pioneer

I always thought it would be good if psychologists ran experiements on themselves so they can observe the affects from the inside, using their training to observe subtle things that would not appear superfiscially. Many of these things may not be evident if they were only interviewing subjects with a particular condition. For example, say a psychologist pioneer, was induced, medically, into a deep depression for six months, voluntarily. He is now on the inside of the depression, able to observe little details one could not see otherwise. This would give them an opportunity to wrestle with the depression using their scientific background, objectivity, and their techniques, to see if these really work inside the depression. It would take adjustments and improvements. But once the study was over, they would have new understanding from the inside out, that would allow them to create a meeting of the minds. It is sort of like a soldier who has been in battle, helping rookies. This sort of happened to people who help others, with alcoholism and drug addictions. Many of these wrestled the beasts. The only difference is that the formal training often comes after the fact, relying on memory, instead of training first, and then consciously entering the realm of the beast. Maybe the problem is, once life is cushy, who would take the risk? It is easier to stay on the outside, looking in, fighting beasts through a wall. Although, some patients pull you over the wall to help them fight. But then another psycholgists pulls you back, to fight at a safer distance. Most of the studies produces caged data, relative to the scientists.

Even with "real medicine studies", the placebo affect also works for many patients. Most science studies use placebo's to see relative affects. Many people are healed, simply by believing they have taken the medicine. What this means is the brain plays a role in healing. Alternative medicine tries to use the natural power of the brain to heal, often using placebos. The power of suggestion, somehow gets the brain to correct some aliments, even in valid scientific studies. This would suggest that an anti-placebo affect might also occur, with the medical condition induced by the brain, due to some type of suggestive social input. Maybe the one's that get healed by the placebo affect in medical studies, may have been the ones, made ill by an anti-placebo affect within culture. The real sick people may only react to the medicine, and will not see a placebo affect. With the huge free market push for medical care how much anti-placebo affects are we creating, so we can peddle product to correct it? Someone should go through a bunch of medicine studies and see how many people are healed with the placebo, to determine socially created sickness. If it is high enough, maybe we need to buffer the BT Barnum affect of medicine. A good study to do, if the medical community and the govenment would cooperate, is make up a condition, such as a new skin rash. We then push it in the media, and see how many people will create the symptoms. I am sure the medical community wishes to do no harm. This might open up the debate as to how we should go about spreading sicknesses. There are real sickness, but because of the placebo affect, there appears to be a brain affect that can sometimes cure some ailments. This suggests that the brain can do the opposite, in some cases, i.e., anti-placebo, where sickness is created using the power of suggestion.

I was not talking about charge density but the total number of charges. In eukaryotes, the DNA is contained in the nucleus. The DNA also packs with packing proteins. These have positive charge to cancel the negative on the DNA. The DNA produces RNA, which also has negative charge. The packing of DNA accommodates other forms of negative charge. If too much negative charge accumulates, via the RNA, some of the RNA needs to leave the nuclear membrane, to avoid super charging the nucleus. . In modern cells, it may be harder to see how something simple could have a lot of practical use. But if we assume a pre-cell, without all the protein bells and whistles of a modern cell, the negative charge on the DNA, at the very least, assures the negatively charged RNA moves away from the DNA. The membrane being negative then assures, that the RNA isn't able to leave the cell so easily. It finds its place, between, in the zone that would then become the rough and smooth ER. Here is an interesting observation, after the DNA duplicates and then packs into doubled chromosomes, the nuclear membrane disappears. The packing of the chromosomes neutralizes the negative charge of DNA. The negative charge may be what is stabilizing the nuclear membrane. The nuclear membrane reacts to the new chargeless potential, increasing surface tension. As the DNA separates and begins to unpack, negative charge gets exposed once again and the nuclear membrane reforms.

How about the urge to consciously abort the unborn. This was never part of nature, on any large scale. It is even new to humans. It may be due to social environment and medical advances that make this option possible. The jury is still out whether this is progressive or regressive genetics. It gives selective advantage to the older humans, but selective disadvantage to the unborn of the next generation. In nature, the males fight it out and the dominant males gets the gals. Maybe abortion is needed, since the gals are not getting good males. This may be a natural urge to avoid passing on second string genes. This may imply that a secondary genetic change has occurred associated with male regression. Usually the adult males breed, but maybe adolescent males, who are not yet fully adult, mentally, are breeding too often, requiring abortion so the children are not born with regressive genes. I was just trying to use a Darwinian explanation to see where it goes.

Crooked Mick and YT2095 had a good suggestion; using a solvant. One needs to use a solvant like a ketone or maybe chloroform. These will extract the sugar and then phase separate into a second layer. Do your density measurement first for the combined solution, then extract the sugar. It may take a few extraction cycles for 95%. Discard this. Boil off the water to see how much KCl. One can then calculate the amout of sugar from the original density and amount of KCl collected.

