Master of Science - 3/25/25

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Master of Science with host Professor James McCanny.
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 war. So please welcome
the host of Master of Science, James McCanny, and.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Good evening again everybody, thank you for joining me and tonight.
I have a many different topics, so last few weeks
have been concentrating on atmospheric electricity. And that's a topic
that always will pop up almost no matter what you're
talking about, that will somehow weave into the conversation. It

(01:12):
is so prevalent in our weather, in your own being,
for example, we are all connected in some way to
the vertical electric field. And what happens is if you
go outside, especially in the summertime, you stand in the

(01:32):
grass in the morning time when the dew is there,
the dew has fallen, and your feet then connect electrically
to the ground, and people say that makes you healthy,
that can alter your state of health, et cetera. And
there's a reason for that, because you are an antennae.

(01:55):
For example. There's all kinds of things. Now I'm kind
of digressing from my main topic tonight, but for example,
when you meet people, there is an electrical connection, a
magnetic connection, and there's a term. It's called people giving

(02:18):
off vibes, so there's kind of a slang term for that.
But the reality is that, yes, you are connecting. Your
body is like an antenna. It's giving off signals and
it's receiving signals. And I've talked about this before when
you're especially for younger people, And this is why I

(02:39):
really don't agree with things like dating apps, because there's
a literally a connection that people make when they first
meet and it's hard to explain. And this is part
also dealing with your spirit. Your spirit's connecting, and on
that dating app there's totally all of that is completely removed.

(03:01):
But I always give an example. You're going about your business,
you're busy one day, all of a sudden, around you
walk around the corner and you bump into like a
guy and a girl bump into each other and they're like,
you know, it's like destiny, maybe partly, but also it's
like they all of a sudden. You know, people talk

(03:24):
about love at first sight, for example, that is very
much a connection between the two people and they are
it's it's not only physical, but it's it's like all
kinds of attractions going on in between the spirits between
the electromagnetic part of the body, the antenna part of

(03:46):
the body, et cetera. And so this is something very real.
This is why last week I talked about the Shamans
in Peru going up into the mountains. They go barefoot,
and I say, you see these people and they have
they have a kellous on the bottom of their foot.
It's like walking on a piece of leather. But they
are connected to the ground. And then they go up

(04:09):
high in the mountains so that they can connect to
the vertical electric field. Their body does so anyway, the
end result is that it's important to understand the influence
that the vertical electric field has in our bodies. And
for example, the moon contributes to this. And this is why,

(04:33):
like if you talk to any sheriff or law enforcement officer,
they will tell you that during the full moon, they
higher extra people, They get extra people on the staff
because they know that the crazies are going to be out.
And there's something to that, you know, like the old
werewolf movies talking about the you know, the creatures that

(04:58):
come out and start bring extra hair on in their
knuckles at midnight when the full moon is out. We
just had a full moon hair an interesting one of
red moon, orange red Moon. But anyway, back to the story.
The Moon is electrically charged because it's out in the

(05:18):
solar wind. It's discharging the solar capacitor. NASA has taken
a picture of its sodium tail, So the Moon sports
a tail like a comet tail, and the reason is
because it's discharging the solar capacitor, just like Earth is.
But the Moon does not have a protective magnetic field,

(05:39):
so it's kind of like raw out there in the
solar wind, much like a comet nucleus. So I'm getting
a little bit off track here, but the point is
that when the Moon is aligning with Earth, there's actually
an electrical connection there between the Moon and Earth were

(06:00):
there always is a connection and it's one of the
driving forces for our magnetic field. Anyway, there's rather complicated issues,
but the point is that it affects people. And when
there's a new moon also there's another electrical alignment. But
it seems that the full moon has more effect. And

(06:22):
in fact there are biological systems, especially in the ocean,
and actually any people and animals are affected by the
state of the moon, the phase of the moon. Okay,

(06:42):
so anyway, I'm not going to go into that. Just
a other little note on that. When I was working
with these Russian scientists at the University of the Varsibirsk
and they were atmospheric scientists dealing with like tornadoes on
the sun. I talked about this last week as the
daily meetings went on, and they were translating my work

(07:04):
into Russian and understanding the electrical nature of the solar
system and of Earth and weather systems, et cetera. The
psychologists at the university got wind of this and started
sitting in on the daily meetings. And so the reason
they were interested is because they had been measuring the

(07:25):
effects of what they did is they had unborn babies
or fetuses that were still in the mother and they
had electric probes on them to see what kind of
reactions that these the babies would have as they were developing,
and then also when they were born, when all of
the senses kicked in for the first time. And so

(07:48):
what they realized is that there was a correlation between
activity of the babies and the alignment of planets electrical
alignments or physical alignments, not usual alignments, but physical alignments
of the planets. And so they thought it was gravitational,
but it turns out that we are gravitationless relative to

