Hidden Variables

 

Quantum physics are a bit over my head (say no more), but this short presentation by Sabrine Hossenfelder gave me *some* kind of inkling of the differences between Bohm and the Copenhagen Interpretation. Hossenfelder prefers the Copenhagen Interpretation since something called "quantum field theory" can be derived from it (presumably there is some practical application at CERN), but otherwise, I get the impression that Bohm tried to be more rational and commonsensical than the Copenhagen people, whose speculations opened the door to all kinds of quasi-occult mystification... 

Trust your leaders

 

I don´t think this will convince any flat earther, tbh, precisely because the rosy situation described with Science (TM) delivering the goodies is no longer true. But sure, scientists must (even if it takes them 1000 years) do something to repair their own game. See: replicability crisis, and a few other things Big Brother doesn´t want me to talk about. Full disclosure: I´m a Globe Earth fan boy! I trust Eratosthenes.  

Hyper hyper

 

Is *everything* a lie? This YouTube channel argues that hypersonic missiles probably won´t work any better than "regular" missiles, and that they are a, shall we say, hyped up threat...

Sabine Hossenfelder constantly disses TED talks, too, making me wonder how much of *them* can be trusted?

She seems to be a Big Bang skeptic, as well. Will probably look further into this channel! 

The real Q

 

An EXTREMELY interesting clip about fusion power, which (perhaps unwillingly) exposes what utter fraud "fusion power research" really is. 

Scientists and their propagandists confuse two different "Q ratios" to paint fusion power as more viable than it really is. If *all* energy used to power a fusion reactor is factored in, the gains suddenly don´t look very impressive. 

Confusion about fusion? Or just a long con? Shut down this subsidy sink now! 

Up in the clouds

Credit: Novoklimov

An article in Wall Street Journal argues that current climate models exaggerate the danger of anthropogenic climate change. The reason? Yes, it´s the clouds. I hope they are right! Now, if they could only find new supplies of oil and uranium... 

Of course, Spengler predicted that modern civilization would collapse anyway! 

Scientists conclude dire climate change models were wrong, now what?

Var går Aftonbladets gräns?

En enkel fråga till Aftonbladet. Vem väljer ni: Trump eller Putin? Notoriskt svårt att ta ställning för demokratiskt valda presidenter, eller? 

Do the Russians love their children too?

Some Swedish commentators actually believe that the Russians would overthrow Putin if too many Russian soldiers came home in body bags in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Come again?

No, Messr. Commentators, that was how *American liberals* reacted to the Vietnam War. Much, much later, right-of-center Americans started to react like that, too. Despite that, they didn´t vote for the Peace & Freedom Party. They were more likely to vote for Donald Trump...

Back in 2002, some nice liberal commentator on Swedish TV (was it Stig Fredriksson?) commented on the Moscow theater hostage crisis that perhaps ordinary Russians would now wake up and start to wonder why Chechens act in this way, and realize that it´s the terrible Russian war on Chechnya that breeds terrorism, and if only Russia could become more peaceful and withdraw its troops, Chechen terrorism would surely stop. 

Why did the liberal commentator reason like this? Because that´s how a *nice liberal* would look at the situation, of course! When nice liberals get attacked by terrorists, they immidiately ask themselves what caused the nice young men with machine guns to turn terrorist, forgive them, and work for a better world.

But of course, that´s not how most people in the world react. That´s certainly not how *Russians* react. Nor did they, back in 2002. 

Most people just want revenge. 

So what would happen if Russian soldiers would be killed in the Ukraine? Most Russians would demand revenge against the "khokhols", "Nazis" or whatever they call the Ukrainians at the moment. Besides, Russians are convinced that Ukraine is really Novorossiya and that Kiev is the cradle of Russia. 

Now, it´s probably true that Putin´s popularity is waning. But in favor of whom? Alexei Navalny? That´s not likely. While Navalny probably isn´t a liberal (he only masquerades as one to fool nice liberal commentators), he is certainly pro-Western. In other words, like Boris Yeltsin. And Yeltsin was...let´s just say, not very popular. 

Most opposition to Putin will come from *even harder nationalists*, perhaps from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Uncouth guys who don´t understand the finer points of war game diplomacy. More into massive drone strikes against Lviv, and so forth. 

You see, Russians are just as everyone else. Except, of course, nice Swedish liberals. 

So be careful what you wish for! 

Wag the dog?

I have no idea what´s going on, but here is another Ukrainian leader denying that a Russian invasion is imminent...

Ukraine´s leading party chief blames foreign media for spreading fake news about a Russian invasion

On the diffusion of giants

The Irish occultist Thomas Sheridan is in very good shape here, as he moderates a discussion with Brad Olsen, an American author of whom I know almost nothing. Judging by the titles and covers of his books, Olsen is also an occultist. The exchange in the YouTube "symposium" above is about "suppressed human origins and ancient America". 

In one hour, Olsen, Sheridan and a third guy named Jason manage to cover a surprisingly wide array of alternative topics. Did the Vikings reach much further south than official archeology and history believes? What about the Knights Templar? Did Phoenicians reach North America during the Bronze Age? What about the Red Paint People in Maine, Kennewick Man in Washington State, or legends in the Southwest according to which the Hopi and the Zuni are indigenous, while the Navajo are not? Casting their net even wider, the contributors then discuss "elongated skulls" and "giants" (weirdly, they never once say the word "Nephilim"), not just in the Americas, but also at the Mediterranean island of Malta. 

A catastrophist scenario is proposed, and the discussants wonder why the establishment refuses to accept pre-Columbian contacts (except a few stray Vikings), giants, Atlantis, and so on. The conclusion reached is that modern civilization simply cannot tolerate the idea that there have been other relatively advanced cultures (or even intelligent species) before our own, since that means we´re not "special" anymore. The American (White Christian settler) idea of "Manifest Destiny" could be another culprit. (I could add that it´s probably a mix of "Biblical" themes and the modern idea of progress.) 

While I can´t say I believe every word of these autodidacts, I might be *somewhat* more positive to these kinds of speculations than, say, five or ten years ago. I obviously don´t believe in the "alien" or "starchild" connection made by Olsen. There are no aliens. However, I noticed a certain tendency in official archeology. American pre-history just keeps getting longer and longer, never the other way around. Kicking and screaming, archeologists have been forced to admit that human settlement in the "New World" isn´t particularly recent. There must have been several migrations across the famed Bering land bridge, not just one. At the periphery of official science, various anomalies keep turning up, such as "European" or even "Australian Aboriginal" genes in some American Indian tribes, "Solutrean" points in America, and what have you. And beyond that periphery, or is it pale, who knows? New human species have been discovered, including the dimunitive Flores Man, so why can´t there have been "giants", as well? 

With those remarks...have fun with this content!  

War games over?

 

Are the war games over in the Ukraine? For now...