The theory of everything discussed over breakfast

Is this normal breakfast conversation in your household?

Inspired by a recent NOVA show on blackholes, we started with it must be wrong, black holes cannot have a linear plane because gravity is omnidirectional, so a black hole must be a circle pulling from all directions.

Then popped up magnetic fields and how blackholes must have them and if that is true they have an electric current as well (rotating magnets), so the gravitational wave recently recorded (and mentioned in said NOVA program) may in fact have been an electro-magnetic pulse.

From there we discussed the purpose of black holes, which led of course to the origin of the universe, and whether in fact we have multiverses and we can only perceive our universe (much debate why) and then to infinity which no one really understands and yet came up with a conclusion.

The universe is finite, not infinite and exists in NOTHING (no matter/no time/no energy/no borders/no anything – THAT is infinity). Pass the bread please.

The universe is (or multiverses are) something and anything, the rest is nothing. I’m good with that.

So the origin of the universe, the creator if you will, is when the source of everything, the original something became aware (logic) that it was NOT nothing and became everything (big bang).

All religions are based on the idea of a unity with the creator (god) and we are part of this creation. Physically this is true, we are all created from atoms of the original singularity, and when the universe (or multiverses) finally collapse and again coalesce into a singularity again (what black holes likely are for), we return to our “maker”. Then we repeat over and over again, forever.

There were also discussion of the binary nature of everything, logical yes/no and electrical plus & minus, and how these are innate properties of the universe which you will have to insert into the discussion somewhere.

We ate fresh bread from Cobb’s bakery, with smoked meat, double smoked bacon, aged gouda, and assorted other things and had coffee.

How was your breakfast?

We're doing it wrong : Renewable energy planning (or lack thereof)

In a discussion with Anna after her return from a meeting of people allegedly concerned with alternative energy, I find out that:

  • There seems to be no awareness that renewable energy sources are made in factories using fossil fuels.
  • There seems to be no “plan” for renewal energy sector growth, the same mistakes as with fossil fuels are being repeated. There a “just use it” mentality without thoughts of the long-term environmental implications of their use (reallocation of global energy). What we take in wind and sun energy is lost elsewhere – we aren’t MAKING energy we are capturing and using it. We use it, something else loses it.
  • There is no coordination between projects concerned with the same issues, but if their windfarm is immediately upwind of yours, you have no wind for your farm - like a hydro electric facility built just upstream of yours cutting your flow. The atmosphere is like a river.
  • Windfarms and large scale solar projects affect the atmosphere (turbulence, heat island effect of solar arrays, etc.), and this can change the weather which cumulatively is called climate.
  • There is no plan for disposing dead batteries used to store wind/sun energy just like there is no plan for disposing nuclear waste. Many nasty chemicals mined (environmental disaster) and disposed of (yet another one).

And so on.

We need a coordinated National plan for the renewable energy sector (we actually need a Global plan, but that will be a cumulative series of National plans I think, politics being what they are). If we totally bugger up the atmospheric flow (which distributes the climate we end up having), we can’t fix it.


or Climate Change and what it means to new social order by Anna Frank

“We must go down to the lowest depths before we can touch bottom and rise again.” [1]

When there is talk about the climate change one cannot avoid talking about people. It is quite clear now that people and nature are part of one unity. There is only ONE world and we all have to share it with all living creatures. With every breath we take, we influence what that world will become. Most discussions about the climate change are about the human role in it. There is a huge effort to prove that no matter what humans do, our actions are independent of nature. So, where does that leave us?


What Humans Want and How They Decide

Comment on “Remodeling Education for an Emergent Future” by Lalith Ananda Gunaratne, Ottawa by Anna Frank

“Of all knowledge first we need to gain is about self-first, our own nature, interconnectedness with the natural environment and uncertainty of everything. Next is to build up complement academic knowledge.” [1] Since the dawn of humanity, we wanted to know, and we had to know to survive. So, what and when did it all go wrong?


There have been many articles, tweets and posts claiming the death of print such as Michael Rosenblum's Guardian piece below written after the cessation of the print version of Newsweek magazine. Digital mass extinction?


We say not quite yet :)


Findings from a national study of 1202 Canadian readers (taken online so they are more inclined to be biased towards the digital) finds a surprising number like their reading, especially for pleasure, to be in the form of print.


Here is a sample of the findings, free to use in whole or part -- as long as the source is acknowledged.  Cheers.


Dufferin Research Canadian Reading Report  


Dufferin Research accepts

CPR certification onlineCPR certification CPR certification online