(08:09):
the other planets, and that's something I've talked before on
this show. But what they were interested in is the
fact that the babies were acting like antennas, and because
they were in the womb, they really had no interaction
with the site. They could hear things, but they were

(08:33):
picking up on the signaling from the positions of the planets.
And they realized when they were born, all of these
senses kicked in on the little babies, and all of
a sudden, the reaction, their reaction to the planetary alignments
was lessened because they had all of this other input

(08:53):
coming in from the senses. And it turns out that people,
as they age and grow and grow up, many of
them lose this connection or they become less aware of it,
and so it really is I could go into a
lot more detail, but it gives the physical basis a

(09:15):
basis in physics for what we call astrology, the reaction
of people to the positions of the planets and also
to the stars, because they that gives us a frame
of reference the stars in which the moon and the
other planets are interacting electrically. So at any rate, I

(09:38):
kind of got off my main subject there, but I
wanted to talk about the I just wanted to go
into a little more depth, and maybe a couple of
shows in the future I'll go into a lot more
detail on this very topic. But the point, going back
to the point of human interaction, is that if you're

(09:59):
in a room full of people in there like minded,
there's like a vibration. Or if you go to say
a great example is like a concert, whether it's an
opera or a Rocks stadium full of teenagers. In that
connection where you have all these people together, it's like

(10:21):
a magnification. I heard a guy just talking the other day.
He was at a Paul McCartney concert. Recent concert of
one of the Beatles. Paul McCartney, and he said that
the feeling in the crowd was just tremendous energy, and
he said he actually started crying a little bit because

(10:41):
of the amount of energy that was exhibited in the
just the collection of people there. And there it is.
There's an expression soul music. And of course this comes
out of the Bible Belt in the South and related
to music that developed in the churches, religious singing, etc.

(11:07):
And then it grew into popular music venues. But there again,
when they say soul music, it comes from the soul,
the heart, the you know, some people think that the
heart and the soul have a lot more to do
than your brain. So we have these different aspects to

(11:31):
human beings that are not measurable. You can't put a
meter on it. As a physicist, you know, we always
love to have things where you can put a meter
on it, or put a microscope or it some kind
of probe or whatever and look at the only the
physical aspect of that whatever it is. But in reality,

(11:51):
that's what makes humans different than the monkeys out there
in the jungle, is that we have a soul, We
have a spirit, and that makes us us different than
say just animals who every male lion acts like every
male lion. They respond, they react to their environment, but

(12:11):
they don't have an individual spirit like human beings. You
don't find whales doing quantum mechanics. You don't find dolphins
developing space probes. You know, they're locked into what they're doing.
They eat fish, they eat swim, that's what they do.
And so anyway, I think it's important for people, especially

(12:36):
young people, to understand that they're individuals. They're different than
everybody else, and they're different in good ways. Everybody if
everybody was the same like the monkeys out in the jungle,
that's what they want to teach you in school. By
the way, this has been one of my things I've
really been very aggravated with in education is by the
time kids, by the first day that kids walk into

(12:59):
Kindred Garden, what are they teaching him that you're like
a monkey? They show them that picture of the evolution
of man with the monkeys crawling and then standing up
and then eventually there's man. No, believe me, that's not
the way it is. Man has been on this planet
in developing in his current form for a lot longer

(13:21):
than they would like to tell you. It's not like
we just crawled out of Mesopotamia seven thousand years ago
or something, where, you know, the first man developed in
all the various varieties of man. I don't like the
word species. That's really a terrible term, very misused, very misunderstood.
But all of the let's say, varieties of man, the short,

(13:45):
the tall, the you know, the different builds, the different
eye color, skin color, whatever. And by the way people
talk about people of color, you know, isn't white a
color everybody? You know? I'm so tired of people trying
to identify with with all of these external characteristics, and

(14:09):
what we should always be doing is just dealing with
the who the person is, how, what are they like,
you know, and interact with them that way. And anyway,
I'm getting off subject here. I want to jump out
to something that just popped up in the news. There's
a telescope that just went up, owned and operated by

(14:32):
the European Space Agency and it's called Euclid, of course,
named after the Greek Euclid, who did a lot for
mathematics and logic. And okay, so at any rate, this
telescope goes up and it's a very capable telescope. I mean,

(14:53):
it has super resolution, high extreme high resolution, and it
scans in entire sky, so it's not just looking at
one thing taking a picture. It's doing a scan of
the entire sky and putting back the giving back the data.
And it's in the visible and the infrared. So that's

(15:13):
the light that we see with our eyes, the visible
spectrum and then the infrared, which is what a lot
of animals see. They can see at night, they have
night vision, you call it, and we have a little bit.
We have a little bit of infrared capability in our eyes.
If you're in a dark room at night, or if
you're outside and you look at something and it's pretty dark,

