Master of Science - 04/01/2025

Tune in to "Master of Science" with Professor James McCanney!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Master of Science with host Professor James mackinnie.
The good Professor's career spans fifty years as a university teacher,
scientist and engineer. Each week he will explore the rapidly
changing world of science as many long held theories are
crumbling under the weight of new data. He will cover

(00:23):
the fields of geology, archaeology, meteorology, oceanography, space science, astronomy, cosmology,
biological evolution, virology, energy, mathematics and more. So please welcome
the host of Master of Science, James McKinnie.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
And good evening everybody. This EP episode thirty seven. We're
moving along. That's going to go on for a long time.
Very interesting. It's getting a lot of support and increasing
numbers every week. So tell your friends and as I say,
tell your people you don't like to watch the show,
they might become your friends tonight. At first, want to

(01:14):
talk about circular reasoning. Every week I try and discuss
something that's going on in science that is backwards and
out of place in a scientific world. The way science
should work. Now, there's this simple version of the scientific method.
You make a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis, and back

(01:36):
in the old days things were much simpler. Now we
have hypotheses, hypotheses that are literally impossible to test. Let's
give you an example. How about the observation, which is
an observation that when comets come into the Solar System

(01:57):
they have finite orbits. In other words, they very rarely
does a comet come into the Solar System with a
a open orbit, which means it comes in and goes
out and never comes back. The majority have a limit,
but it's way out there. And that's where the birth
of the concept of the Oort cloud came from, from

(02:21):
scientists that realized that the orbits of comets, which are
these wanderers from Afar, have limits on the outer range
of their orbits, and it tends to be at a
certain place. And so they said, okay, well that must
mean that since they believe comets were dirty snowballs. Is back,

(02:41):
going way back, way back to Kepler, who originated this
idea that comets were things that melted when near the Sun,
an object and idea that's totally patently falls now that
we've landed on the nucleus of comets and there's no water,
there's no ice, there's no snow, there's no coming off
the nucleus. It's a hot, dry rock and it's discharging

(03:06):
the solar capacitor, and that's what causes the tail and
all the other effects that we see, in addition to
a lot of other effects. But at any rate, back
to the concept of the out cloud. So they hypothesized
something that is in all, if you look in any
astronomy textbook, there will be mention of the ot cloud,

(03:26):
as if it were fact, this so called cloud of
comets that's way out there. The only problem is in
the real scientific world, in the world of real science,
it's not verifiable because first of all, the spacecraft that
has gone the farthest, the Voyager spacecraft, has just barely

(03:50):
gotten outside of the realm of our own star, certainly
nowhere near the region where this Oort cloud, this hypothesized
oortcloud would be. And even if you could get a
single spacecraft out there, then you wouldn't be able to
see this whole immense region of space that supposedly is

(04:14):
filled with little ice balls. And additionally, they're so small
that you'd have to be really close to them even
to see them. And out there it's pitch dark, there's
no sunlight to reflect off something to give you a
visual and they're cold. So I mean you're infrared wouldn't work.
You're in forred cameras who would not work. So it's

(04:35):
literally something that is unverifiable in the true scientific sense.
And so it's an assumption, but it's treated because it's
so necessary to support the other bogus theories that are
floating around today. So I want to talk about something
called circular reasoning. You make an assumption, and this is

(04:58):
kind of where the where the scientific method goes wrong.
You make an assumption, you do experiments, and this would
be like I say, in the old days, you could
do experiments in the laboratory and prove them. For example,
let me give you an example of dealing with gravity.
There's all kinds of hypotheses about, oh, gravity is electric

(05:21):
or something like that. No, gravity is not electric, and
the reason being is that electric things can be shielded.
You can build a shielding grid or other methods of
shielding magnetic and electric fields so that they don't propagate

(05:41):
past a certain distance. For example. Now the big rage
is these little cards that somebody can walk up to
you and scan your credit card in your pocket, take
all your information, take your money and scan it at
a distance. So what they do is they put a
blocking card in along with your other credit cards to
block the electromagnetic signals from getting to your credit card.

(06:06):
So at any rate, that's just an example of electromagnetic fields.
They can be blocked. Gravity, however, cannot be blocked. It's
very interesting and so gravity does not follow the basic
properties of electro magnetism. Okay, so there's a experiment. I've

(06:33):
done this in the laboratory as a undergrad in the
physics department. We had what was called the Cavenish balance.
It's a very delicate balance in what it is would
be a wire, a very thin wire that hangs down
from a rack and then on there you have a
heavy ball or a pendulum with a stick and a

(06:55):
ball in a weight or something like that. And at
any rate, it's then you take another large gravitational object mass,
you put it near there, and you can actually measure
the force of gravity in the laboratory. Just a very
simple experiment. So you can prove gravity as we know
it none, it's not electric, it's not magnetic. And you

(07:19):
could put a electromagnetic shielding between the two balls on
the Cavendish balance and it would still work. You cannot
shield gravity. Okay, so that's that would be a type
of an experiment or another one. Let's talk about measuring
the charge on an electron, the charge on an electron.

