Opinions 2005 AD (News + Current Events)
"When a human lights a match, are the photons made at the time or were the
photons always there?"
-Ted Huntington
Other quotes from me
12-31-05 I am in awe of the universe, not the human made religions. Bush family the USA "Papa" and "Baby Doc" Duvaliers.
12-28-05 Pakistani muders 4 children because of shame, but what about shame of homicide?
12-27-05 Rise of religion a victory of evil over good, extorsion of Glitter
12-25-05 I look forward to an end to Christmas, and even winter solstace traditions
12-24-05 Pupin and Hemholtz, did the Nazis hear thoughts?
12-23-05 I might get fired from my job.
12-22-05 If spectral lines are only from electrons changing orbits, what about the photons that come from the protons and neutrons when an atom, for example Hydrogen and oxygen are separated into light from simple combustion? How does light leave protons and neutrons? However they do people in mainstream science will continue to ignore it.
12-17-05 Michael Pupin probably was the first to see "eyes" (behind people's head at what they see), that was the "PP" people hinted about
12-16-05 Another death threat extra do-nothing "eye net" gawking please, questions about popular science theories
12-15-05 "Raman effect" could be why the most distant galaxies are red shifted, photoelectric effect=photons causing release of electron or replacing electron?
12-05-05 In a thousand planets, not one this dumb
11-28-05 Infidel Guy, Reggie Finely "Infidel Family" on ABC Wife Swap tonight
11-17-05 The Usual
11-15-05 Static Atom Modeling + Planet Moves Star
11-08-05 Voting
10-26-05 I guess no hurry for RFK, century remembered as 'everybody lies about eyes century', against all the pressure somehow many people still choose nonviolence, D-Link+Global Fullfillment Services+Young America malicious activity/money scam
10-20-05 Saddam/Bush "never pulled trigger" defense, Miers, violence down, tolerance for people with nonviolent "mental/behavioral" disabilities.
10-17-05 Photons through a prism again (this time using Snell's law) but with photons only changed at transitions
10-14-05 Photons through a prism (or pretend particles through pretend objects), future political charts, reality about current group of "liberals", monetary penalties for those in the eye network to those excluded, Oprah Orwell, new levels of dullness
10-08-05 ULSF questions
10-07-05 Interesting questions about the nature of photon and atom interactions. Experiment ideas (can we red shift calcium light on earth?).
10-06-05 Clusters of Glaxies do not look like galaxies, and galaxies do not look like star systems, etc. "The Terror" and the "War on Terror". Low cost VCR head cleaning secret exposed. When matter gets close, it takes off.
10-03-05 Heavier matter goes to center. Future of sex matches when people lighten up. Arrest of Natalia McLennan for prostitution in NY with potential for 15 years in jail is excessive and brutal.
09-28-05 Nastiness is the usual expression from those in the eyeball net. Piracy of the public. A total free info society that results in 20 "Frito-Lay" companies
09-27-05 I am glad for and fully support the peace marches.
09-26-05 New insights revealed about Bush jr to lower popularity ratings? The mystery of what really happened to those on Flight 77 since clearly the Pentagon was hit with a missile, not a 757.
09-22-05 Enough with Leahy and Landrieu, in 1992 I thought I might be Jesus
09-21-05 It's those warm and cheery conservatives!
09-16-05 I wish JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Nicole Simpson lived on, Fiorini, Earl Ray, Cesar, Chapman, and OJ (if he tried to kill or succeeded in killing Nicole, which I think the evidence shows he did) had not
09-15-05 Moon impacts made by spherical objects?
09-13-05 Our daily reality: an enormous universe with countless planets and the unseen drama of trillions of living societies
09-12-05 Sunspots, venus, making any atom
09-08-05 Same gender marriage will probably be vetoed, but when does the public get to vote? End of Supreme Court, and any thought of justice in the USA. Are most people against involuntary drugging? Are most people against hospitalizing without trial or sentence?
09-07-05 Mike Moore believes in psychology, but I would like to see more support for real science and against involuntary treatment.
09-06-05 Many liberals may not know that Chili's and Macaroni Grill are owned by ultra conservative Dallas Texas republican white male only funding humans
08-28-05 People will eventually want to talk with me. Other news: Pat Robertson, Christian Leader and supporter of first degree homicide.
08-21-05 Life on earth, a 4 billion year unbroken chain
08-14-05 The time will come when seeing and hearing thought are exposed to the public, what will happen then?
08-10-05 When you light that lighter or match...no nukes buddy! or perhaps go nukes...because you are separating atoms of oxygen and butane into photons and guess what? that includes the neutrons and protons of their nuclei since they are completely destroyed. Why don't the physicists tell us that? Why does only our ol' friend Ted tell us? Democrats should pipe up and establish firmly a second side and very effective counter to the republican propaganda. Why do the democrats only play softball while the republicans appear to run the show without even 1 objection?
07-31-05 Economy recovering, anti-drug million dollar ads, but not one dollar for anti-assault ads
07-24-05 We need more females on the supreme court, not less, to represent the 50/50 ratio of the people, Bush writers write India PM speech?
07-17-05 Atheist emails, we should be leading the way to the moon and walking robots, not wasting money and lives in Iraq, isn't the current effort against violence enough?
07-10-05 London bombs, time to charge Fiorini and Cesar in past due, now is as good a time as any.
07-03-05 Atoms that are good photon distributors, good bye abortion rights, was Bush Senior in CIA in 1963? if only they had to realease info like Time magazine does
06-26-05 You should see "In Plane Site", "Loose Change", "JFK II", Serious problems with 9/11 Gov-Media story
06-19-05 different bathrooms for "included" and "excluded", saw "The Aweful Truth" (Michael Moore), "Kinsey", and "Team America"
06-12-05 table of average life, supreme court rules against scalable democracy, no reply from Plauche typical of secretive cam-thought elites,bought a condo
06-05-05 For elitists they are not that elite. Email from Jody Plauche. Drake chancellor of UCI
05-29-05 Galaxies with the same magnitude but different Doppler shift and vice versa. How does polymerase get past repressor protein?
