THE HARVARD YARD

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS,WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.

AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE SCIENCE HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE, AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com

JOHANNES KEPLER-NEW ASTRONOMY-PART 1, ON RELATIONSHIPS OF HYPOTHESES-CHAPTER ONE, OBSERVING THE HEAVENS

The testimony of the ages confirms that the motions of the planets are orbicular. It is an immediate presumption of reason, reflected in experience, that their gyrations are perfect circles. For among figures it is circles, and among bodies the heavens, that are considered the most perfect. However, when experience is seen to teach something different to those who pay careful attention, namely, that the planets deviate from a simple circular path, it gives rise to a powerful sense of wonder, which at length drives men to look into causes. (p.115)

---

The Starry Vault

Our earth, which we are standing on, is the huge blue sphere, and the blue circle around it is the horizon, the limits of our sight. Imagine you are on your back, looking up. This is a live view of the night sky from an undisclosed location. Watch it carefully!

Actually, this picture doesn't move at all, but that's what stargazing is like! You don't see a particular star move any more than you can see the hour-hand on a watch moving, yet the change happens. Let's say you look up again in an hour. Here's what you'd see:

What happened now? Take another look a while later, and you'll see this:

---

The stars all seem to move in the sky. Doing this for an entire night until the sun comes up and ruins your view, you observe this (noting one particularly bright, redish star that stands out to you):

Do certain stars move faster than others? It seems that each star moves in its own particular circle, and there seems to be a spot where the star doesn't move at all. This spot that doesn't seem to move during the night, but around which the other stars move, acts like the end of a large pole, so we can call the star located there the pole-star. Now we have some directions! It also seems that the sun rises and sets not in the pole direction, or opposite it, but in between its direction and the opposite. We can name these directions: the pole-star direction is North (unless you're in Australia and see a certain cross that seems to rotate while maintaining the same position and call this pole South), its opposite is South, and the directions of the rising and setting of the sun East and West, respectively.

First and Second Motions

Around a dozen or so days later, you see the moon every night as well. Let's take a few nights and spend them watching the sky. Although you may find it easier to look at two at once to compare them, how would you do so without a computer animation? The motion would only be in your mind, or, expressed by your mind in a drawing.

First night


Next night


Last night
What did you discover? How high was the moon in the sky at sun-down on the three days? Among which stars is it found? Does everything in the sky move at the same speed? Which moves faster: the stars or the moon? You have now discovered the difference between the First Motion and the Second Motion: the first motion presenting itself to the mind of all the stars, including the moon, and the second motion, seen only through thought and comparison, of the particular heavenly bodies moving against the stars:

The first motion is that of the whole heaven and of all its stars from east past the meridian to the west... The second motions are those of the individual planets from the west to the east. (p.115)

Taking more care in the observations, it is noticed that the sun, too, moves more slowly than the stars. The stars are more advanced at each sunset. Here are a week's worth of sunsets, as they appear to the animating mind (not the eyes):

A week of sunsets

This first adumbration of astronomy explains no causes, but consists solely of the experience of the eyes, extremely slowly acquired. (p.117)

At this same time of year, while the red star rises near sunset, and is particularly bright (do other stars change their brightess during the year?), we can observe it at its peak, around the middle of the night. By using our mind to remove the daily motion of the heavens, we can focus our powers of reason upon the single star's second motion: this brings out more problems! Let's combine a couple of weeks of observations, creating the following animation in our minds:

This bright star, which, like the sun, usually was slower than the stars, being left behind them every night in the westward motion, reaches a time of staying even with them, and then, contrary to its usual motion, moves faster to the west than the fixed stars, before again stopping and resuming its eastward motion... This

"...gives rise to a powerful sense of wonder, which at length drives men to look into causes."

