pioneer

If I am not mistaking the add by moveon.org, was given to them by the Times, for a discount rate. Obviously the add pleased someone in that organization with strong ties to the Democratic party. The question that was raised by someone was, since this is a liberal newspaper, doesn't this discount equal a campaign contribution to the Democratic Party?

The boxing gloves serve two purposes. It prevents face cuts from the knuckles. It also prevents the boxers from breaking their hands on the other guy's forehead. The forehead is like a boney plate. In some fighers, it can get extra thick and hard. Some of the old time fighters would use the forehead to get the other guy to break his hand. If he are aiming for the nose and they tilted their head at the right time, the opponent's bare hand could get broken on that boney plate. This was the fastest technique to take away weapons from a better opponent. The gloves first came to into play to help protect the hands. Having to stop a fight for a broken hand, wasn't the same as stopping it for a knockout.

Experiment: What I contend is neutral water is electrophilic due to the H potential created on the positive side of the dipole, because the high electronegativity of O stabilizes the negative dipole charge. One experiment/observation is Fe corrosion in and out of, water. When the pH goes up above neutral, Fe and steel becomes more resistant to corrosion. As the pH drops below neutral, the rate of corrosion increases. If we compare this data, to Fe corrosion data without water, the slower rate of waterless Fe corrosion, equates with the slower rate analogous to Fe in water with pH higher than 7. Neutral water, by accelerating the rate of corrosion is acting with a relative acid affect. If the oxygen end interacted for corrosion, relative to waterless corrosion, it should be showing an affect more in line with higher pH. Or the rate of corrosion should be falling in water relative to the waterless corosion. If both ends had the same impact, the rate of corrosion should be the same. This data indicates that the H potential of the water is dominant. Hydrogen bonds getting stronger with the number in a chain http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hbond.html The O just keeps passing on the burden due to its high electronegativty. Defining hydrogen potential Hydrogen potential is the electro-magnetic potential difference between the highly electronegative atom and the attached H, with the H being at higher potential due to its lower electronegativity, i.e., more ionized. The electromagnetic potential is the sum of the electrostatic, and the orbital magnetic potentials. If we look at HCl, although H+ and Cl- have equal and opposite charge, the EM potential is not the same for both. The H+ is a strong acid while the Cl- is a weak base. This is due to the magnetic contributions having more of an impact than the charge. Looking at charge alone does not allows us to determine relative potential. CH3- has more potential than Cl-even though both have -1 charge. The same is true of, molecular dipoles like H2O, with the H at higher EM potential than the stable O.

If you look at the recycle and replacment of material in the brain, it works in a way so there is little interruption of services. The synapses are fairly large relative to molecular size, such that partial replacement won't affect service. For example, the membrane of the neuron is like a lipid sea. As new molecules are added, they float in the circulation of the lipid sea. The membrane stay full, with a steady state exchange taking place. It is sort of like hockey teams changing lines without any loss of play. The hockey teams try to change when there is a break in the action. The brain will try to make many changes while we are sleep, i.e., the neural regeneration theory of dreams?? If you compare a steady state thing like a rock, to life, which remains in constant recycle and regeneration, the advantage of regeneration, is that it is fluid and therefore able to react to constant real time changes. If one was building a model, once you glue, you are committed. But before glue, one can try many different combinations. If one tries to remember back to an event from their past, the essense remains, but the memory changes, over time, with an evolving point of view. The constant regeneration of that memory allows it to gain a living and evolving perspective.

The only fundamental thing that differentiates religion from aetheism is the belief in God or not. If you take this layer of argument out, and only look at humanistic philosophy, they are sort of organized in similar ways. The aetheist bibles are not from the distance past but are more modern. God is written in aetheist bibles, but in an anti-type way. I recognize that aetheism needs to downplay itself as a type of religion alternative. It this was obvious then the separation of church and state would have to apply. Right now they have the advantage of being a state funded religion. Let me give the religious side an argument. The Christians have the Devil or Satan. Religious traditions believe in this master of deception who can turn the god fearing into the godless. As long as aetheism uses a anti-god party line, they are a religion, since this argument was already defined as a religion hundreds of years ago. The aetheists can't see themselves as a religion, since this level of distinction is not their area of expertise. I have no problem with the aetheist philosophy but once the G-word is included they become that religion, which was warned about, by religion experts. So the separation of church and states needs to apply. Aetheism is a parasite religion that needs to feed off a host. The aetheists doctrine amounts to, take religion and do the opposite. If they say faith, we will say we need data. If they say God we will say no-God. If they say family, we will push for no-family. If they preach self control, we preach impulse. If they are conservative we are liberals. Name one position of the aetheists religion that is not due to a parasitic type affect?