05-22-05 I accidentally damaged the screen on my hand held computer, so less notes from now on, but not less opinions!
05-15-05 Bizarre "violent threats" week, buying a Condo, mom was released
05-08-05 Modeling light through a prism the old 1700s way, as particles, a "violence against children" law is a good idea to impose mandatory minimum jail sentences for people that do violence against children, including spanking without consent
05-01-05 Sad that the violent Blair will probably be reelected, fusion, frightening nazistic violent Ann Coulter, way to make eukaryotes stay in one life stage forever
04-24-05 Mom's in the slammer for calling 911 again. a murder in town? time to whip the molestors and drug users, not the assaulters and murderers. Jailing Wendy's woman, jail for lying?
04-17-05 Gartenburger azzholes, RIAA, 10000 nearly secret arrests, can we red shift light on earth?, secret voyeurs not perverts but exercising healthy and above average curiosity
04-10-05 Science clubs and recruting as opposed to religious clubs and recruiting, phrase "uncle ted" now reality
04-05-05 atheists are the pearls in the oyster, popes a dime a dozen
04-03-05 Pope dies, to me just a do nothing cult leader. A third beheaded rat (dead rat 3) is placed near me. no to wolfowitz. child porno hypocricy fascist neonazi arrest
03-30-05 My comments on finance.yahoo.com on BED, a bunch of neoconservative red necky nazis dumped about 50 posts to counter my post
03-27-05 Saw Body Worlds 2, school shooting in Minnesota, Bonnie Lee Bakely killer still on loose
03-20-05 Many people here in southern California are rude and stupid, many watch people in their houses and can hear thoughts, but don't want the public to know. Every where violence and religious idiocy is on the rise.
03-13-05 Atheist almost on National television, call me when trial of the year has to do with violence.
03-06-05 Nazi neighbors celebrate locking nonviolent people in hospitals, torturing them, denying them legal representation, no trial, no sentence, no charge and potential life imprisonment, more antigay sentiment and unpunished Feb 28 tumor assaults.
02-27-05 Pope sez same gender love evil, tp sez violence is evil, svts show on Comcast for next 4 Sundays at 8pm.
02-20-05 I am like a Jewish human in a Nazi neighborhood, it is bizarre and scary/If I could be young again
02-13-05 What about Mary Mormon photo of Frank Sturgis, E Howard Hunt, and Gordon Arnold? Was Bush Sr. friends with fellow CIA employee and hometown grassy knoll look-out E Howard Hunt? Isn't it worth discussion? It's not illegal to talk about.
02-06-05 I can not go to a store or restaurant without receiving hundreds of insults and put-downs, when will we all get to see?
01-30-05 Bring in vote file to computer in government building that has retina scan + finger print, 24" plastic telescope
01-23-05 Where are the photons from a flash light going? Fiorini-Cesar get away car getting away, traditional responses to terrorism
01-16-05 Elliptical galaxies probably made by advanced life. Huygens probe lands, husband reforms...ahaha
01-09-05 I think Gonzoles has a moral floor which he will not go below (ok I'm joking) | which came first the 1/4 million armstrong williams "no child" scandel or the hillary fec "scandel" | molestin' 5 card monte (aka molesto lotto)!
01-02-05 I spent 10 days learning about the first cells and have not even gotten to the eukaryotes for ULSF.
12-31-2005
I am in awe of the universe, not the 10,000 year old human made religions. The 10,000 year old religions (in fact most may be even younger), don't impress me at all. Nor do they fool me. Their threats of damnation don't scare me, their claims of miracles and their philosophy don't inspire me. The universe may be infinitely large, and for sure, there are billions of other planets with life. I can only imagine the massive activities that have happened in the universe. And here I, and the rest of life on earth are only a tiny part of the universe. The universe may be infinitely old, where human made religions are only a few thousand years old. I think the human made religions are kind of a joke, because they are so recent, formed by people that didn't have automobiles, or lcd screens, etc, people that had never seen the earth from the moon, that didn't even know that the earth goes around the sun. The human made religions are a recent invention, and it is stupid to think that any one human knows the intentions of a god any more than any other human. I can't really put into words well the feeling I have, but basically, the universe is huge and mind numbingly old, but humans and human religion of planet earth is a tiny most recent fad of a tiny place that will probably be forgotten in the vast passing of time. We should recognize that religion is recent, and I think let it pass and think more about our true future and our progress in science and technology, our increased standard of living, our advances in science and moving to other stars, etc. religions are only going to be in the way, slowing or stopping any kind of scientific and social progress, and are based on a continuing lie that some human was magic...I mean I hope cults don't form around the memory of people like Tom Edison who really did do something to make life easier and better for humans. I see nothing wrong with a healthy appreciation for a person like Edison or Jesus, but when that appreciation is unthinking and has little to do with the original message, and is violently enforced, then there is something wrong there.
This will probably conclude my opinions for 2005, as I have said many times before, there is nothing special about each new year, I hate to be a bummer, but on the bright side, every second is precious and new. I was thinking how short life is, life is unbelievably short. Any human alive now over 40, certainly will be dead in 50 years, their lives passed, no doubt in their opinion far too quickly. You name them, over the age of 40, and most will be dead by 2055. Only 50 short earth rotations away. But then, there will be a new set of 40 year old humans whose lives and words shape the popular opinion of humans on earth. It's just shocking to me to reiterate that idea of a future that in my novice opinion seems very likely, a future where humans have changed the human genome to be more like the prokaryote existence of staying alive for as long as there is food, water and heat...there probably will be humans 1,000 years old that still look and function exactly like 20 year olds. It's amazing, but it's not for us in this time...we are far from that point, and getting further away from it by reviving religion and conservative leadership. But they can't stop us from thinking about the future and the inevitable improvement of life and science.
