To whom it may concern

- You have bigger problems
than the equator moving, human!

So I asked Gemini to debunk a rather zany conspiracy theory. I mean, in case you fall for it! ;-)  

Does the sun rise and set at different places today than just a few years or decades ago, or is this a misunderstanding or an Internet conspiracy theory?

This is an excellent question that gets at the heart of how our solar system works. The short answer is: Yes, the sunrise and sunset points do change, and it's not a conspiracy theory. However, the change you might notice over a few years or decades is extremely subtle.

Here's a breakdown of the factors at play, from the most significant to the more subtle.

1. The Earth's Axial Tilt (The Main Reason)

The primary reason the sunrise and sunset locations change on a daily and seasonal basis is the Earth's axial tilt. Our planet is tilted on its axis by approximately 23.5 degrees relative to its orbital plane around the sun.

• Daily Change: As the Earth orbits the sun, this tilt means that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are either tilted towards or away from the sun. This causes the sun's apparent path across the sky to change daily.

• Seasonal Change:

  • Summer Solstice: When your hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, the sun rises and sets at its most northerly point on the horizon. This is why we have long days in the summer.

  • Winter Solstice: When your hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, the sun rises and sets at its most southerly point. This is why days are short in the winter.

  • Equinoxes: On the spring and fall equinoxes, the Earth's axis is not tilted toward or away from the sun, so the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west.

This daily shift in the sun's rising and setting points is a fundamental and easily observable astronomical phenomenon, and it happens every single year.

2. The Earth's Elliptical Orbit

The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle; it's an ellipse. This means that at some times of the year, we are closer to the sun (perihelion) and at other times we are farther away (aphelion). This also affects the sun's apparent speed across the sky and can subtly change the timing of sunrise and sunset.

3. Precession of the Equinoxes (The Long-Term Change)

This is the very slow, long-term change that you are unlikely to notice in your lifetime, but it's a real astronomical effect.

• The Earth's axis of rotation "wobbles" like a spinning top. This wobble, called axial precession, causes the Earth's axis to trace a circle in space over a period of about 26,000 years.

• This means that the direction of the celestial poles changes over time. For example, the North Star has not always been Polaris and will not always be Polaris in the future.

• This slow change in the Earth's orientation in space also means that the position of the sun at the equinoxes slowly shifts against the backdrop of the stars. While the sun will still rise due east at the equinoxes, its position relative to distant constellations will be different over thousands of years. This is what ancient civilizations and astronomers sometimes noticed over generations, but it is not a change that is perceptible over just a few years or even decades.

So, to summarize:Yes, the sun rises and sets in a different place every day. This is a normal, annual cycle caused by the Earth's axial tilt. The position also changes over millennia due to the precession of the equinoxes. This change is real but far too slow to be noticed in a human lifetime. The idea that the sun's position has noticeably changed over a few years or decades in a way that is abnormal or conspiratorial is a misunderstanding. The changes we see are part of the predictable, well-understood astronomical cycles of our planet. 

Is it true that the equator has shifted 150 miles to the north, or is that another misunderstanding or conspiracy theory?

This is a great question that highlights a common source of confusion. The idea that the geographic equator has shifted 150 miles is a misunderstanding. The confusion likely stems from the difference between the Earth's geographic poles and its magnetic poles.

Here's a breakdown of the key concepts to clarify:

1. Geographic Equator (True Equator)

The geographic equator is an imaginary line that is halfway between the Earth's geographic North and South Poles. These poles are the points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface.

• Is it fixed? For all practical purposes, yes. The geographic equator is a fundamental part of our planetary reference system. While the Earth's axis of rotation does have a very slight "wobble" called polar motion, this shift is minuscule—only a few feet (about 9 meters or 30 feet) over the course of a year. This is not a 150-mile shift.

• Is it a conspiracy theory? Yes, the idea of a 150-mile shift is a conspiracy theory or a misunderstanding of a legitimate scientific concept. The geographic equator, which defines our latitude system, is stable.

2. Magnetic Equator

The magnetic equator is an imaginary line that is everywhere equidistant from the Earth's magnetic North and South Poles. These magnetic poles are the points where the Earth's magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the surface.

