# Where Do You See Yourself In Science?

I ask this puzzling question due to the fact that we are now at the crossroads of “things scientific”. No matter how wrong the climate change crowd apparently is, they are persistent with their paltry pseudoscience; adamantly standing by their low-level intransigence and quite frankly, I’m shocked that they’ve been allowed [permitted rather] by real scientists, to say the least, increase in popularity and perpetuate The Lie™. I guess you can chalk that up as another one to efficacy. It’s better to live through falsehoods masquerading as science, the sky’s the limit, it’ll flesh-out a future of leisurely pursuits and flying cars.

I mean, seriously, how on Earth do you expect the current generation to gain freedom from the idiocies of scientific ineptitude when those perpetrating as “scientists” are nothing more than moths that can’t seem to stray away from the light? It’s quite obvious the climate change crowd’s time spent fighting a made-up enemy has jaded these fools from reality. But what is the point that I’m trying to make here? Well, I’m not stating that the notion that scientific authenticity should be tasked with the drudgery of cleaning out this fish tank called Science. No, that would be backwards and unproductive. You see, Science, in all of its pre-enshrouded glory, does not boil down to one’s vision of its mechanics. In Science, there are folks who want to do nothing more than howl at the moon with their cries of belief and then there are those that simply long for the pleasure of learning and helping others to learn. Which category do you fall under?

Allow me to debunk of a few of the anti-elitist notions that are spreading in part because of the lack of education that many of those whom participate, in some form or fashion, in the world of “things scientific”:

• Learning of “things scientific” progresses in a linear fashion no matter what: Categorically untrue as it ever will be. Achievements of the past have yet to be adequately imitated let alone to be proved upon. Exactly how many of the loudmouthed proponents of “global warming”/”climate change” have provided any evidence of humankind’s “involvement in global warming/climate change”, enough evidence to convincingly persuade anyone with the precision of a true scientist without the aid of falsified facts? Have any of the [climate change] proponents been able to bring anything else to the table other than “adjusted data”? Have they been able to have anyone with an ounce of scientific credibility to their name other than some grandiose, would-be celebrity (i.e., Bill Nye “The Science Guy”?).
• Previous scientific achievements remain fossilized in another epoch and are irrelevant: A remarkably stupid concept. Take a look around you for once in your life. Set aside some time to parse through the annals of scientific achievements that have taken place over centuries’ past. You didn’t build that.
• Science, in 2013 and beyond, must replicate its previous ways in order to retain legitimacy: This is understandable inasmuch as science [or, the experiments thereof] must be repeated and it does at least acknowledge the concept of progressing towards a future for Science. However, it does also contain a strain of nostalgia and romanticism that is detrimental to the scientific community. I defend the legacy of Science, not for the justification of remaining mired in a past but to free those that choose to trod down the path of the unorthodox from the constant Groundhog Day-loop of having to do battle with those that willfully choose to impart their blatant stupidity for the world to see. It is the mid-tier (the current generation) that is suppose to suppress the idiotic with the kind of mundane put-downs and ever-cycling debunking of the idiots’ hypotheses and so forth that their diminished intellects can comprehend. Those of us that stand on the firm-side of the spectrum must forge ahead and perform the revolutionary act of enjoying the privileges of which Science bestows upon us, that includes having the option of living it up leisurely and not having to worry about being the last line of defense against the barren idiocy of those that are guised as “scientists” when they’re not.

