pioneer

I often wondered if we are blending two references when we discuss the expansion of the universe. For example, a blackhole is sort of a micro approximation of the beginning of the universe, in the sense, a lot of matter within a tiny spot, with extreme space-time contraction. From our reference, it only looks like a tiny place of extreme space-time contraction surrounded by vast space-time, which is very close to our own reference. Inside the blackhole's reference, it sees distance contracted into its extreme distance contracted reference. Is it possible that sitting on the primordial atom gives us the blackhole's view, that is used to support the traditional expanding bubble analogy. But since the universe that we know is not infinite but finite, its origin was sort of a mega blackhole, surrounded by what would be an infinite zone of zero reference. The double reference standard begins when we explain the history of the expansion. If the bubble is true, than the only reference was on the distance contracted reference of the bubble. Yet we hop back to our zero reference and measure the expansion as though space was already here. In other words, the first 100 year of analysis is based on our reference. Our reference should not yet exist when things are still so dense, such that 100 years would have taken an entirely different amount of time in the bubble universe reference. The bubble should have been the only reference for things to occur, yet we catalog events in a zero reference, which we then say did not yet exist during the expansion. One should not be able to have it both ways at the same time. An analogy would be watching, the unlikely event, of a blackhole expanding. In our zero reference, it might appear to take say a day. But what the blackhole will see is the entire process occurring differently since it begins with extreme time dilation with its reference never in one spot. We need to pick one or the other and remain true to only one reference. If we use zero reference to determine how fast things had to occur, then that assumes zero reference was around at the beginning. If zero reference was not around, then the time scale for all the steps of the expansion is much different that what we currently assume since the only reference was that of the bubble at a given point in the expansion. It is sort of like wanting to have your cake and eating it at the same time.

The old moonshine still was a reflux/distillation apparatus. They would use a copper coil, due to it high thermal conductivity, to condense some of the spirits. This then flows back down the coil into the boiling pot. This downward flow strips water out of the upcoming stream so the stuff coming out the end, although a smaller stream, could get even richer in alcohol. By controlling the reflux level, one can sort of control how strong the shine will shine. Strong shine may only be a slow drip with most of it going back down the coil, i.e., reflux. I remember as a child my friend's grandfather make his Armenian Rhorhkie (spelling??). It grew all types of fruit and would collect them to make his rhorhkie in the fall. When he was making it, he would burn a little amount, to test purity, until it would burn with a nice blue flame. After he died, my friend's father, who was his Grandfather's son-in-law, took over the tradition. He didn't really have the same reflux skill. When he would burn his yuckie, it would burn yellow and make smoke. He did not have enough reflux, causing higher boilers to come up the coil. His grandfather figured the secret out intuitively and never it passed on. I didn't understand his trade secret, until chemical engineering school.

Point well made and taken. I was going to use GR, but we have the event horizon of a blackhole making infinite wavelength not-energy.

If you look at energy, such as any wavelength of the EM spectrum, if we multiply the wavelength times the frequency we end up with the speed of light. Infinite wavelength energy can not be energy, since infinity times zero frequency is a mathematical discontinuity. If it existed it would be something that would not be energy in the traditional sense. It could travel still at C but have neither mass or energy value. Here is some interesting logic, based on the assumption that infinite wavelength not-energy, due to the mathematical discontinuity, exists. If we wanted to turn this not-energy particle back into energy, we would need to shorten its wavelength from infinity and/or increase its frequency from zero, so we can get it to multipy to C. A blueshift would allow this ,by shrinking the wavelength so that energy appears.

Anti-matter is a misnomer that leads to confusion. The only thing that is anti is charge. The matter part is essentially the same for both. If you look at the electron and positron, they have the same mass but only difffer by charge. Since the anti only technically reflects two charges, then electrons and protons are matter and anti-matter from different families. In the traditional sense of the term matter and anti-matter, in light of where did all the anti-matter go, does that mean the beginning of the universe had 1000 or 1,000,000 times more mass/energy to account for anhillation? In other words, what we see should only be the tiny fraction that remained. There should be primal anhillation energy floating around. If the cosmic background microwaves is the primal energy, is that all we got out of all that matter-antimatter anhilliation. Skimpy yield. Based on that traditional anti-matter should have been less than 1%. It makes far more sense, since there is only positive matter and no negative matter, than matter-antimatter simply swapped charges until the most stable states appeared, which is the anti cousins in hydrogen. This high efficiency would give off much less energy, which is observed. In other words, there is something inherent in the proton and electron that makes these far more stable then anti-proton and the positron. The positive charge appeared to have found more stablity with extra mass. While negative charge found much more stability with slight mass.

