pioneer

Material success often begins with an idea for a unique market niche. It then requires drive, and perseverance, even when there is nothing yet to show for all your efforts. School actually helps with all these steps. School exposes students to a wide range of things making it easier to find your own unique niche. It gives one the ability to research and extrapolate. College is something you pay for, sort of like going into debt to start a company. One is also required to put in long hours, without much in the way of immediate tangible material reward. The reward of school is at the end of the tunnel, like with success. Maybe on the negative side of success, education teaches us more about the ideal world and often ignores the realities of the real world. PC, has added to this detachment from the real world, by creating an ideal world view. What could be, may not be what is, while knowing what is, is better for success, than knowing what we hope it can be. That is for people with extra time on their hands, which does not apply to success. This idealism may be due, in part, to many teachers and professors never being part of the real world. They remain perpetual students, who don't have to depart from their college idealism. Maybe colleges should alter the career path for some of the professors. Have them do jobs for 5-10 year jobs in the world, and/or recruit real world people, to become a professor. When they teach it will be better blend of ivory tower, and the surrounding real world moat.

Buddhism is considered a religion, but it is not centered on god. It is more about the individual overcoming the limitations of the body and the world. If Buddha was around today, since he doesn't teach about god, he would be called an atheism. It is a religion too. One thing that is never discussed, is the irrational atheist. Being an atheist does not mean one is automatically rational. The only requirement is to deny god and deny being a religion. Atheism also defines itself as the opposite of religion, so it assume it can't be a religion since it is opposite of religion. But if we add the irrational atheist to the blend, this sales pitch appears to work but will be defended like a religion.

One of my concerns is "gold rush fever", for mostly fool's gold. The prospect of a medical gold rush will result in a wide range of research, trying everything, including the kitchen sink. As some labs strike gold, the gold rush spreads until the demand for dead baby parts increases and a support market develops. This market will broker dead baby parts to feed the needs of the prospectors. After the gold rush levels off, we will get a few nuggets of gold but mostly fool's gold. The negative price for a few gold nuggets and a big pile of fool's gold will be connected to the broker market. They will need to cash in before the gold bubble bursts. They will need to generate supply. Who knows what that entails.

What might be a good compromise that combines both life for the offender and justice for the victims, is to give the offender life in prison, then invite the extended victims, such as family members, to particulate in a good old fashion whipping. The court will give each extended victim x-minutes with the whip. Make the whip painful but not lethal. This is called murder justice therapy. Here is how it works. If the extended victims had the opportunity to confront their villain, where he is restrained, so they can punish him, to release their fear and anger, to the point where they feel sorry and can't beat anymore, the victim spell will be broken. One has to look at the big picture. The murder released evil spirits into the many extended victims souls. The extended victims exorcise these demons so the demons go back to where they belong. The evil spirits re-enter through his blood. Once the justice therapy is over, the offender and the extended victims begin life.

A right gives one the ability to pursue some end, without public or private intervention that would inhibit this. For example, the right to bare arms, is something one can chose or not chose. Neither the private sector nor the government can alter that decision for you. Once either makes that decision for the individual, we no longer have that same right. The right to internet already exists, unless there are countries where the private sector or the government sets up laws or obstructions that prevent access. An entitlement is different than a right. A right exists if there is no public or private obstruction. An entitlement requires that one of these groups will pick up the tab. The right to bare arms is a right and not an entitlement since the government does not buy guns for us. All it does is stays out of the way, and lets the individual make that choice. If it decided we all need guns and wanted to pay the tab, then we have the entitlement to bare arms. Say the government bought everyone guns to change the right to bare arms into the entitlement to bare arms. Not everyone will agree with that use of their tax dollars. The government takes way my right to decide how I wish my tax dollars are spent. If everyone had that right, after we add up what we give to the IRS, and how we wish it is spent, there may not be enough money for this entitlement. But we would still have the right to bare arms.

I would have to say no. The reason is, as we increase the concentration of O2, oxidation will compete with the bacteria for the same materials they need for energy to make oxygen. For example, say the bacteria used methane and water, just for the sake of argument. As the O2 builds, we will get methane burn off, lowering the fuel supply and causing O2 to step backwards. With solar energy, we get to build up our energy supply daily, so even if we get reversal due to O2, we never run out of energy supply. The next question is why did the earth's O2 stop at 23%, seeing the reactions can proceed with higher O2 concentrations? With chemosynthetic the value would probably be much lower.

One of the problems with the death penalty is connected to time element between the crime and the punishment (too much water under the bridge). The mind starts to forget the harsh real time reality of the victim as time goes on. It starts to focus on the legal alternate reality needed to defend the criminal. If someone broke into your house and was about to kill you and/or those close to you, and a police officer shot and killed the suspect, just in the nick of time, it would be a righteous death penalty. Nobody in that house would call the police a murderer. They would thank him, since the terror was real time, and the choice was clear. On the other hand, say the suspect killed your family and got away. If enough time goes by, via his hiding and via legal foot dragging, and the lawyers painting alternate reality to protect their client, we forget about the terror of the lost victims (water under the bridge) and try to defend the criminals rights, like he is the victim. Memories of the past fade and real time changes to something more based on verbal fantasy. What would be useful is if we had a film of a murder and a film of the civil rights of the poor misunderstood criminal being manhandled. We play this second tape to get the alternate reality in motion. "poor, poor ax murderer". Then we show the murder tape, so we can compare levels of real time victimization and not depend on faded memories of your original outrage, and the alteration of this fading memory due to the verbal fantasy. The families left behind play that terror tape daily in their heads. The do gooders play a different tape in their heads. Old time justice was based on an eye for an eye. The corollary was, "as you have done to others, so it shall be done to you". What that means is if you kill with an ax, you shall be killed with ax. If you rape and beat your victim for hours, so it shall be done to you. What we call the death penalty is quite mild and merciful compared to old justice.

What I was trying to say, after the merge between Christianity and Rome, Christianity became a blend of the two. For example, Christ teaches blessed are the poor. One can not go to the New Testament to find out how to make money. One could however, makes use of the secular skills of Rome. Render onto Caesar makes this a legitimate path. This may involve investing in a mercenary army to sack a village for a net gain. This action would be called Christian, but from a mind set that is 95% Roman. This goes the other way too. That Roman who needed to raise an army, may like to beat his slaves. If we add Christianity, the teachings don't condone this, but say love thy enemy. He may have to give a gesture to the religion, and may not beat his slaves on Fridays. This is a little better, but would still be called a Christian even with 85/15. Let me give a modern example. Gay is not in the bible as a moral behavior. Through the influence of the secular, gay has been added to cultural acceptability and is now a part of some aspects of Christianity. If this had occurred 1000 years ago, we would say the church became more gay, even if atheists had influenced the addendum via secular pressures. The way I look at it, one should read the New Testament, to see what it says and teaches. Then you look at the history of the church and see where things depart from those teachings as well as how the secular changes. Next, look at the many secular influences to see if this had an impact on that departure. One will see Rome, as well as the secular influences of the colonies, with even atheism playing a role in the blend. I did not mean to insult the barbarians. Just when a first world culture takes over a third world culture, the normal path is to upgrade the natives, since that is better for the empire. To get them up to steam, you don't repeat the mistakes of your own past. The pagan nature worship was old school Roman. Christianity was new school and more cutting edge. If we went into a third world country and tried to modernize their industrial base, and they were using horse and buggy, would we keep everything horse and buggy, so they can slowly follow our historic learning curve. We would start them off with newer technology to avoid all the pollution and pitfalls during our own learning curve. The Roman-Christian Church allowed some horse and buggy, but for the most part upgraded using the state of the art. In the ends, as history shows, the seven divine kingdoms of barbarians did very well, with all being part of the first world. Many followed in the path of Rome and tried to rule the world. That is not taught in the New Testament, but is part of the secular glory of Rome 1.0.

I tend to think atheists have blinders on that only allow then to see the mythology of religion. They erroneously assume mythology is the extent of all religious writings. There is also wisdom that cuts to the heart of human nature. Manmade global warming was an example of human nature getting the best science. The consensus of brilliant minds bought swamp land, because they lacked wisdom and/or character. Science has the knowledge to see reality, but not the wisdom to avoid this human drama. I doubt if this is the first time, nor will it be the last. One thing that may contribute is connected to computers. With a computer game we can play, within an alternate reality, with simulations getting better and better. Scientific computer simulations may allow the same thing, but unlike games, where we know this a fantasy world, computer simulation can create fantasy that appears real. We have this really good global warming computer game. It looks impressive, but did not reflect reality. Anyone who watches the weather knows how hard it is to be 100% accurate, with weathermen making mistakes all the time. Common sense would say to me, if small local weather is hard to perfect, with all that advanced technology, then world wide predictions can never be a sure thing. However, we can not market the game using the logic of this simple common sense. The computer game had to be pitched as perfect, since it can create all the scenarios we feared in the advance. Electronic oracles are new, but other forms of oracles have been used by religions for centuries. They remove logic and common sense and let the oracle decide. Science is heading this way. Let us go back many centuries and use a different oracle to help us make a prediction. Our oracle is a goat and depending on what he eats, of the many items we place in front of him, will decide the path of our future. Over the centuries, these choice food items and their placement has been perfected, so the goat oracles does about as well as the weatherman. We can also stack the deck, since we know what the goat likes. We let the goat out, he looks around, sniffs and then finally decides to eat the turnip. This means this is not a good time to plant. The oracle has spoken and we must act on his advice, or lose all our seed potato. The consensus then does not plant. Don't get me wrong, I love science, but science is not always in calibration due to our human nature. How could the consensus screw up. These are smart men and women. In the world of specialization, one is detached from the bigger pictures. Wisdom deals better with the big picture when there is human nature trying to pull the strings.

Science is a large area of study. There are aspects of science that are a done deal, such as the chemical make-up of water; H2O. We can all agree. But there are also areas of science, such as cosmology, where we pretend this is a done deal, by proving what we wish to prove. If we assume big bang, we can show some proof. If we don't like that, we can also show proof. It can't be both at once, even if we can give proof to two or more that are mutually exclusive. The question becomes, how so we reconcile reality, when more that one version of reality can be backed by science using math and what appears to be proof? If we go secular, do we vote for reality? Does the most money win? Does it have to do with advertising and popularity? Does politics help by shifting funding to what brings it the most benefit. Religion comes in to help people deal with secular motivations, since not all motivations necessarily end with the same result. If the goal is to gain political power, one needs to know where the most votes will come from; popularity. It is always easier, with the biggest army. If the goal is money, some theories are more resource intensive and/or show the promise for more future products. If it is military, some theories show the promise of the new biggest gun. Other times, the choice is defensive. If I wish to move up the company ladder, I can not bite the hand that feeds me or upset the boss. It would be dumb not to run with the herd even if I sort of side the other way. I will blank that out and over compensate. If we could find scientists with nothing to gain and nothing to lose, who only seek the truth, we may get a completely different answer. We may need to use ethics to make sure the consensus is looking for truth and not making decisions based on some advantage. Manmade global warming was manmade. Notice the play on words, which made the whole thing a clever ad campaign. They told the truth of the con, but made you think it meant something else. This alternate reality, supported by science, contained the potential for many to gain a lot of new advantages. We were ready to buy carbon credits, by force of gun, for fun and profit. Ethics only mattered after they got caught. The consensus would have kept the game going all the way to slicing the pie. With religion, one has to find peace with god, making it harder to hide within alternate reality using personal motivations. The secular only has to hide this from the other humans. This makes it easier to hide. Religion can be an inconvenience. Those obligated by truth, eventually put the pie on the face of consensus science and helped return science back to objective reality. Scientists are only human and fall for the same things non-scientists fall far. Secular is not motivated by truth alone.

The vast majority of human progress, over the past 10,000 years has been because of the human brain/mind and not because of genetics. Medicine reflects this observed reality. Even if we breed forward regressive and/or defective genes, this will not effect human progress, since the mind is the key. Even someone with a genetic defect can still contribute at the level of the mind. That is what evolves humans through cultural advancements. There is no science genes, which give one a knowledge of science at birth, like an instinct. One has to use the brain, anew, and build up this knowledge through education. Whether one has genetic defects or not, which may require medicine, one can still build up this knowledge base. The human brain, in turn, is also learning to manipulate the DNA, via genetic engineering. This is not the DNA manipulating the DNA, since the process is not random, but based on intelligent design plans via genetic engineering. We tend to look for cause and effect, and not just throw the dice. In many religions, they break down the human entity into body, soul and spirit, with the body or genetics, at the bottom, since that part is close to the animals. This is where genetics is far more important. The soul is connected to our emotional natures and/or the impact of the limbic system on the cerebral. While the spirit is more purely cerebral. The ancients saw these brain aspects of humans, being the human continuity of progress, analogous to genetic evolution. The Divine soul and spirit lives on through teaching and education, where previous products of the human mind continue, even when the body dies. Even with Einstein gone, we can get the mind version of gene transfer, absorbing this theory through mental osmosis. The spirit of Einstein lives on this way even when the genetics are pushing up daisies. His soul is more connected the more human side of him; emotions, which some like to experience by reading an Einstein biography. His soul is alive if the author is able to recreate the ambiance of his life. Both his spirit and soul impact us, even though we don't have any of his genes. It would not have mattered, if he had genetic defects. As long as his soul and spirit live through education, That is how he helped to advance humans. The irony is connected to evolutionary theory, which is why we are discussing this topic. With respect to medicine, the actions and words do not add up. We give evolution lip service in school, but in actions, such as in medicine, we ignore it and do the opposite of what the theory suggests. We would not go into a herd of deer and put extra resources into patching up the sick and weak. This could lead to extinction. Evolution is a product of the human brain, that does not fully explain the reality of human progress. The ancient way makes more sense and is what medicine does in action, but not always via lip service.

Christianity merged with Rome ,and not the other way around. Rome was probably the most advanced culture of the ancient world. Roman technology was way ahead of everyone else. They were smart and tough. They were also old school, when conquest was part of natural selection. What the merge meant, was the most advanced culture of the ancient world merged with the best religion they could find. When the merge occurred, the result was a hybrid blend of these two entities. Christianity started to become more Roman and Rome became more Christian. The history that follows is about this Roman-Christian hybrid. We call this hybrid Christianity, even though the Roman spirit was part of the blend. The Rome spirit was loosely analogous to playing for a top notch sports team with a long winning tradition that goes back generations. Once you merge with that team, that entire tradition of excellence is in your blood, and you are an extension of all that came before. The spirit of Rome lived, even after the physical empire was gone. The Vatican in Rome represents a continuity with this pivotal culture of the ancient world. The hybrid church ruled with the authority of Rome. The hybrid began to split at about 1500AD. Modern Christianity does not have the same tough Roman spirit. It is softer, more accommodating and easy for bullies to push around. It is more pre-merge, with the impact of the Rome aspect more connected to secular interests.

Religion is a purely human thing. Religion creates an inner perception of an alternate reality that does not need to be connected to what the sensory systems can see. Science, on the other hand, attempts to make its mental constructs reflect sensory reality. Religion helped train the human mind to see what is not physically manifest. Religion creates a mental gymnastics where anything is possible. Science trained the human mind to see what is, based on physical constraints. Religion helped train the human mind for the prerequisite of innovation. The mind needs to first go to a place that does not yet exist in reality. Science doesn't deal well, with this front end, since the inception process does not satisfy the scientific method. "Be not conformed to the world, but be transformed by a renewing of your mind" Religion is not about physical restrictions for the mind and imagination, but about freedom of the mind. Someone with their own personal savior (inner voice) becomes a unique entity. Practical reality, such as with science, has laws and rules which conform us into a herd. There is no such thing as personal science, which would make us unique. One is constrained to uniformity and restricted from using too much imagination. The exception is innovation which is sort of like personal science. That is where the skills set evolved by religion becomes useful to science.

Christianity begin in Israel, spread and eventually became the official religion of Rome. Rome, at first was a persecutor of Christianity, killing them by the thousands, for sport. Rather than nip Christianity in the bud, this tactic caused the religion to spread, due to courage in the face of constant adversity. Centuries later, a Roman emperor was impressed by how hard the Christian soldiers fought. The emperor, as a reward for their valor finally legalized their religion, which eventually became the state religion. This merger created a new blend of secular and religion, which the world had never seen. The Holy Roman Empire, helped to transform backwoods barbarians into some of the most influential cultures of the future centuries, such as England, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Germany, etc. Between these descendants of the Holy Roman Empire, they ruled the world for centuries in Roman tradition. Toward the end of the middle ages, the merger that had been the Holy Roman Empire began to split back into Rome (secular) and Christianity (religion) separating the state more from the church. Rome or the secular, once again began to persecute the Christians, led by the new godless religion that worship electronic idols. History is sort of repeating itself. Eventually there will be another merger.

Why did Einstein include it? I tend to think it was to make sure we didn't create relative reference illusions by avoiding an energy balance. If relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, one could only create relativistic mass by adding actual energy. We know absolute V by this. For example, we have two rockets that are stationary. To rocket A we add energy until it reaches velocity V. We then ask each reference which is the moving reference. If we ignore relativistic mass and only use D, T, it is inconclusive, since motion appears relative. If we add the requirement of M we need to do an energy balance, since only one reference received any energy for motion. The E-Mc2 is not relative. The energy balances tells us which is stationary and which is moving. Without that energy balance we vote on it. With relative reference we can create special effects, since there is no energy balance requirement. That pesky mass spoils the fun because it creates a reality check using an energy balance. Some have tried to get rid of it. Sometimes it is not easy to do an energy balance. If we have to include M in SR, we may have to say we are not sure which is which. But if we get rid of M, we can make bold statements that look real even without an energy balance. For example, since motion is relative I have decided the moving reference will be stationary. In the reality of the energy balance, this reference has energy, but since I say it is stationary, this energy is now hidden. Now I can do a perpetual motion trick. If we include relativistic mass, since perpetual motion is not possible, I would know I was moving by this. I often wondered how close is the assumption of relative motion in the universe, to the reality of an actual universal energy balance? If our assumption gives too much or too little energy, based on what is reality, we can create special effects.

Empirical studies, although useful, open the door for the lunatic fringe to create alternate realities. They often consciously or unconsciously confuse empirical with rational, and use empirical relationships as the premises for their logic. In logic, one's premises need to be 100% certain for the conclusions to follow with 100% certainty. With empirical premises, these are always less than 100%. This uncertainty has an impact on what follows logically. We can lose track of reality, even while using valid logic, if we use premises, which by their very definition, have built in uncertainty. One can not draw a 100% conclusion with a bunch of 50% premises, even if the logic flow is perfect from premies to conclusions. Let me show an example of this effect. If we throw a ball in the air, in any direction, gravity will pull the ball downward with 100% certainty. I can reason using this premise, to get a 100% predictable result, that is real, all the time. If I throw the ball toward that tree over there, it will land on the ground near that pretty girl. I can then ask her if she saw the ball and we will have a chance to meet. Say instead of the logical physics of projectile motion; ball, I have a kite which has been going left or right depending on the wind. During the past hour, the wind is still shifting, but it has pushed the kite to left 67% of the time. I will use this as a premise. That same cute girl is standing on the left. If I let go of my kite, it will drift toward the cute girl and we will meet. This is not a sure thing, since one can't draw a 100% conclusion using 67% certainty within one of my main premises. This second scenario can bring us to an alternate conclusion I may not want that is not possible with the first scenario. If we let the kite go and it drifts right, I might say the universe is ruled by chaos, since cause and effect broke down. But the entire special effect is due to using empirical premises with less than 100% certainty blended with sound logic; thinking this is all logical. A correlation is like a partial truth. It is not a full truth, if we still have exceptions to the rule. Say someone gave you information that was only partially true. You may be reluctant to use this to reason. For example, salt causes high blood pressure. This is partially true but one can find examples of people who can eat salt without high blood pressure. But the statement sounds like it is entirely true while being a partial lie. The mayor of NYC concluded if we forbid salt in restaurants, we can lower high blood pressure in New York. This empirical premise, because it is a partial lie, also says not all people will benefit, by the restaurant prohibition, since salt is not a problem to these people. The mayor will be punishing people with a law, so he can pretend to do something, since he can't do the hard things. This empirical premise is also a half lie and does not follow a straight line in reality, since some people will benefit by this. Science should be looking to create premises for logic so we don't have this problem. Science could step in an say, this is a correlation and should not be confused for a certainty premise that one should use with their logic.

Religion appears to be something that is unique to humans. Religion is not something animals can do. To mentally manipulate nebulous religious concepts, one would need a fairly advanced language set. One would not expect animals to have this level of language skills. If one animal saw another animal running, he might track it, catch it, kill it then eat it. The animal can do that complex physics in his head in an unconscious way. He doesn't need school or computers. But he can't use his imagination to manipulate concepts and ideas, that are detached from his sensory systems. This is purely human. Religion may have been one of the most critical aspects of human evolution. It represents a new skill set that animals can't do, that gave humans an advantage. Religion played a role in developing the human ability not to be totally dependent on sensory reality, like the rest of the animals. This ability is critical for innovation, since what may be tomorrow, may not be part of sensory reality today. If one was limited to sensory reality, how can you visualized what is not yet part of reality today, but will be tomorrow? In a more animal world, the innovation would be like a god, that does not exist. This would be discouraged. One would have to make it a reality so the animals can see it, since they lack the extra vision. For example, say we went back to a time before the invention of the wheel. If it was not there to see, it does not exist in reality to the animal. To even think of the wheel is like thinking of a ghost. The pragmatic is more confined to the animal nature. He would need proof to believe anything. Someone had to detach from the limitations of hard sensory reality of no wheel, to see one. Then he needs to use that abstract vision to construct one from his imagination. Now the animals can see. It may be harder to construct or show god, compared to the wheel, so the sensory systems of the animals can see. But this skill set helps to open up the imagination so there are no sensory limits. What we might see tomorrow is not limited to what we can't see today.

If look at any political position, there is left, right and center. There is also far left and far right. Far left and far right is where extremism is more evident. Extremism will narrow the range of consciously acceptable data the most. Someone who is left or right, might except 50% of all the available data (100% is the sum of both sides). Those far left and far right accept even less than 50%. They avoid any semblance of compromise and might be down to hardline 25% data. The net result is one will lose touch with reality, the less data one uses for their conclusions, since reality is based on 100% data. Like in science if we cherry picked the 50% data, from an experiment, it is very doubtful we would be able to touch reality. We need all the data. Fanaticism is over compensation for an inner doubt. At some unconscious level, there is a nagging doubt about the narrow data conclusion, that is being overcompensated. The doubt is due to cherry picking data and then convincing oneself that conclusion is reality, using a small fraction of data. The more extreme; <10% data, the stronger the doubt, the more linear and fanatical. Someone more at the center, trying to find a compromise may appear soft or wishy washy compared to the hard liners. They use extra data and can't generate the doubt which needs to be overcompensated. For example, a terrorist may think that all US citizens are evil. This is an extreme position. To test his theory, he will need to go among the people and collect more data. He will find bad people, kind people, generous people, short people, tall people, etc. The original conclusion only used 10% of all the final data. Reality needs 100%. The "buzz" is what people like, with many people attracted to dope dealers. If there is a value for fanaticism, it loudly and flamboyantly points out that particular 10% of the reality data. It may contain truth but it is far from the entire truth. This may help to add data to those who may use 90% data but deny that last 10%. We need 100%.

Time, according to science is not a thing. It is a reference variable. You can not store time in a bottle, except in the imagination, because it is a mental construct. The relationship, "no gravity no space-time", implies that if we have none of a real thing (gravity), we don't have any mental construct either. This defines the limitation of the construct. My mental construct allowed space-time to exist without gravity. This makes it better since it can do one additional thing. If space-time does not need gravity that implies space-time is always there. When a BB effect appears, localized space-time contracts, but not all the way to infinity, since that would take infinite mass. Again it is just a mental construct since time is not defined as a tangible thing.

Relative to the shrapnel effect, one important consideration is entropy. Entropy needs to absorb energy to increase. As long as the shrapnel material is increasing degrees of freedom or entropy, some of the reflected energy signal will be absorbed. Matter will become more stealth because of entropy. Let me give an example. Say we had a cylinder of compressed gas. We look at the cylinder using IR. We open the valve to expand the gas, increasing entropy. We would see a red shift as the gas and cylinder gets colder. The energy lost went into entropy and did not radiate to us. I would assume the emptiness of space allows continued degrees of freedom. Once gravity begins to act, the entropy begins to lower. Lowering entropy will give off the energy that had been absorbed. If the lowering of gravitational potential is given off an exothermic output to the universe, this may be what is driving the second law by offering universal energy for entropy to increase. The lowering of gravitational potential, will lower mass entropy. This will be exothermic and give off energy.

To satisfy the scientific method, there are certain burdens of proof. Some types of proof take a lot of resources. If we had studies A and B, and A gets more resources, the odds are A would be proven first (all else being equal). That does not mean that A is the only correct answer and B is false. But it does mean, by shifting resources toward A, we can prevent B from doing the same thing or doing it as fast. This can be used to stack science. PC also plays a role, bringing to the table a second aspect of this science special effect. In the case of tobacco, one can restrict publication and therefore stack the literature one way. To the easily duped, we can then say the consensus of the literature says this. We won't be technically lying as long as you don't mention the censor. When there is only one show in town, without full competition, one aspect can then form a subjective monopoly for the resources. This allow one to feed the special effect discussed in the first paragraph. With global warming, there was another tactic added. Tactic three had to do with the subjective discreditation of validated science. The pro-global warming side had the resource stacking, and the literature stacking. These two special effects were enough to fool most of the scientists. But some scientists continued to voice their opposing views, even with the two pronged illusion set up and running strong. The third tactic tried to quiet the remaining opposition with threats and bribes. This added more people to the consensus. This was actually good, since it allowed all of us to see how the special effect works, with an real time example. Those who were not fooled by the special effects, demonstrated a talent for reality above the consensus. If I was in charge, I would change the guard and place those fooled into remedial positions, since they might be fooled again. One can be an expert in one thing, but still not be to aware when it comes to special effects.

If you look at the EM, weak and strong nuclear forces, when they lower potential, energy is given off. If gravity is also a force, like the other three forces, one would expect gravity would also give off energy when it lowers potential. For example, if an electron lowers energy, a photon is given off. This photon can hit another atom and knock an electron to a higher energy level. The energy output has an anti-EM effect on other atoms. If gravity is a force like the rest, when gravity lowers potential it should give off energy, which can increase the gravitational potential elsewhere. In the case of the universe, the summation cause it to expand. Say we had a clump of matter in space that is collapsing to form a star. Since the gravity potential is lowering, the theory says energy will be given off at the same time it collapses. The combined effect would be collapsing and spinning. The acceleration expansion of the universe would imply that the amount of matter in the universe, lower gravity potential into galaxies, stars, planets, blackholes, is increasing over time. Are there more galaxies and stars now than 10 Billion years ago, 5 billions years ago, etc.? Since the matter of the universe tends to clump within galaxies, the bulk gravity energy output should have a connection to these largest bulk sources, causing the universe to expand relative to the galaxies. Dark energy is the energy output stemming from gravity. Dark matter is predicted from the equivalence of matter and energy.

An extremists does the same things as everyone else, but takes it to the nth degree. For example, we all care, to various degrees, about the environment. An environmental extremist takes that to the nth degree. Not all church goers can accept all religions. An atheist extremist, dislikes all religions in any shape or form. They take that the nth degree. The direction of one's views/actions, left, right, up, down or sideways, are not relevant to extremism. It is only when we take that angle to the nth degree. Many people might grumble about western culture. Some might grumble only when drinking or arguing politics. The terrorists take this to the n-th degree living, breathing and sleeping this. Many people think unions are one of the valid ways to organize labor. A union extremist may see this as the only way and may even use force to show people the way to labor salvation.

The human mind contains filters for our reality perception. For example, for many centuries the earth was thought to be flat. Based on the hard data entering the eyes, the earth appeared flat, because the filter of the collective mind manipulated the data we saw; people actually thought they saw flat. If you wore red sun glasses, yellow would look orange. If a group of people wore red sunglasses, we can all independently collect data with that red filter and all agree that those yellow lemons are actually orange. But that is not reality. If someone said yellow, they would appear out of touch with reality even if they were in touch with reality; go figure! Ironically, we can't fully define consciousness, even though consciousness has a direct connection to the filters we use to see reality. It is like saying, we don't know how that observation machine works. Therefore, we really don't know if the machine is in calibration. But to sell, we need to pitch the results are reality due to perfect calibration. That is why even science gets hyped and then changes its mind. Or science can have more than one theory, even if reality can only be one at a time. The machine may be out of calibration in different ways. We can also blur the filter on top of this. The best approach is figure out how the consciousness instrument works so one can make sure it is in calibration before we begin data collection. Once calibrated then the observations of science allows one to improve the filters of the mind, until we can see reality.

One experiment we could run to see if life begins at conception is to conceive life and see if it continues to exhibit all the properties of life. This will be hard data and not just sentiment. It comes down to how we define life. There is a science definition, which only requires the self sustaining state associated with metabolism and replication, and a definition which uses philosophical arguments of some nebulous state we can't pin down with any type of certainty. Due to the separation of church and state, the state needs to go with the provable definition. Ironically, regular religion is closer to that proven by science than the nebulous definition developed by the newer atheist religion. Birth control is not murder since neither the male or female starting components, are designed by nature to be self sustaining. We can prove that in the lab. But once they combine, we can prove this combined state is self sustaining life. Humans, in biology, can defined by the DNA. If we had a mass of cells in the beaker and needed to proof what life form it was, we would use the DNA. So all we need is DNA to define human, with conception provable as being a state where life becomes self sustaining.