pioneer

The term mammal is simply a definition we have agreed upon to help categorize life. We could separate rocks in rough and smooth, but that does not mean we are defining an eternal truth. But if we condition people to accept this rock definition, as though it reflects an eternal truth, many won't be able to see the line is arbitrary. Since it is arbitrary, if one wishes to add even more distinctions to the rocks, such as big and small, don't take it as an assault on your religion, simply because it breaks protocol. All I did was add another aspect to humans that extends beyond mammal even if aspects of humans also extends into line in the sand called mammal. One thing that separates humans from other mammals is subjectivity. Animals tend to be in touch with cause and effect relative to their instincts. To them an apple is a piece of food they either like or don't like. But with humans we can add subjective overlay to make the apple a forbidden fruit. We can also turn arbitrary into an absolute using the same subjectivity. I appear to be touching this subjectivity taboo, which should allow you gain first hand data of another aspect of humans that is outside the rest of the mammal circle. Free will is able to be conscious of this extra subjectivity and therefore choose to go along or not. If one is not conscious of the subjectivity, free will makes little sense.

Entropy is a function of energy, since there is energy conservation and entropy is a form of energy. What that means is at different energy one can get different entropy and therefore alter probabilities. Probability, as defined, works under the assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization, which is not always the case. For example, if we throw a single dice, the odds are 1 to 6 for any side to appear. That assumes we have added enough energy to get full randomization. If I simply push a stationary dice with enough energy to flip it 90 degrees, the bottom side has almost no probability of occurring. While the probability of the other four sides will increase odds from 1 to 6 to 1 to 4. If you look at the family tree of life based on DNA, if this evolution occurred with sufficient energy for complete randomization, all the genes would have equal odds of changing, at any point in evolution. The result would be a randomization that would make it impossible to trace anything with random breaks everywhere. With a low energy/entropy randomization, some genes, like the bottom side of the dice in the above low energy dice example, will not change much, allowing us to trace the family tree. Say we had a deck of cards. Using the assumption of a full energy randomization, we have calculated odds for each hand. But say we only weakly shuffled a new deck of cards ( a couple of cuts) without sufficient energy for the full energy randomization. The same odds don't apply. Life can alter the odds but making use of low energy/entropy randomization so the needed changes are more likely to occur and base things are more likely to persist. The question becomes how can life alter the odds? it only requires low energy/entropy randomization. One way to see this is by looking at how the human mind does it, since life tends to work like a helix that recycles as it advances in time. Once a precedent is created, it becomes more or less fixed, with changes in thought building upon that. We don't go back to step one and change the precedent very easily. The amount of effort or energy would be huge since there is so much resistance against such a fundamental change. Instead we start there, using less energy/effort to randomize from that starting point. But eventually, that foundation can't support the ever increasing weight of new ideas, since they might create questions and problems. This adds potential energy to the stable foundation, until randomization can occur there. Now there is a branch forming at that junction; new species. Life does this with chemical capacitance.

Based on the definition defined by science humans are mammals. But of all the mammals, humans are the only one's with free will. What that means is the human circle will intersect the mammal circle. But the human circle will also exist outside the mammal circle, into a free will circle. Along with free will is the ability to alter any instincts that may have been part of the mammal circle until they become part of the free will circle.

Let do this with logic. Humans are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore humans are cats and cats are humans. The reason this logic does not add up is although both may be animals, based on the definition science has created, there are other differences we need to add to the equation.

Mac comes with an application called boot camp. Boot Camp helps to install windows on a separate partition. It also includes the drivers needed to run a mac based computer in windows, since some things won't work without these drivers. Boot camp then becomes the way to switch back and forth. I use snow leopard and windows 7 and can read-write between partitions. Windows stills needs anti-virus, while Mac is already protected. Parallels Desktop takes this one step further and allows both operating systems to run at the same time, with one able to drag and drop between OS's. Boot camp comes with Mac, but you need to purchase Parallel.

The problem with this logic is that people who were never slaves are treated like they were slaves. While people who never owned slaves and may have even been part of the civil rights movement are treated like they were slave owners. This is out of touch with cause and effect, therefore it is irrational. It uses a one size fits all mentality that separates reparation and guilt along racial lines, regardless if one had anything to do with slavery. Racism is not only discrimination of others based on race (one-size fits all), but it is also connected to one's over attachment to their own race. Even without discriminating against another, if one is too for their own race; special interest, they are racists. Retroactive guilt is a way to perpetuate racism since it does not look at each person as a person, but lumps all into a racial divide. Ironically this racism comes from those who say they are the one's who are the most against racism. If we treat all the same, nobody is segregate into a racial divide.

