And how come that BBC doesn't possess a
single reporter with high enough IQ to make a reporting that isn't 100%
biased, polemical and tendentious?
Update: Instead of criticing Liz Truss who as the PM is responsible
for the choice of policy BBC jumps on Kwasi Kwarteng. Why? Simple, it's
because Kwasi Kwarteng doesn't support the racist BLM movement which BBC
loves.
And
how low IQ do those simple minds have who blame everything on a single
individual (Putin) who throughout his career has been known as both
smart, pragmatic and reliable (compare what Merkel said about him before
the war)?!
And how low IQ do those possess who well knowing
about Biden's open threat to cut off the gas pipes from Russia to
Germany, still blames the act of terror against Russia's expensive gas
pipes - as done by Russia?! Russia which controls the taps and therefore
has absolutely no need to bomb its own property. Moreover, why would
Russia do it just after Putin promised to deliver gas if Germany
accepted.
Europe's new "Jews" are Russians and Chinese. When
will they be put in concentration camps? They blame Putin but punish
Russians.
And where's the IQ threshold for understanding that
it's all about US fear of being declared technologically and
economically bankrupt by China's progress?
1971 US robbed the
whole world because it had spent too much on militarism, wars and space*
programs. Today the dollar chickens are coming home to roost. And they
are fatter than ever thanks to low IQ among investors who don't realize
this is the beginning of the end.
*
Russia (not US) was first in the world in space 1957 with a satellite;
Russia (not US) was first in the world with a human in space 1961; and
Russia (not US) was first in the world when it 1970 managed to bring
back moon materal without a human crew. And Japan (not US) was the first
2003 to send a robot to land on a body in space outside the Moon orbit,
and to successfully bring back material to Earth.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
How come that Albert Einstein managed to produce longlasting unbiased science - with a decent but not even close to genius brain?
Klevius was amazed when in his teens he encountered the naivety in Einstein's social and cultural writings.
Klevius analysis: Exactly in the same way as Peter Klevius (who had the additional advantage of a genius brain*) did - by avoiding academic bias. Both Einstein and Klevius worked alone. It was only when he became more "academic" that Einstein lost his initial glory. However, unlike Klevius, Einstein talked math which logic was hard to explain away.
*
Peter Klevius half sister won IBM's Europe talent test with IQ 167. She
had a more ordinary dad while Peter Klevius' dad was one of Sweden's
best chess player who won the Gothenburg chess championship many times
over a span of 40 years. Our mother was also known as very intelligent
according to job reports. Peter Klevius oldest daughter was one of only
four women among some 90 men to take the hardest engineering course at
KT H Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and an other daughter
took her Master degree at age 18. They say IQ is inherited - but it also
helps with an assisting dad who wanted his daughters to break out from
feminine constrains about scientific thinking etc.. Peter Klevius
fostered the oldest daughter alone and the other practically alone when
it came to education.
Unlike Klevius, Einstein had a girlfriend and later wife who was more intelligent and more precise with math and physics than himself. And of course, 'Einstein' for most decent people stand for a particular set of understanding the world we live in - not some idolatry of a particular individual. Therefore, Klevius doesn't put too much emphasize on accusations of Einstein's "plagiarism" - after all, Klevius warned in his book Demand for Resources (1992) about how selective citations (or forcing in citations when there are no relevant ones) may actually distort scientific discoveries. And the PhD-student type of struggle to chase citations just for the sake of it, has very little to do with scientific revelations. If Klevius revelations would have been all written down and somehow connected to nearest possible citations, the result would have been much more than the whole of Talmud - and definitely much more coherent. The only passus in Talmud Klevius has ever found interesting (not that he has read much - it all sounds very similar and completely falls short of old epos such as Kalevala, Eddan and their Greek copies/variants etc. - although the latter ones were written down earlier, the former are older) was the notion that Jesus was an illegitimate child fathered by a roman soldier named Panther..
However, one gets the impression that Einstein used a broad smorgasbord filled with lots of quite irrelevant stuff which was then filtered down by others for true essence (who probably knew about the ones Einstein was accused of having plagiarized). And of course there was a longing for a figure like Einstein at the time when Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the "Atheist" Soviet, were in creation. And although Einstein was an Atheist himself, more importantly, he was instead called a Jew because his family contained Jews (however, compare Obama who was born to a muslim father and brought up by a muslim adoptive father - yet was fully accepted as a Christian) and therefore also associated with Christians, especially in the U.S.. Calling oneself a Jew or a muslim for the sake of convenience may be personally advantageous, but may also contribute to strengthening the power of real "extremist" Jews and muslims.
Klevius: Academic bias starts with a biased portraying of the problem or topic, which then constitutes the negative to a biased "result".
