pioneer

We do live in a free market culture. Good marketing needs to get the audience excited. It can also benefit by free publicity by engaging a group that will make news trying to fight back. It may be good salesmanship with the motivation less to create understanding but more for free market. His meme theory is better, in proportion, but his engaging group was better able to snub him behind closed doors, where he was not able to benefit as much by publicity. He may have temporarily given up on altruism due to the rational dogmatists. If he can't win them with altruism, take their money, using all the free publicity. Stealthily, he has used his meme theory to make money. I would not be surprised if this social experiment helps with is meme theory. That will be the next book, maybe using this experiment to help fund good science. It is interesting to see theory at work. It also suggests that atheists are more vulnerable to this meme ready to just run with it even willing to pay for the right to be infected.

I like the idea of bacteria, which are being developed, that can convert biomass to hydrogen gas. If we can couple these with algae that can use the sun to make the appropriate biomass, then we have solar powered hydrogen production. What some scientists have found is low level electricity can increase the output of the hydrogen bacteria. We can get this adding some solar panels. What is interesting is the hydrogen producing bacteria will also produce CO2. The symbiosis involves the constant recycle of the same CO2, allowing closed containers. The gas separation and recycle may be the most complicated part so we can maintain maximum production. But we would get O2 and H2 streams for double money making.

I like the idea of genetic manipulation in theory. But in practice, since life sciences are not fully rational, but are too dependent on statistical empiricism, there is a degree of alchemy involved. Simple things like medications typically do what they say, but often tend to have unpredictable side effects. Instead of a single chemical affecting a protein, the side affects will stem from deeper in the cells at the level of the DNA, without any preliminary requirement of cause and affect predictions, until after the fact. They are turning lead into gold, but many of these attempts will find out later it was just gold plated. We need to be real about the limitations of alchemy. But even the alchemists were able to hit home runs here and there, so we can't fully dismiss this approach. Most of those who are concerned are deemed irrational. But the reality is the pot calling the kettle black, calling empirical alchemy a rational science. Maybe the theory is not advanced enough to move into reason. But even a gambler has winning streaks using the laws of statistics. There will be those days we need to keep our eyes open for.

This is easier to see if the hydrogen becomes fully ionized. Both the proton and the electron are at higher energy using one photon. The system is no longer one system but has two components each of which can then act independently. Again, if we do an energy balance that includes magnetic the electron gets more.

This idea came to me today. We start with a hydrogen atom. If we input a photon, the electron will be kicked up into a higher energy state. If you look at this closely the electron will gain more EM potential that the proton, since it has more added motion for its charge for extra magnetic potential. The proton is heavy so there is less magnetic . The net result is the photon does not split symmetrically but asymmetrically.

This came to me the other day. It can show that GR, in this one respect, is an approximation for classical gravity. Here is the scenario. If I took a bolder and lifted its edge and placed a block of foam underneath it, it will flatten. This is due to gravity-weight. Based on this scenario the local GR=gravity has not changed appreciably, yet classical gravity caused a compression in distance that exceeds the change in GR. What this suggests is in some applications classical gravity is an approximation for GR. But in this type application GR is an approximation for classical gravity. Classical gravity is changing the position of the atoms so they get physically closer. Maybe a GR approximation might be space-time expansion. For example, we have a cube contained in (1,1,1). If we expand the space-time coordinated system to (2,2,2) the mass is still at (1,1,1) but now half size physically closer. The expanded space-time coordinate system nows exists deeper into space-time requiring additional physical compaction of more matter. The space-time is spreading out with classical gravity. This also makes sense with respect to time. The time should speed up. The heat from gravity work takes care of speeding up events. In stars, the fastest events are always where the star is most gravity compact. They are not undergoing time dilation with the reaction rates going slower in the core and proportionately faster at the perimeter. That would be a messed up star able to tidy up atoms faster than the core could make them. That was my attempt to extend GR to better accommodate the bolder problem.

If you look at the blood cells in the human body, which show ameboid motion, they are singles cells with the entire DNA of a human being. They are us, if we existed as a single cellular organism, capable of individual adaptation. Like most single cellular organisms, they have extra DNA they don't use. This is interesting, because theoretically, if DNA manipulation was far more advanced, one could make an entire human out of one of these single cell critters. We could make a complete dog out its its own single cell version. It would be interesting if other single cell critters, using the same DNA manipulation technique, would become a new multicellular critter.

