pioneer

There is another angle for looking at scientific intelligent design. If we react O2 and H2 we get water. Even when the universe was young and still a subatomic stew this reaction into water was already in the design based on the laws of nature. It was not in affect but was already defined. One can trace plasma oxygen and hydrogen leaving the sun, I will be bet you it will form water. It is not random survival of the fittest forming H4O, tomorrow. The H2O has selective advantage because of design. It is also likely that DNA,RNA is part of the same broad design. Water forms under certain conditions. Give the right conditions the genetic material is also reliable since it is part of the design. We have not found alternatives, other than in science fiction. We need to look at the real data. The cell is another design where there is no alternative in terms of something that is alive. If it was as random of a crap shoot there should be cell alternatives out there at least in fossil evidence. At this low level the preponderance of the data is in favor of design, due to no alternatives just like there is not three forms of water molecules. But the question is how far up does the design actually go? Does it stop at the cell? As far as I know there are no intelligent single cell life forms. This is usually reserved for multicellular. So multicellular is part of the design. It is a milestone that needs to be achieved before things can go further. If that was not the case, there should be Einstein Amoebae. One might even include warm blooded, better oxygen transfer with gills and lungs, nervous system and the brain, male-female, sensory systems, to name a few other design milestone features. Again these are almost singular commonality in terms of moving up the ladder. I am not concerned about cosmetics but am thinking more in terms of the nuts and bolts under the hood. I still like evolution because it appears to be the process between the design milestones. The analogy is reacting O2 and H2 to form water. This is not a simple reaction, even though it has a design goal in mind. There is a lot of random molecular, radial and ionic things in the chain reaction. But all that confusion is leading to a final simplicity within the H2O design.

Historically the debate in the smoked filed room was; Lim x/x; x-->0 equals 1 right up to the end, then conceptual debate. The second school of thought was 0 divided by anything is 0 but this also created debate due to the third school of thought. The third alternative fought for anything divided by zero is infinite, also created debate "Taste great, less filling, cost less." It was settled, on the second alternative. A few more brandies.... Part of what may have settled it is 0+0=0, 0-0=0, 0X0=0; so they didn't want to break up the set. 0X0=0 was transposed into division.

One can run an experiment to show that time can be scooped out of the stream of time and preserved. Here is how it can be done. We start with two twins, exactly the same in every genetic way. One of the twins stays on earth and the other gets into a SR rocket ship. We tweak the numbers so one year in the moving reference equals tens years in the slower earth reference. There are two time streams in this experiment. Next, we slow the moving reference and reintroduce the two twins. They are still genetically identical, but not at the cellular level, since one has had their time preserved in a bottle for an extra nine years. All else being equal I will predict the one who had their time preserved will always look nine years younger than the other. I chose twins, but one can also do this by cutting a piece of radioactive material exactly down the middle. The half that was make part of the slower time stream will have its decay amount preserved for an additional nine years of time. So we can save time in a bottle. Arkham's Razor: The simplest explanation is the best. If time is a thing end of story. If it is not, be ready to read the book.

The topic is does space end. The first question is, what would space-time look like without time? Instead of space-time, say we had only space. It would be empty space where there is no expression in time. It stays the same forever and never changes. Maybe space-time only goes as far as there is some expression within time. After that space-time becomes space. Look at it this way, space-time is a sort of a coordinate system. If we are not using the 4th or time dimension, by default, we only need space to be able to express nothing that is occurring in space. To create the need for space-time, out of space, we need to add something or anything that uses time to express whatever it does. The analogy is using (x,y,z) to plot an x,y plane. Just because we use a 3-D plot this does does not make the plane 3-D. We can rid of Z and not affect anything. If we add even a tiny bump to the plane, we need to add Z back.

The ability for cells to regenerate or make new cells can't be the heart of the problem when it comes to aging (assuming a clean environment). The neurons of the brain, once they form in a small child (2-4 years), never replicate again. We have the same neurons our whole life. These cells can last 100 years, which shows that the DNA has cell repair mode. Not exactly perpetual but very long duration. All the cells in the human body, use the exact same DNA. The neurons use the same DNA as the heart, lungs, digestive system, etc. What that means is the DNA has the capacity to make cells last longer. So if the DNA is able to duplicate say 50 times, to use a number, before it loses it little terminal tail, if we could make each cycle last ten years, then we get the body to 500 years. For some reason the rest of the body makes new cells, instead of maintaining the old ones. Maybe we need to make use of the genes the neurons use, designed for constant repair instead of throw away. It is possible the DNA is designed by nature with evolution in mind. The best way to speed evolutionary change is to limit the life expectancy so the new is able to take root easier. Aging may be a natural way for population control, so there is constant renewal of fresh genetics and personalities for evolution. But it does need renewal mode for neurons.

