Pharyngula

Stem cell bait-and-switch

I’m taking it easy here in the fabulous Van Dusen mansion, a bed and breakfast where I’m staying tonight, and I thought I’d browse through the stem cell legislation that’s being considered in the senate right now. It’s strange: one substantive bill has come up from the House, and all of a sudden two more bills have been proposed on the floor of the Senate.

Here’s the interesting one. H.R.810: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, proposed by Congressman Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican who isn’t too thrilled with Bush’s promise to veto his bill, actually does something substantial. It makes available for research purposes any unused embryos from fertility clinics that were going to be discarded anyway, and that were explicitly donated to research without any financial remuneration. Why, that sounds sensible!

`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).

`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:

`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.

`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2005.

This, of course, is the bill Bush has promised to veto. Using them for research that would elucidate basic mechanisms of development, might lead to new cures, and that actually advances science “would take us across a critical ethical line” that apparently is not crossed by allowing them to rot in a dewar or flushing them down a sink.

My only objection is that it doesn’t go far enough—the bill provides no funding, and in fact the federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research still stands.

Meanwhile, the detestable Rick Santorum and his charming fellow travelers, Sam Brownback and Richard Burr, have introduced the S. 3504: Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006 to deal with a serious issue.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF TISSUE FROM FETUSES GESTATED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.

Section 498B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g-2) is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively;

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c) Solicitation or Acceptance of Tissue From Fetuses Gestated for Research Purposes- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to–

`(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or

`(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.’;

(3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), as so re-designated, by striking `(a) or (b)’ and inserting `(a), (b), or (c)’; and

(4) in paragraph (1) of subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking `section 498A(f)’ and inserting `section 498A(g)’.

Oooh. It needs an anti-manimal clause, I think. This is a bill to make a bold strike against a non-existent problem, exactly the kind of thing the spineless poseurs in congress are best at handling. We can’t use new fertilized human embryos, period, so there really isn’t much of a market for fetus farming right now. The requirements of the first bill above would make this superfluous, too.

This is one Bush will let stand. It’s ineffective and useless.

The final bill is also straight from Santorum, cosponsored by Burr, Collins, Inhofe, and Specter, and is called S. 2754: Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. It’s a little better than the second bill, since it actually endorses some research.

`SEC. 409J. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

`(a) In General- In accordance with section 492, the Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.

`(b) Guidelines- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after consultation with the Director, shall issue final guidelines to implement subsection (a), that–

`(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required for additional research, which shall include a determination of the extent to which specific techniques may require additional basic or animal research to ensure that any research involving human cells using these techniques would clearly be consistent with the standards established under this section;

`(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit; and

`(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account techniques outlined by the President’s Council on Bioethics and any other appropriate techniques and research.

`(c) Reporting Requirements- Not later than January 1 of each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the fiscal year, including a description of the research conducted under this section.

`(d) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not specifically authorized by this section.

`(e) Definition-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In this section, the term `human embryo’ shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable appropriations Act.

`(2) APPLICABLE ACT- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `applicable appropriations Act’ means, with respect to the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or supported under this section, the Act making appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services for such fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the applicable appropriations Act.

`(f) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009, to carry out this section.’.

Yes, we want support for alternatives, like adult stem cell research. It’s nice that they admit that these cells may be “capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types”, but I suspect that they want to emphasize the unsupported “all” rather than the more realistic “almost all.” Otherwise, it doesn’t seem to offer anything new that we aren’t already doing—it’s little more than a suggestion that those biologists carry on.

It doesn’t hurt to pass S. 3504 and S. 2754, except that these are obviously cynical, calculated attempts to deflect criticisms of the fact that Bush is going to pander to his fundamentalist base with his veto of the bill that actually improves our prospects for stem cell research. They allow him to put up a false front of supporting a promising new science while cutting it off behind the scenes.

Doesn’t it cast enough doubt on the value of S. 3504 and S. 2754 that they were proposed by that anti-science troglodye, Santorum?

Comments

  1. #1 Phil Plait
    July 17, 2006

    I would say it does in fact hurt to pass the two useless bills– they’re useless. It’s like arguing against homeopathy, when confronted with the question “What’s the harm?”. These bills do harm because they do not help, and let poseurs (great word BTW) like Santorum make a stand without having to, um, actually make a stand.

