pioneer

One variable always left out is water. No aspect of the evolutionary process can happen without water being present. We are leaving out this other half the equation of life, which represents most of the atoms of life. What is left does not contain all the logic needed for pure reason, causing us to remain in empirical mode by default. The variety of things possible via the organics of life appears limitless. While the odds that life can form from simple organic seems low. However, the main component of life, which is water, is more limited in terms of preferred states. This sets limit for life and defines preferred states; lowest energy. With water, one is not just talking about the organic odds, but an aqueous system that makes specific organic outcomes more preferred for energy reasons. One is not throwing dice in a vacuum, but in a media that can interact with the dice. The six dimple side has a different drag in the water than the one dimple side of the dice, creating a prefer dice spin. For example, the lipid bi-layer of the membrane is the lowest energy state of these materials, when these materials are dissolved in water. There are not an infinite number of possibilities (leave out water and assume this is done in a vacuum). Rather there is one lowest energy state because of water. Even before life or lipids appeared on earth this was still going to be the fate of the lipids because of water, even if chaos was working overtime rolling the dice for the lipids for millions of variations. Although harder to demonstrate, I assume that many other milestones of life, although random to some extent, have favored states in water. Once you know what is favored in water, it eventually becomes what is optimized with selective advantage; irreducible simplicity.

One thing about practical thinking; much of the thought processing is done at an unconscious level by the mainframe of the brain. The unconscious compares the absorbed data, does the data crunching, and spits out a bottom line; Eureka!. But it occurs so fast, one may not be able to formulate the solution to the final answer, in a conscious way. One might have to do that second. Science makes an effort to formulate the solution in a formal and conscious way. The scientist would not spend a lot of time and resources on a topic, unless they already had a hunched for the bottom line. The practical thought will often come first, even in science, before the formalisms. In many cases, we are good to go almost immediately. However, the protocol of rituals will be enforced, except during emergencies. The system needs the rituals of science, so others who can't see, can also see. Often politics plays a role for this process. If their unconscious is not able to generate the bottom line of this particular practical thinking, they need a formal conscious way to see the same thing. They don't wish to be put out to dry trying to pretend to understand like an actor. Even if they can't still see, using the formal solution, they can still use the subjectivity of another's prestige to add emotional certainty. In emergencies, there is not enough time for the rituals and practical thinking is allowed more freedom since it is ready to go almost immediately.

One variable I don't hear being talked about is water. Water under the pressures and temperatures within the crust, is called hydrothermal and can dissolve most minerals found in the crust. Also, water will condense at higher temperatures, when subject to extreme pressure, and will expand up to 10% when it liquifies. It has the right stuff to lift and sink plates. Here is the scenario, liquid water covers the majority of the surface of the earth and can be found flowing and/or pooling on and under the surface of the land. In some places, the water is nearly as thick (deep ocean water) as the thinnest crust. As water is squeezed by gravity through cracks in the crust, toward the mantle, hydrothermal water forms and will follow the thermal gradient toward high temperature and will dissolve downward. This can be demonstrated in the lab and is the main way one creates hydrothermal crystals using gravity and passive convection. Water eats downward (hot allows more to dissolve) and precipitates upward (cool dumps the minerals) renewing the capacity of the hotter water to keep eating downward toward the higher temperature. On the surface of the earth, the sun is evaporating water which enters the atmosphere to form clouds. This cools the surface water and increases the thermal gradient. Lightning reflects another form of gradient that increases due to the solar evaporation. The sun plays a role. We also have thermal convection inside the earth due to various factors such as radioactive decay. This convection upward, causes the water to physically reverse the bulk hydrothermal path toward higher temperature. This forced convection cools the hydrothermal solutions, precipitates out molten material, with the water, condensing at high pressure, expanding by 10%. Much of the water will still follow the thermal gradient back to higher temperature leaving magna to lower energy by moving to the surface.