Retrograde

A paradox:

It was apparent that the three superior planets, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, attune their motions to their proximity to the sun. For when the sun approaches them they move forward and are swifter than usual, and when the sun comes to the sign opposite the planets they retrace with crablike steps the road they have just covered. (p.118)

(Click here for a visualization of how Ptolemy and Brahe conceived this occuring.) That this retrogression, or backwards-motion, occurs always when the sun is opposite these planets ("wanderers" in Greek), is peculiar, for they do not make their path through the stars in the same time as the sun. Our bright red star Mars, for example, moves through the stars and regains its original position in a little less than two years, although the exact amount of time changes from cycle to cycle, owing to the influence of its proximity to the sun on its path. These two, different, but interacting tendencies among the second motion of a particular planet, are known as the first inequality (its motion through the stars) and the second inequality (the relationship of its proximity to the sun on its motion).
In order to study the first inequality by itself, we'll have to remove the influence of the second inequality.

But in order to separate the second inequality from this first one, they could proceed no otherwise than by considering the planets on those nights at whose beginning they rise while the sun is setting, which thence were called akronychioi, or night rising... [A]t the very moments of conjuunction with and opposition to the sun they are traversing their own true and proper positions. But since they cannot be seen when in conjunction with the sun, only the opposition to the sun remains as suitable for this purpose. (p.120)

Retrograde occuring at opposition. The light blue spot is the location opposite the sun -- the Earth's zodiacal position. (Note the extreme latitude at opposition. The blue line at the bottom of the animation is the ecliptic -- the path that the sun traces against the stars, and the average latitude of Mars.)
Keep reading for mean and apparent oppositions!

---

You can click here for a draft, 3D version of the spherical animation.
http://science.larouchepac.com/kepler/newastronomy/ 

ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS,WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.

AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE SCIENCE HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE, AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com

A URINE POWERED GENERATOR: MAKER FAIRE AFRICA

Posted on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 

Possibly one of the more unexpected products at Maker Faire Africa this year in Lagos is a urine powered generator, created by four girls. The girls are Duro-Aina Adebola (14), Akindele Abiola (14), Faleke Oluwatoyin (14) and Bello Eniola (15).
1 Liter of urine gives you 6 hours of electricity.

The system works like this:

• Urine is put into an electrolytic cell, which separates out the hydrogen.
• The hydrogen goes into a water filter for purification, which then gets pushed into the gas cylinder.
• The gas cylinder pushes hydrogen into a cylinder of liquid borax, which is used to remove the moisture from the hydrogen gas.
• This purified hydrogen gas is pushed into the generator.

Along the whole way there are one-way valves for security, but let’s be honest that this is something of an explosive device…

http://makerfaireafrica.com/2012/11/06/a-urine-powered-generator/

NASA RESEARCHER FINDS HIDDEN PORTALS IN EARTH’S MAGNETOSPHERE

By Susanne Posel,
Jack Scudder and his team of researchers at the University of Iowa have found “X-points” in the Earth’s magnetosphere; a magnetic field naturally generated by the Earth. The magnetosphere is a protective magnetic buffer between the sun’s radiation and solar winds and the earth’s atmosphere. It also holds the true northerly direction found with magnetic compasses.
NASA satellites have revealed “portals” in the magnetosphere which Scudder explains are: “places where the magnetic field of Earth connects to the magnetic field of the Sun, creating an uninterrupted path leading from our own planet to the sun’s atmosphere 93 million miles away.”
These openings allow charged solar particles to be conducted in the planet’s upper atmosphere. The effects of this phenomenon are seen as the aurorae displays and geomagnetic storms we experience.
David Sibeck, professor with the Goddard Spacelight Center explained in 2008 that “ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn’t exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible.”
X-points , which have been seen from NASA spacecraft, are now the focal point of future missions of study to assert more detail. While they are considered elusive, temporary structures which can form and vanish unpredictably, NASA hopes to be lucky enough to “stumble” upon them once more to analyze data derived from their appearance.
Scudder believes he has found a way to detect them by examining decades old NASA data from the Polar spacecraft which was launched in 1996. It remains in orbit around the Earth despite it’s decommission in 2008. Scudder says: “Using Polar data, we have found five simple combinations of magnetic field and energetic particle measurements that tell us when we’ve come across an X-point or an electron diffusion region. A single spacecraft, properly instrumented, can make these measurements.”
X-points form when mingling lines of magnetic force from the sun and Earth and join to create the actual portals. The term “X-points’ are where the criss-cross manifests.
Using Scudder’s detection system, the time utilized to locate X-points would be greatly diminished. Without it, the location process could take up to a year or more. Finding X-points now should be done with ease and nearly immediately.
NASA will launch a research study called the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS)in 2014. Fours spacecraft used for MMS will use energetic particle detectors and magnetic sensors and spread out in the planet’s magnetosphere and encircle the portals to observe how they work.