What I was trying to do was correlate what is happening to space-time with observational data. Time dilation doesn't make any sense in the center of gravity of stars. The practical situation that would arise is time slowing down at the bottom of the well. In the center of gravity nuclear reactions would appear to slow relative to what should be predicted in labs here on earth. This would cause the largest stars to time dilate the most at center, making them burn slower than predicted. The stella profile would have a slow time dilated core with the surface activity appearing to get faster. With time and distance expansion, sort of a microscope affect, this allows for movement toward singularities. Let me give an analogy. We start with a rock, which looks solid enough. As we magnify or expand distance we notice there is plenty of space where the electron clouds are. The only solid obstructions appear to be the nuclei. This give us more room to pack tighter, with gravity, all the way to neutron density. We zoom in further with the microscope or expand distance even more, we notice there is now space. With time also speeding up the only particles that can exist need to be able to move within this very fast time reference. This places a limit on particles with only those that fit the reference able to fill the space. If we take it to the limit of a point, then the only particles that can exist can only last for an instant of time or undergo instantaneous transitions. This eliminates all particles we know of. These point-instants can overlap at a point. They can overlap because at any instant there is only one of them. But over time they all can take a turn. To us we see a constant looking point since we can't measure an instant anymore than a point.

Here is an idea that might work. I would recruit the gang leaders, tough kids etc. and give them the responsibility to act as school patrol. You recruit a Marine sergeant, who will set up a hierarchy below him composed of the top playground chiefs. These chiefs already have their subordinates in line. This can ease some of the playground stress since their responsibility will require coordination with rivals. Then this group helps the teachers with the problem students. It is sort of police academy. Students may not respect the authority of teachers because their authority has been watered down by lawyers and parents. But certain kids in school have respect. The school yard pecking order naturally allows students to know the who's who. One just needs to harnessed a system that is already in place. You mess with Miss Daisy, the word will get through the vine.

If we use the analogy of a bowling ball on a rubber sheet, does this imply space-time is expanding since it creates stretching? Before the bowling ball is placed, we have say 9 square meters of rubber membrane. The bowling ball will stretch the rubber membrane so the final surface area is greater than 9 square meters. Einstein would have noticed this, so I assumed this is what he meant. If he meant the opposite, or space-time contraction, shrink plastic or a wet wool blanket and heat gun would have been used. To test whether space-time expands, instead of time dilation we should get time expansion where time speeds up at the bottom of the well, relative to the time scale on the bulk rubber fabric of space-time. If we look at stars, the events in the center occur using fastest average time scale. In fact, only the fastest events are possible in the center of a star. This is the bottom of the bowling ball well. One will not find atomic transitions in the core of a star, because the time scale is so stretched only the fastest events can be in that reference. This actually explains a black hole better. Just to use numbers, one cubit meter of space is stretched to thousands of cubic meters. From our reference we still see the 1 cubic meter, but if you fall into it we will need to travel the thousands of meters. One way to look at this affect is to think in terms of a microscope. One little drop of pond water under the microscope allows us to enter an expanded reference where thing are small and where small distances now appear expanded. At the same time, light coming from the drop through the microscope to our eye is this reference, widens. This is the analogy for the red shift.

One way to travel backwards, to a time in the past, is through home movies. You can see yourself and everything around you just as it was many years before. But you can't change the past, just observe it. On the other hand, one can't travel to a point in the past, unless it was recorded and its energy preserved. Without the movie, the recording may be limited to our memory. What the difference is, the recording preserves some of the energy from that past time. When the energy is not recorded, all the energy goes into recycle as time progresses and the past is lost to the future. To get a better journey back into time, we would need to preserve more of the energy from that time. For example, we can add a microphone to preserve audio energy. We can have chemical extractors to preserve smells and flavors preventing these sources of chemical energy from going into chemical recycle. We can put some things into a vacuum and other things we will freeze. Now our movie of the past has the actual props to help recreate the past. Another recording technique can preserve the matter, energy and time. This technique uses energy and special relativity. Here is the recording procedure. We enter the scene with our friends and then leave the scene. Then our friends and the former shared environment, are giving energy to create relativistic velocity. Everything ages slower in their reference. We coordinate a reunion. We may be 10 years older, but all the energy and matter in their reference is preserved from 10 years previous (as an example). We go back into the scene and we are exactly in the past. In this example, to overcome the flow of time and preserve all the energy, matter and time, we need to add more energy and then release or thaw it. This type of preservation allows us to change their future because their preservation detached them from our flow of time. We can see where the group had been heading and where you and culture is, and change their future. That day Joe may have decided to quit school to be with Betty, who was not there the day of the experiment. Betty turned out to be someone different that who would be good for Joe. So Joe is told this and he changes his mind and goes back to school without skipping a beat of life. In this experiment, we took a cup of time out of the running stream of time, preserved it with all its matter and energy, and then pour the time back into the running stream of time years later. Time is a thing, like a cup of sugar. We can scoop if out of the running pool, put it in a container, preserve it, and then use it latter, at a different point within the stream of flowing time. SR is sort of one type of time refrigerator for preserving time but there is a still a expiration date on the time, unless it goes all the way to C. Once we thaw it, it ready to eat. In the example, Joe still has his last 70 years even if we pour his time potential ten years down the stream of our time reference. Once he enters that stream the law of physics process his time potential at the rate that is defined by our reference.

One of the problems with defining time or distance is that once a convention is set, everything else builds on that. To change these base assumptions can get rather sticky. For example, one could replace (x,y,z) with a spherical coordinate system (R, angle, angle). This system could also tell us location from an origin. If this had been the original choice of the founding fathers of science, we would be talking about the angles of space-time as though this was the final reality. We would forget it was just convention. We would discussing how time relates to the angles alpha and beta differently than R since angles are different. Or we would define n-angle space. The mind would abstract this out to create a lot of useful connections. What I always thought was an interesting affect would have been if Newton or somebody decided to use a tetrahedral coordinate system to express 3-D space. This is used for some crystallography systems where atoms form tetrahedrons. They use (a,b,c,d) for the 3-D crystal space. What this system does, is not require the use of the negative numbers. With four axis in 3-D, negative can be expressed by using the positives of the other three axis. There is no more square root of negative numbers. Just say, this had been chosen, it is possible negative and positive charges would not be around, but we may now be discussing the two types of positive charges. We would be seeing the same phenomena, but would be talking about it another way. We would have a new conceptual reality, with the actual phenomena not caring either way. The entire conceptual affect could be an ancient genetic biblical bias where humans were to be put in charge of creation, so we have decide to make nature in our own conceptual image. Time is one of those convention variables that is tough to change because any change could really mess up the works. Hypothetically, say someone proved time was a thing, "what would we do with all those equations that have time in it?" This new "time thing" may not work exactly like that, since it is now a thing and not just a reference variable. It could shrink some equations, eliminate others and add some new ones. This is essentially a taboo this late in the game. The machine is already up and running without it. I am getting more sensitive to the complexities of conventions. But I like to point out how different systems allow one to see reality differently. But I still think time is a thing and is photographed via motion blur. The difference in time between the shutter speed and the motion of the object leave some time in the photo to create the impression of motion. The blur shows the affect that excess time potential has on distance. It create an uncertainty in distance since the object appears to partially exist within a range of distance coordinates. Time potential gets rid of some random because now this blur in distance become predictable. One can tailor the blur by simply adjusting the shutter speed or by controlling the amount of time potential. Once the shutter speed is correct there is no more uncertainty in position. One has a sure thing that is rational.

Philosophical or theoretical frameworks will set the mental constraints on how the mind will view the data. The results are often self fulfilling. Those who believe in the big bang will see the same data differently than those who believe in another competing theory. The data is valid and both are using valid data, but two philosophies create to different perceptions of reality. But if you ask the experts in either theory, they can both point to hard data. One can be totally wrong, but with hard data support. So it often comes down to emotional appeal. The BB theory originally had the appeal of the big bombs times a zillion. This is only trumped with n-dimensions. This gives the options of more big bombs or a peaceful use that trickles. At the birth of the evolutionary theory, Darwin knew nothing of genetics, because this was not around at the time he developed his theories. Who knows if his original thesis would have been different. He was a brilliant scientist and would have try to include it. Animal breeding was around and sort of implies genetics. Darwin has these observations but this was sort of artificial. During his day there was the class distinction of the blue bloods and red bloods. Culture-refinement-education versus the vulgar masses was sort of a genetic theory. They were not suppose to cross breed. Other theories, like survival of the fittest, was based on the blue blood genetics controlling the world. It had a certain emotional appeal for those who felt in the driver's seat. Not many people read back then, unless one was a man, was well off, or educated, with education limited. His target audience demographics were males, educated and blue bloods. From a simple marketing point of view, based on those times, he made the right the choice. It was not totally unbiased but had an appeal to that audience. Even now, the theory had the dominant male gets the females. It doesn't give enough credit to the female animal who has the more complicated job. The mitochondria come from the mother which was a epic selection. The term natural selection, if you break it down into its words, sounds like mother nature is picking this one over than one, with the choice totally natural, i.e., favorite son. The opposite sort of implies this one was not selected because it was defective. That would also created an emotional appeal to anyone who felted selected. Based on that demographics and its emotional appeal we sort of continued on the tradition. I like the basic gist of the theory but there are still some traces of 19th century.

Theoretically, if we could alter the strength of hydrogen bonding, than wood would liquify. What we see in wood is based on the current strength that hydrogen bonds form in nature. What is interesting, if the strength had turned out less or more the world would be different. Below is a little table to shows how if nature had define this bond, even slightly differently, the impact on life would be devastating. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index2.html Effect of H-bond strength on water's physical properties % Change in H-bond strength Effect at 37°C Decrease 29% Water boils at 37C. Decrease 18% Most proteins heat denature Decrease 11% K+ becomes kosmotropic (forms order in water) Decrease 7% pKw up 3 (neutral water is a base) Decrease 5% CO2 70% less soluble Decrease 5% O2 27% less soluble Decrease 2% No density maximum No change No effect Increase 2% Significant metabolic effects Increase 3% Viscosity increase 23% (water is a syrup) Increase 3% Diffusivity reduced by 19% Increase 5% O2 270% more soluble Increase 5% CO2 440% more soluble Increase 7% pKw down 1.7 (neutral water is an acid) Increase 11% Na+ becomes chaotropic (messes up Na+ pumps) Increase 18% Water freezes at 37C. Increase 51% Most proteins cold denature (enzymes can't work)