Another problem with Science is that there’s really not much of a legitimate critical establishment. Sure, you have a plethora of white papers that have been submitted to be peer-reviewed but the lot of them are to be held accountable for Science [in the U.S.] in its current position of being the peanut gallery exhibition that it is today, cluttered with semi-to-sub-literate low-levelers and a few misguided mathematicians and physicists who take their lofty egalitarian notions from their workplace or social class too seriously and attempt to apply them where they don’t fit. Science is not a contest; Science is not about enshrining individual acts of “heroism” or “the me firsts”. Rather, Science is about the collective improvement of the experience, the diligence and [true] innovation. Then again, how could Science be Science when you have the multitudes of center-right Obamaist bros and sisters with their dumbfounding lack of a coherent structural critique of economics and thus are helpless to competently explain or deconstruct the inviolable laws that govern the principles of economics–both domestically and on a global scale of perspective–and when they’re prodded with even the most outlandish reactionary vitriol they seem to only respond in a manner that suggests that they have a preference for a social engagement that’s geared for the middle classes to enter into some sort of ethical compromise with a dominant force the likes of economics–a force that much larger and more durable than any person’s will or attempt at subverting it through means of selective consumerism (i.e., scientists voting for Obama and urging others to vote for Obama due in part to Obama’s push for STEM).

You see, the Obamaists (you know, the true and all-knowing “scientists”) have to prop a hyper-capitalist bogeyman known to many as “climate change” that operates out of base individual motives, such as greed and a deep-seated hatred towards “things scientific”, as the main target of their protests. The contradictions and fallacies of this ideology are numerous and fairly obvious to anyone who knows a thing or two when it comes climate, how the Earth really warms up and the meaning of the term interglacial warming period. But for those who are emotionally invested in the The Lie™, specifically in a milieu where nominal loyalty to these fabricated ideas carries a certain social-cultural cachet (just think of a “celebrity-like scientist” appearing on PBS specials, CNN exclusives, White House dinner parties, interviews in “scientific” publication, etc.)–all of that just so they can spout off the kind of nonsense that will cause an observer outside of the United States to conclude that all Americans are gullible and too easily swayed into believing anything. In other words, we’re all getting styled on and some of us are dumb enough to be enjoying it.

I can say the same thing about the alternative energy ilk; they can’t make a single point. Instead, you’ll see a barrage of contradictory, half-baked proclamations based on their radical misunderstanding of concepts they insist they have the authority to speak on despite how unfamiliar they are with the realities by which Science is realized and defined. What’s funny about these folks is how they’ll always find themselves caught up in their own verbal thicket and resort to anti-elitist caterwauling. The only thing about those who pine for alternative energy that I agree with is that it’s not so much of a diabolical plot, however, I disagree that alternative energy will logically lead to the United States being even slightly independent on foreign oil–moreover, light sweet oil.

Science is universal. Science is about predictions and I do understand that many are mislead by the fact that the word “uncertainty” is used in correlation with the study of physics, moreover, quantum physics. First and foremost, for those of you who have been duped into believing that medicine is science, please understand that physicists do not lie to people and tell them that if they use the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, they will survive whatever ills they fall under and secondly, the whole point of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was uncertainty itself. There are some of us scientists/engineers out there who are honest and will openly admit that we cannot know and understand everything. Yet, in this day and age, you have grown, intelligent (and by “intelligent”, I’m implying that in the context of being seen as “intelligent” by the general, sub-literate masses that would rather gather amongst each other in a bar than be seen in a more structural environment that would engage them in activities to stimulate cognition) people that are incapable of coming face-to-face with raw unadjusted data from historical realities and are caught in the grip of ambiguities while they choose to hug complexities and disregard the simplicities set before them. This is why they turn everything into a childish binary.

Being up-to-date on the latest research from this country’s “prestigious” institutions will allow one to be more familiarized with [peer-reviewed] articles that were published in professional academic journals by real scientists, specifically to wit: Richard Firestone of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

For those of you who are concerned about possible asteroid [or comet] impacts, it would behoove you to know that there is overwhelming evidence of a global cataclysm that occurred sometime between 12,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE. The event that triggered this global catastrophe was an asteroid [or comet] that entered Earth’s atmosphere and broke into pieces, striking in different areas of the Earth. This event is tied to the complete destruction of the Western Ice Sheet in Antarctica. It is also tied to a growing number of geological anomalies such as huge deposits of sand in the Andes and Himalayas and the sand is not organic nor indigenous to those areas. Think about it; limestone sand in the Andes? This event also caused global tsunamis which is likely based on scientific evidence  and it was these tsunamis that ravished the world’s oceans that gave rise to the numerous deluge myths that are erroneously eluded to as the “flood myths”.

