I'm Misha B'd off!

Last night I was fuming when Misha B and Janet Devlin were at the bottom of the heap on the X - Factor Results Show. The reason I was feeling this way was because I just KNEW Janet Devlin would be voted off. In fact, as far as I was concerned they might as well have not even bothered with the "Sing - Off" - it was a foregone conclusion which way the judges would take it.

As far as I am concerned Janet Devlin is a much better singer than Misha B. Shock horror.....!!! - How can I possibly say that?????  Well, I'll tell you why and it is this. Misha B is just plain boring. Yes, she has a good, powerful voice, but there is nothing special or unique about it. Its like a million other voices I have heard like that - and instantly forgettable. Janet Devlin, on the other hand, has a very quirky and distinctive voice, and one which is memorable. She has her own distinctive style,  somewhat ethereal,  unique and original, and one which sets her apart from the other contestants - and certainly from Misha B.

I found it particularly annoying that the judges did not vote her off purely on the basis of the sing - off, which is what I thought the sing - off was for. Its a bit like a jury finding someone guilty on the basis of something other than the evidence which was presented at the trial, and that just sucks. The songs which each of them sang were completely different in both genre, tone and style, with Janet Devlin singing a very controlled, atmospheric and emotional song, while Misha B sang an entirely predictable song which entirely relied upon the power of her voice to make it's mark. The judges followed their unspoken agenda, and duly gave Janet her marching orders. There is no way Misha B is not going to make it to the finals because the judges seem to think she will sell millions of records which she won't because she is unoriginal with nothing to define her from all the others who sound just like her. The judges will always save her because they have no imagination or appreciation of true creativity.

Bible Study

Because I am an atheist, I have decided to do the right thing and read my Bible every day - as all good atheists should. Of course, being very devout I have already read the Bible through from beginning to end, but that was the Revised Standard Version. This time I decided to read the real Holy Version - you know the one - The King James Authorised Version. If it wasn't the real pucker Holy Bible it wouldn't be "authorised" would it, I mean you wouldn't authorize one that wasn't Holy would you? Of course, when you read it and you read all the "thees, thys and verilys", you just know its Holy; with language like that, well it just couldn't be anything else, could it?

Well, I 've not read a great deal yet, I'm about two thirds of the way through Exodus. Of course, everything I have read so far all makes perfect sense, like God killing all the Egyptian's cattle and livestock, and then killing them all again with hail mixed in with fire. Given they were all dead already, it takes a really Holy God to kill them all again. To be twice dead must surely be a great miracle. Strange that you don't read about the RSPCA getting involved, but then if they all decided the mass murder of all these dead already cattle was the work of a Holy God, then I suppose they would have decided to take a back seat on this one!

Of course, the Holy God of the Holy Bible is really very kind and loving - the same yesterday, today and forever - Helleluia!! He really showed his loving kindness to Pharaoh as every time he seemed minded to let the Israelites go, God hardened his heart and changed his mind again - just so that He could punish him and his poor hapless people all the more (and kill all the cattle twice), so that after a variety of plagues, God deploys His mastercard of killing all the first born of Egypt, not just people mind, oh no, but the cattle as well (offspring of twice-dead cattle - another miracle!). This loving kindness of God is staggering. Of course, if it was God who "hardened the heart" of Pharaoh, then it wasn't really Pharaoh's fault. He was just unfortunate in that by a cruel accident of birth he was not born into the chosen people of the Israelites. He couldn't help himself, and neither would any of us with such a kind and loving God pulling our strings and making us bad!

Oh well, I suppose God moves in mysterious ways.......Good job it's only fiction!

Infinity again

Sorry about this, but I am still trying to get my head around infinity. As I stated in a recent posting, I have come to the conclusion that the universe has to be infinite. However, there is a twist to this when considering the beginning, namely the "Big Bang"; the moment it all sprang into being (I was tempted to use the word "creation" for a moment there, but decided against it in case anyone thought I was a religious nutter "creationist", the moment in which in the eyes of the more switched on reader I lose all credibility!!!!!). It is this. I stated that the distance between two objects can only ever be finite, then if we except that the universe started very small, and then expanded to its current infinite size, then it cannot be infinite, because it takes an infinite amount of time to reach an infinite size. However, I also stated that because the universe itself is everything there is (in this universe at least) including time and space, there can be no boundaries as beyond the universe there is not even nothing, and you cannot have a boundary with something which is so nothing it isn't even that!

Are you still awake? Good, then I'll continue........

My logic now leads me to conclude that although you often read that the universe was incredibly small (the "cosmic atom") at the moment of the Big Bang, for the reasons I have already stated, it still had to be infinite! Scientists talk about a period of mind blowingly rapid expansion called "inflation" which proceeded at an even faster rate than prices go up in our wonderful economy. Could it be that it was this "inflation" that brought time and space into being, and that before that in the quantum phase state of the universe space and time did not exist? During this "inflation" I can only conclude that at that instant (no time at all) the expansion of the universe began but within an infinite frame of reference. So what has been changing since then? Well, clearly not the the size of the universe as "the infinite" is infinite. I conclude that what changed was the density of the universe as everything spread out.