Relativity does a good job explaining the things its was designed for. However, the theory is still open to questions about the underlying physical mechanisms that make all this possible. In other words, although the results of the math can be supported with experiments, the underlying mechanisms of relativity, such as why time dilation, tend to get fuzzy. This is what many people see and never get a good answer. Relativity will bend space and time, which are two things that are not even considered tangible, but are math reference variables. That means that an underlying mechanism is able to bend things not even tangible (paper bender)? Say I wanted to propose that the underlying mechanism was due to pixie dust. The pixie dust is not tangible either, but it is what I want to use it as a reference for my mechanism. Actual mechanisms need to be based on real tangible things and not just abstractions contrived with math art. However, math art doesn't have to be use tangible objects to be beautiful, elegant and valuable. I often tried to define time as an actual thing connected to the frequency aspect of energy. But the math art needs to keep time an abstract thing that has no real substance. This ethereal time is needed for relativity. Science just does not get how one can not make a real mechanism out of ethereal things. They are too busy gawking over the work of art. When the layman doesn't get the same art buzz and asks for a tangibility mechanism they are swine. Here is my question; what is the mechanism and how do tangible things interact with non-tangible things; pixie dust? I prefer time potential which is connected to energy but not dependent on space/distance.

Humans have been coming up with explanations for reality for thousands of years. But all these explanations were subject to change. At each step, what was assumed to be reality, was imaginary, using the 20/20 hindsight of history. I assume much of what we know today, is not the final reality, or else science would retire. We keep going because there are questions and conceptual inconsistencies. What we know today may also be imaginary, however, we feel better if we imagine this is reality. Tomorrow, when new idea change the old reality, we will be gone and the 20/20 hindsight of history will say, "what were they thinking". Then they will imagine they are the final reality, with the same conviction, shown all through history. This special effect has an explanation. Sensory data enters the brain. That is real. Humans then interpret and explain how this relates. The first aspect is a reflection of animal reality, while the second has a more human overlay. To the untrained mind, they are conscious of the input, which is real. But may be unaware how tradition conditions imagination. Once the die is cast, it all seems real due to the input overlay. The next generation is less attached to these traditions, and will seek problems/solutions. They too set up their own traditions. If we look at the formation of the universe, fifty years ago we had big bang theory and the biblical creationism. That was enough for many decades. But now we have many more universe realities. Reality entering the eyes has not changed, but we have added more secondaries. These additional secondaries make use of science and math. This should make it real. However, how can we have so many realities, some mutually exclusive, based on math and science, for the same universe? This should demonstrates that even science can play the secondary games. This special effect is due to math art. Like the artist painting an abstraction, good quality math artists are able to paint abstractions of reality with equations. Being a tight close clique, these works of art can remain viable for extended periods of time. Science then added probability and chaos, which is a addendum to the secondary mind games, to make even the special effects of Picasso look real on occasion.

Different parts of the brain do different things. It seems logical, that if one coordinates many mutually exclusive brain tasks at once, you can get more parts of the brain into action, at the same time. For example, the martial artist is moving his body with both coordination and speed to address his gang of opponents. Besides his cerebellum, he is using all his senses in heightened awareness. He also needs eyes behind his head, so he is reasoning and using his imagination to figure out hidden opponents. He then takes a few shots to head which adds a new awareness of pain to the brain's blend. This gets his emotions and adrenaline pumping, causing the brain's core to light up. This may be why fighting and even war have been so contagious; gets the brain closer to max. Time can also appear to slow down, meaning the processing speed gets much faster, maybe due to more brain.

The onset of the religious experience added subjective awareness, beyond the cause and effect associated with prehuman traditions. The pre-humans were connected to a long but slow process of change. With the rise of the subjectivities of religion, this all change allowing civilization to appear. One possible way to compare the change in humanity, may be to compare a small child who has a lot of active imagination, to child who reacts in a purely sensory way. The imaginary child can make up a game using only a string. The sensory child needs a more specific toy with enough sensory appeal to push his attention button. The latter is more in touch with sensory reality and specific personal tradition, while the former is more in touch with possibilities that do not directly equate in a sensory way. The imaginary friend of a small child demonstrates how the human brain can generate interactive simulation. This is socially taboo after a certain age and the child will be conditioned to repress the effect, both by science and modern religion. But consider a time, when this imaginary effect was just beginning to occur. This could cause individuals to detach from conservative evolutionary traditions still practiced by most pre-humans. The old group of pre-humans is picking off fleas based on sensory stimulation using the same conservative hand-eye coordination skills that evolved over thousands of years, all the way back to ape ancestors. The new imaginative human is messing up the simple task, because he is wondering how god is able to fit into such a small living thing. Biology appears in embryonic form. The tools needed for the change into civilization is part subjective and part objective. With objective we have science, math and engineering. With the subjective we have philosophy, religion, politics, cultural traditions such as festivals, art, music, dance, marketing, advertising, propaganda, spin, opinion, etc. Once these subjectivities coordinate, via a central hub, large groups of humans begin to coexist.