Thanks for the feedback. I presented this to get the mind thinking. I don't really like the idea of two dimensions of time. I prefer the idea of three dimensions of time. What this amounts to is acceleration for acceleration. For example, if we look at gravitational force, if this is constant, we get a constant acceleration. But since the magnitude of the force, is a function of distance, the force increases with decreasing distance. The result is an acceleration that is also accelerating as distance gets closer. These results imply (r,t,t,t) or one distance dimension and three time dimensions. If position in a volume of space is important, than 6-D space-time allows us to know its vector position in both space and time, simultaneously. In this system, we currently lump the three dimensions of time, into the four time vectors which we call the four forces. I can sort of follow this logic, but where to go from here, I am not sure. My gut tells me that maybe it can help quantum theory integrate gravity. It might give a backdoor way to see what is being overlooked.

This idea popped into my head in the forum topic; dimensions. I went for my nightly swim and further ideas about this appeared in my mind. I thought I would put this out there, as food for thought. If you look at a point, that is moving in a line, say along the x-axis, it can be expressed with only two dimensions, one in distance and one in time or (x,t) which amounts to velocity. If we look at an acceleration of the same point, it is (x,t,t). Does acceleration imply 2 time dimensions? In classical physics the answer would seem to say no. But if we look at this in terms of relativity, the answer appears to be maybe. If you were at relativistic velocity, time would dilate and we would have a certain time reference. If we accelerated through a range of relativistic references, we would be in odd reference where time is changing with time. Our reference would never be in any one time reference at a time. Would this acceleration be implicit of the second dimension of time? One wpuld not be able to express it mathematically with only one time variable. Acceleration has always used two time dimensions in the math, that act independantly but remained connected. Maybe the classical physicists were onto something, but may it wasn't yet time for 2-D time. Maybe the accelerated expansion could be explained with a type of 2-D time affect.

Another thing to consider is that one person's standard of over drinking may not apply to another person. There are people who are tipsy after a half of drink. If someone close, drank two drinks per day, they might consider that overdrinking, since they will extrapolate their own limitation. Among people, who drink a six pack of beer, that is a light weight. In the current social climate, where zero is the ideal, anything more than zero per day is a problem. This standard can create the very problem you are trying to solve. It hits upon the oldst lesson in human history, prohibition creates temptation. Or social self righteousness leads to social addictions. Culture picks and choses who we are going to make the addicts. It also picks addictive behavior to be called socially acceptable. For example, say culture wanted to institute the cell phone addiction. Anthing more that 10 minutes per day is considered an addict. Those who see nothing wrong, will have to go underground, to avoid all the social nags that will haunt them day and night. When they catch you in the basement, texting a friend, you look like a junky. If you try to defend yourself, because this prohibition is stupid, you are in denial. If we reinforce that cell-junky label enough, many will begin to feel like a cell-junky since they show all the symptoms .One is only doing something that is nobody's business. It is totally silly and should never have been, but once instituted, it creates its own self forfilling realty, until cell-phone anomonous is needed. They may even come up with a drug or patch, which can help overcome the addiction. Relative to your situation, a grown man with his wife and child teaming up, to make him feel like he is a social deviate, will make him drink. Both of you might try saying, "we both need to give up something we really like, and we need you to nag at us so you can overcome". This will empower him into a role where he feels like the family leader. It takes the pressure off him and turns it around back onto you. With him nagging at you, it will make it harder to give up your joys of life, making you an addict. It will put you, on the other side, until an understanding forms. It is easier to be a social nag, than be the victim of one, two or thousands.

The only assumption is that all things that exist mathematically also exist physically, seems a little far fetched. For example, one can model gravity as being due to the repulsion of matter by space. This is not real, but one can mathematically model it, by doing sort of an inverse of existing math. According to him, if I can do this math, this becomes the reality? I didn't realize that humans can play god, and make reality with only math. If God had been a mathematicism, then literal Creationism would be real? That should be the new religious angle. God is omnipotent and invented math. He came up with simple equations that allow a universe in six days. Science preempted this with mathematics, indirectly. God is not real, since we do not have an equation for him. Now only we can play god. Call me old fashion but I still prefer observation and experimentation.

That is an interesting point, that language can affect perception of the world. Language not only allows us to convey meaning, but language can also be used to confuse meaning. It adds both objectivity and subjectivity to the human mind. It can help focus us to clarity, or else confuse clarity so we can go off into tangents. To a child, this is the leaf of a tree. To a metaphysical person, this is temporal expression of the eternal essense. To the homeowner in the fall, this is one of these waste things, I have to rake and put in the trash. Without language, we pick it up and say uug!. It is only uug! Add complex language and we can focus with the clarity of the scientist, or drift off in the subjectivity of metaphysical philosophy. Language has helped to clarify and confuse at the same time. It is a two edged sword.

