryn is produced. These include the possibility of germs from the goats contaminating the drugs or even the chance that products from these goats could enter the mass food supply. If breeding is not highly controlled, there is a chance these mutated genes could spread among wild or commercial animals. Some are concerned that the FDA`s new policy does not require genetically engineered products to be labeled accordingly. After all, if such products are allowed to enter the market, we should have the right to be able to identify and refuse them if we so choose.

We have to ask ourselves if we are truly ready for an onslaught of genetically altered drugs in the market. That is exactly what we are inviting by approving this drug. Even if you are wondering if ATryn is really so bad, the fact remains that the approval of such a drug is really just the first step down a troubling road that may lead to dire consequences.

Big Bang Debunked by Paradigm Shift

by Stephen Mooney

The basis of science is the interpretation of observation, which occurs through the application of a fundamental perspective. My fundamental perspective is that of materialism. For me, everything in the Universe is composed of matter and is the product of the process of matter. And this includes that thing called energy. It's generally thought that physics is a fundamental perspective, and is committed to materialism. It's my contention that it's not committed to materialism and is not a fundamental perspective. With its unquestioning reliance upon mathematics and measurements, establishment physics is an abstractionist perspective or paradigm that doesn't adequately represent the materialist nature of the Universe.

With my materialist perspective, I conducted a simple electrostatic experiment. When I rubbed a glass rod and placed it near a suspended pith ball, it attracted the pith ball. Physics sees this attraction as being the result of dislike charges. This begs the question of how dislike charges cause attraction. I decided that the attraction was caused by the pith ball absorbing emission from the glass rod, and that this emission forms an unbroken connection between the two objects.

I use the term emission, which is made of matter, to represent the fundamental thing from which everything is composed. The latest thinking by physics sees the cause of the attraction in terms of the exchange of matterless particles called photons, and light being composed of photons. I also use the term emission to include all forms of microscale dispersion. For Physics, "the fundamental thing of which everything is composed" are particles composed of sub-atomic particles which are composed of sub-atomic particles, etc. I decided to cut to the chase and use the term emission because I wanted to avoid having particles moving through an otherwise empty space. Emission includes the visible part of the spectrum and extends, through on-going dispersion and in levels, all the way down to the extreme microscale.

The simple electrostatic experiment also led me to see dislike charges as having different levels of emission. This came about because I could see that repulsion, which physics sees as the result of like charges, was the product of equivalent emissions. Two objects of equivalent emission push away from each other by way of their emission. Attraction sees the different levels of emission interacting. This interaction itself entails absorption and emission at a sub-atomic and sub-particle level of matter. It also entails emission being absorbed via the emission of an object. This emission decreases in density with the distance from the object, forming an emission field around the object.

My simple electrostatic experiment also led me to the observation that everything is either in a state of absorption exceeding emission or emission exceeding absorption. This means that everything is either increasing or decreasing in matter at any given moment in time. The idea that things can have an unchanging mass, as the amount of matter, is not a fact but an assumption of the abstractionist paradigm.

Noticing that the physics formula for electrostatic attraction takes the same form as that of Newton's law of gravity, I immediately realized that all attraction in the Universe is the result of the absorption of emission. This includes the attraction between particles called the strong and weak nuclear force, and the attraction between large objects called the gravitational force.

It so happens that the physics definition of illumination (the emission called light) includes it falling off by the square of the distance from the source. This is in the same way as Newton's law sees gravity falling off by the square of the distance. It's obvious that this "falling-off" equates to the decrease in density of the emission field around all objects.

I informed various University physics departments of my observations. If it couldn't be expressed as a mathematical equation and/or a measurement, they didn't want to know. Undeterred, I decided to investigate an original gravitational experiment conducted by a chemist named Henry Cavendish. I requested a copy of Cavendish's original article in Philosophical Transactions of 1798 from the head of Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. It arrived in the mail within a couple of weeks.

Henry Cavendish took over the work of one John Michell who "contrived a method of determining the density of the Earth, by rendering sensible the attraction of small quantities of matter". Michell built what is called a torsion balance. This entails suspended weights and a means for measuring the attraction between the weights. Cavendish Experiment is claimed to be one of the great physics experiments. Later it was seen as the first experiment to determine the value of a factor which physics calls the gravitational constant.