• Is it fixed? No, the magnetic equator is not fixed. The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the movement of molten iron in the planet's core, and this movement causes the magnetic poles to constantly drift. The North Magnetic Pole, in particular, has been moving rapidly towards Siberia in recent decades.

• Is the shift significant? Yes, the shift of the magnetic poles is significant for navigation and science. The North Magnetic Pole has been moving from Canada toward Russia at an accelerated rate, and this requires constant updates to the World Magnetic Model that is used by airplanes, ships, and smartphones for navigation.

Conclusion

The confusion almost certainly comes from mixing up the two different "equators."

• The geographic equator, which defines our latitude and longitude system and is used for all maps and GPS, is essentially a fixed line. Any changes are on a scale of feet, not miles.

• The magnetic equator, which is related to the Earth's ever-changing magnetic field, is constantly shifting. The rapid movement of the magnetic poles is a well-documented and scientifically-verified phenomenon, but it has no bearing on the location of the geographic equator or the position of the North and South Poles used for navigation.

The idea seems to be that the southern weather system has moved 150 miles to the north and therefore the equator must have moved, too.

This is a fascinating point, and it touches on a legitimate scientific phenomenon, but it connects it to the wrong conclusion. The core truth here is that weather and climate zones are shifting, but this does not mean the geographic equator has moved.

Here's the breakdown:

What Is Shifting: The Thermal Equator

The "thermal equator" is the line of maximum average temperature around the globe. It's also where the sun's direct rays hit the Earth most intensely, causing air to rise and creating a zone of low pressure and heavy rainfall called the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).

• The thermal equator is not a fixed line. Its location is influenced by the unequal distribution of land and water, and it shifts with the seasons. It moves north during the Northern Hemisphere's summer and south during the Southern Hemisphere's summer.

• Climate Change and a Shifting Thermal Equator: Scientists have observed that the average location of the thermal equator is shifting, particularly to the north. This is a documented effect of global warming. The Northern Hemisphere has more landmass than the Southern Hemisphere, and land heats up faster than water. As a result, the Northern Hemisphere is warming at a faster rate, which is causing the thermal equator and the ITCZ to move north.

This northward shift is a major reason why some areas are experiencing changes in their weather patterns, such as:

• A northward shift in tropical rainfall bands.

• The expansion of the "tropics" and the subtropical dry zones (the Hadley cells) towards the poles. This can lead to increased droughts in places like the Mediterranean and the American Southwest.

• Changes in the location of storm tracks, like those for tornadoes in the central U.S.

Why This Doesn't Affect the Geographic Equator

The geographic equator is a fixed, astronomical line. It's defined by the Earth's rotation and is exactly halfway between the geographic North and South Poles.

• The geographic equator is based on the Earth's physical rotation, not on temperature or weather. A shift of 150 miles would require a massive change in the Earth's axis of rotation, which is not happening. As noted before, the wobble (polar motion) is on the scale of a few feet, not miles.

• The idea of a large-scale shift of the geographic equator is a pseudoscientific concept, often tied to "pole shift" or "crustal displacement" theories that are not supported by evidence.

In summary, the observation that southern weather systems (and their associated climate zones) have moved north is scientifically accurate and is a known consequence of climate change. However, the conclusion that this proves the Earth's geographic equator has shifted is a misunderstanding. The weather patterns are shifting relative to the fixed geographic lines, not the other way around.

Quantum myth-busting

 

Sabine Hossenfelder debunks 10 myths about quantum physics. A bit hard to follow, tbh. Maybe the worst myth is quantum physics itself? 

Mangala Ganapati?

 

Hindus believe the strangest things. Or is somebody else behind this laughably amateurish clip on YouTube, which can´t even AI-generate grammatically correct English? On another YT channel, we learn that there are statues of Ganesha in pre-contact Colombia. Here, we´re supposed to believe that there are idols of the elephant-headed god on Mars?! 

Any relation to Quetzalcoatl´s big face or the Egyptian pyramids? LOL. It´s going to get really crowded on the red planet soon if every religion/culture/alternative thinker will project their greatest achievements onto its surface. Maybe the flat earthers will start arguing that Mars is flat, too? 