    They might as well pass a bill saying fuzzy kittens are cute. It’s useless, a waste of their time, and makes them seem pro-kitten when they may actually eat them for breakfast (OK, probably not, but have you never not seen Santorum not eat a kitten? Hmmm?).

    I seem to recall that an election is coming up, and we’ve already seen a lot of useless legislation proposed (and some shot down, wonderfully enough, though some– like the flag amendment– by not nearly a large enough margin). Expect more useless posturing like this over the next 4 months.

  2. #2 drew hempel
    July 17, 2006

    Well to compare homeopathy with using aborted fetuses for research is not very apropos.

    I totally support Professor Myers debates and citizen activism against the growing reactionary neo-Nazi movement in the U.S.

    But I contend that science is more a part of that Neo-Fascist movement than not a part of it.

    Bush panders to these “back to the land” young Earth evangelicals because they are the most disciplined grassroots organizers in the U.S.

    The Bush Dynasty is a direct descendent of the Nazis (just read the excellent 2004 NY Times best-seller “American Dynasty”).

    What gets forgotten about the Nazis is that their rise to power was completely dependent on elite U.S. and U.K. funding. The Bush Dynasty was at the forefront of that funding and was told that any ethical issues could be smoothed out by the replacement of Hitler with Himmler and a kinder, gentler fascism.

    Professor Myers may not be aware that the U of Minnesota was the world’s leader in eugenics (i.e. the “man crop”) and many of the top professors at Minnesota supported Hitler’s appointment at Chancellor. Eugenics was part of the progressive sanitation movement and eugenics was seen as progressive!

    In fact while Hitler and the Nazis were pushing “back to the land” young Earth folk-KKKulture in Germany, the top scientists were getting tons of money from U.S. and U.K. investment bankers to develop the cutting edge technology in rockets, radar and aircraft, among other fields.

    The monism of ecologist Ernest Haeckel was a huge inspiration for the “spiritual science” of the Nazis and I don’t think that the holistic “back to the land” ecologists were such bad people. It’s just that the Nazis, just like Bush, cynically used their naivete to keep his high-tech war machine well-oiled.

    The same is the case with the subtle, genocidal policies of the Bush Dynasty. It’s I.D. for the masses and nanotechnology, holographic plasma energy for the scientific elite.

    Verichip recently volunteered to have all immigrants microchipped — but hey it couldn’t happen to us “non-illegal” people could it?

    I’m sure that Professor Myers knows that Professor Odum, the real leader in ecology, was funded by the Atomic Energy Commission, in abeyance to the Nukes for Peace genocidal scam (continued today with depleted uranium). Certainly some of the ecologists had problems with this but let’s keep our priorities straight.

    Ecology never really came into its own as a science until DNA could be empirically measured and replicated, and that’s not much in the preservation of ecology.

    So Professor Myers attacks on I.D. are exemplary yet they miss the forest for the trees.

    It’s all quite tragic-comic in the end.

  3. #3 ice weasel
    July 17, 2006

    Sweet jumpin jeebus on a pogo stick, I have to fallow that?

    The sad part of all of this is the PZ is right, this is just election year politicking. HR 810 is doomed, one way or the other, and the others will provide more than enough cover so that the wingnuts can point to one of the other bills and claim a victory for compassionate conservatism.

    It’s a sad world.

  4. #4 j
    July 17, 2006

    “Well to compare homeopathy with using aborted fetuses for research is not very apropos.”

    Seriously, you have gotten this far through life without learning the distinction between an embryo and a fetus?

    Nobody is using aborted fetuses for research. Good god. We’re talking about a clump of cells that would otherwise be discarded.

    “But I contend that science is more a part of that Neo-Fascist movement than not a part of it.”

    Science is part of a “Neo-Fascist movement”? With all due respect, drew hempel, I must suggest that you schedule a psychiatric appointment to determine whether a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia is warranted.

    “Eugenics was part of the progressive sanitation movement and eugenics was seen as progressive!”