On reading the Cavendish paper I was struck by two results. The first entails repulsion. Cavendish discovered that "the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before move forward". Gravity is not supposed to involve repulsion. The second result was that after heating one of the weights "the effect was so much increased, that the arm was drawn 14 division aside, instead of about three". Heating one of the weights increased the attraction. I had no problem with this. The heating increased the emission of the weight and when this was absorbed by the other weight it increased the attraction. So what about this gravitational constant measured by Cavendish? It's actually a measure of electrostatic attraction.

The gravity measured by the torsion balance is that which stops the whole apparatus from floating away. That downward attraction that everything on Earth experiences. To the extent that this downward attraction acts to reduce the horizontal (electrostatic) attraction between the weights on the Cavendish torsion balance, it can be said to measure gravity. Physics claims that the torsion balance can be isolated from the possibility that there will be any electrostatic (horizontal) attraction between the weights. However, as everything absorbs and emits as a product of its very existence, it's not possible to completely isolate anything.

A short time after my consideration of the Cavendish paper one Malcolm Longair (who later ironically became the head of Cavendish Laboratory) toured Australia demonstrating the measurement of some of the constants of physics. He held a public lecture at Melbourne University, and I attended. He conducted the Cavendish Experiment and proclaimed that the value for the gravitational constant was within acceptable limits. At the conclusion of the demonstration he stated that physics encourages questions and critical appraisal. I went up to him and quietly pointed out that the Cavendish Experiment was nothing more than a demonstration of electrostatic attraction. Malcolm Longair, who appeared to me to a sincere person, went red in the face, threw his arms in the air, and stated that you cannot interpret it that way. This member of the physics establishment was not about to allow me to question one of their assumptions. His reaction confirmed for me that I was on the right track.

As objects are attracted through the absorption of emission, then the space between objects must be composed of emission. Space is not a vacuum, as claimed by some physicists. Some physicists will also claim that my explanation is not possible because the idea of space being composed of emission has been experimentally proven false. This entails an experiment conduct by Michelson and Morely. It involved using an instrument called an interferometer. Michelson and Morely were looking for a static medium (called an ether) which caused drag on the movement of the Earth. They could not detect any drag, and that's because it doesn't exist. The Earth via its emission field absorbs the emission that impacts upon the Earth. The emission of the Earth is also via this emission field. The emission field is not static in relation to the movement of the Earth.

The Earth remains in its orbit around the Sun through the absorption of the emission of the Sun via the emission field of the Earth. At least part of the Sun's emission would be absorbed via the Earth's emission field and its poles into the core.

I see the inner most core of the Earth entailing a dissymmetrical duality from which the emission/magnetic field of the Earth is generated. This duality would involve one being a state of absorption exceeding emission and the other emission exceeding absorption. From time to time, these would attain their maximum state of absorption and emission respectively and each would flip-over into the alternative state. Could this be the basis of the Earth's magnetic poles reversing from time to time? Yes.

Albert Einstein came up with the idea of curved space to account for the cause of gravity. The Sun, for example, is said to curve the space around it due to its mass. It's said that this idea has been proven by the fact that the emission (light) from distant galaxies is bent around the Sun. This is called "gravitational lensing". Is curved space the best explanation of this phenomena? No. The best explanation is that the emission of the Sun decreases in density with the increase in distance from the surface of the Sun. How about this density falling-off by the square of the distance in accordance with Newton's law of gravity. The emission called light passing near the Sun absorbs emission from the Sun's emission field, and its path is bent in the same way as the path of an electron is bent in an electromagnetic (emission) field.

Physics treats time as an independent dimension. It claims that time slows down with acceleration, or at lest increased motion, and sees this as proven by experiment. If you take two identical clocks and place one on the surface of the Earth and the other on the top of a high tower, the clock at the top of the tower will be moving faster than the clock on the surface, due to the rotation of the Earth. Experiment indicates that the clock at the top of the tower runs slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth. Physics claims that this proves that time runs more slowly with the increase in motion. Actually, the result is due to the difference in the density of the emission impacting upon the clocks and not the mere motion of the clocks. The density of emission at the top of the tower is less than at the surface of the Earth. We are talking about atomic clocks, which keep time through atomic decay.

The result of the atomic clocks experiment means that the rate of atomic decay is dependent upon, or relative to, the density of the impacting emission. As the density of impacting emission is variable, as a space-craft traveled into a region of decreased density of emission the rate of atomic decay of it as matter would decrease. And the opposite would also be the case. As the density of emission impacting upon the Earth would increase over time, then the rate of atomic decay on Earth would increase over time. Matter should always be seen as relatively, and not absolutely, stable.