What I would like to do is treat religion as a behavior, and look at this behavior in the context of evolution, to see if this new behavior brought selective advantage. Instead of treating religion as pro or con, I am treating religion as a new human behavior that suddenly appears. Here is the scenario; it is 10,000 years ago or so and humans are an extension of the apes and evolution, things moving slowly forward. Suddenly a new behavior appears in some of the pre-humans. Did this bring these humans a selective advantage? One way to answer this is to compare the two states of mind. The one with the religion or god effect will begin to see some version of divine subjectivity overlaying reality. For example, if his god was of the forest, that god could be in any tree or behind any bush. This would add something extra to his awareness beyond the cause and effect of the sensory systems. Someone without this new behavior would be more in touch with cause and effect, being triggered by the sensory system as it has always been; slow evolution. The other guy not only reacts to the conservative sensory button pushing, but also the subjectivities of his imagination. Will this extra give him a selective advantage? At the very least, this will exercise his imagination more, until the ancient cause and effect of instincts starts to break down; new man.

Without water, the organic framework of life can exist in a suspended state. However, to reactive all the properties associated with life, we need water. The DNA double helix also has a double helix of water. If we dehydrated the DNA, it no longer becomes viable for life. Add water back and we are back in business. Conversely, life can not exist with water alone. Rather, water needs the organic framework of life based on C,N,O,H,P,S, etc.. Once the organic framework is set up, water can animate the scaffolding. This is evident in dehydrated organisms, where all the scaffolding of life comes alive during rehydration. It is not coincidence that the molecules of life are dependent on the secondary bonding called hydrogen bonding. What is needed for the functionality of the DNA, RNA and proteins, is also the same used by water. This is how water interfaces to the organics to impart life. Life evolved in water, with water the main component, right from the beginning. The evolving organics needed to conform to the potentials found in water or else they would increase the potential energy within the water (surface tension). Since water was the big guy, and nature likes to lower energy, organics lowered potential in the image of water; h-bonds. The question becomes, what is there about water that allows it to uniquely add life to the organic scaffolding of life? In the liquid state, the molecule H2O will only exist for about 1 millisecond, before the H swap oxygen. One of the effects is what we call pH. The net result is hydrogen bonding is assisting the breaking of covalent bonds at ambient conditions. This easy change of state allows water to transmit information through the water. This is combined with the observation that the H proton of water is the fastest thing in water, able to outrun Na+ by a thousand-fold. The net result is water is able to react to moving solutes molecules and fixed surface signals and then transmit the information through the water via the adjustments in the H. The speedy H is way ahead of solutes. The destination water is reacting to the information, conforming, tugging on the local organic surfaces and solutes, making these ready. Then the slower boat organics and ions arrive, the organic scaffold is already primed. If we use other solvents, the information is garbled and the tug is not the same. Water by transmitting information imparts life to the scaffold. We take away the water, there is a communication breakdown and life stops. .

All the stockholm syndrome parallel to religion can also be applied to political correctness. The difference is the PC captors having more teeth in modern times, compared to western religion, and are able to create a better syndrome. For example, I can dump on religion, blaspheme god or deny anything religions stand for. Do I have the same freedom with the laws of PC? Which one holds its captives tighter to create a better syndrome? I was going write two paragraphs, to push the buttons of the captors of religion and the captors of PC. I was more afraid of the PC captors, since the captors of religion show mercy and won't try to censor me. With religion, one might be captive as a child, but one can leave to be an atheist, change their church to suit changing tastes. With PC you can't leave or the thugs will abuse you. They will throw you a good word as a bone if you don't given them trouble.

There is a cause and effect between environmental potentials and some aspects of evolution. For example, if the earth's atmosphere changed, we know many aspects of life would need to change to meet the new demands, with selective advantage going to those who can make the best of the new atmosphere. Even before we begin the biological process of change, we know the gist of where evolution needs to go and will go. For example, we use antibiotics. This is a man-made hostile environmental potential we are setting for the bacteria. I bet the goal of bacteria evolution will be connected to lowering this potential; building resistance. If we use the traditional evolutionary theory, which assumes evolutionary change has no cause and effect toward a goal, this would imply the bacterial resistance to these drugs will be a random crap shoot, with the odds of them learning to sing just as likely. This assumption of evolution may be why antibiotics were over used, since what are the odds of them achieving a well defined goal at the level of the DNA? Relative to sea creatures learning to walk. The two paths are random or we can set a potential so this new behavior is a way to lower a life threatening potential. For example, the body of water begins to dry up into smaller pools, with the critters getting crowded in the pools; puddle hoppers.

Here is a unique way to look at religion. How about looking at religion in the context of evolution. In particular, let look at this uniquely human thing, called religion, as being analogous to a new animal behavior. The question becomes, did this new behavior, unique to only some humans at first (animals don't have religion) create a selective advantage? One way to answer this, is to use the atheist argument that one can not prove god exists via the sensory systems. What that means is, to believe in religion or god, one needs to use aspects of the mind/brain that are not linearly wired into the sensory systems, i.e., the imagination. This is consistent with another atheist argument; god is of the imagination. This means when religion first appears the human imagination expands. Will more use of the imagination give an advantage? As an example, if one's tribe had a a god living in their forest, that god might be in any tree, since this is his forest. This god could be scary or really nice, making all trees in that forest more noticeable (possible fear or reward), even if 99% of the trees offer nothing in terms of any real sensory trigger for action (would be ignored, normally). Someone who was purely sensory, would instinctively be more restricted to those trees that can push a sensory button. The first mind has expanded beyond, in a subjective way. While the second mind remains contracted like it has always been.

Here is my theory of the mind. Consciousness has a connection to entropy, since consciousness allows additional degrees of freedom compared to machines. A computer can only do what it is programmed to do. If we could design a computer that could step outside its programming, and do more than it was programmed for, it would have the additional degrees of freedom or the extra entropy for consciousness. What is unique about neural memory, compared to computer memory, rather than be an on-off switch like computer memory, neural memory is dynamic switch In the case of neural memory, the switches (synapses) fire constantly and generate energy. To increase entropy, one needs to add energy. The firing of the memory generates the energy, used for the entropy of consciousness. With the development of language, the amount of conscious memory increased, so did the entropy of consciousness; choice and willpower. If you look at brain waves, these reflect a system wide firing of memory, so a wide range of memory sets up the background energy for the entropy of consciousness. If the brain waves get faster, this generates more energy per time and increases the entropy of consciousness.

The term homophobic is based on a language game manipulation. If a person was walking down a dark alley and became defensive because of a gang of street thugs, they would be called gang-o-phobic. Gang-o-phobic means secretly they want to become part of the gang and their defensive anxiety is not even real. The train of illogic doesn't even make sense when applied elsewhere, unless we were promoting gangs and trying to help with their recruitments so the data looks better. How about this application of the language game; gays are homophobic-phobic. They secretly like to gay bash but are in denial. When put into perspective the language game is illogical. I tend to think so called "homophobic" behavior (defensive) is as natural to that person as gay behavior is to a gay person. They are the two sides of the same coin. If you extrapolated gay to 100%, the human species would not exist for more than one generation. If all females became lesbian to 100%, guys would still do them and make babies. Mother nature, to avoid a possible path leading to extinction of the species, set up checks and balances to limit the percentage. Based on the liberal language manipulation game, only one side of this survival of the species coin is considered a mental disease. However, the entire coin should be treated as an single entity, with both sides of the coin either a mental disease or not.