Phase velocity I believe is sort of the affect we get during refraction, such as when light bends in water. The light enters the material. Light creates an alternating electric field that will cause electrons or charge to vibrate, trying to align with this alternating field. This gives off energy that will be slightly out of phase with the incoming light wave. This will subtract from the original waves without alterring the phase frequency. The final composite wave (frequency time wavelength) appears to go slower than the speed of light. It does not. It is a composite affect. The affect theses scientiists may have created is where the material increases the phase velocity without alterring the frequency, such that wavelength times frquency muliples to greater than the speed of light. This is interesting, since the material will need to get ahead of the phase of the electric field that is being generated by the light. One possible way this might be occur is a falling behind will cause the wave phase to eventually get in front of the incoming wave. For example, if I was running on a track and a faster runner passed me, I would fall behind. But as he catches up again, after already lapping me, I will be ahead, if we do not take into consideration the very first cycle. Visually, the refraction would bend, bend, bend, then poof, faster than C??? At least the wavelength time frequency would be greater than C.

Believing in myths has two different aspects. There are myths like Santa Claus, which most people outgrow since they are obvious enough for the average person to figure out and see through. But there are other myths that are far more subtle. Many of these require maintaining an emotional rapport, so the mind is not able to work properly and see through it. For example, bottled water. People began to panic about tap water and a market was created for bottle water. At about 1000 times the cost you too could be at the cutting edge of social evolution. It turned out, the way the law was written, one can include a high very percent of tap water. Yet the myth, perpetuated with fear and conformity made people believe that this expensive water was magic water from a pure stream. Marketing knows how people are ,and tries to create social myths to peddle products. I remember I had a bottle of water I left in the fridge for some time. I started to drink it and I could taste outgassing from the plastic container. When the water is certified safe, this is before it enters that plastic bottle. So the myth exposed many people to plasticizers from bottled water containers. The problem with these subtle myths is often truth looks like the myth. If someone told you tap water was as safe as bottled water, this would have been the truth, since many brands had tap water. in fact, tap water was found to contain much lower levels of bacteria. Instead the myth was considered the truth, and this inconvenient truth was only a myth. What I thought was rather funny was San Francisco banned bottled water. The reason was it created conflicted with another myth and one had to go. We always tend to chose the most current myth since it is shinier. It turned out drinking bottle water had a huge carbon footprint. The latter is the cutting edge in social myths, so this was chosen, being so shiny. The first type of myth, like Santa Claus, although not true, does create a certain feeling of excitement and anticipation in children. The second type of myth is more geared toward adults, to do the same type of thing.

Evolution is about genetic changes but it is also about the environment setting the potentials that direct the types of changes that will occur. For example, antibiotics are chemicals that have eliminated many harmful bacteria while also changing the inner environment so stronger more resistant strong could evolve and gain selective advantage. Before antibiotics, the bacteria that could profilerate the quickest had the selective advantage and would sort of squeeze out ones that could not. The anitbiotics did a good job getting rid of these pests, but in doing so changed the environment to where certain resistant strains, which once got pushed out by other bacteria, now had more room to grow. Medicines helped alterred the environment so superstrains could come to the front. We need to keep one step ahead by alterring the environment. Based on this observation of how the environment can affect the type of strains that evolve, maybe we can use this to our advantage. What would happen if we catered to a harmless bacteria that was able to grow faster than all others. This good bacteria could make it harder for harmful strains which try to enter its territory. The problem with could create is a constant immune response. However, there are many helpful bacteria in the digestive tract, for instance, that the body seems to tolerate without needing to constantly fight. Maybe these have certain characteristics that tell the body these are allies.