Treating time as an independent dimension is simply absurd. Time is a measure of process or duration. It's not a thing-in-itself. If you treat time as a thing-in-itself, then you fail to see the material cause of its variability. That is precisely what physics has done with the atomic clocks experiment.

As emission travels across the Universe through interaction with emission it must, if not absorbed by a large scale object, eventually obtain its maximum state of dispersion. I came across an idea called the Virtual Universe Hypothesis. This sees the Universe popping into existence from what are called "quantum effects" of so-called empty space. I immediately realized that the Universe has a ultimate microscale groundstate fabric of dispersion, and that from this groundstate stars and emerge. This groundstate is a structure of dissymmetry, which can be represented as a dissymmetrical duality, and entails rotation. It forms the core of everything and accounts for the rotation of particles and planets and stars and galaxies. I had arrived at the bottom of the Universe and the basis of the process of construction called nuclear fusion.

The groundstate fabric of space can also be seen as cycles of fluctuation or pulsation. A unit of emission would absorb emission and then fall back as that absorbed emission was itself emitted. This groundstate has been detected, and is called the cosmic background microwave radiation by physics. The groundstate would not have a uniform distribution, because it's the result of emission from galaxies and stars in different stages of development in difference regions of space. For it to have a uniform distribution would require that the emission was from a single source in one location. Which obviously is not the case.

The idea that the space between things is composed of emission that is made of matter, appears to fly in the face of common sense. How could we see through space if it was made of matter. We don't see through space, we see with space in the sense of the emission image of an object impacting upon our retina and being processed by our brains.

I see the construction process called nuclear fusion entailing the absorption of emission within a context of increasing density of impacting emission. A visible star is a state of emission exceeding absorption. Needless to say, I intentionally ignored what the abstractionist paradigm had to say about the formation of stars and the nuclear fusion process. Why would I believe a paradigm that doesn't have a truly fundamental basis, involves inconsistency, and can't even discover the true cause of gravity.

There are two basic types of star. The first type has a stage of absorption exceeding emission of light. That sounds like the definition of a blackhole. Instead of stars ending as blackholes, some begin as blackholes. This type of star would absorb emission and construct the heavier elements, and the increasing density of the impacting emission acting as pressure would see the star ignite and become a visible star as a second stage of its development.

Could this fusion from the groundstate fabric of space also see the formation of the core of spiral galaxies? Stars and solar system form within the emission field of the galaxy. The cause of the spiral nature of the arms can be accounted for by the vertical and transverse aspects of the total emission field of the galaxy.

Nuclear explosion can be accounted for in terms of pressure or compression forcing matter to the groundstate and in so doing releasing it as an extreme expansion event of emission (energy).

The bursts of gamma radiation detected from all directions in the cosmic sky would be exploding embryonic blackhole stars. Having formed through the absorption of emission, and being states of absorption exceeding emission, they find themselves in a context of ever increasing density of impacting emission and as a consequence of the pressure they explode.

As gravity is the product of the absorption of emission and not some magical attribute of matter, curved space, or the exchange of particles called gravitons, a star cannot collapse under its own gravity and form a blackhole, if physics really believed that gravity is caused by the exchange of gravitons, it would have given up on the idea of stars collapsing into blackholes by now. Mind you, if they have detected first stage stars they would have detected blackholes and assume that they're the result of a collapsing star. How would you detect a first stage (blackhole) star? By the absence of light? As the emission passing near a first stage (blackhole) star would be bent through interacting with its emission field (gravitational lensing), could this be detected? Or, what about the emission field around the first stage star itself emitting a low level of detectable emission (radiation). Yes, Stephen Hawking was right after all.

Stephen Hawking, the physicist from Cambridge University, came up with the idea that blackholes might emit a low level radiation. This idea is remarkable when you consider the context within which it emerged. Blackholes were thought to be the consequence of the increasing matter (mass) of a star. The increasing matter was seen as being the product of nuclear fusion within the star constructing heavier and heavier elements. With the increasing matter came increasing gravity, until a point was reached when the gravity was so great that the star collapsed in on itself. Not even light was supposed to be able to avoid being drawn into this collapsed star. This blackhole theory requires that you embrace the cause of gravity as being a magical attribute of matter. It's within this context that Stephen Hawking proposed that at least some emission was able to escape the "magic" and be detected.