I am reading Michael Pupin's 1930 book "Romance of the Machine". He has some interesting words. He uses the word "latent" a number of times, I think that must be a joke or hint about how his patent on seeing (and it looks like hearing potentially) eyes might be "late". Pupin says: "he who understands the latent powers of the vacuum-tube oscillator and the trend of our civilization knows that this delay will be very brief.", and "the history of the telephone shows, therefore, that the latent powers of an epoch-making machine cannot be permenanently smothered by the legislator's dread of monopolies. These powers will triumph sooner or later. The latent powers of the vacuum-tube oscillator for trans-ocanic communications will not and cannot be smothered very long.", and "Here are two machines which the American machine civiliation has produced, and thus laid the foundation of the radio art, the most subtle and refined of all the technical arts ever conceived by the human mind. No trace of materialism can be detected in their history. On the contrary, their achievements represent tham as messengers from heaven sent to earth to rid the world of barbarous notions and raise it to a higher level of civilization. " Pupin hints about what must be the two machines together, the 1910 seeing eyes, and the 1913 hearing thought. Later sending images, sounds and even smells, were added on. Pupin says (I think either prophetically or perhaps describing the situation even as early as 20 years after seeing eyes): "Before that time it was reserved for the amusement of the sporting rich. The people of ordinary means could not afford it, and it looked as if they were nursing a grudge against those who could. The machine threatened to create a class distinction and the American spirit of democracy rebelled against it." In fact, I think Pupin's book (I think may have been his last published, "Romance of the Machine", is an attempt to try to promote science and technology, to popularize science and technology, to make them seem not materialistic (as is the religious complaint), to make science and technology appear to be natural. It can only be interpretted as reflecting a deep seated want for his invention of seeing eyes behind the head to be made public, perhaps to be recognized as the famous inventor, perhaps to financially benefit from the patent and all the royalties that fame might bring, perhaps in addition to a belief that all people should enjoy seeing eyes, and the clear benefits that such technology brings to life. As far as I know "Romance of the Machine" was the last public writing even put out by Pupin.
I think the scary truth about the USA, and most accurate truth is that we had a coup de tate in 1963, and a virtual second coup de tate in 1968. With a very large, connected wealthy and with lots of technology (cameras, eye imaging etc) people military elite (although very large) group, basically the republican half of the US military taking over the non-military government. And we are still living under that military gang, and the Bush family was close to their gang leader, supervisor of the CIA group that killed JFK (including Sturgis, E Howard Hunt, etc), Gordon Arnold came directly from the US army. They try to claim that it is right versus left, but in reality, they are nothing but a large band of violent lawless criminals versus law and order and democracy. And we are still living under those people. They are the ones that zap us (innocent people) from above, that give tumors with microwave beams, etc. Think of the scale of the number of people that need to be exposed in the JFK killed by Sturgis coverup: all the Warran Commision, many many people...they didn't pull the trigger, but they were involved before and after the fact. I am just in favor of exposing them. But you can see the danger free people in the USA live in...it's like being a person that was opposed to the Duvalier's dictatorship. In addition, when you are talking about this criminal organization, which is similar to a nazi reich, they have a lot of weapons, they have a lot of technology, they have traditionally had a lot of power...they are not going to give up easily and nonviolently. And I think this is why you see a lot of fear on the part of the US media, they don't report about Sturgis, they don't criticise the Bush's in an effective way...talking about the Hoover memo, etc...that is why seeing a movie like "JFK 2", "911 In Plane Site" or my stuff is so different for people, it's like a different language...they have never heard any body target the easy criticism...what about Thane Cesar?...I mean there are some glaring obvious flaws in this coup group, but the media is too afraid to investigate openly those faults, and it's not because the puplic doesn't care, they eat that stuff up, they want to know the truth, they have a large amount of doubt about the official stories of JFK, RFK, 9/11. So we are still living under that Nixon take-over...Nixon was really just the front man for the massive reich of people in the terrorist half of the US military...like those that supported Thane Cesar and his Nazistic racist views, the Lockheed group. That, I think is what 9/11 is all about, funding those big violent lawless military leaders. It is tough to be sure, I vote and hope that the public does get to see all the eye images from the past, and that we go through each year and track down every last homicider and jail them all, and free the nonviolent drug users and prostitutes. This criminal terrorist group that is centered around the Bush family, the group in the CIA that killed JFK, and the military that filmed it, their wealthy backers, is like a massive violent criminal prison escape...I mean the job facing the public is immense, to expose, round up, and capture all these violent criminals, in particular the homiciders like Thane Cesar, and Frank Fiorini (who is dead anyway, but others like him). They are people who openly advocate homicide of their enemies, who fully support and resort to first degree homicide and assault. It's like the Jessie James Gang...just violent, lawless. I was thinking, that it's no wonder that this coup group feels no fear when passing all these laws like Patriot Act, etc, because, it's like the homicide law...they don't have to live under them...they are in the camera eye net, they see it all coming for miles...plus they have so much money, power and influence that they won't ever be arrested no matter what law they violate, only the poor public ever is. So the pee-on public has to live under the massive jungle of laws they never voted on, and the powerful, like the coup group, do what ever they want, knowing that the chances of them ever being charged for homicide, etc, are very small. Here they beat and delete all kinds of stuff, so-called "hack" or break into citizen's computers, assault our bodies with lasers...all illegal, but I guess not for them.
So the US is a lot like Haiti, where the military took over the government and they live for years under the oppression of military leaders, or like Cuba, or Spain where they suffered under Franco. It's a little different because every four years we can elect a different leader...so I think people will all come to accept that (although who knows what info the eye net will reveal), we temporarily threw off the coup group leadership by electing Carter and Clinton, but that the majority of US citizens promptly elected and put in power similar leaders, and even a relative of a person closely connected to that coup group that overthrew the US (non-military part of the) government in 1963.
12-28-2005
It's gross that antisexuality and parental control over children results in thing like the recent killing of 4 children by their father in Pakistan. He slit his childrens throats but he didn't kill himself...what a violent nasty greedy self-centered backwards idiot. Then the excuse is that the marriage of his daughter to somebody he didn't approve of brough "shame on to his family", and I have to be the first to wonder: "what about the shame of homicide?" "what about the shame of assault?" isn't that more shameful? isn't violence more shameful? I mean some f'in day, couldn't the shame of first degree violence be more shameful than sexuality?