Dimensions are used for the sake of mathematical simplicity. For example, in some crystal systems, it easier to express position with four dimensions (a,b,c,d), since this is how the planes line up. They use four dimension to express 3-D space. One can do it in 3-D or x,y,z, but the math gets too complicated. Using 4-D in distance makes it really easy. If one assumes this extra distance dimension implies the crystal exist in 5-D space, if one include time, it almost sound like a magic crystal. One needs to separate the reality of 3-D space from n-dimensional space, since n-D is just there for mathematical convenience, with little to do with reality. For example, a point moving in a line, along an axis only uses 1-D in distance and one time dimension, so it is 2-D motion (x,t or velocity). If we are concerned about position in a plane, as it moves in a diagonal, it uses 3-D. If we wish to know how it moves in the diagonal of a cube, it is 4-D. If we wish to know how it moves in the 4-D crystal, it is now 5-D. If we wish to look at this in n-D space is is now n-D. Nothing has changed but the convention. It is still only a point moving in a line with only our coordinate system changing to help occur for its position in our variable laden grid. The push should be the minimal numbers of dimensions, anything beyond that minimum is for mathematical convenience. This prevents speculation like the magical 5th dimension that appears in some crystals systems, as the crystal is waved over the head, and made to move in time. This just came to me. Acceleration in a line is (x,t,t). This is 3-D and uses one distance and two time dimensions. Does the acceleration of space-time add another time dimension to the 4-D to make 5-D or is this just another mathematical convention. It is an interesting question with weird implications.

Let me show another use for junk DNA, with an oversimplified analysis. This is oversimplified because more is going on. If you look at the DNA double helix, one basic observation are the phosphate groups end up on surface of the double helix. Each of these has a negative charge. The difference between just active genes, and active genes+junk, may be 3-10times more negative charge on the surface of the DNA. Again this is oversimplified. That means the very presence of this junk, makes the DNA a much more powerful source of structured negative charge. If we go to the membrane, this pumps cations, with the outside enriched in sodium and the inside enriched in potassium. The net result is the outside of positive and the inside is negative. Part of the potential in the membrane is due to the concentration gradients, where each cation would like to go the other way, to lower its depleted side of the membrane. If we add all the extra negative charge of the DNA with junk genes, this adds addtional things to the entire cell. With the inside of the membrane induced negative by the cations pumps, the DNA is now more repulsive to the inside of the membrane, making it harder to excape. So it is destined to stay suspended away from the membrane. This permanent separation now allows a train of proteins to form, to connect it to the membrane. If CO2 of HCO3- forms in the cell, due to metabolism, the larger DNA can help repel this accumulation of negative charge outward for removal. Also the cations, are not just a concentration gradient anymore. All that extra negative charge, because of the larger DNA plus junk, changes their charge dynamics, so both see the impact of the inside negative. It is more complicated than that. This example was used to show how just the configurational ambience of negative charge, if amplified, by simply making the DNA larger, can have an impact on some of a cell's dynamics. The junk genes or the mane of the lion is felt by the entire cell.

In chemistry, instead of talking about entropy, they talk about Gibb's free energy, which is sort of the sum of entropy and enthalpy. The enthalpy is sort of the energy given off when chemicals go to a lower energy state. If you form a crystal, atoms lower entropy when they leave the molten or solution phase to enter the orderred state of the crystal. This is driven by the lowering of enthalpy, since atoms forming crystals will give off energy as they form the crystal lattice. Inthis case, the Gibb's free energy is still lower. It is not in violation of thermodynamics. The final state was able to decrease entropy because it gained from an enthalpy affect. The living state can decrease the entropy of chemicals because the Gibb's free energy is still lowering when this occurs. No violation of thermo. The amount of enthalpy change, due to burning or metabolizing fuel or food, is the big kicker. This max potential can lower entropy, as well as increase enthalpy, on a smaller scale, such as making membrane lipids. But the Gibb's free energy, if we sun it for a celll, is lowering via thermo-law. In terms of evolution, one may say life and evolution both lower GFE.

