Only the medical science post is mine

I set up a blog after someone I met recommended blogger.com as a way of spreading my idea about disease. 

It's odd to see other posts, apparently mine but not, about the Gerasene Writers' Confeence.  Because I had read about this on a website I visited after being sent a link to it and I even printed off some of the poems that I thought were good.  But it's strange that the same poems or something connected to them should have found their way onto a blog I set up only to put my ideas about medical science.

Photo of objective lens

Further amendments

It is likely that most, if not all, diagnosed diseases are fictions used to control and reduce populations.  First, when one looks into a microscope one is focusing on something within the microscope, not what is on the slide.  Second, the size a cancer or viral cell is said to be means it would be unable to do harm, no matter how many there are.  Third, there is no explanation of how the instructions or information within DNA would alter living matter.   Diseases kill because of policies to suppress appetite and otherwise cause harm, including by causing fear.

A microscope acts similarly to a kaleidoscope, in the sense that we are viewing something within the microscope, not what is on the slide. We are unlikely to be seeing the object on the slide because of where the slide is placed, even if the magnifications said to be needed were capable of being achieved, there were sufficient light, and our eye was close enough to the small objective lenses.

First, the magnifications said to be needed to view cells are unlikely to be achievable: additional lenses add rather than multiply magnification, while the focal adjustment and objective lenses are rotated rather than extended or contracted.  If the magnification were possible to achieve, we would, in any case, only see a speck on the microscope slide at any one time so that, with a traditional microscope (ie, where the slide has to be manipulated by hand), parts of the material on the slide would be missed.  Second, the objective lenses are very small, and our eyes are too far from them to make visibility of the material on the slide possible.  Third, and especially given the size of the lenses, the lighting is insufficient to make viewing of the slide possible.  No beam of light is shone from the microscope onto the slide.  In other words, it is the microscope, not the material on the slide beneath the small lenses, which is illuminated.  Also, the angle at which the mirror is placed to capture light when the microscope is lit by the mirror is not such as to maximise light entering the microscope, nor to capture an image of the entire slide, as can be seen from the fact that the cylinder becomes dark if an opaque object on the slide is moved only slightly.   In fact, the cylinder, or lens tube, has to be dimly lit in order to see the actual object we are viewing, which disappears if there is too much light from the mirror (as when one looks into a camera in bright sunlight), again making it unlikely we would be able to view an object outside it.   Fourth, if the magnifications said to be needed to view a cell were achievable, the slide would need to be placed far from the microscope for the image not to blur – as is the case with a telescope, which works according to the same principles of light and lenses.  This is implied by the reference on zoom lenses to its reach, ie, the distance at which objects can be seen clearly.    

From observation using my own microscope, a vividly coloured small object (a butterfly scale) on the microscope slide does sometimes appear to be visible when the microscope is lit from the mirror but appears only to wash over the complex (in the sense of containing different parts) image on the screen.      The fact that the slide is placed where it is rather than inside the microscope in fact indicates that the aim is not to see what is on the slide at all, although if we were able to see that far we would expect, if the microscope were lit by the mirror (ie, the mirror were not facing downwards), to see our own eyes reflected back.   That we are not observing what is on the slide can be seen from the fact that, on the whole (ie, apart from the presence or absence of a ‘wash’), the image does not change whether or not the slide is present.   

      

What we are most likely to be seeing in an object within the microscope, which, from observation, appears to be the lens of a small animal, probably bird, eye.   First, at the higher end of the microscope we may see the translucent image of the lenses of our own eye projected in front of us.  The magnification is similar to that achieved by the eye alone squinting into sunlight and is achieved as a result of the reduction in focal length when looking into the microscope.  Second, if I look up into the objective lenses of my own microscope I can see, in two of them, what looks like a concave orange ‘rim’, resembling the iris of a small animal, such as a pigeon, which shifts slightly if I tilt the microscope.    The image on the screen also shifts slightly if I tilt the microscope.  The similarity between the image of the lens of my own eye and the image on the screen indicates that I am likely to be viewing on the screen the object with the orange rim since this resembles a small eye, with a small part of the stained material on the slide on the microscope stage appearing, at most, as a ‘wash’ over the clearer and more detailed object.  Since the lenses are used to adjust focus, magnification of the image is by our eye and the result of projection onto a screen or glass higher up the microscope.  In fact, the magnified cylinder looks, on inspection, likely to be only that of the focal adjustment itself – ie, the image of the lenses contained within the tube are projected onto a glass or screen near the top of the microscope.  In sum, we are at most seeing only a blurred impression of part of the material on the glass slide and the clear and detailed object one sees is likely to be of the lens of a small bird’s eye contained, and projected, within the microscope.