    Eugenics has nothing to do with stem-cell research.

    I really fail to see your point.

  5. #5 impatientpatient
    July 17, 2006

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/magazine/25GROUNDWAR.html?ei=5007&en=07c8203349fbd15a&ex=1398225600&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=

    Bush panders to these “back to the land” young Earth evangelicals because they are the most disciplined grassroots organizers in the U.S.
    *****************************************

    Here is the link to the NYT Amway Marketing for Bush article I had mentioned a while back. Brilliant scary and not surprising that they use Amways model is it??

  6. #6 Don Culberson
    July 17, 2006

    Thats basically some kind of freeform, free-association, free verse poetry right? Because it makes no sense at all to regular mortals, otherwise. Silica-brains? Techonspirituality? The Amazon as a brain? I may just not be smart enough to follow…
    Bewildered Uncle Don

  7. #7 drew hempel
    July 17, 2006

    Yeah when I go on forums it usually takes a couple weeks for people to have that “quantum leap” to follow what I’m saying.

    It’s just that I read a lot because I’m underemployed or vice versa.

    I recommend for your special needs the book by Robert Nadeau — “The Wealth of Nature” (2004).

    See Nadeau (and you should read his other books as well) researches “quantum chaos” which transcends the whole I.D. versus Darwin debate.

    The Economist reviewed Professor Nadeau’s book yet didn’t even mention “quantum chaos” even though it’s the central topic of the work!!

    There’s some serious denial about two things:

    1) the Nanotech revolution which is based on silica-DNA biochips and quantum computing aka “digital biology.”

    2) Holographic photonics — which is biophotons and biomagnetic plasma energy.

    These are top research fields in science yet rarely get discussed in “pop” science forums because they are such a threat to traditional rational humanist analysis.

    As I stated the Economist couldn’t even accept the reality of quantum chaos because it’s a threat to their linear-based supply and demand model that still underlies econometrics.

    Sure no one can understand how hedge funds are determined and will most likely undermine the global economy.

    But Hedge Funds are not nearly as complicated as the Amazon rainforest — a much more beautiful and dangerous Hedge Fund.

  8. #8 Colin
    July 17, 2006

    Hey this might be a first! PZ’s first leftist anti-science commentor, and it’s just as rambling and disjointed as the right wing posts.

    Hey Drew, you didn’t happen to smoke anything “super cool” before writing this comment did you?

  9. #9 j
    July 17, 2006

    Oh, good.

    I thought I was the only person who found drew’s comments incomprehensible.

    What a relief to know that it isn’t just my problem.

  10. #10 Keanus
    July 17, 2006

    Visit Drew’s website and you’ll find even more incomprehensible prose. In a parody of literature review he seems to be incapable if writing a sentence without at least one or two references that are obscure and irrelevant at best. Me thinks the writer is a random word generator, perhaps a new kind of computer.

  11. #11 goddogtired
    July 17, 2006

    “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, [Drew] may act like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you: he really is an idiot.”

    Thanks, Mr. Marx!

  12. #12 Torbjörn Larsson
    July 18, 2006

    So drew is over here too. He is confusing silicon and silica, and babbles more about that and nanotechnology here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/the_evolution_of_deuterostome.php Nothing coherent or related to the discussion at hand, of course.

    There “The Future of Evolution on Earth is right-hand directed silica-based molecules.” Here the future is the “”quantum chaos” which transcends the whole I.D. versus Darwin debate.” Quantum chaos lives in a small quasiclassical sector between classical system which may exhibit chaos, and quantum which do not. What chaos has to do with biology is anybodys guess.

    “Holographic photonics — which is biophotons and biomagnetic plasma energy.”

    I love this, it is as quantum babble without the quantum! Holography started out in photography. Holographic photonics is with good will holographic gitters used for photonics. Bioluminecense isn’t “biophotons” and “biomagnetics” (electrodynamics caused by an organism) doesn’t have plasmas.

    It is some freeform schizo babble. Time to hit the meds again, drew.

