Sunday, 25 September 2011

The Lie of Islamophobia

In a previous blog I wrote of how the homosexual lobby has used emotive and distorted language to silence critics. We now see that Muslims are emulating homosexuals in their tactics and use of language. Anyone who speaks out against Islam is denounced as “Islamophobic” implying that they have an unnatural fear of Islam.

It is not fear of Islam from which most people suffer but annoyance that Muslims come to western countries as “refugees” but bring with them all the problems from which they claim to be escaping. They do not come as immigrants but as colonists who set up their own societies under sharia law and try to impose that on the society they have infiltrated. In my blog titled “The Evil of Islam” I listed not only many of the terrorist acts committed by Islamists but also some of the parts of the Quran that instruct them to carry out these acts.

Just as homosexuals try to portray their lifestyle as a happy, healthy and natural alternative so to Muslims try to convey that we are wrong to consider their actions immoral or wrong. We are continually told that Islam is a “religion of peace” but this is a lie aimed at making their barbaric activities more excusable by claiming that it is only a small minority who indulge in this type of behaviour. We are told that 95% of Muslims are kind peace loving members of society. That statement is a little like saying it is Ok to eat rat bait because it is 95% good wholesome food.

Do not be fooled; Muslims claim to worship the same G0d as do Christians and Jews but this claim is not supported by scriptures. The Quran is based on a “Battle for Allah” it exhorts adherents “do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends ; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them. The Quran instructs Muslims not to befriend westerners but to battle them, ("O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; - Quran 8:65) how different from the Judeo-Christian Bible (Torah) that teaches peace, kindness, justice, mercy and righteousness.

While the Bible urges consideration and acceptance for all people as creations of the Almighty the Quran teaches that only Muslims are worthy and others are all worthless. This of course leads to the attitude among many Muslims where Jews in particular are portrayed as “the offspring of monkeys and pigs”. While the Bible abhors “the spilling of innocent blood” the Quran encourages it. Persecution by Muslims spans different ethnicities, languages, and locales, even in the West, wherever there are Muslims; it is clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam, whether the strict application of Sharia, or simply the supremacist culture born of it.

The lies of Islam also lead to extreme reaction to any scrutiny or questioning of its tenets and to the beheading of those who see merit in converting to another religion. It is imperative for a false ideology to ensure that its adherents do not witness the moral compass that guides other societies. To this end the lie of Islamophobia endeavours to ensure that there is no real exchange of ideas between Muslims and other religions and prevents the sort of analysis that this article is attempting to begin. The teachings of Islam are so different from the G0d of the Bible that it can only be that the teachings of Allah are deceiving followers into actions that can only end in confrontation. The ancient name meaning “deceiver” is Satan; it appears that Salman Rushdie was correct in referring to the Quran as “Satanic Verses”.

If there is something that the west avoids it is battle, while the Islamists and their teachings embrace it willingly. Western society suffers from a Hollywood good guy syndrome, the “good guy” will not throw the first punch or be the first to go for his gun, but when it is obvious that there is no alternative he retaliates with force. For example; in WW2 America remained neutral right up until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour; more recently the west ignored countless hijackings, attacks against embassies, military bases and innocent civilians, until 9/11 and the massacre of thousands of innocents. Even today Israel, the victim of countless terrorist attacks, ignores a daily rain of rockets and mortars and only rarely responds as the Islamists cowardly scurry to hide behind innocent civilians.

This continuous provocation will continue until an attack that is so devastating that it shakes the west to the very core. The Muslims continue to demand more from the west and as long as concessions are made the demands continue and escalate. Now using the United Nations as a tool the Muslim nations are pressing to recognise Palestine as a nation. Despite this being a breach of Article XXXI (7) of the Oslo Accords: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” The land claimed for this new state includes much of Israel. Text books and maps of the Palestinians show Palestine as occupying all of Israel and indicating that Israel does not exist and never did, because their stated aim is the elimination of Israel and the annihilation of all Jews. This is also the stated aim of the Iranian government and much of the Muslim world.