Second, something as small as a cancer or viral or Ebola cell would not be able to travel or survive in the fluids and fluctuations of the human body or, even if it were able to, cause harm, no matter how many cells there are (as being stung by a large number of small wasps will not hurt in the same way as being stung by one large wasp and may have a protective effect, in the same way as a first injury to the body may lessen the impact of the second).  In fact, something invisible to the eye at the appropriate range seems intuitively to be unlikely to have shape or mass by however many it is multiplied and so not to exist.  

Third, there is no satisfactory philosophical or scientific explanation of how the information, or instructions, contained within DNA, said to be present in every cell of the human body, can interact with and change living matter (which, other than the brain, is not said to be conscious and therefore able to ‘read’ the instructions), in other words, by what mechanism, or mechanical link, and using what force, or, if it can, in a way that is different to or greater than those changes caused by environmental factors such as nutrition or physical injury or ageing.  

Diagnosed diseases kill because of factors such as fear and fatalism, inadequate nutrition (eg, food that is too salty), gas emissions (which suppress appetite as well as weakening the body), alcohol and tobacco, and extremes of temperature.  Clausewitz said war was a continuation of policy by other means, but science fiction, eg, disease, is likely also to be a policy of war, intended to dominate nature (knowledge of whose intelligence has also been suppressed), promote secularism, and control and reduce populations.   For example, it seems unlikely that the earth would rotate at 66,600 miles per hour around the sun or, even if it did (in some sort of cocoon), at the same time rotate at 1,000 miles per hour on its axis.  If the atmosphere moved at the same speed, birds would have to fly against a 1,000 mile per hour wind or, if the atmosphere did not move, they would find themselves 0.28 miles along the road a second after they had ascended vertically into the air.

Amended summary

It is likely that most, if not all, diagnosed diseases are fictions used to control and reduce populations.  First, when one looks into a microscope one is focusing on something within the microscope, not what is on the slide.  Second, the size a cancer or viral cell is said to be means it would be unable to do harm, no matter how many there are.  Third, there is no explanation of how the instructions or information within DNA would alter living matter.   Diseases kill because of policies to suppress appetite and otherwise cause harm, including by causing fear.

A microscope acts similarly to a kaleidoscope, in the sense that we are viewing something within the microscope, not what is on the slide. We are unlikely to be seeing the object on the slide because of where the slide is placed, even if the magnifications said to be needed were capable of being achieved, there were sufficient light, and our eye was close enough to the small objective lenses:

First, the magnifications said to be needed to view cells are unlikely to be achievable: additional lenses add rather than multiply magnification, while the focal adjustment and objective lenses are rotated rather than extended or contracted.  If the magnification were possible to achieve, we would, in any case, only see a speck on the microscope slide at any one time so that, with a traditional microscope (ie, where the slide has to be manipulated by hand), parts of the material on the slide would be missed.  Second, the objective lenses are very small, and our eyes are too far from them to make visibility of the material on the slide possible.  Third, and especially given the size of the lenses, the lighting is insufficient to make viewing of the slide possible.  No beam of light is shone from the microscope onto the slide.  In other words, it is the microscope, not the material on the slide beneath the small lenses, which is illuminated.  Also, the angle at which the mirror is placed to capture light when the microscope is lit by the mirror is not such as to maximise light entering the microscope (although would be dangerous to the eyes if it did), nor to capture an image of the entire slide, as can be seen from the fact that the cylinder becomes dark if an opaque object on the slide is moved only slightly).   In fact, the cylinder, or lens tube, has to be dimly lit in order to see the actual object we are viewing, which disappears if there is too much light from the mirror (as when one looks in to a camera in bright sunlight), again making it unlikely we would be able to view an object outside it.   Fourth, if the magnifications said to be needed to view a cell were achievable, the slide would need to be placed far from the microscope for the image not to blur – as is the case with a telescope, which works according to the same principles of light and lenses. 

