puppypower

One explanation for uncertainty is connected to the electron and protons of atoms are not in the same reference. The reason is electrons move at a fraction of the speed of light and protons do not. There is a slight Special Relativity affect. Time and space and are not the same in both references. The affect would be similar to the twin paradox, where the moving twin; electron, ages faster and the stationary twin; protons and neutrons age slower. There is an uncertainty in space and time, that advances in time. Picture of the two teens were wired by nerves and one twin ages faster. The brains are not on the sam page. If we could assume the reference of the electron, instead of the proton=lab, we would see uncertainty in the proton, but not in the electron. I am not sure how to run this experiment, but it should work. In photography, there is an affect analogous to the uncertainty principle. This is called motion blur; below. Motion blur occurs when the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the action speed. Since the photo freezes time, the difference in motion with t=K, shows up as uncertainty in distance. We get the impression of motion, using only distance. Our brain interprets time; motion, even with time stopped. Our measurements are accurate, but they stop time in our reference; shutter, but not in the electron reference. In the picture below, we can determine the position of the bird's head but we can't tell his momentum from the head. The birds looks stopped. We can tell his legs are in motion, and thereby infer momentum, but we can't tell the position of the legs, to the uncertainty caused by the motion blur. It has to do with time stopped in the photo, and two references causing a lingering time potential; different aging speeds. [/img]

When you tell white lies, the most common reasons are to make people feel better and/or not hurt their feelings. The question becomes, why is this important to where you think you need to lie? The white lies prevent you from getting into an awkward situation that can be hard to fix. Or the white lie can make you feel good, because the other person feels good and reflects this back to you. In the end, lying is selfish. The truth is not always convenient. It may open a can of worms if the person reacts in an irrational way. A lie allows one to avoid this drama. If the wife or husband asked if she/she looked fat in their new outfit, lying will save you an entire evening of drama. It is the lessor of two evils, which is why it is called white. With PC, the goal is to make everyone so sensitive to everything, and too neurotic to know the difference, that it becomes expeditious to lie, so you can avoid all the drama. If I went to a left wing university and spoke of the latest Hillary corruption news, which may be truth, I would have a lot to deal with. It may be easier to stay quiet or to pretend to go along, since this path of white lie will make my life easier. However, it if I really care for others, lying will reinforce a delusion and neurotic tendencies that are not heathy in the long term. But not everyone has the skill to perform psychological surgery without malpractice suit by the irrational. I may come back to lying, to get out without damage. In the end, lying is type of shake down and tribute expected of honest people, by the neurotic people.

Another way to approach this is to use science as a litmus test. Would it to be good to lie in science, if the lying spares feelings and/or makes you more popular? The answer is no, because we all benefit, collectively, by truth in science, even if that truth means we may have to deal with some neurotic people. Science is converted to engineering which make consumer products, Lying in science can cause serious injuries; the new pill is safe so take it. White lies are a way for the ego, to avoid neurotic reactions, from those who may need to be deceived, so they will shut up. The mother may lie to the child about him being smart, so she does not feel bad, if he feels bad. She is lying for herself, to avoid the discomfort that might be induced by her child because the true may make him feel bad. This is short term thinking. Long term thinking, like in science, would think of the long term consequences of appeasing the neurotic, to avoid your own short term awkwardness. If the mother deceives the child into thinking he was smart, this may win the emotional battle, for both. However, there is no reason for the child to change behavior; study more. Mother may feel better, but her child may go down the road, dumb for life. The both lose the war. Truth is designed for long term thinking, whereas relative truth and white lies is about short term thinking. Truth is important to science since science has a long term vision often connected to consumer products. In politics, the scale is shorter in time, so lies and relative truth make more sense. The lie may only need to last until election time. If there is a negative long term consequences, the politician and fake news, can lie again and again, to buy additional time. If you compare the Conservative approach to the Liberal approach, in terms of time scale, Conservative is about long term values. Liberal is new and cutting edge and is shorter term ideas. Truth would be more useful to conservatives, while relative morality would serve Liberalism better; appeasement. If you look deeper, this breaks down to male and female or conditional and unconditional love. Conditional loves sets long term standards, unconditional changes with needs. We are more feminized in modern times, so relative morality seems to be as valid due to the practical needs of appeasement.

