pioneer

Maybe we need to think of ways to make oil into food. The caloric value of a gallon of gasoline is about 31,000 Kcal. For about $3.50, that would last for two weeks at 2000 kcal per day or about 22 cents per day. Because we won't be as dependant on corn, wheat, sugar cane for our calories, it makes more of these food resources available to perfect the synfuel industry. It will also make the carbon footprint of fossil fuel more natural, by us breathing it out. I am just kidding.

In many ways, atheism is a virus religion. It is a religion in the sense that it always makes mention of God, even if this is done in a negative way. Remove the words God and religion and there is little to talk about. Where it is like a virus, it needs a host to appear to come alive, which in this case is religion. The goal, like any bad virus, is to take over the cell leading its destruction. What it fails to realize, if it got rid of religion, or its host cell, then the virus will go into dormancy. It will not know how to differentiate itself without having healthy religion to use as a host so give it a sense of life. Let us try this to prove the point. Define the atheist position without any type of contrast or mention of religion or God.

There are several layers of affects at the same time. One is the innate instinctive firmware. This may translate into living software allowing individual experience to adapt to whatever environment it is placed in. The cat still chases the mouse, but may make use of the fence in the yard for cover instead of the hay pile. The distinct personality difference between two different cat personalities, may be do to other firmware that is working in conjunction. In breeding, one can get the litters to have more and more of a secondary personality quality, such that even this secondary firmware begins to be part of common genetics. Humans should have the same thing. The base layer could be the archetypes so we always come out human. Being firmware making living software it will develop within the environment. There are also secondary firmware, that defines some of the unique differences between different humans. The ego or center of consciousness may have it own firmware connection. This appears to be connected to the base level since it is a predictable as instinct in terms of human commonality. Here is the scenario using an analogy. Picture if we had a robotic suit. The suit has its own programming with us having some measure of control. But the suit has its own practical limitation, in terms of the types of motions. As we are able to get use to these limitations we start to use the suit as though it is second nature. At that point, one forgets about the robotic programming, going on behind the scenes, as we start to believe we are fully in control, learning to work primarily within the existing parameters of the suit. If the suit can't jump rope, one will avoid that and therefore not have to confront that fact the suit is making everything else possible. Once we leave the firmware parameters, the ego is not as willful. If the firmware wasn't there to support learning, the ego couldn't take full credit.

One way to look at the change in the western God concept, over time, from Old to New Testament is that humans were also changing with time. The parent of a child does not use the exact same approach with their children regardless of maturity and age. The approach becomes modified as the child is better able to benefit by a more advanced approach. A rational approach will not work with the "terrible twos." One may have to be stricter. By about 5-6 , one can alter that approach if the earlier lessons stuck. If not one may need to continue intimidation. The way I look at it, human civilization began less than 10,000 years ago. So the humans, relative to modern cultural maturity, began sort of like semi-animal. They were in their terrible two's in the beginning, but with the bodies of adult humans. Picture a full size adult male with a club acting like a spoiled two year old. A simple time out may not help. One may have to rely on stronger measures or else one of his temper tantrums could cause a lot of harm. Dad had to come on strong to intimidate him. As human minds caught up with their bodies, the God approach was able to soften. The New Testament sort of assume higher maturity. One mistake most people make is assuming the people of 8000 years ago were us with funny clothes. They were losing instinct to culture but still using many of those strong impulses but within the confines of culture. The result were aberrations of the former natural instincts. It may have been more like the criminally insane with tough measures needed. Try to reason with a serial killer and see if that works. One may have to go old school even if it seems regressive. The bible was written by those who were more mature, than their contemporaries. This may be misinterpreted to mean everyone had that level of maturity. They were the concerned citizen trying to deal with the pimps, thugs and druggies. He may have to threaten to cal the police to make them get control. For example, if you could teleport back to the year 1000AD, and tried to use science and reason to explain the earth is round, one would be in for a rude awakening. The people would get all freaked out and one would be subjected to cruel punishment leading to death. One may have to remember to bring a cigarette lighter to intimidate them with their own superstitions to get fair treatment. God had to use what worked to get the irrational humans in get along so they could keep evolving. As they evolved the approach was able to change. Ironically, the approach has not changed in 2000 years, but often appears to go back to Old Testament punishment and intimidation. This may reflect the maturity level of humans doesn't seem to ever advance where a new and improved approach is able to work. We are sort of stuck at the adolescence of humanity, with the ego still evolving through their rebellion against the parents, trying to act like an adult, while wanting all the impulse benefits of being a child. Once that is superseded, the next set of lessons will appear that tries to the address the 21 year old version of humanity.