Science is a work in progress, with each generation thinking their state of art science is totally valid. Before Einstein's relativity, science would have also dismissed religion as hog wash, and excepted the many hundred year Newtonian view as the final reality. As history showed, this is still very useful but was only a good first approximation. They used a certain amount of blind faith. The reality is every generation of science has to deal with some of the bias of the previous traditions. The old school becomes a religion in the sense of catechism and dogma. The new school is sort of more like living science trying to overcome old science religion. This next generation eventually turns into its own religion, fighting the next generation, etc. If one is fully objective, much of what we know in science today, will also go the way of the science dinosaurs. Living science grows with the future. One of the main strengths and potential weaknesses of modern science is connected to the power of computers. On the strong side it allows us to do thing we could never do before. But this same capability has a built in pitfall. Before computers, the math had to close to be valid math. If one was trying to solve an equation and it could not be solved, either the assumption or the math was wrong. But now we can solve such equations with numerical methods and computers. I can see a potential problem here if the equation was not suppose to be solved. Maybe the equations couldn't be solved with cause and affect because the assumptions or math was not based on cause and affect. But now we can solve it with a good approximation, so it now appears right. Don't get me wrong, this is valid for practical science, since it allows us to make new artificial things not previously found in nature. Many of these thing help to improve on nature. One potential problem could be artificial preservatives being added to nature. If, for the sake of argument, we assume some artificial preservatives, one symptom might be like in the free market, where the science consumer has more choices and former perishables goods have longer shelf life. Maybe up to Einstein's days, science was closer to rational monotheism. There is still only relativity, one Newton, etc. Now science is more like polytheism. I am not sure if nature is suppose to have multiple personalities. But maybe this is part of science evolution, with the goal to open the field. It does offer more opportunity for many more ideas.

One way to look at this is the comment tries to neutralize inflated fear by accepting the worse of all humans fears. If you are afraid to eat that cake because it contains white sugar, processed flour or fat, one has created a fear almost at par with the fear of death. This is irrational because it lacks perspective, since that small amount of white sugar, processed flour and fat is projected all the way to sickness, a heart attack, and death. It is a valid concern, but any exaggeration is irrational. We are all going to die, quote, tries to give one perspective. For example, the cut on my finger hurts so much, until someone steps on my toes. Now the cut's pain has perspective on a relative scale. It now harder to inflate that pain. Sometimes the death that is feared is not physical death by symbolic death. It has less to do with the body as with an ego state of mind. For example, not eating that cake because of the sugar and fat may allow one to be alive as part of an interactive social reality. The fear of death can be connected to a symbolic death in the sense, where stepping out of the boundaries, could cause one to become like a symbolic ghost unable to connect in the same way with those still living there. It could be guilt or a sudden change of heart, sort of a symbolic heart attack. One may have to reincarnate the ego so they can appear alive in another group reality. Now protein is the key! In terms of the way the brain works, the ego can use thoughts to generate emotions. For example, one can think about home and generate feelings of comfort. The body sort of works the other way around. Hunger starts with biofeedback in the body. The hunger feeling will induce the idea we need to eat, maybe offering suggestions in terms of cravings for pizza. What can happen is the ego can generate an emotion and the emotion can be used to reinforce the mind. The result can be almost a resonance loop that gets louder and louder. That little cut on the finger now requires calling 911. The stomp on the toe, helps disrupts the loop because the focus of the ego shifts away from the loop to the toe. "We are all going to die" is the trump of all fear loops because nobody in their right mind will try to reach resonance.