I rarely wear seat belts unless I feel a need an urge to wear one. I remember many years ago, I was taking a long trip from the NorthEast US to Tennessee. I left late, and ended up driving through a Nor'easter snow storm working it way north. The going was rough and I lasted about 8 hours driving in the blizzard. I eventually pulled over and took a nap at a truck stop. I awoke about an hour later, due to cold, and started again. By this time the storm had gone north of me, but the roads were still snow and ice. I had a premonition to put my seatbelt on. I hadn't wore it during the worse of the storm. I simply ignorred the feeling, since the conditions were much better. But the gut feeling kept nagging at me until I started to feel I needed to listen. About 15 minutes later, I became part of a multiple car pile-up down this icy hill, that totalled my car. I remember when I was about to impact, I lifted my hands in the air to test the seatbelt, to see how good it would work. It was sort of silly, but the young scientist I was, I decided this was good time to collect data. After I bounced off the seatbelt, I remember wishing I had been going a little faster so i could have had a better test of the belt. I figured, if I was suppose to get hurt, I would not have had the premonition. In the end, I was left totally unharmed and spent from 4AM to 6AM standing out in the icy cold waiting for the police to come and fill out a report. Nowadays they would have airlifted me unharmed, to help drive up the medical costs. To this day I only use seatbelts if I have a gut feeling that I may need it Now I have airbags. These make me drive safer, since I don't feel too good about getting punched by the wind bag, while it does 90mph. I have a brother who had a convertible sports car. When we was a teen, he was racing a friend and missed a turned and rolled the car. He was not wearing a seatbelt. Luckily for him, since he would have been decapitated. As it was, he was thrown onto a lawn and only suffered a broken wrist and a punctured kidney. That was one case a seatbelt would have taken a life.

One theory I have about the uncertainty principle has to do with the speed of an electron. It travels about 1/14 the speed of light more or less. So when we look at an atom, the nucleus is on our reference and the electron is in slight relativistic reference. When we try to measure an electron, we assume one reference, so it is not exactly where it should be. For example, say a relativistic train passed by, it would look distance contracted to us. If we assume it is in our reference and did not take into consideration special relativity, it was alway be too narrow to explain how it can cause an affect, before we see its leading edge visually appears to get there. Back during the time of Heisenburg, they did not yet know the speed of an electron. He was a good scientist and would not have attempted to speculate. He stuck with the observation and let that speak for itself.

Most of my life I considered myself part of the liberal movement. It was only over the past few years that I decided to go against them. It has to do with the original positive charter having become very regressive. I am not a conservative, by try to stay sort of in the middle. Back in the 1960's and early 1970's the liberals were part of the "love generation". They actually set the ethical standards higher. Let me give one example. Back then divorce was still quite rare. But there were some women in very difficult situations, due to abusive husbands. But there was a social stigmatism against divorce. It was not just their own self that felt social shame, but the shame could extend to their family, as the gossip minded neighbors would add self rightoeusness to the misery. The original liberal movement tried to open people's mind's to love and acceptance. It was not pro-divorce, per se, but tries to protect those who needed to take that step, against moral self righteousness. The morality of the day was old fashion, i.e., old testament, and the love generation was much more connected to the new testament teachings of Jesus; love and forgiveness. This set the bar of ethics high and culture shifted. But unfortuneately, the bar didn't stay high for long, but started to lower further and further, until today, divorce is treated like a form of dating. It was not originally intended to break the family but protect the needy. The bar is lower now than what the liberals fought against in the 1960's. If you trace most of the progressive social changes, which once set higher social standards, they all have seemed to have regressed to a standard that is now so low, you can't help but trip over the bar. Part of this change, began in the late 1970's and was connected to the disco era. The love generation had done its social service, the Viet Nam War was over, so the times began to change. These times were more for the new lust generation, that was fuel with cocaine. The push today toward safe sex and don't do drugs, may be due to that generation doing enough of both for two generations. Asked your liberal parents. By then, the gays were now more socially accepted. The letting out of the closet during this time, led to 100,000 gay AIDS deaths. The liberals are in a state of denial about this to avoid accepting any responsiblity. The high ethical bar set by loving social acceptance, became a free ticket to degenerate. It is sort of like a teenager getting his parents to get used to the idea of him driving the car, by showing how responsible he was. Once the parents gives in, now it was time to act like a fool. But by then it is too late to take the keys away, since the teen now needs the car. To the liberal mind anything stable is suspect, they are the only pure people. What also began to happen was a stronger movement toward aethiesm. What this allowed was the removal of all ethical standards so the bar could drop just about as far it could go, without any sense of moral guilt. How could one degenerate in peace if a God might be watching. At the beginning one protected accused criminals against getting being rail roaded by a justice system that sometimes, had built in bias. But as time went on, protecting the criminal was a way to protect themselves. History seems to indicate that liberal good intention reaches a peak, which actually moves things to a higher level for a short time. But they can't seem to sustain that high standard, but use it as an excuse to regress. Save the environment is a noble cause. But it then leads to an excuse to be a butthead that can now interfere anywhere it wants. The liberal organization is the Democratic party, mainstream media and Hollywood. They control most of the educational system. They encourage failure with high emotional but low intellectual standards. The idea appears to stupid/degenerate the youth so they are easier to control. A part of me can still see what liberalism once was, but what they have become is lower than that which they originally tried to change. What the rest of the world sees as the failure of America are due to liberal doctrine and that well oil liberal propaganda puppet, call the American media.