Dark energy has never been seen in the lab. God has also never been seen in the lab. They have this in common. Science is still trying to see dark energy, close and personal, via super colliders. Dark energy is inferred from secondary affects. Dark energy is being used to close the energy balance for the universe. This was not a problem a decade ago. Again, we need a concept, we can't see in the lab; like God, to explain a new observation. Dark energy is based on faith in theory. A miracle; secondary observation, is based on faith in the theory of God. There is another logical explanation for the energy balance problem. This connected to Special Relativity; SR. In SR reference is relative to observer. Each reference will see the other references relative to itself. This is only true of space and time references. It is not true for mass references, which is the third variable of SR. Mass is an invariant and is not relative. Many physicist have attempted to get rid of relativistic mass so this will not poise a problem. For example, say we had two rockets, one with mass M and other with mass 2M. They are in empty space with no way to know who is moving, They have a relative velocity of V. Both references will see the same relative velocity. Each will see the other moving at V. However, the kinetic energy is not the same for both references. The rocket with 2M mass has twice the kinetic energy; 1/2MV2, as the one with mass =M. If we assume relative reference in distance and time, we can underestimate the kinetic energy. This is the real source of the energy imbalance we attribute to dark energy. In other words, if we are on rocket M and we assume we are moving, but the other rocket 2M is moving we shot change total energy by half. We measure the parameters of the universe using energy signals. Energy is composed of frequency and wavelength or time and space. This approach is very useful but is leaves out mass and is not accurate with mass. We know relative motion, but we do not know for certain, in terms of momentum=MV needed for a universal energy balance. We have assumed too little energy based on our relative earth reference. Now we see data that suggest we need more energy. We can either speculate the unprovable in the lab; dark energy, or we can use well established criteria of mass and then simply alter relative references into reference criteria that can close the new energy balance. Faith has not decreased, rather the objects of faith have changed. Now we have rational polytheism instead of symbolic monotheism.

As a teen, I moved away from the stricter religious orientation of my youth, because being a heathen was much easier. Heathen had fewer restrictions. It was easier to take the low road, especially when there as a lot of peer pressure, in public schools, which trained you to discriminate against religion. This peer pressure adds even more work, to hard work of walking the high road. The high road was hard enough with a support group. The option of less effort combined with the group hug made the low road took better and easier. After being a socially acceptable heathen for many years, I went back to religion, because I had appeased that side of me, but I still did not find what I was looking for. This new resolve back to religion did not change the peer pressure, to stay on the low road. For example, in most science forums if you "preach" you will be punished, but if you attack preachers, you get a group hug. The deck is stacked, not to live and let live, but to torture anyone not on the low road. This bottleneck in terms of social equality, led me down a middle path. The idea was too see if there was scientific way to support religion. Proving God to those of no faith is not easy, especially with the dual standard in science. For example, dark energy has never been seen in the lab. Dark energy has s many lab data points as seeing God in the lab. Yet only dark energy is accepted as fact. It's existence is based on secondary affects, which is the same type of proof offered for God but only one will be accepted by the dual standard. If there is a miracle of healing, not explained by science, how does this differ from dark energy, not seen in the lab, expanding space-time? Since I was not dealing with rational consistency, I needed to address religion in a different way; connected to mind and brain. One science based observation is that the invention of written language, coordinate in time very closely to the story of Genesis in the bible. Is there a parallel between these data? The answer is yes, Written language altered the human mind so a new type of human appears.

It comes down to the ego or conscious mind out of phase with the inner self. For example, think back over the past year, about the things you worried about. How much of this came to pass? If the answer is very little, in proportion to the amount of worry, this very little is what the inner self saw from the beginning. If you could see into the future, and know all the worry is not needed, you would be in the same place as the inner self. Like an animal, the inner self is more reactive to the environment and lives inreal time. It is not wasting time worrying about hypotheticals. For example, say your wife was pregnant and close to due. The inner self is not to concerned, since this is natural. It will be peaceful, until the day of adversity, then it will act. You end up in the some place, but with less energy being wasted. This is inner peace.