http://myscienceacademy.org/2012/10/14/nasa-researcher-finds-hidden-portals-in-earths-magnetosphere/

TWINKLE, TWINKLE, ELECTRIC STAR

By Liam Scheff
theintelhub.com
June 8, 2012
In this excerpt from Liam Scheff’s “Official Stories”,” we’ll see how even NASA is getting it wrong. Yes, even astronomy, the “queen of the sciences,” is locked up in the same fictions that dog the medical sciences and the political landscape. If “official stories exist to protect officials,” what’s the official story of outer space? The answer: Big Bang “theory” and stars as “nuclear bombs in space.” Are either true? Let’s have a look beneath the surface…
The Official Story: Stars are nuclear explosions in space.
The Lone Gunman: Gravity.
The Magic Bullet: No one really has one yet.
When humans first saw stars, they felt what we all feel. It even has its own word: starstruck. We marvel, we beam, our pupils open wide to let in the twinkling light. We feel that someone somewhere out there is looking at us, looking at them. It’s a wonderful, transcendent feeling.
When natural philosophers first set out to make a model of stars, they looked at fire on Earth – campfires, coal fires, forest and oil fires – and decided that stars were the same thing, only way up there. When humans forced the atomic attractions apart and exploded those monstrous bombs, they rethought the “campfire in space” model and called stars “nuclear furnaces.” But neither campfires nor nuclear explosions relate to what data-collecting telescopes have told us about the Sun.
First, where is a campfire hottest: above the fire, or in the burning coals? Don’t try to figure it out with bare hands. The answer is, in the source of the energy for the flame – the burning coals.
Where is a nuclear explosion hottest: in the center, at ground zero or a hundred miles away? Visitors to Hiroshima and Nagasaki know the answer. All fires and explosions are hottest and most violent at their source of energetic origin – the center. Where would you expect a star to be hottest: In the center, on the surface, or high above in its upper atmosphere?
The surface of the Sun is about 5,700 degrees Celsius. That’s almost four times the melting point of steel – which is hot. But, it’s surprisingly cool when you think that it warms our little planet, 93 million miles away.
So, how hot is the center? No one knows – no one’s been to or seen the center of a star, but sunspots do give a shallow view beneath the surface. Sunspots remain a mystery to the mainstream. They are like moving craters in the Sun, depressions in the surface revealing a glimpse of what’s underneath. And what’s underneath is cooler, by thousands of degrees.
This isn’t how a nuclear explosion works. But it makes sense to plasma physicists, who see sunspots as points where the strongest current flow from the galaxy punches holes in the bright surface, pushing back the sea of burning arc-plasma tornadoes that make up the surface of the Sun and revealing a sub-surface thousands of degrees cooler.
Does it make sense for a nuclear explosion? The mainstream has no explanation for this, just some impromptu hand-waving about disconnected magnetic fields (without understanding their electrical nature) with the obligatory catchphrase: “Another anomaly – send more money for research!”
But 10,000 kilometers above the surface, in the Sun’s atmosphere, called the corona, for “crown,” the temperature heats up. Not to thousands, but to millions of degrees, two to ten million. The Sun and all stars are hottest far above their surface. Why would that be?
The answer is, it’s not a campfire. It’s plasma.
If space is a sea of charged particles, then what should stars be, but massive gathering nodes for electrical current. Here’s the model: electrical lines of current in space, converging in a plasma, burst into arc mode as they concentrate on a large, central sphere. The Sun itself is an anode – not the source of energy, but a gathering point. The space around it is superheated by the convergence of plasma power lines, which burst into lightning arcs, reaching millions of degrees in the corona. The power comes from outside of the Sun. Which is why it’s cooler beneath the fire on top.
And if you don’t believe it, understand that the official story admits all of this – the Sun is hottest far above its surface. They don’t have an answer – they call it the “solar coronal heating problem.” They add it to a long list of “problems,” and keep collecting coins for their going theory. It’s gotta be rough to be a tenured academic researcher. They might as well put a sign on their clubhouse: “No new ideas allowed.”
By the way, I once overheard my uncle, the AIDS researcher, talking about places of possible employment for a Ph.D. He remarked “Well, there’s always the NIH, they never fire you.” In other words, it’s nice to guard the clubhouse. Except for the rest of us.
Electric Stars
There are two researchers who’ve done more exploration of this model than any others I know of: Ralph Juergens, who devised the electric sun model, and Wal Thornhill, who pursued and expanded it and who introduced it to readers and researchers through his incredible essays at holoscience.com. I want to thank them both and I hope you look up their work. Ralph left the Earth behind in 1979, but look up his papers, I’ll bet he’ll appreciate it.
And here it is: the electric sun. Power-lines throttle through galaxies and converge in massive star forges. They increase in size and power and attract more and more material. Their attractive force increases as the particle flow becomes denser and brighter; it begins to scavenge local materials.
As plasma researcher Wal Thornhill told me in a 2010 interview:

“As far as we can see – and when I say ‘see,’ I mean that radio telescopes are very important in the electric universe because they can detect radio waves and detect their polarization.
The polarization of the radio waves allows you to map the magnetic field directions in space. Once you’ve done that, it’s a given in plasma physics that electric currents will flow along the direction of the ambient magnetic field lines. So in other words, you can begin to trace the circuits in deep space.
We find the galaxies themselves arranged like Catherine Wheels – that’s the great spiral galaxies – along intergalactic power lines, what are called Birkeland currents. They’re like giant twisted pairs of electric currents which flow through space.
In various places, if the density of matter – the gases and dust in space – are sufficient, these pinch down. It’s called a magnetic pinch [or z-pinch]. In pinching down, they scavenge the matter from the surrounding space and squeeze it, heat it, rotate it and form the stars that we see. They do that in a particular pattern which we can reproduce in the laboratory. That pattern is the spiral galaxy.
It’s an organic picture of the universe and it’s a connected picture. We’re not isolated islands in space. Stars are not isolated, they’re connected electrically and gravitationally. It’s a completely new way of looking at our place in the universe.”

The mainstream can’t get its head out of the 17th Century to examine electricity in space, but without it, they’re lost. The attractive and explosive forces in outer space are monumental. What holds galaxies together? What energy source drives the star forges? It’s not allowed to be electricity, that’s dinged from the start. Instead, it’s left up to old Immanuel Kant, again. Yes, NASA is back in the land of gravity, doing another thought-experiment.
Learn more about electric stars and the electric universe in Chapter 9 of “Official Stories,” by Liam Scheff available now on Amazon worldwide and Createspace.
http://theintelhub.com/2012/08/30/twinkle-twinkle-electric-star/

CLIMATE HISTORY: GLOBAL WARMING SUPPLEMENTARY

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

 

PART 5

                                                          PART 6
                                

CLIMATE CHANGE - IS CO2 THE CAUSE?

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

THE GOVERNMENT PLANS TO BREAK ITS OWN CLIMATE CHANGE LAW

Politicians are finally admitting that our 'carbon' targets and our energy needs are incompatible

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary Photo: JANE MINGAY

By Christopher Booker 28 Jul 2012

It is not often our Government lets on that it is intending to commit a very serious breach of the law – even if it does so in such opaque fashion that it hopes no one will notice. But that is what we can read between the lines of last week’s statement by Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, which revealed just what a catastrophic shambles he is making of Britain’s energy policy.

The headlines that greeted this document were all that the spin doctors of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) could have wished for. They focused on the “victory” of Mr Davey over George Osborne, in managing to preserve the subsidy given to onshore wind turbines (currently 100 per cent) at 90 per cent, rather than the 75 per cent the Treasury supposedly wanted. The reports dutifully echoed DECC’s claim that this would bring “£25 billion of investment into the UK economy”, while Mr Davey was allowed by the Today programme to get away with the risible claim that this would “create hundreds of thousands of green jobs”.