Defining intelligence is not always easy. For example, if we see a blood cell crawling along, chasing bacteria, we may call that intelligent. But that could be due to a complex feedback mechanism. For example, an auto-matron at Disney World may have voice recognition with a library of responses. But it is based on programming logic. This is not considered artificial intelligence. Or the robot vacuum cleaner that appears to avoid obstacles, even if we keep moving them around, looks like it has adaptive intelligence. But again this is not artificial intelligence but more like a feedback system. Where the brain leaves simple computer feedback, is that it is like a living computer that can evolve itself. We learn, extrapolate, test, learn, extrapolate, learn, test, etc, with the system evolving. Part of that process involves motivation or different motivations so we collect data. The brain generates energy that has to be used up. This gets off our duff, into some type of interactive action so the learning loop keeps gathering data so it can evolve. It can even add some fuel to the imagination. A simple motivation like desire, gets you to the nightclubs or even to the store to investigate. The ego sort of goes along for the ride helping to stir. Even if we are trying not to learn, the living computer is still picking stuff up, so we learn anyway even of it is subliminal. There is a simple way to explain this. The synapses are the basic unit of memory storage. While synapses form when the dendrites and axons branch to form synaptic interfaces. The brain firmware of a child, it sort of like a seedling that will grow into an adult tree. In other words, the child is destined to become an adult in terms of the brain operation. The neurons are going to evolve anyway, in that direction, based on firmware templates. Creativity is sort of the tree continuing to grow on its own, using data we previously placed. Our interaction is adding sensory data to the growing tree that wants to grow anyway. The result is we are always human but there is flexibility in the leaves. The ego can stir, so it can focus this natural learning potential to give these trees our own signature.

Here is a different way to look at God. If you look at God as an abstract concept, it encompasses all the extremes, at the same time. Relative to math, this God abstraction is the original basis for the concepts of infinity and point. Relative to the human mind, this abstraction create an abstract anchor, that goes way beyond finite limitations, i.e., infinity. To even think about approaching those abstract limits one needs to go beyond themselves or finite limitations. It is this beyond themselves that is often characteristic of religion. It creates extremes in human behavior from the extreme darkness that is sprinkled in history, to extreme self sacrifice, to extremes of motivation, extreme art, etc. It is the abstract anchor at infinity that help the mind, heart push the limits of finite. Taking away the God concept is sort of like taking away the concept of infinity from math. Infinity is not easy to prove, since if you ever got there, it would not be infinity. We need to have faith that it exists. Even if it doesn't exist in terms of real proof, this extreme anchor parameter for the mind, has had a very significant impact on science and math. If we decided to be consistent across the board, since it is an abstract concept unable to be proven, we need to get rid of it, even this will mess up math. We would need to substitute infinity for only the extreme finite we can measure. Beyond that it is not provable. If don't have infinity, we may settle on a number and retire. If we keep it, it motivates us to keep pushing further trying to reach it. God is 3-D abstraction that sets mental infinity not just in math, but for all the extremes including human nature. It has lasted and continues to last because this abstract anchor pulls the mind beyond trying to find infinity in the world around us.