Einstein's main discoveries happened when he was 16-26 years old - before he got his PhD - and at a time when all the pieces had just appeared and only asked for mathematical formulations (some of already existed).
Klevius: Most groundbreaking research happens outside academically produced peer consensus bias.
Einstein was able to compensate lack of brain power because he also had, unlike Klevius, an upbringing that gave him loads of time for reading plus advanced private tutors. Klevius had to sneak in his "studying" before falling asleep and at times when he managed to escape his work load in the foster family he had been kidnapped to (and later at age 17 kicked out of and sent penniless and without education to a foreign country). At school Klevius curiosity was too big for the curriculum, so he sneaked to the library instead - which fact took a toll on boring algebraic rules etc.. And to be fair, Klevius also wasted a lot of time on reading classics as well as a lot of non sense. He was after all just a lost teenager without a cause.
Einstein, like Klevius, wasn't too pedantic on details, and Einstein's math expressions faltered quite regularly. And although there's nothing in math that mathematically illiterate Klevius doesn't understand, his math reading and writing skills have never been honed in engineering and physics like Einstein and his friend. However, unlike Klevius (whose cowardliness usually silences him*) Einstein didn't hesitate to put forward less well thought-through propositions.
* Klevius plays safe in issues about Human Rights, human evolution, cosmology, consciousness etc. hence not only keeping tho wolves away but also simple minded admirers.
Klevius grew up in a foster home after being kidnapped from an other country at the age of two. And when the authorities eventually were informed five years later, he was declared "rooted" (this "rooting" suddenly ended when Klevius was 17 and told to go back to his country of birth for military service). And after that Klevius was more or less an enslaved child worker in the family. However, the regular physical violence and the heavy work load didn't create the most traumatic memories. Worst of all were the blistering cold winter days (down to -20 Celsius) when early in the dark mornings Klevius had to follow the foster father to a far away forest - all the time in the cold open air. And at the logging place the only thought Klevius had in his head was that the clock would reach mid-day so he could get some warm chocolate and a bread, and after that a long wait for going home in the almost dark (lit only by stars or moonlight on the white snow and ice). And had it been a loving father and part of the survival of a loving family - perhaps with other kids to play with during the day - then it could have been a lot easier. But it wasn't. Later Klevius learned that others had worries about how Klevius was abused but no one stepped forward back then.
As a footnote to this footnote it might be appropriate also to point out the fact that according to much populist social "science" popular in universities these kind of traumatic childhood experience will produce violent and abusive adults. Klevius may be a pervert in this respect because nothing of it has got stuck on him. On the contrary he has been the one that has protected children from female violence (not his last wife) despite the fact that those women came from stable and relatively well-off bio-families.
However, Klevius was after all "taken care of" by authorities. Klevius had three different surnames during his first eight years of life. One of them was Lindroos, i.e. the name of the foster family, which was used when Klevius was sent over the fields (no roads) to a school that wasn't used by other kids from the same area. Due to Klevius excellent performance at primary school, one might guess, the foster mother wanted to adopt him but was hindered by the foster father and, one might guess, the grown up son. Such an adoption would have rendered Klevius a third of a relatively big farm on the outskirts of the capital. Instead Klevius was kicked out to a foreign country he had never visited after his second birthday, without finished education and without any money. A decade later, still without Klevius having put his foot even close to a university, philosopher G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) gave his approval of Klevius analysis of the evolution of human societies (see Klevius 1981 and 1992). This included, apart from "expanded demands for resources", Klevius "stone experiment" (abt. consciousness/awareness) as well as the new concept of 'existence-centrism' (abt. metaphysics).
The daughter in the foster family (who never married) later on gave up much of her part in the farm to her brother. However, although she never had anything to do with Klevius after he left, when she read what Klevius had published on line about her favorite poet the Finland-Swedish modernist Edith Södergran, she wrote a will in which she gave 15% of her tiny estate to Klevius, i.e. not far from the 20% she gave her own brother (who never answered Klevius request to at least be able to buy a small lot for building a house).
Max Planck: "To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them."
Comparing Klevius upbringing and scientific stimulation with that of Einstein may be exemplified by an episode when Klevius was 12 and told his foster mother that there's electricity in the phone cables and she refused to believe and gave him a hard slap in the face instead. Although both foster parents were physically very abusive, the foster mother did it much more frequently. The foster father was more evasive - except when commanding to work.
The reason no one likes Klevius science is precisely his annoying definition of true science being chasing for whatever bias that can be spotted.
The same applies to Klevius defense of the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Most people have tied themselves to religious or ideological doxies (racist, sexist or supremacist) which sooner or later clash with Klevius analysis.
