Light and shade on slide

I don't know if the petition can be read - I was given one the other day by somebody and then found it was unavailable when I went to change.org.  It was calling for an end to inhumane slaughtering of animals, but also for an end to punishment for apostasy and homosexuality.

However, I've changed my petition after realising that one is likely to be seeing more of an object on the slide than I'd thought - which makes sense given that if there were no variation then anybody using a microscope would have to be complicit in the conspiracy.  But I think that the differentiated image is the result of some of the material on the slide being projected and other parts not - ie, it is light and shade at low magnification or projection. However, I might be wrong about this too (and I haven't thought through the variations in colour although I think they are to do with light rather than magnification of the object itself).  But I am sure I am right about the 'cell' not being visible. Here is the present petition wording:

DRAFT PETITION TO WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION:

When one reads about diseases such as cancer and HIV/Aids, some of what one reads appears inconsistent and vague, even to someone without a scientific background, and, on reflection, much of it does not make common sense. On the other hand, if religions talk about evil and history and news organisations mention wars, it is possible that diseases might have been invented as a programme of eugenics - ie, to change or reduce the population of the world - even before there was a threat of agricultural scarcity and demand for manufactured goods.

I believe that diagnosed diseases are fictitious and the fact that microscopes do not appear to view what is on the microscope slide supports this. In order to view, for example, a cancer cell on a microscope slide you need to magnify hundreds of times or more. Yet, even if the microscope was able to magnify as much as was needed and even if the microscope were lit so that one could see outside the microscope as clearly as inside it - and these both seem unlikely - the resulting image would blur unless the microscope slide were much further away from the microscope itself, as when one uses the zoom on a camera or camcorder. It would make more sense for lenses, if there are any (ie, if the microscope is not hollow) to magnify an object within the microscope, while what one saw beyond the microscope, if anything, would not be that directly below the lens, would be distorted, and actually reduced in size. 

Despite this, however, one has to account for the apparent variation when looking into a microscope when different materials are put on the microscope slide. When the microscope is lit from the mirror, an opaque object will block visibility so that nothing is seen on the circular microscope screen. When a stain is put on a slide, it will appear as an undifferentiated 'wash' on the microscope screen. Small specks on an otherwise translucent slide may produce a complex image that suggests that we are in fact viewing the object at a high degree of magnification but instead mean that light can get through some parts of the object, and to a differing extent so that there are shades of dark and light, and not others. Significant variations in colour, if there are any, will relate to the refraction of light or may even be a residue of gas. However, if the material on the slide is translucent and colourless it will not block light coming from the mirror and so we will only see images within the microscope itself, which appear to be the lenses of one's own eye and what looks like the lens of a small bird's eye that can be seen by looking up into the objective lenses from outside.

Once one accepts the idea that diseases are fictitious, one can think of other arguments and make other observations to support this, such as, for instance, the fact that the link between DNA and mutation seems to be asserted rather than explained and to have no foundation in the philosophy of science, since the link between the abstract and the physical is not resolved. 

Please sign the petition if you agree with it. However, if you are not entirely convinced by my argument but it raises doubts, please speak to your doctor about it the next time you see them or show it to somebody with a medical, scientific or engineering, photographic or optics background. I have no scientific background myself, apart from O Levels, and am a former further education lecturer in politics.

Stop holocaust

Please sign my petition on change.org if you agree with my conclusions about disease. 

However, when I google the 'Microscopes don't work - stop the diagnosis of disease', my own petition doesn't appear, as it didn't when I uploaded an earlier petition several months or a year or so ago.  Two people signed the earlier petition when I shared it to facebook, so if you would like to read it, please log in to my facebook page.  If that requires you to join facebook, then try looking for it on the change.org website.  If it can't be found, I'll post a second petition here with the same wording in the next day or so. 

Magnification - amended paragraph

Since the lenses in the microscope are rotated to adjust focus and rotation of the objective lenses does not alter the size of the object on the screen, magnification of the image we see is by our eye (ie, because focal length is reduced) and from a magnifying lens within the microscope, or possibly projection from below, depending on how the microscope is lit internally.  In fact, the magnified cylinder looks, on inspection, likely to be only that of the focal adjustment itself, so that we are most likely to be seeing an image of the lens object magnified by a lens higher up the microscope, since this would allow the greatest magnification, or we may be viewing a projected image of the object as it is magnified and reflected lower down the microscope.  On the other hand, a cylinder will have the effect of making something beyond our focal range come into focus (just as it will amplify sound), so that at least some of the magnification, or clarification, will be due to the cylinder alone.  That magnification is relatively low seems likely given the similarity in appearance of the image of our own lens and the image on the ‘screen’ within the microscope, such that our eye, or a lens within the microscope, or a mirror within the microscope, or the cylinder alone is magnifying and clarifying an object with a similar but smaller structure or, more likely, is magnifying and clarifying a smaller object with similarly sized parts. 

 

In sum, we are at most seeing only a blurred impression of part of the material on the glass slide, and probably its stain, and the clear and detailed object one sees when looking into a microscope is likely to be of the lens of a small bird’s eye contained within the microscope at a relatively low magnification, including that done by our eye and the cylinder of the lens tube, in addition to the moving and more translucent image of the lens, or lenses, of our own eye above it.

Bird song - March 2015

The video hasn't uploaded, perhaps because it is too long.  I have it on facebook, I think for anyone to view, and I think it can be identified on facebook from a photo of a chimney and trees (in the nearby park, where I videoed it), but I'll check.  I also videoed the birds today but they wouldn't sing their summer song for me (they started in late February - they are singing it a bit as I type), although the tape is still interesting to listen to and I'll upload that to facebook later.