(15:39):
don't look right at it. Those are the retinas for
your visible eye. Look a little bit to the side
and you'll see the object much better. And those are
the infrared parts of your eye working. But it's not
very good. It's not like an owl or a cat

(15:59):
or dog who can see very well at night with infrared.
It's just it's the next step of light to the
longer wavelengths. Okay, So at any rate, this telescope is amazing,
and so what it's doing is mapping the entire sky.
But here's the problem. This telescope time is being occupied

(16:25):
by people who believe in I'll go through kind of
litany here that things that are completely bogus science and
we know it. We've known it for decades. So like
the Big Bang, totally bogus. And if you believe that
the universe popped out of a pinhead thirteen billion years ago,

(16:47):
then European hit. It's the most ridiculous thing. I try
and give people simple examples. Imagine your house where you live,
and you look at it and somebody comes up and say,
you know, your house just popped out of a pinhead
one day. There was no design There was no designer,
there was no you know, all the material, all the boards,

(17:08):
all the nails and everything just popped out and just
assembled the way it is, all by themselves. And you know,
would you believe that, Well, you'd think that was out
of my mind. You know what a crazy guy saying
to tell me that my house just popped out of
a pin hit. No, And they're trying to tell you
that the whole universe, with all its organization and all

(17:31):
the physical properties that are the same on the far
side of the universe as they are here that are
just all popped out of a pinhead one day, all
the matter and developed and they know all the theory
and how it happened. Oh my goodness, you know. And
these people are pawning this off. But then when it

(17:51):
doesn't work, when they look at the actual data of
how things are distributed in the universe and things are
not distributed the way they think they should because of
the the eoretical model of the Big Bang, then they
invent something called dark matter and dark energy. Something you
can't see. We can't define what it is, we don't
know where it is, we can't see it, but it's

(18:12):
got to be there because that makes it theoretical model work. Now,
if you believe that, when I got a bridge to
sell you, these people are milking the government funding operation.
And the problem is, here's one of the big problems
is the news media is complicit. Now, let me just explain. Now,

(18:36):
in a real world, this wouldn't happen in a real
world where somebody had to produce real results and actually
put bread on the table, as the expression goes, this
wouldn't last in New York. Second, but it's big money.
Where does the money come from? Well, it actually comes

(18:56):
from you, through your taxes. You pay for the government
funded science. And so what is the news media have
to do with this, Well, they're pumping the party line
because guess what they make their money when they report
the news. So anyway, what I'm going to do is
pull up this article here and I'm going to read

(19:18):
a little bit. This comes from It's called Science Alert,
and this article would probably be it looks like it
came from another another source, but it's not clear. It's
called Universe Today. And then there's another reference to space,

(19:39):
so I don't know if that's space dot com. But anyway,
all of these magazines played to the same genre. And
I'm just going to read this to give you a
flavor of how news media covers for bad, ridiculous science
that you pay for and keeps these people. The problem

(19:59):
is this amazing, amazing equipment could be used by people
that have alternative ideas. Okay, so I'm going to read here.
The ESA's UCLID space telescope has already wowed us with
some fantastic images. After launching in July twenty twenty three,
the telescope delivered some stunning first images of the Perseus cluster.

(20:20):
The horsehead, nebula, and other astronomical objects. Now the telescope
has released its first images of three deep fields. So
this is They talk about the camera and it says
Euclid features a powerful six hundred megabyte camera. It's MB
capital MB, so I assume that's megabyte camera that can

(20:45):
take detailed images of objects like the horsehad nebula. However,
its main job listen to this, here's the punchline. However,
its main job is to probe the history of the
expansion of the universe. There it is they've already decided
before this thing goes up there, before it takes a measurement,

(21:06):
that it's going to probe their pet theory, the expansion
of the universe. Now Here I'm gonna it talks about
a little bit about the the operation of the camera,
but then it says deep field observations can teach us
a lot, as the Hubble showed, and are essential for

(21:28):
uncovering how dark matter. There it is the magic work
how dark matter is distributed throughout the universe. Euclids deep
and wide fields will provide the deepest and most detailed
views of the universe. Yet so there it is is
this is what really it's it's bogus science, but it's funded. Now.