A visible (second stage) star loses solid matter, which was constructed in its first stage, through its conversion into emission and so decreases in matter over time.

There are two basic types of star. The first type has a stage of absorption exceeding light on new extremes in weather". This item quoted one Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research: "...the sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1000 years..." Our Sun is a second stage star and increases in emission over time.

First stage stars explode, due to pressure derived from the increasing density of the impacting emission. These are referred to as supernova. Second stage stars would, in their final phase, gently dissipate. This dissipation is the basis of the solar discs from which solar systems are constructed. Gently dissipating stars is the source of the abundance of hydrogen and helium in the Universe. Is there only one type of star with two stages? Stars also form within the gentle dissipation (hydrogen and helium) of stars, which forms what is known as solar discs and elliptical galaxies. The final phase of these stars is also gentle dissipation into hydrogen and helium. They are a form of second stage star.

Binary stars systems are also known to exist. They form within and from the hydrogen and helium of stars that have gently dissipated, and which form elliptical galaxies. It's from these elliptical galaxies that they derive their orbital motion. If these stars had a total inequivalence of emission they would attract each other and not form a binary structure. If they had simple equivalence of emission they would repel each other. They are kept in contact with each other and locked in their orbital motion because the levels of equivalence and inequivalence within their emissions limit the repulsion/attraction. One level of inequivalence or equivalence would be enough to lock the stars in their binary orbital motion. Eventually both stars would obtain a final phase of gentle dissipation, and add yet more hydrogen and helium to space.

The rotation of stars is derived from the inherent rotation at the groundstate fabric of space, and so applies to both first and second stage stars. The rate of rotation of stars increases over time.

A pulsar is a first stage star being squeezed by the density of the impacting emission, resulting in jets of emission from its poles, which would not be equal in their intensity due to the dissymmetrical nature of its core. A quasar is a second stage star reaching the end of its life, and thus accounting for the extreme intensity of its emission.

Gravity as experienced on the surface of the Earth is connected through absorption and emission to the emission field of the Earth. This emission field extends down to the ultra microscale because it can readily pass through, by way of absorption and emission, more highly constructed matter. For the gravity of the Earth to be uniform over time would require that the emission field of the Earth to be uniform in its density over time. In turn, this would require that the total matter of the Earth would be uniform over time. As all objects are either increasing or decreasing in matter, this is simply not possible. As the Earth is clearly a state of absorption exceeding emission, it increases in matter over time. This leads to the density of its emission field and its gravity increasing over time. In the time of the dinosaurs, the gravity of Earth would have been less than it is now.

The rotation of the Earth is decreasing. What is the cause? As the gravity of the Earth is increasing and the emission of the Sun is increasing, this give rises to an increase in the attraction between the Earth and the Sun. The cause of the decrease in the rotationof the Earth is inertia.

Physics defines inertia as "the property of a body, proportional to its mass, which opposes a change in the motion of the body." (Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology) You will notice that inertia is presented as a "magical" property of matter. Physics offers no explanation of the mechanism which causes this "magic" to exist. Actually, every example of inertia is an example of attraction acting on a body. A body on the surface of the Earth opposes a change in its motion due to gravity attracting the body downwards. The mechanism of inertia is, therefore, the same as the mechanism of gravity, i.e. the absorption of emission. No magic.

As the attraction between the Earth and the Sun is increasing, the average distance between the Earth and the Sun must be decreasing. Is this already known?

The average distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. This is because of the increase in the emission of the Sun pulling the Moon away from the Earth through the Moon absorbing the emission of the Sun. In other words, the balance of the gravitational attraction to the Sun and the Earth has increased towards the Sun. Which is want you would expect with an increase in the emission of the Sun.

Physics claims that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth and the moving away of the Moon derives from a tidal bulge in the Earth, and as the Earth tries to drag this bulge along its rotation is decreased and that this loss of angular momentum is transferred to the Moon lifting it into a higher orbit.

The only way that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth (the loss of angular momentum) could cause the Moon to move away would be if the rotation of the Earth was responsible for the Moon's distance from the Earth in the first place. Which isn't the case. Also the physics claim takes no account the impact of the emission field of the Sun on the Moon, nor the increase in the density of the emission field of the Sun over time. The abstractionist paradigm believes that gravity never changes over time. That it's a constant. This is complete nonsense.

