245 karma · joined January 19, 2016
The drones/cruise-missiles came from north / north-west. Not straight from Iran, but from a source in Iraq. ..If this information is correct.
So this needs to investigated from all angles. Every party could be guilty.
And the solution should find a way towards peace instead of towards war. That is the only way to build a stable society for the people.
Former CIA Officer Kevin Shipp [explains how this works and how it is completely misused](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQouKi7xDpM)
Regarding 1: In the article, they describe an antenna that is MORE sensitive than the normal antennas. So you may not be able to detect the low frequency radio-waves without a similar sensitive apparatus.
Regarding 2: There is the problem that Electric signals can have high similarities with the "Chirps" that LIGO is looking for. For example: even in space, you can find all kinds of "chirps" caused by solar plasma. google "noises from space".
See: Ultra sensitive detection of radio waves with lasers https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news14/ultra-sensitive-de...
It would be interesting to see how this method of EM-wave detection interferes with the GW-detection.
Magnetism creates a rotation of the path of the moving particles. It can also create magnetic breaking, like eddy currents. The rotation is always reducing the present magnetic field. That is because of EM and conservation of energy.
You can see that in the video of the article. The current follows circle around the magnetic field. And it is fed from the charged centre.
In the case that the magnetic field is reducing in strength, we get a different reaction. A decreasing magnetic field creates currents that sustain the field. This principle can also cause electromagnetic waves.
The NASA theory is that the plasma somehow sustains the magnetic field. And that this magnetic field is localized to long flux-lines.
Their theory is based on the observation of plasma ropes on the sun. With detectors one can find strong Zeeman effects at the start and end of these plasma ropes. And recently they found even stronger effects at the rope itself. The zeeman effect is related to the magnetic field. So their conclusion is that the rope somehow follows a magnetic field-line. This means that the electrons and ions must spiral through these solar ropes. They also assume for simplicity that no electric fields can exist.
When 2 solar-ropes connect, we sometimes get solar flares. So this creates the idea of magnetic reconnection. Some astronomers even go so far to claim that the flux-lines actually exist. And that these flux-lines create energy with a collision.
But because it is counter our laboratory observations, it seems to me that the problem is a lot simpler. The solar-rope are currents that create magnetic fields instead.
But we can go a small step further. The zeeman effect is also very similar to the Stark effect. And this might indicate that we have strong electric fields at the surface of the sun. And this means we have also found the driving force of the currents inside the solar ropes.
And if 2 solar ropes connect, we will likely have an electrical shortcut. Which is as we all know, very energetic.
But let's use the models on this big solar-rope (Loop) on the sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFT7ATLQQx8
We can see movement of plasma very well in this video. The bright plasma follows some curved lines downward and sometimes upwards. You can also see other solar ropes behaving similar.
The plasma is probably fed by dark mode plasma (cloudy area). We see no spiralling. And I have no idea how we can explain this phenomenon with NASA's model.
If I use the corrected model, the plasma simply follows the electric currents. And the plasma follows gravity when it is neutral or almost neutral. That can happen when the particles combine as molecules. The currents create magnetic fields themselves that can cause the curve that we see. So we can expect quite some magnetic field here. The magnetic field even helps the curve to rise up from the surface.
But having other ideas is not the way to get into astronomy.
I think this means that someone else tries to ignite a war. Could be similar to the USS Liberty incident, but it all needs an investigation by neutral parties. Does the US needs all that oil?
So it is evolution, probably facilitated by certain conditions.
A huge amount of genes is also a weakness and might be targetted with specialized measures (like a proteine/gene-blocker). But the usual tricks wont work as well.
Some organisations, like news-sites are dependent on bias. They represent the data in a favourable way. This includes science news. That makes their product more popular.
Then we have organisations that like to represent data overly optimistic or overly dramatic or overly clinical. Again this is to make the product seem better.
Also the peer-review system is a bias creating system. The "best" articles confirm the bias of the peers.
Additionally science-communities are also very strong in excluding unwanted ideas. I found that out when I switched departments. So even the article that you wrote, probably has many biases in them.
