pioneer

The reason for the anger is connected to evolution. Evolution works under the principle of selective advantage. There is no goal when it comes to evolution, such as steady progression and advancement to the future. Evolution is a more or less random process without a goal. When humans hook up with evolution, selective advantage becomes the basis of their unconscious actions, with the goals of progress not even a consideration; a progressive goal is not a concern of evolution. So when a religion, political group or philosophy pushes their values, to the point of anger and hate, they merge with evolution; selective advantage without any a goal of human progression. Social Darwinism does not work very well with humans, even if it works with apes. There is a limitation to the ape parallel for humans. Selective advantage, on the social scale, without the goal of progression, does not progress humanity. Progression needs to ignore evolution, to do what evolution does not; have a progressive goal. For example, nuclear weapons satisfy the spirit of evolution since they can create selective advantage. To get rid of nuclear weapons, although progressive to the future of humanity, means some will need to go against evolution and give up a valid selective advantage. Most of the resistance is animal fear in nature. The political parties might lie, cheat, steal, bride and make false accusations to maintain their advantage. This is valid in evolution, but is not progressive. The atheists can not see the paradox they help to create and endorse. They wish to merge with the animal standard. This means back to evolution which is blind and has no goal beyond selective advantage. Then they are surprised when there is little progress. The question becomes how do you escape the blind walk of evolution, since social Darwinism has never worked out very well? It comes back to animal anger being used to help push the primary goal of evolution; selective advantage. Religions may be more prone to evolutionary animal anger, since they often repress instincts in an attempt to break away from animal evolution. Repression is a dam that builds up potential, until balance is maintained with the dam falling down in war and anger. Then they are back to evolution. Atheist approach this differently, trying to merge with the animals for evolution and their own tribe selective advantage. I tend to like "love your enemy", since it checks the animal anger of evolution.

Dark matter and dark energy are inferred but not substantiated. Entropy considerations can explain much of what we attribute to dark matter and dark energy. To increase entropy we need to add energy. If we expand a gas, the temperature will lower near the expanding gas. Using entropy, the original energy in the space near the expanding gas appears to disappear in the dark. If this was 100M light years away, you might not be able to see entropy changes, but we might notice the gravity shift. If we lower entropy, energy can be given off from what appears to be nothing; mass balance is the same. At 100M light years, it might look like energy just transformed from dark matter/energy or teleported from another dimension, both of which sound more exciting. If we go back to the beginning of the BB, the theory is we start with extreme particle states and substructure. In the accelerator, none of these last very long. As such, based on this lab observation, a simple phase change from this short lived extreme matter, into matter that lasts such as protons, electrons and neutrons, represents an extreme lowering of entropy. The quarks are now stuck in little containers for billions of years. This phase change into lowered entropy means a lot of energy output. This extreme energy is now the fuel for other extreme entropy, but now using the new stable matter/energy. The superstructure of the universe combined with fast forming stars implies gravity at work at the same time we have all this entropy energy release. That means all the entropy energy is not spreading uniformly. There is more energy for less bulk entropy. This sounds different than just exotic matter cooling into hydrogen, without the extreme entropy phase change consideration, and then using dark matter and energy to take the place of the phase change energy. I got this idea while observing small dark clouds in the Florida sky a few years ago. These little dark clouds occur even when there were few clouds in the sky, thereby factoring out shadows from larger clouds causing this dark cloud effect. The little dark cloud is increasing entropy and absorbing the ambient light energy; not reflecting it. This is easy for water, since it can form up to four hydrogen bonds but can also form as few as one to remain associated. One would not see such dark clouds at 100M light years, but one might notice an anti-gravity looking effect absorbing energy. This is not a dark matter cloud but is simply white matter following the second law. If we then add gravity to lower this accumulated entropy in our dark cloud, one would expect an energy output beyond just the gravity considerations. That extra is all dependent on the starting entropy.

There is useful and useless information. For example, I tell someone about my trip to the beach. They then tell another, leaving out some of the original information while adding their own flair to the story, so it sounds more interesting in conversation. They tell another person, who then begins with this data. They might recreate this new information for another, or add their own modification to the information, etc. After it is all said and done there is useful and useless information in the final stream, even if the entire process is called information. There is an alternative. Someone looks at a phenomena and relays the useful information. Another gets this useful information and contrives a device that makes use of this information. The information grows into additional useful information. Just adding entropy to information will still create information, but the most part it creates useless information. But since every dog has his day, it can also periodically create some additional useful information. A better filter is based on order and not entropy, where useful information is transformed in the light of some form of organization filter. The contrived device in the above example, would use principles of say engineering to filter the information, and restructure it accordingly. When we get a stream of both useful and useless information, we need an structuring filter to extract one from the other similar to a chemical extraction or distillation. Another filter may then extrapolate the smaller amount of useful information to help extend the useful information; fills in the blanks formerly occupied by the useless information.

Distillation can be made more efficient using reflux. Reflux is where part of the freshly boiled/condensed water is returned down the distillation column back to the boiling pot. The idea is the purified water that is returned or refluxed will scrub out impurities from the up-flow as the reflux flows back into the boiling pot. The higher the reflux ratio, the purer the final product. For example, you may have a boiling rate of 10 liters/hour. You might reflux 8 liters/hour and only get only 2 liters/hour final product, but that final product will more pure. If there are heavy organics present many of these will become stream distilled. Steam can cause even high boiling organics to vaporize at temperatures lower than their boiling point. This technique is used to save energy by getting oils that might boil at 200C to distill at 100C. To change these dynamics one might be able to play with the distillation packing material. I would use something like teflon packing to create a surface tension wild card to help lower the organic steam distillation. The opposite can also occur if we have low boiling organics such as ethanol. These will lower the boiling point of the pot. In this case, you would reflex, but you would throw away the first product, since the light weight organics will more concentrated at the very beginning. I would not worry about inorganic impurities since these will remain in the pot.

The universe, as we know it, is designed to make life more likely than pure chance. For example, life is mostly C, O, N, H which just so happen to be the small atoms even a first generation star can make, starting with only isotopes of hydrogen/helium. The two most abundant chemical molecules in the universe are H2 and H2O. The high level of H2O slants the odds for life in water. While the energy of life, as we know it, stems from the energy within reduced materials. The hydrogen molecule is an extremely abundant reducing agent; #1 molecule of the universe, which means NH3, CH4, etc. Small molecules like these, in the presence of the H2O (#2) and gravity, gives us weather, lightning and the formation of amino acids. The universe was designed to get the ball rolling since it most abundant things are what life also makes use of. Metabolism is a process that lowers energy and increases entropy. All you really need is a metabolic pathway to develop and there is energy output and entropy increase to push faster than just random collisions without a metabolic push. Metabolism is modeled on fire, but metabolism burns under water. Depending on how hot our fire is and the fuel to terminal electron acceptor ratio, we can get a large variety of broken bonds and combustion products. One thing that is always left out is water and its ability to direct. It is not coincidence that life molecules and water both use hydrogen bonding, with water doing the H-bond thing f first. For example, in liquid water, individual H2O molecules only exist for about 1 millisecond until the H switch O partners. What that means is the entropy of the aqueous hydrogen is moderately high. We get the pH effect as one constant example. The high entropy of H in water means the entropy of other hydrogen dissolved in water will see this entropy potential. The hydrogen bonding of life molecules, implies these hydrogen are closer to the H entropy of water; share, swap and mobilize. Water started this and life followed the lead from water as life conformed to the potential of the H.

When someone runs for president, we assume they have ideas needed to improve the state of the union. To blame the past, for the present, implies that one's ideas were never up for the task from the very beginning. This shows that one really didn't have a good handle. An analogy is hiring a new CEO to turn around a company. He is hired since he claims, in his interview, he has a way to move the company forward. If his techniques are off, he can't blame the old CEO, since when he applied for the job, he knew the state of the company and was hired to overcome; no excuses. Blaming Bush was a democratic decoy to take the heat off Obama. Now the CEO is taking his rightful place on the hot seat. Here is how I see it. The real goal of Obama was to help push forward the democratic social policies. These would have had less impact during a strong economic cycle, since the impact of so much government debt will sputter any economy. But it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, good economy or not, so they went forward. They blame Bush for not giving them a large productive economy, so when they sputtered the economy with debt, it would still be ticking with moderate strength. Then Obama could take credit. The economic problems began with the housing market. The architects of this problem were the democrats and Barney Frank, who wanted affordable housing. The free market accommodated by making credit available, even to those who would not have qualified, without the affordable housing initiative; back by Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. For a few years, the democratic ideal was met, since many people got to live in new homes, who may never have had this opportunity in normal times. At the time, I lived in Florida and anyone could buy a new home with nothing down and monthly payments lower than rent. For a couple of years, almost anyone could live a lifestyle in a new home in a brand new landscaped subdivision cheaper than rent. But being a dream, one finally had to awaken, when the terms of the loans changed. The blame was place on the lenders, who deserve blame. But it was not placed on the democratic policies that open this can of worms. It was like a wet dream. It was great while it lasted, but after one awakes, one has to clean up the mess. The Democrats get credit for the wet dream while the republicans get blame for the laundry which is tangible. One may wonder how many of the new democratic wet dreams will turn the same way.

Picture this scenario. We have a man thinking about murder. He is an atheist and therefore has no belief in eternal damnation. Before acting on his impulse, he first asks himself this question, "what is the worse thing that can happen to me, if I murder and I am caught? Based on the laws of many states, my penalty would be life in prison, no matter how many people I kill, or how horrific the means by which I kill them. They will not even torture me, even if I torture another. Even the loved ones and families of the victims can't touch me, since I mean more to many than any victim. That being the worse case scenario, I only need to be careful not to get caught. But if I do, no matter what i do, they will treat me better than I treated everyone else."

One of the problems this topic points out, is the one size fits all approach to milk, and many other things backed by medical science. As an analogy, say there were no such things as shoes. A scientist invents this new device called a shoe to help alleviate the many foot conditions due to walking with bare feet. They do an extensive study of millions of subjects and find out that the average man needs size 10 and the average woman size 7. Based on this study, to reach the most people they mass produce this new medical device called a shoe, but in only one male and one size. This may indeed help the most people using only one size, but it does not address the reality that one size does not fit all. All those who need a larger or smaller shoe size might start to develop secondary conditions, such as blisters. Now we need a mop. Milk like shoes, is not one size fits all. But it may look good on paper using studies based on averages. Personally my body can handle milk so the studies of averages don't apply to me. I will walk bare footed, until they have my size to avoid the side effect of blisters, which are worse than the calluses on the bottom of my feet, which never bothered me.

Besides being a source of genetic information, the DNA, as a whole, can also be viewed as molecular configuration in contact with water. An analogy is an enzyme. An enzyme has a rather large surface area in contact with water but concentrates its activity at an active site. The sum of this larger surface area of the enzymes has an impact of its smaller active zone. It is possible the bacterial DNA is the configurational potential needed for the activity of the human DNA. One way to look at this is life has basic tasks such as digestion, metabolism, reproduction, etc. The details may change but the fundamentals remain.

Science uses the animal standard to hep define natural human instinctive behavior. If we assume that is valid (for the sake of argument) the second logical aspect of the animal standard would be to define the natural limits of these animal behavior. For example, one may point to a lion gorging food. Using the animal standard one might argue gorging is natural, since we can show at least one animal species that does this. But the second half of the science standard should then say, although gorging can be shown to occur in nature and is therefore natural, even lions don't do this 24/7. Even with the gorging, the lion remains fit, because the gorging behavior has natural limits. Relative to gay, one may show this in natural to many animals including apes. The next science question should be what are the natural limits? If we exceed these natural limits, even with the dynamics of a behavior defined as natural, one is not behaving naturally. With gorging we can show animals do this. But we are hard pressed to find drastically overweight animals as a result of this behavior. There is a natural limit. With humans, we define this natural behavior, but the final human result does not coordinate with the natural; lacks the natural limitation. The question becomes, why doesn't science include the natural limits of animal behavior since this is being used as the gold standard for human behavior?