I was taking a break and went for a swim, this idea popped into my head. If you look at the DNA, in almost all cells, the DNA carrys a bunch of genes that have no apparent functionality, in its day to day life. These are often described as junk genes. The question I have is, why is the DNA such a pack rat? It is like the DNA's attic, basement and garage is full of junk it never uses in its day to day activities. The DNA is not a slob. He has all its junk neatly organized. But why does it keep all this junk. It would appear, life would be much easier if the DNA called Goodwill or the Salvation Army and had them come in and clean out the junk. The DNA would be leaner making it much easier during cell cycles. What is even more odd, some tiny creatures, like fruit flies, are even bigger pack rats, than the DNA in far more evolved lifeforms. It is sort of like a 2 year old filling in a warehouse with junk. How and why did the DNA in this little life form collect so much junk, with its activities so limited. DNA is not a slob, but he does appear to go to too many yard sales and antiques shops. He doesn't seem to thrown anything away, even if he never uses it. If you look at the rest of the cell. It is a lean mean protein machine. There is very little in the way of pack ratitis, unless it is preparing to replicate. But even then, everything is functional to the needs of day to day life. The DNA may be the head of the household, but he has a junk problem. When I thought about this, cells run a very tight ship. Maybe this is not junk at all, but is important to day-today operations. We know it doesn't function in anyway to make proteins, for day-to day operation. The only other logical use for it, is it is part of the DNA's configurational presence. It may be sort of like the mane of male lion. This big hair gives him a majestic presence that tells everyone in the jungle that he is the king. If we gave the lion a mullet, he would not be as credible in the jungle. Has anyone ever tries to trim off all the junk genes and see if this matters? If it has day-to-day, configurational ambience, it should definitely matter.

According to evolutionary theory what is the next form of humans? I believe in evolution, but I don't buy into much of the theory used to support it because it say lots without having to say anything. It is too empirical and doesn't follow logical principles. It sort of depends on the gods of random and chaos instead of the gods of order. The creationists use the gods of order but don't have the science to back it up. The evolutionist use the gods of chaos to help support their science. I did this example before but I will do it again to show a possible problem with the current assumptions behind evolution. Say you kept a journal of a child ,from birth to 21 years old. Each day you make an entry. At the end, we try to simulate the discontinuous data of evolution, by asking someone to randomly pick 100 days from that 21 years, and using only that data, tell us why that young man is who is, on his 21st birthday. The 100 random data points are sort of hit and miss with respect to picking what could and may have been pivotal times in the childs life. The theory that one may come up with, may fit the chosen data perfectly, but it may not reflect the reality of why the child is who he is. For example, on the 200th day of his 17th year, he was in a automoble accident. If we didn't pick this day or didn't have this data, the entire analysis may be consistent with the chosen data, but still be moot. Based on our data, we may conclude nothing in his environment caused this change. Therefore we conclude, it must be in his genetics. Genetics is thrown around like a trump card, in an areas of science based on gambling statistics. That is my beef. The discontinuous data may have gaps such that this data, of itself, may not reflect the reality of the modern situaiton. So the push should be a logical system that doesn't depend on broken data put should be able to explain it, as part of the logical progression. For example, going from single to multicellular should be logical. Selective advantage, mutations or some type of gambling theory is pitiful. This is so basic and fundamental to life, yet it is treated with a gambling ritual. The god of chaos needs one to sacrifce reason to worship him properly. This is why religion is trying to step in, since the god of choas is an illusion that only works because the discontinuous data helps support this illusion. I do not support Creationism in the literal sense. But I do support the basic idea that an orderred sequence of events occurred. Evolution was not a long chain of gaming tables, but more like a walk up spiral stairs.

Humans have self awareness because we have two centers of consciousness. Animals only have one center of consciousness. Humans have a similar center of consciousness like an animal, plus another secondary (ego). The primary is our unconscious instinct. The secondary is what gives us will power and self awareness, apart from a purely instinctive connection with the environment. For example, if an animal ate something that made them sick , they would hurl, smell it and never fall for that bad food again. A human on the other hand can eat it, hurl, and then knowing they will hurl again, still pick it up and eat it on a dare. We can override animal common sense. We can also override natural instincts and make them unnatural. Animals do not have a secondary center of consciousness that would allow them to do this. If human's intervene, and act as their secondary center, we can mess them up. Left to their own devices, animals will follow, their single center for natural instinct and behavior. Pets sort of acquire a virtual secondary center of consciousness. This is more like a trained rapport that their center of consciousness learns. This usually most apparent to the owner. An outsider sees a pet, but the owner sees what it thinks is an animal that appears to act like a human. It is part projection from the owner, and part virtual secondary center, created by constant reinforcement. If Snuggles is suppose to act like a baby for his the owner, he will do it. It may not do it for everyone else, since the virtual secondary center requires button pushing only the owner knows. The secondary center within a human forms after birth. New born infants are like animals, in the sense, they are instinctive action/reaction with only one center. It takes several months until the secondary appears. The mother gets this primed, virtually, until the second center stabilizes. Once an unborn child begins to show brainwaves, its first center of consciousness is has been powered up. Before brainwaves, it is biomass. The reason I say that is, the opposite of life is death. Death is defined as when brainwaves and the heart stop. The opposite of death is life, such that the definition of when a human life begins should be the opposite of death i.e., the brain waves appear and the heart begins to beat. When a human dies, the hair and fingernails continue to grow. The person is dead, but biological activity is still occurring, even when they are dead. If only bioactivity counts, then burying a person before the hairs stops growing, is that considered burying them alive? It is just biomass at that point, without either a primary or seconday center. The same should be true of the unborn, once it gets brain waves, it has one center. It is alive. If a person was in a coma, they are down to one center again. That single center may try to power up the secondary center. This may appear on and off but is often only virtual. Once the secondary is up to full power, they will wake up. When we dream, the single center is a still awake, but the secondary is powered down into the range of virtual. We become a virtual second center witnessing a virtual reality. A dreaming human is sort of like a domesticated animal when they dream, with the primary center the owner, who help creates this virtual rapport, with our dreams. The primary center is often called the inner self. The secondary is the ego.

The affects of electric fields were studied on plants as far back as about 1900. The strawberry plants, in these original studies increased sugar levels by about 20%. They used high DC voltage and very low current. The plant pot would sit on a negative metal plate and they would suspend a positive plate above. One had to be careful not to allow the plants to complete the circuit or they would get electrocuted. An EE friend of mine, built me a simple electric field device. It was about 5000 volts at about 1 milli-amp. The rule the thunb was about 1in arch for every 10,000 volts, and this baby could arch/spark 1 cm with ease. It was fun jumping sparks and/or watching small circuits freak out. My first experient with plants, used two aluminum foil plates. The plant pot sat on one, i.e., the negative, and the other plate, i.e., positive, above the plant, was hanging from a shoelace I duct taped to the ceiling. It was very low tech, mostly to play/experiment. My experiment, started as a curiosity attraction and then became a dare for some of my college friends to see if they could touch both plates and withstand the electric kick. Being DC and very low amperage it was like touching an electrified fence. The DC current does not affect the heart but will zap muscles. It was actually funny to see them jump and yell, and then encourage others, to do it under the false pretense, it wasn't going to be quite that bad. What ended up happening, the horseplay, loosen my ceiling tape and the top plate fell on the plant and electrocuted it. The plant went from vigorous to limp out almost immediately. It was like it ran out of water. The electricity may have formed bubbles within its capillary action, so it just wilted. After that, with the plant already on decline, we finished it off. The original research discussed how an electric field was beneficial to plants. Their data did show reasonable sugars levels increases in strawberries. My research only showed that direct 5000 volts zaps was too much for small plants. It also showed the some college students try it for fun.

The difference in approach appears to deal with what is considered the relavant time scale of the affects. If we prick our finger, it takes about 0.1 second to reach the brain. We are not dealing with electrical wires, but the conduction of positive charge using, water, cations and H-protons. The quantum affect may have time scales too fast for consciousness. The brain makes up with multitasking, what it lacks in speed. For example, if we walk, the coordination for smooth muscle motion occurs within the cerebellum. If this data was being processed in 10-14seconds, it would have to repeat a zillion times before one muscle flexes. If we slow the rate down to a slow level, it only needs to occur once. Our output devices, like the voice module, are not design for warp speed. The brain outputs a wide range of data, at the same time, at a slower pace, which all blend and overlap, we can form complex sound patterns. This is the pace our audio input devices, i.e., ears, are designed to work at. Our ears can pick up very complex signals, but there is a limit for speed. Where the brain kicks butt is connected to 3-D memory storage. This does not have to do with physical geometry but with 3-D logic. Computers only use 2-D logic and have to make up the difference with high speed. The 3-D memory within the brain uses 3-D logic for data density transfer. What this may lack in speed, it makes up with extreme efficiency. As a visual analogy, 2-D logic is a plane with an x,y axis such as cause and affect. The 3-D logic is more like a ball that is 3-D. To approximate the ball using 2-D planes, we would need to use a large number of 2-D planes, that have a common center, but which cover all the angles. The more planes we add to the approximation, the more we fill in 3-D. One 3-D memory contains a large number of connected logic planes. Triggering one 3-D memory outputs a wide range of logic planes at the same time. Even if it is slow per cycle, it accomplishes so much per cycle. If we look at one of our 3-D memory balls and forget about the planes for the time being, this is essentially one 3-D entity. Just like you can take a bunch of names and use logic to process all this data into alphabetical order, the 3-D logic can process the 2-D planes almost the same way. Or essentially organize the logic planes into another order before output. If you are Bruce Lee, the 3-D memory, outputs very complex trains of logic in 3-D batches for elaborate muslcle movement. Based on input data, these can rearrangle quickly for the next batch of logic pulse. It is not fast processing using slow 2-D logic, like computer, but uses very slow processing speed, by computer standards, with very fast 3-D logic. Nervous branches are near neary every cell of the body. The brain is able to take in all that data and act as a feedback control center. For this level of complexity we need a wide range of 3-D memories that interact 3-D, allowing very dense data pulses to take care of the entire body. It sort of throws around owners manuals at a time instead of words and logic lines. But we also are conscious and interact in the environment. The brain can also trigger the entire body into a coordinate state of arousal, while also keeping track of all the cells, while we interact with the environment. It does all this while only using about 90 watts of renewable food power. It would be nice if super computers could run on only coffee and donuts.