Everything about this statement betrayed that Mr Davey and his officials have begun to realise that they are impaled on two wholly irreconcilable hooks. On one hand, they are under two legal obligations: a commitment to the EU that we will generate 32 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020; and, under the Climate Change Act, that we will cut our “carbon emissions” by 80 per cent within 40 years. On the other hand, it is their duty to ensure that we produce enough electricity to keep our lights on.

Hidden in the small print of Davey’s statement are two passages of particular significance. One, so obscurely phrased that it seems to have passed everyone by, is that by 2017 we hope to be generating “79 terawatt hours” (TWh) of electricity a year from renewables, rising by 2020 to the “108 TWh needed to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy target”. To make sense of this, one must look at the section of DECC’s website showing that, in 2010, the last year for which we have figures, we used 378 TWh of electricity, of which only 10 TWh, or 2.6 per cent, came from wind. Slightly more than this came from other renewables, such as hydro. But to meet that 32 per cent target within eight years, almost all the increase would have to come from new wind turbines.

If 3,000-odd turbines produced 2.6 per cent in 2010, then to meet the EU target would require something like the “32,000 turbines” mentioned by Davey’s predecessor Chris Huhne just before he resigned. This would require us to build about 10 giant turbines every day for the next eight years. Regardless of how many billions of pounds of subsidy might be thrown at this, in practical terms it is quite out of the question.

The first thing we might thus learn from Davey’s statement is that we will miss that legal target by a country mile. An even more revealing passage, however, is one that concedes that we are going to need more gas-fired power stations. Gas, says Davey, will remain “an important part of the energy mix”, not just to provide back-up for all those wind turbines when the wind isn’t blowing, but also to meet our “everyday demands” to 2030 and beyond.
It is all very well for Davey to throw in limp references to how this will “meet our carbon budget” with the aid of “carbon capture and storage”; but as he and his officials well know, piping off CO2 from power stations to bury it under the North Sea is just a pipe-dream. It is still an “unproven technology”, as Davey admits, for the simple reason that it can never be made to work.
So what we see emerging here for the first time is an official admission that, in order to keep our lights on and our economy running, we have no alternative but to rely massively on fossil-fuel gas, which will drive a coach and horses through the Climate Change Act’s target of an 80 per cent emissions cut.
Of course, the politicians will deny this, but they can only do so on the basis of wishful thinking. They are not going to get their “carbon capture” or their 32,000 wind turbines, let alone those “hundreds of thousands of green jobs”. In all directions they are screwed. And not the least telling feature of last week’s statement was that it made no reference to the shale gas revolution which has already halved US gas prices in five years, and which could solve our own energy problems by providing cheap gas for centuries.
One day we will have our shale gas and we will see the Climate Change Act repealed. These things will happen because the penny is finally dropping that the only alternative is economic suicide. But as yet, our politicians are unable to admit openly the enormity of the mess they have landed us in.
Greenland’s ice cap was on the brink of melting… for a few hours
Nothing could have better demonstrated the desperate straits to which global warmists have been driven as they try to keep their scare going than two satellite pictures in last Tuesday’s Guardian, showing a change that had come over the Greenland ice cap. One showed, in white, the second-largest mass of land ice on the planet, seemingly intact. The other, taken a few days later, showed in pink a seemingly ubiquitous melting. These Nasa pictures, we were told, showed alarmingly that, for the first time in history, the surface ice was melting right across Greenland. It took only hours for this scare story to be blown apart.
A tiny rise in air temperatures had momentarily taken them just above freezing, enough to melt a few inches of surface ice. But the ice below it, up to two miles deep, had been unaffected. This had happened before, in 1889. Ice cores show that it happens every 150 years or so. Within hours, as even the BBC admitted, the ice had frozen again. The shortest scare in history was over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9434114/The-Government-plans-to-break-its-own-climate-change-law.html 

THE MAGIC OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Daniel Dennett is Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

Here Professor Dennett lectures on the philosophical obstacles to understanding consciousness. This lecture Ignore warning includes topics covered in detail in his wonderful books "Consciousness Explained" and "Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness".

THE MOST ASTOUNDING FACT NEIL DE GRASSE TYSON