(07:42):
There's various experiments that allow you to measure the charge,
the quantum charges on an electron. So and I've done
that experiment in the laboratory and came out with very
good results showing measuring literally measuring the charge on an electron.
So those are in laboratory experiments, very simple to do,

(08:04):
not so terribly simple, but basic something certainly an undergraduate
can do and get the results and the and understand
the the you know, actually make significant measurements that are
very accurate. But and so the scientific would say, Okay,

(08:25):
you hypothesize a quantum charge on an electron, you measure it.
Then someone else. Here's a key part to this, a
very key part to scientific method is that independent third
party verification. In other words, somebody off on another country
sets up the same laboratory experiment as you add and

(08:47):
they can make the same measurements and therefore they are
able to verify your results. And then somebody else does
it and the more people that do this, they go, yeah,
that's right. Charge on the electron is such and such,
the gravitational consonant is such and such. You can measure
this by knowing the properties of the ball in the

(09:07):
Cavendish experiment, in Cavendish balance, et cetera. But then you
come back and you say, okay, now you can write
a theory and you can quantified. But there's always a
chance that that might be modified or qualified in the future,
you know. So it's a progressive steps. But that's the
scientific method. But what if you cannot prove the hypothesis.

(09:33):
What if it's unprovable simply because the physical situation. You
have a little problem, and you have a bigger problem
when people start assuming that that. They start okay, so
they hypothesize the old cloud and they measure the orbits
of comets in hot All these comets seem to fit

(09:54):
that pattern, and then they verify the concept of the
Oort cloud by circumstantial evidence. This is evidence that would
not hold up in a court of law at all.
So the judge would say, well, okay, that's very good.
There's all circumstantial evidence, but where's the direct measurement where's

(10:17):
the evidence from the scene of the crime. And with
the Oort cloud, there isn't any You couldn't and you
can't imagine even with advancements in space technology and rocketry
and traveling through space, and there's no way you can
measure the Oort cloud. There's no way you can get

(10:37):
a measuring stick or a meter or any other type
of measurement out there to measure the Oort cloud. So
this is where the problem in science, astronomy, especially astronomy
and astrophysics and space science comes in. And they use
circular reasoning. So what happens. They build a case, They
built circumstantial evidence, and more circumstantial evidence, and more circumstantial evidence,

(11:01):
and all of a sudden, the case becomes and they
start using it as a crutch for the other theories,
and all of a sudden, they can't change it. Now
it's ingrained in the theoretical structure and it has to
stay there. This is what I call circular reasoning. So
let's take some other examples. The Big Bang is like,

(11:23):
now there are more and more people, thank goodness, are
coming out and I have published papers on this myself,
some not so not so long ago, dealing with the
fact that the Big Bang literally is junk. Science should
have never ever gotten the footage that it should have

(11:44):
never gotten the traction that it has obtained over one
hundred years. And there again, you look at redshifts. Okay,
everything you look out in the universe is redshifted, which
if there was only one red shift cause of red shift,
then that would imply that things are moving away and
the universe is expanding. But how do you take that

(12:06):
then and extrapolate it back in time to a point
no bigger than a pinhead. That's a pretty big order.
There's no evidence between today and that pinpoint. I mean,
that's an assumption. That's a very very very big assumption,

(12:27):
and there's no proof for it. Where is the proof. Well,
I'd like to meet the guy that's proved that one.
Because but what they're doing today, of course, with the
James Web Telescope is to is to show that there
are well developed galaxies right there where the Big Bang
supposedly happened. And by the way, if this happened, if

(12:49):
the Big Bang happened in this pinhead little spot in
the universe, then we should be able to look at
it and not see galaxies in all directions. The early
Galllylexy should be all pretty near that place, shouldn't they.
But we look around with the James WEBWB telescope or
other telescopes like the euclid, and we see galaxies in

(13:10):
all directions. Well, wait a minute, Wait a minute, they
shouldn't be in all directions. The only ones that should
be that far away, using the red shift and the
Hubble constant to measure distance, the only ones that should
be in existence at that period of time just after
the Big Bang should be right there, concentrated in one

(13:31):
spot in the sky. And that's not what we see.
There's all kinds of other problems with that, because if
the light has been coming to us for those billions
of years, how did we get that far away this fast?
So the light is just catching us right now. We
would have had to go on faster than the speed
of light. It's like, since everything came out of the

(13:53):
Big Bang at the same time, and since we're looking
back in time seeing this stufflllions of years ago, thirteen
twelve billion years ago, that means we had to run.
Let's take a simple example. Let us take a simple example.
You're waiting You're waiting at a bus stop, okay, and

(14:16):
all of a sudden, all the buses leave the bus
stop at the same time, and you're right there where
the bus stop is. Now you want to catch your bus,
but the bus you can't meet it right there. You
have to go up to a different place to catch
the bus. So you run really fast, and you get
up to that place, and then the bus catches up

(14:37):
to you, the bus moving, of course, at the speed
of light. Well wait a minute, you had to move
faster than the speed of light to get to where
you were to then wait for the bus, right And
this is the quandary of the Big Bang. And here
you have physicists who don't think there's a problem here.