Applications; The idea of hydrogen bonding hydrogen carrying the burden of potential, due to the covalently bonded, highly electronegative atom, being able to accommodate extra electron density, so it can complete the octet, for favorable magnetic addition, has some very important applications. The easiest to see is the DNA double helix. This forms due to hydrogen bonding between base pairs. If you look closely, every base pair also contains one or two extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen, which can not form a stable hydrogen bond; they have to share with their neighbor H. What this means is the DNA double helix is quite electrophilic. It looks very stable, using conventional wisdom, but is a very busy molecule. Sort of reminds one of water, which is very stable but very powerful. What the extra H potential in the DNA brings to the table, is the incentive for the double helix to separate. The separation of the DNA double helix is movement up an activation energy hill, with the hope all the H can lower their potential by sliding down the energy hill to lower energy. The rest of the DNA is fine, it is only the H that have residual potential. There is an H potential advantage due to the formation of RNA on the DNA relative to the DNA double helix. But the RNA has its own hydrogen problems, which creates a disadvantage to it. The RNA needs to leave the DNA to lower its H potential and the DNA has to reset to the moderate energy default. I can detail this but it is beyond the scope of this discussion. This analysis does not discount the enzymes that make all this possible. But enzymes are also rich in H bonds. If these are not perfect in length and angle, they will result in residual electrophilic potential. This is how the enzymes are able to get the DNA double helix up its energy hill. The electrophilic potential stored within enzymes excite electrons for their own needs. In doing, so they cause the DNA to move up the activation hill. Without the H potential analysis, we can still get the job done. This works for smaller systems, but tends to require blackbox statistics during scale-up. This is the default result, when we ignor the integrated H potential.

One's state of mind will affect how they view reality and therefore affect the data they see and the assumptions they will make. Let me show this with a contrasting example, if one is in love, they will hear the birds singing and will smell the flowers. This state of mind is very positive and it causes one to see the good in the environment, such that the data and the mood, will both use the assumption "isn't life wonderful". The next day you go out. Your girl decided to break up, so you are angry. The same bird is now singing, but now he is a nuisence. The flower reminds you of your girl, so you pick it and destroy it. The same data now has a different meaning. The data has not changed, just the state of mind and the assumption has now interpretted the data to mean "life bites". When we have international tensions often the two parties have two different states of mind, when they look at the exact same data. It would be hard to convince "life is wonderful, or life bites" to see the data in the very same way. They both are seeing it correctly, based on their mood filter. In the Middle East, Isreal has the filter of fear and the Arabs a filter of hate. They have been talking for decades and still can't see eye to eye. The way to see eye to eye is to get them to find a common mindset. For example, a common enemy is one way to get two enemies to team up. They both have the same fear-hate for another, and can see eye to eye, at least with respect to the data associated with their common enemy. Maybe a common incentive that benefit both could also work. The US offers a big block of money to anyone, among them, who can offer a peaceful solution. To get the cash quickly, the old ideas will now sound good. But if everyone doesn't get their proper amounts, another round of hate-fear begins that will result in the US getting ripped off. One is not dealing with calm rational adults, but the filters of irrational behavior.

Religious uses a particular doctrine, but spiritual is not limited to any one, but tries to find what is common to all. I was brought up as a Catholic. At 13, I was confirmed, which is sort of the Catholic adulthood ritual. I had many questions and was actually encouraged by a priest to explore. My early explorations lead me toward Eastern philosophy religions, which are less connected to a tangible God, but some form of enlightenment. It was a short walk from there, into aetheism. Being an aetheist was useful for getting rid of guilt, so I could degenerate in peace. There were other sides of me to explore, i.e, more natural, so I could become complete. Eventually, the spiral returned when I moved, for a job, into the bible belt. I used to like debating religion with the Christians because I had a wider view of things tha included my own Christian upbringing. To make the discussion more fun, I reread parts of the bible, so I could quote scriptures and use that as ammo to support my arguments. What I found, which I had never realized, was that according to Jesus, and later stressed by St Paul, the death of Jesus left behind the spirit of truth. It amounted to an inner voice, that could guide one to all truth. "you have no need for anyone to teach you, the spirit that abides in you will teach you all things" In a loose sense, this is sort of like aetheism; being able to process the data for yourself apart from learned collective understanding. The aethist may follow their inner voice against religious orientations. But they are willing to sacrifice their inner voice when it comes to following cultural herds. Anyone who is a die-hard political activist is not being fully rational, since they are leaving out a lot of good data. It becomes their replacement for religion, also irrational, just more natural/physical. Nature worship is a fairly primative form of religion, practiced by many aetheists. They don't do the old rituals. But this religion does try to gives human characteristics to animals, i.e, it has feelings, like half animal half human. This religion is irrational to me. But not to aetheists, who pride themselves with the ability to differentiate with the power of reason. The one thing I did learn was that aetheism was a good stepping stone. But it has own limitations. It doesn't do a good job addressing higher modes of human behavior, that take more well power. Whether one believes in religion or not, many of these systems take more will power than the alternatives presented by the aetheists. Their relgions are more based on allowing impulse, instead of strenghtening will power. This is why is tend to follow the lower instead of a higher path. Aetheism tries to go back to a time, before humans were fully human. It is sort a religion using primative will power and selective reasoning. I outgrew it when I reached its limit and started to feel myself de-evolving. For others I would say use this stepping stone, if your inner voice guides you, but don't stop there, there are more stones. It is part of the truth but it is not the entire truth.