Radio-active decay is a rational event and therefore should be subject to the laws of cause and affect. The easiest way to see this is to change the experiment slightly. Say we start with 10 grams of a material with a half life of 1 year. At the end of the year, we have 5 grams. Next, we add 5 grams back, to the pile so we can again start with 10 grams. After one year we have 5 grams again. We add 5 grams a second time to return the sample to 10 grams. I predict with 100% certainty we will have 5 gram at the end of the year. It is a sure thing. This implies there is cause and affect. It is not a flip of the coin with some years turning out differently. Where the problem begins is trying to explain this in terms of cause and affect even though it is loaded dice. Cause and effect explanations have a harder requirement for establishing proof. A statistical approach has built in fudge factor so the standard of proof is more lax. It is easier to use a statistical approach since it can lead to useful and practical results without having to be specific. The same procedure works for radio active decay or genetics. This practical ease has led people to assume reality is probability. Many forget this approach was originally just an approximation tool that allowed quicker answers with less proof. Somewhere along the line the human mind gave up on cause and affect, even with the radio active decay phenomena which shouts cause and affect. Einstein warned about playing dice with universe since he anticipated this philosophical dilemma between the needs of practical science taking over our perception reality. If we go back to radio active decay there are some basic observations that may offer some rational clues. If we look at the mass numbers of the atoms in the periodic table almost all atomic masses are close to the ratio is 1 proton to 1 neutron. The deviation from this is accounted for by other isotopes. The isotopes that deviate from 1 to 1, are typically more likely to decay. For example C12 is more stable than C13. Maybe 1 to 1 is the goal. Another observation is H has a mass number close to 1 proton and O neutrons. Hydrogen has traces of deuterium and tritium which are 1 to 1 and 1 to 2. Within hydrogen's ratio range all the other atoms lie. The relative ease of making higher atoms from deuterium and tritium might be related to the 1 to 1 goal. These prime the 1 to 1 proton-neutron standard. What it also suggest is the hydrogen proton is an odd duck, maybe with something extra or lack of extra. The lack is the nuclear forces but the extra may be the potential energy released by the nuclear forces, but that release appears to need a neutron. Another observation is atoms don't form with just protons or just neutrons. If there is bias in either direction, this is more likely to need adjustment. The goal appears to try and settle at 1 to 1. Another observation is neutrons can form by combining an electron with a proton. What that seems to indicate is positive charge might be able to migrate. The model I see is analogous to a nuclear version of atomic orbitals using the same schema as the two electrons per orbital but in this case it use two masses within positive space-time. From this we can build nuclear molecules we call the higher atoms. An isotope may be something analogous to magnetic iron where the electrons form a semi-stable orbital arrangement but not at lowest energy. Nuclear criticality may be loosely analogous to magnetic induction that can excite these energy states, adding activation energy for decay. The goal is to get the most stable nuclear molecules with the 1 to 1.

When you alter the meaning of traditional words, it sort of messes up what it is suppose to represent. For example, one hundred years ago a straight male could also be gay, since gay meant in a festive spirit. Now straight males can't be referred to as gay without having to explain yourself to avoid possible confusion. Some straight guys are sensitive that way and can't take an old fashion compliment. The Christmas song deck the halls...... with gay apparel. What was clear imagery at one time, of people all dressed up for the holidays, creates sort of an odd pause. One is not sure how you are suppose to react because of the imagery it might create in the mind. One might picture sweaters or leather, chaps and Marilyn Monroe wigs. I not trying to pocking fun, just one can see how altering the word marriage could end up creating confusion. It is easier to see if we hit closer to someone else's home. For example, the democratic party is often associated with people fighting on the side of the poor, animals and environment. Say a bunch of radical strip miners decide they wish to be call democrats. They don't have enough respect for the party to walk to the walk, but would like to have the name because it makes their group seem more environmental friendly. If they were loud and vocal enough, to where people are debating what is the harm, some non democrats might say, "we feel sorry for those poor strip miners who have been verbally abused for decades. They only want a new name so they can strip mine with more environmental legitimacy. The democrats are the ones who abused them". But under it all, they know this will also add an ambiguity association. Get a bunch of "save the whale" activists together see if they can use the term Teamster. Pick any ethnicity and redefine it in a way that makes that group uncomfortable and see what happens. I was going to do a few but these are delicate times. The gays are better off trying to be creative and adding a new phrase. Have a national contest. Make up a nice new phrase with the winner being the first to be that.

The problem with this statement is there are eastern religions, for example, in India that believe in the path of enlightenment which do not use a God per se, but are based on the power of the human mind transcending physical reality. Even without a God per se, they are still called religions. The atheists simply replace mental enlightenment with science enlightenment. Instead of trying to transcend physical reality, this religion goes in the other direction. Rather than be an individual quest it is more of a group or church affect like most western religions. It is sort of a motley mix of east and west. Part of the problem is just as the religious specialist may not realize their limitations when it comes to talking about provable science, science may not realize its limitations when it comes to discussing religion. The result is atheists are a religion and don't have the knowledge to know. The analogy is some ID people think certain things are science, but don't know due to lack of science expertise. The science experts try to clarify this. We might need to call in religious expert advice, since they are much better qualified to shift through the misconceptions of this closet religion in denial. It is not ill intended just due to lack of exposure. It sort of closes its eyes to the reality of religion and using pseudo-religion says, "see I am not here". This may fool most atheists when they all blink at the same time during their church services. But if one is not part of that religion, you don't have to blink on cue and can see they have not disappeared. Atheism may be distinct from western religions but not as distinct from eastern religion. An analogy is being brought up learning about the big bang theory. Maybe as you ponder this, it is doesn't sit well. One may never know there are other theories out there. We just lump all theory as being big bang and never realize our new set of values is very close to a theory already out there. But lack of exposure makes us think we are doing something new. But we deny we are theorizing an old thing, simply due to lack of knowledge. From that lack of exposure, one has the conviction this is cutting edge. Maybe separation of church and state needs to take a harder look to make sure it is not favoring one religion, even if it is in the closet. We may not be able to depend on the testimony of this closet religion, since they are not experts in religion, but may have to call in religion experts to settle it. Personally I believe in religious freedom even those who practice within closets. I sort of sit in the middle between both worlds making it easier to see the strengths and weaknesses. Atheists may wish to study religion so they can expand their eastern religion foundation. This could have taught you about alternate universes and other dimensions hundreds of years ago. This could help get atheism out of the closet because they could see they have a long religious history, rich in traditions, to connect to.