Geologic history, quite clearly, shows that every ~10,000 – 12,000 years there is a major asteroid impact that occurs on Earth. The very last impact took place ~12,000 years ago, which is the same asteroid impact that’s responsible for the extinction of all large mammals the likes of the giant sloth, sabre-toothed tiger, mastodons, etc.; the destruction of civilization in North America causing a widespread death of the population groups living here and was the cause of major tsunamis in the world’s oceans (as I’ve just mentioned before). This asteroid [or comet] was either broken up by gravitational forces prior to or after entering the Earth’s atmosphere; the pieces of the asteroid [or comet] created the Carolina Bays (depicted in the image up above) [and, as I’ve stated before, the asteroid impacts were responsible for the destruction of the Western Ice Sheet in Australia].

People should be worried–because an event on this scale is bound to happen again. See, this is a repeat occurrence that is par for the course.

Let’s say you have an asteroid that has a measurement of 400 meters [or larger], please note that an impact from this will result in what some folks might know as a “nuclear winter” which would last six months or even longer. See, the larger the asteroid, the longer the “nuclear winter”. This, in turn, would be detrimental to the food supply or suppress [reduce] it down to nothing–zilch, playa. Climate scientists want to pine about $CO_2$ emissions? Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines put more $CO_2$ in the atmosphere than all of humankind ever could have done. That was nothing–but what is something is the the sulfur and other particulate matter that was kicked into the upper atmosphere which, in turn, caused the global temperature to drop 1° Fahrenheit for a few years that followed. Do know that this was a small eruption, by scale. A larger eruption, on the scale of a Toba-like event, with one or more volcanoes out-gassing for an extended period of time–or, excluding an eruption, let’s say Etna and one of those volcanoes on Iceland just starts spewing out gases [not a single eruption, just gassing]–this will lead to a “nuclear winter”. Yet, there’s another issue at hand here–electromagnetic pulse.

Every ~150-200 years our Sun kicks off a massive X-class solar flare that’s accompanied by a proton storm where the protons have an energy greater than 30 million electron volts (MeV) [bear in mind that protons are “positive” because they have more weight than electrons do]. For those who are daft, I’m talking about an X-class solar flare, not a rinky-dink M-class solar flare. X-class solar flares are extremely powerful x-rays that will punch their way right through the Earth’s atmosphere and asymmetrically ionize the atmosphere and then the protons, unmolested by the Earth’s atmosphere will sail right through and strike the Earth, creating both a vertical and horizontal field. The last time this had occurred was back in 1859 in what’s known as the Carrington event. Understand that our Sun is in a phase that’s called a “solar minimum”; it’s basically a “state of slumber” [think of a bear in hibernation] , when our Sun comes out of it, you can expect something in the realm of a Carrington event to occur, especially here in the United States–a country that is so heavily technology-laden. Anything with a transistor, capacitor, microchip, etc., will be fried. Now, some of you reading this may be a little behind on technology, so I’ll throw this out there:

Suppose you have a device capable of generating 20 volts per square meter. Do know that this actually causes air temperature [not ground temperature] to increase between 45° F to 75° F. The range escapes me but this is where inverse square law falls into play–as far as the heat goes, not the electromagnetic field.