The current claim is for land “back to the 1967 borders”, why that date and not the 1948 borders? Because in 1948 Judea and Samaria were part of Israel until invaded by Jordan and renamed “the West Bank”; because Jordan’s territory (also formerly part of Israel, until 1922) ended at the East Bank of the Jordan River. Prior to being given to the Arabs the area had been known as Trans-Jordan, that is; part of Israel across the Jordan River. Following the partition by the United Nations Israel declared independence in 1948 and was promptly attacked by her Arab neighbours, with Jordan invading and occupying Judea and Samaria until 1967, when Israel reclaimed it. After having occupied the land for only 19 years the Muslims want it back, why? Because the Quran says they should not concede land to non-Muslims. This instruction also leads to the death of innocent Muslims who sell their land to non-Muslims.

The behaviour of Muslims and the requirement of Islam can only result in one of two outcomes; either they will be victorious and we all succumb to sharia law, or the west will resist. When the final battle begins many countries will need to decide which side they support; the Muslims and their plan for a world caliphate under sharia law or a world free of persecution and hatred. No doubt the main battleground will be Israel and probably the Biblical prediction that it will be the area known as Armageddon will be accurate as invaders from Syria and Iran will choose this as their route to “wipe Israel from the face of the Earth” as is their oft stated aim.

All those peace loving people who have absorbed and ignored the terror and slander of Muslim bigotry will find no choice but to respond. The years of conceding to Muslims in the face of pressure will be gone and the rest of the world will say enough is enough. We can only have true peace when this evil cult is banned from the Earth. Islam will be seen for the evil lie that it is. We will not bow down to be beheaded but will rise up and defend the principles of justice, mercy and righteousness whether because of belief in the Bible or whether simply because some things are right and some things are wrong but the righteous people of the world will be forced to act or die.

____________________________________________________
Visit my website, go to the forum if you have a comment, or buy my book or see my video clips.

Monday, 19 September 2011

Holographic Time

This blog is probably not of interest to everyone, but is a paper that I wrote some time ago and which needs to be published for the few that will find the work informative.

The major problem facing an understanding of the true nature of time is simply our inability to envisage or explain in plain language that which we can easily model mathematically.

From Mohrhoff U. arXiv:quant-ph/0703035v1 (footnotes 8-11)
“The flaw in this concept is that if we imagine a spatiotemporal whole as a simultaneous spatial whole, then we cannot imagine this simultaneous spatial whole as persisting and the present as advancing through it. There is only one time, the fourth dimension of the spatiotemporal whole. There is not another time in which this spatiotemporal whole persists as a spatial whole, and in which the present advances. If the experiential now is anywhere in the spatiotemporal whole, it is trivially and vacuously everywhere—or, rather, everywhen.

The flaw in this conception is that simultaneity is a feature of the “language” we use to describe a physical situation, rather than a feature of the situation itself. For any two events A,B there exist two reference frames FA and FB and a third event C such that C is simultaneous with A in FA and simultaneous with B in FB. Presentism is incompatible with this “simultaneity by proxy” of A with B. The calculation of classical electromagnetic effects, for instance, can be carried out in two steps: given the distribution and motion of charges, we calculate a set of functions of position and time known as the “electromagnetic field”, and using these functions, we calculate the electromagnetic effects that these charges have on another charge. The rest (viz., that the electromagnetic field is a physical entity in its own right, that it is locally generated by charges, that it mediates the action of charges on charges by locally acting on itself, and that it locally acts on charges) is embroidery, in the sense that it adds nothing whatsoever to the predictive power of the theory.
If the synchronic (e.g., EPR-Bohm) correlations defy mediatory accounts, we have every reason to be wary of mediatory accounts of the diachronic correlations. But this does not imply that quantum states “represent the temporary and provisional beliefs a physicist holds as he travels down the road of inquiry” (Fuchs and Schack, 2004).”

I agree with Mohrhoff who says, “…ultimately there exists a One Being, of which the world is a manifestation”, in other words the entire universe is a singularity. It exists as a single point in a single instant of time but although we can express the concepts mathematically we are generally unable to perceive the structure in a physical sense, compatible with experience. The aim of my various books, papers and videos explaining how past, present and future all occupy the same moment of existence has been to introduce concepts that suggest that there is nowhere in space or time that we cannot visit.