So how does Klevius himself survive himself? Simple, exactly in the same way Klevius has survived his testosterone driven heterosexual attraction without having problems with sexism etc. and exactly in the same way as Klevius has been race blind - until, of course, a certain point when feminist sex segregationists and "colored" race segregationists beg for criticism. Not to mention religion which combines all these dark forces in one. Check out if you are a Human Rightsphobe, i.e. in the target line of Klevius criticism by comparing your beliefs with Human Rights - especially the "negative" freedom from impositions rights.
At the time when Einstein's most famous papers were written, he didn't have easy access to a complete set of scientific reference materials, although he did regularly read and contribute reviews to Annalen der Physik. Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few. He worked as an examiner at the Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland, and he later said of a co-worker there, Michele Besso, that he "could not have found a better sounding board for his ideas in all of Europe". In addition, co-workers and the other members of the self-styled "Olympian Academy" (Maurice Solovine and Paul Habicht) and his wife, Mileva Marić, had some influence on Einstein's work, but how much is unclear.
Through these papers, Einstein tackles some of the era's most important physics questions and problems. In 1900, Lord Kelvin, in a lecture titled "Nineteenth-Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light", suggested that physics had no satisfactory explanations for the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment and for black body radiation. As introduced, special relativity provided an account for the results of the Michelson–Morley experiments. Einstein's theories for the photoelectric effect extended the quantum theory which Max Planck had developed in his successful explanation of black body radiation.
Despite the greater fame achieved by his other works, such as that on special relativity, it was his work on the photoelectric effect that won him his Nobel Prize in 1921: "For services to theoretical physics and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." The Nobel committee had waited patiently for experimental confirmation of special relativity; however, none was forthcoming until the time dilation experiments of Ives and Stilwell (1938),(1941) and Rossi and Hall (1941).
So Einstein's special relativity was fertilized outside academic peer review and experiments.
This is the reason it was able to avoid academic bias.
Timeline:
Before he got his PhD Einstein published everything of importance for his reputation, i.e. four short papers in 1905 in not peer reviewed The Annalen der Physik. One, about the photo electric effect, rendered him the Nobel Prize. However, the papers on special relativity, mass-energy equivalence, and the Brownian motion, together made the foundation for what we could call an Einsteinian paradigm shift. Moreover, the mass-energy equivalence paper formed the basis of his general relativity, which was published ten years later in an obscure magazine after being dismissed by more prominent ones.
1905 Einstein’s “annus mirabilis”. He publishes four groundbreaking works in the “Annalen der Physik”, which revolutionize the basics of physics around 1900. One of his works, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), contains the special theory of relativity. In another work he deduces the famous formula E = mc2.
In April Einstein hands in his work Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen (A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions) as dissertation at the University of Zurich and it is accepted at the end of July.
Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies)
1906 In the middle of January Einstein is awarded a doctorate by the University of Zurich and in April he is promoted to be a second-class technical expert at the Patent Office.
1907 Einstein starts to think about the general theory of relativity and discovers the principle of equivalence of mass and energy for continuously accelerated systems. His application for the doctorate is rejected by the University of Bern as his doctorate paper is not sufficient.
1908 Through handing in a new dissertation, Einstein is awarded the doctorate at the University of Bern and becomes a private college lecturer. At the end of the year he holds his first lecture.
Talking about bias etc.,Klevius wrote:
Nissan rocket no. 1 with the Hayabusa robot
Nissan rocket no. 2
With a lap time of 7 min 8 sec Nissan GTR is the fastest, (non-hybrid*) globally-homologated road car around the world's most famous race track Nurburgring in Germany.
The old GTR was the first car to go under 8 minutes at Nurburgring.
* i.e. using a battery and Japanese hybrid technology to get extra power for the short time the ride lasts.
A Nissan Skyline* GTR ATESSA 4WD (2700 cc 6 cyl 280-1600 hp) from the 1990s - the Japanese legend that Lambourghini Gallardo (5000 cc) was aimed to beat - more than a decade later! But consider huge difference in quality! The old Skyline GTR has the world record for legal cars abt 350 km/h on a German (!) autobahn (unofficial >380 km/h)!
What all GTRs have in common compared to non-Japanese super cars is superior quality. Already in the 1990s a Porsche CEO admitted that they can never achieve the same quality level as the Japanese.
* The new GTR has dropped the Skyline name. However, the basics are the same: 4WD and a small but powerful 6 cylinder engine.
A ten billion year old supernova has been discovered. It means it died ten billion years ago, i.e. 5.5 billion years before our Sun was born.
The black area on the pic above corresponds to the white area on Klevius' Origin of Universe pic.
The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years from the
Earth. Light travels at a speed corresponding to 7.5 laps around the
Earth in one second.
The light from the farthest objects detectable by Hubble and other cameras (incl. radio waves etc), i.e. more than 13 billion years ago, marks the end of our capabilities, not the end of Universe. Because there is no "end" or "beginning". These terms are oxymorons and semantically absurd.