I often wondered about the mass within a relativistic reference, which got there by inputting energy, starting from a stationary reference. The analogy that comes to mind is heating a block of metal. The final mass contains the thermal energy but it does not change the number of tangible particles. If we let it cool to steady state, only the thermal mass is loss with the original number of particles still conserved. Does relativistic mass amount to something loosely analogous? We still conserve the same number of tangible particles but we add virtual or relativistic mass onto these. If we take away the relativistic energy then the original number of particles is conserved with no new long lived particles at steady state that were created because of the virtual mass. Each reference will have a particular virtual mass affect added to the tangible mass, based on the energy input, with the number of tangible particles conserved. One would have to somehow monitor the virtual mass affect to know their reference, maybe based on a type of particular virtual particle probability function. On the rocket since most of tangible mass is distributed within the hull of the rocket, giving us a void space inside so we can move about, would the total virtual mass affect spread out throughout the rocket to make the air twinkle? This could still obey the laws of physics but would require using some of the more complicated laws of physics to quantify. When we shed the energy, these affects will become less and less common allowing up to calibrate reference on an energy scale. The reciprocal SR could come in handy if only one of two moving references had the equipment to monitor. It only need to know the relative velocity of the slower reference and can also quantify the virtual affects on the slower rocket so it does not create odd results with other experiments they may be doing. This brings up another consideration. SR and GR both create space-time affects but only SR creates additional relativistic mass. This is because with SR we add energy potential to get there. With GR we are taking away energy potential based on lower the gravitational potential. In the case of GR, does the space-time reference still imply virtual, with it now being bled from the tangible mass? The heat generated by the work makes it possible to allow the nucleons to come out to help with fusion.

This is a theory that came to be a few weeks ago. If we take the reciprocal of the SR equations, times the mass, distance and time, then instead of getting mass, distance and time increase we get mass, distance and time decrease using any given velocity. Where this could come in handy is if we were in a moving reference and had a relative velocity bead on a slower reference. It would tell us the MDT parameters of the slower reference based on the conservation of energy. For example, we have two rockets launched from earth. One has more fuel and is able to reach double its mass due to SR. The other has less fuel and only reaches 1.5 times its stationary mass. The energy input defines the final velocity and all the real SR affects since the real affects are based on the energy in the system. From the faster rocket, if we know our mass is 2M and we know the relative velocity of the slower rocket, reciprocal SR would allow us to calculate 1.5M. It would also tell use the space-time environment of the slower reference, regardless of any relative illusions. Where this line of reasoning came from, was the paradox; if we assume our earth is at zero reference, and the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions, where is space-time expanding too, if we are already at zero reference? It is either going into negative reference, or the earth is not at zero reference in terms of the conservation of energy. If we use reciprocal SR, assuming the earth is at zero reference, then negative reference would show distance expanding, time speeding up and mass lowering. Or what appears to be an expansion is a distance magnification of zero reference, with things happening faster resulting in high mass to energy relative to our reference.

The question I would like to propose is does the brain contain personality software that runs behind the scenes to shape behavior propensity? The analogy would be a robot that contains programs that run different routines. In the case of the brain, these would be analogous to living software and therefore don't have to start out with a lot of content, just structure. Their innate capacity would be to gather data and evolve themselves. The reason I ask this is connected to the observation of the kitten. One can take a kitten from its mother and its siblings, when it is too young to have gotten any training in terms of learning to be cat. We can even place the kitten in an environment with children and dogs, so the teachers are wrong and it still comes out a cat. In other words, regardless of no cat school, and even in spite of dogs setting the educational agenda, it becomes a cat. In fact, anyone who has had kittens will notice them pretending to be chasing things. It is almost like they project their imagination into the environment to create their own learning games which allow them to develop the skills needed to be a cat. The mature cat, without formal training, then goes outside is able to catch birds. One way to explain this is gets personality software, at birth, which is actively inducing experience through curiosity and imaginary games, collecting data, and evolving. The cat software will evolve based on programming for a cat. This allows it to filter the dog data and selectively self educate, when no formal training is available, so it always becomes a cat. The psychologist Carl Jung came up with the theory of archetypes. In modern computer lingo these would be analogous to personality software within humans. They are suppose to be empty at birth being shell software with form but not much content. But as we grow they also collect data and evolve. The result is humans always come out as humans since archetypes are designed to achieve that affect. We can formally train them so they show a cultural bias, but any culture still results in humans.