There is a logical way to compare moral absolutes. It has to do with added social cost. The best moral absolutes do not create a lot of extra expense. If we add expense and/or need social mops to clean up after a moral code, we can create the illusion some second string morality is just as good. For example, if the children in a household share their toys, the expense and aggravation for the parents is less than if each child needs to have their own toys, fight and won't share. Both are possible but one needs a mop to work. The number of social mops required in our culture reflects second string morality. If we took away these mops and let nature take its course, the first string would be easier to see. But as long as we support the extra cost needed for mops, one can create the illusion all codes are just as good. For example, say for one year we removed all treatment for STD's; no social mop. What types of sexual morality would still work even when the mop is gone? When the expense is zero we have an absolute. Picture a culture that does not have all the modern wealth, but wishes to evolve. The best moral codes do not tie up that cultures small extra, making it available for that culture to grow and evolve. If it spend that on mops to support second string, it stagnates.

The easiest way to integrate the cytoplasm is through the water. During cell cycles the membrane potential changes, which implies the potential in the water also changes. The water contacts all the materials in the cell, changing the surface potential seen by all the cellular configurations, all at the same time. This new equilibrium will involve conformational and structural changes that are integrated throughout the protein grid. Let us look at a basic primitive equilibrium change, connected to the duplication of DNA or RNA. When we double the genetic material, we also double the amount of negative change within a major cellular structure; via the extra phosphate. This structural negative will impact the water. All this extra negative charge would be easier to accommodate, if the inside of the cell was less negative. The reversal of the cation pumps, which occurs during this time, lowers the inside negative charge, making the extra negative charge of the DNA easier to accommodate. The membrane resaturates allowing the membrane potential to rise as the cation pump reversal lowers. This now now means too much negative. Extra negative charge leaves or the cells separates within the inside of each daughter cell having a different aqueous equilibrium, more conducive to equilibrium unpacking and activity.

My thesis is that the behavior called religion, common to only humans, when it appears, became a means to alter natural instinct. In modern cases, when instinct is repressed, the instinctive output becomes more variable. Natural instinct is more or less deterministic. If you place almost any valid food in front of an animal, the outcome is chew, swallow and digest. If we repress, both the reaction to input, as well as the outcome, the instinct can change; variability. One example, in my own life occurred when I was in my late teens and went for a hike in the mountains. I was new to hiking, and was not prepared. The resulted was dehydration and an amplification of my thirst instinct. Because my water need was severe, I thought it was good idea to drink from the green slimy puddle of water on a bolder. Under any other conditions, this would not even have dawned on me due to being bio-contaminated. But under those conditions of repression, it seemed like the right thing to do; only water I could find. One sip (2 oz) and yuck, my thirst subsided. My mind was clear again, since the instinct was sublimated to protect me from getting sick. With my head clear and my sensory systems now on high alert, I sniffed out a stream that was about a 1/10 mile away and slightly off trail. I was down about six liters of water and once that was satisfied, I was all gun ho to complete the hike. With religion causing repression of the ape-man instinct, new ways appear for a new-man with civilization; from variability, new determinisms. If you read parts of genesis, it tells of a time when angels breed with the daughters of men. If we take this figuratively, ape-man is changing into something totally new. The repressions creates monsters and heros within the variability. This would be both the excessive compulsions of repression and the sublimations of repressions; variability bell curve and the two extremes. Progression to the stresses have a selective advantage, shifting curve toward one end; civilization. The hero kills the monsters (figuratively).

I have a atom with zero charge. From this zero charge, I will give you an electron and a cation. I made two things out of zero. Out of nothing, something can appear. To make those two things appear, I needed to create another math concept called negative. Since it came from nothing, it has to have some very special properties. I have negative one apples on the table, so help yourself. This makes even less sense than no apple on the table, since no apples can occur in reality (in the winter). If I eat that negative apple, does it take away calories and vitamins? Does it also dehydrate me? If I take the square root of this negative apple, it now gets imaginary, as though the negative apple was not already imaginary enough. Division can also allow us to escape reality. If we have 2 apples and divide by 1/2 we get 4 apples.. Could someone demonstrate this in reality. What we do is take the two apples and cut both of them half way through and 2 more apples appear. We don't actually split them. Why bother farming? This illogic allows math art, where the math artist can create a math image, that is not part of physical reality but it may look like it does. Math is based on logic and follows the principles of logic. Instead of math symbols, say we used word logic and use words to follow the principles of logic. On that table is nothing. I will now make a negative and positive apple. We will throw away the real apple and keep the negative one. Since negative apples have all the opposite properties of a normal apple, if you eat it, it will have the opposite impact. If you eat a bushel of negative apples one can lose weight. My logic is quite sound, but it escapes reality, since one of the premises for my logic is even not part of reality. But if you cut me slack, and we all agree this premise is OK, then it has to be real? So we will allow my negative apple premise. Let us continue our logic. Anyone wishing to start a negative apple food business for losing weight can start with one negative apple, cut it half the way through to make two; repeat again and again.