(21:53):
I could go through a litany, a literal litany of
government supported science that we knew twenty thirty years ago
was bogus. Let's talk about comets. Comets are not dirty snowballs.
Every article you see in the news media talks about
comets being dirty snowballs, little icy wanders ventures neanders from

(22:17):
of our little ice balls. You know that melt near
the sun absolutely absurd, or the Big Bang or dark
matter or dark energy, or that hurricanes are formed from
warm water. I could I could just go on and
on and on about the absolute absurdities that are being

(22:38):
pawned off on you the public. And that's one of
the one of the main things I try and do
on this show is educate people and hopefully at a
certain point. Now see this article that I just read,
it's what is it doing? Well, it's it's a you,
it's a yay rah rah, you know, standard science kind

(23:04):
of mouthpiece. But what's it doing. It's making it okay
with you the public. Now, there's people that you can find,
like say, just to pull out a name out of
the hat, Eric Lerner, he's the head of the Fusion
Lab and a physicist, high energy particle physicist, and he's
for ages. I've been saying, No, this Big Bang thing

(23:25):
is completely bogus. There are thousands of high quality physicists
around the world who are repeating the same thing. Some
of them try to point out the plethora, absolute monumental
amount of data that is in opposition to the Big

(23:46):
Bang and says no, any one of these points would
dispel the Big Bang as any kind of competitive theory.
Yet it continues. And why does it continue Because the
way government funding works is it's top down. The funding

(24:08):
is decided by the people at the very top of
the pyramid. And how do they get there? They work
their way up slowly. Okay, so they go to graduate school,
they get a PhD, they get a post doc, and
then they get their first job, and then they work
their way up and after being in the physics world
for a while and if they're recognized and have published papers,

(24:30):
which is their ticket to ride. Basically, now they get
into a position where they can start recommending funding, get
on government panels, et cetera, to recommend where the money goes. Well,
just you know, the water flows downhill and so and
who are they interested in funding well the institutions that

(24:52):
got them where they are today. And that is why
government science cannot change. We've been going through this fifty years.
When I was at Cornell in nineteen seventy nine, I
presented conclusive data that the Big Bang could not be
correct and it was I mean, it was well well funded.

(25:15):
Let's put it that way back then, it goes back
over one hundred years, and let's just look at the
basis for the Big Bang. The first the first thing
that came out, the thing that really got it going
was Edwin Hubble around the year nineteen o five. He

(25:36):
was able to put spectrometers on a good telescope. He
was the first person to actually see galaxies. And then
they had the spectrometers that they could put on the
telescope and take the spectrum. And so what they noticed
is that the common elements that we have spectral analysis
in the laboratory to know the spectral lines and exactly

(25:59):
what forquency they're at, everything was shifted to the red,
no matter which galaxy you looked at. And so they go,
what's going on here? And so they had Einstein's special
theory of relativity which predicted a red shift if something
was moving away from you. So they look around and
they go, well, everything around us is moving away, so

(26:21):
that must mean the universe is expanding. That's where it
got its root. What they didn't realize was that there's
another source of red shift for fusion based objects, and
that's something I actually discovered. It's called the induced electric
dipole force. What happens, and this goes back to the

(26:42):
concept that the fusion objects have a stellar wind of
excess current of protons and there's a wind that comes
off the fusion object and it produces a non uniform
electric field and that is what causes the induced electric
dipole dicer in photons. And so it has to deal

(27:04):
with fundamental physics of the photon. It has to do
with the large scale cosmological situation where you have fusion
based objects that would be stars, galax stars, galactic nuclei,
entire galaxies themselves giving off a red shift. And so

(27:27):
then what they did is they interpreted the red shift. Well,
the more the red shift, the farther away it is,
the faster it's going. And you can show that the
red shifts. The Sun has a red shift at its edge.
It's not speeding away at the speed of light or
some amazing velocity moving away from us. It's pretty much

(27:47):
a constant distance from Earth. Yet it shows a red shift.
And I could go on and on about all the
data that exists, and there is ongoing research now showing that,
and this has been going on for ages. A guy
named Halton Arp was instrumental in pointing out. He studied

(28:10):
galaxies and did the corese spectral analysis of galaxies, and
he showed that these quasars, very high redshift quasars are
connected to local galaxies. In the local galaxy, of course,
had a normal red shift, and they were physically connected.
In X rays and ultra violet and visible light and infrared,

(28:32):
in microwaves, you could see the connection. It was not fake.
It was in Astronomers have a tendency that if it
doesn't agree with them, they just sweep it under the rug.
And so anyway, there are dozens. Like I said, that's
just one example of contradictory data that would disprove the

(28:54):
Big Bang. But because of the government funding and because
this is big we're not talking just little jump change here.
We're talking vast amounts of money and the use of
these pristine telescopes and the Nobel prizes that are given.

(29:14):
It is so ingrained in the monopoly. This is a
form of monopoly and you're paying for it. You're paying
for it, and so the only way you can break
this is to break the government cycle of funding and
try that. Now. Isn't this amazing? Where you get fleets

(29:37):
and fleets of PhDs all aligned in the same direction
and controlling the news media, the scientific media, publications in
peer review journals. And there's a complaint I have it
over on my other table over here of scientists around
the world who've been trying to publish contradictory days to

(30:00):
the Big Bang and they can't. It's being blocked from
the peer reviewed journals. And who's blocking it the same
people that are in line for the big funding. And
these are big universities worldwide. This is worldwide, and these
are the people that get the good equipment, they get
the funding, they get the publication, and they're not going

(30:21):
to let it go. So it's more political, it's not
even political. It's a religion. It's a religion, and no
amount of contradictory data will defer these people from their
quest for maintaining their power monopoly. Okay, I'm going to

(30:45):
read just a couple more paragraphs from this article, pulling
it up here, it says EUCLID, this telescope EUCLID will
probably be the same. It's deep survey of galaxies will
likely become foundational in our understanding of the cosmic web.
Dark matter and dark energy. Once again, listen to this.