Free will is the ability to make choices; freely, without subjective cost. Determinism implies the choice has been made by fate. As such, one can not freely choose the alternative without cost or consequence. A random world is closer to free will, in one sense. I could pick the apple today and orange tomorrow without any price, if that is how the dice roll. However, random assumes no will to chose, against the roll of the dice. If one choses the apple when the orange dice appears, one would be cursed by the lord chaos. For example, the dice shows certain foods can cause heart problems. This is not true for 100% of the people all the time. So, even if it does not apply to you at that time, one is suppose to act using the roll of the dice, anyway. Free will is not afraid to chose the opposite at times. If not that would imply a subjective price to pay for that choice. Free will sort of makes use of random, allowing a wider range of choices. Today the apple and maybe tomorrow the orange. But free will also has an element of determinism, with one's willpower making its own determinations, free of emotional cost. Free will blends the two opposites. Say someone, at a very early age, loved chocolate. Was this determined at birth if this choice will linger throughout their life? When learning free will, one will also try vanilla and strawberry, and maybe moderate chocolate until the original determinism is watered down. One might then use random to make sure all the flavors get a taste, with will choosing this. It is possible free will is not part of biology. Rather, it requires practice to develop. It takes will to develop free will.

The problem with this lies in comparative proof. It is easier in the lab to expand a block of mass thereby expanding the gravity field and the local space-time, than to add space-time between matter out of nothing, so nothing has to move. Has anyone demonstrated the latter in the lab? I tend to think this assumption is an illusion, based on circumstantial evidence, until someone could prove it can be done in the lab. Just because the math says so, does not the mean the conclusions of the math are real. As proof of this statement, there is a direct relationship between graphical and mathematical representations of data. These are two ways to do the same thing with graphing easier. Below is a graphical representation, which if one wanted to translate, could be expressed with equations. It is called the stairway to nowhere. It can exist on paper and be expressed with equations, even though it can not exist in reality. I have always assumed the expanding space-time effect is a stairway to nowhere that fools the experts; clever magic trick, until lab proof.

Somewhere along the line, character went away. A person of character would not cheat even if it would help them look better. A person who is a character (pretender) is all about appearances; actor playing a role. For those who don't know what character is, here is a summary.

Free will is the ability to make choices without subjective cost. The choice is subjectively free of charge. For example, one might have the will power to kill, but it could result in a high cost, such as guilt. That would be an example of will and choice, but not free will, since there would be a price for that particular choice. Free will is the ability to freely choice between options without any subjective cost or value added one way or the other. If I put an apple and orange on a table, and you could freely pick either without prejudice or compulsion that is free will. If you prefer one over the other, you still have will and you have choice, but not free will; one is good and the other yucky so there is a price to pay for one choice. In this case, something beyond free will is making the choice for you, unconsciously like an animal. Free will is a skill that is learned. The default is not free will, but will and choice with subjective price or cost. One way to develop free will is to challenge your personal biases. Each bias restricts free will, since the opposite choice have a cost. Once you know the source of the bias, you can become objective to it. The cost went down. Next, you challenge group bias to allow even more free choice. Once that is neutralized, choices are more free.

Is taxation a form of stealing? Here is a scenario. I am walking down the street and see a poor woman who needs food. To help her, I strong arm the first person I see, and take his wallet and give it to the woman. Is this stealing? Say there is a crowd of people there, cheering me on to strong arm the man to get his wallet, to give to the woman, is that stealing? This is how taxation works. The group agrees to let an agent forcefully take what it did not earn, nor what belongs to it. It has all the elements of stealing. Does that mean those who like to tax the most are the biggest thieves? Let us extrapolate the scenario even further. The group agrees for me to strong arm the man against his choice, since the woman is in need. But rather than just take what he has in his wallet, we also decide to take his ID and go to the bank and borrow money in his name. He has to pay this all back. Is this stealing? The alternatives to these stealing scenarios; the man sees the poor woman in need and reaches into his own pocket and gives her some money. Is that stealing? Or the crowd cheers the man on, so he reaches into his own pocket to give to the poor woman. Is that stealing? The question is, how could taxation become altered so it takes on less characteristics associated with thieves and stealing? One way to begin, is to not allow the thieves to escalate their stealing behavior. They may like the shake-down and might make up excuses just for the fun of the shakedown. The poor lady needs her nails done, so we need to mug those people over there. Balance budgets are good since it means the thieve can still take what is in your wallet, but he can't steal from your future. If he does that, you become his slave or servant, until you pay off the debt he created. This is no different than a third world person in a sweat shop, who has to work as a slave for years, until they buy back their freedom. Once the thieves are restricted to your wallet, here and now; anti-slavery, we then shift their stealing behavior more toward charity. One preliminary way to do this is to give each person a say as to where their tax dollars go. It is like the thief steals your wallet, and then asks you where should he spend your money? You may not like being mugged, but at least it almost feels like a version of charity. You can't depend on the thief to read your mind. He may like the shakedown. One way to implement this; at tax time, once your taxes are figured out; the thief picks your wallet, he outlines out all the places he might spend your money. After looking at his list, you decide in which piles your stolen money goes. Liberals like social policies so they can request that their stolen money goes into those piles. The conservatives like military and business so they can request their stolen money goes in those piles. The thief steals but the victims set the budget for the thieves.