To build upon what's been said, an electron is a negative charge in motion. A charge in motion; negative or positive, will create a magnetic field. Each orbital has two electrons with opposite spin. This allows their magnetic fields to attract to compensate for the charge repulsion. Same spin electrons have magnetic and charge repulsion, and are not stable in a single orbital. When you start to stack S-orbitals, one variable that changes is the electrons of the inner S-orbitals will move faster than the electrons in the outer S-electrons. It is sort of like the skater pulling their arms in to spin faster. The affect is the inner electrons move faster and will generate a stronger magnetic field; to offset the close charge proximity. The result is a type of segregation based on minimizing energy. This segregation is not only connected to electron speed, but is also connected to wave addition. Opposite spin electrons generate magnetic fields that are 180 degree out of phase. These waves will cancel. The net affect is the electron orbital pair, minimizes its own EM energy, while the cancelling of the magnetic wave addition, makes this invisible to the next orbital layer; hidden. If two stacked S-orbitals try to interact, EM energy is not minimized.

Humans have two centers of consciousness. These can be called the inner self and the ego; the centers of the unconscious and conscious minds, respectively. Inner peace is connected to the inside or unconscious mind of the person. Inner peace implies that there is a low potential within the inner self and unconscious mind. The observation of centers of consciousness can be proven using a simple experiment. For example, say you were walking along and someone jumps out from behind a door and scares you. You may jump and even scream due to the surprise. This is not a voluntary action, but rather comes from data processing within the unconscious mind. In most cases, the ego and conscious mind would prefer not to be embarrassed, by jumping and screaming. However, it cannot control the unconscious reaction to the stimulus since it occurs quickly before the ego can censor it. The reactions of the unconscious mind and inner self is more comprehensive, than this example of jumping. It is based on criteria connected to natural instinct. The inner self reacts to the environment at the same time the ego is making choices through will power. These choices can also be due to social conformity. Inner peace is when the inner self and the ego make the same choices as the inner self, so there is no counter reaction to the ego, allowing the ego to feel a low potential feeling called inner peace. An analogy is like being guarded by a guard dog. If you try to run, he will chase you and grab you by your clothes. If you stop, but show signs of trying to escape, he will bark at you. If you stop and remain still, he will stop barking and quietly sit and watch you. Inner peace is when the ego figures out how to appease the inner self so there is no inner opposition. In the example of being scared by someone behind the closed door, picture if you are a well trained spy, who has entered enemy territory and is aware of the possibility of a defensive threat. If someone jumps behind the door to get you, the inner self's fast reaction time, now benefits the ego, since it allows the body to be in motion, for the ego, to maximize survival. There is harmony and peace. One gets back to the mission as though it never happened. However, the spy may conflict in other ways in terms of natural instincts so sleep is scarce.

I thought he said there are examples of very similar things, being given different names, thereby creating the impression they are more diverged than they actually are. The analogy is say we have two twins, one is called McManus and other is called McManus Reactis, The two different names will make it appear there is a distinction only the insiders might know. It is a reasonable point.

Space-time only applies to inertial references. Space-time breaks down at a speed of light reference, where the universe appears like a singularity. We also know mass cannot move at the speed of light; SR. Therefore mass cannot exist if we had a universe with only a speed of light reference. A speed of light reference has no mass. Energy and photons move at the speed of light, but photons also show finite expressions that are inertial reference dependent. Wavelength and frequency of photons will red and blue shift based on inertial references. These are not dependent on the speed of light reference. If we only had a speed of light reference in the universe, all photons of any wavelength will look the same, which is not how energy works. Their diversity needs inertial reference. You can begin the universe from nothing by beginning at a pure speed of light, where there can be no mass and no distinction that we know as energy. I won't give the details because the rest is not mainstream but is more advanced because it can begin before the assumed t=0, where matter/energy and inertial appear.