From whence did this spreading out proceed? Well actually, scientists say there is no central point in the universe from where it is spreading, but is actually spreading from all points in all directions. For this reason, no matter where you are in the universe, the rest of the universe will always appear to be moving away from you more or less equally in all directions, and your view of the universe will be more or less similar to our own at all observable distances. Now apply a little imagination to this scenario, it becomes apparent (to me, at least) that for this to be the case, then the universe has to be infinite. Think about it.  Also, with entropy, the universe began its eventual "wind-down" to its eventual demise where all its energy has been expended and darkness rules the face of the deep.

Thought for the Day

If God is all powerful and upholds his creation by his mighty power, then why are our bodies so incredibly complex? If this god is so great then he does not need this complexity.......

Finite Infinity Paradox

I have been giving some more thought about my previous post where I stated my belief that the universe is infinite. It has occurred to me that there is a problem  here and it is this: no matter how distant two objects might be apart in the universe, the space between them can only ever be finite. Similarly, if we consider two objects which start off touching, and then start moving away from each other, in order for them to be an infinite distance from each other they need to continue moving away for an infinite length of time. However, this cannot happen because no matter how much time goes by, it will always be finite and so will the distance separating the two objects. It would therefore follow (call this McAdam's Infinity Paradox if you like - I have not read these ideas expressed anywhere else) that in an infinite universe physical objects may only approach a separation of infinite distance, but never reach it.

We now find ourselves in an infinite universe where all distances can only ever be finite.

Perhaps the idea of infinity should be viewed as a concept rather than a physical reality, and that spacial distances are actually an illusion because of our own particular limitations in our perceptive ability. Consider that two particles on the atomic scale which are super-entangled will affect each other instantly and independent of the speed of light no matter how great the separation between them. In what sense can we say that there is a spacial distance between the two particles given that they act as if there is not? Could distance itself be an illusion?

Taxi of death

Driving near Heathrow last night I was shocked at the incredibly bad driving of a taxi driver.

I was waiting to enter a busy major roundabout when a London Cab shot past my right hand side with no regard whatsoever for the traffic already on the roundabout. It cut right across two cars causing them to swerve and brake violently, as well as honking their horns - as you would expect.

How do you account for such terrible driving in someone who is supposed to be a professional driver with responsibility over the lives and safety of others? If you were on a plane going on holiday and the pilot adopted the same mentality in flying the plane you would never fly again, that is of course assuming you survived the flight!

Taxi drivers have always had a bad press, and I am sure a large proportion of them are very good and do provide a professional and safe service, but unfortunately there are many, in my experience, who perpetuate the negative stereotype. I have experienced most aspects of this stereotype at various points in my life with taxi drivers being downright rude, arrogant, overcharging, not sticking to agreed pricing, and driving recklessly.

It did occur to me after last night's experience that maybe that particular taxi was actually stolen, but on the other hand, with it being a taxi, I wasn't really that surprised.

Shall we Dance?

So its finally happened! Two women dancing together on "Strictly Come Dancing". 

If you are a regular viewer of this weekly spectacle and don't quite connect with this, the answer is because I am talking about the Israeli version of the show. The contestant is a lesbian, and the professional is not. Needless to say, the religious intolerants are up in arms. Good. This shows them up for what they are - bigoted. Reminds me of when some witches opened up a shop on my local High Street. The local religious leaders were up in arms. Good. Anything which gets their backs up is fine by me - so long as its harmless of course!!

Anyway, back to our dancing belles. As a red blooded male, I found a certain fascination watching their routine. It did seem kind of weird though, seeing two women dancing so passionately and somewhat erotically together. I can't say I found it a particular turn-on - maybe a sign of my age, or just that it was somewhat "outside the box" of  my normal viewing experience. Did I find it offensive? - No. Do I want to see it again? - Not particularly, though it will no doubt appeal to some.

Then I got to think a bit more about it, and it does seem that women , not just the lesbian variety, do have some rather quirky ways. Why do so many women dance together at parties? This is somewhat a common occurrence, but how often do you see men dancing together? The former is very much seen as the norm (more or less), but the latter definitely is not. Another thing women seem to like to do together at parties or other social occasions is visit the loo. What's that about? And then we come to the ultimate experience that women like to do together - shopping!!

I suppose, all in all, the latest "Strictly" development is not really so strange. How long will it be before you see two men dancing together? How outraged will the "moral high grounders" be then? How long will it be before we see this happening on our own British version of the show? Do I care? - Not really.