So next time you take a look at the stars do consider what you don't see.
In my book Demand for Resources (Resursbegär1992:21-22) I pointed out not only the dangers of such a senseless "model" as "Big Bang" but also how this "model" is trapped in a "monotheistic" view demanding "creation", i.e. a "starting point". Not only is such a "starting point" conceptually impossible (apart from its very obvious other limitations, e.g. how do you "bang" in "nothing") but it also fatally misdirects research focus because it assumes "a universe" or "the universe" where there's only universe.
A time trip back towards the "Big Bang" would only reveal a continuing growth of neighboring "universes". The space/time continuum and warping would make the "Big Bang" model laughable.
To my surprise I've noticed how many decently minded people seem to have great difficulties understanding how the great distances and the great limitations caused by the speed of light constant, warps every effort to take even quite small thought steps, say for example only within our own tiny galaxy.
Unlike Klevius, Einstein had a girlfriend and later wife who was more intelligent and more precise with math and physics than himself. And of course, 'Einstein' for most decent people stand for a particular set of understanding the world we live in - not some idolatry of a particular individual. Therefore, Klevius doesn't put too much emphasize on accusations of Einstein's "plagiarism" - after all, Klevius warned in his book Demand for Resources (1992) about how selective citations (or forcing in citations when there are no relevant ones) may actually distort scientific discoveries. And the PhD-student type of struggle to chase citations just for the sake of it, has very little to do with scientific revelations. If Klevius revelations would have been all written down and somehow connected to nearest possible citations, the result would have been much more than the whole of Talmud - and definitely much more coherent. The only passus in Talmud Klevius has ever found interesting (not that he has read much - it all sounds very similar and completely falls short of old epos such as Kalevala, Eddan and their Greek copies/variants etc. - although the latter ones were written down earlier, the former are older) was the notion that Jesus was an illegitimate child fathered by a roman soldier named Panther..
However, one gets the impression that Einstein used a broad smorgasbord filled with lots of quite irrelevant stuff which was then filtered down by others for true essence (who probably knew about the ones Einstein was accused of having plagiarized). And of course there was a longing for a figure like Einstein at the time when Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the "Atheist" Soviet, were in creation. And although Einstein was an Atheist himself, more importantly, he was instead called a Jew because his family contained Jews (however, compare Obama who was born to a muslim father and brought up by a muslim adoptive father - yet was fully accepted as a Christian) and therefore also associated with Christians, especially in the U.S.. Calling oneself a Jew or a muslim for the sake of convenience may be personally advantageous, but may also contribute to strengthening the power of real "extremist" Jews and muslims.
Klevius: Academic bias starts with a biased portraying of the problem or topic, which then constitutes the negative to a biased "result".
Einstein's main discoveries happened when he was 16-26 years old - before he got his PhD - and at a time when all the pieces had just appeared and only asked for mathematical formulations (some of already existed).
Klevius: Most groundbreaking research happens outside academically produced peer consensus bias.
Einstein was able to compensate lack of brain power because he also had, unlike Klevius, an upbringing that gave him loads of time for reading plus advanced private tutors. Klevius had to sneak in his "studying" before falling asleep and at times when he managed to escape his work load in the foster family he had been kidnapped to (and later at age 17 kicked out of and sent penniless and without education to a foreign country). At school Klevius curiosity was too big for the curriculum, so he sneaked to the library instead - which fact took a toll on boring algebraic rules etc.. And to be fair, Klevius also wasted a lot of time on reading classics as well as a lot of non sense. He was after all just a lost teenager without a cause.
Einstein, like Klevius, wasn't too pedantic on details, and Einstein's math expressions faltered quite regularly. And although there's nothing in math that mathematically illiterate Klevius doesn't understand, his math reading and writing skills have never been honed in engineering and physics like Einstein and his friend. However, unlike Klevius (whose cowardliness usually silences him*) Einstein didn't hesitate to put forward less well thought-through propositions.
* Klevius plays safe in issues about Human Rights, human evolution, cosmology, consciousness etc. hence not only keeping tho wolves away but also simple minded admirers.
Klevius grew up in a foster home after being kidnapped from an other country at the age of two. And when the authorities eventually were informed five years later, he was declared "rooted" (this "rooting" suddenly ended when Klevius was 17 and told to go back to his country of birth for military service). And after that Klevius was more or less an enslaved child worker in the family. However, the regular physical violence and the heavy work load didn't create the most traumatic memories. Worst of all were the blistering cold winter days (down to -20 Celsius) when early in the dark mornings Klevius had to follow the foster father to a far away forest - all the time in the cold open air. And at the logging place the only thought Klevius had in his head was that the clock would reach mid-day so he could get some warm chocolate and a bread, and after that a long wait for going home in the almost dark (lit only by stars or moonlight on the white snow and ice). And had it been a loving father and part of the survival of a loving family - perhaps with other kids to play with during the day - then it could have been a lot easier. But it wasn't. Later Klevius learned that others had worries about how Klevius was abused but no one stepped forward back then.
