Ah ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!

People! Hello! I've not written a blog for about 4 months, an in that time I've gained 25% more followers! It's gone up from 4 to 5!*
Been really hammering the write-up, so not felt justified about wasting time on here. And let's be honest, a waste of time is what it is. But given the weather (hot), my current state of mind (apathetic), my current career prospects (wavering between hopelessly futility and optimism borne of ignorance), my comedy career (like one of those flies trapped in Amber; potentially could be resuscitated, but for all intents and purposes, dead) and my creative output (analogous to the seepage emanating from a mouldy tomato), I thought I'd catch up on the old science digestive, starting off with a few alarming similes. So here's a few blogs for you all to enjoy, have fun (although given the way most of these are streamed or listed, you'll probably read this last, in which case I hope you enjoyed).

In Space, size isn't everything...

So they found a planet around a star that is surprisingly small. And I remember a time when finding any planet anywhere was an incredible thing. Now it looks like they've given up looking for basic planets around basic stars. Every time the discovery of a planet is reported now it has to have some extra detail, like an apparent closeness to Earth norm, or potential signs of life, or be really big (on a planetary scale of things), or really close (on a galactic scale, 20 light years will never seem close), or have rings, or be made of processed cheese, or whatever. Finding a planet isn't enough anymore, now it has to be an interesting planet. Planet searching seem to be going the way of the TV show Big Brother. At first, the concept alone was fascinating, the act of doing it was of interest in itself. Now, we need the freaks, the sensationalists, the utter barking maniacs, the attention seekers in other words, in order to keep people interested.
Still, I like the news that this tiny star (1/12th the size of our star, a.k.a The Sun) has a planet 6 times bigger than our suns biggest planet. The smaller the body, the bigger the appendage in other words. How true to life that is.
Also, if we do eventually discover life around another star, will we have to rename our sun? From 'the Sun' to 'A Sun', or 'Sol', 'Sun #1 (assuming it's older)', 'Shinyball alpha' or maybe 'Derek', give it some character.

(* = I know people might work tha out as a 20% increase, but 1 from 4, the original number, is 25%, so my math is accurate)

Celebrities and Science, and never the twain shall meet.

Celebrities are misleading about Science

Some people have been complaining that celebrities mislead people about science. It's true, they do, but I don't really see it as a big a problem as those concerned make out. Granted, I'm the person who's the first to say that public awareness of Science is seriously lacking, and I greatly resent all these pseudo-scientists who get millions for spewing fictitious gibberish in the public's faces (see earlier rants regarding McKeith and her ilk).
However, I'm not sure this issue is that big a deal. The article reports that Delia Smith has been stating that if people could cut down on sugar then we could cure the nations obesity. This confuses me a bit, I don't see it as anything more than a generalised statement. If you cut down on pretty much anything you eat excessively then it would help with obesity. Unless you're addicted to carrots or something, but eating too many carrots will kill you faster than obesity (vitamin A poisoning I believe, can break down your cell lysosomes which releases all the aggressive enzymes into the cells and they break down, you sort of fall apart really slowly and horribly, it's very unpleasant or at least it was in the sci-fi novel I read where it happened which was very well researched but probably not a 100% dependable source of information).
If I was a celebrity, that previous quote taken out of context could be used to claim that I stated that carrots are lethal. Luckily I'm not a celebrity.
I think Delia's problem was that she tried the classic bluff of dropping a bit of science in to enhance credibility:
"After six weeks [without sugar] everything will taste sweet... because you will have got your palate back to what nature created". OK, I'm not sure that's true. Granted, you'll desire sugar less if your blood's always full of it, but things will taste different? Taste is a sense, and admittedly sight and the corresponding brain areas can change depending on the stimulus they get, but does this work for taste? And is it even the same thing? If I stop looking at red things for a few weeks, will everything start to look more red to me? If I stop touching metal things, will everything else feel like metal? Granted, this doesn't take into account the metabolic role of sugar, but if I'm confused, surely Delia should be more so? And isn't it a bit rich for a celebrity chef to have a go at people for eating too much? And would we want everything to taste sweet anyway? I prefer savoury things, as do many others. Everyone would start putting excess salt on their food to counteract it, which would cause more health problems. THINK, Delia!

That's one issue. Someone else has criticised Mariah Carey for her maths skills. That's just awful. The criticising I mean, not the Mariah Carey maths skills.

"Carey's grasp of maths came under fire after she said her album E=MC2 stood for "emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two" - rather than squared... Mathematician Dr David Leslie said Carey had "misread the algebra" after adapting Einstein's famous equation for her album title. "The 'two' in the equation means C squared, not MC multiplied by two. "The correct reading of the equation is E=MCC, so perhaps Mariah's re-interpretation should have been 'emancipation equals Mariah Carey Carey'?"

Jesus Christ! Firstly, anyone who takes their mathematical learning from Mariah Carey is clearly beyond any hope. And secondly, what a dickhead! Not really doing much for the impression of Scientists there, and have you ever heard of poetic license? And I don't even like Mariah Carey, but come on.

Then they talk about Tom Cruise disputing the use of psychiatry. But lets bare one thing in mind; Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Anything he says, does, or even thinks, can be discounted for ever and ever amen. He says this because... Ah, but is he a Scientologist? Then he's wrong. Even if he told me Gravity pulled you down, I'd have to get a bag of apples and a high window just to check. Therefore, all his claims are nonsense. Nuff said.

There's more about Demi Moore not understanding detox and other stuff, but I don't think they should be blamed for this. They're not scientists. Agreed, it's harmful when you figure the influence they have, but that's the unthinking minions who worship them who are responsible.

You may wonder why I'm being so lenient to misinformed stars? It's because these reports of their claims are filtered through the media, therefore I don't believe them. Why? Because it's happened to me. See here. It sounds like I agree with this 'most depressing day of the year' nonsense. I made it quite clear that I didn't and explained why in some detail, but in fairness to the South Wales Echo, that doesn't make for an easily readable story, does it? Still, makes me look like a dweeb.

So take every media claim of celebrity claim with a pinch of salt. All the better to take away that persistent sweet taste


P.S. The 'most depressing day of the year' occurs again a week today, and ITV Wales have asked to do an interview with me about why people should stay cheerful. Dejavu indeed. I shall do my best to ruin it if they try to dumb me down again. Watch this space for details.