Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

The Fourth Dimension and Beyond

Dealing with physics, one finds we have to overcome the various challenges of velocity, dimensionality and vectors via breaking them down into smaller, more digestible chunks. These chunks smaller chunks generally are referred to as single dimensions, or in terms of physics, scalars. It’s the equivalent of turning continuous variables into categorical variables for the purpose of statistical analysis. The reason we do this is to not only effectively measure them, but so we can understand them in terms of human perception.

Understanding this, The concept of dimensionality fascinated me. Especially the idea that there exists dimensions not only beyond our visual-spatial perception, but also beyond our neurological capacity to conceive the very idea of them.

What are Dimensions?

The First Dimension: Think of a line segment. The line has a set length, but it has a width which is infinitely small. That is, the width of the line is the lowest perceivable quantitative unit of measurement (whether that is an atom, an electron, a quark). The line can any unit of length. This is a single-dimensional object; the only adjustable quality is the length.

The Second Dimension: Take the line above, and instead of it having an infinitely width, it instead has a quantifiable width of any measure. So combined, we have an object of height and width, essentially a plane or panel, like a piece of paper (technically a piece of paper does have a depth, . But, this plane has no depth, which would be necessary to having a third-dimension.

The Third Dimension: The thing you may notice about the above two examples is that they are not in tangible existence in nature, they are hypothetical, conceptions and perceptions. 3D is how things are in the world, from the largest planet to the tiniest quark. All objects have both a length, width and depth present them.

The Dimensions

An abstract interpretation of the first five dimensions

Although we are surrounded by three dimensional objects, humans only have an ability to visually perceive objects in two dimensions. Everything is broken up into scalar plains; a box appears as a connection of flat planes. The concept is better understood by the perception of a sphere, where a human can only see a 2-dimensional circle. The perception of the third-dimension of these objects come in the reflection of light off of them and the sense of touch.

But what about the fourth dimension? This is generally where things get a bit messy. There are many conceptions about what it is. The following video piqued my interest; This intelligent high school student explains a theory of how the fourth-dimension  would work:

This is just one of many theories about the fourth dimension. Commonly, the fourth dimension is also just referred to as time.

Planck’s Constant: In order to understand dimensionality further and how it relates to us, we need to take note of the own biases and implications of our ability to perceive things. Planck’s constant, which is the smallest observable distance a measurement can have before words like distance and duration lose their meaning.

Planck’s constant: Amount of energy*speed/wavelength

We achieve this by stringing together static snapshots of objects and activities and measuring them. Since light takes time to hit our eyes, we are already impacted on by time in processing dimensionality. Looking into a telescope into cosmic space, we’re really looking many light years into the past.

String Theory outlines the idea that there exists a total of ten or eleven dimensions. These extra six or seven dimensions are tiny to a level of imperceptibility.

Imagine an ant moving on a cable. It can move forward and backward, and clockwise and counter-clockwise. If we personify the universe as this very cable and ourselves as the ant, we have our normal dimensions of the ant going backwards and forwards and clockwise/counter-clockwise, but we also have tiny circular dimensions we cannot see on the surface of the cable, that only the ant can see. If we were tiny enough (fractions of an atom), we could perceive these circular dimensions.

As technological capacity gets better, we get ever closer to unlocking and understanding the realities of the universe beyond our perception.


Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Someone recently asked me why I bother with White supremacy as an ideology.  Why burden yourself with such a large in-group beyond the scope of human perception? Why concern yourself with the plight and survival of an entire race, of which you are a member of? Why not chase blind hedonism, setting your sights on something infinitely more tangible and achievable?

This question inspired in me some introspection. Looking around at my peers, society and the so-called “Manosphere”, I can certainly see a broad spectrum of this principle in practice. A soft form of hedonism is embraced implicitly as the common zeitgeist; Your average Joe goes to work every day and then attempts to numb his mind and soul during the night with video games and TV, and then booze and partying on the weekends. That’s the purpose of his muted existence.