To answer the question of moral obligation one needs to start at the grass roots and then scale up. This way, it is easier to see the bigger affect. Say you were walking down the road and a mugger was assaulting a lady; this is aggresssion on a micro-scale. What you do is dependant on how you look at yourself. If you think you are strong enough to kick butt, you go over there and mug the mugger. If you want to help, but do not feel strong enough to fight him, you may phone the police and let them do it. But this has the disadvantage of the mugging happening already. Some people, don't wish to get involved. While soome will have a sadistic side and watch and marvel at the heartlessness of the mugger. Others will run the other way, so they can avoid being seen or mugged, next. How one deals with this situation is dependant on how you see your own and other people's situation in the light of the danger that is involved. One would not expect a little old lady to try to fight the mugger. But if Bruce Lee was around, everyone would expect him to intervene to protect the victim from a bully. If Bruce Lee just stood there and watched and then left, that would satisfy the needs of other muggers and those who gets some sadistic pleasure in this. But it would not satify those who would try to help, or those who would run away. That show of indifference means the mugger is around for another day of mugging. If you scale this up to countries, there are also giant muggers. Some people are too weak to deal with them ,so they call the police or a larger country to protect them. The police can stay on their coffee break and let the muggers have a field day. Or they can send a partol car or two to try to catch the mugger before he mugs again. The young men and women in the military, like the police and fire fighters, all know the risk and have chosen these profession. They wish to protect and serve the good people. But the mugger profession seems to have protectors. For some vague reason the liberals tend to favor muggers. For some reason they prefer the muggers get extra protection. What liberals tend to forget is most muggers are not first time offenders. They may have gotten away with a reign of terror before being caught. Yet the focus is only on the activities of getting caught. If the police, hit him a few times, even though this is hardly justice for all they did, it is taken out the context of the hostorical persectiive and treated like the mugger is some type of victim. All the many real victims of the reign of terror have to suck it up. The poor mugger is the only victim of immediate concern, he has feelings. What many people do not seem to understand is the mugger plays by a different set of rules and ethics than does his victims. His standards are twisted in a way that allows him to victimize without any remorse. He does not respect the civilized rules of his victims. He exploits this as a weakness . One needs to deal in a way that they can understand so one can create a meeting of the minds. His ethical standards sets the rules of engagement and this is the easiest way to help them understand. One thing that muggers and liberals both have in common is victims. Both have a philosophy that does not empower victims but which seems to keep them forever dependant as victims of some type of mugger. For the US and western powers to go into Africa to throw out the muggers who lead some fourth world countries, this would get the liberals pants get in a bunch, since these are masters of victimization. To empower the people would be counterproductive to their vision of a world run by a bunch of totalitarian PC nammies, who would rule with a rolling pin. The UN needs to set up a basic standard with respect to victims. It can begin with one simple rule based on killing and human atrocities. If in violation, we go in with overwelming force and purge the muggers and then leave behind food and supplies. After a few treatments the countries will start to assemble peacefully. (As you have done to others, so it shall be done to you) The liberals won't like this, since too many of their mugger allies would get purged decreasing the supply of victims. But the peace loving people in these poor countries will dance in the streets.

Photons have spin or angular momentum. How does a photon wave spin and still make a flat wave that does not appear to be spinning? This is due to its particle nature. Since a photon particle is traveling at C, do they need to spin perpendicular to motion to avoid the surface spin travelling faster than C? A visual analogy is a wheel, with the hub at C. The rim, if it spun in the forward direction, would get ahead of the hub. At least in the perpendicular direction it never gets ahead of the C-hub. On the other hand, if it spun perpendicular to the motion, it may never get ahead of the hub, but it would appear to transverse more distance than the hub at C, in less time. One way to compensate for that could be a SR affect, that alters distance and time, at the rim of the spin, so that it only travels the same distance as the hub while it spins. This sounds far fetched until you compare two different photons. If we have a SR rocket traveling near C, it would appear distance contracted to a certain amount. Say it appeared distance contracted to half, while we knew it was going faster and should be double than. One way to explain this, is the surface of the ship is in one SR reference and core of the ship is somehow in another. This is what happens with photons. They all travel at C. Although all should look like a point wavelength, they can display a variety of outputs, not normally associated with C reference. Relative to photons to maintain the transverse distance of the rim, so it does not exceed the C speed of the hub, it needs variable SR affects, to compensate for the amount of angular momentum and adjust distance and time. This results in the photon being in two references at the same time, part in C and part less than C. Again, if a rocket was traveling near C, we should see distance contraction that is directly related to this velocity, or else the surface would have to be in a different reference than the body of the rocket. One might explain this with the ship generating a stealth type layer of SR to cloak its speed parameters. Photons are able to cloak their speed output, to make diverse wavelength or diverse distance and time output parameters.