From observation using my own microscope, a vividly coloured small object (a butterfly scale) on the microscope slide does sometimes appear to be visible when the microscope is lit from the mirror but appears only to wash over the complex (in the sense of containing different parts) image on the screen.      The fact that the slide is placed where it is rather than inside the microscope in fact suggests that the aim is not to see what is on the slide at all, although if we were able to see that far we would expect, if the microscope were lit by the mirror (ie, the mirror were not facing downwards), to see our own eyes reflected back. 

       

What we are most likely to be seeing in an object within the microscope, which, from observation, appears to be the lens of a small animal, probably bird, eye.   First, at the higher end of the microscope we may see the translucent image of the lenses of our own eye projected in front of us.  The magnification is similar to that achieved by the eye alone squinting into sunlight and is achieved as a result of the reduction in focal length when looking into the microscope.  Second, if I look up into the objective lenses of my own microscope I can see, in two of them, what looks like an orange ‘rim’, resembling the iris of a pigeon, which shifts slightly if I tilt the microscope.    The image on the screen also shifts slightly if I tilt the microscope.  The similarity between the image of the lens of my own eye and the image on the screen suggests that I am likely to be viewing on the screen the object with the orange rim, with a small part of the stained material on the slide on the microscope stage appearing, at most, as a ‘wash’ over the clearer and more detailed object.  Since the lenses are used to adjust focus, magnification of the image is by our eye and the result of projection onto a screen or glass higher up the microscope.  In fact, the magnified cylinder looks, on inspection, likely to be only that of the focal adjustment itself – ie, the image of the lenses contained within the tube are projected onto a glass or screen near the top of the microscope.  In sum, we are at most seeing only a blurred impression of part of the material on the glass slide and the clear and detailed object one sees is likely to be of the lens of a small bird’s eye contained, and projected, within the microscope.

Second, something as small as a cancer or viral or Ebola cell would not be able to travel or survive in the fluids and fluctuations of the human body or, even if it were able to, cause harm, no matter how many cells there are (as being stung by a large number of small wasps will not hurt in the same way as being stung by one large wasp and may have a protective effect, in the same way as a first injury to the body may lessen the impact of the second).

Third, there is no satisfactory philosophical or scientific explanation of how the information, or instructions, contained within DNA, said to be present in every cell of the human body, can interact with and change living matter (which, other than the brain, is not said to be conscious and therefore able to ‘read’ the instructions), in other words, by what mechanism, or mechanical link, and using what force, or, if it can, in a way that is different to or greater than those changes caused by environmental factors such as nutrition or physical injury or ageing.  

Diagnosed diseases kill because of factors such as fear and fatalism, inadequate nutrition (eg, food that is too salty), gas emissions (which suppress appetite as well as weakening the body), alcohol and tobacco, and extremes of temperature.  Clausewitz said war was a continuation of policy by other means, but science fiction, eg, disease, is likely also to be a policy of war, intended to dominate nature (knowledge of whose intelligence has also been suppressed), promote secularism, and control and reduce populations.   For example, it seems unlikely that the earth would rotate at 66,600 miles per hour around the sun or, even if it did (in some sort of cocoon), at the same time rotate at 1,000 miles per hour on its axis.  If the atmosphere moved at the same speed, birds would have to fly against a 1,000 mile per hour wind or, if the atmosphere did not move, they would find themselves 0.28 miles along the road a second after they had ascended vertically into the air.

Bullet point draft on microscopes

·         Magnification:

o   we see most clearly what is at the our focal point and at no magnification

o   objects before the focal length appear larger but blurred

o   objects beyond the focal length appear smaller and less clear

o   magnifications extends the focal length by reducing light

o   objects at our usual focal point appear as if held close to the eye

o   objects beyond our focal point appear as if at our focal point

·         Using a camera teaches us that magnification blurs:

o   it extends focal length

o   distant objects seem closer

o   images blur at relatively low magnifications

o   magnification increases or decreases as one adjusts the lenses forwards or backwards

·         (Invisible objects are unlikely to exist

o   they cannot be magnified into visibility

o   anything so small to have no visibility to eye is unlikely to have extension now matter how many there are (ie, they would seem to have a mathematical rather than actual size)

·         Microscope: what one sees  

o   squinting into a dimly lit cylinder extends focal length

o   the lenses of one’s eyes appear in layers near the top of a cylinder, translucent and magnified somewhat beyond what one sees looking into sunlight

o   the cylinder appears to be about three times the length of the lens tube

o   the screen appears bigger (about eight times that of the eyepiece and objective lenses)

o   one’s eyelashes are magnified (not visible when looking into sunlight)

o   there is a similar looking, two dimensional fixed and more shadowy image on the screen at the bottom of the cylinder

o   the image appears not to change if the glass slide is removed or if the lenses are rotated

o   the image appears not to change in size if one moves one’s eye away from the eyepiece

o   the cylinder is poorly lit (requiring a low level of internal lighting either from the batteries/transformer or relatively small objective lenses if lit by the mirror)

o   too much light or too little light will blur the screen or render the cylinder invisible

o   rotating the focal adjustment rotates the image on the screen but not the edge of the image (slight irregularities are visible at the edge of the screen)

o   there appears to be no distortion of the image as one adjusts the focus or changes the objective lenses and the sides appear to be the same diameter at the top and bottom

·         We are unlikely to be seeing the object on the slide:

o   (i) the magnifications said to be needed are unlikely: additional lenses add rather than multiply magnification

o   (ii) we would not be seeing the circle on the glass stage since this would have a larger diameter if magnified so that we could see ‘cells’

o   (iii) we would expect the slide to be placed further from the microscope

o   the magnifying lenses would be too close to the objects for magnification to take place

o   (iv) we would not expect at any one time to see more than a speck on the microscope slide

o   this would be consistent with lighting from the mirror (ie, a beam of light)

o   we might therefore miss, for instance, abnormalities in a sample

o   (iii)light is not shone onto the object either from the objective lenses or from the mirror, positioned below the slide

o   the cylinder must be relatively dark for the object to be visible

o   whether it were to be viewed directly or projected, it seems unlikely that we would view a slide beyond the cylinder and objective lenses unless it were vivid

o   whether or not it is stained (which might distort the image) a magnified speck is unlikely to be sufficiently vivid (ie, it would appear less vivid) [?]

o   direct viewing is unlikely: the darkness of the cylinder and size of the objective lenses means that objects before, or in, the final lens would be more visible than anything outside it

o   projection is unlikely: the beam of light from the mirror might as it passed through the glass of the stage and the lens might damage and would distort any image projected onto a

o   (iv) The screen appearing not to move relative to the objects on it suggests one is viewing an object above (or an object held in place from above by an object such as a fine needle) the cylinder rather than what is on the slide  

o   The relatively fixed image on the screen as one moves one’s eyes nearer or farther from the eyepiece suggest magnification is at the lower end of the microscope

·         What we are likely to be seeing:

o   (i) at the higher end of the microscope we are undoubtedly seeing the translucent image of the lenses of our own eye

o   this can be seen by comparing what we see to what we see when we squint into sunlight or artificial light

o   the magnification is somewhat higher than that achieved by the eye alone as a result of the reduction in focal length when looking into the cylinder

o   (ii) If we look at the objective lenses we can see what looks like a moveable orange rim, resembling the iris of a pigeon, that shifts slightly if we tilt the microscope

o   the image on the screen also shifts slightly if we tilt the microscope

o   the similarity between the image of the lens of our own eye and the material on the screen suggest that we are viewing the object placed directly behind the objective lens

o   looking into the cylinder it appears that one is seeing an object below a moveable glass or magnifier

o   in fact, the cylinder we are seeing magnified looks likely to be only that contained within the focal adjustment itself

o   ie, the screen looks likely to be at the bottom of what we see rotating on the outside if we rotate the focal adjustment

o   it therefore seems likely that the objective lens is projected onto the screen, the magnification occurring as a result of the distance between the object and the screen (as in a projector)

o   the fact that the image appears to rotates might be a result of either the rotation of the glass or it may be attached to the glass in some way, which would also hold the object in place