If you look at HCl, the business end of that molecule is the H side. The Cl side will just absorb the shared electrons within the molecule and become more or less inert. The H end needs to go outside the original molecule's electrons to lower its potential. This is what I call higher potential. If we look at water, the oxygen is also highly electronegative. It can stabilize the slight negative dipole end, since this completes its octet. The H end does not gain any stability by becoming partially positive. The H has the primary burden of potential, since the higher electronegativity of O would actually allow it to gain even more electron density toward -OH. This is exactly what the O tries to do during the pH affect. But since this will amplify the potential of H even further, the equilibrium stops at 10-7. With H replaced by Na+ or K+, the O can go all the way to O-2. If you look at H20, both sides of the dipole are electrophilic. Or both sides are able to accommodate electron density, with O of water going to -OH. The mistake chemistry has made is due to looking at only charge. One also needs to take into consideration the entire EM force, which includes magnetism. The p-orbitals of O allows excellent magnetic addition. This is what allows it to gain more electrons than it has positive charges. A simple physics experiment that demonstrates this, is to take two wires and run electricity through them, but in opposite directions. All this movement of negative charge should be repulsive, yet the wires attract. It has to do with the magnetic fields that result, causing an attraction. The octet of the oxygen is sort of like wires with opposite current in 3-D, causing all the electrons to stay attracted even with extra negative charge. If the oxygen tried to share its negative dipole, it may lose the partial negative charge, but it will also lose some of its magnetic addition. The hydrogen on the other hand, can gain both when it shares electrons. This is what I referred to as the H having higher EM potential than the O. When we form a hydrogen bond, the H lowers it potential both ways. The oxygen lowers its charge potential but loses magnetic addition. The way the oxygen compensates is via the partial covalent nature of H-bonds. This occurs to restore a more favorable magnetic addition for the O. This way the O can assert its higher electronegativity once again. The result is the H is once again induced to retain a slight electrophilic potential. The way to understand why the hydrogen retains electrophilic potential, in minimum energy H-bonds, is to consider the situation the H places itself in. It is a sharing two electrons with its own O, and two more electrons with the other O. So we have one hydrogen trying to share four electrons, i.e., partially. This is possible due to the sp3 hybrid orbitals of the oxygen of water. The H ends up with one time average electron, that is a sort of a time averaged orbital state, that is not 1S. It is sort of partially ionized. If you look at oxidation of metals in water using O2, the water will increase the rate of oxidation relative to O2 in dry air. It has to do with the electrophilic nature of the both ends of the water's dipole. The O takes its share internally, while the H gains potential and tries to excite the metals electrons. This makes it easier for the O2 to scoop them up.

If the neutron has a negative on the inside and the outside, then it implies one of two things; First, negative charge is a binary entity being composed of two 1/2 negative charges. In close proximity of positive charge, such as within a neutron, these are able to separate into two. The second is, a single negative charge can appear both inside and outside the positive charge of the neutron, without having to split. Picture a ring, which is in the horizontal plane. Next we add another larger ring, that is perpendicular, linked to the first like a chain. The second ring goes through the center of the first, and being larger is also further outside. The positive charge is the smaller horizontal ring and the negative charge is the larger circulation of the vertical ring. The entire two-ring arrangement is moving as the positive charge ring fills in 3-D. The result will be the negative charge on the inside and outside. The positive charge will spend more time average in the intermediate space, such that the negative charge will be cancel out there, causing the positive charge to appear sandwiched between the interior and exterior negative. If someone wishes to mathematically/computer model this, help yourself. Maybe they can run an experiment to demonstrate your math.

One implication, with respect to the neutron having both negative and postive components, is that the proton and electron, from which it formed its are more or less conserved within the structure of the neutron. Neutrons can decompose into protons and electrons. It also suggests that the surface negative charge of the neutron plays a role in overcoming the repulsion between protons within nuclei. One way to look at this is to also consider magnetic addition. If the inner and outer halves of the negative charge are moving in opposite directions they will attract magnetic fields. If the positive charge of the neutron follows the inside negative half, then these two magnetic field will attract but it will repel the outside, so the outside negative is able to interact while also playing its role in cancelling out the positive charge. If we add the circulation of protons, via nuclear orbitals, so their magnetic fields attract each other, as well as to the negative neutron surface, nuclear repulsion could lower fruther. One observation that suggests nuclear orbitals, are electron orbitals. It would make sense the nuclei are helping to induce or are being induced by these electron orbital shapes. Electron orbitals may also induce the negative surface of the neutron.