  13. #13 Don Culberson
    July 18, 2006

    yea, butch gotta admit.. it is some kinda high-octane qantum babble… Hedge funds, dude… beautiful and dangerous. Tell me thats not poetry…
    Uncle Don

  14. #14 Michael Geissler
    July 18, 2006

    I find drew’s coherent and completely non-contradictory arguments so compelling I urge him to lead a popular movement of all like-minded individuals to foresake the technofascist, DARPA-spawned network of control known as the Internet immediately.

  15. #15 Jeremy
    July 18, 2006

    So, anyway, back on topic….what % chance do you think HR 810 has to pass the Senate? We gonna run a pool here? Whoever wins picks up the tab for a night out?

    PS – I can’t believe my knowledge of US law procedure is so bad I had to go look if 810 was going to be voted on by the Senate or not. I have to watch Conjunction Junction some more.

  16. #16 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    July 18, 2006

    Wow. That is some of the highest quality Philosobable / Philosofilabuster / Technofilabuster ranting I’ve seen in a while AND we got a healthy dose of some Argumentum ad Nazium.

    Strauss would be so proud.

  17. #17 drew hempel
    July 18, 2006

    First of all I’m a crank which means I’m a free online psychologist or shrink for scientists.

    I assure you that scientists desperately need shrinks although I forsake that discipline myself since my own philosophy transcends the limitations of Freud and his followers.

    Let me suggest some real “scientists” for all you “specialized” idiots:

    Dr. Fritz-Alfred Popp and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

    Read “The Rainbow and the Worm” — organisms are solid state liquid crystal macro quantum chaos systems.

    Now these are issues I discussed already with over a dozen scientists from all different disciplines.

    I’ve referred you to Professor Steve Strogatz who did his research at Los Alamos and has concluded that computers have taken over. He’s not kidding.

    Read “Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis” (2005) — that will cover all the arenas of science from the development of natural numbers into non-symmetric time reversal.

    Professor Steve Strogatz’ promo for the book is that “There is a conspiracy between nature and number, atom and arithmetic.”

    It’s obvious that science is destroying the planet so all your little quibbles about the differences between silica and silicon and biomagnetism verus biophotons versus bioluminesence vs quantum chaos versus nanotech –

    It’s all for naught my friends.

    Here’s some terms for you:

    1) Quantum diffraction gradients. Well the military certainly thinks Dr. Andrew Parker’s “In the Blink of an Eye” is worthy for creating neural network analysis of complex adaptive evolution.

    Have you read it Professor Myers? What about all the other specialized idiots?

    2) Stochastic adaptive resonance. Increasing the “noise” to “explain” ecology while making artificial intelligence ain’t going to help anyone ‘cept the machines.

    3) Synthetic Ecology and Nanobiomotors. Richard Dawkin’s anyone? For the connection between soybeans and asymmetry just read Richard Dawkins and his promotion of synthetic ecology.

    Scientists have always been Freemasonic promoters of imperialism.

    Sorry Professor Myers but if you want to attack the religious right then you need to deal with the well-documented RELIGIOUS basis of science.

    Logarithmic-based mathematics is the structural manifestation of Freemasonry.

    Imperialism is the result of science.

    Now what right do I have to critique a liberal atheist scientist?

    Well I have the EXPERIENCE. I studied conservation biology and have done conservation policy. I work at a nonprofit for environmental policy.

    Scientists are naive if not corrupt. The sooner people wake up and realize that the Pentagon has the capacity to hold 75,000 in underground cities and that you scientists are not on the survivor list (unless maybe your in top clearance status) the sooner scientists can confront the true knowledge pyramid.

    Professor Philip Regal — maybe someone you know Professor Myers — well he couldn’t get his book published that exposed the Freemasonic control of science — going back to the Medicis.

    Dr. Lawrence Soley? He exposed the corporate control of science at the U of Minnesota. Result: Fired.

    Have you read his “Leasing the Ivory Tower”? Classic.

    I myself have been sabotaged, assaulted, censored, arrested, etc., all for documented the facts and using the facts to persuade scientists and their rulers to change some of the imperialist policies of the Academy.

    For example I got the U of Minnesota to join the Workers Rights Consortium.

    I got the U of Minnesota to divest $1.5 million from Total Oil for their use of slave labor in collaboration with the worst military regime in the world: Burma.