One of the challenges theoretical physics faces is, math can be used to support abstract premises. Math is a faithful horse one can lead down a wide of variety of paths, some even being mutually exclusive. Because the math can get complicated, for any number of reasons, one may not be able to explains the results in a common sense way. This loss of common sense checks and balances can allow a math illusion to come alive. It sort of sounds like your Dad was able to create one of these math loops that gained a life of its own. This is common in physics. Let explain this from a slightly different angle. One way to express math equations is to plot these on a graph. The regular painter type artist doesn't use math equations, but directly plots their abstraction on the graph paper called the canvas. For example, the artist Escher, came up with an abstraction called the stairway to nowhere. This can exist as a 2-D plot, but it can not exist in reality, since it always appears to go up even though it is a loop. If one translated this plot, into the equations, they would all be integrated. But the result is an illusion that can not exist in the real world. It still defies common sense, but the math bias says it is now real. Very few people can use common sense looking at complex equations. If we did Escher's art work, directly, using equations, without first plotting it to touch common sense reality, the math would get very complex but would appear integrated. We may no longer be able to count on common sense, since it is a complex math abstraction that takes effort just to follow the steps. If we assume math doesn't lie, the stairway to nowhere is now real. The result is it can be hard to give up because the math bias is telling Dad to keep working on hiis abstract reality made "real" with math. Recognition comes down to going to one of the abstract math art fairs. But one is dealing with humans who tend to have their abstract art bias. One may say these abstract models can make predictions in reality. Here my stock example, that can demonstrate even an abstraction without any basis in reality can make predictions. For example, let us assume gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. This is erroneous but one can sort of do the reciprocal of the existing equations and make predictions. This is easy to see, because one is still able to use common sense. But if we didn't already know about gravity, this could make it to the abstract math fair. The additional problem your Dad faces he is subject to the rules of abstract common sense, which is not necessarily reality common sense. Your Dad may be following all the abstract math art regulations. But if the abstract common sense expects a stairway to nowhere affect, somewhere in the art, if you don't have it, it not the most acceptable technique. So you Dad is a struggling artist, shunned by the abstract critics. He is following the abstract math rules well enough to where the math says it is real and out of touch with regular common sense just like everyone else. So he keeps working hoping the critics change the abstract common sense rules so other artists can play in the big leagues. It is sort of unionized.

The thing with distance or time is that it is not clear if these are things based on our reference. When you start to get into relativity, defining these as things makes it easier. For example, if we define time potential, and relate this to a thing called energy, the more energy the more time potential we have. The laws of physics can only process energy or time potential at a given rate. If we increase time potential, using laws of physics designed to process at x, then it will take longer. What we see is the backlog that we call time dilation. Einstein said the laws of physics are the same in all references. If they are the same, then their processing rates for energy are the same or they would be different in different references. In other words, if the EM force could double in another reference the laws of physics would have a 2X factor such that EM force could do anything we want. We could make stuff up. If the number don't add up and need an extra 1.23 EM I just assume there is a virtual affect to give me what I need. But with the laws being fixed in all references, there is a cross the board limit to how fast these can process time or distance potential. The result are the backlog affects in relativity. It come down to convention with time potential simplifying things. One way to look at how time potential is connected to energy is to look at frequency. The frequency is loosely analogous to a spring with potential stored in it. This time aspect is not what one would expect from a speed of light reference. We should not see finite expression in time from an object moving at C. The time potential is connected to energy at C, but expresses itself in our reference with a finite expression that exists apart from what SR would predict one should be able to see at C. The C aspect is sort of cold storage allowing the time potential to last as long as necessary until we are able to process it with matter. Then a change of state occurs, which we equate with time. The laws of physics can only process this finite aspect of energy or time potential at a given rate, so relativity gives us backlog type affects.

The thing with distance or time is that it is not clear if these are things based on our reference. When you start to get into relativity, defining these as things makes it easier. For example, if we define time potential, and relate this to a thing called energy, the more energy the more time potential we have. The laws of physics can only process energy or time potential at a given rate. If we increase time potential, using laws of physics designed to process at x, then it will take longer. What we see is the backlog that we call time dilation. Einstein said the laws of physics are the same in all references. If they are the same, then their processing rates for energy are the same or they would be different in different references. In other words, if the EM force could double in another reference the laws of physics would have a 2X factor such that EM force could do anything we want. We could make stuff up. If the number don't add up and need an extra 1.23 EM I just assume there is a virtual affect to give me what I need. But with the laws being fixed in all references, there is a cross the board limit to how fast these can process time or distance potential. The result are the backlog affects in relativity. It come down to convention with time potential simplifying things. One way to look at how time potential is connected to energy is to look at frequency. The frequency is loosely analogous to a spring with potential stored in it. This time aspect is not what one would expect from a speed of light reference. We should not see finite expression in time from an object moving at C. The time potential is connected to energy at C, but expresses itself in our reference with a finite expression that exists apart from what SR would predict one should be able to see at C. The C aspect is sort of cold storage allowing the time potential to last as long as necessary until we are able to process it with matter. Then a change of state occurs, which we equate with time. The laws of physics can only process this finite aspect of energy or time potential at a given rate, so relativity gives us backlog type affects.

