Kepler: The truth is out there

Many scientists in the United States and worldwide are furious that the space agency NASA has apparently allowed a small body of Kepler scientists to sit on data that may confirm if another Earth-like planet lies within 'lens' reach of our solar system. (That's anywhere light years away.) But could the leaking of the discovery made by the Kepler scientists be due to a simple glitch in the machine?

It has been argued that more time was needed for Kepler scientists to confirm the discovery of over 140 Earth-like exoplanets. Apparently the 'yearly' transits of these planets needed to be confirmed by additional research, an investigation that would, under Earth-like circumstances, take three years.

Apparently it takes our planet one whole year to go around the sun and back again.

It takes three such years then to confirm the findings?

Not so. Dimitar Sasselov, an investigator with the Kepler group itself - accidentally on purpose? - released some of the findings to a special audience at Oxford, England. It was Sassilov that suggested that over 140 Earth-like 'candidates' had been detected by the Kepler Telescope - which even before all the science is done is pretty Earth shattering.

And so the scientific community went supernova.

Sasselov and his team estimate that there are over 100 million planets that are 'Earth-like'.

We are not alone.

We are not so special after all.

But could the 'Sasselov gaff' really conceal a hidden agenda on a tiny pale dot?

The Kepler mission's ultimate goal is (i) to find Earth-size planets, (ii) at the right distances from their parent stars - which does not mean the same distance as Earth is from its star by the way - and, iii) at a distance where liquid water makes them a potential abode for life as Jim knows it.

But does that mean that we will have to wait three years to confirm the three transits of a planet in order for it to be considered Earth-like?

Well no...

'Earth-like planets' simply lie inside the habitable zones of their parent star. The habitable zone is the area where liquid water will be present - which just happens to be the distance where we are in relation to our sun. Please note though that other worlds do not have to be the same distance from their suns as planet Earth is from its sun. Most, if not all of these planets, will probably circle their stars in months and not years... and so the reason for the wait is that damned glitch.

The task of confirming these 'candidates' has been made extremely difficult due to faulty light detectors on the telescope. The problem was made known prior to the launch. And that's the real reason why the Kepler announcement on the planets' discovery was pushed back to February 2011. Not to give scientists a chance to study and publish: but to tweak. And the real reason why Dr Sasselov was allowed to speak about some of the discoveries is that the Kepler Team will be best placed to pip other scientists to the post by drip-feeding news of each batch of Earth-like 'candidates' as and when each glitch in the telescope is fixed. QED.

Professor Joan Ginther: Do the numbers add up?

A Texan aged 63 has won at scratch-off card games every two years since 2006. In 1993 she also won a lottery bringing her total winnings to over $20m. Which is amazingly coincidental. But what if a seemingly ordinary person somehow managed to narrow the odds and beat the system, goddamnit? An American newspaper might say slim pickin's. TheBigRetort says...

Joan Rae Ginther’s luck began in 1993, when she won $5.4 million dollars on a game known as “Lotto Texas“.

Another win thirteen years later in 2006 netted her $2m.

Curiously, every two years since that date, she has won at scratch off games, two cards having been bought at her local store.

In 1993 she won $5.4 million; the odds: 1 in 15.8 million; in 2006 she won $2 million in a scratch off game; the odds: 1 in 1,028,338; in 2008 she won $3 million in a scratch off; odds: 1 in 909,000.

Her latest win in 2010, also a scratch off, was for $10 million; odds of winning: 1 in 1,200,000.

In fact experts contend that the odds of winning four lottery jackpots are about 200 million to one.

Only, what if she was a person good with numbers? What if a person good with numbers targeted a specific store to purchase a scratch card? What if... an investigation by TheBigRetort revealed that Joan "Rae" Ginther was a professor of maths - a former job she has not declared.

Ginther, a maths professor (something she has kept unduly quiet about) visited the store that sold an average of 1,000 tickets a day...

What would a math's professor visiting a store (in another state where her dad had died) want to know? How many tickets had been purchased? How many winning tickets? How big were the wins? What were the winning numbers over the, err, past 22 months say? Once the professor had all of the answers, which may take two years of doing the maths, then it's scratch off time. And another big win for Joan.

TheBigRetort pips Associated Press to the post on this one. [View link above, and compare the dates.]

Venables Prejudged: A government cover-up

Could Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, be involved in a gigantic cover-up? If so, he's going down... and not just in the eyes of the voter.

TheBigRetort has uncovered evidence which may suggest that the recent furore over the new identity of Jon Venables may be designed solely to conceal the possibility that he has ALREADY been convicted. of a serious offence involving children long before it was announced.

Just think it through for a minute....

Venables is amongst one of four people in Britain protected by what are termed ‘Mary Bell’ injunctions.

Bell was convicted of the manslaughter of two boys in 1968 and given anonymity after her release.