    I encourage all of you to be proactive like Professor Myers is but also to dig deeper to find the “rotten root” at the foundation of the problem.

    Science is based on “deep disharmony” (math professor Luigi Borzacchini).

  18. #18 drew hempel
    July 18, 2006

    What do you think Archytas did?

    The Pythagorean Theorem was for CATAPULT technology.

  19. #19 Millimeter Wave
    July 18, 2006

    The Pythagorean Theorem was for CATAPULT technology.

    You can’t argue with logic like that…

    [snort]

  20. #20 wintermute
    July 18, 2006

    What do you think Archytas did?

    Did he advise Alfred of Wessex on weapons technology?

    I suspect that 1000 years after he died and an entire continent away, it would be difficult to argue that he provided an advantage to one side only. Or are you ignoring the example I gave to demonstrate that a scientific advantage isn’t neccessary, and simply agreeing with me that it can be useful?

    Actually, if anything, this reads like an argument that science grows out of imperialism, as the imperialist demands the advantage of advanced weapons. Isn’t this the opposite of your previous statement that “science -> imperialism”?

  21. #21 Millimeter Wave
    July 18, 2006

    guys,
    not that I want to break up the party or anything (and I must admit drew’s posts are highly entertaining), trying to present rational rebuttals to somebody who writes stuff like:

    Logarithmic-based mathematics is the structural manifestation of Freemasonry.

    is probably futile… ;-)

  22. #22 druhempel@yahoo.com
    July 18, 2006

    OK let’s review the logic.

    Science IS imperialism because science is based on logarithmic mathematics that are structurally and inherently in deep disharmony with left-hand directed carbon-based molecules.

    Imperialism arose from science.

    That’s my thesis. Very straightforward.

    It was started by Archytas.

    Now it’s arguable whether King of Wessex was an imperialist. I would say no.

    Did the British have an Empire? Yes — but how was it defined:

    “The title of this book, End of Empire, may seem pretentious, After all, the book is about the end of the British Empire only. Perhaps it is too much to ask for a title to be modest, but why should it not be accurate?

    “The answer is that with the end of the British Empire came the end of all empires. To conquer distant lands and rule them from a home base was widely regarded as legitimate before the twentieth century.”

    That’s the preface to “End of Empire” by Brian Lapping. (St. Martin’s Press, 1985)

    You’re lucky I’ve been carrying it off and on for the last couple weeks and finally dug into it today.

    Did King Alfred conquer distant lands and rule them from a home base?

    I don’t think so.

    Did the Greeks and Romans? Yes. Did they do so with logarithmic-based technology? Yes.

  23. #23 drew hempel
    July 18, 2006

    Now to PaulC

    The Pythagorean Theorem is found world-wide, etc.

    NO — Only the Greeks tied the Pythagorean Theorem [sic.] to PHONETIC AXIOMS.

    In otherwords ONLY with the Greeks was the Pythagorean Theorem [sic.] expressed as OBJECTIVE RATIONAL TRUTH.

    Science and Math in China — the other main source for advanced technology — was created in isolation by Taoist monks and was not motivated by patent law.

    The Greeks tied science to aristocratic state support through the Academies of Plato and Aristotle (who advised Alexander’s imperial conquests).

    So in contrast Diophantine tried to build on Theon’s use of differential calculus to prove the square root of two.

    But Diophantine did not use the phonetic Attic alphabet and therefore failed.

    The key to the success of the phonetic Attic system was it’s basis of symmetrical, equidistant values — each letter equaled an equidistant value for the Number.

    This may seem too simple to worth mention but the highest discovery in science is that THE ATTIC PHONETIC LOGIC IS WRONG.

    In otherwords noncommutative geometry, created by Alain Connes, has proven that One plus One does not equal Two.

    Alain Connes, the top French mathematician, has stated that music theory provides the FORMAL LANGUAGE to understand quantum chaos.

    How so? Because under true Pythagorean harmonics (Eudoxus and Archytas created the Pythagorean Theorem — not Pythagoras!!)

    Under true Pythagorean Harmonics Number is based on complimentary opposites of ASYMMETRIC value.