Greenhouse gases do not generate energy, but simply stored energy better. A greenhouse may get warmer during the day, but at night, the energy is free to leave since the energy generator or sun is gone. In the past, volcanos have been known to cool the earth many degrees, since their impact is dust that can lower the amount of heat input. Theoretically, a large enough volcano could cool the earth and remove all the built up heat the green house gases have accumulated.

The orbitals are the result of interaction between the protons of the nucleus and the electrons. Each orbital represents a lowest energy shape that results from the EM addition of the movement of electrons and protons. Electrons are particles and waves. This is where the wave nature of electrons come in. Electrons are not just a negative charge, but a charge in motion. The result is electrons give off both electrostatic and magnetic waves. Opposite spin electrons attract, since they will develop a magnetic attraction that can overcome the expected electrostatic repulsion. When all is said and done the energy of the atom is minimized when electrons circulate in the orbital shapes we see. Since these shapes are repeatable and stack in a repeatable order with respect to atomic number, this indirectly tells us that the protons of the nucleus may also have orbital configurations also due to similar wave addition, in the context of the electrons. An interesting effect is magnetism where all the electrons are not in the lowest energy orbitals. In this case, the magnetic does not cancel the electrostatic repulsion, and we notice the extra magnetic output. Since this is stable for some atoms, one would expect a tweak in the nuclear proton orbitals may also occur. If the nuclear proton electrostatic potential was higher it could compensate for the higher electrostatic charge of the electrons. This would allow the proton to detach some of its own magnetic field, so it can add with the electron magnetic field, while still allowing a semi-stable magnetic atom. The magnetic iron in the center of the earth exists at temperatures that normally denature magnetic properties. One way to overcome that is via induced stability in the slighter higher energy proton orbital configuration, which then stabilizes the electrons.

A heat pump uses electric energy to extract energy that is already there. As an analogy, say we had a reservoir of water that is 100 feet high, but the overflow hole is at 101 feet. There is lot of potential energy there, but we will need to pump the water 1 foot before we can get the energy out of 100ft of pressure. Theoretically we get 100 times at much energy as we put in. We are not creating energy, just releasing it with a catalyst. The heat pump works on a similar principle, using the potential energy in a thermal gradient instead of a gravity gradient. The heat wants to flow from hot to cold, but is stuck. So, we first need to give it a little push to get it over the hump so we can tap into that potential energy gradient.

I went to engineering grad school. Engineering is a little different since it is about applied science. What that means is you not only need to understand the core principles in depth, but you also need to understand it well enough to extrapolate that understanding into unknown areas of applications. The professors were experts in various areas of the whole, who could explain and extrapolate, pulling you along faster than you could go. Memory was less important than understanding, with most tests open book. The important thing was applying the knowledge to solve problems, not to clutter your little brain with data. The theory and data were the tools you could find in any tool box. You needed to learn how to swing the hammer and use the level to build the any type of house. The philosophy of engineering can get you into a pickle with empirical science, since your training tends to stray off memory path, into the unknown using understanding of how their hammer works. Sometimes a hammer also makes a good pry tool if used in conjunction with a block of wood. This is not exactly blind experimentation, since you are trained to extrapolate and you have a feel for how the house is suppose to look before starting.