Myths is my chief complaint with empiricsm. This is less of a problem to the trained specialists who run the studies. But often a correlation becomes mass marketed as a fact of life, and becomes a social myth. Let me give an example. The data shows that seatbelts save lives. So we encourage people to wear seatbelts. What the data really says is, if one has an accident wearing a seatbelt, they are much better off than someone not wearing one. If I drive all day and not have an accident, the seatbelt did not save my life. I was useless on that day. Yet the myth is the seatbelt is constantly saving my life, so I need to wear it at all times. For the average person, the seatbelt may never save their life, since the average person may never have such a serious accident, yet one is conditioned to think it is saving their life each day. Law enforcement, uses this myth, so they can raise revenue, with everyone happy they forced another person to believe in their social myth; we just saved your life. The invention of the airbag should have got rid of the myth. The airbag only works in situations when the risk is real, due to some contact. We don't have to pretend it is saving our life each day, by driving with it open. But inspite of the technology upgrade, the seatbelt myth remains, even when a person is surrounded by 1-6 airbags. One can still get pulled over for not wearing the seal belt, even though it is retro technology. This should be a valid seatbelt fine couter-argument, but the myth forbids it. A full electrically insulted bubble suit can saves lives during lightning. This may be shown to be over 5000 times more effective during lightning compared to not wearing it. One may even prove this in the lab. Do we all need to wear this new bubble suit all the time? Even when you sleep, one needs to wear their lightning suit, because once a lightning bolt hit a house and enterered the electrical system. So there is risk, which can be reduced by 5000 times, if we always wear the bubble suit. Common sense is not allowed nor is the risk put into perpective. The numbers are presented in a way that makes people fear even slight risk. Yet science, will keep quiet and not put it into rational perspective to break a myth. I should not have presented the bubble suit example, since liberals might run with it and force feed this to everyone, through some type of law. Then there will be a real risk of getting pulled over for a fine. This will then reinforce the fear concern of the so-called experts, until the myth sticks. Where is science helping to keep people rational to avoid myths? Either they participate irrationally, or they benefit by keeping it alive.

Baking soda and vinegar water will work but requires a slight trick to help slow down the reaction rate. If you have ever taking a time release aspirin or vitamin, the slow release is done with a binding material that will dissolve very slowly, allowing the slow release of the active material. You mix baking soda with s binder and press it tightly into a block. The block will gives off the CO2 at a controlled rate, when dropped in vinegar water. One might google medicine slow release binders. There are also slow release fertilizer pellets for plants. This binder will also work. One might even contact a vender like Miracle-Gro as ask them to send you some. Say it is for a school science project. They like to help young scientists.

Ever since I could remember, I associated selective advantage with an improvement in genetics. But quite recently, a basic observation seems to indicate that selective advantage can also come from regressive genetics. The easiest example to see is to compare the dinosaurs to the mammals. Most would agree that mammals have more advanced genetics. The data indicates that during the latter part of the dinosaur's dominance, mammals had already evolved, yet the dinosaurs had selective advantage since they remained at the top of the food chain. What it amounted to was less evolved genes having selective advantage over evolved genes. If one was a mammal in that environment, progressive genetic traits could actually create a selective disadvantage. For example, additional rapport with the environment for food exploration could result in curiosity killing the cat, as dinosaurs and snake sit very still waiting in ambush. Peditor dinosaurs would also hear rustling of sticks for easier prey. Selective advantage would require the mammals dumb down and stay still so they can ambush smaller creatures that walk by. Increases sensitivity in the skin and fur which is important for awareness, although genetic advanced, would make one more vulnerable to cuts and pain. Selective advantage would go to thick leathery hides with very few nerves. A mammal would have selective advantage if could deevolve their genes more like the tough skin of a lizard. This would make you less vulnerable to dinasaur attack/cuts and prevent pain from giving away you position while you try to heal. Even a warm rapport with the environment, which is advanced, could get one into all types of problems with dinosaurs having selective advantage. Selective advantage would require regression to almost cold blooded. In a world were regressive dinosaur genes had selective advantage, the selective advantage among the mammals, within that environment, would favor regressive genes. The exception may be sensory improvement. But behavioral genes would give selective advantage to regressive genes. As a modern example, the human mind is the most evolved feature. Dictators like Stalin, had a intellectual purge, so the environment would favor more regressive behavior associated with violence. The selective advantage was not associated with progressives genes, but regressive. The idea of selective advantage equaling genetic advancement does occur but the history of dinosaurs and early mammals show the opposite can also be true, with selective advantage also going to the regressive genes.

Seeds, like all of level of life uses potential gradients. The food for the seed, and the proteins of what will become the seedling, have two different energy values. The food is higher in calories due to starches and the little sprout is lower in calories due to protein and DNA, etc. This is the potential gradient. What happens the gradient potential lowers with the food being used up and the seedling growing. It is more complicated than that, but do a simple energy balance before and after and one can see that the potential gradient lowers over time. All we need to do is just add is water. The water provides hydrogen bonding, which is the way life connects its potentials for useable work. The seedling itself, is set up as a gradient potential. The top or leaves uses the potential created by the sun and the bottom the potential in the soil. The mature plant then uses this gradient potential to help induce smaller scale potential gradients, for the seeds of the next generation. If we mess with these gradients, no matter how good the genetics, one can end up with runt plants that produce runt seeds. A few bad generations without good gradients and genetics will begin to reflect this. Anyone who grows plants how how important the potential between the light source and the soil is for proper plant growth. If you have bad soil and poor lighting, even good genetics looks like poor genetics.

I believe that there are blackholes. I do not believe any have reached the level of singularity. If a blackhole had the point reference of a singularity, it would be analgous to a speed of light reference, which should require infinite mass/energy. Blackholes are finite, since these can form without anywhere near that much mass/energy. Look at it this way. If a blackhole was a point-singularity and you added the same amount of mass again, from which it stemmed, does it become a 1/2 point? In other words, it is still trying to reach the point limit. Since this is speculations, I will speculate what is inside a finite blackhole. If you start with a neutron star, this is sort of close packing of neutrons. The substructure of the neutrons are still contained within neutron shells, so to speak, which allows us to calculate the density of that packed state. To get denser, some substructure needs to leave distinct neutrons. We sort of skinny the neutrons down by making what is inside, come outside. A loose analogy is reacting two atoms to form a molecule. As an atom, the electrons give it a unique size/structure. As the number of electrons that share increases, i.e., single, double, triple, bonds, etc., the two atoms that once took up more space, can now get closer and closer. I don't know all my substructure well enough to tell you which comes out first, so the skinning down of the barrier structures, can approach closer and closer. The way would I approach that is too look at the history of accelerator data. The early experiments were less energetic. This stuff might be first to get sort of kick out of barrier containment. The more advanced data may reflect the stuff that gets kicked out of barrier containment almost near the end. When it is all said and done, the inside of a blackhole could be sort of like what it would look like, if one was sitting inside a neutron, but without the barriers of neutron density; a continuum of substucture which may be somewhat different that what we currently know.

One can make heavy water using only a couple of basic principles of science. First heavy water contains D, T and not just H. The extra neutrons implies these isotopes of hydrogen are heavier. This will make the heavy water heavier than regular water. So let us use this to our advantage. Since heavy water and regular water is so close in weight, and since water has binding forces that will prevent separation of density, we need to overcome this with a little trick. The simpliest way is electrolysis to make H2, HD, D2, etc.. Now the percentage weight differences are much higher. Here is what you do, you take this gas mixture and let it diffuse down a long pipe. Since H2 is the lightest, it will get to the end first. The HD will be next and then the D2 will be last. The binding forces between hydrogen gas is very weak so they will diffuse more or independantly. Then you take some of the O2 from the electrolysis, and react it with the collected D2, to make D2O. The yield will be tiny and it may not be pure; it gives you plump water.

Life does not increase entropy. Life is a phenomena that decreases entropy. For example, a tree uses CO2, water and minerals. The CO2 can float in the atmosphere for 75 years or so. That is a lot of entropy. Once the plant gets it, it is fixed into a cellulose structure for 100 years. Another good example is the duplication of the DNA. This is nearly perfect. The 0.01% or less changes get all the attention as mutations. This tiny bit is the only entropy in the DNA's duplication. It is only a tiny loss relative to all the molecules that combine into the DNA. Nearly all these base-triphosphates are moving toward lowest enthalpy and lowest entropy. This lowering of enthalpy is assisted by the lowering of energy associated with perfect hydrogen bonding. Stable eco-systems have little disorder or entropy, such that everything is integrated. Even a little disorder, i.e., pertubation, can have an impact on the eco-system. But the eco-system will adjust itself so it can once again lower this entropy. If we start with the soup of life before there was any life, this was the state of maximum entropy. All the small molecules can freely float and collide in the water, in sort of a random way with very little order. As order begins to forms, by whatever mechanism, the entropy begins to decrease. Stable implies lower energy states or states of lowered enthlapy and entropy. That has been the direction of life. For example, the human body is the most complicated body of them all. It fully integrates a lot of biology in a very ordered way. Yet we only seem to focus on the 0.01% disorder and base all our theories on that. The life sciences get too empirical, precluding reason and common sense. The disorder of life is the acception; order is the rule of life. Theory needs to address the rule. If you look at selective advantage in any shape or form, that makes a new center onto which order in the environment integrates around. The evolution of the eye allows energy input to focus/order even better. It does not make the light scatter with increasing chaos. The progression of the brain adds further orders to this, by fixing this focused energy input into memories. Even those memories become orderred so we can make sense of what we see and know.

A male's perception of female beauty is a combination of instinct and cultural conditioning. For example, back in the 1950's the ideal woman was full figured. Within a few decades this changed to females who were a lot slimmer. The one parameter that didn't change was a pretty face. Although, in the 1960's the natural looking face was considered beautiful, while now the pretty face has more make-up, ie., extra pretty. Women are sort of moving back to the full figure, where a little extra weight and maybe breast enhancements are added to the affect. This is a little different in the sense that males traditionally set the parameters. In this case, the parameters are being set by the women for the men. The choice is being narrowed down until this is considered beauty. The males are still in the game, trying to maintain the movie star ideal. There may be a biological reason for this male ideal. If you think about it logically, the natural fertility of females and males is connected to youth. Very few 21 year olds are worrying about their biological clock. During youth almost all people are slimmer compared to what they will be as they grow older. It is just a fact. So a male's instinctive ideal would be projected onto youthful fertility; slim looking increases those odds. Beside being slimmer while we are young, a pregnant female will put on weight. If a male was even a dumb animal, this bigger looking woman would be a dead end, with respect to possible procreation at that time. Slimmer also means she is not pregnant and more likely to be fertile. This is only the male's instinctive impression of beauty, since after one meets woman, one can get hard data with respect to potential fertility. Often other parameters, like someone who would be a good mother and mate, can weigh higher than a quick instinctive first assessment. But it remains. This male instinct appears induced by instinctive software connected to natural male desire. Culture can influences this, changing the parameters. Now both males and females are setting parameters.

One question I have about animal rights is, do animal rights also apply between animals? What laws are there to protect gazelles from lions? I do not believe in hurting animals. I love animals and they seem to like me. But if one hurts me first, it has violated my animal rights, since humans are part of the animal kingdom. Do I have the right to defend myself, or if caught by surprise and injured, can I come back later and recipricate with my own surprise? An eye for an eye, plus 10% victim bonus. A dog can terrorize children and get away with it. It can even bite a few times and get away with that. If one tries to retaliate, a dual standard seems to come into play. Animal rights seems to fit the mold of many liberal laws, which set a dual standard, which only applies to one group. What are the right and obligations of all animals groups?