(14:58):
Excuse me. How did we on planet Earth get so
far away from the center of the Big Bang that
we're looking back in time twelve billion years at galaxies
that form during the Big Bang. We had to move
pretty quickly to get out to where we are today,
much faster than the speed of light, so that the
speed of light could the light coming from these galaxies

(15:20):
could then catch up to us. Doesn't that pose a
little bit of a problem. It would for my way
of thinking, anyway. Okay, so what you have is circular reasoning,
and so the hypoth is instead of the scientific method,
which is hypothesays, experiment, verification, theory and then back to

(15:45):
the hypothesis loop, and that would be the scientific method.
What's happening today is circular reasoning, hypothesis, third party or
third what you might call tertiary evidence, third level evidence,
and then all of this supporting evidence builds up and

(16:08):
then somehow, oh, verifies the theory. People get Nobel prizes.
Isn't that special? Get funding? Okay? Another one is climate change.
That's one in which where they I love this expression
that ninety five percent of scientists agree on climate change.
That's what the expression is. But you have to understand

(16:31):
the people that disagreed lost their funding, lost their publications,
were booted out, and the only people left were the
ones smart enough if you call it that, smart enough
to realize that the money comes from saying yes. And
so ultimately all these scientists standing in a row agree

(16:55):
and the funding keeps coming in. Isn't life good? But
there again circular reasoning. And the problem with science of
climate change is that it's not direct measurements. And you
might think oh, the temperature rise is what tells us
that the world is heating up. Temperature and heat are

(17:18):
two different things, and I often use this example. Here's
an example of the quandary of climate change. Take two boxes,
put them on a table. Exactly the same boxes, the
same air content, the same volume of air, all of
the identical the air that's in the two boxes. Okay,

(17:39):
and they're at exactly the same temperature. So you put
a thermometer in there. They are exactly the same temperature,
all exactly identical. Now in one of the boxes, you
add some water vapor. Okay, you add some water vapor,
that's the only thing you do, and now lower the
temperature in that container. Its temperature is lower, but it

(18:06):
has more heat content because of the water vapor. So
there's more heat in the box with the lower temperature,
whereas the box with the higher temperature has less energy.
And so measuring temperature or predicting temperature is not a
measure of climate change at all, or of heat content.

(18:27):
So they're saying the heating of the atmosphere heat is energy.
That's one term. Temperature is something very different. And as
I always say, you want to know what the temperature
is going to be. If the winds from the north,
it's colder, if the winds from the south, it's warmer.
And they don't measure all over the globe, like I

(18:48):
mentioned last week, they will put the thermometer out at
the airport where it's always a few degrees warmer. Well, gee,
guess what you know, You're going to measure climate change
or measuring that the airport has warmer temperatures reported like
it is. But there again the idea of circular reasoning.
You make a hypothesis, you gather all this data, the

(19:11):
data seems to support your hypothesis, and then it becomes
a proven hypothesis. But here's the crux in the modern
world of science that the funding which comes from the
federal government comes in a top down manner. Now here's
the way funding works. If you're a scientist, you don't

(19:33):
think of an idea and say, oh, this is what
I want to research, and I'm going to go get
a government grant to research this. No, you go pick
up a book which is a catalog of all of
the grant propositions, all of the subjects that they want
studied for this year. It might be the National Science Foundation,
National Institute of Health, and on and on and on.

(19:55):
And I've seen when I was in grad school, I
saw my professor going through the cattle, looking can we
do this one? Can we do this one? And then
they go He had an expression. They called it quick
and dirty. And so what it was was to do
an experiment, quickly, get some results, put it in and
say you got some basic results, to get the grant money.

(20:17):
So anyway, this is what scientists do. And it's like
I said, it's like squirrels that forgot how to forage.
They're not there to try and advance science. They're there
to find the grant money and apply for it and
get the grant money and then just guess what, after

(20:38):
a year two years of the research spending that grant money,
they're going to come up with a positive result, I
guarantee you. And when they get that positive result, then
the inspector comes out from the agency, the government agency
to see the results, and they might be very hard
knows about it, but ultimately they're going to renew that

(21:01):
because that's their job. Their job is to see progress
in the scientific community, which is based on them giving
out this grant. It wouldn't look good. What would it
look like if they went out the inspectors after two
years they go out and inspect the university laboratory where
this experiment is going on and none of them worked

(21:24):
and all the data was fudged. Wouldn't look good. So
it's in their best interest also to approve and keep
these grants going and extend the grants. So it's like
a system. It's like a system that is based on
funding and keep the funding rolling. And much of this

(21:44):
is based on circular reasoning and not good science. Okay,
So I could go on and on about. For another
good example you see all the time is talking scientists
talking about the birth of the Solar system four and
a half billion years ago. They say, there's no evidence

(22:07):
for that, not a shred. But it's one of those
nursery rhymes that if they keep repeating it, then everybody's
in agreement and life is good. And the reality is
is that the planets are all different ages. They are
completely different ages, and the real formation of the Solar