I still content that females can have the same level of sex drive as males on any given day, but if we average this over time, the male has a higher time average. I think that some males would like to create the illusion, all is the same, since it would make it easier to satisfy the extra male desire. Men lie to women, with empirical a way to back up illusions. For example, as Ontogeny points out, female have a monthly hormonal cycle. Not all of the cycle is conducive to wanting to have peak sex. The male hormonal cycle is not the same. Even if they are equal during prime time, the math will not add up, when we use a time average. Maybe feminine men and masculine women, through learned behavior, can effect the average. But I was focusing on natural limits and not synthetic behavior. There is one aspect of natural behavior where the science is lacking. It has to do with the natural limits of natural behavior. One can repress a natural behavior, where they exhibit the natural behavior but the behavior is under utilized. One can also display a natural behavior, but with obsession, where the limits of natural are exceeded. Both show natural behavior but with unnatural limits. For example, although some animals may gouge foods at times, they still stay fit. Over a time, their eating behavior balances out even if they periodically gorge. Science may focus on the gorge, to show this occurs in nature, and then empirically show this is therefore natural for humans, while never showing the natural balance. Some moral codes repress eating, but some empirical codes do the opposite and create obsession. Both can exceed natural limits.

The random arguments of life work under the assumption that the organic nature of life occurs out of the context of water. For example, if we had a beaker of pure lipids (no water) random would be a useful assumption to help describe how the molecules move and orientate at room temperature. If you add water, so water becomes the main phase, the random of the lipids becomes reduced into a lipid bi-layer with a propensity to become a spherical shell, with water on both sides of shell. Once we add water, we can roll the lipid dice again and again, and double sixes appear again and again, because the dice are loaded because of the potentials within water. Experiments several decades ago, proved that lightning (simulated) can form the building blocks of life from basic gas molecules such as methane and ammonia. If you look at lightning, this is also an output feature from water, since lightning is generated by the water in certain types of clouds. Right from the beginning water is forging the basic building blocks of life, due its many common and anomalous properties. In Genesis 20; And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life. This ancient thinking is actually the future state of the art, if we can ever get past the erroneous assumption of random, that appears to occurs, when we leave out the potentials of water. This old thinking could create the illusion the basic cell membranes had to go through a long process of trial error and selective advantage, when water defined the way.

The question I posed was what about the new behavior called religion (back in the day) created a selective advantage? Science indirectly answers this question. Religions have been accused of causing repression of natural instinct. The modern push is to define and reintroduce natural instinct. But back in the day, the same repression of natural instinct created an advantage, since this would make room for new behavior, for which there is no instinct; civilization. For example, if we assume apes are our nearest biological relative, their instinctive package does not make provisions for civilization. They are designed for smaller family groups. To get from there to civilization, we would need to alter those instincts. Religion provided the means. Religion is considered irrational. In this case, the irrational was fighting fire (irrational instinct) with fire. Repression, in turn, still means will power and choice apart from natural compulsion. It can also lead to sublimation and altered behaviors. Regardless, one had to learn to think before acting in a natural way. Those without religion were more predictable via their instincts with thought not as essential.