Maybe the electron orbital analogy was off because it was a hypothetical experiment. But on the hand, the wave pool experiment that I presented where we partition two wave sources that originally cancel may be a better way to see the affect. This experiment came to me while I was writing. Maybe I should have put it first but it popped into my awareness at the end of the writing. In the wave pool, the two wave source generators can be made to cancel their waves. As first sight, where the waves cancel, it does not appear like there is potential energy in the system. This assumes we are not focusing on the wave generators. Once we add the partition to the still zone, to prevent wave canceling, then the energy that was previously hidden in the wave overlap comes back into sight. What is interesting is after we get bounce back off the partition and remove it, it will take some time before the erratic waves in the pool calm down. Interesting universe model. What is really funny is Genesis has God or creation separating the waters from the waters of setting up a partition in what original looked void. That was very advanced physics for those old timers. Where I was heading with this was I needed to invent this physics to help me explain another phenomena. I was trying to get some feedback. I was looking at water and hydrogen bonding. Water or H2O is a polar molecule. This is due to the O better able to wave add the electrons. The result is the charge separation associated with a dipole forming. The waves canceling, according to the theory, allows O to hide some energy. The H side loses electrons density and becomes positive. When the H hydrogen bonds to the O of another water molecule, it sort of sets up a partition since it is partially disrupting the otherwise optimized wave addition in the O. Some of the hidden energy is released. If you look at ice, this is only one of the two materials in nature what will expand when it freezes. Everything else in nature will contract. It sort creates a paradox of an increasing charge separation that gives off energy. It is connected to the magnetic aspects of the orbitals. It is almost like the H goes into the O's wave pool and puts a small partition to make the waves appear so they can extend further into space so the H can get some overlap. The result gives the electrons more mobility while releasing a little bit of energy. The final result is odd because the partial covalent nature of the hydrogen bonding results in the H partially sharing four electrons at a time, i.e., time averaged to one at a time. This sort implies its own little wave pool to hide some of the energy so this odd situation appears calm and stable. If we reverse it, by adding energy, the charges get closer. Hydrogen bonding is the basis of the living state being the variable that defines the active shape of all bio-activity. The DNA won't work without H bonding, nor will any of the enzymes. It almost appears H has the ability to partition waves to release the hidden energy. Maybe this is a physics way to explain the little extra life has compared to just molecules. Or life sort of puts inanimate molecules over the top into a new type of state. The H appears to have a way to make partitions in the atomic wave pool. This explains why I had, on another occasion, pointed about how the EM energy is not split down the middle within a hydrogen atom. Or if the energy is split 50-50, than the proton would appear to get particle and the electron gets most of the wave since it better able to hide the energy. Maybe this gives the hydrogen proton a photon particle feature which, in turn, allows it to make partitions in the electron wave pool, so it can release some of the hidden energy, that the waves are trying to squirrel away.

What most of the models don't take into account, is the #1 greenhouse gas which is H2O. For example, in the fall if there is a frost warning, if clouds move in to prevent the radiational cooling, the surface stays warmer because the heat is reflected back to the ground to prevent frost. In the summer when getting a tan, a bunch of clouds can work the other way and reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the surface. I would also expect at least some of the solar energy will be reflected back upward into space because of clouds, especially the high attitude ones that contain lots of tiny shiny ice crystals. On relative scale of 1-10, water is up there at 10 and the rest are closer to 1-2 which why we need the best and brightest to help quantify these. The water is obvious enough to ask uncle Joe to act as expert. The water, since it is not included as a dynamic variable in many models, may be treated as a constant. If CO2 works like it is suppose too, then the heating affect will put more water in the air. There will be make more cloud cover, higher cloud tops for reflection, etc. One may even expect more high altitude clouds as the percentage of water gets higher and higher. There is also more water falling from high altitude which cools earth, etc. The projected numbers may be biased high. This is not intentional oversight, just the water is very complicated to model because it affect is as dynamic as the weather itself. Maybe at least a study of solar reflection as a function of atmospheric water, such as cloud cover, cloud type and cloud height. For example, if one cloud type is better than another and the earth is producing more or less, this could have an impact. Even if heat is bouncing between the upper level greenhouse gases and increasing cloud tops, each bounce back and forth means some extra heat is able to escape the greenhouse gases. The simplified diagrams show heating coming off the surface with one bounce against the greenhouse giving 35% return yield. After two bounces that may drop to 30%, just to use a number. The more cloud cover means more average bounces. The more clouds also means a cooler surface since clouds give shade. What is also happening, is some of the surface heat doesn't reach the other greenhouse gases because it bounces back off the clouds. The result may be the projections biased high. Once the water is included we can trust the results more.