    So in music theory C to G is 2:3 and G to C is 3:4.

    This violates the basic symmetric property of the Attic system that created the Pythagorean Theorem.

    For example the Golden Ratio: A is to B as B is to A plus B.

    The Law of Pythagoras is the slowest converging nonlinear dynamic AFTER the golden ratio — but actually it’s BEFORE the golden ratio if you understand the paradoxes of asymmetric time reversal.

    1 is to 2 as 2 is to 3 (Golden Ratio as the Law of Pythagoras).

    A is to B as B is to A plus B (Phonetic system)

    2 is to 3 as 3 is to 4 (Law of Pythagoras).

    C is to G as G is to C (VIOLATES THE COMMUTATIVE PRINCIPLE SINCE IS SHOULD BE 3:2 instead of 3:4)

    This is just the same ratio — RESONATING as alchemical energy.

    This can occur through an asymmetrical sine-wave (traditional the OM symbol and the Tai Chi symbol and the Tetrad).

    The asymmetrical sine-wave alchemical transduction in current physics is now called:

    AUTOIONIZATION (based on the Auger Effect and also the 4-wave amplification technology)

    Autoionization is being used for free energy plasma technology based on discrete laser dynamics of resonating natural numbers.

  24. #24 wintermute
    July 18, 2006

    Ummmm…. I’m not talking about the British Empire, which was an entirely different beast, almost a thousand years after Alfred.

    Alfred ruled the Kingdom of Wessex, which was one of seven kingoms (the “heptarchy”) in the territory now known as England. In 891AD, he launched a war of agression against the other six kingdoms, and by 892AD, he had conquered all of them, becoming the first king of a united England, whixh was certainly an empire compared to the nations that preceeded it. He did this without any scientific or technological advantage over the other kingdoms.

    Did he conquer distant lands and rule them from a home base? Yes, for certain values of “distant”. How big does an empire have to be to qualify? Does the King of Denmark ruling Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Vinland and parts of Ireland count?

  25. #25 drew hempel
    July 19, 2006

    Wintermute — Hate to break it to you but last night I cracked up a copy of my Dumpster-Dived two volume college textbook:

    “Western Civilization” by Professor R. E. Herzstein (1975, Houghton Mifflin, Boston)

    Now here’s a history lesson for you and very specific. King Alfred DID NOT RULE AN EMPIRE:

    For the same reason I gave — an empire is defined as ruling over distant lands and was done through logarithmic-based technology.

    “Despite the Carolingian use of Latin terminology for administrative and fiscal purpose, there is no similarity between the centralized Roman administration of the second century and the essentially barbarian Kindgom rule by Charles the Great in 800 A.D.” (p. 107)

    Seemingly no connection right? Well –

    “Like Charlemagne, to whom he has often been compared, Alfred was vitally interested in religion and education….” (p. 114)

    OK Charlemagne ruled a hella lot more territory than Alfred and Alfred took after Charlemagne (sure Alfred was better educated but nonetheless NO ALFRED BRITISH EMPIRE).

    Now let’s be nice about it:

    Professo Herzstein refers to the FRANKISH EMPIRE even though he details why it was really nothing compared to Roman Rule in the 2nd C. and that it was really a Kingdom (see above quote).

    But what does he call Alfred’s smaller rule?

    “English Kingdom”

    sorry but the English Empire was not created until the East India Company in 1600.

  26. #26 Mechanophile
    July 19, 2006

    Oh, Millimeter Wave, he’s definitely comedic, whether he’s a troll or an idiot. :)

    Science and Math in China… was created in isolation by Taoist monks and was not motivated by patent law.

    Yep, I distinctly remember my Ancient Civ teacher in high school explaining how Sparta won the Peloponnesian War because of their less restrictive patent regulations. And the poetry they wrote about the gallant patent enforcement officers at Thermopylae? It brought a tear to my eye, it did.

    So in contrast Diophantine tried to build on Theon’s use of differential calculus to prove the square root of two.

    My Ancient Civ teacher also told us about those crazy, time-travelling Greek mathematicians, too. Although I’m a little uncertain why you would need differential calculus to *ahem* ‘prove’ the square root of two.