The journey to other planets have never been this easy.  

Journey into Mars

 

The disinformation/click bait about 3I-Atlas on YouTube and, I suppose, other fora is *off the freakin´ scales*. We´re talking Nibiru levels of BS. It´s just some kind of exotic comet, guys. And no, nothing will happen. This time either. Especially not if 3I-Atlas actually does crash into Mars! You *do* realize that Mars isn´t exactly next door to Earth, right? 

And why are you watching that stuff, anyone? Is it some kind of "alt-doom porn"?

But what am I doing, complaining about the interwebs at 1 AM local time... 

The Big Bang had no sound

How is this not pseudo-science? The sound of something that never happened! OK, it´s the "sound" of the cosmic background radiation, but it still isn´t real. (Insert complex discussion of the ontological status of sound here). Did the Big Bang really go bang if nobody was around to hear it bang? 

I fucking love science

 

So I just watched a French science documentary about lightning. It turns out that scientists (until recently) were wrong about what causes lightning in the first place. Oookay. And something about everything living having electric fields on the same frequency as the lightning in the atmosphere. Oookay. And something about abiogenesis...

Fantastic. I mean, with this open-minded attitude, maybe next year they finally acknowledge the existence of *ball lightning*...  

Solens söner

 

Lite märkliga kommentarer av Tobias Hübinette på dennes blogg. Jag *antar* att detta är metaforer? Eller har han blivit, jag vet inte, lamarckian?   

>>>Under den innevarande (stek)heta sommaren som hittills närmast har varit tropisk – och för Sydeuropas och även stora delar av Östeuropas del har den just varit det (och det är ju tyvärr fortfarande fallet i dessa delar av kontinenten) – har de högerpopulistiska och högerradikala partierna gått upp som aldrig förr som om den nästan tropiska hettan har fått européernas hjärtan och hjärnor och inte minst kroppar att koka över.

>>>Att sydeuropéerna närmast svettar ihjäl sig liksom även väldigt många östeuropéer är i varje fall ett faktum och extrem hetta kan nog åtminstone få en och annan europé att börja rösta på sagda partier.

>>>Oavsett vad det egentligen handlar om (för så klart handlar det inte bara om den heta sommaren) så verkar det helt enkelt just nu koka av vrede (och nog t o m av hat) bland fr a den alltmer högerradikaliserade europeiska ungdomen liksom inom den europeiska arbetarklassen och den lägre medelklassen och bland i praktiken alla invånare som inte bor och lever i huvudstäderna och i de stora, historiska universitetsstäderna att döma av att de olika partierna för närvarande slår i taket i sina respektive länders opinionsundersökningar och särskilt gäller det i de mest folkrika länderna.

SD verkar ha flyttat fram sina positioner i sommar

Bomb MIT back to the Stone Age?

 

Why the obsession with proving Einstein wrong...if the alternative is an *even more crazy* universe á la Bohr and the Copenhagen clique? Dude! Forgive the media (and MIT) for they do not know what they are doing...  

The climate cult?

 

Prominent YouTube Skeptic (TM) and Atheist (TM) "Planet Peterson" is skeptical of climate alarmism and learns very quickly that some skepticism is seriously off limits in the Skeptical community...

I happen to believe that climate change *is* an "existential crisis" (although I suppose that depends on how you define those loaded terms), so presumably I should hate on Mr Planet, too. But naah. I admit that my sick sense of humor (maybe too sick?) finds the moralistic, cultish and pearl-clutching reactions of Peterson´s (former) fanboys extremely entertaining. Dude bros, you *fucking won´t survive* the crisis if you have performative meltdowns in a YouTube commentary section!

This little affair proves another point: that atheists don´t *really* believe that atheism is "merely a lack of belief in God or gods" or that it isn´t a "core identity". So why does the atheist non-community expect Planet Peterson do be very specifically an Al Gore-esque pseudo-Green liberal? Exaaaactly.

Not sure how interesting the above really is (I haven´t watched all of it either), but in case you have absolutely nothing to do on a dark summer evening, well...    

Reality doesn´t exist

 

This is the world atheists *don´t* want but quantum physics insist on serving them anyway. And no, it doesn´t matter how many times the atheist screams "IT IS STILL NOT SPIRITUAL", the weirdness of modern physics still shows "materialism" as usually understood can´t be true. Sabine even left out a few crazy things in the short video above!

I´m of two minds about this (r/superposition). On the one hand, I want my world to be neat, tidy and freakin´ commonsensical. Whaddya mean Big Bang and sheet? Time moves slower in some galaxies, wtf?!

On the other hand...maybe it´s a good thing that Skeptics (TM) get their small circles upset from time to time. I mean, are you seriously telling me that God (or the Divine, or...) is impossible in a universe of illogical high strangeness? 

Ants can dream

 

So I asked the AI about some strange claims I encountered lately...

Is it true that ants can dream (rapid antenna movement)? Is it true that ants have self-awareness (the ant with a blue dot on his head which looked at his reflection in a mirror and realized that it was a dot on *his* head and tried to remove it)?

These are fascinating questions, and both refer to real scientific observations—but the conclusions people draw from them are debated. Here's a breakdown of each claim:

---

💤 1. Do Ants Dream? (Rapid Antenna Movement = REM?)

Claim:

Ants show rapid antenna movement (RAM) during rest, which some researchers have compared to REM sleep in mammals, potentially indicating dreaming.

What’s Actually Known:

• A 2022 study on carpenter ants (Camponotus mus) found they experience two distinct sleep-like states during rest:

  1. One state of immobility,

  2. Another involving rapid antenna movement (RAM) and twitching.

• This is analogous to REM sleep, which is associated with dreaming in mammals.

Is it dreaming?

• No direct evidence shows that ants have dreams or inner mental experiences.

• RAM might serve other purposes (e.g., memory consolidation, sensory processing).

• Dreaming requires a complex internal model of the world, which it's not clear ants have.

✅ Conclusion:

• Interesting finding, but saying ants "dream" is speculative.

• The behavior resembles aspects of REM sleep but doesn't prove subjective dreaming.

---

🪞 2. Do Ants Have Self-Awareness? (Mirror Test with Blue Dot)

Claim:

A study found that an ant marked with a blue dot on its head looked in a mirror and tried to remove the dot—suggesting self-recognition and perhaps self-awareness.

What’s Actually Known:

• In 2019, a paper by Edwardo Gallup and colleagues (not to be confused with the mirror test's originator, Gordon Gallup) described mirror test experiments with ants (specifically Camponotus floridanus).

• Ants with a visible mark (like a blue dot) tried to touch or clean the marked area only when a mirror was present.

• This behavior was not observed in unmarked ants or ants with invisible marks.

🧠 Interpretation:

• Some interpreted this as passing the mirror test, which is often used as a proxy for self-awareness in animals (e.g., great apes, dolphins, elephants).

• However, many scientists are skeptical:

  • Ants might be using visual cues from the mirror in a non-self-reflective way.

  • The mirror might simply be treated as part of the environment, not as a reflection of the self.

  • Ants have very different neural architecture from vertebrates, raising questions about how “self” would even operate.

✅ Conclusion:

• The behavior is intriguing and unusual for an insect.

• But it's controversial to claim ants are self-aware—most scientists remain cautious or skeptical.

• The mirror test itself has been criticized as species-biased and not a definitive indicator of self-awareness.

---

🧾 Bottom Line:

Claim	Verdict	Notes
Ants dream (via RAM)	🟡 Speculative	Behavior suggests sleep states, but dreaming is unproven.
Ants have self-awareness (mirror test)	🔴 Controversial / Unproven	The blue-dot study is interesting but far from conclusive.

Ants are remarkably sophisticated for their size—capable of learning, memory, communication, and even complex social structures—but equating their behavior with human-like consciousness or self-awareness is still a big leap.

If you're curious, I can also compare ants to other animals that show similar borderline traits (like octopuses, bees, or magpies).

The divine prankster

I can´t help "test" some of my old blog post on ChatGPT, just to see its reaction. Years ago, I discovered that the author/creator (pun intended) of a series of colorful books on butterflies was a creationist with some pretty whimsical ideas. So naturally I had to ask the AI some whimsical questions about it!  