(31:07):
Dark matter and energy are mysterious and are two of
the most pressing issues in astronomical science. Only massive amounts
of observational data can help scientists make headway in understanding
dark matter and dark energy. Now, just to review, they
don't know what dark energy or dark matter is. They

(31:30):
don't know what its properties are. In fact, they don't
have a single property of dark matter. They don't know.
This is just bizarre. And like I say, the only
reason they talk about dark matter is because their theoretical
models simply don't add up. To put it bluntly, and

(31:54):
so this is a ruse. This is a scientific bruce,
and that's the best thing you can say about it.
And I want to let the public know on this show.
And that's one of the reasons for this show is
to expose this science that is really now. This has

(32:16):
been going on, like I say, for fifty years, this
use of these amazing telescopic pieces of equipment, and there
are other people who could use it to do real science.
So I'm going to try and do my best to
break this monopoly of government funded science and open it

(32:42):
up to other people, because if not, in fifty years
they'll be doing the same thing, they'll be still looking
for dark matter. Then we're going, well, we're almost there.
I could talk about other branches of physics that are
doing the same thing. They've been looking for different things

(33:03):
like fusion. Fusion is a good example. It's like we
build the next reactor, it's going to be for sure
we'll be able to break unity in other words, gain energy.
And it's a a great misuse of government money. If
there's no results within a few years, then people should

(33:27):
go back to the drawing board and as an independent scientist,
the way science used to be is you had to
produce results, and results that were usable and brought an
economic benefit in the economic benefit would bring ROI to
the investors. If you go back to the late eighteen

(33:49):
hundreds early nineteen hundreds, that's how science was done. That's
how engineering came about. Edison made products, he sold them,
He made money and re invested that money into building
more products, you know. And there was the same way
with Tesla. They when they developed a technology, they sold it,

(34:10):
They took the money and they were reinvesting that. We
have people today, Elon Musk is doing that. He's taking
and privately developing technologies and innovation and making a profit
and then reinvesting that money. That is a legitimate way
to run science and engineering, including but you know, astronomy

(34:33):
has gotten to the point it's kind of like squirrels.
If you had a squirrel in your backyard, in a
family of squirrels, and you fed them every day, and
they would within a generation they would forget how to
forage for food. And that's what's gone on in science.
I go to scientific meetings like say American Geophysical Union meeting,

(34:54):
and I have a sign on my badge with my
name and it says independent scientists. And people come up
to me and say, what's an independent scientist? I'd say,
I don't take government money to do research or do
my work, and they it's just like, how can you
be a scientist without government funding. They don't understand because
they're squirrels that forgot how to forage. Okay, I want

(35:18):
to comment on the spring equinox, which just happened last Thursday,
the twentieth of March, and it typically ranges between the
twentieth and the twenty second of March, and the official
date is the twenty first of March, and that is
when the length of the day is exactly equal to

(35:39):
the length of the night, and so therefore the term equinox.
And so it occurred at four to one a m.
Central daylight time because we're on day daylight saving time now,
and at four o'clock basically four oh one in the morning.

(36:03):
And that would now as you move on even the
first minute or the first hour after that, already the
daytime is becoming longer than the nighttime. And so we
get to the situation where the farther north you are
in the or the farther if you're in the southern hemosphere,

(36:25):
now you're heading into winter where the daytime is getting
shorter because the poll is situated looking away from the
pointing away from the sun. But I want to mention
that the celts going back to actually my ancestors in
who developed a system of calendars, very effective system of calendars,

(36:50):
started their springtime, like we start springtime on March twenty first,
that's the official first day of spring, and in terms
of time, it would have been on the twentieth this
year at four one in the morning Central time. But
what the Celts did is they went halfway between the

(37:12):
solstice and the equinox. And so December twenty first is
the official day of the winter solstice, and that is
the shortest day of the year, and that's when the
northern hemisphere is pointed away from the sun spinning on
its axis. And so what the Celts did is said

(37:33):
they said, no, the beginning day of spring is halfway
between December twenty first and March twenty first, and so
then the first what we call the first day of spring,
the twenty first of March, would be the middle of spring.
And then then we would be moving halfway between March

(37:55):
twenty first and June twenty first, June twenty first being
the summer, which is the longest day of the year
if you're in the northern hemisphere. So you go halfway
between March twenty first and June twenty first, and that
would be the end of springtime for the Celts and
the beginning of summer. So they juxtapositioned it by basically

(38:19):
a month and a half and that makes a lot
more sense. But interestingly enough, there's a leg in the
weather cycles, and so it almost turns out that if
you put spring to a month and a half earlier
than March twenty first, we'd be in what we call winter.