My position is, I stand on the bridge between ID and Evolution. I tend to argue against Evolution, but more in terms of the hows and whys? If we mean evolution loosely in the sense of gradual improving change, I can accept that. Where the ID crowd is making a mistake is the evolution they are describing is not physical evolution. What Genesis is talking about is the evolution of the human mind or a new type of conscious awareness. One way to look at it is, animals do not contemplate the universe. They exist naturally, sort of in darkness, with respect to intellectual things. In their mind intellectual ideas are formless and void. They are still in paradise just doing what their ancestors have done for millions of years, with tiny tweaks. Genesis is talking about the new version of the human mind, capable of civilization, where humans suddenly begins to become aware of the world around themselves like they had never done up to that point in time. The "let there by light" is the light of modern consciousness separating from the instinctive unconscious darkness of ten of thousands of years of repetition. The light was a awakening from a primal dream state, where generations just blend together. Where the pre-humans live in the moment, acting with repetition and instinct. Not advance enough for civilization. The subsequent days of Genesis reflect this new type of human awareness seeing things in a very different way. As a loose analogy, if a botanists and someone who hangs on a city street corner go into the woods, although both see the same things, the botonist to be conscious of much more. The one person sees a bunch of trees, the other sees all the unique differences, even though the same data goes into both eyes. The awakening of this new type of consciousness allowed new thing to be seen that it never really noticed before. Before it was only looking for food. Now it is noticing things which before it had no real instinctive interest or repetition to see. These things were always there, but not in awareness. All animals appear, like they had just been placed there, but they had always there, evolving. The Bible has Adam appearing. This is consistent with evolution in that changes are often attributed to some type of mutation, meaning a rapid change that suddenly appears to add a new dimension to life. It is not coincidence that rise of civilization and Genesis coordinate in time. To form culture more advanced than migratory hunter-gathering groups implies a boost in the brain power. Not a small gradual one, but big quickly. Genesis give us a unique glimpse into that modern human light suddenly appearing. All of evolution was leading this to change, and it happen quite rapidly. It wasn't so much eduction but a separation of the waters or ego from instinct. This position does not preclude evolution or God but narrows the battle. This bridge position insults both side of the debate, at the same time, but I'll stay on the bridge, because it pays honor to both sides at the same time. Unfortunately both sides want all the credit for themselves. Too childish to share any credit.

The existence of archetypes, or root personality software, beneath the superego and ID, implies a connection to historical human nature. Just as the instincts carry a connection to our pre-human past, the archetypes also contain some firmware parameters that reflect the progression of humans. For example, if one has even been infatuated by a pretty lady, once the hormones kick in, the imagination becomes active. If one looks closely there are several layers at the same time. Part of it is personal, part of it is raw instinct, and some of it is collective both temporal and archetypical fantasy. This is a good way to collective first data, instead of third person data. With the right training one should be able to see the four distinct layers. If you compare Freud and Jung, Freud has ego, superego and ID. Jung fans this out even further with persona, ego, superego, ID=shadow, archetypes and inner self. If we stop at the shadow=ID, the unconscious sort of look like trash so humans stay on the surface. With this training one works in the context of the infatuation without being able to see all the layers of the data creating a data hole in their perception. What fill that in that hole is ID=shadow, instead of the archetypes. The result is sort of a self for-filling expectation. The deepest layers don't go away, but are affected with this type of programming since they are living software gathering data. It sort of creates it own Freudian reality or any of the other orientations that unknowingly makes holes in reality so they can fill in the hole with themselves. If you get past the ID=shadow, it offers the possibility of seeing the base software that is behind the scenes. If one filters out this software even further it becomes more collective. Theoretically, it goes back to original natural human nature. It offers the possibility of defining what that is. The idea of relative instinct is one of the best holes yet since that allows group rate for an escalation of hole fillers. I would think psychology would be trying to remove the holes instead of just trying to fill them in. The hole is in knowledge of deeper affects, with the ID connection allowing even the formation of renegade software affects that have little to do with natural instinct needing to be plugged with one of the hole fillers. Let me given an example of a hole filler creating a hole for the filler. Say we use the philosophy of satisfying one's desires to orientate life, this is based on only one midlevel archetype. It is not the only one, but say we cherry pick it. Ideally, the philosophy would be based on natural desire so at least that one software is being evolved toward optimization. But what is natural, based on other hole makers? So we add a more ID or shadow to that archetype with the result the software is moving in an odd way based on human will power. The hole is deeper requiring maybe another round of hole fillers.