The Moon exists within the emission field of the Earth, which involves both perpendicular and transverse aspects. The orbital motion of the Moon is derived from it being dragged around by way of its material (field) connection to the Earth. The contra-orbiting of natural satellites (moons) can only be accounted for by the transverse aspect of emission fields.

Before our Sun has gently dissipated, it will have destroyed all the planets. This will occur through the increase in gravity within the solar system drawing the planets toward the Sun until each in turn explodes.

There is a component of repulsion within emission (energy) fields that entail attraction, through the equivalence of some levels of emission within the field. This repulsion component is manifest by the field falling off in density by the square instead of exponentially. The waves of emission of fields are constructed by convergence, because of the equivalence of some of the levels of emission. If there wasn't an equivalence of some of the levels of emission within an emission field, then there wouldn't any emission waves to detect.

It's a fact of observation that gravity entails acceleration and not simply uniform motion. An object attracted to the surface of the Earth accelerates towards the Earth. The only logical way to explain this acceleration is by the absorption of emission from an emission field which increases in density with the decrease in the distance to the surface of the Earth. This would also entail the object increasing in matter. Relativity theory states that matter (mass) increases with acceleration, but doesn't offer an explanation of the material cause.

Millions of dollars of public money has been spent building "gravity wave detectors", in the hope of detecting gravity waves from distance galaxies and stars. If you go outside and measure the emission (light) from galaxies and stars, you will have detected their gravity waves. The whole community has to pay for the mistakes that result from the confined thinking of the physics establishment.

Another physics wild goose chase involves the idea that the Universe contains missing "dark matter" that is undetectable by its emission. It's said that the existence of this matter is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. This "dark matter" is, of course, the groudstate emission fabric that is space and it has an effect on visible matter through being absorbed. If physics wasn't locked into the idea that the emission called light was matterless, it would have realized its mistake long ago.

The atmosphere of the Earth is retained in position through its interaction with the emission field of the Earth. Physics states that the atmosphere of the Earth decreases in density with the distance from the surface of the Earth, and offers no explanation of the mechanism by which the Earth retains its atmosphere. It's no mere coincidence that both the atmosphere of the Earth and the emission field of the Earth decrease in density with the distance from the surface of the Earth. As the emission field of the Earth increases in density over time this would increase the density of the atmosphere leading to increased global warming by way of a greenhouse effect. Increased carbon emission in combination with increasing density of the emission field would result in global warming at an ever increasing rate. Given that the increasing density of the Earth's emission field is not taken into account when calculating the reduction of carbon emissions that needs to occur, such reduction amounts will inevitably be under-estimates.

Around1923 an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble decided that all the other Galaxies in the Universe were accelerating away from our point of observation, and that the further they are away the faster they were accelerating. This was derived from the observation that the light from distant galaxies was shifted to the red (wide) end of the wavelength spectrum. He seen this redshift being the result of what is called the Doppler Effect. He thought that as the galaxies were accelerating away, the Universe must be expanding and had begun with a big bang. This big bang theory was adopted by most of the physics establishment.

In 1928 a Swiss astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky rejected Hubble's assumption by proposing that the light lost energy as it traveled. He called this his "tired light" theory. Given that light disperses as it travels across the Universe, and that this dispersion involves increasing wavelength, the redshift phenomena is indicative of light traveling towards us and not the galaxies accelerating away.

If the redshift of the light from galaxies was due to them accelerating away, then physics is claiming that if they were not accelerating away their light would travel towards us without increasing in wavelength, it would not disperse, and would be just as strong as it was at its source. The cosmic sky would be ablaze with so much light that we wouldn't be able to distinguish anything. The light (emission) from our Sun would have the same wavelength when it reached to Earth as it has at the surface of the Sun.

Unless physics can prove that the Doppler Effect wavelength increase is in addition to that which occurs through the light traveling, then they have no irrefutable evidence. However, physics does propose that there is another source of redshift. It states that light increases in wavelength in a gravitational emission field. This is called the "gravitational redshift". As everything has a gravitational emission field which decreases in density with the distance from the source of the field, then the light emitted from everything decreases in wavelength with the distance from the object. The light emitted from galaxies and stars decreases in wavelength as a product of it traveling through space, because space is composed of the emission of objects and forms an emission field around those objects. Or, to put it more simply, cosmic redshift and gravitational redshift are one and the same thing.

