First, I have a new vixra.org paper summarising the negative-feedback evidence on CO2 emissions. The basical physical fact is that if you increase temperature slightly by increasing atmospheric CO2 on a planet covered by 71% water, the extra evaporation creates moist sunlight warmed air which rises to form increased cloud cover, increasing albedo, effectively cancelling out the “greenhouse” CO2 effect. In short, if you want an accurate greenhouse model, you need to include negative feedback from enhanced cloud cover. So what is causing the massive hockey-stick curve of temperature rise, fabricated to fit CO2 emissions? Answer: data set splicing by the climategate heroes, like Dr Jones. What’s the cause of the conspiracy? James Delingpole says it’s the “watermelon” effect: environmentalists are green on the outside, red socialist inside. The red socialist fanatic believes that “the ends justify the means”, the sacking of any Trotsky character who raises criticisms, the redefinition of “science” from skepticism and the refusal to believe in any dogma, back to a “consensus of expert opinion” and authoritative experts, which constituted the “natural philosophy” of the earth-centred universe. Big science is now a gigantic multibillion dollar enterprise which is proudly political in the non-democratic sense, the politics of the Brezhnev era USSR dictatorship. The media loves this science dictatorship because it’s whole fives W’s ethos is tied to writing “stories” around “famous people” or at least important “events”, not to “skepticism about facts” (which to the media is contradictory nonsense): Who?, What?, Where?, When?, Why?
It’s significant that Sir Paul Nurse’s January BBC Horizon “documentary”, Science Under Attack briefly throws off English graduate climategate journalist James Delingpole, by bringing up the “skepticism about facts” issue under disguise of a patient questioning a “consensus of medical opinion” on a diagnosis. This is the difference between politics and science in a nutshell. What is a “fact”? If a fact is the “consensus of expert opinion”, then you must accept that if and when that consensus changes due to fashion, the “facts” will change! So then your definition of “fact” is not something immutable. If you want to define a fact as an immutable statement about nature, then you have to prove that you haven’t misinterpreted anything, made any errors, been lied to (Piltdown Man), etc. Skepticism is the opposite of accepting a consensus of expert opinion. Skepticism is the bedrock of freedom and liberty. Once you start to ban, suppress, censor skepticism, you are doing exactly what dictatorial regimes do. So you have to accept that science is a subset of democratic politics; it’s not apolitical as practised. To say science “should be apolitical” is a statement of ideals that doesn’t apply to the real world, like saying “everything should be perfect always”, or “there should be universal peace”. Science is about making progress, which is not always a matter of happy incremental additions, but sometimes requires a rebuilding of the foundations, a process that causes conflict which is eventually going to be dealt with by some kind of political-type arrangement, whether you want politics in science or not. Omitting democratic principles from the organizational politics of science is not a way to “force politics out of science”, just to force the politics of science to be the worst sort, dictatorship under a smokescreen.
Second, I’m really trying to complete a new paper, setting down in a more conventional and slowly written (easier to read) version of the material on recent QFT blog posts like http://nige.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/test/ and http://nige.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/the-standard-model-and-quantum-gravity-identifying-and-correcting-errors/. Carl brannen and Marni Sheppeard have been working on CKM mixing matrix phase factors, see http://vixra.org/pdf/1008.0015v5.pdf, page 9, in particular, see equations 19 and 20 on page 9; don’t worry if you don’t understand the paper’s introductory pages because the basis of the paper is mathematical modelling of empirical CKM matrix data and if you don’t grasp a clear simple explanation in the text, it’s possible that either (1) a simple explanation doesn’t exist, or (2) the authors haven’t found it (yet). I’ve got to evaluate this because the CKM matrix is vital to what I’m doing. My basic approach to physics is entirely different: looking first at the mechanism and trying to see if some errors in interpretation or guesswork assumptions in the Standard Model can be rectified to improve comprehension. In the CKM case (see posts here and here), the key error seems to stem from the way the electroweak theory was rushed out to replace Fermi’s theory of beta decay in 1967, ignoring completely the following anomaly:
Above: do you see the anomaly I’ve pointed out? It seems that a lot of people don’t grasp it, so let’s try once again. The diagram on the left is undisputed; the diagram in the middle is “wrong” by mainstream analysis standards (which claims quarks don’t decay into leptons as a “direct” decay product), yet it is consistent with the diagram on the left (in the sense that the decay product is interpreted the same way), while the diagram on the far right is the mainstream model showing one quark decaying “directly” into a another quark, with leptons emitted as “side effects”. What I’m stating is that the whole structure of the Standard Model is self-inconsistent and wrong, because beta decay “products” are viewed inconsistently between quark and lepton (e.g. muon) decays, and I’m stating that strange quarks should be viewed as transforming into electrons.
An alternative would be to change the far left diagram to make the muon decay into a muon neutrino, with the weak boson emission considered a side show. Either way, the definition of what is the “primary” or “direct” product of a decaying lepton or quark needs to be analyzed consistently, not inconsistently as is done in the electroweak theory.