(38:41):
So it's not really the way it works out because
of the wind patterns. And this brings up a very
interesting situation. And this is something I say in my
weather book, The Principia Medior Loohia The Physics of Sun
Earth Weather, that the temperature doesn't depend on many factors,
but for sure there's one major. If you're in the

(39:01):
northern hemisphere, if the wind's from the north, it's cool,
it's colder. If the wind's from the south, it's warmer.
And that's something that you can almost bank on. If
you look at the wind and the direction of the wind,
that's going to control the temperature. That's what the temperature
is linked to, not so much the other factors, even

(39:25):
whether it's cloudy or not. The main factor in determining
the temperature in a given place is the direction of
the wind, because it's warmer in the south and it's
colder in the north. And one thing also when you
look at what we call climate science, it's a very
lazy science where jokingly but actually realistically, what scientists did

(39:52):
is they sat in their ivory tower office and they'd
stick a thermometer out the window, and if it was
warmer that day, they'd make a data point, and if
it was colder that day, they wouldn't. That's about what
it's like. But there's a lot of Shenanagreek going around
in the world of climate science. For example, they will

(40:12):
put the thermometer out at the airport. Well, guess what
you have all of that cement and it's with an
open field and the it typically is going to be
a degree or too warmer at the airport than it
is even downtown, and downtown is going to be in
a city is going to be warmer by a degree

(40:34):
or something than the countryside or if you're out in
the woods. If you're out in the forest, it's going
to be cooler. So they put the thermometer where it's
going to be warmer and so gee, guess what temperature horizon? Yeah,
that's true. But those are just examples examples of really

(40:55):
bad science. And the issue comes back to the fall.
And this is going to aggravate a lot of people
because it's what I call emotional science. People get emotionally
attached to a concept, and if you try and tell
them differently, it's like it's like you poke a knife
in their side. But the true situation is that the

(41:22):
greenhouse effect. They talk about carbon dioxide or methane or
other so called greenhouse gases. Do you know what a
greenhouse is? Let me explain how a greenhouse works. A
greenhouse has a roof and that's what traps the heat in.
Of course, the sun shines into the greenhouse. It's called

(41:44):
the greenhouse effect. The difference between that and the atmosphere
is the atmosphere doesn't have a roof, a physical roof,
and what happens at night. The atmosphere releases the energy
into outer space every night. And even though you are
driving huge amounts of heat directly into the atmosphere every day,

(42:06):
where does that heat go? From a nuclear power plant?
Millions of cars driving around up and down the road
every day, you think, oh, that little bit of carbon
dioxide coming out the tailby is going to cause a
zero point one degree rise in temperature in twenty years.
That's the concept of the greenhouse effect. Or they don't
talk about that anymore because real scientists will tell you

(42:29):
that the greenhouse effect does not work. But the end
result is that it does not trap heat like they're
talking about. And it's if you couple bad science with
a bad concept, you get typically a lot of government
funding and that's going away, thank goodness. But here's the

(42:51):
crux of the issue, and anybody who's there are experiments
that show this that if you take a an environment,
a closed environment, and you take two trees exactly identical,
grown from seed, the tree that's in the box with

(43:11):
more carbon dioxide grows in proportion to the amount of
carbon dioxide. The tree that's in the environment with only
Earth's normal amount of carbon dioxide is actually grows very poorly.
And we have had times in the history of the
Earth when Earth had very high levels of carbon dioxide

(43:35):
and it was the most vibrant time on planet Earth.
And so the end result is we need not only
more CO two, we need a lot more CO two
because the plants are literally starving of CO two. And
what's going to happen. Now, a lot of these processes

(43:57):
have feedback loops them, and here's what would happen. If
you put we're able to have increase the amount of
CO two in the Earth's atmosphere, the plant life would
respond and grow much more. The photo photosynthesis would would

(44:17):
the whole process would be augmented, and the plants would
grow and it would actually cool the earth down. Right now,
the plants are being starved. Look at we have huge
amounts of desertification. If you start removing CO two from
the atmosphere, which people are doing now, it's going to

(44:39):
starve the vegetation and there will be appoint at which
there's point of no return in which you remove more
and more CO two. And people think, oh, that's a
great thing, get all that darn CO two out of
the atmosphere. No, what's going to really happen is that
you are going to kill the earth. You have to
we need a lot more CO two in the atmosphere,