If you look at life and entropy, there are two ways to look at it. Life itself is an orderred system that evolved from chemicals that were originally in states of higher entropy. But at the same, it survives by metabolism, which increases entropy. But when it replicates itself, it brings choas or the high entropy of smaller chemicals into growing polymer states, which themselves group and order into even lower entropy. Life itself is order, but to achieve and maintain this order it takes energy, increasing entropy. If we grew a crystal from a solution, the entropy decreases. The lowering of enthalpy will more than make up for the loss of entropy. The living state takes this one step further and creates a dynamic state. The food comes from the environment. As we digest it, we increase its entropy into smaller and smaller easier to digest molecules. Then the cells funnel or actively transport these into very systematic pathways, lowering their entropy once again, even during transport. Much of it adds to make larger molecules like proteins. These proteins have specific spots in the cell. The primary net entropy generation is connected to waste products. These increase entropy until another life form takes them it to order them. Even if you look at ATP energy within the cell, this is not helta-skelta. This has a sense of direction, moving in a way within the cells, that will reduce its entropy below what it would be, if it was just randomly floating in water. If you look at a single cell replicating over and over, making dozens of cells, from the point of view of the cells as a whole, entropy has increased. But all the chemical swithin the cells are very orderred such that, pound for pound, chemical entropy have decreased. I think the problem people face is that chaos theory breaks down with life. Yet there is a tendancy to make this acception in the living state,the rule anyway. The genetic mutation approach, instead of looking at evolution being a logical extrapolation of all the orderring within cells, looks at evolution as due to some type of random disorder that then creates better order? It is sort of like observing diamonds always forming a nice tetrahedral crystal structure. There are often some defects. So we focus on the defects and explain the 99% perfect diamondf in terms of some chaos principle. The choas represents a degenerate state of the diamond not its perfection. Random mutations are a degenerate state of a cell's perfect order. Directed or ordered genetic changes are what make the cell even more evolved and allow life to become even more like a pure diamond. Science can't figure out how to explain orderred changes in the genetics twhich can allow life to evolve lower and lower entropy. So it adds higher entropy within a mutation, that is now suppose to help lower entropy. I will give you a little hint. Lower entropy can be addressed at the level of the hydrogen proton. The biggest problem with the hydrogen analysis is getting rid of the mutation mythology. This is made more diffucult because chaos is an empirical theory that fits empirical science. It is the blind leading the blind making everyone unable to see the light of reason.

This came to this morning. It represents another way to look at GR and the contraction of space-time. If we were to place a large box around a large area of space, and have a blackhole form in the center, if the box is large enough it will remain the same size, yet the blackhole in the center will appear to add extra space to the volume. In other words, without the blackhole it would take X time to get from one side to the other. With the blackhole, if we transverse the same distance, while going through the blackhole, it will take far longer to get to the other side. We may not even reach the other side but appear to stay suspended near the blackhole. From the point of view of our large box, the amount of space is about the same, if we avoid the blackhole. For example, we move along any surface of the large box, it will take about the time as before. What this means, is the blackhole has created an affect that increases the amount of space within the box, without making the outer walls of the box to expand outwards. They may actually come in slightly. One way to explain this is with reference magnification. Picture this, we have a 1cm puddle of pond water under a microscope. Without using the microscope, we can transverse the little puddle quickly since it is small. If we look through the microscope and then focus, so we can see one little one-cell critter, if we follow this critter from one side to the other, it would create the impression that the tiny puddle of water has gotten very large. Someone watching the microscope follow the critter, will see the microscope appearing to be stopped or barely moving. It would appear to take forever for the microscope to scan that tiny 1cm of distance. This is conceptually consistent with someone falling into a blackhole. Relative to our large box, which is analogous to the 1cm of water, as long as we bypass the magnification reference it remains the same size. But once we look into the micro world of the microscope (blackhole), we see a entirely different world where distances appear much larger. For us to move in that micro-world, it would appear like we are not moving to someone who is watching us from the point of view of no microscope. This makes conceptual sense in terms of the packing of matter. For example, if we look at cube of sugar, it is solid. If we magnify this, then we realize there is a lot of void space between the molecules. If we zoom in more, we realize that there is a lot of extra space between nuclei. If we zoom in further there is extra space between nucleons in the nucleus. If we zoom in even further there is now even extra space between all the substructure that makes up nucleons, etc. Because we can see this extra space, we are now able to occupy it or make use of it. The blackhole by magnifying reference, allows the most efficient use of space-time. It can pack matter which normally has a lot of void into highly efficient packing. SR can be understood as demagnification in the sense, that if we transverse the box, using a SR reference, the affect is opposite to the blackhole. Instead of just lingering at the blackhole, we get to the other side faster. SR creates a telescopic affect in space-time. It is sort of like looking through a telescope. If we scan the horizon, we can move great distances with very little effort. Someone looking at the telescope move will only see it move a few inches, but within the telescopes reference, we can move from galaxy to galaxy in short periods of time. The telescope affect is sort of what one sees in their distance contracted reference if they are moving near C. We get from point A to B and age very little. If we return to the question of matter containment and the beginning of the universe, the beginning was "maximum magnification Zulu". At max-mag, there is negligable space-time void between all the mass/energy. If we wish to create void space so we can get more diversity, we simply reduce the level of GR space-time magnification so more space appears. The expansion is demagnification, while GR is magnification. We focus the SR telescope reference onto the GR microscope reference and vice versa. Containment may be due to SR and GR maintaining a constant value???