And at the other end, we have the PUAs and hardcore nihilists. For the PUA, everything is suborned to your sexual impulses by its very definition; Essentially the PUA goal lies in mimicry of the teenage boy pursuit for pussy, cryogenically frozen and extended beyond-adolescence, like something out of a uninspired, Judeo-Hollywood American Pie offshoot.

Hedonism (by which I define as the explicit pursuit of “pleasure” as the direct and dominant motivating force of an individual) unto itself is the blind emancipation of one’s own impulses and feelings over everything else. You surrender yourself to the Beast Within, submerging yourself in the lymphatic fluid of self-involved carnality and narcissistic solipsism. It’s ultimately, a feminine embrace of childish decadence, and a fast track towards a route of ever-diminishing returns (of pleasure) and addiction. It, in the end, will even fail to deliver that which it offers by its very definition, as your tolerance to it grows.

In the end, I say to hell with all of that. The masculine condition is always to strive towards and encompass strength. As White men, the indomitable force of our being is in our unquenchable thirst for exploration; even the constant bombardment of creativity-sapping media cannot truly dull that creative desire for innovation. With this in mind, it is unsurprising as to why 98% of scientific accomplishments from 800AD-1950AD were from White European males.

As White supremacists, it is an imperative for us to meet and exceed the achievements of our ancestors. We live in a time where we stand on the shoulders of giants; we have  unprecedented access to information the likes of which has never been even imagined, and technology with which our capacity to invent and innovate grows exponentially cheaper and more powerful by the year. Our ancestors paved the way for unending human potential. Are we less than them?

The Wright Brothers:

They started with bicycles and small scale wind tunnel models, then gliders, and then sequentially added more alterations and augmentations to their designs, going back to the drawing board and fine-tuning their machinations, coming to ever-greater heights than was thought possible until it finally culminated in a power-driven plane capable of sustained flight. They were able to achieve that which many completely refuted the feasibility of.

Endemic to achieving this feat was a solid understanding of physics, aerodynamics and of mathematics. An additional crucial component an innovator needs is a strong and unbreakable drive to pursue such a dream; This to me personifies the European character; High testosterone and high IQ on their own lead to destruction and stable stagnation respectively, but the combination of both is an unstoppable tornado of intellectual and creative power.

Here’s an example of some of the mathematics the Wright brothers had to tweak in order to make their dream of controlled flight possible:

The Lift Equation:

L = lift in pounds
k = coefficient of air pressure (Smeaton coefficient)
S = total area of lifting surface in square feet
V = velocity (headwind plus ground speed) in miles per hour
CL = coefficient of lift (varies with wing shape)

Nikolai Tesla:

Perhaps one of the most under-appreciated White scientists of all history, Tesla left behind a sizable and impressive legacy. One immediately noticeable invention of Tesla’s was of the Alternating Current electricity, immensely more powerful and efficient over Thomas Edison’s much promoted Direct Current, of which is still is used contemporarily to power our various applications, hardware and devices. He also pioneered robotics via the creation of the remote control, and also wireless energy transfer, without which we would have no televisions, radio and the internet. He was much beyond his time, even our present time.

Interestingly, Tesla was also pro-eugenics. He had a sizable FBI file, possibly in due no small part to some of his experiments in his laboratory leading to random tremors and earthquakes wreaking havoc in the surrounding city. In latter years, he had plans for the invention of a deathray.

Tesla personifies a complete and pure will to power. His will manifested itself in a total obsession and devotion to the pursuit of science and scientific discovery, contributing an unending amount of potential to society and securing his own name in the history books.

Ultimately, a weak ideology, especially one that demands a minimal contribution of energy and loyalty from its adherents will always lose out against a stronger, more militant ideology. Its energy and presence will essentially be sucked up and overwhelmed by the Other. Debates and rationality don’t win over the masses. Displays of strength and dominance do, time and time again. Hence why Whites with balls are not shown on the Jewish media; Their very presence would give its White male audience a recognisable biological reaction to strive towards such an example. And that’s the real reason why they’re losing their mind control power.