The recipients receive lifetime protection of their real identities.

It was recently reported in the Daily Mail that a ‘tight-knit group alone knows the new identity of Jon Venables. It operates in a culture of ‘extreme secrecy’, so even the arresting officers may not have known who they had in their cells. However, theBigRetort believes that fears that the recall could see Venables’ new identity being discovered and his life threatened because of fellow prisoners' suspicions about special treatment, is purely a smokescreen – designed to assist the Government in a gigantic cover-up.

What if Jon Venables has in fact ALREADY been tried and convicted under his new alias? What if he was ALREADY languishing inside a British prison when he was in fact ‘recalled under licence’ by a Justice Minister eager to catch up with a forgotten man?

Thought police aside, as our old mother would say, if true... it is quite an elaborate charade.

Could it be that Justice Minister Jack Straw, along with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hopes that a smokescreen of excessive secrecy surrounding the ‘recent arrest’ will buy the Labour government time?

Once it discovered Venables conviction (not arrest) it must have quickly moved to close down the ever watchful media.

If the serious allegations against Mr Venables can be dealt with AFTER a General Election it is highly likely that a voter backlash can be avoided, and Labour may be left to increase the secrecy once more.

Be that as it may (or may not) be...

It is likely that, if an arrest and conviction did take place - long before the Government announcement - the Government itself may not have known until after the new conviction was sealed: due to the excessive secrecy the Government imposed on Venables' new identity in the first place.

Confused?... you should be.

This would indicate serious failings within the probation service itself and with the government’s obsession in doling out new identities to violent offenders in search of a new life.

But, is it an obsession which allows Government to hoodwink the British public and justice too?

The questions that must be answered before a General Election...

Venables was already in prison LONG before he was recalled under licence… but why?

Why?

Coming soon in theBigRetort... secrets, lies, and spin.

Deslandes: The Police and Black-on-Black Crime

The Sun newspaper and Operation Trident. TheBigRetort discovers the (black) gangland shootout that never was.

On the 1st January 2010, at approximately 5am, following a New Year’s celebration at a family owned pub, Darren Deslandes, a 34-year old housing officer, was shot dead by a black assailant. (His younger brother “junior” still lays critically injured in hospital fighting for life.) "Wild West-style shootout,” the Sun proclaimed in bold writing, with the usual nodding unspoken emphasis to the scum involved. [Sun report, since removed, http://tinyurl.com/yjb82y4.] Or so a lazy staff reporter intimated…

Far from being gun-wielding, drug dealing black street thugs, Darren Deslandes and his brother Junior were only armed with a good education and a loving family, one that had provided foster care for nine children. In fact Darren and Junior were (if anything) plucked out of the air by one piece of prima fascia 'evidence' that stands out on a three-pronged fork: they were black. And as a result guilty in the eyes of the law.

Apparently, hours into a new decade, the armed officers from the Met Police’s black-on-black gun crime task force Operation Trident were quickly on the scene. (Trident’s involvement may be found to be the root – should that be ‘route’? - of the later erroneous newspaper copy.) But the officers must have had their views coloured by what greeted them that night... A black assailant had fled the crime scene leaving Darren and Junior Deslandes dying from a hail of bullets. However, curiously, the two victims were immediately treated as “suspects” - a view supported by the Sun. But with one gun, and one single ‘assailant’, how could this be?

Surrounded by armed police, death and coma quickly stalked the Deslandes pair – along with that lazy journalist. The Sun informed its readership that one brother was dead and the other critical following the ‘gun battle’. [Emphasis added.] But with only one gun - and one perpetrator, who had fled the scene according to witnesses, how could there have been a 'gun battle'? The Sun also had “witnesses” (unnamed) who claimed they had actually seen the “two men” who "simply drew guns" (plural) and who “started firing at each other after a heated row”.

"These two guys just appeared in the street and started shooting at each other,” the Sun's witnesses negatively enthused. "God knows what it was about but it must have been serious if they thought the only way it could be settled was to shoot each other." [Emphasis to underline that no one knew what it was about or why they should shoot ‘each other’? And neither did the Sun.]

The Deslandes brothers had done no such thing. Darren died, Junior slipped into a coma, reputations tarnished, guilt etched on their black, bloodied bodies - and across the Sun newspaper too. How could this be was a question rightly asked.

However, the anger of the family and friends of the Deslandes brothers does not solely focus on the Sun’s reporting. It is rightly seeking both an apology and a correction for that. Remarkably however, it is claimed that the Operation Trident officers did not intervene to save the brothers due to what were termed, ‘health and safety issues’. They were denied medical attention for half an hour. Officers apparently blocked the ambulance crew from attending in case the pair was armed. One 13 year-old brother was taken into custody and questioned at length. According to a family friend, “They seemed eager to establish a drug or gangster link.”

But there was none.