If you ever raised a kitten, even if we take it away from the mother and siblings at an early age, such as six weeks, and raise with it children and even dogs, it will still develop into a cat, with all the expected instincts and adaptation skills expected from a cat. Through this observation cats appear sort of preprogrammed to be cats without a lot of cat education. They are often self educated with the kitten making up imaginary chase games to practice and evolve hunting skills. One of the mistakes humans make is not realizing how much culture props up humans to make us appear and think we more than we are. What comes to mind is a childhood memory of the loud mouth kid who picks fights, often with bigger kids, because he has a gang to back him up. The victim may not be afraid of the big mouth, but he knows if he fights back and kick's Big Mouth's butt, Moose and Bear will beat the crap out of him even worse that big mouth. If Moose and Bear fall for big mouth's ego-centric prosthesis illusion, they may say, big mouth has demonstrated, in the past, he can routinely beat larger opponents, just like he claims. Therefore he must be as tough as he says he is. Next time, we will tell his potential victim, we will not intercede, since big mouth has proven he is as tough as he says. Once the gang prosthesis is removed, he becomes much smaller than he says. We may say humans are superior to animals. Maybe this blank statement is true for humanity, as an abstraction. Through our association with humanity we take more credit than credit is due. In the unlikely event, culture was disrupted, such as a major asteroid, according to the line, humans are very adaptive and resourceful. But what % will actually be able to function like the ideal? With the prosthesis gone, most will become less adaptive than the dogs. Culture sort of allows us to lease other people's ability and claim it for our own. I can build a new house and get credit for it from my neighbors even though it was the builder and all the workers doing all the work. If I take way this prosthesis, then my true skills at house building will show my real ability. One needs to factor that out when comparing animals to humans since they don't enjoy the same level of prosthesis for the illusion. For example, dogs don't go to school. So we would need to compare dogs to humans with no education. Without that prop ,the gap is not as large, but there is still a significant gap. Addendum I am not dumping on humans. But if we took a human from a fourth world culture, this is us without modern cultural prosthesis. It gets down to the barebones humans, who are not in the position to take credit for what culture makes possible. This inflated illusion, made possible by culture, by making us think we are more than we are, allows culture to evolve. What is not real today can appear in the imagination. Culture allows what is not real today to become real tomorrow. This advances culture so we can be propped up further, and dream even more advanced dreams, which are not yet real, but can become real. In the process this further props everyone up for even more dreams. If we took away culture, then the imagination prop is gone and we become smaller. Without culture, the next generation auto, is stuck in the world of limited dreams, where it remains unreal to most, so very few are able to take credit for it, simply by buying it or learning about it. It would be interesting, as a mental exercise, to take away the cultural prop to see what is the reality of barebones humans. I wouldn't expect this to be taken very well, since it sort of removes the inflationary illusion that makes us appear to be advanced humans. I often wondered about the saying blessed are the poor. From a practical point of view, the poor, by default can not use as much cultural prosthesis. This reduces the illusionary cultural inflation relative to the reality of the human underneath. What is left, having to evolve, is primarily barebones reality. If one had to focus on just human reality, then the barebones human becomes more advanced. This may not appear advanced compared to those with the cultural prosthesis inflation. But it would be interesting to strip the the prosthesis affect to see if there is actually a reality correlation in terms of the advancement of barebones humans under all the fluff. I am not getting religious only that there appears to be valid logic.

If gravity can cause a change in space-time as defined by GR, and because SR can do the same thing using velocity, are the two related. For example, does relativistic mass generate gravity to create GR in motion? If this was true, does than mean one can convert energy into gravity. For example, we burn fuel based on EM chemicals for the propulsion energy to generate the rocket velocity to make the SR-GR gravity. Another question I have about gravity is, since the space-time reference gets contracted and since the speed of light is constant, does the transmission of the gravity signal, take advantage of the contracted reference to reach distance objects apart from stationary reference? The affect that comes to mind is the idea of a black hole allowing the theoretical possibility of energy appearing elsewhere in the universe, sort of getting there without having to follow an energy beam we can track in stationary reference. Instead does the black hole see far distance like it is very close and moves the energy at the speed of light but using its own shrunken distance. So in our reference, it appears to just get there, without having to take the long space path indicative of our stationary reference? We see it appear, but the black holes sees an energy beam in motion reaching the final spot.

