Gaia
Gaia theory is a way of looking at the world and our ancestors created these myths for a reason, in that they expressed a process that they saw active in the environment...there are parallels today which help to explain why they would draw such conclusions..Such theories are beyond the realm of current science (and cannot be supported or catagorically refuted using the scientific method).Gaia theory (science) Much more speculative versions of Gaia theory, including all versions in which it is held that the Earth is actually conscious or part of some universe-wide evolution, are currently held to be outside the bounds of science. These are discussed in the Gaia philosophy article.'Gaia' is a scientific theory with 'weak' and 'strong' versions...as for myself I lean towards a 'strong' version and I consider the tendency to prefer the 'weak' version to be a form of reactionary bigotry on the part of some scientists...the existence of a complex computer code suggests some type of driving force other than the randomness that is in vogue at the moment...when human beings produce computer code it is accepted that this was the result of intelligence but when the natural world produces computer code it then becomes forbidden to suggest intelligence...actually it is forbidden to even consider suggesting intelligence, and this is bigotry...keep in mind here that there is a distinction between 'intelligent design' and 'origins'..most of the religious controversy about intelligent design consists of confusing it with origins, and most religious doctrines which purport to explain origins or intelligent design are antrhopocentric in that it is assumed that the universe must be the way that it is to suit humans, and if it is not, then it must not be because of some mitigating factor such as 'original sin' which then ruined everything, thus supposedly explaining those aspects of the universe that do not revolve around humans.
what i find to be most interesting about the debates concerning 'origins' and in particular concerning the Gaia hypothesis is that these arguments have correlations in a political viewpoint. For example the scientists who are hardline proponents of the weak theory, insist that all creatures are just selfish - you can see this in the title of Dawkin's book 'the Selfish Gene', and that as all creatures selfishly go about serving their own needs the result is an undirected emergent property in which a system of balances is achieved. The advocates of the stronger Gaia theory speak of cooperation and use examples of how life has actiively worked to change the biosphere (for example earth's atmosphere was created by small living organisms which changed the atmosphere from an earlier anaerobic state. These two points of view have political counterparts, and indeed 'scientific' or 'psuedo-scientific' arguments are used to justify neoliberal capitalism (the idea of the trickle down theory, for example, in that when individual biological organisms are selfish and pursue their own selfish interests, the end result is that a balance is achieved and the whole system benefits...it is pretty obvious that this is not true in the political sense...a person's world view certainly influences their politics but it also influences their science, or so it would seem to me, in that 'orthodox science' is a product of the cultural system which produced it).
It is irrational to suggest that the 'universe came from nothing' just as it is irrational to suggest that the universe has no beginning and no end. There is no ideal scenario here that makes more sense than the alternative... it is also true that current scientific theories of the origins of the universe result in mathematical calculations that run into what are called 'infinities' (dividing by zero) and typically when this happens it is an indication that either the theory is erroneous or that it is incomplete. Most people do not realize that the accepted scientific theories are either in error or have something wrong in them (regarding the origins of the universe) and here we make one of those leaps of faith...we haven't got it all straightened out now, but perhaps we will figure it out tomorrow and until then we will keep the faith in the bug ridden 'big bang theory'...There are also good political reasons to keep the faith, in spite of all those infinities that keep popping up in the current theories, for this theory is also a perfect match for the current political development of society (competition and the pursuit of selfish interests being the defining ideology of the present organization of human society, and therefore it cannot be an accident that the science of the 'selfish gene' is the also the only acceptable orthodox view).
The truth of the matter is that science has no really valid explanation for the origins of the universe, given all those mathematical infinities, and from the point of view of a philosophy the idea that universe suddenly emerged spontaneously 'out of nothing' or that the universe just 'always existed with no beginning or end', both concepts are equally hard to accept, and you find that same paradigm is true whenever you consider the philosophical implications of competing view points...there is nothing particularly rational about the prevailing orthodoxy as compared to alternatives, and furthermore the evidence is incomplete and riddled withp problems, and therefore the selection of this point of view is best understood politically, and not rationally or scientifically.
There are also competing scientific theories that are currently not well known, since their acceptance would overturn an entire century of cosmology. Thus institutinoal inertia comes into play. For example the universe could be infused with electircal and magnetic energy. Now it has been the orthodox position of science that the universe is magnetically and electrically inert and neutral. There is a good reason for that point of view. For you see, if this turns out to be false, then the red shift of light is understood to be a function of magnetism in the universe, which then means that the universe is not expanding, which then suggests that perhaps the universe is without beginning and without end, and it just exists. This then means that there was no big bang, since big bang theory relies on a non-magnetic interpretation of the red shifting of light (as the universe expands, the fabric of space is stretched, which then causes light waves to stretch as well, which then red shifts the frequency). Now the big bang theory is mathematically incorrect, at the present time, given all those infinities, which is an indication that something is wrong, and if it turns out that we do live in an electrical and magnetic universe then that would be an explanation for all those infinities, in that there was no big bang, as those mathematical errors in the current theories does suggest. Therefore we do not know much about the origins of the universe after all, and therefore a century of cosmology is overturned, with social ramifications, since people have learned to reverence these theories, and you cannot overturn a world view without overturning powerful institutions as well, which is going to be a problem.