As a footnote to this footnote it might be appropriate also to point out the fact that according to much populist social "science" popular in universities these kind of traumatic childhood experience will produce violent and abusive adults. Klevius may be a pervert in this respect because nothing of it has got stuck on him. On the contrary he has been the one that has protected children from female violence (not his last wife) despite the fact that those women came from stable and relatively well-off bio-families.
However, Klevius was after all "taken care of" by authorities. Klevius had three different surnames during his first eight years of life. One of them was Lindroos, i.e. the name of the foster family, which was used when Klevius was sent over the fields (no roads) to a school that wasn't used by other kids from the same area. Due to Klevius excellent performance at primary school, one might guess, the foster mother wanted to adopt him but was hindered by the foster father and, one might guess, the grown up son. Such an adoption would have rendered Klevius a third of a relatively big farm on the outskirts of the capital. Instead Klevius was kicked out to a foreign country he had never visited after his second birthday, without finished education and without any money. A decade later, still without Klevius having put his foot even close to a university, philosopher G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) gave his approval of Klevius analysis of the evolution of human societies (see Klevius 1981 and 1992). This included, apart from "expanded demands for resources", Klevius "stone experiment" (abt. consciousness/awareness) as well as the new concept of 'existence-centrism' (abt. metaphysics).
The daughter in the foster family (who never married) later on gave up much of her part in the farm to her brother. However, although she never had anything to do with Klevius after he left, when she read what Klevius had published on line about her favorite poet the Finland-Swedish modernist Edith Södergran, she wrote a will in which she gave 15% of her tiny estate to Klevius, i.e. not far from the 20% she gave her own brother (who never answered Klevius request to at least be able to buy a small lot for building a house).
Max Planck: "To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them."
Comparing Klevius upbringing and scientific stimulation with that of Einstein may be exemplified by an episode when Klevius was 12 and told his foster mother that there's electricity in the phone cables and she refused to believe and gave him a hard slap in the face instead. Although both foster parents were physically very abusive, the foster mother did it much more frequently. The foster father was more evasive - except when commanding to work.
Is there a general interest in the fact that while Einstein is possibly the most overrated "genius", Klevius challenges the position as the most underrated genius?
The reason no one likes Klevius science is precisely his annoying definition of true science being chasing for whatever bias that can be spotted.
The same applies to Klevius defense of the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Most people have tied themselves to religious or ideological doxies (racist, sexist or supremacist) which sooner or later clash with Klevius analysis.
So how does Klevius himself survive himself? Simple, exactly in the same way Klevius has survived his testosterone driven heterosexual attraction without having problems with sexism etc. and exactly in the same way as Klevius has been race blind - until, of course, a certain point when feminist sex segregationists and "colored" race segregationists beg for criticism. Not to mention religion which combines all these dark forces in one. Check out if you are a Human Rightsphobe, i.e. in the target line of Klevius criticism by comparing your beliefs with Human Rights - especially the "negative" freedom from impositions rights.
At the time when Einstein's most famous papers were written, he didn't have easy access to a complete set of scientific reference materials, although he did regularly read and contribute reviews to Annalen der Physik. Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few. He worked as an examiner at the Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland, and he later said of a co-worker there, Michele Besso, that he "could not have found a better sounding board for his ideas in all of Europe". In addition, co-workers and the other members of the self-styled "Olympian Academy" (Maurice Solovine and Paul Habicht) and his wife, Mileva Marić, had some influence on Einstein's work, but how much is unclear.
Through these papers, Einstein tackles some of the era's most important physics questions and problems. In 1900, Lord Kelvin, in a lecture titled "Nineteenth-Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light", suggested that physics had no satisfactory explanations for the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment and for black body radiation. As introduced, special relativity provided an account for the results of the Michelson–Morley experiments. Einstein's theories for the photoelectric effect extended the quantum theory which Max Planck had developed in his successful explanation of black body radiation.
Despite the greater fame achieved by his other works, such as that on special relativity, it was his work on the photoelectric effect that won him his Nobel Prize in 1921: "For services to theoretical physics and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." The Nobel committee had waited patiently for experimental confirmation of special relativity; however, none was forthcoming until the time dilation experiments of Ives and Stilwell (1938),(1941) and Rossi and Hall (1941).
So Einstein's special relativity was fertilized outside academic peer review and experiments.
This is the reason it was able to avoid academic bias.
