pioneer

When Bush was in office, the liberal activism groups had all the fun, since they could all rally against a common philosophical enemy. Now, the liberal activists are less active, due to disappointment with own party. For example, they fought against war. However, they can't fight against their own party who expanded the war; lost their consistent principles. They are tied up like a pretzel due to conflicting loyalty. The Tea Party members are now having their activism turn, since they have their own common enemy, which is clear cut to them. The liberal groups are not organized against the tea party, like they were against Bush, because of their own inner party conflict. Why put your butt on the line, for a bunch of democrats who ignored many of your own concerns. There was a call to arms, by the liberal media, but they don't have the same steam.

Religion attaches one to a higher power than oneself and other humans. This orientation makes it harder for some humans to control other humans, since these other humans, place their oppressors at a lower tier. God is up there and Hitler is in the little chair down there. Here is an analogy. Say you respected the opinion of your biological father for all your advice. If a fast talking professor came along and tried to alter your POV, there would a checks and balance, since you would confide in your father for his opinion. Then you could find a balance between the two or see things for what they are. If you lost your father to philosophical cancer, so he is no longer there to give advice, and the same fast talking professor comes along to alter your POV, it would much harder to resist. Hitler needed to get rid of religion since this offered the most resistance to brain washing, because it placed god laws above Hitler's laws. The german atheists were much easier to influence since Hitler was about as high as a human could go in terms of power. He replaced god for them, just like the professor might replace the missing father.

Rational theories, based on math logic or verbal logic will tend to last longer; Newton. Empirical theories, tend to change faster, because they don't have to be in touch with cause and effect to have practical value. They only have to appear to fit the data. For example, ancient astrology could be used to predict eclipses and the position of the planets. This is because the data they had collected was good. However, the theory they attached to the data was connected to the gods of mythology. They arranged the mythology around the data, to create a practical system that worked quite well. The data was sound, which is why it worked. However, even mythology, if attached just right, can lead to practical results and the impression of validity (in the short term). If we look at the above empirical mythology theory, even though it did give good results and could make predictions, there was a logic flaw up front that the age of "reason" made clear. Eventually all empirical theory is challenged with its own "age of reason". The logic theories, deal with the "up front logic " at the get go, so they tend to last longer. They won't use a mythology if it is illogical even if it appears to fit the data.

I don't think arrangements of C,H,O,N can mimic other atoms, in any useful practical way. Each atom has a nucleus and is also composed of layers of electron orbitals, with the outer most orbitals the one's connected to that atom's chemistry. Although one might be able to simulate the outer most electrons of another atom, the impact of all the layers below, would be hard to simulate, since C,N,O,H don't have most of these bottom layers. In the figure below C for example has 1S, 2S and 2p, with only the 1S buried below. If took an atom that had 5S at the top it may have 4F, 4D, 4P, 4S, 3D,3P 3S, 2P,2S, 1S all hidden below For example, the chemistry of Sodium and Potassium are both based on outer S-orbitals. Both forms ions, with the same charge; Na+ and K+. But because K (potassium) has more bottom layers, than Na (sodium) the cell is able to tell the difference, and will pump out the sodium and bring in the potassium. The hidden stuff makes a difference and would be complicated to simulate. It is easier to just use the atoms, as is.

Simply drinking a beer does not cause brain damage. Brain damage is caused by excessive usage, either in "pass-out sittings" or over the long haul. Up to 1-2 drinks per day seems to be fine and may have benefits. Those who are alcoholics, who stop, can usually resume normal lives. The brain does not appear to need all the original brain cells to do basic human tasks. The brain can reroute resources. There was a person who had a metal rod stuck in their head, which caused the loss of many brain cells; almost half the brain. Their brain rerouted and they were able to function. I assume the brain will needs time to reroute. Here is an interesting, and related angle, connected to the impact of alcohol. Alcohol lowers inhibitions. This makes it harder to hide behind a social mask. As people get drunk, what can be easily hidden behind a mask, often starts to come out into the open. It is easier for anyone to maintain deception, if one does not drink alcohol. I am not saying non-drinker are deceptive. Just lack of alcohol, makes this easier, if one is that way. For example, two people may not like each other, but they might put up a front in social situations. If we give them enough alcohol, that wall comes down and they will say what is hidden behind the curtain of pretense. They will touch reality. It would interesting to get a PC person drunk to learn what goes on behind their curtain. This pulling away of the curtain is often why people drink. A social mask can be individual and/or collective. It can be strong and can have an impact on behavior; inhibitions, etc. Once buzzed, that curtain can be pulled back and the someone else, below, comes out. However, too much alcohol reality can harm the brain cells.

Fluids tells us about the properties of ideal and real fluids in static and dynamic situations. This is a tool the Chemical engineer might need when looking at static and continuous flow processes. Advanced "fluids" makes use of continuum mechanics. Continuum mechanics is essentially 3-D calculus, since the properties of some fluids can be different in each direction. A flow through a pipe, has the fastest movement along the center liner, but will get sticky near the walls of the pipe and move slower. If this fluid was a plastic, viscosity can then have a radial distribution; shear thinning. One may need to model this, so the final process is predictable. To this basic fluid analysis, we may also need to add thermodynamic, heat, and mass transfer considerations, since the fluid properties are also dependent on these. One may even need to add the influence of reaction kinetics on the fluid, if we are reacting different substances, since the fluid will be changing composition, as its moves down the pipe. Introduction fluids is calculus in 1-D with fixed parameters.

The environment can set the potentials associated with selective advantage. The optimized needs of an animal in the desert is different than in the jungle. Selective advantage would imply evolving/learning to become optimized to lay of a particular land. One may evolve water retention in the desert. etc. This has no advantage in the jungle, but could slow you because of the extra weight being carried in body tissue. This lay of the land is better optimized with less water retention. Human evolution would have also been influenced by the environment, with migration one of the best ways to require that unconscious mental adaption need to move faster than biological adaption. If one is migrating in a desert, it may take many generations for biology or genetics to change toward the needs of environmental optimization. If the migration into the desert is only a generational pass through, heading toward the savanna, biology will not have time. Adaption for survival in the desert will be more brain dependent. If we also pass through the savanna, in another generation, etc.. the brain is again on its own, since biology just doesn't the time. The apes, still in the jungle, have all the time in the world for genetics to slowly adapt to that lay of the land. Under those conditions the brain can be the follower, behind the genetics, unless new things periodically pop up. But if we made the apes march out of the jungle, northward out of Africa, over a couple of centuries, they would be forced to use their brain beyond the speed of genetic adaptions. I often wondered what was the homing pigeon instinct in humans which kept them in migratory flux, forcing the brain to do more. Eventually they found what they were looking for and settled in to start civilization. All that mental workout paid off.

The position I hold is; creationism was an early part of the evolution of human consciousness. This ancient theory created a set of ideas for human contemplation, which helped the early humans think beyond their sensory systems. This was needed for civilization, since invention is not part of reality during conception, but can appear from nothing like this theory of the universe. Creation was a spontaneous creation, when conceived, since it had no precedent, there were no books, teachers, etc.. It was as natural as a genetic mutation, yet targeted to the path through which humans would evolve; mind instead of matter. In other words, humans over the past 10,000 years have come a long way. But little of this is attributed to genetic changes. Most of the progress was centered on the brain/mind, with creationism one of the original natural perturbations of the ancient mind, that got the ball rolling. It was attributed to god because it was a spontaneous occurrence, but not from DNA. The impact over the centuries would be through external learning and internal contemplation; brain not DNA. To me is is just as important as the first biological replicators. It became a way to trigger the brain to do a type of intellectual replication and mutation into variations, thereof. If it had not occurred, the brain may not have had one of the key seeds, leading to civilization. In the bible, Adam became a living soul. This is not talking about biology since a soul is ethereal. The mind changed, not the body. The body already had all it needed to start civilization, only the mind needed an upgrade; living soul.

The question I would like to pose, is there any fossil evidence for solar powered animals, in the earth's evolutionary past/present? By solar powered, I mean they would collect energy from the sun, via chlorophyl laden skin, and use that energy input to supplement their primary food requirement. Snakes use the heat of the sun. I was thinking more in terms of photosynthesis skin. I am not claiming this, just pondering the possibilities.

Pluto used to be a planet. Science changed its mind, which is a woman's prerogative, and took the planet title away from Pluto.

I see creationism in a way, which is easier for me to explain with an analogy. The planet pluto has been around for since the beginning of the solar system; 5-6 billion years. However, the planet pluto did not come into full human awareness, until the 1930's, although it has been postulated to exist back in the 1840's. Creationism is connected to when humans developed the first documented theories of the universe as a evolving process. Creation 6000 years ago, was not when the universe physically appeared in reality, but when it conceptually became reality, for the human mind. When I read Creationism, I look at it in the context of the times. The authors had to start from scratch, without any precedent. They did not have the internet, books or teachers to tell them. They were witness to a creative process, where the universe and evolution was first contemplated as an integrated series of events. Those who came later had this evolutionary gist, taught to them or written down to read, so they could ponder. Through the centuries, many contemplated from this and in the modern times the biological parts became modern evolution. Maybe another analogy is the first computer. It was very primitive, huge with only small functionality by modern standards. If we compared the modern supercomputer to this, it looks like a child built the first one. From the point of view of historical context, this original prototype, although simple and crude by modern standards, was the critical seed that made all the future of computers possible.

One way to lower costs, would be to give cash bonus incentives, directly connected to cost savings via efficiency. For example, we gave 1% of the value saved, as a cash bonus. If someone can save $1million they get $10K. The other 99% of the savings is given back as tax relief. Currently one can not profit by their position, so there is no incentive to be efficient like the free market. The incentive is to be inefficient since that makes one in charge of more resources. For example, if one was given a choice of a $10Millions budget and ten people under you, or $5million and five people under you, the bonus incentive person would pick the latter, if he could keep 1% of the difference. The department gets smaller, but he just made $50K. If there is no cash incentive, most will pick the $10M since you have more people under you and more funny money to spend on whatever. One is judged by the size of their budget and not bank account.

I am no expert at AIDS, so correct me if I am wrong. AIDS, as far as I know, does not attack all the cells of the body. Rather it targets the cells associated with the immune system. It is called the auto Immune deficiency disease and not leg or heart disease, since it does not go after leg or heart cells. What that means, most cells of the human body are not very specific for AIDS. How would you trick the virus in thinking the immune system is some other system within the body that it does not target? It would be like putting reindeer antlers on the pet dog, so AIDS thinks it is a reindeer and moves on to look for the dog.

I don't think gravitational potential is negative energy/mass. One way to test this is to give a steel ball some gravitational potential, by lifting it into the air. Next, we will let it fall attached to a string connected to a magnetic that will rotate as the ball falls; making electricity. We are using the conservation of energy to test for positive or negative energy. We will connect our electrical output to a special circuit with a dim light bulb. If it is negative energy we should suck electricity out of the system and make the bulb even dimmer. If it is positive energy we will make electricity and bulb will get brighter. We will make positive energy.

Another way to deal with this is to hire a pro (working girl). For example, if you were having a difficult time getting into athletic shape, one would hire a trainer. In this case, you need a sex trainer to help you touch reality and get into sexual shape by overcoming the mystique of sex. Once you touch reality, you will find things, easier. Call this a science experiment for characterizing sexuality. You are collecting first hand data to better characterize this natural phenomena. Two data points is enough for a line.

Copying is easier and requires little effort. Copying is like stealing, if what is being copied, is not being given freely. Someone else puts in the front end effort and takes the hard knocks. The thief comes in and skims the cream. Humans are natural born thieves. Some people will put in the effort but will share the cream. This is not stealing. Corporations, universities, etc., go through a lot of trouble to protect intellectual property from copying. One can invest millions developing and testing an idea or concept. Someone can copy it for free and then capitalize on it with less effort. They have less overhead and can begin the race at point B, instead of starting the race at point A. If the game had rules to protect the intellectual property of the initiators, so one could not steal quite as easy, the results would change.

Money can be saved by making programs more efficient. For example, what we need is data that shows what percent of the money given to the various programs, goes to the ends users. For example, if we are looking at farming and farmers get 25% of the total amount budgeted and it takes 75% to implement the farm program, we could cut the budget in half and still meet the end user amount. But we would need sharper tools in the shed. Another way to raise revenues is to tax campaign contributions, by treating this as a type of business income. The tax rate could be the same as that for businesses of the same size. For example, the last presidential cycle raised over $1B for one office. If you consider all the offices, we can raise billions of new taxes. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

Why??? Because!