I define intelligence as being able to do things that machines and computers can not do. Memorizing is not intelligence but a skill, since a computer can do this better with much better long term storage. Knowing how to do research is more intelligent. If one need to know where Iraq is, one goes to the internet and looks this up. This frees up neural data space, while still expanding the possible range of knowledge. Being able to do math in your head is a good skill. Knowing how to use a calculator is more intelligent. This allows one to out calculate most humans, in a head to hand competition. Where computers become useless is creativity and ingenuity. These are intelligent things that machines are not able to do. This is where America is really strong. It is both creative and ingenious. The Hollywood and entertainment complex is part of American creativity. The ingenuity is free market driven, and is especially strong in frontier information techology. This is a broad based statement, but in terms of the world, America is noted for its ingenuity, Germany is noted for is fabrication ability, while the Japanese are noted for their manufacturing capabilities. This sort of reflects each culture. In America, the wild west spirit reins. In Germany, repetition/training allows them to become the world's precisionists. While Japanese culture is cooperative, allowing group manufacturing expertise. Other cultures make use of these strengths to come into their own. Few are a slanted to one area, such that they find more of a balance. In America, people don't have the patience for long committments. Ingenuity levels the field with a constantly changing environment. The country doesn't have a strong sense of unity, so manufacturing requires ingenuity to compensate for a work force that is planning it own future.

In statisical science, cause and affect is replaced with a blackbox of experiments. With blackbox experiments, one suspends reason and waits for the oracle to tell you what to think. If one tries to open the blackbox to take a peak inside, one would think they were a criminal, daring to commit blaspheme against the blackbox. This dynamics sort of remains me of the scene in the Wizard of Oz, when the Dorothy and her three friends go to see the wizard the last time. Dorothy's dog, Toto, pulls the curtain away from the old man who is running the OZ machine. He says, "pay no heed to that man behind the curtain! I am the wise and powerful OZ." It turns out the wise and powerful OZ was an an illuision. If one tries to pull the curtain by looking in the blackbox, the frailty of the old man is figured out. The way I see it, statistics is useful where our ability to explain things in a rational way breaks down. It allows us to continue, without reason. But rather then realize that statistical studies are needed, due to our rational limitations, they have become institutionalized as the all powerful OZ. The little man behind the curtain is quite rationallly frail and he needs the OZ machine to compensate for this frailty. The little old man was only able to give up the OZ machine, when the wicked witch of the west was subdued. The west, is the place of the setting sun. The OZ machine was needed to appease a fear of the sun setting, i.e., statisical science becoming dark, if the OZ machine failed, since there is not enough reason in these areas of science to proceed, rationally. The statistical areas of science are the last strongholds of alchemy. Today we use high tech gadgets, to turn lead into gold. As the paper of this topic showed, much of this gold turned out, not to be gold. We need to let the sun set, or kill the witch of the west, using water (rational thoughts) so that statistical science, can ween itself away, and become rational. It doesn't really need the OZ machine, it only needs a rational foundation.

I would like to bounce an idea off my fellow chemists. I am going to stay simple and avoid extrapolating, until this basic relationship is settled. Premise: In molecular water, the hydrogen are at higher potential than the oxygen. Observations and logic for support: If you look at a molecule such as HCl, this has a dipole moment, where the H is positive and the Cl is negative. Inspite of this having an equal and opposite dipole charge, this is considered an acid, because the H side carries the highest potential. The reason; Cl is highly electronegative and gains stability by completing its octet to become Cl-. By forming the octet, the Cl- creates orbitial stability to cancel out some negative charge potential. It is still negative, but it becomes a weak base making it inert compared to the H side, which is a very strong acid, i.e., higher potential. If we look at H2O, one also has a highly electronegative atom in O. It too will try to gain octet stability. Its negative charge is also depotentiated, sort of like the Cl-. The result is the plus charge of H has more potential. Both sides of the water's dipole have potential but the H side has a little extra. When a hydrogen bond forms it is the hydrogen lowering potential more than the oxygen, because the oxygen would prefer an octet. Part 2 If one assumes both the hydrogen and oxygen have the same potential, one can still explain most of the observations of hydrogen bonding. One thing one can't explain, with this assumption, is the pH affect. If you look at the pH=7 affect in neutral water, what you have are moderately strong secondary bonding forces, able to overcome strong covalent bonding, as reflected by the equation 2H2O---> OH- + H3O+. The only way to explain this is using the high electronegativity of the oxygen and it ability to accommodate even more negative charge than its dipole charge. This makes the -OH stable enough for the H+ to leave. But the H+ does not exist freely in water, but becomes part of H3O+. In this state, all three hydrogen are partially positive and not full positive. Another observation; as we add hydrogen bonding water to a chain or cluster of water, the last added water molecule shows higher hydrogen bonding potential. One way to explain this is, when the H hydrogen bond to O, that O will take it out on its own hydrogen to recoup some of its loss. The result will be its own H gaining potential, making the next hydrogen bond stronger. I have often asked myself, how could chemistry not see this relationship. If it existed, than one would expect it would have been picked up. One way to explain this is, water is the gold standard of pH comparision. It is used as the zero point with respect to relative acidity and basicity. By definition pH of 7 is it called neutral. But in reality, the 10-7 of neutral water is a reflection of the stability of the O and the resultant H potential expressed by neutral liquid water. If the dipole was equal and opposite, the 10-7 should actually be much closer to zero, or weak hydrogen bonds should not be able to break strong covalent bonds that easily. We either need for the chemistry experts to refute this with data, or we need to start changing the chemistry books, so students can learn truth. There are a lot of good applications, especially in the living state, which are being given the bum's rush, by experts who don't understand water. Part 3 If we go back to the pH affect 2H2O--> OH- + H3O+, if you look at -OH, the oxygen goes from a partial negative charge to a full negative charge. What this means is the O is, loosely acting like it is positive , in the sense it is able to accommodate more negative charge than within the H2O dipole. The O in water in H2O --> OH- + H+, acts like it is a double acid with the O in -OH gaining electron density relative to H2O. The other aspect or H2O + H+ --> H3O+ acts like an acid-base. The three acid to one base, is due to the high electronegativity of oxygen. The result is the hydrogen is induced to carry the primary burden of the potential. The reason this occurs is connected to magnetic addition. Electron orbitals shapes are charge in motion, which generates a magnetic field. The octet allows the magnetic fields of O's electrons to attract in a way that helps overcome the negative charge repulsion. This allows an extra electron. The dipole explanation does not take into consideration the entire EM force. Where this problem may have come from, are the orbital wave equations. Electrons are treated like waves, which is fine. But these waves reflect charge in motion, which is the definition of magnetism. The total EM force is the the sum of the two allowing lopsided chemical potentials. To close the loop, if we come back to HCl, this is a charge dipole that will show a very lopsided affect relative to the EM orbtial affects of chemistry.