Timeline:
Before he got his PhD Einstein published everything of importance for his reputation, i.e. four short papers in 1905 in not peer reviewed The Annalen der Physik. One, about the photo electric effect, rendered him the Nobel Prize. However, the papers on special relativity, mass-energy equivalence, and the Brownian motion, together made the foundation for what we could call an Einsteinian paradigm shift. Moreover, the mass-energy equivalence paper formed the basis of his general relativity, which was published ten years later in an obscure magazine after being dismissed by more prominent ones.
1905 Einstein’s “annus mirabilis”. He publishes four groundbreaking works in the “Annalen der Physik”, which revolutionize the basics of physics around 1900. One of his works, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), contains the special theory of relativity. In another work he deduces the famous formula E = mc2.
In April Einstein hands in his work Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen (A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions) as dissertation at the University of Zurich and it is accepted at the end of July.
Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies)
1906 In the middle of January Einstein is awarded a doctorate by the University of Zurich and in April he is promoted to be a second-class technical expert at the Patent Office.
1907 Einstein starts to think about the general theory of relativity and discovers the principle of equivalence of mass and energy for continuously accelerated systems. His application for the doctorate is rejected by the University of Bern as his doctorate paper is not sufficient.
1908 Through handing in a new dissertation, Einstein is awarded the doctorate at the University of Bern and becomes a private college lecturer. At the end of the year he holds his first lecture.
Talking about bias etc.,Klevius wrote:
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Japan makes the world's top technology - yet Europe gets the press! Why?
Why is the media shouting FIRST EVER when a bunch of European countries try to copy what Japan did a decade ago?!
Nissan rocket no. 1 with the Hayabusa robot
Nissan rocket no. 2
With a lap time of 7 min 8 sec Nissan GTR is the fastest, (non-hybrid*) globally-homologated road car around the world's most famous race track Nurburgring in Germany.
The old GTR was the first car to go under 8 minutes at Nurburgring.
* i.e. using a battery and Japanese hybrid technology to get extra power for the short time the ride lasts.
A Nissan Skyline* GTR ATESSA 4WD (2700 cc 6 cyl 280-1600 hp) from the 1990s - the Japanese legend that Lambourghini Gallardo (5000 cc) was aimed to beat - more than a decade later! But consider huge difference in quality! The old Skyline GTR has the world record for legal cars abt 350 km/h on a German (!) autobahn (unofficial >380 km/h)!
What all GTRs have in common compared to non-Japanese super cars is superior quality. Already in the 1990s a Porsche CEO admitted that they can never achieve the same quality level as the Japanese.
* The new GTR has dropped the Skyline name. However, the basics are the same: 4WD and a small but powerful 6 cylinder engine.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Where's the star and where were you?
The illusion of a Universe
A ten billion year old supernova has been discovered. It means it died ten billion years ago, i.e. 5.5 billion years before our Sun was born.
The black area on the pic above corresponds to the white area on Klevius' Origin of Universe pic.
The light from the farthest objects detectable by Hubble and other cameras (incl. radio waves etc), i.e. more than 13 billion years ago, marks the end of our capabilities, not the end of Universe. Because there is no "end" or "beginning". These terms are oxymorons and semantically absurd.
So next time you take a look at the stars do consider what you don't see.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The ridiculous idea about "one god" hampers CERN/LHC
Universe doesn't have limits - nor is it endless
In my book Demand for Resources (Resursbegär1992:21-22) I pointed out not only the dangers of such a senseless "model" as "Big Bang" but also how this "model" is trapped in a "monotheistic" view demanding "creation", i.e. a "starting point". Not only is such a "starting point" conceptually impossible (apart from its very obvious other limitations, e.g. how do you "bang" in "nothing") but it also fatally misdirects research focus because it assumes "a universe" or "the universe" where there's only universe.
A time trip back towards the "Big Bang" would only reveal a continuing growth of neighboring "universes". The space/time continuum and warping would make the "Big Bang" model laughable.
To my surprise I've noticed how many decently minded people seem to have great difficulties understanding how the great distances and the great limitations caused by the speed of light constant, warps every effort to take even quite small thought steps, say for example only within our own tiny galaxy.
Cameras never lie - pictures do!
All space cameras, from our own eyes to the Hubble space telescope and its follow-ups, have in common that they don't take pictures of space but of themselves, i.e. photo reactions on the retina, CCD etc. These reactions are then interpreted by our knowledge. However, to describe such reactions as a picture of space is extremely misleading.Sunday, September 11, 2011
Origin(s) of Universe
Universe as a language trap
Due to our human shortcomings we tend to entangle us with stupid concepts which then get a life of their own. These include not only e.g. irrational numbers but also such peculiarities as 'beginning', 'creation', 'existence', 'god' etc.
There can't be 'the', 'a', 'one' or 'many' in front of universe.