In the Deslandes pub however the Sun newspaper was read and Operation Trident’s consent to police the streets - it polices London with what it terms ‘the consent of the black community’- was one that the family endorsed. But would the Deslandes brothers have been treated differently if Trident took a less three-pronged fork-tongued approach to what is a black-and-white certainty? Gone are the days when the police may investigate themselves.

David Cameron injects Botox: Official

In a remarkable hush-hush scoop TheBigRetort has discovered that David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, regularly injects Botox in his forehead. (Chuckle.)

The hope is that voters at the forthcoming general election will be hooked...?

In which case the Old Etonian Toff has ironed out the wrinkles on an otherwise furrowed brow and transformed 'hisself into the Peter Pan of British no-policy politics. (Or is that the Peter Pan of English Botox?)

Gordon Brown stop smiling on the way to the polls.

Immortality: secret uncorked

The secret to living a longer life, or just a load of plonk? TheBigRetort pulls the cork...

Scientists claim that sirtuins, proteins, become increasingly important as people age. It is these proteins that ensure which genes should be “off” - and thereby remain silent as the ageing process continues.

Paradoxically it is these same proteins that are believed to repair DNA damage as we age. The critical protein controls which genes are off and on as well as overseeing DNA repair - and there’s the rub. As we age, chromosomes get damaged and the SIR1 proteins are finally overwhelmed. It is this activity that leads to the process of aging, not time itself which moves on inexorably, unconcerned by birthdays and mankind his or herself.

But can the aging process itself be slowed?

Scientists are beginning to suspect so; mice with more SIRT1 proteins have the improved ability to repair their DNA and prevent the unwanted changes in genes.

Resveratrol extended the lifespan in mice by 24 to 46 percent.

Remarkably previous studies have shown that Resveratrol, a chemical found primarily in red wine, helps activate the SIRT1 protein. The chemical reduces the degenerative diseases associated with the aging process (such as Alzheimer’s), and certain cancers could also be treated.

Unfortunately researchers claim that it is too early for people to start taking Resveratrol, but a glass of red wine at dinner is recommended. The question is, will we get old drinking it?

The Large Hadron Collider: Is it safe?

A controversial experiment is planned to take place tomorrow that may signal THE END of the Earth. But could experiments like the controversial Large Hadron Collider (LHC) already have taken place? TheBigRetort investigates...and discovers that someone may have got the 'maths' wrong.

The LHC Safety Study Group studied the safety of the forthcoming experiment in 2003. It concluded that the planned experiments—there are a number of them--presented no danger.

The group focused on two phenomena, namely the possible production of microscopic black holes, the sort that suck you in and blow you out and create additional dimensions of space, which way is up?- and also postulated other exotic phenomena - the possible production of ‘strangelets', hypothetical pieces of matter. The LHC will reproduce, in the laboratory and under controlled conditions, collisions at centre-of-mass energies less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays that have been bombarding the Earth for billions of years.

The ‘stability’ of these astronomical bodies indicates that such collisions cannot be dangerous.

The study also considered other hypothetical objects, vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles, and found ‘no associated risks’. Indeed, if anything like a microscopic black hole is produced at the LHC then it is expected to decay before it reaches the detector walls.

In the case of strangelets, their production in heavy-ion collisions will also present no danger.

In fact the LHC experiment is nothing new as far as nature is itself concerned. The energy created inside the accelerator is still far below those created in the Universe.

High-energy cosmic rays have bombarded the earth since its creation.

The LHC accelerator is designed to collide pairs of protons and pairs of lead nuclei. But their combined energies will still be far below those of the highest-energy cosmic-ray collisions that are observed regularly on Earth.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter-rotating beams of protons or heavy ions. When the LHC attains its design collision rate, it will produce about a billion proton-proton collisions per second in each of the major detectors. It will produce the equivalent of 116 days of collisions. So if the experiment where to run in this time frame, and they have got their sums wrong, life as we know it could all be over - in four months.

Fortunately nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already – and the planet still exists.

It has also conducted the same experiment on the Sun about one billion times – and the Sun still exists. Moreover, our Milky Way galaxy contains countless stars with sizes similar to our Sun, and there are countless similar galaxies in the visible Universe. Cosmic rays have been hitting all these stars at rates similar to collisions with our own Sun. This means that Nature has already completed what the LHC sets out to do tomorrow - only more cheaply. But there is one slight fly in the ointment that the safety experts seemed to have missed, and it's cosmic. i

What we see of our solar system and the Milky Way Galaxy, plus the galaxies beyond is already history.In other words, if Nature,or some 'thing' else, has created a similar experiment, then we may not yet see the catastrophic results painted on to the backdrop of our night skies. In fact,the nearest star system at Alpha Centauri lies some 4. 2 light years away. In other words, if a black hole sucked it up yesterday we would not witness its disappearance until after the 2012 Olympics. A sobering thought.