One way to contrast the two centers of consciousness within humans is contrasting a mainframe computer to one of its PC terminals. All animals have is a mainframe. Humans are the only species with a PC terminal that has access to the mainframe. That is what gives up free will apart from the mainframe of animal instincts. The mainframe can do anything the terminal can do and even better. If one was not aware their PC was hooked into a mainframe, they might assume that their PC was the only thing. This is the mistake that much of science makes and therefore assumes PC + mainframe, equals PC. As an analogy, a professor is given a lesson via the mainframe. All the PC's of all the students are connected. He puts a lock on, so one is not able to wander and use the PC for anything but the lesson. This is sort of analogous to the coordination of pre-human instinct. The birth of modern consciousness, was when the students learned to override the lock, which the professor put on, so they can surf the web or play games. But once you start doing that, the lessons that were coordinating everyone are no longer fully conscious. Instead one begins to go out in their own direction losing connection to the rest of the students and the professor. One may then start to IM others, so they become distracted. Before long, most are off in their own direction. with a few still staying with the professor. Culture was a way to substitute the original mainframe instructions, with cultural laws, so everyone was able to coordinate their PC's and still learn. But the PC never left the mainframe. The mainframe gives us additional support. One can play games on their PC, that can outdo the processor that is installed in the PC, since data is also processed on the mainframe. For example, if you ride a bicycle, one does not have to think about every muscles. On uses thought command lines, for the mainframe. We then pretend the PC is what is processoring dozens of coordinated muscles. This leads to the next step in evolution. Once one realizes the PC has access to the mainframe, but the PC is different than the mainframe, one is not limited by what they think are the practical limits of the PC. If one thought they were only using a PC, they would not attempt some long numerical analysis, since it would totally max out the PC, leaving no processing power left to play games or listen to music. But if one realizes the PC is a terminal, then one can use mainframe's subroutines, and still use the PC's own processor for playing games and music. The problem with this is professor human instinct is still in control of the mainframe. The PC may be able to override the locks, but it may not be allowed to enter the mainframe for full access, unless the professor feels one has paid attention to his lessons and will use the mainframe, wisely.

The contrast I was making is, SR is analogous to a telescopic affect on space-time, while GR is analogous to a microscopic affect on space-time. The microscope of GR is how one can increase apparent space-time even if the boundries of the "box" get pulled and and there should be less. One needs to look at this using a classical reference. For example, in the sun we have fusion. To create fusion, we need to physically get the material close enough so the nuclei are within the range of the nuclear forces. That is why the hydrogen bombs work, without needing much in the way of gravitational force. One had to physically get the nuclei closer, which was done with energy pressure. One's reference needed to take on the space-time dimensions of nuclear forces, i.e., microscope. With SR the affect is telescopic. Even if our moving reference appeared to be closer, in our reference, that will not make things act differenly on the moving reference. In other other words, if we had LiD (lithium deuteride) solid, and made the moving reference look like nuclear distances, in our reference, we would not get fusion, since in the moving reference, it will still exist as chemical LiD, with ionic distances in that reference. The existing assumptions of the references of GR are incorrect. If distance was undergoing a telescope affect like SR, matter would not change. We would be able to get more and more in, but it would stay like it enterred. This is not what is observed, especially in light of neutron stars. There is a physical change in distances where very close forces become affective. The microscope of GR, allows a close reference where this is normal.