To understand this simple fact you just need to expore it by pinpointing the histories of light perceptions hitting "your world". Such light phenomenons may represent a "distance"* of everything from light traveling at 300,000 km/sec some fractions of a second to Billions of years. Moreover, some of them may be just side by side and with equal relative luminance. With this in mind then start it all over again, i.e. your theoretical mapping of "the Universe".
* If the source has moved or vanished when you perceive its light, then there i no real "distance" to be measured.
to be continued...
Some conventional views later to be commented by Klevius:
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, but that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation (and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy).[1] Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium.
According to observations of structures larger than solar systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy.[2][3] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%.
Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe; these observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modeling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation. The largest part of dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent.[4]
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws
.
Due to our human shortcomings we tend to entangle us with stupid concepts which then get a life of their own. These include not only e.g. irrational numbers but also such peculiarities as 'beginning', 'creation', 'existence', 'god' etc.
There can't be 'the', 'a', 'one' or 'many' in front of universe.
To understand this simple fact you just need to expore it by pinpointing the histories of light perceptions hitting "your world". Such light phenomenons may represent a "distance"* of everything from light traveling at 300,000 km/sec some fractions of a second to Billions of years. Moreover, some of them may be just side by side and with equal relative luminance. With this in mind then start it all over again, i.e. your theoretical mapping of "the Universe".
* If the source has moved or vanished when you perceive its light, then there i no real "distance" to be measured.
to be continued...
Some conventional views later to be commented by Klevius:
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, but that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation (and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy).[1] Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium.
According to observations of structures larger than solar systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy.[2][3] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%.
Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe; these observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modeling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation. The largest part of dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent.[4]
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws
Friday, March 8, 2019
Klevius annual sex tutorial about sex segregation/apartheid on Women's Day 2019
BBC debated men's and women's intelligence. The result was a firework of hypocrisy and PC.
Klevius has said it before and says it again: All women are biologically gay - except much less biologically interested in sexual acts than gay men. Just ask you lesbian neighbor.
Klevius simplified sex tutorial for the female BBC presenter and the guests she had invited - which didn't include Klevius. If Klevius had participated everything else in the progran would have appeared complete non sense because they represented: a) "women are less intelligent than men", i.e. the popular religious sexist stance that men should possess women because women are stupid and vulnerable. According to an islamic Hadith, Mohammed said women are the stupidiest.
However, consider Klevius analysis about mixing wrong categories with wrong comparisons - and the racist/sexist meaninglessness of talking about "average":
1 Klevius knows it's hard, but really try to get this into your head. There's only one thing that distinguishes women from men, and that is reproductive (albeit commonly used for non-reproductive purposes) heterosexual attraction (HSA). All other distinctions are either cultural or not comparable (e.g. giving birth etc.). The mistake you may do, and many others do, is to slip in man-woman comparisons where they don't belong in a particular analytic set. Yes, of course this definition (just like the "average" one) excludes most women and men most of the time. In fact, it excludes sex all together most of the time. So why talk about 2-seater sports cars and MPVs when in traffic they are just cars following exactly the same traffic rules - other than if you want to show off your bias for either?
2 Asking whether women are dumber than men is stereotyping physical features used to produce a class of people called women and then compare a statistical mean to a similar class of men. Consider the same with "white", "Chinese", "black" etc.
When Klevius meets a "woman", a "Chinese", a "white" or a "black" individual - how could he possibly use "average" on random people? Moreover, why would he even consider it when 1) he knows nothing about the individual and 2) Klevius negative Human Rights ideology makes everyone equal (compare traffic - i.e. moving and responsible objects ).
Still puzzled?
Ok, consider this: Why would a man prefer a woman for anal sex? Or Virginia Woolf's question: Why are men som so much more interested in women? Or why are naked women so closely attached to heterosexual male eroticism? Or how could you even be here without heterosexual attraction in males? Men can't be raped. Pole dance, striptease, ass-shows, etc. etc.
HSA isn't a sexual act per se, only a biological teaser to rather have intercourse with someone reproductive. However, this HSA doesn't go away or is limited to reproduction.
So we men have to deal with it by understanding it and respecting women as we want to be respected ourselves. And the 1960s was a much bigger turning point in this respect than most sociologists have understood, because for the first time "average" women were allowed to show off their HSA. And voila, men (most of them) didn't start mass raping women on the streets, beaches etc. The men of the 60s returned to the hunter-gatherer socity wrapped in modern tech and "demand for resources". However, ideologies which even hint at the possibilty that rape under certain conditions are ok, as islam does, have no place under true Human Rights.