A simple way to look at dreaming is, the brain builds up various potentials during the day, due to our conscious activities. Dreams are a way to lower potential via a more stable neural arrangement. Unlike computers which might sort odd data using programmed logic parameters, the brain does this with chemical energy and entropy parameters. The brain uses natural laws of physical chemistry as its logic parameters. These laws are not subjective or changing, but are laws that are always the same. This is why life can persist. For example, say I witness a terrible car accident during the day. This can dam up potential in my brain, as I obsess about the images and feelings I felt. When I sleep, the brain will attempt to remove this potential, so I can return to the natural flow of life. The output might shows up as a dream since movement of current along neural wiring, to lower the potential, can trigger memory. In the dream, I may have to relive the accident, with the goal of opening up the dam that I placed. If all goes well, the next day I see things differently and feel the comfort of lowered stress. If I don't accept this, but rather use my willpower to reinforce my fears and stresses; rewrite the memory, then different pathways may be needed the next night to deal with my will and choice. Neurosis is often due to memory that is reinforced new each day; dwell on the past each day to restore the potential. As an energy analogy, say I stack oranges in an asymmetric pile. As I build, a gravitational potential will appear on one side, forming lateral stresses. The solution to balance the potential, is to remove the asymmetry. This may result in the pile falling to the left. The energy of the oranges falling and rolling induces the circuits of the brain to trigger memory; dream. These memories don't have to be linear or logical, just like all oranges will fall somewhat randomly, while being biased to the left. The next day, I can either take heed and rebuild the pile with more symmetry. Or I can use subjective bias and build the pile with asymmetry again. Dreams will reflect what is needed to gain balance back, more in line with the inner self, and the natural potential contours of the human brain, which are based on personality firmware behind human nature. Say you live in a culture this is repressive, neurotic or unnatural. This means, most, if not all the citizens will be repressed, thinking this is the right way. This collective action may appear too add up with a line of logic, but it does not add up in terms of the natural neural potentials. There is collective unrest or restlessness. This is when collective dreams can appear. These come from deeper parts of the brain and may become conscious in the mind of one person, who will have an impact via a viral meme. The meme gives a wide range of people the feeling of finding that calmness. In ancient cultures, the dreams of the tribal leader would become the path by which the entire tribe would move to lower potential. This often become the stories that defined the culture; if they worked. It is not so much ESP, as it is we all have personality firmware that define human nature; propensities common too all humans. When triggers appear that can reach the firmware, what works on one, can also work on others. All potentials lower to the same place. But not everyone will stay there. Other return to potential through habit, will and peer pressure. Others will read the dream and maybe write so others can feel the trigger.

We use both sides of the brain at the same time, with both 2-D and 3-D assessment being done. The real distinction is people are conscious of only one side of the brain, at a time They are unconscious of the other side of the brain, even though this is also active. Both sides will be involved in any activity, but only one side will be conscious at a time. This is what these studies showed. One will not see this distinction doing studies from the outside, in the third person. Both sides of the brain will fire and no activity will seem distinct. One will need to gather conscious versus unconscious data from the inside, where one can see the distinction between conscious and unconscious and therefore what data/side is consciously available to the person. For example, there is a difference between someone who believes the logic of someone else, not because of the logic, but because it feels right; prestige learning. This is different from someone who believes they are right, because the logic adds up properly in their mind, first. Both sides of the brain will be used in both cases, since both scenarios use logic and feeling, but the former is more conscious of a feeling for the logic, while the latter is more conscious of the logic behind the feeling. This will not show up as a distinction using a third person brain scan. One would need to go inside their head, to see which way they are consciously biased, with their unconscious supporting this from the other side; both sides will fire. The third person data is a good starting point, but it is not up to the task of addressing the bias of consciousness versus unconscious. For example, if you had a tooth ache, versus you watching someone with a toothache in the third person, do these give the exact same data? The answer is no. The person with the toothache, lives this experiment in the first person. This gives another dimension to the data; pain, that you can't fully empathize from the outside in the third person. The feeling of pain, that the first person can see clearly, is what is making them do all the contortions and moaning; data seen in the third person. The pain is ocean that the river is flowing to, causing the river to meander along the way ; both sides of the brain. This meander is the 2-D third person data we see, with ocean there in 3-D, but not clearly seen. These studies need someone skilled in the first person to run 3-D experiments. The 2-D experiment are cute, but are misleading when dealing with 3-D. I doubt there even know how to define 3-D to be able to make this distinction. The schizophrenic God is a projection of seeing the contortions of pain in the third person but not the pain in the first person that makes this external data possible. The gap adds an unknown that seems irrational. This is projected into an irrational God. This is the beginning of awareness in the first person, with one side of the brain playing for the other.

I would say sight, because we can see a wide variety of things, at the same time, while maintaining distinctions between each and every item. If we do this with sound, taste, smell, touch, as we add more and more distinct stimulus, they will merge together much sooner. For example, if we had 100 sounds, 100 flavors, 100 touches or 100 smells, all at the same time, it will become very hard to resolve all of these, at the same time, even if you know each one by itself. You may be able to pick out salty taste, or your mothers voice, but other will become blended and unresolved. With sight, I can see 100 people I know and keep track of then plus sub-distinction down to subtle visual details. In a symphony orchestra, there may be 100 separate instruments ,which the trained ear can resolve. But this is due, in part, to the music ordering the sounds, for easier resolution. With flavors and smells this is chemical and entropy will become involved, unless these are ordered into unique foods. But with sight, we don't need to place them in a line, although this will also make it easier to remember.