Science, especially engineering has to generate practical results, so one has to do their best to make sure everything works out. If it doesn't, i.e., mythology of wishful thinking, you need to go the drawing board and try again. But non-practical knowledge, that is more faith driven, like politics, can screw up and still doesn't have to change anything. The myth factor is one of the most important output products, which is how one get votes. That is why campaign promises are often broken. It is also why mud slinging is also very important. These are needed for the myth factor. If you look at evolution, the data is discontinuous. This means either the data glass is half full, or half empty. So it comes down to science myth and philosophy being pitched as solid engineering science. If the engineer was asked to build the bridge with half the CAD plans, he would be honest enough to say, a lot of work still needs to be done. If the architect had the same half of plans, he could add decorative things to cover this up. It will work on paper, but may not stand the engineering tests. Evolutionary theory has engineering type problems, but the myth keeps it alive. This myth is very important, so it needs to remain, for now. Let me put it into perspective, say the evolutionary myth was broken, as a hypothetical example. This would leave a big hole in the heart of science, that would cause a chain reaction, into all areas that used this myth. It would actually make a bigger hole than the discontinuous data. The push would be on to replace this myth with something new. But it would still face the problem of discontinous data, plus a bigger unconscious hole. What would happen is a dozen models would appear in the void, with the best choice based on which myth is able to motivate and inspire the most. We could end up using sci-fi, as long as it is rational, and gives good jollies. If we look at the universe, bigger gives much better jollies. I also like the idea of a giant-normous universe. That myth sells better than if someone suggested a much smaller universe, due to a half dozen things that may be able to generate redshifts. With universe myths, the size does matter. Many have added extra dimensions to make the universe bigger still. This has no proof, but a super-normous universe gives better jollies. Maybe being too rational makes it harder to have fun with modern mythologies.

If you look at infinite wavelength energy, its wavelength (infinite) times its frequency (zero) is discontinuous and does not equal the speed of light, like all finite wavelenghts of energy. So it is not energy and should be called infinite wavelength not-energy. If this existed, as theorized at the event horizon of blackholes, it would be something moving at C, that is not mass and not energy. So it would have zero energy and still be able to move at C. One would have to give it some potential before zero energy able to appear. One would have to somehow make its wavelength drop below infinite before the product of its wavelength-frequency can equal C. That would be the smallest possible quanta of energy or 0-energy, which is different than 0-not-energy.

This has a conceptual problem. If you were sitting on the formation of hydrogen, when this energy was in existance, even if our reference was expanding rapidly, the energy will still go faster. The speed of light would still be the same even in the expanding reference of the original universe. The only place one would have a shot at seeing, this energy, is at the outer edge of the matter, before the energy heads off into empty space. Maybe I am missing something. The matter traveled faster than energy during the expansion, without requiring infinite energy to do so??? It sort of like shining a flashlight in a relativistic ship and beating the light to the end of the ship. Without adding new laws of physics, I would bet on the light, everytime.

I don't pre-write. I try to do it off the top of my head, that way I might be able to add some new things that pop into my head, at the time of writing. Things I continue to say have reached a steady state. I am trying new angles so others can see beyond the bias of traditions. To be honest with you, when I hear well known scientists, from other field, talking about consciousness, it sounds like amateur city. They don't even know the basics on how the human psyche is set up. It is like trying to talk about how computer software works, by studying the hardware. If the software tweaks the monitor, then the software is connected to the monitor? I was trying to save them some time and point out a much better place to be looking The hydrogen proton is what makes life different than inanimate matter. Inanimate matter is not living because it is too stable. Life needs to be in a flexible state, so it can remain and but also change via a type of dynamic fluid state. What makes this possible is hydrogen bonding and the hydrogen proton. The electron's role is for stabiliity. Electron bonding is what keeps the DNA as a long stable molecule. It is inanimate matter. The template relationships are only possible due to the hydrogen proton. The hydrogen bonding is where this stable inanimate molecule participates in life. If you look at the surface of neurons, these are bathed in water. Nothing will exist in liquid water, unless water becomes part of its extended structure. The brain is 80-90% water, so this observation is important. Cations have hydration spheres, or extended water surrounding then, that is loosely bonded to the central cation. Whatever the water surrounds will affect the H within the attached water. If potential is moving over a neuron, this is conducted through the water. Even if cations are in motion, the hydrogen proton is the fastest thing in water. The hydrogen proton is the only thing in water that doesn't have a hydration sphere. The oxygen is highly electonegative, which means it holds electrons very tightly. The hydrogen protons of water float above, moving potential from O to O.