Years back I used H2O2 as a mouth rinse. By accident, I drank some of it. All it did was give me gas, because the H2O2 broke down in my stomach. I think I was using 5%. Years later, I used H2O2 to clean a small surgery cut that had stitches. Anywhere the cut was actively healing, the H2O2 would fuzz and give off O2 gas. As areas began to heal. they would stop giving off gas. I often wondered, what was in the active healing areas, which breaks down H2O2? It was a cool visual. I could see the healing distribution within the cut over time, by observing where the strongest and weakest O2 fizz was and where the strong fizz decayed and weak fizz stopped.

Mass is a tangible variable. If one got hit with a mass, one can feel it. This is what Newton based gravity on. Space and time are only reference variables. Space and time are not real physical things; according to science. If I threw space and/or time at you, one won't feel anything, since these are only mental constructs. Let me get the logic straight; gravity went from being connected to a tangible variable (mass), into being connected to two mental construct variables (space-time), which are not tangible things. Does this imply that our perception of gravity went from a connection to something real, into an product of the human mind based on intangible things? Here is an analogy to what I am saying. We currently say clouds are made of water. Water is both real and tangible. I will replace that real and tangible water with a mental construct variable; something this is not a tangible thing. For now on, clouds are made of "fairy dust" since this is not tangible but only a mental construct. Clouds are due to distortions within fairy dust, which, in turn, is not even considered tangible. I used to assume space and time had to tangible or the entire space-time model was only a correlation based on nothing tangible.

Hydroelectric, such as dams, already use gravity as an energy source; water falling to lower potential. Along that theme, if we could trap rain water at elevation (mountains), we could use this solar induced gravitational energy as a renewable energy supply. .

Modern atheism offers us a look into our animal past, before a branch of humans evolved that something extra. That something extra was needed for modern civilization. Faith in god implies a belief in something not seen and not proven. That also characterizes the conception of all innovation. Upon conception of an idea, nothing yet exists in reality. Yet the creator needs faith, it can be, even when everyone tells them it does not exist in reality. Since the atheist pre-humans could not perceive, what they could not see, they would fear the nebulous, until the nebulous becomes tangle enough to see. This slowed their progress. Those with the extra, could more comfortably extrapolate, beyond the limits of the sensory systems. This gave the new branch an advantage. A group of such neo-humans with similar faith skills, could see the intangible, brain storm it, allowing them to develop the innovations (never seen in nature) needed for civilization. The atheist were good after the fact, when they can see it. They they can learn and copy. In the bible, the story of Cain and Abel tells of the atheist majority of humans of that time. After Cain kills Abel, Cain is sent away. Cain fears, "whoever shall come upon me shall kill me". If Adam, Eve and Cain were the only three neo-humans at that time, who were these "whomever", whom Cain was afraid of? It was the the atheist branch of the humans, which were the vast majority at that time. Cain is given a sign for protection. That would suggest something that Cain possessed that would spook the atheist. Maybe a talisman. Something the atheist could see, and know was real, but since it was not natural, it spooked them. This sign caused the atheists to avoid Cain, unless Cain initiated contact. I would guess Cain bred with the atheist females. The atheist females liked the bad boy with the bling. While the atheist males, who descended from the apes, were into gay stuff, since this is what animals do, according to modern science. The neo-humans, who could extrapolate to the future, avoided that and began to increase their population. History according to pioneer.

The media in the US periodically brings up the pedophile priests scandals within the Catholic Church. The data shows most of that is done by gays; males molesting younger males. Heterosexual priest and little girls is much less common. This data is not presented that way for good reason. It is spun in a way to disguise this historical dark side of gay. Ironically, the church protects these gays priests, hoping they will learn some self control, even while be accused by the atheists of being intolerant of gays.

For the most part, all the cells in the human body have the same DNA. The DNA in each cell type is differentiated, via packing proteins, causing each cell type to have access to a specific fraction of the total DNA. Conceptually, one can turn any cell, into any cell, since they all have the same DNA. During cell cycles, the DNA of all the differentiated cell types form the same chromosomes. All the daughter cells, of all the differentiated cell types, start with the exact same DNA packing configuration, yet each is able to revert this to the specific distribution. There is one observation that explains this in the simplest terms. Red blood cells lose their entire DNA, but continue to function. This shows that the protein grid is quite self sufficient. During cell cycles, when the DNA is totally taken off-line for duplication and/or packed away as chromosomes, the protein grid continues the cellular business in autonomous fashion. I would assume the specific protein grid, connected to a cell type, has the duty of unpacking the DNA into the specific shape that will be in equilibrium with the grid's protein capacitance.