Photons move at the speed of light, which is the same in all inertial references. Photons also show finite expressions; wavelength and frequency, which are inertial reference dependent. The photon has two legs. One leg is always planted at the speed of light, while the other leg is planted in finite or inertial reference. This leg can pivot; red and blue shift.The SR equation you presented is based on inertial references, and therefore impacts only the inertial leg. The equation is discontinuous at C, and does not impact the C-leg. What changes is the wavelength and frequency leg, but not the speed of light; C-leg. The C-leg stays planted, while the inertial leg pivots based on speed in inertial reference.

There is 2-D logic and there is 3-D logic, which are not the same. The left side of the brain uses 2-D logic ,while the right side of the brain uses 3-D logic. Science is more left brained and therefore is more comfortable using 2-D logic; cause and affect. Logic in 3-D is different. This form of logic is cause, effect, cause and/or affect, cause and affect. When someone has an intuition, from left field, this is 3-D logic. The affect; solution, can appear before there is rational cause and affect. The logic is then reversed engineered, after the answer had appeared. For example, the right brain processes emotions. Emotions are considered irrational and therefore do not follow the laws of 2-D logic in terms of the changing output. The right brain uses a different logic schema to assess this. Try to use 2-D logic to predict the whims of a dingbat. Yet, emotions seem to find the way to the future, due to the extra z-dimension. In real time, they don't seem to add up to cause and affect. But over time, they find a way to the future; z-axis. The analogy is the river flows to the ocean, since the ocean is at lowest potential. Yet along the way, the river meanders back and forth, even over flat land. There is a z-axis all the way to the ocean; 3-D cause, that has a sense of potential and direction, that may not be easy to see in terms of the cause and affect of the local 2-D meandering. Humans place 2-D limits on the 3-D and even 4-D God, to make him more human and easier to manhandle. It makes people feel less afraid of their narrower vision. They see the meandering of the river and give it logical meaning, but they fail to see the ocean and assume God has no control over the cause and affect of the meandering.

Here is a quote from non-climate scientist, who hit the nail on the head: If all opinions on global warming had been allowed, including what is called the deniers, some models would be high and some models would be low more in line with the rest of science. The average would be closer to the actual data. But due to political pressure and boycotts against anyone not with "the program", only the highest estimate models get the funding. The models used come from only the scientists who are willing to tell the money people what they wish to hear. It would be interesting to see if the worse models get the most funding; boot licker premium. Maybe someone can explain this prediction anomaly of all the consensus models being high? How can a consensus form if everyone is wrong on the high side, in line with the needs of the politics. I have been saying this all along and someone found the smoking gun for political and mercenary science.

Men and women are designed by nature to reproduce, with each having half the DNA. If we were humans starting a culture from scratch and needed to figure out how to make reproduction and child raising work, socially, with the least amount of resources, while getting the most bang for the buck in terms of the children, you would have the men and women, who make the child, remain together, to raise the child. They, on the average, will have the natural or instinctive love; everyone favors their own child. From this the idea of marriage appeared. It was a natural efficiency. I am not saying all married couples are fit parents, nor am I saying that that some single parents or even gay couples can't do a good job. I am saying if we average all these behavior this across the entire team; culture, married men and women will need less resources due to instinctive love for their own children. The main world religions appeared at a time in history when most people were poor, there was little science, and no welfare state. If you wanted you culture to not just survive, but grow and prosper, you needed to find ways to minimize resource usage for basic things. Sex is very enjoyable, with the husband and wife schema the least likely to generate diseases. This assumes no need for science and medicines, which uses resources. A monogamous male-female couple will rarely create disease of a sexual nature compared to other combinations; no artificial additives. If the needs of the team come first, we can't have a lot of sick teammates. Rather we need all the players healthy and able to deal with the children they might create out of desire, all with a minimal resource requirement. This were wise choices. Religion is closer to nature, since nature is part of their God's creation. Manmade is not part of God's creation, adding artificial will not be favored the same way. I agree with you. But I was talking about inefficiencies created by social engineering. For example, if the powers to be decided that people can't walk properly, therefore we all need the help of big brother. With this new need, businesses will attempt to make the best walkers they can make, with efficiency and quality driving the consumer demand toward certain business, who will then profit. The business half of this is fine, since the need is there. But the social engineering created waste by creating the subjective the need for things that would not be needed in a moral society. This does not benefit the whole team. This is a form of business welfare. If you look at diversity, this is not how a team work. A good team does not treat each player like they are their own team, with uniques needs and requirements. The result is waste in terms of the resources. Once this nonsense is law, then business will see the need, and may try to make the best of these parameters. But this takes all types of extra resources not needed if we concerned for the one team. This is immoral; wasteful for the team. If people want to cater to all the sub-teams, it would be moral for such people to give of their own money. It is immoral to take it from the team. Charity could do the same thing. Giving is moral since it helps the team. If we had a sports team and all players wanted to be the hot dog, this can cause the team to break down. To keep the team whole and also allow hotdogs, we can have groupies fawn over each player. This self benefitting charity also helps the team and the hotdogs. But if we take resources from the team, to buy groupies, this is immoral, since it add costs.