To all the youngsters out there, that have been mislead into looking at scientists the likes of Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, the late [and idiotic] “Dr.” Carl Sagan and others, you need to know that there are T W O electromagnetic pulses. I’ve already talked about one type [solar EMP]…and then there’s nuclear EMP. As of February 11, 2013, a nuclear test had been conducted in North Korea and some people [here in the United States] started bellowing out their wolf jowls in protest. It would serve them some good to know that all nuclear weapons [no matter the size in kilotons] generate an electromagnetic field and the intensity of that field, and its duration, are directly related to warhead yield as well as height of burst. Exactly which type of nuclear weapon was North Korea testing? Fission? Fusion? Fission-fusion? Fission-fusion-fission? My guess would be double-gun, possibly theater weapons. There are some nuclear weapons that do not require “testing” since they can be simulated via computers; and then you have some [strategic] by which “testing” is the requirement in order to ensure that the weapon works. Makes sense, especially in the instance of testing plutonium-based nuclear weaponry. When it comes to testing plutonium-based nuclear weapons, you’re going to be limited to spherical implosion [the design] and the only way to ensure that the spherical implosion design works is to test-detonate. In reference to North Korea, their first test would be 4.5-4.9 kilograms of PuWG (Plutonium Working Group). As a historical aside, former president Bill Clinton gave North Korea two nuclear power plants so North Korea could separate plutonium from uranium in efforts of building plutonium-based nuclear weaponry. Utilization of a nuclear power plant isn’t necessary for uranium-based nuclear weapons but it is if you’re in need of plutonium. Anyways, 4.5 kg will yield 1 kiloton. If North Korea were really a force to be reckoned with, if they really had orchestrated a nice spherical implosion design that had high-quality PBX laminated cells and quality controllers in addition to knowing how to implement beryllium, achieving 2 kilotons wouldn’t have been all too problematic for them.With that in mind, I’m having a difficult time trying to comprehend why people [especially here in the United States] were buckling at the knees over the news of North Korea testing a nuclear bomb. Do they not know the difference between a bomb and a missile?

Fission weapons, by their very nature, do not generate enough of an intensive field long enough to cause sufficient damage. I’m talking about a 10 kt (kiloton) warhead (uranium or plutonium) the field would not extend no more than 2-7 kilometers which is just about where the leading edge of the blast effect will drop to around 1 psi. Anything over 1 psi is bad news for humans, especially 2 psi and above, that spells d e a d l y ). Starting around 2 km (kilometers) through about 30 km (this encompasses the troposphere, tropopause and the “bottom” part of the stratosphere where the EMP effect doesn’t happen except in the immediate region around the warhead. Much like the effect from the device I alluded to earlier [when explaining solar EMP], this has to do with air temperature and air pressure in the region of the atmosphere–this affects density.

Let’s put this to the test (for lack of a better term):

We’ll start with an altitude of 4,000 feet (keep this in mind) but first, you need to know that there are two electromagnetic fields that are generated; a horizontal electromagnetic field and a vertical electromagnetic field. As I’ve mentioned before, all nuclear warheads generate an electromagnetic field–or, pulse (in terms of EMP). Strength and intensity of the generated electromagnetic field is directly related to the yield of the warhead (and by yield, it’s referring to the size of the warhead). A horizontal electromagnetic field is generated–always–but a vertical electromagnetic field only comes into existence under specific conditions. Now, this is where that altitude of 4,000 feet comes into play: nuclear warheads detonated below 4,000 feet generates a horizontal electromagnetic field that extends only as far as the limit of the leading edge of the blast wave (around the immediate area from the detonated warhead). This is 2 psi. So, for a 10 kiloton nuclear warhead that is detonated below 4,000 feet, you’ll be looking at a limit [horizontally] of 2,700 meters from ground zero. Understand that this is where the pressure in the blast wave will drop below 2 psi–which, by the way, still poses a threat to humans–just not a d e a d l y threat. This area is also where [prompt radiation] begins to diminish down to zero.

Beginning with an altitude of 4,000 feet and continuing upward to the Tropopause (11 miles above Earth), you’ve entered the “dead zone”. Nuclear weapons, irregardless of yield, will generate a horizontal electromagnetic field. What does this do? It causes an interruption of radio signals and other forms of communications that deal with the electromagnetic spectrum such as television signals and communicable cellphone reception. Above the Tropopause, a vertical electromagnetic field gets generated by the asymmetrical ionization of the atmosphere.

So, how would you go about determining the number of square miles in relation to the altitude of an object (in this case, a nuclear missile getting detonated) above the Earth’s surface? To answer this query, you’ll need to have a firm grasp of spherical geometry.