* Curing bias:
My strategy to avoid bias is to allow many possible hypotheses, which all should be logical in their own "world".
This requires training, and is not something that we see in education or in news. Representing the data as "facts", does not uncover the assumptions and bias that the data was based on. I think that it is also very important to see logical fallacies in the information. In science this there is often an "expert-bias", where one relies on experts that certainly had a bias too.
To go even further, it is very interesting to look at historical biases and facts that changed during the history. This allows us to look at our personal beliefs from a distance, but also more accepting of possible failure. Even very smart persons made big mistakes or were into things that you would not like.
Time shows that things that we first thought were facts, became false later. So it is also important to keep some humour. https://i.imgur.com/KpF234Y.jpg
They do not list the numerous internal attacks that were reported too. These actually modified the votes. These votes can only be changed via physical access. But this is probably not politically interesting, and it involves corrupt staff members and such.
I have been following a lot of this kind of security news. But let's follow the money. Homeland security has already prepared a plan to take over the election system in all states (from before 2016). It seems to me that these accusations are used to push to take over the voting system.
Such a change would theoretically be good, but who watches the watchers? And why does DHS not report on the internal problems that actually changed votes?
While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester.
Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism?
My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive.
Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
Keep Ruby Weird 2018 - Closing Keynote by Avdi Grimm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJnsXUVsr7w
2) And this talk made me very interested about Elixir
Elixir: The only Sane Choice in an Insane World - Brian Cardarella https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gom6nEvtl3U
While many of the modules have been tested separately, certain combinations may not work as proclaimed. I find this problem already with the physics of the sun. So many things are way off normal physics. I have seen models that do not exist anywhere else. Predicted values are 10^6 order off. These things need retesting and the modules likely need to be redesigned.
But just stating that something might be off, already triggers many scientists. They see it as an attack on "their" science. This is clearly an attack on the messenger. Usually mixed with logical fallacies. So there is a real problem with the involved scientists as well. They do not want to see errors in their system, as it hurts their status. And there is the real problem with science. The ones involved do not want to admit that there might be something wrong.
If I would tell programmers that something might be wrong with one combination of modules, they are (more) often happy to look into it. So scientists, be more like programmers.
I disagree with those ideas. Until now they look like made-up excuses for problems that have local origin, not external origin.
By claiming that these problems are external we do not only create a division and misunderstanding in the local politics.
We also create a non-existing virtual enemy that will cost a lot of resources. And this might be the actual goal of this article: to get military funding for these projects.
On the other hand there are companies and political organisations directly working to promote a certain idea, and to attack opposing ideas. This is independent of origin of country. These groups can be easily identified as they try to even forbid those ideas, and avoid reasonable public discussions. Discussions that can actually settle the disputes or even give better understanding of the underlying problems.
Certain big companies do not want that. Because their funding and income are directly related to how much products or shit they can sell the public. Criticism of those organisations is usually stopped by buying out media, even science media. And by paying expert to come up with certain conclusions.
The political organisations, or even political agencies try to implement a certain policy. Those are actually two different groups, but the agencies often like to support certain political organisation. They want to create an "enemy" from everyone that does not support their political idea. This does not matter on what side of politics you are. From: "They are gonna take our guns and freedom" to "all white men are racists".
The general idea is to create an enemy based on fear. The article also does it a bit similar. It is something that I rather step away from, because it does not really identify the problem.
The political groups that create "enemies" to promote certain ideas, just need to talk with each other. Putting internet barriers between them does not help. Both sides are humans. Opposing people talking with each other, in a friendly way, can even create friendships.
Then we have the last group. Agencies that want to support certain political groups to push certain political policies. There are a lot of them, even within a country. The oil-companies want to downplay climate problems. The military wants to push for more wars, maybe for strategic reasons. The CIA wants to push for regime changes, maybe to install their puppet. The Israelis want to stop discussions about Palestine. The Russians want to keep Crimea. But there are much more agencies. Even Billionaires that do their own little policies, like Soros publicly sponsoring immigration.
Each of these agencies have their own goals, and we like to defend against them. Is each agency really working for our interest or for their own? In a democracy we like to choose and have full information.