(22:28):
System is done by something called capture. Is my original
book when I was at Cornell was dealing with the
comet capture processes in the formation of solar systems and
how large comets attract matter because of the discharge of
the solar capacitor and then build up and become planets.
We in fact have a planet forming right now in

(22:48):
the Solar System. Most people don't know about it. It's
called we call it Hailbop, the comet Hailbop. It's growing,
it's becoming bigger, and it's going to be back in
about twenty five hundred year. None of us will be
around to see it, but there's a probability that it
will interact with some of the planets and start becoming

(23:09):
a planet in the inner Solar System. Okay, so at
any rate, now this brings up a very interesting topic,
and this is one of the mathematics topics. You know.
I'm a mathematician. Also I have some amazing discoveries in
the realm of prime numbers. I worked for twenty five

(23:30):
years in the computer industry and one of my specialties
was encryption, which is a mathematical processes. My first ten
years in the computer industry, telecommunications was dealing with a
group and we did modeling, computer modeling and the mathematical
analysis of computer networks and understanding the EBB and flow

(23:52):
of movement of data in networks because we were building
network processors, processors that move data in the computer in
computer networks. Okay, So at any rate, I have fairly
good background in mathematics both from a student. I have

(24:13):
a double major. My college major is double major in
physics and mathematics. So I had a complete major in physics,
a complete major in mathematics. And that's, by the way,
something that most physicists ask for physicists, space scientists and
astronomers do not have. In this next example will be
a good illumination of that. There is an expression an

(24:38):
expression in astronomy, and this comes from way back. One
of the fundamental questions of in astronomy is is the
universe infinite? Does it go on and on and on
or does it stop at some place? Or is it
finite from the universe that we're in, And people talk about,
by the way, I hear this all the time, parallel universes.

(25:02):
Blame me. We're having enough trouble understanding the universe we
live in. So anybody that talks about parallel universes, you know,
send them out to past or please if they want
to talk about it. Fine, but on your own nickel.
Don't take tax supported money to talk about parallel universes. Please.

(25:22):
But anyway, one of the questions in astronomy is a
legitimate question, is if there was an infinite universe. And
this is like I say, a philosophical kind of a
thought experiment. If there were an infinite universe, then wouldn't

(25:43):
there be a star in every spot in the heavens
and the entire heavens would be a glow and we
would have no day a night. We would just have
this light coming from every page, because every line of
sight would end at a star. That's the belief. And
then they say, well, because that doesn't happen. We look

(26:04):
up and we see this beautiful night sky with nothing
in it. Basically we can with the naked eye, we
can see about three hundred about three thousand stars. If
you're out in the darkest place on the planet and
you look up and you see that just the sky's
ablaze with stars, then you can see about three thousand stars.

(26:30):
That's what the human eye can see. And by the way,
if you were out in space, you would not have
the dispersion that goes on in the atmosphere that makes
the stars look bigger than they actually are. Okay, so anyway,
let's talk about this question a little bit. And so
the people at the Big Bang they claim that, oh,

(26:53):
this is proof of the Big Bang, that the universe
is finite, there's an end to it that began an
big Bang. Well not really, but let's just when you
take a physics problem. When you take a physics problem,
what you do is you go to the extremes. You
try and analyze this and ask a few basic questions.

(27:14):
And the first one I would ask is, well, what
if there was an infinite universe and there were an
infinite number of stars? Therefore, because the stars are filling
the space out there, but what if all the stars
were all lined up in one line, and every couple hundred,

(27:36):
maybe every five light years, there's a star, but they're
all lined up in the line perfectly in a line,
so you'll only see one star even though there's an
infinite number of them. Well, you'd think, wow, that's true.
So what it comes down to is understanding the density
of stars. Not only is there an infinite number of them,

(27:58):
but where are they? If they're all in one line,
then there's an infinite number of them, but not every
line of sight it's going to end at a star,
because there's only one line of sight. They're all in
a big row. So that'd be like an infinite number
line in one direction, just going out into space. All
the stars are on that line, and the closest one

(28:21):
would then be the biggest one or someplace. There would
be one that shadows overshadows all of them, and that's
all you would see. There would be one star in
the sky from your vantage point. Well, that breaks down
that that idea pretty quickly. But let's imagine that the
stars are evenly distributed. And that, by the way, is

(28:43):
an underlying assumption of this antiquated belief that if the
universe were infinite, then every line of sight would end
on a start. It's simply not true. And I'll be
talking about some other examples here. But imagine a celestial sphere.
Here you are, you're let's say you're on Earth or

(29:05):
you're out in space, and you look up and around
you just imagine there's a sphere, a perfect sphere, and
let's put it at let's say the distance of the
Sun ninety three million miles away. There's a sphere that
goes around Earth, and let's pretend that there are enough

(29:27):
stars covering that sphere so that there's a star covering
every square inch, every square kilometer, every square mile of
that celestial sphere. So it would take the Sun and
many more like the Sun, and maybe little ones or
bigger ones, all but all covering that sphere, so there