In a world of specialists, each person only knows a narrow range of the truth. Beyond that narrow range of full understanding, we depend on others to give us broad statements, so we have an approximation of the truth. But if these people live in myths, they will spread mythology. The best example of modern myths are political parties. If one really wishes to know the truth, they would remain independant and learn the truth in both sides. These are not a fairy tale type mythology, but a mythology that forms, when we try to reason with only half of the truth. For example, the truth in Iraq is that there are many problems, but there are also examples of things having got better. Anyone seeking the truth, would have to assume there is some of both data. The liberal media, tries to instituationize the mytholgy of the land of doom, by selectively using just the data that supports this mythology. There are many people, who love this doom and gloom, and are willing to ignor data, to live this myth. It is easy to see how centaurs and Hercules are fairly tales. But when you go into your own time, people can't seem to see the myths they believe. Many say reason is the most important thing, while partially suspending it. Their reason is not totally suspended. It is selective, so they can ignor part of the data, and using the data they like, come up with reasons. The opposition can sees the opponent's mythology, but not their own. To them, their mytholgical world can also be supported with reason, as long as they reduce the data, to help support their reasons. The value of mytholgy is, it touches an irrational side of us. People who can not see through their myth, will tend to become more fanatical. The myth has successfully pushed an unconscious button. The drive and the excitement is the real goal of the myth. It would be hard for an environmental fantatic to be fully rational and fanatical as the same time. Once you become fully rational, one loses the mytholgy's magic energy. Modern mythology is different than ancient mythology. The main difference is modern mythology is rational, but uses a partial data set. You take the data that you like and reason with just this data. The conclusions will logically follow the data and the premises, but the incomplete data set will make the conclusions rational mythology. The missing data is the blackhole where mythology gets its drive and energy. The centaur of ancient mytholgy was entirely missing all the real data and was therefore very compelling to ancients due to full unconsciousness. In modern times, our myths use a partial data set that we reason with. As long as you hate the other side, you can ignor data that would neutralize the blackhole this powers the mythology. A full data set is the enemy of both mythologies. This would fill in the blackhole and thereby neutralize fanaticism. It is the fanatisicm that gives people their best jollies. Science is better, when it comes to mythology since full data is important. If one leaves out half the data, scientists will hold your feet to the fire. Bu there are subtle areas that create science mythology. For example, at frontiers of science we have data but there is no guarentee this is all the data there is. So we do the best we can creating a myth for our time, until new data appears and the myth needs to be replaced. The other subtle place where science myths form are at the interfaces between major branches of knowledge. This is due to specialization. One can see clearly in front of you but things get fuzzier away from center. What is fuzzy for one is clarity to another, such that when extrapolation occur, one can enters the realm of partial data. One can be using their best power of reason, with what they know, but what they know may not include all the data needed to support that reason. Empirical data and statistics is sort of data sponge with holes. It has what appears to be a solid substrate of data with holes of uncertainty. One can then try to reason using solid and fuzzy holes at the same time. The result can also be temporary science mythology. For example, a new medicine can create the mythology of being very helpful due to the data. Later it is taken off the shelf, when the blackhole of data gets filled in with data. It is hard to reason with spongy data, but many areas of science still try.

The place where physics needs to focus its attention is the hydrogen proton. This is the basis for the physical properties of the majority component of life, which is water. It is also the backbone bonding force for all proteins, RNA and DNA. It is offers a weak but moderately strong binding force that is easily reversable. Hydrogen is also the fastest thing in water, able to move about 100 faster that any other ions within water. The hydrogen proton is something, one can look at using quantum considerations, as well as with a classical approach. If you look at hydrogen protons, these are different that nuclear protons in that they have not undergone any type of nuke burn, but still can. In chemistry, movement into nuclear bonding is not easy, but it does not mean the proton can't be induced up the the activation hill, a few steps. It would take many more steps before fusion, but maybe these few baby steps has a connection to consciousness. One should not stop at microtubules, but go smaller and look at the hydrogen that binds these. This is the same type of hydrogen which binds, DNA, RNA, all proteins and water. It is the common link throughout life, should be investigated with a quantum analysis. Hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe. The fluid nature of life could not exist without hydrogen bonding. The DNA double helix and all its genetic template relationship would not exist without it. Water is based exclusively on it and is the majority component of life. Yet, the obvious seems to go right over everyone's head. I think where the problem may be is, everyone is used to thinking in terms of electrons, especially when we look at chemistry. But water is a poor conductor of electrons. Conduction usually involves ions. While cells and the brain, prefer to move around postive charge within the water. The energy in the cell's membrane is due to Na+, K+. These are the same things, that move around neurons and which conduct in synapses. One really needs to look at things sort of backwards to see how life is different. Life is slow compared to electron conduction in metal wires. This is because protons have a 1000 times more mass, so things are slower. The bonding forces of secondary bonding H is weaker, allowing fluid life.