Time can be demonstrated be be real and tangible using photography via the observation called motion blur. This occurs when the shutter speed is slower than the change of state of an object in the photo. This creates the perception of motion within a still photograph. The object in motion appears to occupy a range of space, all at the same time, sort of making position in distance indeterminate. To understand this affect one has to look at the physical chemistry of film. The light energy impinges upon the film emulation to create a permanent chemical change in the emulsion. What we see in the final photo is a reflection of how the energy actually impinged upon all the atoms in the emulsion. The blur implies the energy somehow became diverged or fanned out, but only in the places where there was a change of state. This energy divergence hits the atoms within the film emulsion and is recorded. If the shutter speed is too slow to stop the time in the action, we leave excess time potential in the photo. Energy undergoes a distortion being recorded on the film. Or time potential affects energy. The light energy is moving at the speed of light. If the distances were say 5 meters to the moving object and the shutter speed is 1/100 sec, the speed of light should be too fast to create anything but a tiny affect. But the affect is very distinct with the affect getting higher at slower slower shutter speeds where the speed of light is getting proportional higher. One may argue it is the directional movement of the shutter that is causing this. But using the same shutter movement, say left to right, one can get motion blur in any direction, with the blur only dependant on the direction of the change of state and not the shutter movement. Or one may say the final tiny opening in the shutter cause light diffraction before it closes. But this can't be correct since still aspects of the photo are always very clear, with the energy distortion affect only where there is motion. One speculative way to explain the affect is using the single slit experiment where the light waves appear to split and fan out. But in this case, we may be observing space becoming full of slits due to the time potential being out of proportion with space, i.e., an irregular space-time affect, due to excess time potential. The slowest shutter speeds leave more time potential making more slits causing more energy distortion, causing more motion blur. This is complete speculation trying to explain how the energy is distorted, with this distortion of energy being recorded via its impact on the film emulsion. The affect is real, but the explanation stills needs discussion. One can examine the film microscopically to see this energy spread. It is not an illusion but a real tangible affect. Another explanation is a type of virtual affect on the energy. At finite speeds we are creating an affect loosely analogous to virtual pairs with the energy able to appear in more than one place at the same time due to the excess time potential in the photo. The virtual movement is very directional, with the virtual separation always following the direction of movement or the direction in which time potential is flowing. Another explanation is the earth is not a stationary reference. It has real relativistic mass-energy affects, with the photo showing some of the virtual or relativistic mass-energy that exists apart from the tangible particles. This energy is funneled directionally by the excess time potential. There may be other explanations with the final affect recorded permanently.

Among the best are the noble metals like gold, platinum and iridium. The iridium is often used for the filaments in high temperature furnaces. It is very inert and does not react with oxygen. If one wanted to grow gem crystals using very corrosive molten fluxes, platinum and iridium are good choices for containers. One can make them glow, cool them, with almost none of these metal impurities ending up in the crystals.

There are many forms of intelligence. Humans tend to focus on those aspects that makes us look better. For example, say we randomly pick a wild wolf and a human. We put them both in the wolf's environment, to see which is able able to adapt and call this the intelligent critter. If the wolves' were running the experiment, this would be their approach so they could stack the deck to prove they come out on top. They may conclude their smaller brain is better and the larger brain of humans contains more air which makes them less able to adapt. Humans will do it the other way to feature our strong points to assure that we come out on top. Even with humans, there are many measures of intelligence. There is intellectual, emotional, ingenuity, artistic, intuitive, instinctive, athletic, etc. The intellectuals who originally define intelligence biased the criteria to make sure they come out on top. Maybe what we need to do is use all the possible criteria we can come up with, take an average, and call that universal intelligence (UI). It may be surprising who ends up at the top of the UI ladder. It won't be the specialists in anyone of these criteria, but those who are average in all of them. Some animal placement may change using the UI scale. For example, some dogs, if they only had hands, would place higher than apes. One could run a complex puzzle like an outdoor obstacle course where we also bury an article of clothing in a field, to see if apes are smarter than dogs. We can also do an experiment to see which do better working in the more complex situation of a team project we set up. Or which is able to adapt a wider range of environments, including human environments. Or which shows more human characteristics such will power against their own inertia, self initiative, loyalty and self sacrifice. We won't do that this since we have a vested interest in making sure experiments allow the apes to win. It would be unsettling to realize human evolved from a second string UI. Maybe less UI was needed so we band together and not be so self reliant.

If I am not mistaking, the original experiments, to show time dilation was real, used radioactive materials with a known half life and gave them relativistic velocity. The result was a change in half-life that correlated to the predictions of SR. To make this happen, we needed to input energy into the system. It was not a relative reference affect since the standards in the lab stayed the same. A real or tangible relativistic affect requires the input of energy. This shows a connection between energy and time. Or the amount of energy inputted had a direct connection to the added time potential, i.e., more time.

The only place in the cheerleader example, where time was not fully compensated for, due to the slow shutter speed, was at the baton. The motion blur only occurs where there is excess time potential. An easier way to see this is to look at the chemical-physics of photography. The output affect of photography, or photo, is based on light energy impinging upon a chemical emulsion to create a change of chemical state that reflects the exact energy input. In that one spot, where there is extra time potential, the energy distribution is distorted relative to any exact distance correlation. This may not occur, but it almost gives the impression that the energy is splitting or lensing. The baton is giving off light energy at the speed of light. Relative to the slow twirl speed of a baton the speed of light should always win. But the photo picks up the energy, at the baton, in a bunch of distance coordinates, at the same time, not because of anything that distance is doing. The result is the energy impinging upon the emulsion shows an indeterminacy where the time potential is not fully compensated for. This energy indeterminacy hits the chemical emulsion to capture the excess time potential.

Positive and negative charge are often viewed as equal and opposite entities but there are observations that indicates wider differences. One observation has to do with the positive charge's preference for higher mass to form a proton and the negative charges preference for smaller mass, i.e., electron. Although it is possible to form a negative proton and positive electrons these are unstable or exist at a higher energy state than the proton and electron, with the latter always the final default state. One may argue that because of the current proton-electron univers, this is the reason for instability. To test this hypothesis let us assume one of the continuous creation of mass-energy scenarios for the universe. If both are equally likely we should be able to find zones in space where the opposite exist since they should be very stable. I have never heard that 49% of the universe is the opposite. Either that universe scenario is not valid or protons and electrons are the most stable state. The nearly equal charge-mass assumption narrows down to BB since only that scenario allows whatever happen once, to set the stage to prevent the spontaneous other that should be just as likely. I prefer the idea of positive charge having something innate in it that prefers higher mass, where the higher mass allows positive charge to reinforce it innate difference from negative charge, apart from just its charge. If we look at some of the steady state affects the higher mass lowers its magnetic to charge ratio relative to negative charge, due to being heavier and slower. We can still achieve the same ratio but it requires extra energy to do. If, for the sake of argument, the preference for higher mass reflects its innate nature, positive charge may not prefer to generate extra magnetic at steady state. The association with higher mass creates more connection to GR. The sacrifice of magnetic, at steady state, allows more gravity connection. The negative charge by preferring smaller mass allows for a higher magnetic to charge ratio. The smaller mass allows it to occupy more space. It connection is less to GR but much more to SR. It is through an association with positive charge the negative charge get pulled into GR. While it own innate nature adds an SR affect to the positive charge allowing it to occupy more space. This last seems to imply a space enhancing tug on positive charge that allows it to share within the nucleus of atoms. It can leave it mass and share with other mass binding the nucleus. The net affect I am trying to describe is the association of larger mass is an extremely stable state for the positive charge. As such, it makes sense that this arrangement reinforces the innate difference of positive charge. One way to test this is to compare the proton and electron, to the positron and electron. The positron positive charge has a higher magnetic to charge ratio. What this implies it should be harder for the positron and electron to cancel since their motion toward each other will generate a higher magnetic repulsion using two things with a much higher uncertainty in position or momentum. It should be easier to cancel out proton-electron due to lower magnetic repulsion and the higher certainty of proton position. One way to explain the opposite affect, relative to what one may expect from simple charge considerations is the positive charge has an affinity for higher mass. The positron is trying to achieve this piecemeal regardless of the charge and uncertainty, since it is its prime directive. The result is poof. In the case of proton and electron, their prime directives are settled. The impact of just the charge aspects, although easier to close the deal, violate the mass directive so they forever find their balance of affects. Higher atoms reflect each charges innate nature rubbing off. The electrons are reduced in space and have to achieve a lower magnetic. This done by canceling the magnetic via orbitals. While the positive charge in the nucleus needs to occupy more space allowing the positive charge to circulate and share between the nucleons. Under certain conditions high mass leaves the positive charge causing a high energy neutron which has lost its innate ability to occupy less space, unless it can finds another positive charge to help settle the mass down into the normal smaller space. These are old time 20th century observations. But it may be an upgrade since the current version of charge comes from the 19th century. What the 21st century brings may require first upgrading temporarily to the 20th. A direct jump from 19th to 21st may be causing lingering 19th century bias that attributes some aspects innate to charge to other phenomena.

There is a way to photograph time to show its affect, implying it is a potential or something very similar. Let's start with a simple scenario. What we have is a group of cheerleaders standing in static pose. At the front is one cheerleader who is twirling a baton. What we are going to do is take a photo, but with a slow shutter speed. The result will be motion blur, but only at the baton. Using this still photo one will get the impression the baton is in motion, due to the motion blur. The rest of the photo appears stationary. Even in the still photo one can see the affect normally attribute to time but only in the zone where a change of state is occurring. The reason this occurs is because the shutter speed is too slow. Or the difference between stopping the baton in the photo and the amount of motion blur has a direct connection to the amount of time left in photo. The impact of this extra time potential is to create a distortion in distance or space, that makes the mass of the baton appear to occupy a range of space at the same time. Or the time potential creates an uncertainty in distance. It is due to space-time being out of proportion due to more time than distance being left in the photo due to the slow shutter speed. We have not done anything to distance that is held constant. But did not compensate for all the time potential in the motion of baton because of the slow shutter speed. The intimate connection of space-time causes the distance variable to show a time affect or the impression of motion. To test this theory we need to find another phenomena where there is uncertainty in position or distance. What come to mind is the electron where we can't know position and momentum at the same time. It is sort of a motion blur affect because the time potential or shutter speed is off relative to stationary reference. It may be cause by the electron at 1/15C. The electron is in a slightly different relativistic time reference so we always have a shutter speed problem when we try to photograph it. The compaction of space-time due to relativity causes the electron to have just a tiny bit more time potential that we can't get out of the photo.

Reference is not relative, but absolute, if we include mass-energy. For example, we have three rockets that start at a zero reference such as the earth. To get them all moving at relativistic velocity, we need to add energy or else we will not be able to get them off the ground to gain relativistic mass. One the misleading assumptions that is often made is starting with relativistic velocity as though it got there without energy. This factors out the energy so the relative velocity assumption appears consist. After all three rockets reach terminal velocity one ends up with 1.1M, the second at 1.5M and the third with 2M. Due to the conservation of energy the last rocket required the most energy input, to double mass. If there was a way for each rocket to determine their own mass-energy through direct measurement, each could back calculate their velocity and know exactly which space-time reference they are in based on a absolute energy scale, relative to the zero reference on earth. If we just use distance and time, then this become ambiguous since each will see their reference appearing to act just like any other. Using only 2 out 3 SR parameters creates an illusion of relative reference that may look like the magician is levitating on the stage. To see that it is a trick we need to include mass to shows the guide wires. Here is one of my older analogies, called the relative reference workout. We go to a track where one person is running around the track. The second person places a chair in the middle of the track and using relative reference pretends he is moving while the runner is stationary. Based on just relative reference one is able to burn calories doing nothing. If we add mass-energy to help sort out the references, since we can monitor the calories burnt by each person, one would have to conclude, that even though the person in the chair thinks he is moving based on relative reference, he is the stationary reference due to the lower calorie output. Relative reference may have an apparent reality of its own. This may make it hard to see who is moving. But once we add mass-energy then the scale becomes absolute. This creates a challenge, sorting out relative reference, to make it absolute, especially when this has going on so long.

The confusion, as I see it, is due to two overlapping affects, which are lumped into one. If the earth never had any global warming and cooling cycles in the past, than x=y. But there is plenty of evidence that indicates that the earth has done this many times in the past, even without man made effects. So x may not equal y. It is being marketed as x=y. If we graph the last billion years then this current cycle may look like more of the same. But if we plot only 0.000001% of that data and overlap this tail end with our own extras it looks different because we have no perspective. We could be going through one of those ups that occur but the plot won't show this since we use only a select piece of the all global warming data. I don't deny global warming, but I am not sure if cause and affect add. Let me give an analogy of the affect. Say we plotted deaths from war since 1900. There were huge spikes during WWI and WW2 where millions died, and then it tapers off into the present. With global warming we limit the plot from 1990 to present, and fill the paper based on that scaling factor. That plot makes 1500 deaths from the Iraqi war look look huge. If we did the entire plot from 1900 to present, the 1990 to present looks flat. Which of these two are right. They are both correct, just one has a better scaling factor to scare people. The data that made me skeptical was the polar ice caps melting on Mars at the same time they are on the earth. I sort of expected equal time but this was ushered out of the political theater. Then I looked to see if the funding for both points of view was balanced, to come to the truth. The funding is heavier on the global warming side. This is a convenient way to build a consensus by giving one side all the money to assure that one side wins the debate. An analogy is GM and Ford needing government funding to help build an new hydrogen car. Both have valid designs. We give GM 90% and Ford 10%. Who is the chosen one to win the race. The deck is stacked. If we divided it equally between the two, may the best company win. But there is more political gain to be gotten out of one side winning the race. The moderate approach is boring and does not excite the crowd quite as much as the panic side. Fear is an easier way to get the herd to do things. Here is what I wouldn't mind happening. Let us go with the global warming angle and run with it, lock, stock and barrel. If in the future, it turns out to be an exaggeration, we get to tar and feather all the players who made it possible. Or tattoo a GW on the forehead. We would see back peddling as scientists and leaders try to make sure this is what it really is.