Brain Surgery While Awake

February 9, 2012 6 comments

Check this out:

As the title outlines, a man has brain surgery performed on him while 100% conscious in order to remove a tumor. The surgeon electrically zaps gyri of the brain while asking the patient to count in order to see if surgically removing it will negatively impact on speech.  It deals with areas of the brain our lectures have briefly outlined, and provides a hands on look at the actual job a neurosurgeon does.

Specialization, Blogging and Publishing Scientific Papers

November 18, 2011 1 comment

As I hope to convince you, all three are very much the same thing.  I’ve used to be surprised to see that Welmer or Ferdinand had 700 blog posts total.  This is analogous to looking up a scientist’s CV and seeing 300 papers!  Wow!

But let’s hold our horses a bit.  Just like blogging, science demands regularity; publish or perish is also true in the blogging world.  One must post regularly or the audience is lost.  Similarly in science, one must keep writing papers, doing research, or one will be forgotten and left behind.  Most labs that I follow publish a paper every 2 – 3 months, for about 6 a year.

It seems that some of our readers disagree with specialization in people and particular, in scientists.  My response is that everyone specializes.  In white nationalism, we have different specialists: Unamused reports black crime and statistics, Paul Kersey covers black crime and sports, Steve Sailor and OneSTDV cover pop culture issues and so on.  But no one does it all, indeed, no one can do it all properly.

Everything today is about creating a niche, a small area and mastering that area.  Let’s take a look at a list of papers written by a famous scientist.  This will help prove the point.  A list of a few papers follows; I generally don’t like long lists, but this is important.  I’ll just include the titles.  The pattern should be obvious.  Let’s choose Steven Hawking:

Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse

Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology

Path integral derivation of black hole radiance

Black holes in General Relativity

Black holes and thermodynamics

Quantum state of the universe

Chronology protection conjecture

Unpredictability of quantum gravity

The nature of space and time

Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes

The gravitational Hamiltonian, action, entropy and surface terms

Path integrals and the indefiniteness of the gravitational action

Wormholes in spacetime

Euclidean space-time geometry

Clearly, Stephen Hawking made his name in science by working on large-scale problems dealing with gravity, especially black holes.  This is how he makes his living, this is that one little topic that he is the best at in the whole world.  He is also known for his series of basic science on the universe, but this is written at a level far below most of his real work.  Probably any scientist with the will could put similar information to the public; Dawkins does this in biology.

There is a tremendous amount of information in the world today.  Most of the scientists who have ever lived are alive right now, and there are more people on the planet today than there have ever been in all of history.  A scientist and a blogger needs to contribute something unique to the world; they must increase the sum of human knowledge.  To do this, one must find a narrow topic and read all the relevant books and articles.  The more narrow the topic, the less data will be available.  Then one simply sets one’s mind to the task and starts answering questions.  There are an infinite variety of areas to choose from.

In conclusion, I am certainly aware that specialization does not make for a very interesting human being.  So it seems that we have a conflict between the way things should be and what one has to do to make a living and to differentiate oneself from others, gaining a competitive advantage.  Additionally, there is an optimal “size” of the world one chooses to concern oneself with – describing this is difficult.  I urge all budding scientists, knowledge workers, and bloggers to absolutely master an area and only afterwards to expand and branch out, if necessary.  But having a firm footing, your own little fiefdom is key to start with.

Koi and Genetics

November 1, 2011 2 comments

One of the brain training games that I’ve been playing involves feeding a bunch of fish called koi, in order to build one’s attention.  I was curious about them and discovered that like horses or dogs, there is an entire industry built upon the breeding and maintenance of koi.  Koi are a sort of giant goldfish that come in a variety of colors and sizes.

Most of what the public hears about equality and diversity is bunk.  As soon as you start throwing some dollars into the equation, genetics matter big time.  People want purebred horses and dogs.  Even in humans, we can see this effect in sperm banks; buyers want donors who are college educated, with graduate school, tall, athletic, devout, and often Aryan in appearance.