I hope that people in the camera net that send "suggestions" like "kill your friend", etc...get charged with severe sentences and jailed for long times...even if they are sending violent suggestions to (mostly liberal) people, they ought to be jailed. I am 99% sure that the secret videos, the millions and millions of images of people's "eyes" record the grissly tale of reich-wing nazi conservative religious republicans beaming suggestions on liberals, and the poor liberals not knowing any better taking the suggestions to be their own, no matter how idiotic, and doing stupid things. Their must be a million or more suicides courtesy republican image to brain sending. Then, the liberals do not even send a post card saying "...warning: conservatives are sending images and sounds on to your brain, you cannot be included in this network because it is dominated by conservatives, but please be warned, we care about you, ...please remember that conservatives are sending images and sounds on to your brain in an effort to cause you to do something stupid that will result in your death, arrest or hospitalization..."...they don't care enough for the lives and freedom of fellow humans to even spend 50 cents on such a postcard.
12-27-2005
The media in the USA has made the US a "jonestown". They all see that one movie, that one tv show, they all quote the famous lines. Even though, many of the movies and television shows cost little to make, were all set on earth (never going to other planets or seeing life of other stars), involved jobs that any body can do, etc. It's stalinesqe that everybody should only get to see a few of the same movies or shows every year. And ofcourse, peoplw with money, don't own televisions...they watch the millions of humans on earth, their thoughts...they demand a constant stream of variety, not the same family of four friends, etc. Life is like that too, we don't watch the same porno movie, and nude person, we have to have a constant stream of new people to see nude and having sex, etc. The same movie become boring quickly. It is even different from food where we can revisit some food a few months later (although, I think taste reaches a peak in the very first few times we try something, and then smooths out in the later weeks, monthgs and years after we continue to eat some new food.) Then the people go ga-ga over the celebrity people...like the friends female, Brittany Spears, Pam Anderson, Brad Pitt, etc...when really, there are a thousand beautiful people, as physically beautiful, if not more than those celebrities...it's really a bizarre phenomenon...beautiful, smart females and males are thrown out into the dumpster by the public, and the same people are paraded around and showed millions on to. Then, some time I think the public could include wisdom (scientific achievement, even at the level of explaining past science, etc) in addition to physical beauty, but this group isn't even picking for physical beauty.
It's kind of interesting about Gary Glitter, and it's not incredibly pleasant to talk about, but still, people like Glitter are like Godzilla in some nation...he is chased out of Cambodia or where ever, banned from this country, etc...it is a phenomenon. People pass over the killers and assaulters of adults, and or children, and feel more strongly about chasing after the sexual. Sex is the number 1 most emotional thing, violence is second. The excuse is that Glitter assaulted a female under the age of 18 (again I want to stress that I do not involve myself with females under the age of 18, and prefer breasty 20+ females, I am simply talking about a phenomenon, and I want to make the message public to people over 18, both males and females...don't even think...well, thinking about touching the genitals of a minor is technically still legal, but certainly, do not pursue any touching of a minor...people on earth are handing out some kind of uber-sentences for even accusations of an adult touching a minor...even talking aobut the subject has proven career-changing, and dangerous for intellectuals and non-intellectuals alike). Nonetheless, it is a bizarre phenomenon and relic of religion. People always think of adults and minors in a sexual way as some older guy abducting young children, and that certainly forms a part of that, but the laws are made to stop young people who want to initiate sexual activity with adults, like the young male with the nude magazine that dreams of touching breasts, etc. But anyway, I just wasn't sure if I had raised that point before. Also, the point of an older and younger person consentually pleasuring each other without a hint of objection or abduction..I am sure it happens all the time, not every adult that wants to fondle humans under 18 would ever hurt anybody and live completely nonviolent lives. But look at the victim of Glitter (ofcourse even images of the person are kept from the public, but that is again, another double standard), ofcourse, there is no evidence of Glitter assaulting the human, perhaps there is evidence of penis to vagina sex, but there is no video to indicate that the penis to vagina was not consentual. Then, at the worst case, even a person of any age that is assaulted with a penis in a way that does not cause bleeding, or only a minor amount of bleeding...it is terrible, it is certainly assault if no consent, the assaulter should be jailed for some time, no doubt about it, but clearly, and here is the point many people are missing, the assault is not as bad as homicide, and there are even worse assaults, assaults where there is permanent physical damage to a person, a body part is damaged from a bullet, or chopped off with a knife. So, it is amazing, that, ofcourse there are plenty of people that kill and assault around the planet, still on the loose, where is Thane Cesar? Sturgis lived in Florida...there was no lynch mob that chased him around. If there was a "violent offender registry" you would see thousands and thousands of convicted assaulters living among us. Standing next to us in the supermarket, walking next to us in town, etc. The people seem to pass over them, and why? because their crime was not sexual, violence is acceptible...because of that tradition...the tradition that violence is ok, because many times the murdered is forgotten, because those friends of the murdered and assaulted live in fear of being the next murdered, assaulted, etc. They don't chase out and evict the violent, only the people rumored to be overly sexual/affectionate. I hope this view changes soon because first degree violence and violent people should not be ignored, and cause much more damage than the nonviolent.