Physics claims further evidence for its big bang theory. This involves the detection of the cosmic background microwave radiation, which it sees as being left over from the big bang. The cosmic background microwave radiation is, of course, representative of the groundstate fabric of space. Needless to say, the groundstate could not have a uniformity in its state of construction across the cosmic sky. For it to be uniform, would require the light from every galaxy and star to disperse as if was from one galaxy or star.

Hubble's assumption is wrong. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us and the Universe did not begin with a big bang.

Here's another shock for the physics establishment. You can't measure cosmic distance from the light emitted by objects such as galaxies or stars. More specifically, you can't distinguish between the distance of a galaxy or star and its brightness from the redshift of its light. Is a star of a given brightness far way relative to one less bright? Or are they both the same distance away and it's simply that one has less brightness because its younger? All the desire in the world to have a means for measuring cosmic distance will not change the situation.

Physics uses measured values called universal physical constants. As change is an inherent aspect of the Universe, physics should explain how these values can remain constant over extended space and time. It doesn't offer any such explanation. When Malcolm Longair concluded his demonstration of some of the constants of physics at Melbourne University, he stated that "One day physics might even understand why the constants have the values that they do". This was presented as if it was some great mystery of the Universe. The constants have the values that they do, in a particular space and time, for no other reason than that is the way in which they are measured, constructed from the emission fabric that is space within the context of impacting emission. If there were particles that were massless, as claimed by physics, then they would be matterless and made of nothing. As this is impossible, it's easy to see that the massless (matterless) status of these particles is not real and is merely an assumption of the abstractionist paradigm.

Physics also claims that when two particular types of particle meet they destroy each other. This is put down to one particle being matter and the other being anti-matter, and offers no explanation of mechanism. I see the particles destroying each other through the density of their emission fields causing compression leading to explosion. In my science, an explanation of mechanism beats no explanation of mechanism every time. Also, for the mutual explosion to occur the particles would have to have equivalent levels of emission at the time of their explosion. How about two particles, of different levels of emission, being attracted through their absorption of emission and each attaining their maximum state of absorption and then exploding due to the compression from the density of the impacting emissions. Sounds good to me.

Another "mystery" of physics is called the wave/particle duality. Sometimes the emission called light is detected as a wave function and sometimes as a photon particle. As a particle is a fusion of emission, then the wave function must be un-fused emission. We can say the wave function is composed of particles smaller than the photon and is spread out, or dispersed, so that it's detected as a wave function. The greater the dispersion of the emission the greater the wavelength. I've notice that some physicists talk as if the wave function is more than the detection of emission as a wavelength. Even going so far as to claim that everything is composed of nothing more than (emission) waves. This is to commit the fallacy of misplace concreteness, or reification.

The abstractionist paradigm sees the Universe having inherent uncertainty. This is presented with the Uncertainty Principle, which states that "there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which a position co-ordinate of a particle and its momentum in that direction can be simultaneously known." (Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology) If something is in a static position then it doesn't have a velocity, and if it has a velocity then it's not in a static position. Surely, position and momentum (matter by velocity), are mutually exclusive. The only way that both factors could be known to any level of precision simultaneously would be if the particle does not have a static position but is, in fact, moving at some velocity in a particular direction.

Physics claims that the inherent uncertainty also relates to the "quantum", or ultra microscale, and that "it has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of our instruments to make accurate measurements." (John Gribbin, Companion to the Cosmos) At the ultra microscale the absorption/emission of the matter of the instrument with which you measure interacts with the absorption/emission of that which is being measured. If what you were measuring was a wavelength, then this could entail the matter of the measurement instrument absorbing some of the emission of the wave causing it to collapse to a lower state of construction. This is usually referred to as, "the collapse of the wave function". The Universe would involve inherent uncertainty, if we were talking about that which is below the level of the groundstate of space. That is a region which is beyond our capacity to known and understand.

Within the abstractionist paradigm is Quantum theory. This is based on the observation that emission (energy) comes in discrete packets or "quanta", and not as an undifferentiated stream. Quantum theory does not ask how these quanta are made or construction. I see emission (energy) being constructed from the convergence of other quanta of lessor construction.