(29:49):
wasn't a square inch that was not ending on the
surface of some one of these stars. Okay, well, then
it would be that would be the situation that you
would have light coming at you from all directions, and
there would be no shadows because light would be evenly

(30:11):
arriving from all different directions, and there would be no nighttime,
there would be no daytime. There wouldn't be any difference
between day and night. It would be daytime all the time. Okay, So,
now what if you took all of these stars, and
let's say they're perfectly covering the area, but with no
extra overlap to spare, move all of these stars twice

(30:34):
the distance away. Now it happens, Okay, Well, since you
moved twice as far away the sphere that you're now
surrounding the sphere that was one a U astronomical unit
the distance to the Sun. Now it's two astronomical units,

(30:57):
and so the area on that sphere is four times
as much. So if you triple the distance of your sphere,
then you would have three squared or nine times as
much surface area on your sphere, and you would need
nine times as many stars to cover that sphere as
you did the original one. And if it went four times,

(31:20):
if you expanded your sphere to four times the distance
to the sphere, then you would need sixteen times as
many stars. So what you're seeing here is that the
relationship between covering the entire sphere what you call your
celestial sphere with stars, so that all lines of sight

(31:42):
and on the surface of a star depends not only
on the number of stars, but where they are the
distribution of these stars. So if we assume that the
stars are distributed evenly amongst the heavens, now we have
a thing that comes into play here, and it comes

(32:02):
back to something called infinities. And for example, there was
a I took a course when I was in undergraduate school.
It was a course on infinities by George Kanter, and
he was a mathematician who developed the concepts of infinity
for example, if you count one, two, three, four, five

(32:24):
to infinity, then there is an infinite number of numbers.
But between any two integers one two, three, four, between
any of those, you will have an infinite number of
rational numbers. Those are fractions like two thirds or five seventh,
and there's an infinite number of those, but it doesn't

(32:48):
completely cover the number line. Very interesting, but there are more.
There's an infinity that is a bigger infinity of rational
numbers than there is of counting numbers or integer. And
then if you look at the real number system, between
every any two rational numbers, there's an infinite number of
real numbers. And so there's different layers of infinity, different

(33:13):
levels of infinity, and so this also comes back to
a whole branch of mathematics called convergent and divergent series.
For example, if you add up the sum one half
plus one third plus one fourth plus one fifth plus
one sixth like that out to infinity, that series diverges,

(33:35):
and you might think, well, yeah, you're adding an infinite
number of fractions. It should it should become infinite infinite
because you're adding an infinite number of things. And this
is related to the star issue. But if you add
up the numbers one over one squared, one over two squared,
one over three squared, one over four squared like that

(33:57):
and continue out to infinity, that series convergence. It does
not add up to an infinite number. And that's a
convergent series in mathematics, and there's all kinds of convergent series.
It's a very large brandich of mathematics, and took literally
hundreds of years for mathematicians to work all of this
out and understand that if you add an infinite number

(34:21):
of things, it doesn't necessarily add up to an infinity.
You do not get an infinite result. They're called convergent series.
And this is the same situation with the stars in
the sky. If you have a distribution of stars that

(34:41):
is beyond a certain limit, then you can have an
infinite number of stars. But not every line of sight
will add up, will end at a star. And it's
simply a matter of mathematics. So if the stars are
sufficiently far apart, then you simply you'll have dark skies.

(35:05):
It'll be dark. Another thing that factors into this, which
I should mention, is the reality of the eye or
the receptor or the camera, the telescope you're using that
it has a resolution, and beyond that resolution, it's not
going to see anything. For example, the human eye, as
I said, would have three thousand stars in the sky.

(35:26):
If you looked up with the naked eye, looked up
at a dark night up in the sky and you
know where it was perfectly dark, Arizona desert or some
places where it's very cold, it can be very clear
also and you look up, your eye can see about
three thousand stars. If you had a telescope, you would

(35:47):
see many more. Why because it has resolution, It has
the ability to go into a smaller area and bring
that back to your eye, which is a sensor. If
you put a camera, a digital or the old analog
type of film onto a camera, onto a telescope, then
you can get more pixelation and you can pick up

(36:09):
more detail. And that's what they're doing now with these
orbiting telescopes. Just amazing results. But there again the problem
with these orbiting telescopes is the telescope time is owned
and operated by people who are favorable to the Big
Bang theory, and so they squeeze out everybody else. They

(36:31):
make a monopoly. I'm getting off the track, but I
just want to point that out. But back to the idea,
is there an infinite number or is there if there's
an infinite number of stars in the sky, should there
be this glow in the sky which covers the entire sky.
Now let's take a look at something else. It's called

(36:52):
the Milky Way. This is our galaxy. So looking out
in a certain direction, we're looking down the plane of
the Milky Way galaxy. And you look up in the
night sky and there you see a big band of
light stretching across the sky. And this is a case
where the stars are close enough such that, yeah, the