This idea came to me the other day. From a practical point of view, gravity is more effective at lower temperature. This is not to say that the gravitational force is a function of temperature, just that the same amount of gravity is more affective at lower temperature. For example, if we could switch off the fusion core of the sun, so it cools, gravity can make it smaller. If we switch it back on and increase the temperature it fluff out against the same amount of gravity making gravity less effective. The coldness of space actually helps out gravity making its impact more effective. It doesn't change the force but makes the force more effective. Ironically, using this line of reason the expansion of the universe, by helping to water down energy and cool the universe, may help gravity. On the one hand the total force is lowering but the affective force remains higher that it would be is we had a fixed sized universe that was warming. Along these lines of reason one can add entropy. To increase entropy one needs to add energy. A colder temperature does not favor entropy as much as a warmer temperature, since there is less energy to absorb. This implies that the colder temperature lowers entropy potential making it easier for the higher affective gravity to overcome the lowered entropy. It sort of adds a bonus affect for the more affective gravity.

There is a simple way to demonstrate that relative reference violates the conservation energy and creates a modern perpetual motion machine. I can do it with a simple thought experiment. Here is the scenario. We launch a rocket from the earth until it reaches relativistic velocity. Based on the near C speed and the energy added, we calculate that the relativistic mass has doubled. We also set up ten stationary observation posts to view the rocket from many angles. If reference was relative, the moving reference would see relativistic mass increases at all ten stations, or tens times as much energy as we actually put into the rocket, i.e., each stationary reference should appear the same, right. Even if we saw this, it can not be real since we would have created perpetual motion getting ten times as much energy out as we put in. It is easy to fall for the magic trick, if we use only one moving and one stationary since it is always a wash. But when we have multiple stationary and one moving reference the conservation of energy violation becomes easier to see. From the point of view of any of the stationary references, they will all see only doubled mass in the moving reference plus nine zero relativistic mass gainers. It adds up right, such that they are not the same as the moving reference. Where the trick stems from is only looking at space-time, when SR also have an equation for mass. The space-time affect can create this impression between relative references, since it is not energy obvious. But once you add relativistic mass then conservation of energy has to apply. The mass allows one the see the rabbit in the hat from a better angle. It was a good trick that lasted many generations. I am sorry if I spoiled the fun.

One way to deduce the life force can be done with simple observations. I am not saying there is a new force, but just an old one being used in a slightly different way. If we look at inanimate matter, in an oxygen atmosphere, it gets oxidized to lowest energy state, end of story. But with life, although oxygen is busy at work, life is able to gain or maintain energy. It does this by storing energy as reduced materials. The fertilized ovum will become an adult person someday, gaining potential energy over time. Life has something about it that allows it to get the better of oxygen and make the process go in reverse, storing energy and passing this on. The most likely culprit is hydrogen, since it is hydrogen that ends up gaining the electron density that normally goes to oxygen. One way to understand this is to look at H2. This is the most stable state of hydrogen. It is so stable, it has the lowest melting point of any compound in nature. If hydrogen was the only atom in the universe, H2 is its lowest energy state, since it has little affinity for other H, except close to absolute zero. If we add oxygen to the picture, the H2 state of hydrogen becomes a high energy state relative to the oxygen-hydrogen system. Life reflect H trying to head to its own native low energy state. But being among oxygen it is being pulled the way, toward H2O. The compromise is C-H and N-H. Let me explain this better with an analogy. Say we have two young brothers and only one toy. We have big brother O and little brother H. Based on this two brother system, big brother will get the toy most of the time. Although this situation has the lowest system energy (big brother is not going ballistic) , it does not imply that little brother is happy with this arrangement. Little brother would like more play time but is prevented by big brother. So he has to get creative to get the toy away from O. If we do an atom count of a cell and assume 90% water, the hydrogen makes up 60-65% of all the atoms. It gets 60% just from H2O. What little brother lacks in size, it makes up with shear numbers. In water H doesn't even have to stay put but can migrate from O to O looking for happier hunting grounds. When cells divide the metabolism reaches its highest levels, or O gets really dominant over the H. The daughter cells build back up the H side of the potential, until there is critical mass for O to get the upper hand. Neurons are unusual in that they don't divide after a certain early age. What this means is that O's traditional cell cycle Mardi Gras has been truncated. What that means is hydrogen has gotten the hand and dominates the brain. Evolution is the story of little brother H becoming better and better at getting the upper hand over big brother O. Better than in water. But O doesn't take this lying down, but is resisting constantly. If you look at cancer, this is O domination, due to extreme metabolism. It can also lead to the destruction of the body so O can finish the job permanently.

