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