Others are also apparently reaching similar conclusions that the universe is holographic in nature and inter-dimensionally connected, where reality emanates from a source outside our own dimension. The interference detected by the GE0600 team matches observations recorded by Professor William G. Tifft, a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona, and imply that time is quantized. This supports a view that I first published in 1989.

In a 4D universe the only way that all time could physically exist in a single unit is if each unit of time was different in some way, two identical objects can not occupy the same position in the same dimension at the same time. I concluded that as we know from Einstein time can progress at different rates depending on motion or gravity then each second must be of a slightly different duration to those preceding it or those following it. Planck explained that E=hν and that only very specific quanta react one with each other and it is this that allows past, present and future to occupy both the same space and the same time.

From there it is a small step to consider,

a) the universe is expanding,
b) it is entropy that generates the concept of time,
c) the universe is becoming less dense, so its overall gravitational field must be decreasing,
d) In accordance with relativity theory time must accelerate under these conditions.
e) The universe will appear to expand at an accelerating rate as our units of time measurement decrease.
f) Historic mass appears greater due to the overall greater density of the earlier universe, when we look at distant objects we are looking back in time.
g) The passage of time is illusory the past still exists and we detect it as dark matter (it is actually a little more complex but too long to explain here), the future already exists but we only perceive it as dark energy.
h) Quanta vary from second to second because time itself varies; the quanta we detect at any one moment are surrounded by the energy of countless past and future quanta. There is nothing between them all are interconnected but only detectable as discrete packets of energy as described by Planck so many years ago.
From “Physics God and the End of the World” © 2006

The Gravitational constant appears to be varying at a rate of the order of Hubble’s constant (G Barber arXiv:gr-qc/0405094 v5 22 Dec 2005) indicating the possibility that a large part of the constant is actually due to expansion and its effect on time, rather than simple expansion. In other papers I have presented concepts that show that although the universe’s gravitational field may appear to be changing the force (G) is constant.



Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Homophobia is a Fallacy

Homosexuals refer to those who disprove of their actions as “homophobic” but this is a misnomer. The term phobic comes from the Greek phobos meaning fear and a phobia is a fear. People labelled homophobic are usually just those who find the practice distasteful, repugnant and immoral and who really have no fear at all of homosexuals. Many of those against homosexuality are religious in their beliefs and base their abhorrence on the Biblical condemnation of deviant sexual behaviour. Just as the scriptures forbid incest and bestiality they oppose unnatural homosexuality.

There are six hundred and thirteen instructions in the Bible about half are the things we should do and the other half are the things we should not do, homosexual acts are among the activities that are banned. Our society consists of people who hold to a variety of views but those who have a religious view are generally derided by those who do not. It is illegal to denigrate homosexuality and lampooning Islam can get you killed, but those who hold Judeo-Christian views are regularly ridiculed.

In the view of religious observers homosexuality is a crime, the very name sodomy comes from the city of Sodom that was destroyed by the Almighty because of the behaviour of its inhabitants. To be religiously observant and respect the teachings of our ancestors does not make one homophobic. The religious should not be castigated for following their Bible nor should they be expected to alter it to reflect the views of atheists and sexual deviates who disagree with the teaching.

Homosexuals should not try to promote their ideals and denigrate those who hold a different view and should also take note of recent recommendations from the United Nations whose General Assembly passed a resolution on Dec. 21, 2010 aimed at "combating defamation of religions". The Muslim nations drafted the resolution making it a crime to attack and ridicule Islam, but in order to have it passed they had to amend it to the ridicule of all religions. Now we are faced with the ambiguous position that it is a hate crime to speak out against homosexuality but it is also a crime to attack a religion that forbids it. The Critics of the UN resolution say it does more harm than good by limiting speech rather than protecting religious rights, but part of that claim is based on the fact that homosexuals are now in breach of a UN resolution when they attack religions forbidding sodomy.

The religious cannot now be considered criminal or guilty of a hate crime if they speak out against homosexuality because it is their right as practitioners of a religion to hold those precepts sacred. The UN now regards action against people who support a religious concept a violation of their human rights.

In this article I have mentioned homosexuals many times but I have not used the term “gay” even once, the reason for that is that gay means happy. The word was pilfered by the homosexual community as part of their effort to make the practice more acceptable to the wider public; and as an alternative to the more commonly used poofter, faggot and similar terms. The term gay was as much a misnomer as the term homophobic, the few practitioners of this lifestyle that I have met seem to be rather sad and miserable people but by using a term that implies a happy existence they probably expect to recruit more members to their own community.

Homosexuals have been very successful in having old laws reversed to make the practice legal; they have also been successful in making it acceptable. They are working hard to make preferable and to that end have created the myth of homophobia, but now we can stand up and say it is wrong because the Bible says so and it is our right to repeat that statement. We are not homophobic for disliking deviant sexual practices and it is wrong to accuse us, particularly when the UN believes it is one of our rights as a human being to hold those views taught for millennia by our religions.


____________________________________________________
Visit my website, go to the forum if you have a comment, or buy my book

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

Diversity

Biodiversity is the variety of all life forms on earth – the different plants, animals and micro-organisms and the ecosystems of which they are a part. Australia is one country currently developing both a biodiversity policy and a seedbank. A seedbank stores seeds as a source for planting in case seed reserves elsewhere are destroyed. It is a type of gene bank. The seeds stored may be food crops, or those of rare species to protect biodiversity. The reasons for storing seeds may be varied. In the case of food crops, many useful plants that were developed over centuries are now no longer used for commercial agricultural production and are becoming rare. Storing seeds also guards against catastrophic events like natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, or war.

Economic diversity means maintaining a variety of business skills to guard against catastrophic events like natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, or war. Manufacture of essential products can then be sustained even if any or all of these events occur. Despite the aim of many countries to ensure the continued existence of species far less effort is being made to ensure the financial continuation of the economies of most nations. The aim of globalisation as an ideal to ensure that poor countries can raise their standard of living is wonderful in theory but, just like socialism, flaws are now becoming glaringly obvious. It has been the contention of many for a long time that, “you cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor” but that is exactly the aim of globalisation; to make the labour of all workers worldwide exactly equal; to the detriment of the more advanced nations.

Instead of raising the standard of the world’s poorer countries it has merely reduced the income of the majority of workers in developed countries to the level of their third world counterparts. It has also seen the concentration of production in many of these formerly under-developed countries primarily for profit and despite often being remote from the raw materials. Countries like Australia, rich in raw materials often send those materials offshore to places such as China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines or Thailand where goods are produced and then shipped back to Australia for consumption.

This action may assist the manufacturing company but bankrupts producers in Australia which then loses the ability to produce the goods itself leaving it vulnerable if it becomes impossible to import necessities. In a world where many are concerned about atmospheric carbon it seems ludicrous to burn thousands of tons of marine diesel and jet fuel taking goods thousands of miles to be processed, the exact cost of this to both the ecology and the economy is ignored in the pursuit of global equality.

The aim of those responsible for this exercise is nearly complete; countries such as the USA and many European nations are now struggling and suffering under enormous debt burdens. Even countries like Australia are facing mounting debt and increasing unemployment. Global equality is being achieved, every nation on Earth is becoming the equal of the third world there are no longer wealthy nations. That should soon change for China and India as they become the centres of wealth along side the Middle Eastern oil producers.

The countries whose education, science and research built the technology that provided the impetus for civilisation are now being overrun by immigrants seeking to cash in on the work of earlier populations in those countries. The children of those whose industry created the wealth of the nations are being short changed by governments and industry so eager to increase their profit and control that they are content to see much of their population living a subsistence lifestyle. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening but the more worrying trend is that formerly affluent families are now being pressed into menial low paid employment and their shrinking incomes mean that their children will have less opportunity to gain education and decent employment.

Sunday, 12 June 2011

Warming to the debate

The Australian Federal Government and their employed climate scientists are assuring us that the global warming debate is over and sceptics are no longer sceptics but deniers. In response to this I quote well known author Dean Koontz who wrote, “When a scientist tells you the science is settled in regard to any subject he’s ceased to be a scientist and he’s become an evangelist for one cult or another. The entire history of science is that nothing is ever settled. New discoveries are continuously made and they upend old certainties.”

On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an open letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the most authoritative assessment of global scientific opinion, now estimates (2011) that – if we do nothing and continue with business as usual – mean global temperatures will rise by 1.8°C by 2100 at the low end, and 4.0°C at the top end. Sea levels are estimated to rise a mean of 28 cm at the low end of estimates, and a mean of 43 cm at the top end.

These forecasts have a level of uncertainty, but are the best estimates from the best minds. And because the IPCC’s reports are produced by consensus, it is more likely that these estimates conservative rather than exaggerated. But even the worst-case scenarios are not going to “kill the planet”, as some of fringe environmental groups argue. They are not going endanger all life, nor are they going to see the end of humanity.

In addition to these international announcements there is evidence that there have been no global temperature increases in the past decade. In Australia there have been abnormally low temperatures in some regions at different times. In Central Victoria the average temperature in 1909 was 20.4ºC and in 2009 the average temperature was 20.4ºC, but in 2010 for the first time since records have been maintained there were over two hundred days where the temperature remained below 20ºC. In 2011 places such as Ballarat recorded their coldest May in forty years and in June Brisbane recorded their coldest day EVER.

The government has hijacked the debate and begun a campaign to convince everyone that the debate is over and the only thing left to discuss is the rate at which a carbon tax will be levied. The truth is obvious, this is an attempt to stifle further discussion and enable the minority government to raise more taxes to overcome their growing budget deficit, and it has become an economic necessity – NOT an environmental one.

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Global Warming

2010 warmest year on record
LAST year tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for global surface temperature, US government scientists said yesterday.
The Earth experienced temperatures higher than the 20th-century average for the 34th year in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington said. Overall, 2010 and 2005 were 0.62C degrees above the 20th-century average, it said. Those two years were also the highest in temperature since record-keeping began in 1880. "If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
______________________________________________________________

Early in 2011 newspapers issued this report, but this was nothing new they had been proclaiming this since reports issued in May and July and then in November this gem, “World temperatures in 2010 may be the warmest on record, the U.K. Met Office said, as it plans to calibrate a decade of data to account for newer sensors. The average temperature for the year through October shows 2010 will be one of the two warmest years in a series that goes back to 1850.” This sounds very feasible except that it ignored the Northern Hemisphere’s two coldest months. November and December brought record lows and record snowfalls.

Even if 2010 had been colder than the temperature near the start of the trend period it would not have altered the trend from warming to cooling. Only if the average annual temperature in 2010 was 7 degrees below the 1961-90 average would the rising trend since 1950 have disappeared. Because of the mathematics used, a 2010 temperature of 3.2 degrees below the average, not 3.5, would have halved the rate of warming, and in comparison there's been a range of just 0.9 degrees in annual average temperatures since 1950.

I do not have the resources of these scientists but I can read local (Central Victoria, Australia) records. Our average temperature in 1909 was 20.4ºC and our average temperature in 2009 was 20.4ºC (68.7ºF) an increase over the past 100 years of 0ºC. Now here is the surprise for the first time since records have been kept we recorded more than 200 consecutive days below 20ºC, local records began during the gold rush and commenced in the 1870s. Locally 2010 will be close to or our coldest year on record; it will not show an average above 20.4ºC unless someone fudges the books.

2010 was so cold that for the first time many local fruit trees did not produce fruit. In our backyard is an apricot tree that is usually laden with fruit every summer but this year it produced only about a dozen apricots. The spring weather was so cold that most of the blossom never opened and the buds just froze and died on the tree. Our neighbour’s nectarine tree experienced the same problem. The image shows dead blossom clearly visible among the new growth.

All this adds up to one thing, as an average “man on the street” I have a little trouble with the credibility of scientists who keep telling me warming is going to continue at an increasing rate. Weather is cyclical sometimes hot and sometimes cold, we experience droughts and we experience floods but the planet has a way of balancing conditions. CO2 may be increasing and a large part of that is due to the amount of forest we have cleared and so the best way to correct the situation is to ensure more trees are planted. To encourage the planting of trees we need to ensure that timber and fruit industries are viable and profitable. Farmers will plant trees if it is profitable.