Didn't some of the earliest medical research involve the scientist/doctor trying new medicines on themselves, first, before giving it to others; do no harm! Maybe we can have researchers, who wish to do experiments on humans and animals, first have to have it done to them to make sure it will do no harm. This way we don't have as many hack researchers, doing harm. The job of the public servants in the FDA is to protect the citizens, so why aren't they the front line ginny pigs? It would make sense for those who impose the need, be the first test subjects.

In the quote above, I was saying that religion was more efficient in terms of resource usage. I brought up the example that a husband and wife having a child is as cheap as you can get, unless you start adding secular needs which then will make a natural thing more complicated and more expensive. The faith healer types hardly use any resources, just like animals do in nature. This efficiency is not allowed. Secular atheism moves us away from natural economy, using fear to move their herd and sheer the sheep. I mentioned that gay couples can have children, but this needs science, such as test tube babies, adding cost and the need for extra resources. I was not dumping on gays, just pointing out an example of the claim that religious morality is resources effective; closer to how nature does it. No fake stuff is needed. I was being misrepresented as attacking homosexuality. This atheist deception adds to the amount of resources I need to use to clarify the truth. This is a good example of secular waste. If we all told the truth and could be mature enough to listen to all POV and not get irrational, this would use the least mental resources to get the most bang for the buck. Religious morality is about optimizing the team, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts. Morality is not about optimizing the individual, except in terms of the spin off from optimizing the team. Like a sports team, the coach will place limits on the players, with the hope he can form the best team. A good coach will not let the players do what they want, nor will he allow the players to manipulate him to play when and where they want. He is not a mother of spoiled children. That is liberalism. He is acting more like a dad, with conditional love; moral laws. If they win the championship he will let his hair down. They need to act in such a way to earn his love, with the reward being a team that is more than the sum of its parts. You don't have to have all the best players to have the best team. While a team with the best players, who don't play together very well, will not be the best team. In sports, if a team wins a championship, because all the players sacrifice for the team, one reward is each player is now a champion. This increases the value of all the players. All the free agents will make more money. It works similar to the free market in that value is added, which then trickles back to all the players. This team value added, is why you don't need as much resources. If there is no value added; losing team, you need to add resources to make up the difference. If you look at marriage, this takes far less social resources than divorce. For one thing divorce requires two households or twice the living expenses. The demand for double the housing, increases the cost of housing for everyone, including the more economical married couples. This is due to laws of supply and demand. This is moving away from the resource efficiency of nature. It is simple math based on resources. Back in the 1960's before liberalism took hold, any married couple could afford a house, even on a factory worker salary. Once liberalism broke up the family, adding to the resources requirement for the same number of people, now houses are out of reach for the same pay. Now you need Government to kick in extra resources. I suppose if you are a middleman selling goods and service, immorality offers the best path for higher profits. Maybe the atheists and liberals needs to trace the money trail to their sources of information and ethics. Your heart might be in the right place, but your mind has been scammed. The religious tithe is 10%. Modern income taxes is higher than that. This is a good example of secular waste in terms of higher resource need due to immorality inherent in its leaders. Why can religion do the same thing with less resources if science and atheism is so smart? The atheist sales pitch is good, but the math does not add up to the sales pitch.

Here is an idea that came to me the other day. If CO2 is like a warm fuzzy blanket that traps heat making the earth warmer, does the same CO2 trap the IR heat that is coming from the sun, in space, making the earth cooler? It turns out that about 50% of the sun's solar energy output in the form of IR. Below is a picture of the sun in the IR spectrum.