There’s a famous problem in biology called the genotype to phenotype problem (GTPP).  How do you go from a strand of DNA to a set of characteristics you can see?  This is exactly the sort of thing that developmental biology ought to be able to solve.

I’ve become interested in this problem in Koi.  Part of it, admittedly, could be financial, as these fish are very valuable and command high prices.  Funding would be easy to come by and fish embryology is relatively well-studied.  This is kind of an open secret in science – yes, it is beautiful to increase the amount of human knowledge.  A very noble pursuit.  If you really want to see the light in a patron’s eye, then talk about how your research will make him money.  That is a much more reliable motive.

Back to Koi and the GTPP.  How do we make fish appear as we wish?  Scale size, body size, everything about that fish is a developmental problem.  We need to introduce gene expression or gene regulatory networks (GRNs).  I hate jargon as much as anyone, but it’s kind of the cost of entry in science.  Here’s what they look like:

The GRN above describes how various chemicals convince other cells to differentiate in the blastocyst, which is a stage after the union of the sperm and egg, after the zygote.  I was shocked to learn that only the mitochondria of the Koi has been sequenced.  Wow!  It’s 2011 and we don’t even have a complete genome. The Koi mtDNA sequence is only 17,000 base pairs long.  It might tell us a bit about descent on the matrilinial line and maybe a bit about it’s metabolism.

I was curious and kept looking.  Apparently with all the money in horse racing, we are only now getting to sequencing the horse.  It would appear, at least to my eyes, that many of the breeders of these animals are not geneticists, or even biologists.  I find this a bit disturbing.  Yes, hands on experience is great but they are operating at a level far higher than what is possible.  One can certainly breed favorable traits until they become “fixed” or breed true, but it kind of using a black box approach when it’s unnecessary.

What one would do is to use comparative genomics to compare the koi genome to that of its decendents/relatives and use gene finding programs to find genes.  Then we’d look for genes that do the same thing and how they differ.  We can also look at a gene and use protein folding programs to view what different proteins look like, which will suggest their function:

This is mostly deskwork.  Then we have to think about how genes are expressed, draw up a GRN on BioTapestry and so on.  It’s fun stuff, kind of like detective work.  This is the process that science seems to run on; a small question leads to other questions and to truly find the answer will cost you a few years of your time, even a career sometimes.  It is the way that most projects in academia begin, a lark that blows up and grows in stature. 

Pick a Problem

October 27, 2011 7 comments

There’s a common sin in science that alot of new scientists face and experienced ones as well:  being too generalized.  There is a tremendous amount of information in the world today.  The last I heard the information in the world doubles every 2 years.  That is a tremendous rate of change.

The best advice I could give any young scientist is to pick a problem early and to specialize in it.  As an example of this, there are no professional athletes who compete in Basketball, Baseball and Tennis.  They pick a sport, they pick a position and they spend all their attention on it.  Then one needs to invest the necessary 10 years or 10,ooo hours to become world-class.  It’s really the only way to become great at something today, in a world  of 7 billion people.  There’s too much competition and too many players to be a jack of all trades.

There are several big questions begging for answers today.  Anyone who solved these problems would become famous and if they played their cards right, rich.  Young scientists should think in terms of problems that they can devote their careers to rather than large “areas” which make one too generalized.  This will also help in graduate school as one will have a good idea on the thesis one would like to write walking in the door.  Here’s a few big problems begging to be solved:

Artificial Intelligence

Nitrogen Fixation and the Haber-Bosch Process


Human Consciousness

Space Exploration

Molecular Computing

The Trifecta of Cancer, Multicellularity and Phenotypic Plasticity

These are only a few of them.  Each is rather large and could be further subdivided.  I know a scientist at MIT who’s studied how a particular species of plant fixes nitrogen using a molybdenum catalyst.  He’s published dozens of papers in this area and it’s a large part of how he’s made his living.  He’s the best in the world at that small area that would solve a big problem.  The Haber Bosch Process uses 5% of the world electricity to make ammonia, which is a fertilizer that is used to grow plants, which will eventually become people.  A more efficient catalyst would lower the activation energy of the reaction and require less energy in.  This would amount to a large savings almost immediately.