Just because the abstractionist paradigm is the basis of technology, doesn't mean that it's the ultimate means for understanding the Universe. It seems that for many practitioners of the abstractionist paradigm, making measurements and preforming mathematical equations can be an end in-itself and a substitute for logical thinking. We can say that their thinking has been confined by the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm.

The Universe is infinite in space and time, distance and duration. There are obviously an infinite number of things constructed by the process that is the Universe. There is an infinite number of galaxies and stars and planets and biology, etc. However, can there be an infinite number of types of things? If there were an infinite number of types of things, then there would be an infinite variety of things and not the types of things that we observe. We observe that galaxies and stars form types with the same characteristics. We observe that plants and animals also form types with the same characteristics. If you were to say that these types are merely a consequence of the way in which we humans are able to observe, the so called anthropic principle, then I would say that we're only able to understand the Universe as humans. And then there is the fact that we humans are a product of the process of the Universe, so it's entirely reasonable to assume that our observations are in accordance with the Universe: that they're objectively real.

Although the finite number of types of things would be an extremely large number, it leads to an extraordinary conclusion. Everything which can be constructed by the process that is the Universe, must exist/re-exist an infinite number of times in an infinite number of places in the Universe.

The Universe is a totally systematic materialist and connected process of absorption and emission, attraction and repulsion, construction and destruction, dispersion and explosion, division and integration, and evolution and development. Everything that can be constructed by the process exists within the parameters of the groundstate of space and the explosion of galaxies.

Cause and effect is not a simple one to one relationship, but a two to one relationship involving internal process and external impact giving rise to an effect. If the number of possible types of things is finite, then every type of thing can be represented by a number within a typology. As everything can be seen are part of an hierarchal structure of types from the most simple to the most complex, then this typology would take an hierarchical form. This in turn would involve dissymmetry. This materialist typology would constitute a paradigm that was both descriptive and predictive, and pertain to the whole of science. That part of physics which relates to the natural Universe, would be represented on such a paradigm. It would begin with the groundstate of space, and specify and so described the construction of everything. See the structure of numbers and arrows below. This is the materialist typology paradigm of science, and it predicts

that hydrogen has a fourth isotope (quadritium) which is the 4 at [2]. The other elements follow sequentially, as levels of construction. In time, the paradigm will be applied to all areas of science and determine the future course of our history.

Out there in the Universe there are an infinite number of people just like me typing this very sentence, in every sense of the past and the present and future. In this space that I presently occupy, an infinite number of beings have and will occupy the same space in different times. The Earth has formed and evolved and been destroyed an infinite number of times. You are not alone in the Universe. There are an infinite number of yourself out there. However, it's probably not a practical proposition to go out there and meet one or some of your other selves. Not only do you live an infinite number of times, but you do so in every possible social context that can be inflicted upon a human being. You should, as a matter of science, give consideration to those who live in oppressive contexts because that is you in at least some of those other spaces and times.

The meaning and purpose of existence is the realization of potential, within the context within which each thing exists. The potential of the Earth is realized within the context of its internal process and its external environment, which happens to include biological beings that presently call it home. The potential of an individual human is realized within the context of there individual biological inheritance and there particular social context. The meaning and purpose of the Universe, if we can call it that, is the realization of its construction possibilities. We are a realization of the construction possibilities of the Universe.

This essay demonstrates that if you take the results of some basic experiments and and observations and interpret them with a fundamental perspective and logical consistency, you can show that many of the assumptions and theories of physics are false, and discover profound things about the Universe for the very first time.

PS. Today is the 6th of March 2009. This morning I finally realized that the numbers down the center of the paradigm are subject to transposition, e.g. (1) in 3 <---- (1) becomes 3. Last night I had come to a dead end. I tried to change the direction of the arrows, but nothing worked. Convinced that the paradigm didn't work, I decided to confine the essay to just debunking physics. I thought I had failed, and removed all mention of the paradigm from the essay. I even removed the last five lines of the poem. These were replaced with: and I fell, to the ground, again.

This morning I thought how could it be possible that I couldn't invent the ultimate paradigm of science. I had come so far that the very idea was simply absurd. In a mind numbing quandary, I begun sketching on a piece a paper how to explain to someone the way the groundstate fluctuated. There were little circles with arrows pointing toward and then away from the circles representing the absorption and emission of a unit of the groudstate. Then all of a suddenly I realized that it was in front of me all the time. The center numbers transpose. I was back. The numbness in my brain dissipated. I immediately resurrected the original last five lines of the poem. Now I could say with full conviction that "the revolution is here". I could also relax in the knowledge that the paradigm and how it worked was out there and available for all to apply. I could pursue its application at a gentle pace, and continue to make extraordinary discoveries about our Universe. Would you believe that our solar system begun with twelve planets? Welcome to the future, one and all. We did it.