A question about the greenhouse affect and CO2 came to me yesterday. If you look at the picture below, it is a picture of the sun in terms of an IR image. It turns out that 50% of the energy from the surface of the sun is in the IR. The question becomes since CO2 is a warm fuzzy blanket that keeps the earth's IR based heat from escaping, shouldn't this warm fuzzy CO2 blanket also impact the solar IR that is trying to reach the earth? Shouldn't CO2 and other greenhouse gases reflect solar IR back into space so does not reach the surface of the earth?

One of the political deception strategies behind global warming, is the earth has indeed warmed slightly over the past century. However, this observation does not logically imply, that this warming is due to man. These are two separate issues. There are plenty of examples of natural global warming in nature. For example, the earth warmed, all by itself, from the last ice age, with glaciers melting over thousands of miles. What we see today, in glacier melt, is chump change. The earth was not destroyed, as though that mantra, is even possible. That mantra, with consensus science support, shows political science, without precedent. On the other hand, man made , even if true, for the sake of argument, is unique to the present time and has no historical precedent like natural warming. We do not even know, with 100% certainty, if this is even possible, based on historical precedent. On the other hand, a natural reason for global warming has all kinds of hard data to support it, while man made is based on the opinion of a consensus using models that do not even agree, 100%. That is irrational. Science is not supposed to run by consensus of opinion, but by hard data. Show me where in the scientific method, science is supposed to done by consensus? Consensus is a political tool. If the consensus thinks pet rocks are pets, than this what culture will accept as the new pet. If the consensus like Ford Trucks this will be truck of choice. If you look at the warming from the last ice age, this does not need a consensus, because this has hard data for proof that anyone can see and prove to themselves. If consensus is more important, nothing could even change, since all new ideas would have to face the consensus from the past, who will then automatically be right, because they have more members. The scientific method says data comes first, such that one person with hard data, weights more than a consensus. This is so those who seek to maintain their money and resources, don't stack the deck. New means the past is obsolete and the guard will change. As far as buying a consensus, the politics of liberalism, which exclusively supports manmade global warming, is also the politics of the faculty of most universities. Tell me which liberal university will give an equal voice to conservative principles? What liberal university will accept data from oil companies as being objective, and not teach conspiracy? If we divided the resources given to all the universities, so both sides of the issue have half, and then say your continued funding will be connected to producing results for your side, money will talk.

There are some plastic materials with strange properties like you describe; viscoelasticity. If you have ever played with silly putty, if you gently pull it, the silly putty stretches like a viscous liquid. But if we add energy quickly, such as quick pull, it acts like a solid. If you throw it against a wall or the floor it bounces like a super ball. The properties of silly putty is time dependent. If we add the energy, slowly, over a long time the silly putty acts like a liquid. But if we add the same energy, but over a short time; bounce, it acts like a solid. In this case, the bonds between the silly putty molecules are weak secondary bonding. If we go slow these weaker bond will slide past each other. If we go fast, there is not enough time for them to slide and the entire material acts like it is solid.

I used to do development work and had a stretch of several years where I be the goto guy who would be asked to develop technical solutions, under emergency conditions, where the state of the art; BET, was not up for the task. I need do to develop the new BET. Because their was a tight time constraint; emergency, my developments were functional but not always pretty or fancy looking in terms of form. Form and function were related but in terms of my style of crude simplicity. After the emergency was over and the tech was transferred to production, the form would change to something that was more like a monument. It could have stayed simple and cheap, but now form exceeded the original function. In government, money is power and the bigger the monument the more money needed the more power you have. The final form would be for technical utility plus prestige/power utility. The power prestige is where subjective appears. Subjectivity tends to exceed the baseline for form and function.

The light coming from star that are 13 billion light years away, was the light given off 13 billion years ago. That star is more than likely long gone by now. It may have gone nova and its parts made into another star, that we may not see for billions of years. The observational question I have is, as we go further and further back into time, all the light from all the most distance objects should eventually be found in only one place, right, since at one time they were all close to each other by modern universe size standards; BB. For example, in the solar system we can have planets all around the earth, If we were to fly out beyond the solar system, several light years away, all the planets will now appear to be touching due to the small angle on the horizon. Where is the oldest center; tiny angle.