$S = \frac{( 9.848 * 10^7) * (h)} {(3.960 * 10^3) + (h)}$

Where:

S = Surface Area (in square miles) of Earth seen at a particular height

h = The height in miles of the object above the Earth’s surface

So, for a 450 kt warhead detonated at 35 miles above the Earth’s surface…

$S = \frac{( 9.848 * 10^7) * (35)} {(3.960 * 10^3) + (35)}$

$S = \frac{3,446,800,000}{3,995}$

S = 862,778 square miles

The continental U.S. is approximately 2,959,064 square miles, so if you plug in the numbers correctly you’ll be able to arrive at the point that you can tell that if three nuclear warheads in the 450+ kt range were deployed over U.S. soil, that would be it as far as the U.S. goes. Please understand that in order for this to happen, as far as nuclear EMP goes, plutonium would be needed to pull this off (nh). So, which countries have the capability of orchestrating and bringing about such a catastrophic and tragic end to the American Empire? Let’s narrow it down….

In terms of uranium-based warheads, theoretically we surmise that the maximum yield is 60 kilotons. Practically, the maximum yield that has been achieved in efforts of building a uranium-based nuclear warhead was 40 kilotons.

Again, the warhead would have to be greater than 400 kilotons and the [optimal] detonation altitude would need to be greater than twenty miles.

Now, how about we dive a little bit deeper in the matter of discussing X-class solar flares because X-class solar flares are only part of the equation–the other part of the equation is the proton storm that would have to accompany the X-class solar flares. In regards to electromagnetic radiation, therein lies a spectrum and that spectrum is divided into two parts: the left-hand side and the right-hand side. Gammas are to the right of ultraviolet on the electromagnetic spectrum. Understanding that what’s to the right of ultraviolet on the electromagnetic spectrum is ionizing radiation. Each gamma has the energy to create and/or induce 30,000 ionizations on average. This is how a gamma interacts with an electron: a gamma will strike an electron orbiting a carbon atom, an oxygen atom, a nitrogen atom, a sulfur atom or any other atom [within the “strike zone”, i.e., atmosphere] and eject it the electron out from the atom penetrated (by the gamma). This interaction between the gamma and the electron causes the ionization of the atom. The gamma will continue to strike and eject electrons from the atom until the gamma itself “expires” from running out of energy or until the gamma strikes the nucleus of the atom. It’s a cascading effect with a ratio of 1 : 30,000. So, with that in mind, you shouldn’t have that much trouble understanding that 10 gammas will ionize 300,000 particles; 100 gammas will ionize three million particles and so on and so on.

Relating back to the nuclear warhead, you’ll know that neutrons, protons and fission fragments [from the warhead] move at a slower rate than the gammas do. For instance, let’s make an example out of neutrons. Neutrons sail straight through the Earth’s atmosphere–untouched–unmolested–“left alone”–and the reason why is because the gammas have stripped the electrons off of the atoms and have ionized the atoms. Gammas are the units of intensity that create the horizontal electromagnetic field and when the neutrons and heaving particles strike the Earth’s surface this action creates the vertical electromagnetic field. The latter action being the worst of the two scenarios. You do know that intensity is measured in volts per square meter, right? A nuclear warhead in the 450+ kt range will generate 50+ Kv per square meter. A nuclear warhead in the 750 kt range will generate 100+ Kv per square meter. In regards to nuclear warheads, the aforementioned examples are in the kilotons; for a solar EMP, X-class solar flares especially, operate in a similar fashion to that of a nuclear warhead. The difference is in that these are high-energy X-rays and not gammas that penetrate the atoms and those X-rays are accompanied by protons [not neutrons or fission fragments] that each have an average energy equal to or greater than 30 MeV (million electron volts). Surface area on the Sun from which the X-class solar flare originates would be about as large as the Earth’s diameter although, at times, it would be similar in size to a continent on Earth. So, for an X-class solar flare, you have numerous X-rays in space–untouched from anything since there’s nothing in space–until they reach Earth’s magnetosphere. The X-rays make their way through the magnetosphere, sailing through Earth’s upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere. Along with the X-rays, you have a massive proton storm that follows the same pattern that the X-rays took through the magnetosphere, upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere until they strike the ground, creating the vertical electromagnetic field.