Here is an idea that came to me this morning, which I would like to share. It is more of an observational theory than something proven. It is presented to make the mind think. If we start with two electrons in an atomic orbital with equal and opposite spins and movement, the magnetic waves cancel. Coming from this orbital is essentially zero net magnetic output even though the two electrons are charge in motion generating relatively strong magnetic fields. It is result of the wave addition. This zero magnetic output would also be exhibited if the electrons were theoretically stationary. If we started to add energy to the stationary charges, and the spins and directions of the electrons cooperate, the magnetic energy essentially disappears into the canceling of the magnetic waves. Or energy is going into a void so the zero magnetic output of the system, remains steady. In other words, we still have two charges in motion which should imply considerable magnetic output but there is no magnetic output even with increasing energy input. We could prove the energy is there, although hidden, if we could somehow partition the two electrons so their magnetic waves were not able to cancel. The result would be all the magnetic energy sort of reappearing out of the void. The main point is each electron, if taken by itself, will show the correct amount of magnetic energy based on the energy input and the electron velocity. But if two of them are waves canceling some of the energy sort of disappears into a void. If some of the energy does not disappear than the Electrostatic and Magnetic forces would have to end up out of proportion, or the given velocity of the charge does not generate the correct amount of magnetic force. I like hidden energy better since one can sort of simulate it with a simple experiment. Theoretically if we can partition wave canceling voids, we can let out the hidden energy. A simple experiment goes like this. We have two wave generators in a pool, at opposite ends of the pool. If they are 180 degrees out of phase the crests and troughs of one wave generator will cancel the troughs and crests of the other. In the middle, if this was a frictionless system, one would not know we were adding energy. The potential energy will disappear even though we are adding 2X energy to the water. If we put a partition in the middle, all the 2X energy returns out of stillness. It would be an interesting special affect, if we had the camera frame leave out the wave generators and just focus on the still middle. When we add the thin partition, energy seems to appear like magic, out of the stillness.

One of the problems I see, is the inherent within the concept of infinity. Technically, infinity is a abstraction of math to describe one of its limiting conditions. But infinity is not something we can prove actually exists. If we could pin it down it is not infinite anymore. It is metaphysics. It is actually easier to prove a unicorn exists. I am sort of splitting hairs, because I like this metaphysical concept of infinity. But using it, technically builds upon a metaphysical foundation or adds metaphysical 2X4's to the construction. The results end up in air, somewhere near the land of unicorns. This leads to a practical problem. If we eliminate metaphysical from physics and math then we may need to purge infinity. But this would mess things up, which is not a good thing. Maybe the compromise is an infinity disclaimer, which states, after this point, this is only speculation because it needs to include a metaphysical concept. This raises another point. If the odds of proving infinity is close to zero and we are allowed to use this, does this allows us to use any metaphysics with slightly better odds. Can I add unicorns as part of my proof or does infinity have a special grandfather clause, making it sort of unique? Now that I think of it, point and infinitesimal are also grandfathered in.

Farming is not easy work. After you put the seed in the ground it is 4-6 months before you get anything. There was no Home Depot or books for advice. One has to hoe the soil, lug water, pick weeds, fight off critters every day for 4-6 months. There are storms, wind, bugs, mold, etc., that can also mess it up. There are so many thing that can go wrong for 4-6 months that it takes constant dedication-motivation. It was not the easiest path or the path of least resistance. With hunting you can get food in a couple of days and lazy for a week. The gathering of food is also faster, farming 4-6 months. If we apply the pleasure and fear principles farming is the last thing anyone wants to do if they are hungry now, especially when it is in the development stage and the other techniques are already in production. Try this experiment. Starting today, don't eating anything unless you grow it. No going to store where you can get some immediate gratification. You have no books, no fertilizer, no tools but sticks. At the same time, you need to farm in the summer when there is the most plentiful food in nature for gathering and hunting. Why would someone give up the easy path? Here is my theory, which can be loosely demonstrated with a simple home experiment. Go to the movies and see a scary movie. Then have someone drop you off in the woods at night. What will happen, in most cases, is the imagination will start to act up, with the bush a wolf, the tree someone watching you, the sounds in the night a bear rustling in the brush. It was the human imagination acting up to induce the motivation. They had no choice or the boogie man would get them. Whether it was religion or psychology is still up for debate. The pre-humans were more like atheist in the sense of very pragmatic taking the natural path of least resistance using conservative instinct. There was another group starting to go psycho tending the plants out of fear or nurturing, with the taskmaster in their head. They had a new awareness of self versus something else. The simplest way to explain this is the conscious mind separated from the unconscious mind about 10,000 years ago. This is subtle if one is not too familiar with psychology. Going into the woods at night exercise, will cause these two sides of the mind to appear. If one can remain semi-rational, the body can still be afraid because of the imagination. The rational mind will try to get a grip calming themselves down. Try this second experiment. If you brought a dog to the movie, and he was also put the woods at night, in a different spot, he would not have the same mind split. He would react to the woods in one way, maybe exploring, based on his instincts. The pre-humans may have had this split fade in and out, such as the creative cave drawings. But the humans had this new split stick long enough to start farming. They didn't have a rational point of view, just an awareness of self and something else that made the bush seem to have something in it. They were stuck in the woods at night, so to speak, for months at a time. Some of the mythology were attempts to explain that shrub that becomes a wolf at night. At 10,000 year ago their were not us sitting comfortable at home with old clothes. It was us in the woods at night after a scary movie, alone. There was not yet a collective or group explanation since language was thin for things nobody else could see. But eventually, humans learn to share the woods experience and work within the new parameters. As the new conscious point of view begin to stabilize they started to gain more self control and will. There were now semi-detached from pre-human instinct.