I would tax all campaign contributions to electred officials by treating campaigns as businesses. Obama raised neary a $1B for his campaign. as one example. I am not targeting him, but using him to just give an idea of the revenue possiblities. When something is free it is not appreciated as much as when you have to work hard for the money and then the government can come in and take it. Right now campaign money is a big tax free entitlement program. Whatever taxes the leaders feel is fair, for each tax bracket in the private sector, will also apply to their mad money. Another idea that came to me was a tax rebate lottery. The way it would work is those who pay taxes have the option to buy one or more lottery tickets from the IRS. If they win, they are exempt from taxes that year. We can even have lifetime winners exempt from a lifetime of taxes. You just tweak the input-output revenues until new revenue is raised. People don't mind giving if they feel they may actually benefit by giving. But since it is a lottery the sun can shine on anyone. Power and money, although connected work differently. The private sector needs to work in a competitive environment where profit is king. This means efficiency. If you are ineffiency that not only means less profit, but possible extinction. Power is different, since more is always better. If one was going into battle, you will not take the smallest number of people to be cost effective. Rather bigger is better, since bigger means more power. The power structure in government is not in there to earn profit in a competive environment. They do not benefit by efficiency. They are given power, which means they benefit by bigger since bigger means more power.To reduce your staff in half and/or have half is much money to spend is contrary to the needs of power, since this would makes one weaker than his contemporay who gets to be ineffcient. The idea is to change the psychological parameters of government so the idea of profit (efficiency) is more prestigious than power. The leaders need to feel incentive to use the small army instead of the huge army to storm the tiny village. The way you do that is with profit sharing, where the money anyone can save and still produce a high level of goods and services, becomes partly theirs. As an analogy, with power you would bring this huge army with all the bells and whistles, so you look powerful, with all the bearer holding up you throne. But this may be way overkill but it makes you look very important. The other way is whatever you save by using fewer bells and whistles, we will put a fraction of that in your bank account. The weighed option is the guilded throne held by bearers or the new house for the family. By creating the cash incentive there will be internal competition until like the free market the government will be a lean mean service providing machine, without gilded thrones.

Part of the problem is genetic based evolution is too slow with respect to suddent changes in the environment. What would need to happen is the brain needs to take over to alter breeding behavior as one possible solution. The CPU of the brain is more in tune with the needs of real time, while monkey see and monkey do, will help others to learn. Fish move like synchhronized swimmers in schools depending on signals from each other. But if they depend too much on waiting for the DNA to change, it could mean extinction. The DNA alone is not enough, when the other critters use their brains. The eggs eaters were smart with this eating behavior quickly learned by their team mates who see eating signals from others.

If you look at energy quanta and light waves, they have wavelength and frequency. Wavelength is connected to distance and frequency is connected to time. For energy, the product of the two is connected to C (speed of light). Spin contains loosely similar characteristics. The spin is connected to frequency or time, but the wavelength or distance is not related in the same way to C, since any size object (radius, diameter or circumference) can spin at different frequencies. However, there will be a sweet spot where the size and spin frequency can actually equal C, for inertial spin. That is a theoretical possibility, which I would assume creates a state where inertial spin becomes more like energy. But as long as the time and distance characteristics of the spin are not C, we have inertial spin. Just a theory.

The only point I was making is for any given genetics there is an optimum environment. In the same token, for any given genetics there are non-optimized environments. The frail child may be optimized as part of the chess club, since his physical limitations will not matter in that environment. There he can be a champion and leader. But playing on the football team would not be an optimized environment. Now he is neither champion or leader. When we add the brain to evolution, there is another push where instinct seeks an optimized environment. The human mind can play tricks and alter the goal of instinct. Putting that aside, things like population pressure will cause the brain to sense the lack of optimization. There will be a conscious movement outward, but not intentionally to where there is worse optimization. The goal is to find a place where one is optimized based on the environmental variables. The brain can help pick the environment for genetic optimization. For example, when the prehumans migrated out of Africa, they migrated great distances beyond any push associated with just population pressures. We could fit them all in a space the size of England, yet they spread over the world. I tend to think as various members found their optimized place (home) they stopped. Others continued until they found home. Evolution is too 1-D around genetics. There is also the brain which is designed to work in real time and react to changes in the environment and can sense non-optimization. A tree does not have a brain so 1-D is good enough. But once we add animals, it is more 2-D.

The Roman Catholic Church was an amalgom of Rome and Christianity. The winter festival becoming Christmas was part of the amalgom, being a little bit of both worlds, so they would merge. A winter festival is one last effort to have a light heart before the needs of old man winter comes. The birth of a child brings added joy and hope to the entire family, to warm the cold winter heart, which will soon be bogged down with winter's needs and worries. I am not sure why the idea of a positive spirit of hope and giving, centered on the birth of a child and extrapolated into the kind old man (winter; north pole) who gives joyfully to all the children, rubs humbugs the wrong way. The Christmas tree is an evergreen, green like spring and summer all the time. It is not religion but the secular that turned the lightness of Christmas into a winter chore.

Water is only slightly compressible. You need to go to an engineering table to find the density of water at the two pressures; 95 and 100 psi. You know the volume of the pipe and assume that is fixed ffor both pressures. This volume and the two densities allows you to calculate the mass of water in the pipe at each pressure. The mass difference is the answer.

This morning I think I figure out the logic behind the separation of church and state. The biggest difference between the two is the state can use guns, swords and jails to impose it laws and views. The church is limited to free speech, since churches don't have armies, police or jails to impose its laws and views. As an example, churches may collect tithes, which are like taxes. But they can only use words of appeal or words of guilt to get you to pay. If you don't wish to pay, nothing bad can happen to you. You can't be thrown in jail or you house looted by tithe collectors. The state tithe is called taxes. The state can also use words of appeal and guilt. But it also has the option of guns, swords and jails. With religion you can reason that you don't wish to pay the tithe and that is that. But try that with the state and see what happens. It has an extra option. The separation of church and state places church first since the relationship is more like the underdog to the overdog and thereby helps to protect the underdog from a possible bully. The underdog can talk, using free speech, but the overdog can bring guns, swords and jails. You can't have a state religion since that would imply the religion would be given access to guns, swords and jails to become an overdog. It could then loot you to collect tithes. But on the other hand, the state is not suppose to not use its guns, swords and jails, against the underdog, since the requirement imposed on religion is they can't have these things. If the state ignored that difference, it could reduce the dynamics between state and church to bully and victim. A state bully may decide he doesn't like the victim's glasses and use that as an excuse to beat him up. Free speech assures that the victim can wear his glasses and still not be a victim of a state bully who has access to guns, swords and jails. But if the bully is able to twist the state laws to allow this, the founding fathers added the right to bear arms, so the victim can have a defense. But churches don't condone violent conflict, since they hope the original mutual relationship of free speech is restored and guns, swrods and jails removed fromn their relationship of mutual respect.

One evolutionary consideration that is often overlooked is the environment can often define selective advantage. As a thought experiment we have two animal mutations. One gives the animal extra warm fur and the other gives the animal less fur. Depending on the environment we use, we can select either one of these animals for selective advantage. If we use a cold environment our heavier fur animals wins. If we use a warm environment our thinner fur animal wins. Let us do this in a slightly different way. We have a herd of animals with a range of genetic diversity, similar to a group of humans with different physical and emotional and mental traits. These animals are migrating over a very long distance. If the first environment lacks water, those who genetics retain water better give them an advantage. Next week, there is plenty of water but the water is in a large shallow swamp. Now those with long thin legs, who can wade easier, have the selective advantage. The next week, the terrain gets very rugged so those who are lighter on the feet have the selective advantage due to less hoof problems. Next they enter a mountainous area. Now those with shorter and sturdier legs have an advantage. Next week, the terrain is full of dense shrubs. Now there is a new constraint, etc. Evolution sort of assumes the environment is more or less fixed with genetic changes leading to new advantages. But in the above scenario the genetics of the individual members of the herd were fixed with environmental changes leading to new advantages. In the scenario above, say during the long march, each advantageous part of the herd found their niche, where they could be the big fish in a little pond (selective advantage), instead of a little fish in the big herd pond. Our water retainers decide to stay in the dry land. Our long legged waders decide to stay there, etc., since all have found their selective advantage. Using existing evolutionary theory we would say they took millions of years for each niche to evolve, yet the entire apparent evolution happened over months.

In Special Relativity there are three equations, one for mass, distance and time. Although space-time reference can be relative, mass-energy can not be relative to reference, or else one could violate the conservation of energy. One reference could end up with more or less energy than the other reference, thereby needing to alter the laws of physics to complete the relative energy balance. Let me give an example. Someone is on a train moving at V. They see the background scenary moving at V, since they consider themselves stationary. Another person is standing near the track watching the train move at V. If we do an energy balance to include mass-energy, based on these relative references, one references see the energy of the moving train, while the other sees the energy of the moving landscape. If both references are the same, the laws of physics will need to different for each reference, since in the train reference huge mountains and lakes can move with relatively little energy input. Their unique reference bends space-time in revolutionary ways. Maybe dark matter and dark energy are particularly strong in the train reference or maybe new laws of physics are at work. With GR, this also involves mass, distance and time, with mass the potential that bends space-time. It is not space-time that results in mass, since space-time references can be relative and can alter the energy balance of the universe. The earth's mass is what bends the local space-time. When the earth interacts with the moon, the mass interacts allowing us to maintain the energy balance. If we wish to model this as space-time interaction we can't use relative reference or will run the risk of violating energy conservation, since space-time bending is an effect and not a cause. We can still use space-time but we need an absolute reference which we know neither creates or destroys energy.