Some would say that it’s the workings of celestial mechanics but due to the characteristics of Earth and its magnetosphere, this effect of an X-class solar flare will greatly manifest itself by saturating the Northern Hemisphere.

You see, that’s science–and with that said, I’ll ask you all this one question: where do you see yourself in science?

Some would say that there are economical constraints, and there are, however, those economical constraints that you have, let’s say X professors produce X students that become X professors, exist only if you make certain assumptions and if you question those assumptions then the problem disappears. One assumption is that you have full-time professors. Economically, there isn’t any reason whatsoever why a person couldn’t have a Ph.D., get a job making 75K-85K per annum and instead of working full-time as a professor you get to spend three months out of the year working in a national lab for free. But people will be people and that’s a dose of reality we have to deal with everyday. To answer the question with conviction it will take a certain amount of arrogance to do so. Think about it: for most students in pursuit of STEM fields, if you were to tell them that they aren’t the next Einstein, they’ll believe it, but if those students were studying condensed matter or particle physics or cosmology and someone were to approach them with, “You know you’ll never be the next Einstein…“, those students will most likely respond to that with, “Oh yes I am!” You have to realize that the type of arrogance that you find in, for instance, physicists in quite frankly heavily ingrained. For those that have a “love” for science (I, Desmond, do not “love” science since I have no emotional ties to science) they’ve been ingrained with falsehoods since they were kids. Just think of all the people (i.e., teachers) that have been telling them, either explicitly or implicitly, that they’re going to be the next Einstein or von Neumann. Personally, one thing (out of many) that I respect about physics is that it’s imperative to think about the hard questions. “What is probability?”; that’s a hard question. If I were to say that the probability of X is Y, what exactly am I inferring? If people think something will happen or won’t happen, that affects the likelihood of “it” happening. If every news article that’s churned out of the machine known as The New York Times or whatever newspaper outlet says that such and such is a “hot job”, that pretty much guarantees that it won’t be.

I guess, at this point, the tables should be turned and the piercing inquiry should be asked of me: where do I see myself in science?

As of this moment (and for the past ten years), I have always seen myself as a researcher, generally focused in computer programming and tweaking C/C++ code for constructing algorithms until the day arrived that I came up with the “ideas” for The Hexagon Lavish (Hexagon Lavish®). When that day came, I immediately created the website for it with the intentions of making myself stand out amongst other independent researchers that were also doing things that interested them as far as machine learning and information retrieval was concerned, although, my instincts kicked-in and my sincere interest in developing a way to incorporate my knowledge base in quantum mechanics with my understanding of how algorithms work birthed the concept of control manipulation algorithms, which is mainly what my current research is based upon as of now. The problem that I have to deal with on a daily basis is coming to the realization that ideas have consequences and it’s when you think about the consequences of the ideas that you have that you realize whether you like them or not. And I do like the ideas that I have. Now, in regards to where do I see myself in science–in the future, so to speak–I do see myself as some sort of a “teacher” and by that, I mean helping those in the scientific community understand exactly where I’m coming from as far as science goes. Does the world need to know why Desmond says things he says in the matter of “things scientific”? The answer to that is a definite yes. The reason why I say that is because not that many who have a diametrically opposing viewpoint on “things scientific” have the nerve to stand up to those “scientists” who would rather selfishly put food in the mouths of their children and continue spoon-feeding the general masses with their fabrications than to be forthright with what they know. Some that do know better have given up, which is a reality that I find puzzling. In a sense, it could be that they know exactly where they belong—and wherever that is, it’s somewhat comforting knowing that it’s far, far away from where I am.

No matter where a person sees his or herself in the world of science, sometimes you cannot change the world and please realize that the problem is not going insane while trying to deal with it. No, and I’m speaking to those of you who are unemployed and yet have went through the trials and tribulations of obtaining a college degree–or two–or three–or four–you’re not alone. If you are desperately looking for work and failing at doing so, it would do you some good to commune with other people who are in the same position as you. It helps with the loneliness.