12/28/05 update: It must be interesting to see all the video and eye images of what is happening to Glitter (or Gadd). I think, and I have to guess, many people know well, but that a family that had little money in Vietnam decided to exploit the pedo molesto fever by sending their daughter to americans to try and make accusations and extort money, and it looks like it actually worked...it's like fishing for pedo fever...you know there are unending pedo-centered fish out there to support the vicious persecution, and probably a good supply of good natured friendly suckers like Glitter willing to take in young females. Not Glitter has paid the families of two females (which appear unharmed, without any scratches or bruises, without any evidence other than their claim) 1,000 pounds which must be the equivalent of $100,000 in viet nam, they will probably not have to work another day in their life. Even though, I doubt Glitter even had sex with the females, and there is no proof that he did, I think many people would allow themselves to be penis'd in the anus for $100,000, if you can endure the embarrassment, the 100,000 could be invested and you could live onthe interest, and your ass would recover...I doubt there would even be one cut. I kind of wonder if the US and UK conservatives had anything to do with the persecution of Glitter (in the UK they may press charges against Glitter, now that is vicious and antisexual)... I kind of think it was just a poor family with an extortion plan that was successful...they knew the antisexual hysteria and they played it very well to the tune of $100,000 and they wanted much more. The US media ofcourse is taking fully the side against Glitter, saying glitter paid them off, quoting people that say 'buying off the prosecution', ... they quote people so it doesn't appear that they are taking a side themselves...but they are quoting conservative antisexuals, not liberal sexuals so that is not fair and even handed. No counter claim that the charge was a 'popular form of extortion' that was planned earlier or after the girls moved in with Glitter, or even that Glitter had tried to negociate a settlement with the family, even when he did nothing wrong, simply because of the ferver and popularity of the antisexual children movement. It appeared that one young female had had numerous sexual intercourse evidence in her vagina (the people in the gov inspected her twat...I mean, how pleasant was that in their scewed antisexual thinking?), so clearly many males had had penis in vagina sex with her, what happened to them? If they were Vietnamese....it would be clear to the family that they could not get any money out of them...maybe that was why they didn't make a stink then...why didn't they say something then? Why was there no arrest then? It seems like selective prosecution, somebody out there must be focused on Glitter in an unhealthy obsessive way, to follow him around and trying to make his life difficult, while Thane Cesar, Frank Sturgis and other violent right-wing killers and assaulter live(d) the life of a kings. One point is that government procecutor humans do not charge just who ever, that would take them forever, they only move for money or public outcry. So what do the eye images and hidden cameras show in the lives of those prosecutors? Might their not be some white right wing american and UK people funding this recent Glitter action? What initiated their activity? I think there is an open door there for white right wealthy mind imaging conservatives to spend a few dollars to the poor Vietnamese prosecutors for an antisexual pedo payoff which they are getting now. I have to wonder because they apparently have not charged any of the other males, only Glitter.
One interesting phenomenon is how this article that was so slanted against Glitter, that did not mention even the idea of "extorsion" was in "The Rolling Stone", a magazine with a liberal left-wing reputation. Wealthy religious conservatives and liberal mainstream media are like a match made in heaven, the best way to reach liberals and young people (that tend to be liberal) is through popular liberal magazines like Rolling Stone, and the people the own the Rolling Stone ofcourse know this, that is why the price is jacked up for the conservative message, after all, they have a liberal reputation to keep, and the conservatives know they have to pay more for a one-sided article slanted against Glitter, sexuality, in favor of sexual persecution without entertaining even one argument by the defense, which I think, when all the videos and eye images are shown will reveal that Glitter was targeted, or at least that the family saw an opportunity for extorsion from a wealthy (compared to most people in Vietnam) UK citizen. So, I think the video will show that reich-wing conservatives fund a lot of the Rolling Stone, in order to sell their nazism to the liberals, liberals that probably would reject conservative opinion, if the opposite side was presented to them. But, I think the magazines will all be a thing of the past once we all get to see "eyes" like they do. I mean, they all don't read magazines, they all are watching the thoughts of people like me and other popular people...they don't read, they get their info in video form beamed on their head. Then, with every last drop of ink, the magazines fight tooth and nail against freedom of information, against their own demise, even if freedom of information is more just and to the benefit of the public, it's gross. In fact, this Internet news magazine is probably the only magazine that is taking the liberal view of the defense of Gary Glitter...because I think it is clear that he is the victim of extorsion and in no way hurt either of those children. Had their been one video, one piece of evidence available to me that Glitter had assaulted any human, I would ofcourse, continue to express me vote to jail first degree violent people, whether they assaulted a child or adult. But, I am alone in speaking the liberal viewpoint, all the major media will take the side of the Orwellian persecution of people like Glitter. The only one magazine or newspaper I can think of that might take the liberal honest view is the "Village Voice". The rest are all Orwellian antisexual greedy reich-wing thought police whose morals are determined by money and popular opinion alone. I wish the people that zealously report the news about Glitter, are just as zealous about reporting the news aobut Thane Cesar, who murdered a person, which one of us would argue is worse than owning images of nude children. They never seem to have the ferver when it comes to Thane Cesar than they do for molestation.
Another suspicious thing about the Glitter arrest is that, at age 50, many people forget that older males have a tougher time staying erect (there is viagara which may help), and are usually less aggressive than younger males. The Glitter thing reminds me alot of the Singapore thing with the killing drug users, but instead of the "drug user mut die" anthem it would be the "moleter mut die" theme as they gas and mow down people with machine guns in the name of religious piety (which curiously allows an ethical exception for mass homicide). Never the violent person mut die. Most of the antisexuality comes from Judeism, which was passed on to Christianity, and then onto Islam. What was their beef with sexuality? Who knows, but whatever it was, it was less so than with violence. If there is a person out there assaulting any person, either with a penis, or any object, by all means, let's vote to have them jailed in proprtion to the pain and damage caused by the assault. Am I the first to say such a thing? I think so. In addition, let's work to get cameras on the street "available for the public" (yes, something that I am the only human of 6 billion to advocate) to help prove those many times difficult to see assaults.
Imagine what is required of the american in Vietnam or some other poor nation, where young females come to your house and won't leave...you have to be an asshole...you have to call the police to have them removed...most single male people probably couldn't be that vicious, unless they were religious and puritanical and cared little for the care of poor young females (or males for that matter). Most people would probably feel like...'you can stay here, I have space and can feed you, but you need to clean, do the dishes, etc.', then to be accused of sexual assault...what could you say? 'No...I didn't they are lying'...good luck. Your best bet is to try and pay off the extortion...it's like the hostage taking of other poor nations. The need for money is the ultimate root of it.