One of the problems with string theory is too many dimensions. The reason for this is the assumption of 2-D strings. If the strings were made more 3-D, it would be possible to reduce the number of dimensions. One possible 3-D string, is the continuous single string winding, like inside of a golf ball. Let me explain why the 2-D assumption leads to extra dimensions, using a simple analogy. We can make all colors blending blue, red and yellow. If we use all three (3-D), we can do this on one graph. If we only allow two at a time to be consistent with 2-D, we need three graphs to plot all the combinations of two colors. We also need another graph to make white and neutral gray, since these will not appear with just two primary colors. But it doesn't stop there. There are tan-grays, orange-grays, blue-gray, etc., each of which, to stay 2-D may require their own separate graph. The result is a fluff affect requiring more graphs or more dimensions. If we assume all colors can be made using all three or 3-D, we use less graph paper. It only takes one piece. All the extra dimensions are a mathematical necessity due to the 2-D assumption of strings. Maybe the filament winding may or may not be the best model, but any real good 3-D string model should allow the number of dimensions to collapse back to four.

Here is something I don't understand. If we use classical gravity, the gravity force in the center of a sphere is zero due to force vector canceling. So if we started at a distance from a spherical mass, like the earth, and plotted gravity, it would start near zero (extreme distance), increase to the surface, and then decrease again to zero in the center. If we use the analogy of GR being sort of a well in the fabric of space-time, should this well have a peak in the center? In other words, based on classic gravity, the flat fabric of space-time has zero gravity at far distance. It also has zero gravity in the center so these two places should have the same height in the fabric of space-time. The well part gets a deep as it can at the surface, and then has to climb again to account for lowering gravity=GR as we move toward center. I know that GR does not use a peak in the center of the well, even though doing a gravity measurement in the center should imply this. The next question is, is this peak virtual and the source of the GR affect? One way to address this is with the wave-particle duality. If we assumed just particles, for the sake of argument, all mass points in a sphere would be exchanging particles, with the center having the lowest d summation. If we assume just waves, for the sake of argument, this gives us a result that is more in line with observation, with the waves canceling in center. Here is the paradox for the virtual peak. Because of the wave-particle nature both have to be in agreement. This means that even if particles converge on center, they can not appear in center to be consistent with the waves. This does not mean loss of energy. It means they have to appear elsewhere in a way that this also consistent with the wave addition. The result is the GR affect, with contracted space-time able to store this energy.

I don't see why they don't just use the basic principals of H-bombs since these are a sure thing that we know will work. We take a near vacuum of LiD and shoot in energy from a conventional fission reactor. We just feed the vacuum chamber with LiD dust and maybe pulse the energy trigger. Once fusion occurs the exothermic nature of this reaction releases energy. This is removed often with the circulation of liquid metals within heat exchangers. The liquids metals then undergo a heat exchange with water to make steam. The steam then drives turbines for electricity.

One of the things that happened, when the shift went from classical, to what we have today, is convergence became divergence. The idea of relativity itself ,got philosophically extrapolated, to mean relative, such that anything goes. The only thing it has to do, is correlate. Classical is still important became it provides a common place where all agree. After that, the confusion begins, as to what is real and what is just correlation. Both can be useful, but correlation does not have to be in touch with reality to be functional. As such, functional is assumed to mean reality in the world of relative science, where only correlation is important. What I always thought was odd, was the a-bomb and h-bomb were made with fairly primitive science by modern standards. Yet the new higher standard was never able to make controlled fusion a reality. It may be a case, where too much departure from the classical into relative science, that only has to correlate, has caused a departure from reality. This type of science only works, when it doesn't have to perform in reality.