Fish with human faces spotted in South Korea

From the Telegraph.com

A fish with a human face is making waves in South Korea.The 'humanoid' carp are attracting attention in the town of Chongju, South Korea.

The "humanoid" carp are attracting attention in the town of Chongju in the centre of the country where they live in a small pond.

They are believed to be hybrid descendants of two carp species – the carp and the leather carp, also known as a tangerine fish.

Both fish are females and more than three feet long. They appear to have distinctive human noses, eyes and lips.

The fish live in a pond behind the home of a 64-year old South Korean man and have been there since 1986 although their looks are only just starting to attract attention.

"My fish have been getting more and more human for the past couple of years," the owner said.

He added that he knows of other fish with similar features, and as they are both females it will be impossible for them to breed and have fish-faced offspring.

This is the second time in recent months that carp have made headlines in Asia. Last November a shoal of the fish in Changsha, in China's Hunan Province turned on a duck who landed on their lake looking for food.

The Koi carp took exception to the intruder and fought back, bunching together into a seething mass to assert their authority, forcing the duck to fly away.

Hamas: U.S. used donors meeting to press us

From ChinaNews.com

GAZA, March 3 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. administration politically used Gaza reconstruction conference to put pressure and strip political stances from Hamas, the Islamic movement said on Tuesday.

The U.S. administration and some of the international donors, who met in Egypt Sunday, "have attempted to politically invest the money and use Gaza Strip's need of reconstruction as a way to extort Hamas," said Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas' spokesman.

The donors raised about 4.5 billion U.S. dollars in aid to rebuild the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip following a large-scale Israeli military offensive that took place in December and January.

Hamas, which seized Gaza by force from President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement in 2007, was not invited to the conference and the donors stressed that Hamas should be put aside from overseeing there construction process.

"The aim of the conferees was to bolster Abu Mazen's (Abbas) authority of West Bank and to intervene in our internal affairs," Barhoum said.

As Egypt succeeded to resume reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah, Barhoum warned that the conference may "badly reflect on the unity talks in Cairo."

Senator’s bill would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to have a cigarette lighter

By Scott Rothschild

Topeka — Firefighters and health officials Tuesday called for new restrictions aimed at keeping cigarette lighters out of the hands of children.

“Too many children have access to cigarette lighters because the lighters are displayed in stores where children can easily see them, reach them, take them or purchase them,” said state Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.

She told the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee that she has seen cigarette lighters displayed next to candy on low shelves at checkout counters in many stores.

Her bill, Senate Bill 106, would make it illegal for a retailer to sell cigarette lighters to anyone under 18 and also make it illegal for anyone under 18 to have a lighter. Any person violating the measure would be subject to a $25 fine and court costs.

Retailers also would be required to keep the lighters out of reach, probably behind the counter.

“In our fire prevention efforts, we feel that there is absolutely no reason for any child under the age of 18 to have free access to or possess a cigarette lighter or any open flame device,” said Lt. Mark Chairs of the Wichita Fire Department.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby also supported the bill. He said that from 2002 to 2006, 1,285 fires were set by children, resulting in five deaths, 51 civilian injuries and 10 firefighter injuries, with more than $7.5 million in property losses.

But a representative of convenience stores said the proposed legislation added another layer of regulation and didn’t fix the problem.

Tom Palace, executive director of the Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, said the bill had several problems. He said it didn’t define cigarette lighter, and it forced clerks to ask for identification for someone purchasing “a 99 cent Bic lighter.”

He said many convenience stores didn’t have any space left behind the counter because of all the items they are required to place there, such as cigarettes and certain cold medicines.

And while firefighters and KDHE voiced support for the bill, the Kansas Fire Marshal’s Office opposed it, saying it didn’t have the $248,000 start-up costs to conduct the proposed required inspections.

State Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, also voiced concerns, saying that the way the bill was written, if a youngster started a fire with a cigarette lighter then he or she couldn’t be charged with arson, but the lesser crime of possessing a lighter.

The committee took no action on the measure.