(37:16):
sky is pretty much lit up. It's not perfectly lit up,
but pretty much. And if you look with a telescope,
you can see gaps in that in the arms of
the Milky Way galaxy. But if you look, you have
to remember, we live out what I would call in
the boondocks in the galaxy. So we have a beautiful

(37:37):
dark sky and the only thing we might have is
our own moon in the night sky to ruin the viewing.
But we have a beautiful view of this entire universe.
But if you were a being that lived farther in
towards the center of the galaxy. There are commodities called

(37:58):
star clusters. A star cluster is hundreds, sometimes thousands of
stars that are clustered together, and they're all moving in
the Milky Way, far enough apart where they're not colliding
into one another. But if you lived in a star cluster,
you would look up in the night sky and you

(38:19):
wouldn't see the beautiful universe that we see from this
point of view. You would be you would have light
coming at you literally from all directions, because you would
have thousands of stars up in the sky nearby. And
it would it would They probably developed space travel, in
interstellar travel much sooner than we would because our closest

(38:42):
star is quite far away. Their stars are much closer,
so they in like I say, they're moving in the
galactic arm, but they are closer to the situation. And
of course they're embedded farther in the galactic arm, so
their night sky is not like ours. They would have
to get outside of their atmosphere to get some kind

(39:06):
of a glimpse and then block the light from all
of these stars to get a glimpse of what the
universes looks like. So at any rate, there is a
situation where the star clusters farther in the galaxy would
have somewhat this situation where the light would be there
ever present day and night, and they wouldn't have nighttime.

(39:29):
So but getting back to the mathematical model, you could
set up a mathematical model. This would be an interesting
project for students, is to determine the distance. And there's
all kinds of things like this in mathematics that if
the stars were within a certain distance and of a

(39:50):
certain size and number, then there would be light coming
from they would be within the limit where you would
have light coming from all directions. In other words, light
any line of sight would end on a star if
you were beyond this limit. If you were beyond this limit,

(40:11):
then then you would not have every line of sight
ending on a star, even though you would have an
infinite number of stars. So this is a very interesting
mathematics problem. But it's one that by the way, the
stars are very far apart. The galaxies are extremely far apart.

(40:33):
Given the size of the galaxies, it's not like they're
all bunched together side by side throughout the universe. Even there,
you would have these amazing clusters of billions of stars
and still be able to see through them. So once again,
just to review these Sometimes these concepts seem self evident,

(40:56):
like the Oort cloud. Oh it's got to be there.
Where else would comets come from? Let me jump back
to there, and before I'll just finish this thought about
the stars, the infinite number of stars in heaven. So
it comes out to be similar to a mathematical problem,
either a divergent in which there's an infinite amount of
light coming in other words, the entire sphere that you're

(41:19):
looking at is covered with light, or it's convergent, in
which case there's a finite amount of surface that's covered.
And so let's go back to my very first example.
What if there was an infinite number of stars, more
stars than you could count, and they're all lined up
on a single line, you would not have the entire sky.

(41:41):
The assumption is that the stars are distributed evenly, and
that's not true. They're in clusters, and they're in galactic clusters.
And this is one thing that's very interesting is that
every time we build a new telescope. Every time we
build a new telescope, we see into dark spaces where

(42:02):
there's previously the biggest Earth based telescopes could see so
far into outer space and see galaxies, et cetera. But
then when the Hubble went up, went wow, they could
see all kinds of things. They took the Hubble Space
telescope trained it on an area that previously had been
thought was completely devoid of anything, and they found billions

(42:26):
of galaxies, so just completely populated. And then when the
James Web telescope goes up, they looked at regions which
the Hubble Space telescope just looking through that looked dark,
and all of a sudden, now you could see billions
of galaxies and other structures that were never there visible

(42:48):
before with the Hubble. So the end result, and let's
answer the question, or make an attempt at answering the question,
is the universe infinite in scope and as science. This
goes back to my original point of actually making measurements
and using measurements and scientific data for answers, not mathematical

(43:11):
hypotheses from people who sit in Ivory Tower offices, but
the universe. No matter how many telescopes you build, bigger,
better telescopes, you keep finding more and so in terms
of our ability to measure that also goes back in time,

(43:33):
the farther away they are, the fainter they are. That
would imply that they're simply farther away. Whether you use
redshift or not, that's another whole story in itself, because
the red shift is not due to things moving away
from us. That's a whole other subject. But the fact
is that every time you build a bigger telescope, you

(43:54):
see fither, you see more things, and that's the limit
of our ability to measure. So you cannot, literally you
cannot measure. Given the equipment, finite equipment that we have
have to look at the stars, you cannot measure the
end of the universe. In fact, if you could take

(44:14):
one of our telescopes, the James Webb telescope, and move
it out to the farthest galaxy that we can see,
you would probably see that distance again off into the distance.
So the universe and these are staggering ideas because the
human mind is not capable of understanding infinities. That's where
George Kanter came in. He put organizational mathematical organization on infinities,

(44:40):
something that had never been done before. So at any rate,
the end result is that the stars are not evenly
distributed in the sky. They're in clusters. So then how
are those clusters distributed. They're distributed and they're very far apart.