Religion is a behavior that is uniquely human. Animals do not have religion. I have never seen anyone prove that they do. What this all means is, when religion first appears, a new behavior appears but only within humans. This new behavior must have created a selective advantage since it persisted and spread. Isn't persistence against other behavior a definition of selective advantage? Science defines humans in terms of genetics. This can be traced backs a few million years. Religion appears to define humans in terms of when this unique human behavior first appears. Before the behavior appears, biological humans had more commonality with the apes. Once religion appears, there is a unique divide. Civilization is close by. The next logical question is what was the advantage over no-religion?

The French are boneheads when it comes to the Burqa. They wish to create a new victimless crime. Right now a woman may be a prisoner in her culture due to dress. But once the law is instituted she will also become also a criminal of the state, doubling her injustice. To make the math add up, the doubling of victimization implies the doubling of criminals, with the state providing new legal criminals under the subjective guise of doing good. Picture a gang of police, guns, tear gas and bullet proof vests, busting down a door, to confiscate a closet of burqa. The boneheads that came up with that, must expect to get a kickback from the black market they will help create. I would make it illegal for boneheads to create such laws. I would prefer the gang of police break into the boneheads' house. This way the black market is nipped in the bud. If they form the law and a black market forms, should these leaders be placed in prison for assisting organized crime form a new branch?

One of the problems faced by the modern prison system is the large number of victimless criminals. If there is no victim relative to one's behavior, the rational mind does not see a crime, since it lacks the cause and effect (criminal/victim) associated with a valid crime. The irrational mind, on the other hand, can see cause without effect. What makes rehab difficult for such subjective crimes is the system needs to turn rational minds, irrational, so they can see the emperor's new clothes. Even of he is naked in a rational sense of crime/victim, one needs to see clothes or else the rehab is not working properly. For example, oranges are a snack that is good for you. Someone in power gets a paper cut and experiences a burning feeling, while peeling the orange due to the paper cut. They then decide oranges are evil and they need to protect everyone from this painful fruit. This may sound good to the irrational mind, since he appears to be trying to help us. We then create an orange prohibition. At the rational level eating an orange is not a rational crime since the cause and effect of crime and victim is not there. But as a subjective crime, where where cause and effect can break down, and oranges can attack you like pit bulls, this seems irrationally justified. To satisfy the cause and effect of a crime, we need both criminals and victims. The state acts as the criminal creating objective victims out of those who are in violation of a irrational crime. The system needs to brainwash these victims into irrationality, so they admit be the criminals. The government has spent zillions dealing with victimless crime and it only gets worse and not better. The reason is the rational mind will ignore the irrational and the victims of this irrationality will defy the criminals who constantly try to victimize them and brainwash them to be the scape goat. Real rational crimes tend to stay closer to steady state, while irrational crimes tend to escalate as rational victims resist the legal criminals. Better rehab would address the rational legal criminals who justify themselves within the context of an irrational crime.

Life on earth formed in water. The properties of water, which is the most anomalous of all chemicals, are still limited in scope. The theoretical organic complexity, on the other hand, appears almost limitless. When we combine both, to form life, the limitations of water reduce the organic complexity, to a greatest hits set, since only certain situations can take full advantage of the properties of water; certain organic things offer selective advantage in terms of the entire system water/organic. If we assume the organics evolved without water, then it looks like there are infinite possibilities and random/chance limited the set. If we add water, random/chance is replaced by the potentials and properties of water, molding what is optimized in the system water/organic. If we know water, we know how organics need to align in fundamental ways, if the goal is to fully take advantage of the potential that water has to offer; selective advantage. Here is the analogy. A person is in charge of a summer camp of small children (water). As the leader (organics), you can initiate any type of activity. Although the possibilities are almost endless, not all activities will allow the camp of children to get the most out of the camp experience. For example, although cliff diving is possible, very few can or will be able to participate; there no selective advantage for the group. However, there are a more limited number of activities that will allow the entire group to participate, giving all the best experience. With life, some theoretical organic complexity is like cliff diving and will not work very well in water. But there are certain things that work perfectly.

One way to help the cause is create a temporary tax, on all those who are paid by the tax payers. There are no need for layoffs. It is all a numbers game which raises money that also reduces the cost of doing business. I would also tax campaign moneys, treating it like a business with the same rates applied to businesses. Obama raised nearly a $billion which would have been taxed at the rate of business with the same revenues.