I am not sure if this was Einstein's train of thought but here goes. We know E=MC2. We also know kinetic energy is E=1/2MV2. As the kinetic energy increases, since the mass has an equivilency to energy, than the mass must increase because of the velocity due to the kinetic energy. But where does that get me? Wait a minute, the total energy of my system was the energy in the orginal mass, plus the mass that I gained due to the kinetic energy. Now we are starting to get somewhere. OK, the kinetic energy E will increase my mass= Ek/C2. I need to add this to my original mass, and then recalculate the kinetic energy, since the very motion will add energy to my mass which is also equivilent to mass. Come on Al, you are almost there. "Could someone get the cat?". Where was I? OK, lets try this again.....These two basic relationships were all he needed. The creative process was Einstein giving birth to relativity.

Nuclear power is a good source of cheap energy. The electricity could also be used for electroysis to make hydrogen for automobles. One of the main problems with nuke power, it is not considered a good investment due to environmental foot dragging. These cost billions to build and can now be tied up in court because a little snail happens to live nearby. The result has been the need to stay with fossil fuels until alternate technology is able to become feasible. Protecting a little snail led to global warming. If they had said, the heck with the snail, we need nuke power, we would not have the potential of a global disaster. It would have only been local. The other problem with nuclear power is the waste. The waste that is generated is not only due to nuclear fuel waste products. Much of it has to do with a wrench, screw driver, or table that got too much radiation. It is not safe ,but it is not in a state where it will explode or anything. As a student scientist, I was fortunate to work at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They had this swimming pool where they could hold such items, under about 20 feet of water. The radiation is shielded by the water. I was eerie walking on the catwalk, over the pool and seeing the stuff glowing with a blue glow, as the radiation interacted with the water. Much of the lower level waste could be contained in pools of water. I remember at that time, thinking, if there ever was a nuclear attack, and you had enough time to get to deep water, if you dove down about 20 feet, you would be shielded from the radiation blast. Then you come to the surface, catch your breath really good, and dive again to avoid the pressure blast. Then come up a second time, look at the wind direction and run up wind. It was just before the Berlin wall and I was mentally preparing to survive, just in case. Nowadays, nuke attack is unlikely. I am sorry if I degressed. I was talking about how water is a radiation shield.

If you read the psychology of Carl Jung, he did a lot with myths. He is probably the best source for a scientific study on myths and symbols. He tried to correlate these to what he called the archetypes of the collective unconscious. The archetypes, in turn, are the many aspects of the human personality. Myths were personifications of these inner dynamics. One myth personality, that goes way back to ancient times, has many names, but all do the same thing, is what he called the trickster figure. It is usually a character that is a little weird but quite clever, the subject of laughter. He sort of represents the clever baffoon in all of us. Many people can't see this is a natural part of their personality. Many go into denial, trying to be prim and proper, and project it out and have others play that role for all of us. The comedians sort of play the role of the modern trickster figure. He gives people a way to see parts of themselves without having to be that person on the surface, so we can hide it. That is why we either laugh or get mad when a comedian starts to do his act. In modern times, Hollywood makes stars for us to worship. These are almost analogous to the gods and goddesses of the past. They don't have magical powers, but they are able to do all those things mortals can only dream about. They allow up to excercise parts of ourselves, indirectly. The young male playing air-guitar alone in his room, imagining he is giving a concert, is the type of affect the myth was trying to achieve. Through the myth and our imaginations we are able to express natural parts of the human personality, that may never have an expression in normal life. The young male playing the air-guitar may be inspired, by this rock god, and using that inspiration, he may actually become a star. Santa Claus is a myth, that shows the parents how to be Santa Claus on a smaller scale, bringing presents from above in the attic on Chrismas Eve. They are to do this in the spirit of joy,love and giving. It also shows the children their role in the drama; magical excitement. It is not rational, but it serves the purpose of excercising certain archetypes, once a year. If we rationalized away Santa Claus, then the magic goes away, such that that range of archetypes no longer has a good trigger to become active. What Jung also tried to show is, even if we remove the myths, humans have this need to create other myths, so they can excercise archetypes. These may not appear to be fairy tales characters, but serve the same purpose. Coming back to celebrities, we have our modern myths. Babe Ruth or Albert Einstein now become more than real life, for all of us. They sort of personify what is possible, inspiring to pretend or to follow. The old system of fables and fairy tales may not work for adults, but these still work for children. It pushes certains buttons in their imaginations. Adolescents substitutes these for pop culture hero's. Adult may then substitute these for cultural dollar figures, like Donald Trump or political figures like Hilary Clinton, both appearing larger than life. Heros only work if we make them larger than life in our imaginations. Whatever lights the achetypes. Some are inspired by this and try to follow in the footsteps of their hero. This push buttons, which would not be pushed otherwise. The human personality represents a wide spectrum. But people will tend to specialize and narrow this down to a fraction of the possibilities. In the ancients days, their extensive mythologies tried to push all the buttons. These are not rational but neither is inspiration a rational phenomena. Just like the symbols of Christmas, birth of a child and giving, sort of push certain buttons, the ancients would use mythology to help push buttons on demand. Instead of using viagra, they would use Venus. This has been rationalized away, such that ancient mythology would not work in modern times. We need modern myths in our time.