(45:00):
So it comes down to this mathematical analysis of does
the way you could, you could call it convergence. Does
the is the universe convergent? In other words, are the
stars close enough and numerous enough and cover enough area
to where this concept should be true. Well, it's clearly

(45:21):
not true because we don't see light coming from all
regions of the sky. We don't see that. But then again,
depending on the distribution of stars, we may not even
though there is an infinite number of stars. So, okay,
the jumping back to the original topic there. Okay, so

(45:46):
jumping back to the original idea of the ort cloud. Now,
the observation is that when comets come into the Solar System,
they have a limit to the outer bound of their
the disc since from the Sun the outer portion of
their elliptical orbits the perage and the apogee distances. Of course,

(46:08):
they're the apergy being close to the Sun, the perogy
being the distant point in the orbit but concentrated around
this region called the out cloud. But I propose that
there's something very different going on here and explains the data.
So what happens. These comets are coming in literally from

(46:29):
an infinite distance, but when they hit the Solar system,
when they form, that's the first time we see them.
Is when they become comets, and the little nucleus is
just little teeny speck of rock out there. That's not
something we are able to see with telescopes. So when
they all of a sudden become a comet, the first

(46:51):
thing they do is they attract material, draw it into
the comet nucleus and it slows them down. It's called
the tail drag. I explained that in my work, my
books and publications, and so the tail drag slows the
comet down and gives it the appearance that it's only
coming from a certain distance, even though it really did

(47:11):
come in from an infinite from an infinite orbit, an
open orbit. So it would be you can call it
an effect, and instead of the ort cloud, you might
call it the Mchanny effect. Put a name on it,
put my name on something. But anyway, that would explain
the same phenomena that is measured with comets, but giving

(47:36):
the correct interpretation. And also it's provable because you could
as soon as these comets ignite and become a comet
as they discharge the solar capacitor, if you immediately measure
their orbital characteristics, then within a short period of time,
you would notice that their orbits change to where they

(47:58):
become a closed orbit because of the tail drag. Now
that's the correct interpretation, just like, for example, the correct
interpretation of the microwave background radiation is that it is
a cloud of dust and gas that surrounds our star,
and that's what they're seeing. It's a microwave radiation black
body radiation front that's of a cloud of material that's

(48:21):
surrounding our star. And that is, by the way, the
same material that is instrumental in creating the planets that
are forming in the Kuiper Belt. And the red shift
that's coming from the all of these objects galaxies quasars
in the universe that appear to be moving away. The

(48:42):
red shift is not due to motion away from us,
but it's due to an effect I discovered called the
induced electric diable redshift. It's the electrical properties around fusion
based stars, the non uniform electric field and photons moving
through that reduces their energy and gives them all the

(49:02):
red shift, and so that's what's going on. It's not
due to objects moving away. So the end result, there
is a second source of red shift, and that is
what we're seeing, not due to objects moving away from us.
So the whole basis of the Big Bang, the microwave

(49:23):
background radiation and the red shift are due to very
different causes. But this is what I get back to
the original discussion of circular reasoning that scientists begin with.
The hypoth says, it grains traction, and once it gets
into the cycle of funding, publication, and monopoly of the

(49:46):
system by power groups, then you're not going to change it,
because they're going to keep going on. And literally recently,
many many scientists are finding all kinds of flaws with
the Big Bang hYP apothesis, from the amount of very
esoteric things like the amount of lithium in stars relative

(50:08):
to the amount of iron, very esoteric things that are
predictions of the Big Bang that are not coming true.
In spite of the fact that they claim that there
support evidentiary support for the Big Bang, but there are
so many things wrong with Fifty years ago, we knew

(50:29):
the Big Bang did not work there were all kinds
of contradictions, not the least of which is this nonsense
about dark matter and dark energy, or that they don't
know what it is. They don't know what it looks like.
Because the universe is expanding, there are effects that they
cannot explain with their models, so they have to introduce

(50:49):
something that you cannot see or detect. And they still
haven't they haven't even defined what they're looking for. Can
you imagine that? Can you imagine going on a trip.
So you took the family, you'll go on a trip,
and you know, the wife has where we're going. It's like,
I don't know. I don't know where we're going and
what we're going to look for or what we're doing,

(51:12):
but we're going on this trip. And so somewhat the
same as the state of astronomy astrophysics today, where they're
looking for something they don't know what it is. But
the problem is there are a lot of other people
who should be using that telescope time to make real discoveries,
analyze real data, and get the scientific community back on track. Okay,

(51:40):
a number of weeks ago is going to change topics
a little bit. Here, a number of weeks ago, I
talked about the BET's limit. I spent three weeks discussing
aerodynamics the BET's limit, and go back and watch those
shows if you miss them. But I had a little
bit to add on those particular topics. It's something I mentioned,

(52:01):
but I didn't flesh out the topic. It's called reversible processes. Now,
a reversible process is one in physics or in chemistry
in which you can go to a certain state and
then say it takes energy to get there, okay, so
then if you go in the reverse then you can