With the legalization of swinging clubs in Canada, I know a million conservative couples must be thinkg: "well, now we must all swing because it is legal". Like drugs, they must think just because something is legal, everybody must do it.
It has to be unusual to hear from excluded people that know they are excluded. That is a voice we never hear from. It must make the included feel less than their usual god-like and invincible. In any event, it must be a rare find to hear opinions from those excluded that know they are excluded, absent must be the patting on the back and constant reassurances of morality and supremecy, that tiny voice of never before heard criticism.
One cool thing aobut this old new technoloy is the "smell" technology. How we can smell various things, any thing we want...to see what something smells like without actually ever smelling it (as far as I know...perhaps it only can make you remember smells)
I think it will be clear to our future descendents, a thousand years from now in 3005, that the rise of religion, and in particular the rise of Christianity, was a victory of evil over good on many levels. Primarily at the level of honesty versus dishonesty, in the way that science of that time (and ofcourse after) was supressed, the best of the scientists punished, the atheists that recognized the arrogance of claiming to know a god were brutally punished, and still are ostracized. It just seems clear to me looking back historically that, many things, the killing of JFK, of John Lennon, the Haulocaust of WW2, the witch trials, the Inquisition, many of these terrible crimes probably would never have happened had science won over religion 2000 years before now, had science won over religion, 1000 years before now, or even 100 years...I doubt we would have much of the injustice that cripples our planet and nations, the massive lies, the abuse of secret technologies, and unseen, unstopped violence in particular.
12-25-2005
I look forward to seeing the end of Christmas, honestly, it's all about Jesus and I think Jesus did nothing special, certainly not in science, for democracy, against violence, against secrecy, lying, etc. People on earth are very tuned to the yearly rotation of the earth around the sun, but time is new every nanosecond...just because we experience a year here on earth, doesn't mean that there are not other living objects that are not stuck going around and around a star all the time (But probably most living things are stuck going around and around a star...we are also one of the many stuck going around and around a galaxy, and around and around our own planet's axis).
I was thinking after this brute guy at Trade Joes on campus said ped again, that, do you know, I think psychology people might even be interested in this. There is a subtle point about pedisms. I think that there are maybe at least 2 if not more special kinds of "ped" people. There are definitely, as well all well know, the "pedophile", the person that loves children, but, when you see the people being labeled pedophile, many times they are people that hurt and some times even killed children, so I am not sure, by definition, we can call them "pedophiles", and should probably, more properly label them "krustopeds" or something similar, because clearly, they are people that want to do violence to children. I think that a person that really did love a child, a pedophile, would not want to kill or hurt the child in any way. I think it's clear that hurting or killing a child is not loving a child, it is something different. It's a tough call, because many times, the process of using a penis to assault a child, could perhaps be said to originate in some kind of love for a child, but clearly seeing a child in pain, can't be love, and so I kind of lean toward drawing a line between those that do violence (even sex related) versus those that only touch genitals, or "love children", even in fact the love parents and siblings may impart onto a child in a way that clearly does not bother the child is a form of pedophilia ("loving a child")...if it bothers the child, or makes the child cry, then it is probably an act of "krustopedism" at that point. I think we can see that an adult physically loving a child, even in a legal form is viewed with some amount of suspicion and contempt...it is viewed as "babying" a child, if there were two kids kissing or playing with each others genitals I am sure it would be stopped...I think the point is that religion has sought to eradicate physical pleasure, and religious people are uncomfortable with physical pleasure (even when other people are involved in pleasuring themselves or others). There is a line most people in society draws that stops too much love and physical pleasure, which to me, physical pleasure seems like a logical conclusion for smart people in love, as long as they carefully plan to have or avoid pregnancy (and that is just the case for penis in vagina sex, there are numerous other forms of physical pleasure that have no possibility of pregnancy). And avoiding pregnancy has become very easy to do with plan-b, the so-called morning after pill, and as time continues, I don't doubt that avoiding pregnancy will be even easier. It just seems clear to me that there is a point in the lives of young people where pleasure, they realize, is uncool, and a societal taboo. They have to stop their natural feelings of love toward their playmates and take a more cold, distant approach...and I just think that is wrong...it is probably what is adding to the violence on earth, it is taking away from the amount of love humans would normally feel for each other, or in any event, it's not violent and when consentual there is no reason to stop children, teens in particular, from expressing love in a physical form with each other.
12-24-2005
The new pope is being shown on USA national television. I care nothing for the pope, he is the best living example of a "Darth Sideous" there is "Darth Popius", a homophobe, anti-scientist, persecutor of the nonviolent and innocent, jailer and hospitalizer of the opposition, a person with a massive unthinking violently loyal following, and thousands of years of tradition to back them. But in addition, I respect people for their achievements, not for what they inherited. The popes are all a bunch of cult leaders, that do nothing but preach evil backwards policy, in any event they do nothing for science, they stand totally in the way of pleasure, truth, science, justice, free information, wisdom, honesty. It is shocking that a person named Jesus would be the center of a 2000 year reign of fraud. Religion is pure fraud, they don't know a god or gods any better than the average person. What's more, the popes and cardinals know very little about science and the universe. I can't stand to see educated people supporting this continuing scam of religion...there are excellent people that deserve the recognition, not the pope...he is nothing but a represser of women, of non whites, of homosexuals, even bisexuals, the young, oppressor and punisher of the weak, different, drug user, prostitute, science lover, free thinker, atheist, agnostic. It reminds me of when Carl Sagan died, that week they ran "Sister Theresa" eulogies all the time, and ofcourse the religious charade continues, and it's disgusting to see. Humans will eventually drop religion, and the pope will not have the money or popularity to dominate the main stream popular media...people will have gotten wise to the religious scam in a few hundred or thousand years as they already are thanks to those people that recorded history, science and those that teach and learn it. Those people will look back at us, like some of us look back at the people in 1600, sorry for them that they lived such a life of brutal repression, without the tiniest possibility of physical or intellectual pleasure, while we enjoy more intellectual and sexual freedom now.