Poetry blogs not mine

Again, they seem like very good poems and I had seen them on another website and printed some off and downloaded to them to my computer after being sent a link to the website when I was at work, but I definitely did not upload them to a blog, or in any other way try to pass them off as my own,  and know nothing about the Gerasene Writers' Conference other than the references to them on the website link I was sent, so I am not sure why they are appearing under my name.  I do wonder if 'Gerasene' writers' conference is a 'humorous' name but it is not my invention. 

Re-amended summary

Do Microscopes Work?

 

It seems 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 would add rather than multiply magnification because the slide is placed beyond them (ie, it would not be magnified twice if there were two lenses), while the focal adjustment and objective lenses are, in any casae, 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, so that we would expect the object being viewed to be something inside the microscope, however it is lit and whether or not the aim is to view the object or its projected image.  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, and then one is more likely to be seeing an impression of the stain than the object itself. 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.   If the slide is lit from within, so that we are not viewing a projected image, then even if there were enough light to see what was outside the microscope it might, in fact, appear smaller, as when objects placed beyond a glass of water appear reduced in size (and are not those directly in front of the glass) whereas, for instance, a fork placed inside it appears larger, because it is beyond the focal range of the magnifier.     

What we are most likely to be seeing is 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, when looking at it from the outside, a small eye.  Only a small part of the material on the slide on the microscope stage will appear, and then only when the microscope is lit by the mirror and at most as a wash over the clearer and more detailed object inside the microscope, and only if it is sufficiently vivid or stained.  Since the lenses in the microscope are rotated to adjust focus and rotation of the objective lenses does not alter the size of the object on the screen, magnification of the image we see is by our eye (ie, because focal length is reduced) and from a magnifying lens within the microscope, or possibly projection from below, depending on how the microscope is lit internally.  In fact, the magnified cylinder looks, on inspection, likely to be only that of the focal adjustment itself, so that we are most likely to be seeing an image of the lens object magnified by a lens higher up the microscope, since this would allow the greatest magnification.  That the magnification is relatively low seems likely given the similarity in appearance of the image of our own eye and that of the screen, such that either the lens is magnifying an object with a similar but smaller structure or it is magnifying a smaller object with similarly sized parts, in which case the magnification would be such as to compensate for the distance between the two objects (ie, magnification of the further object would not be by our eye alone).  

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 when looking into a microscope is likely to be of the lens of a small bird’s eye contained within the microscope at a relatively low magnification, in addition to the moving and more translucent image of the lens, or lenses, of our own eye above it.

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 into the air.

© Louise Orrock, March 2016

Recent photo

My CV

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name:                       Louise Orrock

Previous names:      Louisa Orrock

Address:                    85 Goldsmith Lane

                                    London NW9 9AR

                                    United Kingdom

Email:                         louiseorrock@gmail.com

D.O.B:                        7^th August 1958

Age:                            57

Nationality:                UK/US

WORK EXPERIENCE

June 2015:                Senior Examiner, Edexcel/Pearson Government & Politics A2 Route B Ideologies (contract accepted for summer 2016)

2004-2012:                Associate Examiner, Edexcel Government & Politics A2 Route B Ideologies

2001-2012:                Permanent lecturer (A Level Government and Politics) and Key Skills Coordinator

1992 – 2001:             Visiting teacher (ESOL, Numeracy, GCSE English, Government and Politics)

1991:                          EFL and business English teacher, New York Institute of Business Technology, NYC

1990:                          EFL teacher, Language Link, London W2

1989:                          EFL teacher, CES Language School, NYC

1987-1988:                Temporary secretary, London Scientific Services, County Hall, London SW1

1986:                          EFL teacher, Buenos Aires

1981-83:                    Secretary, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London SW1

1978-79:                    Secretary, Legal Department, EMI, London W1

1977:                          Christmas assistant, B Altmans & Co, NYC

1976/7:                       Canteen assistant, SG Browns, Watford

EDUCATION

1970-1972:                Woking Grammar School for Girls, Woking, Surrey

1972-1976:                Talbot Heath School for Girls, Bournemouth, Dorset

                                    10 O Levels, A Level English (A), French (B), German (B)

1976-1977:                London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London), London

1978:                          Pitmans Secretarial College, Wembley, Middlesex

1979-81:                    London School of Economics, London

                                    BSc (Econ): International Relations: 2:1

1983-85:                    Institute of Latin American Studies (University of London), London

                                    MA (Area Studies) Latin America (Pass obtained 1986)

1988:                          GRE examination: Verbal 700; Quantitative 680: Analytical 720

1989:                          International House, London:

Cert Tefla (Pass)

1989:                          Registered for one semister on PhD programme, Sociology

                                    Department, New School for Social Research, NYC

2004-5:                       Institute of Education (University of London), London

                                    First part of PGCE obtained

 2010-12:                   Birkbeck College (University of London), London

                                    Unfinished MA Philosophy

2015:                           Honorary Doctorate in Natural Sciences, Taxila Institute (for 5 years'

                                     online contributions)

                                     

PUBLICATIONS:    ‘Latin American and East Asian NICs: Development Strategies Compared’, Gustav Ranis and Louise Orrock, in Latin America and the World Recession, edited by Esperanza Duran (Cambridge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), sub editor

                                    ‘On HIV and Aids’, Louise Orrock, Taxila Institute (online), 2015

INTERESTS:           Politics, history, science and nature, economics, philosophy, travel, photography, comparative literature, art. 

REFERENCES:       On request

March 2016