Other planets, with atmospheres do form clouds, using other chemicals, but I assumed the discussion was talking about the earth. Other planets, like Venus have much higher pressures in their atmosphere. Water doesn't need the same pressures to form clouds. Ironically, rain clouds are usually associated with low pressure system and not high pressure systems. Forming clouds can pull a vacuum; create low pressure. This is due to the strength of the H-bonding. As the vapor water condenses from gas to liquid/solid the volume occupied the water drops by a factor of 700. This removes the partial pressure contribution of the gaseous water. If you ever did canning, one heats the open jar. Then we put on the lid. As the jar cools and the water condenses, it will pull a vacuum. If we look at the BP of water as a function of pressure, one will notice water should condense quicker at high pressure, yet rain and most clouds on earth are more common in low pressure systems. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAn interest cloud that makes use of the condensation vacuum is a thunder cloud. The ground for many square miles might have similar high humidity, for example, over the western plains of the USA. The extra water in the warm humid air makes the air lighter, causing it to rise. But the warm air does not always rise uniformly, to form a uniform bank of clouds. Sometimes extra warm air will funnel into a tall thunder cloud. The rising air condenses and solidifies, fastest in the thunder cloud, pulling the main vacuum. A tornado is a good way to connect the potential between the vacuum and the ground; faster than just a simple flow. With a thunder cloud, we are also dealing with the energy released due to hydrogen bonding potential lowering. This energy calculates to having 8% of the water vapor flowing into the cloud, a O2/H2 burn, but using a cool phase change burn. This drives the condensation vacuum engine with the waste energy going into entropy. The clouds begin to act funny. The result is our thunder system can get somewhat unpredictable due to the entropy potential. But it can't become more unpredictable than the value of its energy source, since entropy needs energy and can't exceed its supply.

The male and female sexual drives can reach the same peak levels. However, males naturally reach the peak level more often. Males are less likely to fake it and are also less likely to say "not now". The higher time average sex drive of males makes them more willing to pay in some way. Males don't need all the extra foreplay, talk and cuddling. This is all needed to induce females to similar levels. The higher time average sex drive of males may also be why males are more promiscuous. Theoretically, many women allows the time average sex drive of all these females to average the same as the male. With one woman, the lower time average sex drive versus the higher time average allows the female to have a bartering tool. The oldest profession reflects the differences in the sex drive, with some entrepreneurial females filling in the deficit of the local males using the free market. An interesting consideration is gay. Relative to sex drive, the gay drive is closer to male then female, which is why this phenomena may not be biological. If a gay was a women in a male body, she should have a lower time average drive closer to female.