I am going to play the devil's advocate and turn this around. Infinity is an important concept in math and science. Yet, Science can not prove infinity exists, except in a self serving way. It is an abstract concept that satisfies limiting conditions in math. I have no problem with this. But this does not mean it is real or provable. Let us apply the principles of science to infinity to make sure it is real. We may not be able to measure it. Let us try another way. Aren't the odds of infinity something like zero. Does that mean we may find an unicorn before we can prove infinity? Does it also mean we need to have have faith that it exists? Am I suppose to just blindly take your word without any scientific proof? This is superstition. To make sure science is not using any myth, maybe we need to purge it from science, since it has all the makings of a science faith concept. If we critically analyze infinity, with the same science principles used for God, it doesn't do too well, either. It comes down to faith and tradition. But proof may not matter to the atheists. What that tells me, it is not about the philosophy of science, it is religious. The atheist religion may want to keep their impossible to prove, but nobody can have theirs. If we get rid of infinity, or call it a religious concept, that can't be proven, there are many things we won't be able to do in math. Without the religious concept math and science will suffer. I have no problem with this religious concept that is so important to math. I sort of like it.

The thing with human consciousness is we have two points of view at the same time. If one is not aware of this and assumed there is only one then you will get into the uncertainty area. For example, if someone slammed the door behind you, your body may jump before you are fully conscious of what the cause was. It may be a fraction of a second but the unconscious will react first, than the conscious will follow suit. If you assume one point of view, then that would mean you reacted before you were aware of the noise with cause and affect appearing to break down or reverse. With two reference they simply worked one then two with rational predictability. Here is another experiment that show the different dual reference affect. Go to a horror movie and then have someone drop you off in the woods at night. This is extreme but will almost always work. What should happen is the imagination will start to overlay reality. There is uncertainty whether that is a bush or a wolf, whether that movement was the wind or the ax murderer. The uncertainty is also due to the two points of view. One is entering the sensory systems through the sensors, and the other is triggering the sensory cortex without having to enter the eyes, using the imagination. One may even start to feel terror, from within, with nothing in reality to cause this. But the reaction of the body can be so strong, it thinks this coming from outside. If we assume a single reference the uncertainty whether this is real or not is much higher. If we realize there is a rational and irrational reference at the same time, then even the terror has a logical explanation. The quantum models are based on the assumption of one reference. They are useful because it shows what can happen if we leave out one reference. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may be an artifact of using one reference when we need to use two. Here is my theory. The electron is moving at about 1/15 the speed of light. Although the relativity is small, it does exist in a slightly different space-time reference than the more stationary nucleus, which is the standard for human reference. We will have a slight problem trying to track the electron is we assume only one reference, because there is no simultaneity to compare apples to apples. The result will be uncertainty in the one reference we use.

I have presented this before, it seems to stump everyone because it adds up to what is not suppose to be. Your presentation might benefit. It is possible to take a picture of time, to prove time is a physical thing, connected to energy, and not just an abstraction or reference variable, although it is also these things. The affect is called motion blur. The motion blur will give the affect of motion, even in a static photo, where the clock has stopped. If the movement of the object, is faster than the shutter speed of the camera, we will get motion blur in the photo. This motion blur is sort of in proportion to the time difference between the motion and the shutter speed. What the blur represents is an uncertainty in distance caused by the extra time potential remaining in the photo. The space-time is not in direct proportion, with too much time potential left in the moving object. The result is the object appears in a range of space coordinates. Once the shutter speed is adjusted to get the motion blur to stop, further increases in shutter speed have no affect. In other words, once all the time potential is filtered out of the photo, where shutter speed equals motion speed, there is not time potential left for any additional blur. At that point space-time is back into proportion. This suggest time, needs to be classified as a thing since we can record it affects. What the rapid spin of your contraption is trying to create is uncertainty in distance or a dynamic version of the motion blur. This will add add extra time potential at that place in space-time, but in a very dynamic way. This give us a fountain of time where time is out of whack with space. Here is another consideration, we need energy to measure time, suggesting that time potential has a connection to energy potential. In other words, if the battery dies in my clock, I can't use it to measure time. Distance is different since a ruler does not require energy to measure distance. I have never had to change the battery in my meter stick. What that suggests is the energy needed for the spin is the source of the initial time potential for the distance blur, to create secondary time potential, for secondary distance blur, etc., etc., Maybe this cascade twists space-time to help alter cause and affect. What I can visualize is a photo of a ball with motion blur, riding on another ball that we photograph with to also have motion blur, etc., etc., until it not clear which ball is part of which blur. What does space become when there is uncertainty even in the uncertainty of the uncertainty. The laws of physics would go, Dah, not really know how to act in any coherent or predictable way.