So obviously, islam is also wrong when it sharia limits women's freedom with "modesty" etc. veiling. However, England's possibly most divisive (e.g. that she calls other muslims 'idiots'), bigoted and hypocritical female muslim politician Sayeeda Warsi says: "The veil was used in pre-islamic days by well-to-do women who went to the market and didn't want to hang out with the plebs." Klevius then wonders where all the veiled women who call themselves "muslims" come from? Are they no real muslim women? Apart, of course, from the fact that no "muslim woman" can ever be equally much muslim as someone possessing a Penis, because she is forever more or less segregated with "duties" and "obligations" because of her Vagina.
That about men and "muslim"* women.
* Based on islamic sharia teachings, and compared to Human Rights, women "belonging" to muslim men aren't really full muslims. Just compare OIC's sharia declaration which on precicely this point completely differs from the (negative, i.e. basic) rights in the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration. Klevius suggests Sayeeda Warsi should take a look. As should asexuals or partly asexuals who don't want to be bothered with HSA or sexuality.
So what about women in general? HSA can be either neglected, rejected, or utilized, the latter being the most problematic due to borderline issues with other relations.
In short, Klevius (1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004 and 2003- on the web) has always in summary meant that:
From a relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer society (compare Richard Lee, Patricia Draper, Marshal Sahlin, Diane Gelburd, etc. works froom the 1960s and 70s - discussed in Klevius 1992), expanded demand for resources (see Klevius book Demand for Resources, 1992), i.e. investment in domestication, caused what Klevius calls practical or 'classic sex segregation', later on strengtened with cultural/religious sex segregation (Klevius 1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004 and 2003- on the web). However, today there is no need for neither anymore thanks to Human Rights, yet sex segregation continues and even becomes stronger e.g. via medieval religious orthodoxy like sharia islam, as well as via deliberately sex segregational feminisms which exclude any role of women in women's suppression.
As a female "asset" HSA may be confusing for both women and men. From making "the oldest profession" possible, to using it as an attractor for "the right man" (while blaming the "wrong man's gaze" as 'unwanted').
So Klevius suggestion is, and has always been, to treat anyone as a respected individual on an equality basis, in line with basic Human ("traffic") Rights. Everything else qualifies as racism and sexism - possibly even fascism.
And every Atheist can easily agree with Klevius on this point. However, true sharia muslims can't. And by pointing to this simple fact you are immediately named a disgusting "islamophobe". Why?
Klevius question to men: Do you possess a Penis like this? Klevius doesn't.
From Klevius "web museum" that hasn't been touched upon for over a decade:
Klevius de-sex segregated sex lesson for beginners:
Sex segregated heterosexual sex
The weird world of cultural sex
In a scientific show on Swedish radio a female "sexpert" addressed the use of
sex toys for females ("rabbitde"). Before we continue please note that stupid Freud proposed "a normal penis several times" for hysteric women (see From Freud to bin Laden and Klevius revealing psychosocial timeline & Freud’s slips). From this it has continued a perverted entanglement on ideas of biology and sex segregation that, as a result, makes many people seriously believe that meeting in a simultaneous heterosexual orgasm is the fulfilment of the relation. But in fact apart that it’s extremely rare, unless purportedly and under big efforts, it’s really the opposite to relation, i.e. this very strive is truly rigid sex segregation. And even worse, this functions as a barrier for true human relations.
How could ejaculation be 'premature'* (before penetration?!) and why do women ought to reach orgasm** - and with men?
The simple answer is that our fixation and perverted focusing on sex has as its basic pillar the cultural belief in sex segregation (see Klevius definition of feminism) which then determines us to more of the same while producing a fictive and non-relational meeting sanctuary through physical sex that doesn’t even (in most cases?) reach the standard of autoeroticism.
The female "sexpert" in the radio show told the listeners that as a single she used the toy (the "pepper can"*** in Klevius termninology) but that now she possesses the best possible, "wounderful natural staff". When asked which one was better she admitted (while giggling and hesitating like an especially unsure teen) that no natural surrogate could outperform the artificial one. This statement really hits the core of the sex segregation/heterosexual attraction analysis in KLEVUX
What if all this sex focusing is the real opposite of its label? Namely sex oppression made possible by sex segregation and the blurring effects of heterosexual attraction (HSA) and the joy humans might share with eachother, not because of but despite sexism!
Progressing from here needs the rethinking and reformulation of conventional concepts of sex and sexuality. By applying HSA as a tendency/potential, apart from or combined with (but not being) physical sexual activity, and then placing it in a cultural pattern of sex segregation reveals a completely different and new picture - one that surprisingly turns out to be as old as mankind. Some of the questions that should be part of such an analysis include: What's physical and what's cultural in my evaluation of sex? Is my partner a sex toy - and is s/he aware of it? What role does HSA play and could it be beneficial for both without sex segregation? Am I raped? Am I raping somebody? Am I raping myself?