Most explanations get either intuitively fuzzy or more complicated than it has to be because of one bad assumption. Changing that assumption makes it easier and very simple to see. The better assumption has to do with time being a type of semi-potential with a direct connection to energy. In the photon, the time potential is contained in that little perpetual packet call frequency. The photon holds that time potential until it can cause a change of state. The C reference of energy keeps time potential in deep freeze until needed. With SR, if we start at stationary reference, there is no time affect that is different than stationary reference. We need to add energy to get things up to speed before we see anything. We are not just adding energy, we are also adding time potential. The net affect it takes longer to use up this extra time potential, since the time potential needs to be processed using the same laws of physics. To slow the moving reference down, we need to put on the brakes and remove energy. This causes us to remove time potential which may radiate away as heat. The time potential in the heat may cause other changes of state. The final reference now has less time potential so it doesn't last as long based on the processing rate of the laws of physics. It seems too simple to be true. We tend to like something far more exotic that puts the brain into abstraction leaving holes in the mind.

The magnetic field will not occur unless there is motion of the charge either spin or say linear motion. In terms of linear motion, this is one of the three x,y,z directions. The electric field, has a connection to a distinct force, with the field perpendicular to this. If I was to guess, the magnetic field is perpendicular to the electric field because it is a distinct force. If it was less than 90 degrees, it would merge with the electric field and not be a distinct force by become ambiguous. The direction of movement is perpendicular to both of these because it required another distinct force, not part of that charge, to get in motion. There may be some non-perpendicular overlap that is ambiguous leading to potential increase. What we see is the net affect that will make them all appear very distinct, minimizing potential.

The video gave some interesting statistics like prison inmates had 90% religious background. It also gave examples of a lot of important thinkers who see themselves atheists. This data is sort of misleading. I would bet most of these thinkers had some type of religious background as children, but somewhere in their life they made a choice to be atheists. The inmates were probably in the same boat, starting with some form of religious training, and making a choice that allowed them to do the opposite of their religious training. Yet both data are not analyzed the same. One needs to make it consistent. If any of these thinkers had any religious training as children, even stemming from their parents stories, they should be lumped religious, just like the inmates. Or we do it the other way around, even if one had religious training, if their final choices led to the opposite, then they need to be called atheists. Data bias is not very scientific. One thing that many people overlook, is a religious book, like the bible, never claims to be a science book. Yet many religious people and many scientists use this angle as part of their position. It is dual irrational. What the bible is, is a documentation of human nature through its early beginning in civilization to about the time of Rome. Some of the laws appear overly strict and even irrational in terms of using a God for enforcement. But from a practical point of view, sometimes one has to look deeper. For example, there were laws against eating shell fish. Those who liked shell fish may have thought this was irrational and cruel. But modern science can now show that shell fish is very perishable without refrigeration. They couldn't give the flock data to make rational choices. But the irrational law turned out to have a rational basis in reality that were later proven correct. Homosexual behavior was not considered valid. Again, modern data can show that this choice of lifestyle has higher mortality rates. Even if we apply evolutionary principles this can take good genes out of the breeding pool. If the idea was to keep your culture healthy, growing and evolving, before good medicine, one needed to trim some of the ego-centric choices that go in the opposite direction in favor of what is best for the herd. The doom and gloom angle may have been politically expedient, sort of like the global warming panic button to get people in motion, making use of mother earth mythology. I am of the opinion that ancient people were not us with old clothes. Their minds worked differently. They were less rational and more irrational and impulsive. The writings of Socrates were the exception and not the rule. Who had books or time to read but a smaller select group. The approach taken may have been the best approach for that time based the global demographics. The atheists, in some ways, by trying to reduce the impact, is throwing out the baby with the bath water. After already having done most of these same things and having figured out some things just don't work, we are trying to repeat the past. For example, religion may preach marriage. If we compare the data between marriage and all the cutting edge alternatives, that were done thousands of year ago, the data shows this cutting edge leads to more physical, emotional and psychological problems both directly and indirectly. Yet science will ignore the science because it will give the wrong signal. The baby was clean, but that could create the impression that the irrational bath water is clean. The Romans had their god or goddess of orgies. This is not new. But maybe 20 years ago it was rationalized as a new state of the art. There is a lot of recycle going on based on stuff already tried, which led to problems, which was then superseded because it turned out to be regressive. But if religion says this, it often does it in a mythological way, such that that approach is assumed to mean their conclusions were irrational. Therefore, we will take a rational approach, repeat the past, expecting a better result. That is the heart of the matter. The bible often gives practical advice but does it in an irrational way with respect to the modern mind. Because it appears irrational, the practical advice is therefore considered irrational. So we do the same thing, justifying it with books full of reasons, only to end up in a boat that has sailed before. But since this is based on rational reasons, it is still considered modern and rational with the results ignored. It is double irrational being justified with reasons that don't always add up. I am not so much religious as a rationalists that thinks in practical terms. Sometime practical does not always have to stem from reason, but can be based on the synthesis of observation leading to empirical correlation. The problem religion often faces is putting an irrational spin on practical. This helps justify the anti-position leading to rational retro-impracticality. Let me add one final example. Free sex can be fun. But it can also lead to unwanted pregnancy and disease. Cutting edge retro thinking now has to employ science to mop up after it. We invent condoms, medications, and abortion to allow the original rationalization to look better than what the raw data would suggest. So now it all looks cutting again with the results appearing optimized. But then we notice secondary affects based on psychological problems and logistical problems such as the rise of poor single mothers with children. We get another mop out and create social programs to clean this up. Now the rational correlation appears good again since the raw data has now be massaged. Back in the old days thousands of years ago they didn't have all these mops. One had to take a path leading to the best results, working under the constraint we don't have a lot of mops to clean up after bad choices. From a capitalist point of view all these mops means jobs and experts, who specializing in cleaning up the mess. Jobs are good with trying to keep these jobs dependant on the experts making new messes.

Even if humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, one of the question is how could they have both diverged so drastically? It is sort of like starting with a German Shepherd. In the same time span, we get a shorted German Shepherd and a beagle. One simple scenario for the split was due to something like an ugly duck scenario, with the ugly duck being pushed away because he was not quite right. This scenario would require more adaptation having to learn from the group, but also having to be far more self sufficient. If he remained too close to the group, genetics could go both ways. A hairy ape wife may produce hairy ape children with our ugly duck genes going back to the duck. He eventually find an equally ugly she-ape, like him, who is also an outcast. The ugly apes do the wild thing. They have a litter of even uglier children. There was no turning back, only forward, since now they really need to leave.

Thanks for the suggestion. First of all, the terms matter and anti-matter are sort of misleading. The mass aspects are essentially the same. The only difference is within which mass gets which charge. If we assume charges are equal but opposite, and with mass essentially the same, the interaction is based on charge. An observation that suggests matter is the stable mass states for charge is comparing the interaction of a proton and electron to a positron-electron pair. If we only look in terms of charge, the hydrogen atom should be an easier way to cancel the charge. With the positron-electron pair, their acceleration toward each other is increasing the magnetic repulsion, using two entities subject to increasing uncertainty relative to position or momentum. With the electron-proton, with the proton heavier, such that the magnetic repulsion is always less, there is also a higher level of certainty for proton position or momentum. Another observation, is although protons within nuclei are matter and the positron is anti-matter, this interaction is not destructive, with the positron able to get involved in the nuclei and act just like it is matter. Simple mass preference can explain all at the same time. If positive charge prefers higher mass the positron finds utopia in the nucleus. It is able to get rid of that unstable mass arrangement without doing damage. Relative to the electron and proton, they can't cancel in spite of the charge because that would violate the prime mass directives of both of them. In terms of the positron and electron pair, in spite of magnetic problems and uncertainty, the positive charge is more stable with higher mass. It tries to do this piece meal with charge attraction sort of confusing the issue.

Actually there was a huge social experiment, involving hundreds of millions of people, where religion was officially done away with by law, called the Soviet Union. If I recall there were millions of people killed or imprisoned, internally. What happens with no God, humans have to try to play God. Since they can't do a good job, they get paranoid such that everything is a threat including free speech. The economy was geared toward war. The culture had high rates of alcoholism and there was food rationed. But there was still good science. The experiment was reversed, partly due to cultures who reintroduce religion, such as Poland. What we have today are more people living higher degrees of freedom and prosperity, free to be religious or not. There is still a lot of good science. Maybe a good survey is to go into the worse prisons and ask the inmates whether they had God or religion in their life at the time of their crimes. I am not suggesting there are not a lot of good people without religion. But when it comes to the worse humans, it would be interesting to see how the correlation ends up. According to the experts, it must be 90% religious. Let us put their expertise to the test to see if they being paranoid. One of the misunderstandings about pointing to some of the historical atrocities of religion is assuming those responsible, didn't have a worldly agenda apart from religion. It is not always easy to determine if it was the atheist within, setting a personal agenda, using religion like a tool, to achieve the final end. The more by the book people, would not be in a position to fight back, since the fighting may not be in their nature. The final affect would get lumped into religion even if the agenda was not based on religion teachings but on someone deciding to build an empire.

This just popped into my head. If we look at gravity induced fusion, or gravity induced ionization, due to gravitational work, the positive charge is always moving in the direction of gravity contraction or compaction. The electrons are going opposite. In other words, if compressing an atom with higher gravity caused the entire atom to get smaller and smaller, until collapse, then one would stay the charge-gravity is uniform. What happens is positive charge gets more compact while electrons are ionized increasing their resistance to gravity. The electrons are going in the direction of SR instead of GR. It is their connection to positive charge that keeps them from leaving. Positive charge is the middleman between gravity and negative charge. One may even speculate the affinity of positive charge for high mass allows positive charge sharing within the nucleus mass to create what we call the nuclear forces. In other words, the stability of the proton is due to a prime directive of positive charge for high mass. This directive is stronger than the charge repulsion it may create. If look at the hydrogen proton, deuterium and tritium, the last two are easier for fusion. This implies they are higher up the activation energy hill than the proton, requiring less energy to push them up and over. What this suggest is the one mass one positive charge is the most stable, since it starts in the deepest well. The fact that fusion is exothermic even though it leads to about a 2 to 1 mass to positive charge ratio, is that high mass also has a thing for positive charge. In the nucleus although positive may prefer one proton to maximize stability, the neutral mass also prefers positive charge for stability, with the compromise, mutual prime directive. The higher mass association of positive charge will lower the magnetic to charge ratio of the proton relative to the electron. The heavier mass makes it slower at any give temperature. We can still cause the ratio to increase but it requires energy. This suggest this ratio is the native state of positive charge. In atoms, this native state of positive charge appears to rub off on the electrons, requiring they decrease their magnetic to charge ratio. This is done with orbitals which cancel some of the magnetic. The Bohr atom is not the preferred state, since the magnetic ratio is too high. The odd shapes of orbitals is what it takes. Let me explain this last part. The P-orbitals are the most stable arrangement due to 3-D symmetry. This is also reflected in electronegativity numbers with atoms finishing in P-orbitals providing the most stable electron wave addition. That is why we get O-2, or Cl-1, etc.. The S, D, F orbitals are not as perfect. If it was only the electrons, they could do better by recycling the P-orbital schema. But the demands of the lowering magnetic to charge ratio, does not push them them far, allowing some extra mag more in line with their own native state. At the same time, the higher magnetic to charge nature of negative charge rubs off on the positive charge to increase their magnetic to charge ratio making it easier to share. The positive charge gets in motion allowing the slightly higher magnetic to charge to help the mass prime directive.