    And one more from a little further back:

    Scientists have always been Freemasonic promoters of imperialism.

    Just as a matter of interest, what would that make engineers? Are we just lower-ranking Freemasons, or do we get our own secret conspiracy? Ooooh, can we be the Illuminati?

  27. #27 drew hempel
    July 20, 2006

    Sparta was much more aligned with Persia in its culture — versus Athens. In Sparta the women had equal rights and the men trained as warriors. In Athens the women were kept locked up in their houses and the men pontificated the objective axiomatic truth of the alogon — the square root of two. This truth was proven with Attic phonetic logic using continous fractions.

    In Alexandria the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem was proven with a form of differential calculus that DID NOT use the phonetic Attic, “equal-tempered” gematria system.

    Athens, then with its superior catapult technology, derived from being able to double the cube precisely, then wiped out the matrifocal Pythagorean-based shamans of Persia-controlled Anatolia.

    Now if you just read Professor David F. Noble’s book “The Religion of Technology” he details how the modern engineering institutions of Europe and the U.S. were created by the top Freemasons and organized on Freemasonic principles.

    But regardless of some Simpsons episode conspiracy the point is that western science is STRUCTURALLY Freemasonic because of the Power Axiom Set — the “objective” attempt to have a precise symbol for infinity.

    This is exactly why in Carl Boyer’s “History of Calculus” (Dover) it’s detailed how the logical paradoxes of calculus were supposedly solved by Dedekind with the concept of the set-theory derived “Dedekind Cut” as a right-brain point.

    In fact though Bertrand Russell proved that Set Theory is logically inconsistent and then Wittgenstein had a hey day with Russell — turning philsophy back into religion.

    The West could not deal with Wittgenstein’s radical results of research (exactly the same problem with Godel’s insistence on practicing self-enquiry — the repeating of I-I-I-I in a logical quest of inference — see Rudy Rucker’s “Infinity and the Mind” book for Rucker’s visit to Godel).

  28. #28 Steve_C
    July 20, 2006

    Can you ever speak in plain english without a bibliography?

    Or does all that stuff spinning around in your head always just spout out like that?

    It’s useless. It’s like talking to someone who’s been to a landmark forum.

  29. #29 Mechanophile
    July 20, 2006

    I’m starting to feel guilty about keeping this thing alive, even if it is amusing.

    Some points, though:
    -If Athens had superior CATAPULT technology due to their foolish and misguided views on women, why were they defeated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War?

    -Why would you need differential calculus to prove the Pythagorean theorem?

    -What does ‘doubling the cube’ have to do with CATAPULT technology?

  30. #30 wintermute
    July 20, 2006

    Drew: So the only factor to be concidered in deciding if something was an empire is the area it covers? What’s the cut-off point? This is an important question, and one I’m sure you won’t answer.

    And besides, your point was science->imperialism, not science->empire. And while an empire is often the outcome of imperialism, it’s not required.

    Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

    I think there’s no controversy in saying that Alfred of Wessex was an imperialist, simply because he sought to conquer sovereign countries purely to increase his own power. If you want to call the result of his conquests an “empire” or a “kingdom” surely makes no difference.

    Were Alfred’s imperialistic impulses tainted by science or not?

  31. #31 Steve_C
    July 20, 2006

    Who eats stem cells?

  32. #32 Mechanophile
    July 20, 2006

    Drew:

    Socrates died in 399 BC, the war with Sparta ended in 403 BC.

    … So? Socrates died four years after Sparta won. How does this affect your argument, which was that Sparta should not have won at all (based on their inferior patent regulations)?

    In Alexandria the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem was proven with a form of differential calculus…

    You do not “NEED” differential calculus to “prove” the Pytahgorean Theorem.
    My point is that there is no proof for the Pythagorean Theorem.

    Just as a matter of interest, which of the above statements is correct? I’m just trying to get a handle on the NEW SCIENCE of macro quantum chaos which is completely different from earlier, patent-based CATAPULT science. Is one of the benefits of quantum chaos that your arguments don’t need internal consistency?

