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:
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment