pioneer

One aspect of homosexuality that is not considered is connected to a hidden paradox associated with evolution. By the very nature of gay, genes are not passed forward as part of evolution, with any reliability, unless it is forced. In the short term, the gay can express their nature, but if they have good genes, that could help the group, these genes are not always made part of group evolution. The ancient way kept gays as part of evolution. The new way allows short term advantage but can also remove their genes from the future. The old way worked under the assumption the gays had something good to add to evolution. The new way indirectly creates the situation; enjoy now, for tomorrow your genes will be gone. Let me give an analogy. Say we had a group of herd animals doing their mating olympics. The dominate male wins, but he is gay. Relative to evolution, the old way would say you need to breed for the group. But the new way says be true to your nature, you don't have to breed. This will cause the group to lose out. Many gays are nice looking, intelligent, good natured, etc., which are the type of genes useful to the human gene pool. But the new way indirectly excludes these genes. The old way would not allow this exclusion since they had too much to offer and should be part of the gene pool. It was long term planning versus short term planning. It is possible natural gay will someday become extinct, with only cultural gay or learn gay behavior the final affect. How can you pass gay genes without breeding? The irony is both political groups are getting the opposite affect they think they are getting in terms of long term genetics and evolution. I am working under the assumption that evolutionary theory is valid and can be used to predict the future.

I have a theory for speciation that came to me the other day. If we look at two sperm cells, that form from a full amount of DNA, each sperm cell will get half the DNA, with the separation occurring in a random way. This is basic biology without the details and nomenclature. If we go back one generation to that male's parents, his DNA is half from his mother and half from his father. What that means is a random split of the son's DNA to make 2 sperm cells, should make at least some male sperm (his father's DNA) and female sperm (his mother's DNA). Most will be a blend with X% from his father (male) and the complement X% from his mother (female). I say male and female sperm only in the sense of the originator of the genes from the previous generation. The male DNA in sperm is sort of a misnomer, since you can't split DNA from a male, formed from a male and female and get two males. What this means is genes from the grandmother can be transfer via female gene dominate sperm. The result can still be a male child, but with more female secondary genes. The son can have the thick long hair normally associated with a female from grandma's DNA or via female gene dominant sperm. Relative to speciation this random split should also allow a way to concentration mutations from previous generations. If the random split concentrated mutations from son's parents and grandparents, into some sperm during random split, the combined change can occur without a mutation in the son's generation. In other words, previous generations are adapting slowly and adding genes or pieces to the puzzle that have some advantage. The son randomly concentrates all this during a sperm split. Relative to the mouse experiment. One group of mice may develop different fur. Another aspect of the group the ability to hold its breath, another different feet, etc.. It is easier to evolve one related task at a time from different members. Eventually these concentrate in one of the sperm for a complete package or new species.

The current problem in Detroit is connected to their cost of manufacturing, which is higher than for competing auto makers from other countries like Japan. But is also due to the choices Detroit made over the past several decades and the rising fuel cost of today. A little history is useful. In the mid 1970's, was the first energy crisis, where gas prices rose due to shortages. At that time Detroit was making nice cars that combined luxury and power. But after that shock, the push was for fuel economy. Many other countries like Germany and Japan had a head start. This began to increase the preference for foreign cars, since Detroit was caught with its pants down, unprepared for this new market. This difficult change for Detroit was compounded by changing emission standards which turned the first generation of efficiency cars and all their cars into turtles, that couldn't get out of their own way. They could not just go bigger to compensate since the consumer also wanted good mileage. One of the biggest changes was gas also changed from the 104 octane leaded gas to 87-93 octane unleaded. Cars went from steak to salad, with the EPA adding an elephant. Some of the first generation fuel efficient cars had a good balance of power and economy due to the leaded gas, with the high economy exempt from the elephant. The 1979 VW, which was one of the last leaded models, got 40 mpg highway and could go from 0-60 in 7 seconds. The EPA standards killed the first generation peppy fuel economy with salad and the elephant. You could no longer have both power and efficiency but had to pick one or the other, with people chosen more power. This may have favored Detroit, who had perfected power much better than fuel efficiency. The way Detroit reacted was to recreate new old markets via the big SUV and luxury pick-up trucks. This worked during the boom years until gas prices began to rise over the past several years. But Japan, saw this new big power market and gradually moved in while continuing to invest in fuel efficiency, which is needed in their own country due to high fuel prices. Detroit shot their wad on a short term strategy. The dropping fuel prices may allow them to resume that market strategy but not in the short term, especially with the need for greater energy independence, which means new types of vehicles. The bail out package has this in mind and will help pay for retooling but there will be a time delay. In the short term, they can't compete in the fuel conscious market due to costs unless the mind set of the country returns to the bigger is better where they are already tooled up. This may never happen again, so they need to cut costs, to compete in a market the are not competitive in. Some of their high costs are connected to the labor unions and contracts. One quick option is bankruptcy so they can break the contracts and negotiate a better labor settlement to lower costs. This will make them competitive until the future retooling is complete.

Most scientists are specialists, which means they know a lot about one of a dozens or more areas of science. The physicists might stress extra money toward a new particle accelerator, while the medical researcher will favor more money on cancer, AIDS, or stem cell research, etc. Someone who is not a science specialists, only knows a little about all the areas, and may be more open to everyone's sales pitch. It may be hard to sway a physics boss to give more to coal research and put aside the need of his fellow physics friends. If you go to a university, the president is looking for as big a budget as possible. Each department is pitching the value of their own research over that of the other departments since all is important. But with fixed money, you need an impartial judge to be fair. You can't have someone who is biased in one direction or the other. If you could find a generalist scientist, who knows about all areas of science equally, and who is also a good money manager, he could be fair. But the educational system doesn't train generalists. We made need to look for self education and some knowledge in the entire spectrum. He would also need to have skills dealing with congress so he can get as much money for science as possible. He has to be able to appeal to the biases of congressmen and be able to pitch whatever angle it takes to get them on his side for the good of science. If congressman x like coal you can't pitch particle accelerator but need to talk energy with him so he will loosen up the purse strings. Then later you funnel to the accelerator if this is really important. Then you need to be able to smooth ruffled feathers.

This would be easier if there was a thermodynamic way to compare virus states where the structural energy defined by different states could be compared so we know the direction for deactivation. Then you create conditions to lead to this energy state. The analogy is growing diamonds. We know the perfect diamond is at lowest energy, while defects will increase the energy built into the structure. If we were wanting to make perfect or defective diamonds we alter the conditions. With virus we need to be able to define the configurational energy, since it is just a fancy grouping of chemicals. A particular virus will pack into a characteristic shape, with mutations between different bases and arrangement of bases defining the configurational potential difference between mutations. We need to determine whether increasing or decreasing potential is the trend for evolution. I tend to think increasing energy is the direction of virus evolution. It stores potential like a little time bomb. Once it is triggered, the components quickly move toward lower energy. In this hypothetical model it would require the cell get hot with parts before they can stick into more little time bombs. If evolution was lowering energy, it would eventually become more stable with the cells having more time to digest it. But on the other hand, the cell won't have to get as hot with lower energy parts to make more virus. The cell may be able to go into recycle easier, and eventually move the gene out of activation into an inert position on the DNA. If the parts stick quickly that means the potential of the final product is low. If the parts stick slower they almost want to repel, but as the concentration increases this forward reaction becomes more favorable. We have the TNT of a very aggressive virus. This is just theory based on energy considerations using the assumption high and low energy virus configurations.

I tend to think that animals react to time in a way that is similar to a human waking up in the morning, just before the alarm clock goes off. You are not abstracting time nor feeling the concept of time consciously in your sleep. The brain, unconsciously, wakes you and then you become aware. At dinner time, the animal wakes up to dinner, and begins to get ready to eat. Do this the other way. Say we were watching a person sleep near an alarm clock. They suddenly awaken 5 minutes before it went off. Do we say they were already up and thinking about this? They weren't even conscious until an unconscious trigger woke the mind. That trigger woke the mind a little before they got up, and got them thinking it is time to open your eyes and check the time. Those who need an alarm clock to wake them up, need an external trigger to wake the mind. With animals, if they are going about their day, the change of lighting, might become the alarm clock that wakes them up to their eating procedure. After the alarm clock wakes the human, they have their morning ritual for getting ready, which you can do even when you are half asleep. The animal will behave in a predictable way (ritual behavior) triggered by the external alarm, even if his mind is half asleep (relative to humans). Animals may "feel" the alarm trigger but they are not abstracting after that, just ritual reacting to it.