Something terrible is happening with my cable service. The Cox people said that the cable is defective and I cannot receive cable or even satellite. The Sares-Regis people, the construction company that sold me the condo, guarenteed a 1 year warranty on everything. The last time I talked to a representative of Sares they said that they would call and send somebody over to look at the cable, but now they have not returned 3 of my phone calls (2 different people), so I am going to take them to small claims court to try and get them to fix the cable (I have not had cable since I moved in, in late October 2004). It is annoying because...here these idiots watch me all day, hear my f'in thoughts, see my eyes...but they can't fix my fuck free cable. I can't see my show, I missed Infidel Guy on ABC, Cox won't refund me for each month... it's a hassle. I filed a complaint with the BBB but nothing has happened. It's shocking how unprofessional and like 5 year-olds the people at Sares are...now I worry about the stability of the Condo...is this the way they deal with the contractors who built the Watermarke? Not returning their phone calls...not answering their phones when it's somebody they don't want to talk to? It raises the point about the US legal system. I have never heard of a person talking another person to court to force them to do something...or maybe I have heard about that, but all the courts are divided by the amount of money claimed, not by the kind of response wanted as far as I know. But in any event, how much nicer it would be to be able to file a claim against a company or individual electronically, and have judges collect all the evidence electronically (statements, audio, video, text, etc), view it all after 5pm or whenever, and give their verdict electronically, or request more info electronically. Then nobody would have to go to court...waste time from their job...it would speed up justice, reduce injustice, make the court available to more working people.
update the BBB gives Sares Regis an "F" rating: http://www.labbb.org/BBBWeb/Forms/Business/CompanyReportExtensionPage.aspx?CompanyID=13099338&sm=#ComplaintExperience I haven't seen an "F" rating on even the companies that sell audio visual equipment.
I think an large scale effort to make a "history of science" class mandatory in high school would be very good for scientific and technological progress in the USA. In addition to that a mandatory course dedicated strictly to "evolution", the entire story.
Most of the people I encounter are like 40 year olds with 5 year old minds. Petty, easily embarrassed, rude, stupid, easily influenced by superstition and rumor, know nothing about history, are not able to make friends, never learned how to introduce themselves, not brave enought to be honest, etc.
Woman made good point, "how will we see you?" if they are excluded by the public once the excluded figure out. I have not really decided my vote about what should happen to those people included. But I have the basics, those that were for secrecy should be excluded until dead, those that were clearly for going public with it I probably will still allow to see. Beyond that, I think there should be serious fines and compensation for copyrights violated by people that benefitted from copyrights, and in addition fines for invasion of privacy (and I vote against jails or fines for owning any image, after that). I don't feel much sympathy for those people that did nothing, or very little to include me, why would I? And of course those that supported excluding me, of course I vote for them all to be excluded for life, any thing else would be to fund "anti-everything I hold to be good and true" in my opinion. So, probably those people that care for me (although, honestly...if this is caring, I have yet to get so much as one phone call or tiny explanation let alone a molecule of service... no doubt I and many others will give back the same exact treatment...I certainly hope so), those people that care for me, again, of which there are very few, will probably be voted to still get to see and hear...get the beam. It will be interesting for those of us newly included (the vast majority of the public), I hope they vote to take over the companies that run the technology, or make it public run, in any event fine those people and send them to the bottom without employment. In particular those that abused the technology (which is basically all of them). The simple and clear goals will probably be, on that wonderful day, vote to capture and jail the killers, and then the assaulters. And I mean every fuck free person, going back to the early 1900s that assaulted innocent unsuspecting people with lasers, and to a large extent jail for even those people that made the excluded scratch. Next to fine all the included people relative to their income and usage. Then to exclude those that helped the secret. Some where in there, expose all those who lied about Sturgis, and Cesar. From there, basically identify and publically make available the full record on all those people in the included, and they should be treated much the way the excluded are now, they are to be fully exposed and remembered, not hired (although that is an individual choice obviously, but I hope people remember how callous and what vicious people were in the eye net). It's tough to feel sympathy or warmth for the vicious people in the eye net, even the least worst of them, even the nonviolent of them. For those that funded protection for me (which...if this is protection...why bother?), but no doubt I will repay the vote to stop violence that might happen to them...already I have done more publically to stop violence than they probably ever will do, why? Who knows, most of the included do everything secretly, everything is for secret, nothing for public consumption. Can you imagine me getting to see them? They are the biggest bunch of elitish arrogant self centered people...like I am some tv show for them...and can't extend the tiniest courtesy to me to allow me to see their lives...it's gross, and for them to believe that I think of them as decent equal people is no where near the truth...I view them as being a bunch of, as I just said, arrogant, elitist, self-centered, callous, vicious, people that can't extend the tiniest bit of equality to me, and treat me like some kind of twelfth class citizen. One of the biggest mistakes on the part of the exluded, has been to extend common courtesy to the included...I mean wake up already...these people, the included treat you in the excluded like a bunch of slaves...like a bunch of shit...it's way past time to treat them the way they treat us...send them to the bottom, let us get to watch them, and they can twiddle their fuck free thumbs. The other half of that equation is that the epople that have everything beamed onto their heads, I think, have stopped thinking. Other people now do their thinking for them. The administrators of the eye net fill their head...they take the entire system for granted...it's tough to describe, but they forget that they have an unbelievable different priviledge than the excluded....they scrutinize the excluded lives with a fine tooth comb, but their lives are protected from the excluded behind an iron curtain. Which brings up another topic, related to the eye imaging technology. It appears relatively clear that Michael Pupin was the first to see eyes, and there is more to add, that he worked under the famous German Hemholtz. Not by coincidence, Helmholtz is the very inventor of the "opthalmoscope", the tool that made the National Geographic images I thought were from behind the person's head (and what a bunch of shyte the people at National Geographic are for not telling me that in their response to my email). Helmholtz must have been doing secret research in trying to detect the photons from human brains and Pupin got wind of the experiments...and (I can only guess) went back to Columbia and within 20 years (it must have taken a while if 1910 is correct, but I kind of think that...even 1890...1900 may