When the US and constitution first formed, the logistics were such that an election process was the most efficient system. The country became a republic and not a democracy for practical reasons. Everyone could not leave the farm, travel hundreds of miles by horseback, to and from Washington, to voice an opinion. This would be slow, cumbersome and totally inefficient int terms of the national economy. The solution was, local people would discuss things, elect a rep, and he would become the voice of the group. In modern times, we now have the logistics, that the farmers and town's people of 200 years ago did not have. These logistics could allow individuals to participate in the process, much more that via the old fashion election method, without having to leave the farm and/or travel for weeks (so to speak). We have TV, internet, teleconferencing, etc. There is no practical reason why one needs another person to speak for them, especially if there is no penalty for that person if he lies, beyond letting them continue their tenure until another election cycle. A lot of damage can be done. An analogy is having a friend talk to your professor for you about your grades, since you are sick and can't travel. You want him to talk on your behalf, but the circumstances create an opportunity for him. The way the rules go, you can't stop them from saying anything, until a full month is finished. You can't nip him in the bud, but need to wait. He can screw you, since you are handcuffed by the election tenure rules. If one could pull the rug out at any time, this would be better. But it still is not as efficient as your own voice talking to the professor. Since the logistics are there, what I would do is add another branch of government. We could call this the Popular Branch of government; composed of normal people for the people. This branch makes use of the modern information logistics to vote for the social agenda. Instead of a party deciding this, the popular branch does. Just as our elected official needs to go through a tough election process, voting in the popular branch should also require a process before one is allowed to vote for any issue. This assures some training and smart people voting. I like the idea of an objectivity test, which shows one is aware of both sides and is not not just a trained seal. A horse can be trained to tap once for yes and twice for no, but he can't learn to be objective. One can take the objectivity test as many times as needed, up to the vote. The popular branch needs at least 1,000,000 votes on a issue before the popular vote counts. This means at least 1,000,000 talented people and not just a smaller pool of elected officials. The result of this vote, shapes the agenda for all the processes that occur with the other branches. The popular branch is not the final say. Rather it is the first say; where we go. How we get from here to there, the other branches decide.

I would like to begin this by first discussing this effect in terms of classical gravity and then move it to relativity. This will make it easier to see this very common gravity anomaly. Here is the scenario. We are in space at zero gravity. I have a closed beaker full of liquid water. I take a pipet and place a bead of oil at the bottom of the glass. Because of zero gravity the system remains that way. Next, I will add gravity. The gravity will induce the phenomena called density and cause the bead of oil to move upward, away from the center of the gravity. None of the other forces of nature, alone will cause this effect. Once we add gravity, gravity will make use of the other forces; EM force, to create an effect that has the bead of oil moving opposite the direction expected by the pull of gravity. If we translate this to relativity, although the gravity well around our beaker should be pulling everything downward, the oil is moving up the well due to a displacement in the well. My hunch has been that the expansion of the universe is similar to this oil effect, where matter can move up the space-time well when gravity is applied, due to displacement down the well. The effect is not anti-gravity but space-time displacement.

Here is a theoretical consideration about water, at the high temperatures and pressure and high metal oxide concentrations within the mantle. The water will be induced to dissociate into OH- and H+, with the OH- interacting with the cations of the metal oxides. Below is an elemental and compound analysis of the mantle. Element Compound O 44.8 Si 21.5 SiO2 46 Mg 22.8 MgO 37.8 Fe 5.8 FeO 7.5 Al 2.2 Al2O3 4.2 Ca 2.3 CaO 3.2 Na 0.3 Na2O 0.4 K 0.03 K2O 0.04 Sum 99.7 Sum 99.1 The H+ from the dissociated water/metal oxide interactions will follow a concentration gradient toward lower concentration. Since it initially forms in the upper mantle the H+ flows toward the core simply because this is the direction of lower concentration. The acid flux in conjunction with oxide, corrodes the iron core to generate magnetic FeO. The result is a flow of electron current toward the surface (opposite to the H+ current downward); pH of oceans is slightly basic. This is also reflected by the current direction in lightning; negative up. Mars which also has an iron core is not magnetic to the same degree due to a disruption in H+ flux.