Many people look for God or some form of religion during the difficult times, not during prosperity and periods of ego-centric self control. The junkie who will find "Jesus" does so at "rock bottom" and not at the top of his game. The data can also be interpreted as social secular policies causing more people to feel closer to rock bottom, thereby causing more perceived need for religion comfort in their life. We may have cause and affect backwards. If you go to a poor African country, it is corrupt leaders hoarding wealth with corruption and guns. The poor have no opportunity and can find some hope in religion. Once they feel empowered, they may not feel the same hole in their soul and may gravitate toward semi-religion that accommodates some whims or to atheism, where anything goes, until the next down cycle. The fact that religion is on the rise shows more people are not at inner contentment but are looking for something to help fill in the void that is created. So you have discontent people going into religion with the original secular cause creating the correlated affect. Ask yourself this question, would the break up of the family make children more content or less content, on the average? This was not done by religion but may result in more young people heading into religion instead of therapy or prescription drugs. The anger was already there, with religion not able to take it all away. The result is the original cause is glossed over and the final affect is correlated.

Determinism is a question of degree. For example, there is uncertainty in the position of the electron within a hydrogen atom. However, I know it is attached to that hydrogen proton, to form that specific thing, we call the hydrogen atom. We know the big picture is determined even if all the tiny details are not. In spite of constant uncertainty at the tiniest level, it is still certainly a hydrogen atom. That hydrogen atom doesn't become suddenly different or uncertain, even if the tiniest aspects do this. Physics is preoccupied with the tiniest things and details and forgets other laws of science tell us the deterministic containment. Chemistry, is deterministic. We know lead will not suddenly term into gold, or the steel structure of the building will not suddenly disappear, turn into jello, or appear over there. But as we get smaller and smaller we are not so certain. But the summation of all this tiny scale uncertainty has containers.

What we need to do is compare modern data, to the data of 50 years ago, when religion had a more dominant role in everyday life of a much higher percentage of people. This base point of data will help to factor out the affects of liberal social engineering that has led to most of these changes. Religion actually helped lead the positive changes. Martin Luther King was a reverend. He preach the content of character but liberal social engineering change this to the color of the skin for social preferences. Those social engineering changes have also changed religion, since many of the changes were integrated. For example, 50 years ago there was no gay clause, no female priests, no fast path to divorce, no TV evangelism capitalism, not much conflict between science and religion except on ethical issues, etc. There was no neurotic separation of church and state based on petty things. That is liberal social engineering to create conflict and water down religious influence. The liberal social engineering helped water down the old religion and led to the dissociation and division as the atheists of the later years tried to add this water affect to allow more freedom. Eventually they departed after the virus was planted. There is a much lower percentage of participation within religion today than 50 years ago, when these were not problems. If this study is called science, liberal social engineering also appears to be watering down science, since it ignores its own fingers in the pie.

It could be due to index of refraction matching between the salt water and maybe glass balls. The result would be the glass balls not being visible. If the air was causing the surface tension needed for the balls, the liquid in the container should also display an odd meniscus since it is also in contact with the air. This is only a guess, but that is how I would simulate this affect. The rest is video editing.

One of the strange effects is the south pole is average cooling yet the glaciers are retreating. One possible way to explain this is the earth under the ice is warming, geologically, and the air above is cooling due to climate. Liquid water is denser so melt water would stay under the ice and mix with the underground water. The ice lowers over time, under its own weight. Thick ice may create an igloo affect. From Nature.

The way it works is with unconscious projection/compulsion and something I call sensory expectation. The image of something appears in the mind or the imagination. The motivation is to make this image overlap reality. An example, is getting the impulse to buy a new car, out of the blue. You go to the lot and there are hundreds of cars, but not all will work to satisfy the sensory expectation. But once your eye catches one in particular, you will gravitate the most toward it. In the case of your sister and other shop-oholics, she is loosely analogous to a little omnivore animal that is hungry and begins to search for food. The animal has an impulse to find food, but only a nebulous image of what will work. It is not clear cut, for maximum omnivore flexibility. If something satisfies the sensory expectation, she will gather. The little animal may only find a seed, so it is still hungry and continues to search again, this time finding a bug, etc., until it is full. In primitive times, she would have been a gather/provider always gathering more than she ever needs. Or in the animal world she is analogous to the squirrel during the autumn with a strong hunger impulse, because it is being extrapolated in time.

One way to lower the deficit is to bring a little free market into government. For example, if you allowed the heads of all the various programs to profit share say 1% of what they can save in program expense, without lowering the value given to the final intended of the program, the deficit would fall. That 1% is then shared downward as incentive for subordinates to find ways to cut costs and share some of the booty. The 99% saved goes directly to the deficit. Currently in government, there is no money incentive. The incentive is power, which is directly related to how much money you control. To reduce costs, in the current system, means less money under your control, sort of a demotion in the power hierarchy. But if we had profit sharing, then the same people would find a balance between power (expensive way) and personal money (cheapest way), with the result power would be sacrificed somewhat, for money and the deficit would fall. If you tried this in one program you would see the affect. Instead of $500 toilet seats, maybe they would decide $50 toilet seats means $450 savings and they get $4.50 per seat. That also means $496.50 per seat to the deficit. Under this system, those who make the highest profit and give the most to the deficit get a higher percent of the budget the following year, since they are the best in terms of efficiency. The inefficient spenders in the system would get less and less each year. Along these lines, the government doesn't spend all their annual budget the first day of the year. Maybe each department can put their annual budget money in an interest bearing account, with the year's interest bonus going to the deficit. This puts savings account money into the private sector, at the same time the govenment uses it, multiplying the money to help grow the economy.

Most metals readily share their outer most or valence electrons thereby becoming solid at room temperature. This sharing is why why metals are good conductors of electricity. Mercury holds its valence electrons tightly, the result is mercury can't share enough valence electron density to be a solid at room temperature. Also mercury is a poorer conductor of electricity compared to metals. http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/periodic/faq/why-is-mercury-liquid.shtml

Methylation of DNA The one thing that water, DNA, RNA and protein have in common is hydrogen bonding. What that means is the hydrogen bondable areas of DNA, RNA and protein, are interchangeable with water. By this I mean, under the right circumstances water can take the place. But with organic molecules creating some level of surface tension with water (adds energy to water), there is usually a phase separation with most of the water squeezed out, such as in the DNA double helix. But there are often other places designed in these molecules where the water is still able to bind. Relative to the DNA we end up with a double helix of water, plus more if the base pairing is wrong. If we were to separate the double helix of DNA, water will flow in and try to hydrogen bond to whatever is open. But once the DNA reforms, this extra water is squeezed back out. We still have the double helix of water. The result is the continuity of DNA's water, with the exterior bulk water is never broken. This ebb and flow of the external water plays a role in which enzyme is best for which water, since that water reflects the real time state of the DNA. The enzymes have their own continuity with water. Each hydrogen bond you need to break in the water is about 1/10 the strength of a covalent bond. If the enzyme needs to break 10 hydrogen bonds to get to the DNA, the enzyme has just lost advantage. But if its own water can add to the local or real time water, it can use the water to gain some energy. They need to plow through water to get to the DNA since water is everywhere. Those that can do this with the least expenditure of energy have an advantage. Let me change directions and talk about the methylation of the DNA. The methylation of DNA, or the addition of a methyl group -CH3 to the #5 carbon of cytosine, typically inhibits genes. Where it adds is near the #4 position N which has two hydrogen, one which is occupied by water. The resonance in cytosine help to keep the molecule sort of flat. This next part is speculation, with logic. I would tend to think the methyl group impacts the water double helix. If the O of water shares the NH its hydrogen are pointing up and sort of repelled by the methyl H. This is the worse arrangement to lower the surface tension between water and this little bead of methyl oil. One possible affect, if this was true, is the methyl group is like a little resistor placed in the water double helix. It is a hot spot for the water, which tags the surface.

From what I vaguely remember a version was made for the battle field during the Viet Nam War, to help stick down wounds. It may not have been good for you but it was better than bleeding out.

I create a lot of theories, so I am familiar with the inception process. The process begins with some basic understanding through education and data observation. The imagination sort of organizes this into a new relationship. This is the basic idea or theory. The next step is to to see if other similar observations also correlate to see how far the theory can extrapolate. Depending how far you extrapolate, the theory continues to work, or the imagination modifies the existing theory, or forms an entirely new idea. The best ideas are the simplest with the widest range of application. Complex is more impressive but it means fudge factors. In my case, if it gets too fancy another simplicity will be the goal. With the basic idea in hand, this brings us to the more common interface step, where you need to present the idea in a way that interfaces the protocol of science or knowledge. The easiest is with direct experiment. The difficulty is getting resources. The harder way is with logic, but this is cheaper. Direct experiment can use statistics so it doesn't have the same strict requirements of logic. With just logic, any good counter argument can invalidate the theory. With statistics you get a free handful of exceptions without adverse impact on the theory. The inception process can also be used to reverse engineer existing theories to make sure they are conceptually sound. But often the protocol interface is what is considered important. This allow theories without sound conceptual footing to be called valid science since they satisfy the protocol. This is the reason mutually exclusive is allowed to exist at the same time. The front end does not have to be fully functional at the conceptual level. The idea goes into the interface production process immediately, with the interface becoming the deciding factor. Conceptually, the theory of a statistical or random reality, putting aside right or wrong, does not affect the interface, since there is good math and experimental correlation protocol to make this theory possible. Where the impact is, is at the inception stage. There is no logical requirement at the foundation of new theory. As long as you can generate an interface it doesn't matter. It is important to better define the science requirements of the inception process. What I believe is the theory, before we build the interface, should be conceptually sound. Sometimes you need to go further back into time to make sure fuzzy is not the premise for further theory, so later theory then looks sound. The interface should be dessert and not meat and potatoes. Once you build a good interface and invest a lot of resources, you can get a nice house sitting on sand. Mutually exclusive, is where we build a bunch of houses, with most on sand, until sag becomes obvious to sort them out. If you have enough resources, you can continue to repair and avoid the appearance of conceptual sag. If they are supported long enough they can become the premises for further theory. There is an conceptual trick that satisfies the interface protocol. It has to do with some tricks math can do. I am not saying math is suspect, just math is based on logic and is only as good as the premises. Math can create closed logic loops that look real due to math protocol but are actually conceptual illusions better seen at the inception stage. Let me give an example using art. There is an artwork called the stairway to nowhere. It is plotted in 2-D, plane of cause and affect, but gives a 3-D image where if we climb the stairway, it always appears to go up. It is a special affect with art, that looks real but can not exist in reality. Say we added an x,y axis and plotted this drawing. Now it is analogous to a complex geometrical figure plotted on an axis. If we can discover the set of equations to define those data points, we have a closed math loop. Next, we give these equations to someone not familiar with the original assumptions built into the art, and ask them to plot these on a new piece of paper. The math now creates the affect this is real, because the math is sound, even if it defies common sense. The person might then tell us, don't depend on your common sense. With better inception skills the math never would have been added, but once it is, it can still satisfy protocol.

I don't have a problem using animals for testing. Until the science can evolve, we are sort of stuck with this lessor of two evils. The alternative would be like in the olden days. The doctor who was trying to make a new medicine, who believed in doing no harm, would test it on himself first. If you were less confident in your state of the art, you would use other humans. If you are have even less confidence in your state of the art, use animals. If you have even less confidence than that, use a lot of animals. The state of the art is currently somewhere between 3-4. There is not much we can do, until the state of the art improves. The animal activists are trying to shift 3-4 closer to 3 or 2, by placing strict limits on the number of animals. There is a resistance because the state of the art may not be advanced enough and the whole system could come to a screeching halt. That could means far fewer things coming out of the system that can help humans. I am not sure is that is closer to 3 or 4, but it still generates a lot of good things.

Open mindedness is a different place than closed mindedness. The difference has to do with amount of fixed structuring in the mind. To be totally open minded you can't to much fixed structure that is carved in stone. The structure has to be softer and more pliable to accommodate adding new content. Open mindedness requires a more fluid mind structure and while close mindedness has a solid mind structure. If try to add something to an existing solid, they don't blend without heating. The coolness of closed mindedness prevents the needed heating. With open mindedness more like a fluid, things can dissolve at any temperature, with things dissolving more upon heating. You can still be cool to prevent too much uptake, but some always sinks in. This might be correlated to the ratio of long term and short term memory, with long term more solid and short term more fluid.

Visual hallucinations work the same way, with the image starting in the brain and triggering the visual areas of the brain, but without current come from the eyes or optic nerve. For example, if we saw a green elephant standing near our car, the image of the car could be flowing into the brain via an optic nerve current. The green elephant skips that eye-optic nerve step, and begins directly in the brain. The output of the human imagination is not limited to cause and affect or probability. One can imagine flying in space without a space suit. This can not happen in reality, because the laws of nature are rational and statistical. This is how we tell it is imaginary. A digital camera follows the laws of nature and therefore may not be able to pick up phenomena that don't follow such laws. In other words, what laws would be required for consciousness to exist without matter? There are no know casual laws. I am not saying ghosts are real. But I will play the devil's advocate. Most people say this is all in the imagination. The imagination part is true. But there is a flip side to this. If we wished to pick up a radio wave signal you don't design the tool for x-rays. A ghost signal may not be easy to pick up by rational tools because these are not designed to pick up signals that are not casual and not probabilistic. The only tool in nature that is tweaked this way is the human imagination. I am not saying there are ghosts only any affect we are trying to observe needs instruments sensitive to the type of output the phenomena is suppose to generate. We can't see x-rays with optical telescopes. If optical was all we had, then the x-rays would not exist, even of they do exist. Ghosts are not exactly based on cause and affect or probability. Therefore, if they did exist, we would need a matrix or tool that is tuned to the properties we are trying to observe. All in the imagination tells us the matrix. Science has casual and statistical tools therefore phenomena that don't use these rules would not exist (be observable). One needs a tool like the imagination matrix.

The traditional definition of marriage was based on an old fashion version of genetics and evolutionary theory. It has a biological parallel. One man and one woman is the best way to generate off spring plus care for the children, with the least amount of artificial prosthesis. It is the most green in terms of nature and nurture, with the minimum social mop. This is green marriage. Back in the early days, marriage also had class distinctions. This was early genetic theory with blue bloods thought to be superior to red bloods, as far as breeding stock. They didn't understand it was more nurture than nature, but assumed full nature. They didn't call it DNA but they thought genetics was in the blood, i.e., blood line. If one was a carpenter, they came from a long line of carpenters and their sons would be carpenters, sort of like a species that is slowing evolving but also has a specific place in the social ecosystem, with only small selective tweaks between generations. It was a natural ecosystem model. Again, they had their own pseudo-genetic and evolutionary angle but didn't understand that nurture was playing a bigger part in human evolution. Although one may argue other combinations, beyond one male and one female, are possible, but they all fall short on one or the other aspects of green marriage. Gays would make wonderful parents, but they require synthetic on the front end. Promiscuous is green on the front end and may increase genetic diversity more than green marriage, but it usually falls short on the second aspect or nurture. This usually requires a mop even though nature doesn't have mop. That is why it is synthetic. The children don't always have the benefit of the availability of the direct parental connection which makes child raising easier due to instinct (all else equal). Maybe one way is to allow gays to use marriage but define a relative green scale of marriage. At the top of the green scale would be one male and one female that stays married their whole life, through children of children of children. etc.. since this is the most difficult version of green. But it also provides the foundation of nurture as well as its evolving layers. If one can't have children the time element is the only factor. The second tier green marriage doesn't make it this duration, but lasts through the time duration equal to the amount of time for the maturity of children. If one has no children, the time is the only factor. The third tier semi-green marriage don't make it to the duration of the maturity of children, with sub scales based on the amount of social mop to compensate. The gays should start at third tier marriage, allowing individual couples the option to supersede tier three depending on the duration of marriage.

Marriage had an objective purpose when it was created. Marrying for love is quite new to marriage. Before that marriage was more or less arranged by the family or match makers. Even in more recent times, marriages were not allowed without the blessing of the family. From a pure practical point of view, putting aside subjective sentiment, this was a more efficient way for making marriages last. It was setting up a team that could coordinate together and coordinate with the extended circle with least pressure. One reason third party marriage arrangements lasted longer, was a third party can be more objective, for another person, because they are not under the same infatuation spell. If a guy is thinking with his lower brain, he can't see if she is good for him or vice versa. If we compare the data before we added the personal subjectivity of "marry for love-infatuation", versus the third party objectivity standard, the ratio of full duration marriages dropped by 30-50%. The subjective marriage approach might have a higher ratio of the subjectivity called love, infatuation and passion, but the marriage duration dropped substantially due to adding subjectivity to something more objective. The question is why would all the previous generations want marriage to last by using the more objective third party match making standard, even of it did not maximize love and passion? It is well established that human babies and children need extra caring and attention beyond other animals. The goal of objective marriage had more to do with the needs of the children. Marriage originally was designed for the future and not maximized to the present. From a practical point of view, it doesn't take that many passion or love sessions to generate a child. But it takes marriage duration to maximize the children throughout the needs of their future, using minimum resources. At the other extreme is a free for all style (no marriage) based on the pure subjectivity of impulse, love and passion between two (or more) people, animals or objects. This has a lower average duration, based on the data. This will provide more genetic diversity, but it is far more resource intensive to provide for the needs of the children. Science appears to have shown, that humans genetics is not changing too fast. However, the mind continues to expand through the advancements of culture. This approach maximizes the biological slow boat but minimizes the needs of the fast boat. If we did away with the current social mop that is required to clean up after the subjective addendum added to objective marriage, the affect on the evolution of the children would be far more obvious. Maybe we can try a social experiment, where we remove the mop, for one year, to see the affect on the future of the children. The ancients may have been objective to this mop requirement, since they probably tried it both ways. Objective marriage was more efficient for the future and therefore closer to natural, since nature does not have the mop. We can't go backwards, socially, to the old fashion objective marriage standard, especially since we have the cultural mop in place to clean up after the subjectivity we added. The question is, are the gays using a subjective appeal to add another subjective layer? Or are there objective reasons that will lower the required mop and therefore be closer to natural, where there no mop requirement. What I would do is run an experiment. Allow the gays to use civil unions for a ten year experiment, to see if the mop increases or decreases. We will work under the assumption the smallest mop is closest to natural since animals don't have a mop. If the mop decreases due to this subjectivity, I would include them in marriage If the mop increases, then you wait a little longer until they get the kinks out and mop starts to get smaller. This is a science forum, which is suppose to work using objectivity or at least the preponderance of the data. What are the objective reasons for gay marriage that enhances the objective reasons for instituting marriage? The impression I get is, we need to push gay marriage into the system before any data is gathered. Once it is in, even if the entire system is made more subjective and less natural efficient, it will be too late to change it. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are objective reasons and data.

All I am saying, if gays used the term "civil union" and were happy with that term, how many of these discrimination arguments would still apply? What they want is a new definition of a wording that has been used for millennia to describe the union of a male and female. The choice is for another reason which can seen with an example. Say someone wanted to call creationism, evolution. They are not happy with the term creationism because it doesn't give the same ambiance as the word evolution. They have all the rights of free speech using creationism. However, polling data says people react better to the word evolution and tend to get more fidgety when they hear the word creationism. The purpose for this redefinition is to tag a better subjective consensus title to something that is different to create the illusion they are the same. Let us assume enough people subjectively accepted this new name because science can't fight it with objectivity. They win the legal battle due to discrimination and free speech and get the subjective tag. Now evolution says the universe was created in one day. To the naive among us, some people will think science has proven this, since this is now a part of the term evolution. The idea is to over ride objectivity by confusing the distinction with subjectivity. Picking a name different, other than the word marriage, doesn't have the same subjective affect.

One of the arguments that got people away from the BB theory was the GR or gravity should have been too high for an expansion. This would be like expecting the biggest black holes to expand. This argument opened the door to other scenarios in spite universe expansion data. Another way to look at it, the same argument implies lingering until it finally is able to somehow reverse. Say is it pulsating in and out of singularity, erratically. We would have sort of a discontinuous ticking of the clock, with these ticks heading to the future probability one key pulse will open up space-time for good. At the singularity state there is no time. If there are any odds, a vibration can occur since time is not a factor. Using simple probability, small pulses are more likely than the huge BB pulse. So we might expect a lingering-vibration until the lower odds for full expansion finally get satisfied. It is not clear how much all the ticks in the scenario, add to.

This decision was required because white and black couples did not have the option to simply change the wording away from "marriage" into civil unions or any other tailored language, to enjoy all the benefits of this basic civil right. It didn't matter what you called it, back then, because the spirit of the civil right was what was in debate. With gays, the spirit of marriage is not in question, just the term "marriage". The analogy is someone saying you can have this new automobile but you have to call it is tree. The argument is, they are discriminating against us having an auto. Anyone with common sense realizes the value is in the auto and not the name. The name is superficial and has nothing to do with the reality of the auto. One would have to be out of touch with reality to think you are driving a tree. This may tell us something about a possible side affect of the gay gene. It may not allow one to see the nuts and bolts of reality. One way to look at this is with the question, is the reality of a woman what is below the make-up, or is her reality defined by the make-up? The gays have access to everything below the make-up. But they need to define themselves with social make-up. They are even twisting the reality of discrimination based on cosmetics.