And getting back to interpretations of 'intelligent design' it is impossible to say anything definitive about 'intelligent design' (speaking here about those computer codes of life and the origins of life and so on) without having something definitive to say about origins. People only assume that they have something to say about intelligent design because they assume that they know something about origins, even though the theory is riddled through with mathematical flaws, which most of the public does not understand, since if they did understand it, they would see that science at this point involves a leap of faith, which is not supposed to happen. We will decide to trust those mathematically flawed theories and just hope that someday someone will figure something out to patch the holes. Until then we will justify our decision to rely on these theories by pointing to the 'convincing evidence' of the red shifting of light.
One piece of evidence for the magnetic nature of the universe are sunward pointing spikes on comets. According to traditional comet theory comet tails are caused only by melting ice crystals blown off by the solar wind, whereas those anomalous sun ward pointing comet tails (typically appearing at close promimity to the sun) suggest magnetism is at work. This is taboo, for obvious reasons, for if we find that space is not magnetically inert, then the big bang theory is doomed, because we now understand that the red shifting of light is related to the magnetism that pervades the universe, which then explains all that flawed mathematics found in current big bang theory.
This does not by default then validate the current religious doctrines being peddled in that intelligent design quarrel, for these are anthropocentric doctrines which have at their core a need to explain the universe in such a way that everything that happens to me personally makes sense according to a definition of the way a person thinks it ought to be, rather than thinking in terms of the larger biosphere.
No disucssion of the politics which actually permeate science could be complete without also referring to NASA's video of a magetically propelled unknown space craft, which was accidentally filmed and broadcast live by NASA on Tuesday, April 24th, 2001. There was one small leak coming out from NASA about that video which was published on the BBC site on June 1, 2001.UFO video goes to Hollywood The relevant quote from the article reads, "officials at NASA are said to have asked to examine the tape, because they believe it shows the same type of craft once spotted by the space agency's own cameras during a space shuttle mission. "
Now there are a number of reasons that NASA would refuse to release the aforementioned piece of video tape to the public. First the video tape is related to a protest against 'neoliberal capitalism' at the Summit of the Americas on Earth Day, 2001, which was two days previous to this event. It was the people who were on that craft who were responsible for creating that Earth Day Wing made out of clouds over the Sahara.
If you are unfamiliar with that story, I sent out 'press releases' on Friday, April 20th, two days before Earth Day, announcing that a big wing made out of clouds would be unfurled as a type of 'protest banner' over the Sahara desert over the weekend. Some of these press releases were sent as emails and some posted on newsgroups. It is a very werid sounding press release, not very dignified, but that was the state of mind I was in that time. (Get used to it).
You can watch a video that shows the formation of that cloud wing shape starting from Friday night and then ending Sunday Afternoon, and earth day, with the formation of the completed wing shape. I made three versions, an avi file, a quicktime file and a real media file.AVI ... Quicktime ... Real player
Now as I mentioned, this wing event is connected to the appearance of that space craft outside the space station two days later on Tuesday afternoon. As luck would have it, I happened to be watching live when they appeared and were broadcast internationally by NASA, unintentionally I am sure. I testify that NASA has such a video tape of the craft I am referring to here, and NASA had one leak about five weeks later on June 1st, confirming what I am telling you, and since then everything has gone into cover up mode, with NASA being bribed by the Bush administration with a big trip to Mars to keep their mouths shut. Which is another example of how political considerations actually drive science.
Now what is particularly interesting about these space craft which I have been viewing at close quarters since I was fifteen, is that they are powered by phosperent solar batteries (that glow in the dark material, which is both a solar collector and a solar battery, which explains why I have been agitating since the early 1990s for the development of this technology, including some activism with the Clinton White House that they might remember, something that really does annoy me now in that we are now over a decade behind in our research and that global warming problem is starting to become dangerous, now that all that methane is threatening to emerge from the melting permafrost in the high arctic). But then solar technology is also driven by political and economic considerations, in that solar is a coooperative anarcho-socialist technology, which is decentralized, and is also free, since the sun is free, which means that this would threaten the profits of our centralized and heirarchical energy cartels, which explains why a technology can be so obvious that it becomes to obvious and thus gets buried while people work on less efficient and more costly silicon solar energy technology instead.
Now these craft float in the air, and they can also be seen floating around outside the space station on NASA's video tape. The reason why they float is because they are powered by magnetism, the only force we know of that can cause an object to float and thus defy gravity, and the only force that can also cause the type of acceleration that causes an object to move upwards in a magnetic field. Magnetism is also connected to electrical forces and so what we have here is a solar powered electro-magnetically propelled space craft.
This is signficant because it therefore suggests that those sun ward pointing comet spikes are in fact a magnetic phenomena, and the propulsion of these space craft also suggests that we live in a magnetic universe. It therefore follows that those errors in the mathematics of big bang theory are best explained by acknowledging that the red shifting of light is a magnetic phenomena, which would indicate the universe did not originate in a big bang after all, but rather that it more than likely just always did exist outside of the constraints of time, which is a hard concept to grasp rationally, but then so is the big bang notion of emergence from nothing at a definite point in time.