When they swear in the president they still use a bible. It is also used in the Judicial branch for swearing in witnesses. If the intent was to remove religion that would have never been part of the ceremony. The intent was not to separate symbols but simply not to create a church branch of government. Say we used one of the atheist bibles, when people swear to tell the truth, would this carry as much weight? I tend to think they never intented there to be an EPA for religion, which creates regulations that either favor or obstruct the free enterprise of any relgion.

The way I see it is liberal social policies created a sinking ship which needs birth control as one of the many socials mops to clean up their mess. Instead of looking at the big picture, we tend to focus on this particular mess, which taken by itself does suggest birth control being a reasonable mop. But the big picture involves a series of blunders, that created social problems which need solutions, which create problems, etc. Liberal democrats do come up with good ideas, in theory, but they lack practical common sense. They were sort of like the wife who wants to expand the kitchen and can knows how she would like to set it up, but doesn't know a hammer from a nail or understand the cost. To her it just sort of happens and poof we have a new kitchen. But to the practical minded, it takes more planning or else you can create problems, which gets more expensive down the line. What may have happened is the liberal wife wanted the kitchen but the husband was dragging his feet. He has the skills to turn the kitchen into reality, but is worried about the social cost. This is the churches. So the wife gets a sledgehammer and starts to knock down the walls. In the process she knocks down a support wall, now we have a problem. True, it is a good idea to add a header for support, but if it had been done right we would not have needed that header in the first palce. It may not be a good idea to have her do the plumbing next, since we already know we will be replacing the floors. After the floor is warped and stained by the water, we will be debating whether it is good to replace the floor. But in reality one side already knows this can be avoided if we let the experts do the plumbing. If you look at Obama's health care, it is a good liberal idea. But only in theory, but not in terms of the nebulous state of liberal practicality. It is one of those kitchen remodelling jobs. Maybe the old kitchen needs to be expanded, but we really need to leave that to the practical minded who can avoid the need for as many mops.

Polar caps of Mars Melting The Martians appear to be having the same problem. This suggests man-made global warming is worse that expected and appears to heating the solar system.

If you look at a photon, it moves at the speed of light. Paradoxically, something at C should be totally distance contracted and time dilated, yet photons show finite expressions in space and time we call wavelength and frequency. This suggests photons have one foot in C reference and one foot in inertial reference. Say a graviton was more by the book with respect to C and therefore did not have a finite aspect like photons. In this scenario, since they move at C, they will give every indication of something moving at C without any outward expression such as we see with photons, since they lack the finite leg. Their finite leg is dissociated and remains as mass.

It is possible some humans are closer to animals than others. Others may be more advanced than animals. Each would percieve their place relative to animals, and then might assume all people are like them; see through the same filter. Humans tend to break down into two herds. Atheist tend to assume they are more like animals. Religious people see this animal connection more distant to themselves. The human mind makes up its own classifications. PC sort of shows us how leaders can arbitraily make a distinction. Once that is set in the mind, it becomes the new reality for many. Once animal or not is set in the mind, the human mind is able to create its own reality. This ability of the human mind is unique to only the human critters. If one wishes to use the animal standard I suppose one will eventually think the connections to animals is closer. If one uses a standard farther away from the animals the animal connection will appear further away. If we do this for many generations it is possible two herds will form, since selective advantage in each herd will favor genetic changes to or away from the animals.

The atheist is often associated with science and reason. This is a misconception, since there are many more irrational atheists. Being an atheist only means not believing in God or religion. One can be an atheist, while not having spent any time ponder things with critical thinking. One can merely memorize, copy and mudsling. For example, bringing up the Salem witch trials has little to do with modern religion. What is the cause and effect between that and a modern person? Maybe this projects the atheist condemming those who believe in spirits as blaspheming against their religion. But it is presented in an irrational way to create an illusion there is a connection; QED. The irrational trick is to incite emotion so the argument remains irrational for the irrational atheists. The atheist leadership does not step in with reason, because this tactic may reflect the irrationality of the cause. I always thought atheism was a type of godless religion. If you take god out of the equation the dynamics are not much different. Budhism does not believe in God, but that is called a religion. One can have religion without God. Religion does not claim to be rational. But since atheism does, it sets the rational standard for itself. As long as atheism deviates from its own standard, one gets the impression this rational claim is only smoke and mirrors. How does atheism deal with the irrational atheist in their flock, since they pervert the philosophy? Are they the minions for this godless religion.