Specialize!  Narrow your interests down until you find an area small enough that you can dominate.  It’s not terribly hard.  To really explain and go deep in any subject will take 500 to 1000 pages of material if you are writing a paper.  A 50 page overview is not much.   The deep, inside knowledge is how the best gain an advantage over everyone else.  They specialize in order to dominate.  To succeed in science as a career, you must do likewise.

Science and Jobs

October 24, 2011 1 comment

I feel that there has been a great deal of mythology associated with science these days. It seems as if everyone is begging for more scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to be degreed. This, they claim, will create jobs and save the economy.  Alot of students are being pushed into areas where they may not be suited.  Professional science is a 24 hour a day job; it is for people who are obsessive, compulsive, and half-mad.

The world of professional scientists is tremendously competitive. If anything, I would say science destroys good jobs. The trend just as in medicine and law is the hiring of temps and various assistants do much of the “easier” work, usually at a much lower rate of pay than a doctor or lawyer would command. Granted, the pay is good when compared to retail. However, it’s a far cry from the 60K+ salaries that the government and universities tend to hawk.

Pound for pound, I think the technician and engineer positions are the best “scientific” jobs out there. Many tech jobs only require an associate degree (or less) and pay ranges from 40K/year to 80K/year depending upon field.  Technicians generally fix things, and perform routine tasks. Those in the oil and nuclear related industries make the 80 and electrical and mechanical techs make around 45 or so.  I knew a tech with only an associate degree who fixed programmable logic controls or PLCs, made around 80K/year and travelled around the world.  Not all tech positions require alot of travel, but those that do pay better.  I was offered a job like this awhile back fixing dialysis machines, the pay was about 60K/year with much travelling.

The engineer term that I specified is just a stock BS in a real engineering discipline like mechanical, electrical, nuclear, or civil. These guys walk in the door at around 50K but further progress is slow, just the average, which is 2-3% a year in raises.  Unless the engineer makes a jump into management he generally grows slowly and stays in the same department.  It’s steady, clean, white collar work.  Most weeks you’ll put in your 40 at a desk and be able to walk out the door at the end of the day, leaving your work where it belongs.

Back to the technician for a moment, alot of the positions have a very traditional structure, with no educational requirement.  One example of this is the pharmacist technician. Many schools offer a degree in this specialty. In reality, no degree is required. The tech is trained all on the job, beginning as cashier in the pharmacy, then typing scripts and moving up the chain as they progress. This is a job that pays between 13 and 25 dollars an hour, highly dependent upon experience and which pharmacy one works at. Alot of people feel that the pharmacy tech is a good job; I’ve seen otherwise, but that’s another story.

What I call the “real” science jobs all require a PhD. This is being the man in charge of a project or team, writing grants, running a lab and giving presentations. The big trend in reasearch at least in academia is to outsource more and more of the easier, mundane aspects to undergraduates. This is sold to them as an internship or as something good to put on one’s resume.  Like the film and media industries, an entire understructure of who do most of the real work is being created.  Undergraduate researchers, graduate students and post doc as all included in this class.

Professional scientists, the ones who the public generally think of as scientists, may work in universities, for the government in agencies like the NSA, CIA, FBI, CDC or may work for private corporations such as GE, Myriad Genetics, or Craig Venter’s company.  A few years back however, one could work for the NSA or FBI with a BS in a scientific discipline.  Penetrating the mysteries of these organizations is not as hard as it may appear, if one knows where to look:

It’s good to interested in one’s education, and it’s good to be dedicated to self-improvement.  But all that glitters is not gold.  The real “dirt” of working as a scientist may be too much for alot of people.  There is a great deal of politics and busywork.  It’s not all sitting at the desk, dreaming about the Universe.  Like politics, science can be like making sausage, unpleasant to look upon.  In the future, I hope to expand on this topic, and explore some areas that are quite unknown; such as who designs the chemical synthesis and delivery systems of street drugs and who designs all those weapons that the military uses.