Say we start with an empty universe and energy-matter-antimatter appears, but in several places at the same time. If there is enough distance to where the anti-symmetric signal will take time to reach the other spot, the local symmetry can favor both equally. Once either takes root, this will set the agenda for that area. The faint distant anti-symmetrical signal becomes to small to turn the tide. The matter or anti-matter area would be neutral in charge and based on gravity so it should be everywhere based on some cosmology scenarios. The only type of cosmology scenarios that can maintain anti-symmetry will require everything forming close enough in the same area to assure the first born remains dominant. This sort of narrows down to BB and BB look-a-likes. This creates a conceptual dilemma, where we need to make a choice as to which range of theories we wish to sever, to be logically consistent across the board. Either way you step on someone's toes. I chose to make matter the most stable state, always preferred, with positive charge preferring the heavier mass due to some symbiotic connection. This preserves all cosmology as is. We can go the other way and preserve the equally stable theory but we then need to eliminate some cosmology. Just there has been a problem getting gravity to hook up in simple way.

Jung was the star pupil of Freud. They had a parting of the ways when Jung tried to create a psychological connection to the mythology past that most of humanity had shared, i.e., archetypes. Freud was trying to be more "modern" and sever that connection, placing the ego on the top, disconnected from any notion of deeper brain structures more complicated than ID and superego. That was old school thinking with Jung trying to go the next step. But because Jung gave some indirect credit to religion, via symbolism, this was sort of considered regressive with respect to old school ego-centric rationalism. If we look at history, one can see the Freudian bias set the stage to prove Jung was correct. With that reality detachment in place, Hitler an Austrian, recycled mythology. He saw himself like a human-god or Caesar. There was even a recycle of the Roman swastika and goose step. Freud made possible a state of denial until the myth spread throughout an entire country. The 1000 year reich was a recycle of the bible prophesies. With the connection to even religion myth severed, the affect was able to occur more spontaneously. It was a dangerous experiment, but even after that proof, there is a state of denial. Hitler would not have been able to generate the same level of world changing charisma, along the lines of mythology, if he didn't have the correct software active. It is possible, Freudian irrationality helped create the brain potential needed to active the correct software. The software became active to help fill in the void.

I think we are getting too fancy because we have lost sight of something simple. A simple observation is positive charge has its most stable association with the larger stable mass unit, i.e., proton. This connects positive charge to gravity and GR. Negative charge is sort of once removed and gets involved through its association with positive. Although negative protons do occur, these are not as stable. One may argue that this is because the current universe is anti to this arrangement causing the instability. If we assume this is true, then all cosmology models that assume continuous creation should be forming both with equal probability. We should be able to find anti-galaxies in their own isolated place in space. All it should take is a tiny starting seed of equally likely and equally stable anti-matter to assure this slants the table in its favor. We don't see it. The equally likely assumption is contradictory to continuous creation. The assumption of equally likely and stable narrows cosmology to a one shot deal like BB, to assure the anti can never remain as stable even if it is equally stable on its own. If we want to keep all these other cosmology theories, then the assumption of protons being more stable than anti-protons is more consistent across the board. This results in positive charge assuming a connection to high mass, gravity, and GR. Negative charge is once removed getting involved through its association with positive. Charge is not equal and opposite in all ways, there is at least one distinct difference via its mass association.

I am going to look at this from a totally different angle. Whether one believes in God, religion, or not, one has to admit God and religion has been a part of human history longer than the modern rational mind. In other areas of history, historical preservation is considered important. We don't go into Rome and bulldoze all the old dusty artifacts to make room for high rise condo developments, simply because these designs are only considered precursory, relative to modern design. We try to preserve this past, as part of our living history, so humans can see where we came from, giving us a better sense of where we are going. If we bulldoze religion, to make room room for high rise intellectual condos what begins to happen is we go retro and call it cutting edge because there is no historical context to see we are on recycle. For example, the religious heaven was never considered part of our physical reality. In physics, we now have n-dimensional space, and alternate universes, between 4-D space or between tangible reality. This was already done by religion, but since the connection is broken it looks like this is brand new. But within the historical context, we have simply recycled the old, and use modern science to explain an intuition that has been around for 1000's of years. It gives a modern explanation for what science would like to call superstition. So what it is? Is this physics, just recycled superstition or it is starting to offer proof for what religion has intuitively sensed for thousands of years?