[My old blog post/book review] "Butterflies of the Neotropical region. Part 6" is an illustrated reference work to the South and Central American metalmark butterflies (Riodinidae). That, however, is the least interesting part of the book... 

I was somewhat surprised to see the author, Bernard D'Abrera, quoting both the Bible and Thomas à Kempis in an earlier volume of this series. In this volume, the plot thickens as D'Abrera turns out to be...yes, a true blue creationist! His creationist musings can be found on ppg. 984 and 1015-1016. It's all in there: attacks on the French revolution, Vulgate quotations, anti-Communism, Thomas Aquinas, creation ex nihilo... 

Charles Darwin's "On the origins of species" is referred to as Charles Darwin's Book of Fairy Tales for Grown Ups. I take it D'Abrera is a very conservative Catholic. 

The author attacks the notion of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry rings, claiming that there really is no such thing. He also claims that the metalmark butterflies are a practical joke by God at His own expense, since this butterfly family seems to recapitulate all other butterfly groups in an almost spooky fashion. I admit that they do. 

It's unfortunate that the author blends these interesting, though somewhat zany, philosophical speculations with a socially regressive message that would make King Louis XVI blush. Still, it does mean that I managed to solve a little mystery. 

[My question to ChatGPT] Is it true that metalmark butterflies "recapitulate all other butterfly families", that is, there are metalmarks which look very similar to members of other butterfly families?

Yes, it is true — metalmark butterflies (family Riodinidae) are remarkably diverse in appearance and often show striking resemblances to species from other butterfly families, including Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Pieridae, and Hesperiidae. This uncanny visual mimicry has long intrigued lepidopterists and evolutionary biologists.

---

🦋 Why Do Metalmarks Resemble Other Butterflies?

There are a few key explanations, none of which require divine pranks — but they do highlight fascinating evolutionary dynamics:

---

🔁 1. Mimicry (Batesian & Müllerian)

Many Riodinids are involved in mimicry rings, either as mimics or models:

• Batesian mimicry: A harmless species mimics a toxic one.

• Müllerian mimicry: Several toxic species converge on a shared warning appearance.

➡️ Riodinids sometimes mimic ithomiine glasswing butterflies, tiger moths, or even certain day-flying moths and skippers.

---

🎨 2. Morphological Plasticity and Evolutionary Flexibility

Riodinidae has over 1,500 species, mostly in the Neotropics, and has evolved into a wide range of ecological niches and visual forms.

• Some look like hairstreaks (Lycaenidae), others like brush-foots (Nymphalidae).

• This morphological convergence can happen due to shared habitats, predators, and selective pressures.

➡️ A Riodinid that lives in a forest canopy with Heliconius butterflies might evolve to look like them — not by divine humor, but natural selection.

---

🧬 3. Genetic and Developmental Flexibility

Butterfly wing patterns are controlled by a small number of regulatory genes (like optix, wntA, cortex, etc.). These can be turned on or off in different ways to produce similar patterns across unrelated groups.

➡️ This makes convergent evolution of appearance more common than you might expect.

---

🧠 D’Abrera’s Interpretation

Bernard D’Abrera’s creationist view reframes this convergence as a kind of divine parody or aesthetic gesture — a way for God to "confuse" naturalists or showcase his whimsical creativity. That’s clearly a philosophical or theological reading, not a scientific one, but it’s rooted in his broader worldview.

Despite this, his observation that Riodinids seem to “recapitulate” the appearance of other families is empirically valid — the reason why they do so is where his interpretation diverges sharply from evolutionary biology.

---

✅ Conclusion

Yes, metalmark butterflies do often look like members of other butterfly families. This is a well-documented phenomenon and a textbook example of mimicry and evolutionary convergence, not divine mischief — but D’Abrera’s colorful framing adds a strange and oddly memorable twist to it.

Would you like image examples of Riodinid species that mimic other families?

