Posts Tagged ‘science’

Listen to the audio…

20140130-221153.jpg – The Briefing 12-12-13. Listen to full audio here.


The “connectome maps” reveal the differences between the male brain (seen in blue) and the female brain (orange)

Check out the audio for the 1-minute summary.

Men and women’s brains are ‘wired differently’
3 December 2013
Men and women’s brains are connected in different ways which may explain why the sexes excel at certain tasks, say researchers.

A US team at the University of Pennsylvania scanned the brains of nearly 1,000 men, women, boys and girls and found striking differences.

In females, the pathways criss-crossed between left and right.

These differences might explain why men, in general, tend to be better at learning and performing a single task, like cycling or navigating, whereas women are more equipped for multitasking, say the researchers in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The same volunteers were asked to perform a series of cognitive tests, and the results appeared to support this notion. In the study, women scored well on attention, word and face memory, and social cognition, while men performed better on spatial processing and sensori-motor speed.

Study author Dr Ruben Gur said: “It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are. – Source – The Briefing 12-04-13. Listen to full audio here.

Preface: If you think this is fringe personal opinion only, skip to the Scientific American article on this exact topic quoted below.

Did you know the “Big Bang” has some scientifically recognized problems in terms of things that don’t fit observed phenomena & actual measurements? Enter the “Horizon Problem”. But wait! …the “Inflation Model” was supposed to rescue it all – then again, isn’t that just a theory? (an increasingly feeble one at that – see below) …almost like “scientific faith” or hope? But science deals with facts only. Ok, well, many scientific models are not proven yet. Guess they should then be ignored then in any practical sense? Does it work out that way in practice? Nope. Scientific politics is apparently a relatively new branch in the discipline, sadly. Imagine questioning the Big Bang in “respectable” conversation. Try asking the next person that you talk to on the big bang topic for his/her option on the Inflation Model – since it’s really a required part of the whole theory!

The audio outlines the topic in brief & also touches on the idea that the speed of light has changed – as some scientific models seemingly require that it should have – otherwise prediction numbers also don’t crunch as they ‘should’.


Scientific American Magazine – April 2011
The Inflation Debate – Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?
By Paul J. Steinhardt

Cosmologists are reconsidering whether the universe really went through an intense growth spurt (yellowish region) shortly after the big bang.

In Brief

– Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact.
– The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.
– But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
– Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
– Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it.

Thirty years ago Alan H. Guth, then a struggling physics postdoc at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, gave a series of seminars in which he introduced “inflation” into the lexicon of cosmology. The term refers to a brief burst of hyperaccelerated expansion that, he argued, may have occurred during the first instants after the big bang. One of these seminars took place at Harvard University, where I myself was a postdoc. I was immediately captivated by the idea, and I have been thinking about it almost every day since. Many of my colleagues working in astrophysics, gravitational physics and particle physics have been similarly engrossed. To this day the development and testing of the inflationary theory of the universe is one of the most active and successful areas of scientific investigation.

Its raison d’être is to fill a gap in the original big bang theory. The basic idea of the big bang is that the universe has been slowly expanding and cooling ever since it began some 13.7 billion years ago. This process of expansion and cooling explains many of the detailed features of the universe seen today, but with a catch: the universe had to start off with certain properties. For instance, it had to be extremely uniform, with only extremely tiny variations in the distribution of matter and energy. Also, the universe had to be geometrically flat, meaning that curves and warps in the fabric of space did not bend the paths of light rays and moving objects. Source: Scientific American

Wikipedia explains it as follows:

The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the late 1960s, primarily by Charles Misner. It points out that different regions of the universe have not “contacted” each other because of the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the transfer of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can occur, at most, at the speed of light. The horizon problem may have been answered by inflationary theory, and is one of the reasons for that theory’s formation. Source: Wikipedia

The article continues…

…two galaxies in question cannot have shared any sort of information; they are not in “causal contact”. One would expect, then, that their physical properties would be different, and more generally, that the universe as a whole would have varying properties in different areas. Contrary to this expectation, the universe is in fact extremely isotropic, which also implies homogeneity. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which fills the universe, is almost precisely the same temperature everywhere in the sky, about 2.728 +/- 0.004 K. The differences in temperature are so slight that it has only recently become possible to develop instruments capable of making the required measurements. This presents a serious problem; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be no way it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time.

The magnitude of this problem is quite large. According to the Big Bang model, as the density of the universe dropped while it expanded, it eventually reached a point where photons in the “mix” of particles were no longer immediately impacting matter; they “decoupled” from the plasma and spread out into the universe as a burst of light. This is thought to have occurred about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The volume of any possible information exchange at that time was 900,000 light years across, using the speed of light and the rate of expansion of space in the early universe. Instead, the entire sky has the same temperature, a volume 1088 times larger.

Line of Fire Radio – Dr. Brown Interviews Young Earth Creation Scholar Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. Listen to full audio here.

Big bang illustrations: (questionable)

So it’s confirmed, even by the Wall Street Journal – family mealtime is critically important. Many indicators show this & it is as clear as can be – and even has a cumulative benefit. Funny (or sad) how plain truths like this take so long to be “scientifically proven”. Listen to audio above for more details.

How many other plain truths are we holding back on for “scientific certification” before we’ll give it our full commitment? …if this plays a part at all. Maybe the “scientism culture” isn’t so much something that people would be allied behind if it actually presents an “inconvenient truth”? – The Briefing 09-24-13. Listen to full audio here.

Popular culture, on average, is probably over the point where the demerits of the homosexual lifestyle will be heard, even if 100% true & scientifically proven. Well, the verdict (once again) is in. There is now “ample data testifying” to the factor 15 increased cancer risk in homosexual men.

Moral of the story should not be “vaccinate them all”, it should be “God has a better way“!

…o, but of course the villainous satanic scheme of “born that way” worked well for the masses. Don’t be fooled. People have changed – many do, every day. Research it.


Young gay men should be given a vaccine only used to cut cervical cancer among women because they are 15 times more likely than heterosexual men to suffer from genital cancers, British medical researchers have said. There is now ample data testifying the increased burden of HPV-related conditions and cancer in MSM [men who have sex with men]. – Source

New legislation to give chimps more ‘human-like’ protections … because, they say, there is “no hard & fast line that separates chimpanzees from people”. We then also get the argument in reverse to try draw that line that was just ‘erased’ a few sentences ago.

Does the materialistic worldview have any other logical conclusion?

20130625-193039.jpg – The Briefing. Listen to full audio here.

Sound like “The Matrix” to you? Well, the “harvesting” of these humans, in the news, is not for electricity, as in the movie & they also don’t live as long, but harvesting it is & young women are in short supply to provide the eggs for “The Real Matrix”. It’s not ‘pretend’, except if you think human embryos ‘pretend’ to live before they are killed around the normal age when they would have been implanted for in vitro fertilization.

Listen below & add your thoughts if you have a comment.

20130603-204955.jpg – The Briefing 05-29-13. Listen to full audio here.