(52:23):
get that energy back. A good example is the separation
of oxygen and hydrogen from the water molecule through electrolysis,
and then when you combine those back together you get
energy back. It takes energy to break them apart, and
then if you bring them back together, you get the
energy back. And of course there's always some losses, but

(52:46):
it's a reversible process. Somebody, if you drive your bicycle
up a hill, Okay, it takes energy to get up
to the top of the hill, but now you can
ride your bike coast down to the bottom of the
hill and gain that energy back. You'd be moving at
a higher velocity once you get down to the bottom

(53:07):
of the hill, and so the there's an exchange of
energy there, but it's a reversible process, is the point.
So I want to talk a little bit about reversible processes.
And one of the things when I talked about the
BET's limit, which is this mathematical limit how much energy

(53:27):
can you extract from the from the atmosphere or from
a water column of water falling in a hydro dam.
How much water can you how much energy can you
extract from the water, And there's a formula, it's called
the BET's limit, And there's certain conditions on using the

(53:51):
BET's limit mathematics. One is that you have some kind
of non compressible fluid, like in the case of a
hydrid it is water. And so what happens is you
have this column of water that's so big coming down
at a certain velocity, and as you remove kinetic energy

(54:12):
that's the energy of movement, the water slows down. So
your pipe has to become bigger so to accommodate the
slower moving water, So the same volume of water can
move out the bottom go out the bottom shoot of
the of the hydro dam, and then in the middle
you have a propeller and impeller that is moving with
the water, and as the water's extracted, the pipe around

(54:36):
that plange is getting bigger because the water is slowing down.
Now let's reverse that process. Let's say we're taking water
from a reservoir down below, and we're pumping it up
to the top of the hill back into the reservoir
at the top of the hill. That is a reversible process. Now,
if we cat one hundred percent efficient storage mechanism for

(54:59):
say electricity, then we could use the electricity and take
the water that had fallen down, pump it back up,
and then move it back up the same tube into
the lake. And it would be the reverse because the
water coming in would be slow moving, and as it
became faster moving, you would narrow the pipe down so
that the same amount, same volume of water could move

(55:21):
through the pipe up to the reservoir on the top
of the hill. Being a reversible process. So that's the
crux of the issue. Now, take a propeller, and specifically
the three blade wind turbines. It is not a reversible process.
In other words, a propeller, on the other hand, is

(55:43):
not a reversible process. What does a propeller do you
put it on the front of an airplane. You put
a high energy engine on their high rpm engine. It
takes dead air, air that's not moving, spins and throws
that air backwards and causes propulsion. Okay, now let's reverse

(56:07):
that process. Take a fast moving column of air, blow
it on the propeller. And what's going to happen. Well,
the wind is just going to blow through the three
blade wind turbine without really doing much. About ninety five
percent of the energy coming in that column of wind
is just going to blow through the three blade wind

(56:28):
turbine without touching the blades or without doing anything. It
is not a reversible process. Propellers are not a reversible process.
So that's why the three blade wind turbines are a
dramatic failure. They don't work. And so this is when

(56:48):
I invented the GMCC wing generator. I had to understand
these things on scaling. How can you take something that
The reason small winds narrators work pretty good is because
they spin very fast. But the bigger you make them,
the slower they go in, the less efficient they become.

(57:09):
And so when I was building the wing generator, I
designed it so that it would overcome these problems. And
the biggest thing I was after was scalability. In other words,
you would how can you invent something that you can
scale up to bigger sizes. And I give the example

(57:30):
of the old clipper ships, the old cargo ships that
used to cross the Atlantic Ocean before the ages of steam.
If you're going to build a bout bigger and bigger,
then the volume of the hull grows as the cube
of the linear dimension, whereas the sails grow as the square.
So you can put this enormous sail rig on these

(57:53):
clipper ships and they go really fast, so you can
transatlantic trade. You can move your cargo across it Atlantic
with sail in a hurry. Because of these big ships,
and because of the principle of scaling making things big,
and the fact that the hull grows at the as

(58:13):
the cube of the lineal dimension, whereas the sales grow
as the square. Okay, and so the same thing is
true of the wing generator, which grows in three dimensions.
So as you make the lineal dimension bigger, it grows
the energy output grows as the cube of the lineal dimension,
so it scales up to much larger sizes, whereas the

(58:37):
three blane wind turbine does not scale up to larger sizes.
So at anyway, I wanted to get that in here about
the reversibility of certain physical processes and how you have
to understand these when you're dealing with engineering, especially things
that are commensurate with dealing with say energy production. And

(58:59):
looks like I'm about time again. We'll talk to you
next week.

Speaker 1 (59:07):
This has been Master of Science with host James McCanne.
Join us each week as James will delve into historical
figures such as Nicola Tesla, Albert Einstein, and the great
mathematicians as we explore the history of Man, Earth in
our universe as you've never seen it before. Tuesday, seven
pm Eastern, right here on the Bold Brave TV Network,

(59:31):
powered by B two Studios.