Cultural environment can have an impact on what you chose to learn. Someone who has a high learning potential may chose to learn everything about cars. They still have a high learning potential but it is not focused on the book standard. To that person, when a professor brings in his car for service at his shop, he may think didn't this guy learn anything. Maybe it is genetic. The real reason is, the professor was motivated at a young age to learn from books instead of from mechanical experience. It would be interesting, instead of book learning as the only measure, extend learning comparisons over a wide range of things from hand-on, mechANICAL, arts, sports, etc.. If you do it that way, everyone is an idiot savant. the cultural environment combines with natural abilities. This sets the directions for our learning potential. This is what we get good at. Learning can occur through natural osmosis, where we just pick certain things up. Other learning involves osmotic pressure, i.e., education. For example, we can have two children that like autos. The seconf has a father who is an expert mechanic. The first child learns through osmosis. While the other can use both osmosis and osmotic pressure. The first may have to disassemble the alternator to see how it works. The second can see how his dad does it, who also explains others things. Without that extra osmotic pressure from his dad, he may only learn slower like the other. He is able to learn more, not because of being smarter. That is why a good coach or teacher can enhance anyones ability to learn. Relative to race, learning potential is probably very similar. What differs is the cultural environment and the amount of osmotic pressure to learn. Many of the kids have a limited environment with osmotic pressure pushing their learning potential down directions that don't equate with the book standard. Where the environment and osmotic pressure equate, the book standard is higher. This would indicate that certain cultures give better direction for learning so it equates with the book standard.

There is sort of truth to this statement. However, which Santa Claus is healthier for humans, free market Santa Claus, political Santa Claus, cultural Santa Claus etc., or religious Santa Claus? Any way we add it up, humans seem to have this need to believe in some type of myth, because these exercise parts of the brain. At the very least, it makes us use our imaginations. It stirs up feelings while allowing us to connect socially with people whose imagination and feelings tune into the same myth. None of these myths work if we try to rationalize them too much. People pick and chose which myths that will give a rational waiver too. If you look at religion and get past the symbolism, these are systems for govening the behavior of large groups of people. A free market myth gets us to the mall to buy and trade so we can get together with our friends to play, feel good about ourselves and maybe show off. The religious myth may get people doing charity work, instead. Irronically, what appears to be far more modern and rational on the surface, creates a less progressive group affect. The difference is connected to which buttons each myth pushes so it can create a certain social or group output affect. One possible way to compare myths is to compare output and then compare this to the history of human behavior to see if it is advanced, ancient or primative. Is it horse and buggy, or automobile behavior? The laws of the jungle type myth, that may be common to violent criminals; pre-humans probally did that 50,000 years ago, so that is horse behavior before there is was even a buggy. Fashion is a little more modern. It may have been something the cavemen did when they strutted with their fur coats. That may be horse behavior with a fur saddle, but not yet a buggy. It is an interesting exercise to connect so-called modern to the past to see how primative or advance various behaviors actully are. It is important to maintain social continuity to the past, but not assume that a social output affect is an advanced human behavior, and get stuck with a horse. Marriage is actually quite old (horse and buggy) but the alternative is more primative (horse). Advanced (car) would be a marriage based on the word of two people, without any social contract or any social pressure keeping them together in marriage. They would also be able to overcome all problems, distractions, and temptations that would tear them apart. That would be too modern for culture since the two majority myths would apply pressure to either go horse, or horse and buggy. This auto myth would still require a myth, but a unique myth shared by only these two. But that myth would be surrounded by two large myths, until it pops.

Higher CO2 levels will favor greater plant growth. This technique is already used in greenhouses to increase the production of plants. If I am not mistaken, the original experiment, that determined that plants make oxygen, placed plants in pure CO2. To make our oxygen atmosphere, it took at lot of CO2, if the current theory that plants made the earth's oxygen is correct. The O2 levels today are sort of steady state implying much less CO2 around. Higher CO2 may explain why the earth was so lush and supersized during the age of the dinosaurs. It is possible modern plants may have needed to evolve to deal with current skimpy CO2 levels. If we increase the CO2 then this high CO2 efficiency can kick into overdrive to make bigger and stronger plants until they eventually eat of the CO2 seed potato, and then go back to idle speed once again.