It is possible some of the basic assumptions of the BB are not correct, thereby making it harder to speculate all the way to t=0. Relative reference does not always do an energy balance. For example, a black hole forms a singularity in space-time yet space-time not too far beyond the black hole is not fully contracted. The full contraction of space-time is a local effect in space. This is because the mass/energy equivalent of the black hole is finite and not infinite. We have a finite mass/energy universe, therefore one should not expect space all the way to infinity to be contracted at the BB. Far enough away, infinite space barely noticed the BB. The contraction of space-time may have been a local effect relative to infinite space scales. We would need an infinite mass/energy universe, which is not the case. A simple energy balance would tell us this, using the black hole to see a real life example. Another relative reference bias is, we assume space-time is expanding and the matter/energy of the universe; moving, secondarily. However, if we expand a dense mass, the local space-time will also expand due the local GR field changing. We can also have matter moving first and then space-time changing second. We already know matter can bend space-time thereby proving this cause and effect. A simple big bomb version of the BB, by spreading out the initial matter/energy singularity could also expand space-time relative to the initial GR field of the singularity. No mystery matter is needed, to move space-time, so it can then move matter? The question becomes, where does the explosion energy of the big bomb come from, so matter can inflate/expand and pull space-time along for the expanding space-time ride? One logical explanation is a massive lowering of entropy within the singularity. If we look at protons, these can exist for as long as the universe. Yet, if we separate protons into its substructure, the substructure won't last beyond a blink of an eye. The substructural components, by themselves, have a much higher entropy or have more degrees of freedom. They have the freedom to become energy and change phase quickly. Proton lack that extra freedom. If we go from sub-particles, to long-lived composites structures like the proton, the entropy drops drastically. This lowering of entropy released a lot of energy. To get an idea of the energy released, let us reverse the proton within a particle accelerator. We will add a lot of energy over a period of time, to increase the degrees of freedom of the proton innards, to restore all the entropy within the sub-particles; so we can see them. If we then reversed this, all at once, back to protons, all that accelerator and collision energy needs to be released at the same time. Picture this with zillions of protons; we get inflation of the former sub-particle virtual singularity, with the energy expanding the definitive matter, which then expands space-time, locally in infinite space. The next question is, why an entropy condensation? In other words, we start with virtual probability functions; sub-particles somewhere between energy and matter, which are induced into composites that are more conducive to definitive reality; now it is here for billions of years. The initial entropy of all the distinct sub-particles, is much too high to materialize into a universe full of definitive things, simultaneously. What are the odds? Therefore, we first need to neuter all the extra degrees of freedom, before we can built a definitive universe. So what we need is a force that only works on high energy virtual sub-particles and then no longer applies after the entropy condensation into definitive composites which last as long as the universe. Can we reform protons from sub-particles within the lab? That is where I would look for this force.

The hydrogen bonding of water plays a major role in the formation of clouds. One will not see clouds of nitrogen or oxygen gas within the atmosphere, even though these gases dominate the atmosphere and experience all the same solar, wind and temperature conditions. They don't make much use of H-bonding unless initiated by the water. Although hydrogen bonding may seem trivial, to give one a feel for the amount of energy; Imagine if up to 8% of the water in the atmosphere was replaced by H2 and O2 gas being burnt. That is the theoretical potential energy associated with the H-bonds, as we go from humidity all the way to liquid water. Clouds act as a step down toward lower energy. If we step down quickly, such as in thunder clouds the energy is released much quicker. This extra energy is like a wild card which can make some weather events hard to predict, unless one does an energy balance.

Morality is about optimizing human social interactions so the group can evolve and grow. It is less about the needs of the ego or the individual, and more about the needs of the group so it can evolve. For example, it is not moral to steal. Stealing could optimize the ego or individual by allowing one to get extra resources with the least amount of effort. But this won't optimize the group. If we all decided to steal, there is nobody working to make any resources. This would cause the group to shrink and the individual to ultimately suffer, until the laws of the jungle apply. Then we are under the laws of Darwin. If we say, "thou shall not steal" and we all agree to act this way, then there is no quickie resource commandeering by the individual. We all need to contribute, causing the group to have maximum output. This allows the group to grow. Morality was needed for civilization. Darwinian evolution is about the group being optimized genetically, via the selective advantage of the individual. This makes the species chemically strong via breeding. Animals do not have to be moral because of this genetic method. However, this genetic method limits the group size, with apes only able to form very small groups. To form a civilization of apes; million members, they would need some version of social ape morality. Science tends to promote the Darwinian ape and leaves out the extra human spark behind civilization. The best morality allows the group to evolve the fastest.

If you look at PC (politically correct) that is an example of atheist morality. It stems from the more anti-religion political party thereby helping us isolate it. It is sort of a spin-off of Christian morality; do onto others and love your neighbor, but with an Old testament twist; an eye for an eye. It makes use of retroactive guilt and divine entitlement. It magically turns words (noises) into demons and angels, which have power over people, creating false gods or verbal idols. The atheist church enforces this morality, using law and force. This is atheist religion. One can take people out of religion but not religion out of the people.