So the problem is not separated by state. Blockage of information will even prevent us from seeing what is really going on. It will even allow for increased corruption.
If you look what is really going into the problems that are reported, it is unfair politics, and the lack of good unbiased information.
The whole problem with US implementation of democracy is that the actors are centralized around a system that encourages corruption. The corruption is due to the power and money that is governing politics.
And this again causes secrecy to hide the differences between the advertised politics and real practices. And to hide problems and responsibility within the political decisions.
The corruption and secrecy again causes the media to publish on actors in a very biased way. It is even seen as bad to be positive or unbiased on the policies or events. If something goes wrong it is always the other's fault.
The media earns now money by presenting the stories to support certain opinions and ideas. Not by presenting the complex and multifaceted reality. This is emphasized by the two party system. And sometimes also by the CIA propaganda system that is still active.
This goes so far that there is a lot of staging of the presentation of events. Which makes the news far more dramatic. But it also makes it fake, whether the story really happened or not. The media also tends to emphasize minor problems, just to trigger emotional reactions.
And then there is the problem of the over-militarization of the US government and its foreign policies. This is visible in the excessive amount of money going into this. And the huge amount of money lost in it. This gives the problem that the military and their corrupt sponsors rule the politics, instead of the people that are part of the democracy. It is also the reason why the military (&CIA) controls the media narrative on foreign politics so strongly.
The first step would be to get the money out of the politics. http://represent.us has a good way of doing that.
The media circus can be stopped by allowing more factions/parties and different viewpoints simultaneously. But that means stepping away from the two-party idea. That way different opinions become less hostile against each other. Separate military propaganda from the news. Now it is completely mixed up, because the military don't want to be unmasked.
That is opposite of what the paper seems to be stating.
"Stable autocracies will have common knowledge over who is in charge and their associated ideological or policy goals". In Europe the democratic parties have clear ideologies and goals. In the US this is not so much.
In the US it is clear that democrats or republicans are in charge, but neither represent the people. Both represent the companies and organizations that pay them.
If you want people to get more informed and involved with democracy, you need to decentralize the democracy. Make local people's votes count. And give people more autocracy/ self responsibility. That works in countries like Switzerland. In the US there is also a lot corruption on local levels. Give the people power and knowledge to stop that! That is democracy.
A major problem in the US is that many want to control how others live. They want to control what drugs they use, or how they reproduce (or not). Who pays for who. Often mixed with people paying money to certain companies and monopolies. This is politics directly against self-responsibility. Instead the politics should be directed towards cooperation and build-up in a way that encourages self-responsibility.
This is also represented in the information. Spread information that is self-responsible and cooperative, instead of information that is controlling, biased and/or emotional. For example: Wikipedia (even with its errors) helps the people around the world understand most of the world. But certain biased information sources also give information of how other people may be thinking. That way we understand each other, by learning more.
This is also complex and multifaceted. But it is something that people are very much interested in dealing with themselves.
I do not have a good idea, how the excessive military expenses and its influences can be reduced.
A lot of science is based on procedures and theories that automatically create certain results. As long people do not see this, it makes no sense comparing one belief-system versus another.
Don't be triggered, but I still haven't seen any real evidence of "Russian Hacking" of the Election. Until now it has only been a political game to discredit Wikileaks. You can find some reasonable neutral info on https://original.antiwar.com/
But there were some actual hacking reports like plugging USB-sticks in voting machines. The most recent one I found is an [alleged failed hack in Georgia](http://archive.is/d9d4a). These are all cases that I want to be looked at, but I do not see that in the news.
There are plans by Homelands security to take over the election infrastructure. If you trust them it is ok. If they start to plant their own votes, we may never know. That makes some people afraid that it is the patriot act for elections.
The simple and cheap solution is to have no computer voting without a clear paper backlog and registration. Let's make recounts standard (and put those pensioners to work). No computers, no hackers, no cheaters, no problem.
A more direct problem is corruption due to too much power and money in politics. Organisations like http://represent.us may stop that.
Anyway be friendly to humans that think differently than you, and vote for what you think is best.