When you think about what viri can do, and in this case what a bacteria can do, i.e., insert genes, while also taking into consideration how efficient cells are at duplicating the DNA, it is a wonder the random mutation theory lasted as long as it did. Maybe it was due to some type of legal contract. Most chemical things that affect the DNA usually do more harm than they do good. This should have raised at least a yellow flag with respect to the very slow progression theory of genetic mutations. Part of the problem may have been due to the need to fill in time. A theory using viral or bacterial genetic insertions for mutations would mean fast genetic changes and could theoretically outpace the slow progress of the evolutionary data, which appears to be better supported by the slower selective advantage/mutation theory. One way to explain how fast genetic progression can be slowed down to fit the data, can be explained by the environment setting the standard for change. For example, if you look back at the age of dinosaurs, things were supersized. In modern times, animals have shunk in relative size. The advantage of a smaller size is a much lower food/water requirement, while also allowing a better brain/body ratio. A smaller size has a greater range of adaptation, if the food supply varies. If in the age of the dinosaurs, one of the dinos mutated into a smaller size, with a more modern brain to body ratio, even though this will be the direction of the future, in a stable dinosaur environment, this would be more of a selective disadvantage than selective advantage. In other words, from a genetic point of view, this little body is the future, but from an environmental point of view, it makes this future animal a lightweight in the land of heavy weight champions. That environment could give selective advantage to the less evolved genetics of larger dinosaurs. In terms of a real example, mammals were around during the latter stages of the dinosaurs. In terms of genetics, they were far more advanced. But this advanced genetics did not give them a selective advantage in an environment that was dominated by the less genetically evolved dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were still the top of the food chain. It took some drastic climate change to alter the environment so the advanced genetics of the mammals, gave them a selective advantage. As such, even if viri and bacteria advanced the DNA quickly, often a stable environment based on less advanced genetics, may still have the selective advantage, such that a genetic advance may not establish itself. If the little dino had mutated to only 90% size, this may have made it more agile and quicker, while still allowing it to be a heavy weight. It is not as advanced, genetically, as the little dino with his modern brain to body ratio, but it may have more advantage in the environment. The result may be that stable eco-systems will favor only smaller advances.

If you ever tried to roll paper, the strongest tube is going to be tightly rolled, almost to a solid; skinny like a lolli-pop stick. Since the paper is 28cm, you will need four of these taped together to get 1M. One long lollipop stick may not stand, so you need to make three 1M lollipop sticks, from your paper and use the strong shape of a pyamid. Make it very close at the base, so you better support the weight vertically and get the height. You will need some tape for the base so it won't spread. This gives you only 21cm width to roll up 4x3 skinny tubes, for all three legs, You will also need to save some tape to splice your 3x(4x28cm) sections. The paper is light so the strength of your beams should be strong enough. If rolling the paper is too time consuming, a faster way is to keep folding the width of a strip in half with sharp creases; maybe placing a weight on the paper after each fold so the paper can relax.

The discontinuity of evolutionary data should not be glossed over, because it can lead to interpretation problems. For example, say you decided to keep a journal of a child's life from birth to age 21. Each day you enter the important things that happened. This is continuous data. Ask somone to randomly pick 100 pages from this journal, distributed over the 21 years of records, and from only this data, explain why the person is like he is. If he had a car accident at age 15 and you don't happen to pick this, it would not be part of your equation. Maybe his girfriend left him at june 6, on his 18tth years. This is also important data that may be chosen during random data selection. The theory one might come up with, would be consistent with the data that was chosen, but it may or may not be the reality of the situation. The data may suggest the environment was not a factor. But in reality, the environmental affects that were overlooked by the data, may have been the primary reasons for why he is what he is. One may then decide it must be some type of chemical imbalance due to his genetics. Genetics sort of gets used like a trump card, to answer any type of mystery. Selective advantage does a little better, since the young man had to adapt to the environmental changes, which in turn, induced changes in him. This was his best way he could cope. If you look at this in terms of thermodynamics, selective advantage sort of amounts to the lowest energy state with respect to the new environment. In other words, it is the most stable state, thereby allowing it to remain. If we scale this up to include mutations, in the light of stable selective advantage, the only mutations worth their weight in gold, are the most stable states, dictated by the environment in which they evolve in. If it is not stable in an environment, it will expire due to the potential of the environment, i.e., lion appearing in north canada. It sort of amounts to the environment setting the parameters for selective advantage. This determines which mutations can stick. What sticks has an impact on the environment setting new environmental parameters. This then determines which mutations have a shot at the next round of selective advantage. For example, if a human had mutated during the dinosaurs, even though it is more advanced in most ways, it might not survive. The bandwidth is tight so the process bulids up in a way that is like a continuous evolution. We can see this with bacteria as the medicine environments change. Big environmental changes opens the door wider for selective mutations. The whole thing amount to an esculating thermodynamic potential. If you sort of bottom line life, plants absorb energy from the sun and animals use oxygen, induced because of the sun, to burn solar energy that has been stored on the earth within the plants. If you consider what humans do, we not only burn food, but fossils fuels. Or the sun got way ahead of the equation on earth, accumulating solar potential as fossil fuel, until human's finally turned the tide in the earth's direction. We may have gone too far on the side of the earth. Now we are trying to reach a balance. This balance will then be the potentials for selective mutations. There is a big jump from solar energy and the earth's oxidation potential to genetics. Yet these two potentials sort of dictate what is possible. For example, the solar energy at the equator is very high tending to slant the equation a little more in the direction of the solar energy storage. Then we have weather, which is another solar and earth equilibrium. If there is not enough rain, then the solar energy sort of loses its edge due to forest fires or due to animals eating the sparse plants until deserts begin to appear. That is now the local sun-earth balance for further selective mutations.

Honesty in relationship has objective and subjective factors. The objective factors of honesty are real situations and real data, that have occurred, since the relationship was solidified. What came before this, is somewhat optional, since it can be interpretted subjectively and cause problems. For example, you meet someone you have determine is a good person. If they tell you they were once in jail, you might stop judging them in real time, and start judging them subjectively via this retro data. This type of honesty may do less damage by not volunteering it, unless asked by someone who appears to be in a rational state of mind. If asked by a person with an irrational state of mind, retro honesty can be used to add fuel an irrational state of mind, carrying the past into the present. There are certain things you want to know, but once you know them, this can cause an irrational fixation in some people. It brings the past outside the relationship, subjectively into the present relationship, and creating a false reality which can cause subjective problems for some people. Others can handle this in a more objective way, allowing them to see where you came from, and the things that you did and overcame, which have molded you, in who are are today. This type of person can usually handle negative retro. There is also subjective honesty. If I like oranges and not apples, and someone bakes me a blue ribbon apple pie, and asked if I liked it, being honest, based on my subjective bias, can result in problems. Saying the pie was sickening, could be interpretted as the pie being substandard, and not the fact that control over my neurotic tendancies is substandard. The pie was sickening is not objective honesty, since it is based on some irrational foundation. In this case, if one says it was good, this is subjective dishonesty, but at least it does more good than harm. The addendum to this may be, I am neurotic and can not eat apples, with as much pleasure as I would like to, so one piece of pie is plenty. This adds healthy objective honesty, to a subjective honesty/dishonesty dilemma that is lose-lose. The problem is, most people don't know where subjective and objective blend, either within themselves or within others. That being said, try to act in a way that does no objective honesty harm, and feedback subjective honesty in a way that edifies. Also try to overcome all your neurotic bias, by learning to live by the standards set by positive feedback. There is also constructive feedback honesty that is partly objective and partly subjective. This type of honesty, for positive affect, requires tact. A guy may say, do you think I am losing my hair? He is actually saying is my getting bald making me less attractive in your eyes? One might say, you are not losing your hair, it is now growing on your back? Sometime humor works good with men since he will realize how silly he is being. You still can play like children in love. The woman may ask, do you think this dress makes me look fat? She is asking am I getting too big such that I am less attractive to you? The guy would like her to lose some weight but doesn't want to be critical. The guy might say, you are beautiful and I love you more now. But maybe your right, that dress doesn't do you justice. Does it comes in a bigger size? Getting ready for damage control, but the seed has been planted.

One good example of faith leading to progressive change was the American Revolution. America was the place one could go for religious freedom. The founding fathers based their concept of a progressive form of government, by the people, on the principles of Christian-Judeo. What they had to do was go against a superpower with a bunch of militia. They were prepared for the worse but hoped their sacrifice would lead to a change. They were not only fighting a world super power, but also thousands of years of tradition based on monarch rule. But in the end, their faith turned the tide, leading to the modern era. What is wrong in America today, based on the world view, is not connected to the teachings of religion, but on the power of reason. Smart people use their power of reason to build a cultural personna and that is spreading across the world, threatening the identities of cultures. Don't get me wrong, reason is beneficial to seeing and discovering reality. Just any cultural personna is not entirely rational but is also subjective. To be consistent with Dawkins even cultural identity is a threat to reason. Its benefit is entirely subjective, based on what you define as important.