    From Drew’s post on *ahem* ‘squaring the cube’:

    When Archytas “doubled the cube” he closed off the Harmonic Series since the ratio 4:5 approximates the cube root of two (from a 10 number base)…

    Err… No, it doesn’t. Maybe macro quantum chaos means you don’t need pesky things like math, either.

    Please try to use google so I don’t have to spoon feed answers to your stupid questions.

    Oooh, burn! I feel so humbled.

    I guess your definiton of Anglo-Saxon “nation” is quite progressive but then Alfred was big on the Latin schtick — so what exactly was HIS nationality?

    Now this is just a wild guess, but I would say that Alfred was Anglo-Saxon. Just like Edward I was English, even though he spoke French, and went to church in Latin. Is this concept really so hard to understand?

    And Steve_C… it’s me! I eat stem cells! I can’t help myself, they’re just so delicious!

  33. #33 drew hempel
    July 20, 2006

    OK I get it SPELL EVERY THING OUT! Your special needs are my treasure chest of happiness.

    See Plato wrote how Socrates died AFTER the war with Sparta and the proof for the logarithmic equal-tempered tuning for the Pythagorean Theorem is in Plato’s writings.

    It was applied to catapult technology by the “tyrants” that expanded the Athenian city state into an empire.

    Which brings me to your 4:5 does not approximate the cube root of two. Well in music theory the ratios are reversible. So whether it’s 4:5 or 5:4 doesn’t matter.

    Your third question — is quantum chaos any better than patent-based catapult technology?

    No it’s not — but it does display how science has always been based on faulty logic derived from the Harmonic Series of Pythagoras.

  34. #34 wintermute
    July 20, 2006

    I guess your definiton of Anglo-Saxon “nation” is quite progressive but then Alfred was big on the Latin schtick — so what exactly was HIS nationality?

    I don’t think anyone mentioned an Anglo-Saxon Nation. Unless you mean “England”. But since you asked, he was Wessexian. You know, coming from the Kingdom of Wessex.

    I didn’t say that you “had to” google it — I gave you the answer all in my own writing!!

    And therein lies the problem.

    And I see I was right about you continuing to avoid simple questions. Goodbye.

  35. #35 drew hempel
    July 20, 2006

    Considering I could barely fork down my curry goat at the swanky Safari Somalian restaurant — well I’ll try.

    See “Pythagorean Theorem” really didn’t come from Pythagoras!

    It’s a big scam! In fact the Biggest Scam (which is why it’s so successful)

    The Pythagorean Theorem is the founding lie of science.

    Dr. Peter Kingsley documented in detail in his Oxford U Press, 1996 book “Mystery, Magic and Ancient Philosophy” and then in his follow up books.

    Anyway so the Pythagorean Theorem comes from Archytas, Eudoxus and Hippocratus (not the doctor).

    Pythagoras, in contrast, was a matrifocal shaman and he and his followers were driven out by the Athenian imperialists, under the guise of “democracy.”

    Sound familiar? In fact U of Chicago Professor Marshall Sahlins, of “Stone Age Economics” fame, had a recent article about how

    cosmological lies were the main propaganda to promote Athenian Imperialism as democracy.

    Christianity was founded by Constantine whereas previously it had been in competition with Mithra as just another cult.

    It’s just a Solar Dynasty religion — read Acharya S. — her recent book “Suns of God” is amazing.

    Another great political strategy, of course, is to assimilate the religious beliefs of the poor.

    NeoPlatonic Christianity started with Augustine and then took off with John Scotus Erigena, the 9th C. philosopher administrator for the Carolinian Empire –

    – oops I mean Frankish Empire –

    — ooops I mean Frankish Kingdom.

    Gee where was I.

    Professor Joscelyn Godwin is probably the best expert on the true Pagan traditon that’s continued through Christianity

    of which Nazism and Freemasonry are top examples (and the Da Vinci Code of course).

    Basically civilization is just a big lie.

    There is truth though — but it’s formless.

    “I am that I am” is the axiom for 1:2:3:4 resonating to formless empty awareness.

    somebody gotta use this baby machine.

  36. #36 Laura
    July 20, 2006

    Drew

    One question do you really believe we are in The Matrix???

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.