(45:01):
and I would say five to six times would be
the amount of CO two. And what happens that will
actually cool the earth down because you'll have vibrant plant
life which will shade the earth. And actually, if you
don't believe me, walk into a forest sometime. You're on
a hot day in the summertime and you're say you're

(45:24):
down by a lake or something like that, and you
walk into the forests or just walking on a path
in the woods, walk into the forest, a dense forest,
and it becomes cooler. Why because all that sunlight in
the visible is being absorbed by the plants and it's
being converted into carbon dioxide based matter. The carbon is

(45:47):
being extracted and you release in an oxygen, so you're
building up the oxygen in the atmosphere while you are
taking the energy for the solar energy and converting it
into something. And that energy is instead of going into
the atmosphere and heating up the atmosphere, is going into

(46:09):
plant matter. In the end result is actually cooling the
earth down. We need more CO two, not a little bit,
We need a lot more CO two. So this fanaticism,
this political football, this bad science, this I could go on,

(46:35):
but the idea that we have to remove CO two
from the atmosphere is wrong, completely wrong, And the thing
we need is more CO two. Now how do you
get more CO two? There's a lot in the ocean,
and there's a process by which we're going to start

(46:59):
using the ocean for more and more things. In fact,
if you get some of that CO two out of
the ocean and converted into latter and then release the
oxygen in the ocean, the sea life would would improve greatly.
So there's a win win for the improvement of the

(47:20):
environment by releasing CO two into the atmosphere. And I'm
not talking just a little, I'm talking a lot, and
you would see the earth green, it would be, it
would cool down, and it would be a much nicer place.
But right now, there are people with machines and I

(47:42):
had a process that I developed myself for extracting CO
two from the atmosphere. It's part of a competition that
I happened to be registered in and it's highly funded,
one of the most highly funded competitions on the planet
right now, a process to remove CO two from the atmosphere.

(48:03):
And what I realized is yes you can. And one
of the goals was to remove large amounts of CO two,
sequestering it from the atmosphere. And there's two types of solutions.
One is to simply remove CO two and put it
in some kind of a medium where it will never

(48:24):
be released. And the other one is where you take
the CO two, you break off the carbon, and you
release the oxygen. And that's a much better solution because
you are you're providing oxygen into the atmosphere, which you
might think would be a good thing. But we have
a lot of oxygen. That's not a big issue. Every

(48:47):
day we burn oxygen, all the cars driving around, all
the trucks driving around, all of the electricity that's generated,
the majority is because of breaking down hydrocarbons and taking
the oxygen out of the air to burn that, and
we do that every day. There is a vast amount

(49:09):
of oxygen in the atmosphere, but what is lacking is
CO two. What we need is a lot more CO two,
and not well. CO two is what we need a
lot more, and I would say four to five times
the amount of CO two right now. The Earth has

(49:31):
a point zero zero four percent amount of CO two.
It's drastically small. If people successfully sequester CO two out
of the atmosphere, they will simply kill the earth and
the ability to grow plants. Okay, I'm going to switch
gears a little bit here. I'm going to talk about
computer security now once again, just to give you a

(49:53):
little bit of background, I spent twenty five years of
my life in the computer industry and networking at the
technically high security positions and dealing with the computer security,
network security, encryption, computer protocols. And also when I was

(50:20):
teaching in the university, some of those years I was
teaching computer science and electronics, so the fundamentals of electronics
things like that, so something I happen to know a
little bit about. And I also was able to solve
a twenty five hundred year old mathematics problem to directly

(50:43):
calculate prime numbers, and so that work I released to
the public in two thousand and seven, and I wrote
a follow up book to that. It's called Breaking RSA
Codes for Fun and Profit, and that book is of
course available on my web page. Also tonight, I want
to talk about something called SSL, SSL certificates and SSL

(51:07):
socket layer protection. And so when you have a when
you go to the Internet and you'll go in your
browser and you type in the HTTPS that s there
is an indication that the page that you're going to
as a security certificate called an SSL certificate and security

(51:31):
socket layer is the term. And so anyway, the point
is that you would think that gives you the impression
that the page you're going to is somehow safe, and
that is not the case at all. What the socket
layer does is it sets up like a socket, like

(51:53):
you plug a plug into the wall. Socket. It's the
initial connection. And the idea is that it uses encryption
to connect you to the page. The problem is the
encryption they use is totally outdated and broken, and what
is your real protection. I always give an example like

(52:15):
this that if you were marching down the street by
yourself and there are a bunch of thieves on the
side of the road like there are on the internet,
you would be vulnerable because you're you're the only person
there and all these thieves that they're looking for you,
And especially if you had a big wallet, you have
a wallet full of money, or you have jewelry or whatever,

(52:39):
you would be a prime target. But if you had
a thousand or ten thousand people walking with you and
all of the thieves were there, but you didn't have
much money, you were not a a big you didn't
have a lot of value to you. The thieves probably

(52:59):
wouldn't target you. And so that is your protection on
the Internet today. The fact that probably nobody sitting outside
your house right now trying to see if you're buying
underwear on Amazon. It's probably not a top priority for hackers.
The top priority for hackers would be if you had
a corporation with millions of dollars of assets and records

(53:23):
showing the credit cards of the people who have purchased
from you, or business credit cards or whatever. That would
be a target. And so anyway, what I'm telling you
is that protect your best protection as you go on
the Internet is just being one of millions of people
that are using the Internet every day, and you really

(53:43):
don't have any value, and of course everybody has value
in terms of buying potential, so they track you. But
the SSL layer doesn't protect you from any of that.
They can track you all day long unless you have
software in your computer that presents you as being anonymous

(54:06):
on the Internet. Okay, that's another entirely different topic. But
what I want to talk about is let me let
me give another example here back in the oh in
the in the old days, when people would ride horses,
there were there were people called highwaymen and they would

(54:26):
basically they would rob people on the highway and they
would sit off in a dark area or someplace where
there was very little traffic and people would come by
and they'd rob them. And so the it was, it
was a way of you know, that's where the thieves
hung out. And my opinion, I'm going to just make

(54:49):
this very clear that this is my opinion and it's
shared by a lot of other people, including a growing
number of people. And that's why I'm presenting this to you,
is that this SSL certificate, which is very expensive and
actually in a lot of cases it costs more to
get the SSL certificate than it does to pay for
the router or for the server time for the web

(55:11):
page for the whole year, and it really doesn't do anything.
If you have if you're paying a bill to have
a web page on a server, you're getting something of value.
But the SSL certificate, it's like if you don't pay it, well,
it's like the old protection racket where you know the

(55:33):
boys that go down to some mom and pop store
and say, you know, you know you're very vulnerable here
and we're going to offer you this protection, but you
got to pay us a certain amount of money per week,
and Pop there is in this little story says, well,
I've been here for fifty years. We've never had any problems.

(55:54):
All the neighborhoods, it's really nice. Everybody knows us. We
well friendly. And so that the store gets broken into
and it's all busted up, and the boys come back
in the next day and they say, well, Pop, you know,
if you bought our protection is what I haven't. And
it's the old protection racket. And that's what SSL certificates
are in my opinion, to play it safe. But you

(56:19):
make your own opinion. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't
protect you. It doesn't you know, you buy it like candy.
You could go into a store and buy a piece
of candy. Here's twenty cents, Give me the piece of candy.
They're selling SSL certificates like candy. They don't examine anything.
They don't look at the web page to see if
it's saved or not, or has trojan hacking or anything

(56:42):
else associated with it. And if you don't have it,
if you don't have the SSL certificate, if you don't
have that little S and the HTTP s up there,
then this page comes up, they intercept it and it says,
don't go to the site. It's dangerous, it could stale

(57:04):
all your information. It's terrible, it's horrible, don't go to
this site. And now it's universal, and this has been
taken over by a couple large companies which I'm not
gonna mention the name. Just go look it up. You'll
find out who it is. But it's like highway robbery
in my opinion. And they are basically charging this exorbitant

(57:29):
amount of money in my opinion, for a service that
is highly flawed in my opinion. And like I say,
now let's talk about the encryption that they use. They're
using public key encryption. Well, public key encryption has been
broken for ages. The like I say, the only real
protection you have is because you are in a sea

(57:54):
of other people using the Internet and you're not a
big fish, you're not a big target, you're not a
big target for hackers to go after, and so that's
your safety. Not because there's an SSL certificate on it.
And like I say, the sl certificate. You just go
to your ISP and say put the SSL certificate on

(58:17):
this web page and you pay a fee and it's there.
They don't check it out. They don't do anything. They
just collect the money anyway, and so I call it,
in my opinion, highway robbery. It's like the baron the
robber barons of old that would sit on the side
of the highway and everybody that came back past had
to pay a toll and if you didn't, well they

(58:41):
robbed you. So but anyway, the whole world of cybersecurity
is questionable. The cyber security that's being sold to you
the public has full of holes in it. And the
hackers use the same back doors as the security agencies,
the government security agency that require back doors in this

(59:03):
software from all of the software companies selling encryption and
firewall protection, and it's the hackers use the same back
doors so they can get into your computer. I could
go on and on about computer security, but these are
some of the main issues today, and I'd like to

(59:24):
get more opinions out there. You can look up and
there's I'm not the only person that's giving this particular opinion,
so you can check that out. But I think if
more and more people would stand up and say no,
I'm not paying I'm not paying your security costs here,
then this would have to go the way the dinosaur

(59:47):
and there's really other protection that is very necessary, other
layers of protection that are real protection. But that's the
story for another day. We'll talk to you next week.

Speaker 1 (01:00:05):
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,

(01:00:29):
powered by B two Studios.