That escalated quickly

 

Background: Professor Dave constantly attacks mathematician and gadfly Eric Weinstein, probably for political reasons. Weinstein is allied with Peter Thiel, while Dave pretends to be a "leftist". Thiel is the man who "created" J D Vance. Since most physicists regard Weinstein´s theory of everything (known as Geometric Unity) as pseudo-science or "not even wrong", Dave can pretend to be a valiant knight for Science (TM) when attacking Thiel´s alleged errand boy. 

Quantum physicist and science influencer Sabine Hossenfelder is apparently a friend of Eric´s, which may or may not explain Dave´s attacks on *her*. Are they also politically motivated? 

In the video above, Sabine accuses Weinstein´s detractors of hypocrisy. Yes, Geometric Unity isn´t really a "theory" blah-blah but everything else in theoretical physics is BS anyway, so on that score, Weinstein´s speculations are neither better nor worse than those of everyone else "working" in the field! For instance, the guys who gave us string theory.

This might get really ugly really fast. Sabine, how dare you?!   

The Internet is offically over

 

This is supposedly the most intelligent person in the world, with a certified IQ of 276. Certified by organizations he founded himself, LOL. The only reason why this dude is making the obligatory rounds on the Internet just now is because he claims to be a Christian and support Donald Trump. 

His English is subpar, he only holds a bachelor´s degree in theology, and his science doctorate seems to be honorary. Further, he clearly reads from a script and simply repeats the usual quantum-woo catch-phrases we have heard 1000 times before.

I suppose this means that the Internet is offically broken! Or maybe not, since this guy will be forgotten within another month or so...

Cosmic curse

 

The ancient Gnostics would have been impressed. These bizarre sounds produced by the planets are truly scary. Or is it the demonic archons screaming at the Demiurge? It´s difficult not to believe that the cosmos is *cursed* after listening to these files, probably leaked from some FEMA torture camp in Alaska!

OK, seriously.

Since space is a vacuum, there really is no sound there. What our satellites picked up were radio waves, electromagnetism, and so on. This data is then "translated" into sound through a process known as sonification. However, these are not the sounds we would actually hear had these phenomena somehow reached our atmosphere. Rather, they are a kind of artistic renderings. In real life, we probably wouldn´t hear anything at all, since the soundwaves triggered would mostly produce infrasound or ultrasound. Or random noise. 

Not sure if converting non-audible things into the screeching of damned souls is the best form of science communication. But then, I´m old enough to remember the "Siberian drillhole" hoax...

Guilty pleasure

 

"Professor" Dave attacks an unhinged Incel and conspiracy theorist who claims to have learned physics "intuitively". I admit watching this was a guilty pleasure. If Mr Farina only attacked people like this, I might almost start to like him. Almost.  

The universe is ugly

 

Sabine Hossenfelder...again. Maybe we don´t need a theory of everything? Maybe such a unified theory is impossible since the universe isn´t aesthetically pleasing (mathematically speaking) in the first place? 

Interesting perspective, since many science do indeed prefer theories which are "simple" or "beautiful", supposedly on methodological grounds, but perhaps really for some kind of subjective reasons? What if the universe is extremely messy instead. Rather than getting lost in the math, scientists should do...you know...empirical research of the real world. 

What a concept. 

Fake and...fish?!

 

Fake "scientists" are flooding the internet with fake AI-generated "research papers". Ichtyologists in particular better beware! Sabine Hossenfelder has the reciepts... 

String wars and dark dimensions

 

I must have missed these videos when it was first posted. Sabine Hossenfelder takes on string theory and find it (mostly) wanting. I actually read the two anti-string books she mentions, but found them...well, difficult. Although not as difficult as some of Sabine´s videos! Are we to believe Hossenfelder, string theory is no longer a thing. At least not "real" string theory. Yuge if true since atheist super-activista Richard Carrier seems to believe in it! Therefore God? OK, maybe not but you get the point.

Oh, and the second video is about an attempt to revive string theory in the form of dark dimensions...

Somebody please close down CERN, LOL. 

Dreams of a final theory

 

Not sure if I even understand this, but it´s a criticism of strictly scientific/naturalist "theories of everything" which try to unite all the four fundamental forces in the universe under one mathematical (?) umbrella. And it´s not working. Apparently. Interestingly, Sabine believes that Roger Penrose (him again) might have the best proposal for an über-theory.