Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Eric Dean Campbell
Quo Sanctus Libri Abscondo Mei Scientia
Quo Sanctus Libri Abscondo Mei Scientia

Eric Dean's posts

Post is pinned.Post has attachment
In a moment of creativity last year I wrote and recorded this song (from mind to video in 10 minutes). Recorded on the Blackberry Playbook.

Post has attachment
I've not posted for a while, but here is some new science for you - as planetary surface areas heat up, the drying out of topsoil results in dust storms which are causing pulsed atmospheric nutrient inputs into the oceans. This study specifically references the Saharan dust storms and resulting nutrient influx of the Mediterranean ocean.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Dark Energy appears to be a fictitious idea, created to explain a phenomena that does not actually exist.
Meanwhile, universal expansion appears to be a steady state - NOT an accelerating model.

Post has attachment
Once again my Prime Minister one-up's me.

Post has attachment
 A new study suggests that cognitive impairment is an explanation for why people believe in ESP,  precognition or associating co-incidence with knowing the future before it occurs.

Post has attachment
Since we were young, we were taught the notion that mathematics is one of those fundamental things that nets the same result each and every time it is used. Most of us believe with unwavering faith that mathematics as a science, is the very foundation of logical thinking.
The problem in this day of Richard Feynman's quantum electrodynamics is that probability and uncertainty begin to intrude on our nice, tidy belief structures.
How we want our universe to behave often conflicts with reality - reality being a word I use to represent the human concept of the observable construct universe as perceived by our multiple senses and interpreted by our human consciousness; in other words the stuff we see, hear and touch.

Mathematics generally isn't something we can see, hear or touch, but it is a human mechanism for deconstructing our observations so that we may explain and make predictions regarding the likelihood of an observable event happening again.

A naive world approach to what would at first glance appear to be a random event (such as the flipping of a coin) would leave the observer the expectation that the coin toss SHOULD be 50-50 (50% probability of the coin landing heads or 50% landing tails.) Most people assume that the rational expectation of a supposedly random event is that it is split evenly between 2 options, 'yes it will or no it will not'. Of course, the flipping of a coin is in no way a random event, and can be easily controlled with practice so that it gives you 75 to 25% odds in your favor.

You may say "OK, certainly if mankind is involved in the measure, surely bias, deliberate or otherwise is always factored into the results". True enough, when results that violate causality (cause and effect) are above statistical norm, we need to look for why - and usually it's human interference or manipulation of the experiment or data. Things like apparent miracles can be performed simply by subtle deception - or hiding how the experimenter ended up getting the results obtained, fantastic as they are. That's the difference between science and 'magic' or 'illusion'.
That is why it is SO important to have experiments where duplication of the exercise nets a result consistent with the original.
A case that comes to mind are the thousands upon thousands of perpetual motion machines developed every year. Some even get money for development by people who fail to grasp that any violation of thermodynamics would be a bad bet to make. Impossible actually.
Still, in spite of knowing that a perpetual motion machine is absolutely impossible, people insist that the entire universe and how it functions is wrong - and they know better. Or - they are just better liars than the average person, and think they have the power to make people believe scientific law can be easily violated.

All of this however, is on our scale - not on the quantum level. Rational probability has no place there. None at all.
The thing about QED is that your outcomes are only mathematically favored - not mathematical certainty. Probably you will obtain a result that fits into your expectations, but with absolute certainty - there will be results that do not. That's a fact.
If there is an almost 0% chance of something occurring on the quantum level, then it will, given enough time. This principle of, for lack of a better term "low expectation" is now a scientific process - if there is even a small chance of something occurring on a quantum level, it absolutely will. Thus we enter the quantum machine age. Currently chips are hitting the 12-17 nanometer range - but at this scale quantum probability starts to take over and the path of electron is no longer predictable. They "leak" from the chip. It's a real, nearly impossible barrier to overcome.
Can we? The odds are extremely low - so yes, absolutely.

What about probability in our large scale human lives? Do quantum rules apply here?
No, not at all. As I always say: "what will occur in your life is what is most likely to occur, with variation."
What this means to you and I is simple: If you want something, put in enough effort to alter circumstances so that most likely you can make the desired result occur.
That is all.

Post has attachment
Canada, eh?

Post has attachment
A new discovery today  - the pristine surface of Pluto - no visible impact craters (at least in this shot). In order for this to occur there must me substantial activity on this small world, but Charon doesn't have enough mass to create the tidal forces required to rework the surface of Pluto. Yet, these mountains are less than 100 000 years old, just a fraction of the age of our solar system. How can this be? My opinion is that either what we consider the fundamentals of planetary geology has to be reexamined or we must find a secondary answer that fits the facts.
It is reasonable to conclude that in the relatively recent past Pluto encountered a massive object, such as a micro-black hole which had a devastating effect on the surface of Pluto, erasing any evidence of the expected impact craters. We will have to see if this effect is localized or body wide.

Post has attachment
New studies in neuroscience proved that brain activity behind decision making occurs before the individual is consciously aware of the need for a decision.

The brain perceives us moving forward in time, encountering situations that are set and not changeable.
It responds by first delaying our conscious perception then initiating a cascade of processes after the fact that make it seem like we are choosing an outcome, even though that outcome already occurred.
In effect, the brain is only there, not for decision making, but for observing the filmstrip of our lives, placing a time lag, then creating emotional and mental responses that we then are allowed to conceive and experience as the implementation of free will.
Free will, or a programming delay?
Wait while more posts are being loaded