This then provides part of the explanation for why NASA would be hiding that space shuttle video of these magnetic solar craft. We are talking here about NASA releasing a piece of video tape which would then not only causes massive changes in social consciousness on this planet (something needed in any case) but would also overturn and invalidate over a century of cosmology and cause the radical revision of scientific theories, which would then of course threaten the vested interests of powerful scientific institutions as well as threatening the profits of oil cartels and it would also make the colonial occupation of Iraq pointless, thus undermining the plans of American imperialism to dominate the next century by dominating the world's (obsolete) petroleum supplies.
So you can see here how it is the case that science is not a pure endeavor, pure as the driven snow, but is driven by powerful political and institutional processes, and really, if the truth is told, there are some things that scientists would prefer not to know so that they can go on having faith in their own obviously flawed theories, while hypocritically pretending that there is some distinction between their own pure science and faith, when in truth, everything is driven by ideology. The driving ideology of the prevailing orthodox scientific world view is competitive capitalism and its selfish genes, which would also be threatened by revelation of the truth about current scientitic theories, since these two world views emerged from the same culture and are mutallly supporting.
Somw quotes from wikipedia on the Gaia hypothesis.
Gaia theoryis a class of scientific models of the geo-biosphere in which life as as a whole fosters and maintains suitable conditions for itself by helping to create Earthan environment on suitable for its continuity... (T)he living matter of the planet functioned like a single organism and (he) named this self-regulating living system , after the Gaia the Greek goddess...Biologist Lewis Thomas likens the Earth to "a single cell" in his book Lives of a Lives of a Cell...Gaia theories have non-technical predecessors in the ideas of several cultures. Among some scientists, "Gaia" carries connotations of scientifically unrigorous, quasi-mystical thinking about Earth, and Lovelock's own hypothesis was received initially with much antagonism...Optimizing Gaia asserts that the biota manipulate their physical environment for the purpose of creating biologically favorable, or even optimal, conditions for themselves."...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima". (Lovelock and Margulis 1974)...Another strong theory is the one called Omega Gaia. Teilhard de Chardin claimed that the Earth is evolving through stages of cosmogenesis, affecting the geosphere, biogenesis of the biosphere, and noogenesis of the noosphere...To date Gaia Theory has withstood all proposed and condiucted scientific testing. As a result, Lovelock has proposed that it has transformed itself from the Gaia Theory to Gaia hypothesis and now to Gaia Science...Gaia theory today is a spectrum of hypotheses, ranging from the undeniable (Weak Gaia) to the radical (Strong Gaia)...At one end is the undeniable statement that the organisms on the Earth have radically altered its composition. A stronger position is that the Earth's biosphere effectively acts as if it is a self-organizing system, which works in such a way asto keep its systems in some kind of meta-equilibrium that is broadly conducive to life...
Background to this story
over a week ago I was sitting outside waiting to get some feedback from the starry heavens, when suddenly what I call my 'guardian angel' appeared...I saw an unfamiliar craft, shaped like a delta wing, and glowing with a yellowish brownish glow, it was heading from west to east. Next, the same wing shaped craft appeared, much closer, and with a more brilliant yellow glow...it was heading due north...I jumped up off my seat and began to walk along trying to get the best possible look at this strange wing shaped craft, and naturally my thoughts turned to that Earth Day wing symbol. The craft disappeared behind a cloud bank as I turned away I saw my familiar 'guardian angel' in the usual disc shaped craft glowing brilliant white. The craft was in the 'torso' of the constellation Orion. It moved a short distance and then dove upwards and disappeared to a pin point. As I was puzzling about all this the craft appeared again, this time directly over my head, much closer and larger appearing and glowing brilliant white, and then it once again shot upwards and disappeared to a pin point. This brilliant display has become a customary way of communicating 'Yes, EMPHATICALLY'. So I knew that this event was important.When I got home I decided to investigate the meaning of the constellation Orion and discovered and environmental mythology concerning conflict between Orion, symbol of humanity, and Gaia, symbolizing nature. Thus this symbolism was consistent with the environmental symbolism of the wing on Earth Day. I therefore decided that my Guardian angel was insisting that I give up that other work I was doing for a time previous to this day and focus once again on an environmental message. The brilliant wing was flying due north, and of course, as you would know, I discovered some alarming enviromental information concerning the north, and then if you tie that in with the mythology of Orion and Gaia, it would appear to be then that my Guardian Angel is warning about that scorpion's sting.
So then instead of delivering my own message, and censoring myself in the hopes of making some progress, maybe what I will do this time is try a different approach, and deliver the message of my guardian angel instead, which is to emphais just how dangerous that release of methane in the north really is. 'Thus saith my Guardian angel' you might say. Now people did not listen to my guardian angel on Earth Day 2001, which is the meaning behind the symbolism of those two yellow glowing wing shapes, and so I am to point this fact out to people, and make them aware that now they are getting into trouble with 'Gaia' and her scorpion, because they are really bi goted in their narrow points of view, and thus they are either unwilling, or even unable to listen.
.