have been when, if Helmholtz was actively involved...but the included know). Pupin does more hinting in his book "from immigrant to inventor". He says paraphrasing "there is a current flowing through human life", (perhaps hinting...there is a current flowing through the human head, a current that can be detected from the radio "waves", but maybe not...I think it's a photographic plate with a flourescent screen...again where do we buy those? But in addition perhaps a special flourescent screen that response to perhaps even specifiy frequencies of photons in infrared) and "he read my mind" (of an assistant of Hemholtz). It brings me to a topic that must fill secret chat areas...did the Nazi's hear thoughts? (ofcourse they know all the answers to that, so it's probably old news) I think it is definitely possible that they did. Helmholtz must have figured it out...there must have been cameras on Pupin and many others. How much did seeing and hearing thought contribute to Nazism? Some people might say that seeing and hearing thought was the main reason behind Nazism...I think it's more like religion, nationalism, anti-sexual traditions, the popularity of conservatism and widespread mistaken belief that conservatives are moral people...but clearly, seeing and hearing thought is right down Nazi alley...it's the perfect elitist's tool, it gives the user an unbelievable advantage over the excluded (public). With this technology they can basically play people like human video games...directing their lives with a joystic, beaming their propoganda and lies directly onto the public's minds. It must have taken a while to wire up the nation though...so there were limits to their power. They could see and hear the thoughts of a few important people (it grew on top of the secret cameras and microphones)...perhaps people on the streets. But doesn't it seem logical that nazism could have sprang up in part from the unquestionable disproportional advantage the conservatives that have this technology even now still have?...and 1910 is way before the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. But beyond that...Helmholtz invented the opthalmoscope around 1890...40 years before Hitler was even on the scene. That is a long time to be working on seeing and hearing thought without any success. As more evidence, with FDR saying "in thought" it's clear he shows no fear of the Nazi's finding out about hearing and seeing thought, ofcourse it wouldn't be a taboo for FDR to say "in thought" if the the Nazi people already knew. But without too much doubt the fission of uranium which was first done in Germany was kept a secret from the Nazis (or at least using fission as a bomb)...the story is that Hitler did not think fission would be useful.
There was an interesting thought in my mind about how photons go thru a prism. If a beam of light is a beam of photons, which photons make up the blue lines, and which make up the green, red, etc lines? There are a few choices or ideas: 1) photons have different masses, the lighter go into the blue, the heavier go into the red (I doubt it...I think photons probably all have the same mass, but they are so small, who could ever detect a tiny difference?), 2) the atoms in the glass determine how much a photon is refracted...the first photon is absorbed, the second photon goes past because the atom can not accept the photon, etc... so some photons are more refracted than others. 3) The blue part comes from the top of the initial beam of white light and the red part come from photons at the bottom...I think that the photons change direction only at the boundaries and because of the prism triangular shape, more are sent to the blue than to the red, but which ones? since the spectrum of atoms (although there is an open question about the photon frequencies that come from protons and neutrons...do they show specific spectral lines or just random lines?) I thikn for the answer to which photons go to blue and red, it is like 2) where the nature of the atom determines. Because glass is transparent, a large number of photons pass through, perhaps by temporarily entering an atom, or more likely, by not even orbiting any atom even once. There are still questions in my mind about the prism phenomenon and I haven't had time to do more experimenting, obviously because there are a million screaming idiots that surround me like a lynch mob of evil for one reason, but also I have a million other projects and interests.
There is something different about me from most people...it's really unusual, I can't kiss ass...I can't schmooz, I can't do anything other than speak my honest thoughts and tell the truth as best I can...in some ways it's a terrible property to have...I feel fear of evil people...but I can't make my mouth kiss their ass....it doesn't move that way...and all around me are people that do it effortlessly. To me it seems shallow and false to say something I don't believe, or to pretend I care about the things most people do. Still, I am not rude, I am simply honest. I don't want people to feel bad, I want them to change, or simply depending on the circumstance, I want them jailed for violence, etc...I am polite to people, I simply want justice.
That's a point I am trying to make about those in the eye net...their entire life is listening...they don't ever talk...there is no output from their brains...it's all input. Then the point about those that watch me...to me it's shocking how terrible the truth and liberal movement is...they can't even meet and talk with me. They can't put together the tiniest system...even to stop violence, forget about the other big 10. I mean, they can't do the basics of progress, cameras on the street for all, a planetary public information center with images and the complete catalog of all the violent, a violent registry for the public...adds against assault, no shows about evolution...this is a broken record...to sum it up, we are amongst a very stupid people, catatonic is the best word to describe them, they can't do the right thing even if it doesn't require the tiniest big of movement. I am glad to see what just happened in France, they rejected a ban on file sharing, at least their the public is catching on...here in the USA they are absolute idiots and getting worse. Back to that point about the people that watch me...if they cared they would be here already, they would write and explain to me...they would tell me their mind...they would show me what they look like...they would do a million things like that..things that express respect, love, a striving for equality, etc. but yet...they do nothing like that. Because, I think it's clear...people are vicious, callous, stupid, self-centered, dishonest, religious, mystic, antisexual but secretly sexual (at best), just a terrible time to live on earth with terrible people. I wish I had been born in 2500. This time is right after WW2, seeing thought is a 100 year secret and going strong, it's an evil "evangelical" revival where I live, in this time people are strongly marching backwards and into new dangerous directions, not even the casual care to move forward and upward in the tiniest way...not that that would even start to approach the stopping of even one homicide or assault, theft, expose one lie, or allow even one citizen to vote on federal laws, but at least then the public would be moving in a progressive direction.
One thing that people suffer from in this time is the "everybody has to agree on everything" mind set. What a stupid and conformist way of living...the future is going to be people voting and everybody will express diverse opinions, some against the drug war, others for legal prostitution, some for total free info, etc. there will be a wide variety of diversity in opinions.
I think I have put my finger on the voting public in the US, they want one thing and one thing only...and that is absolutely nothing. They want a leader that will not do any thing (although bush is the acception to that because he is ofcourse a radical war and military funding extremist, but that doesn't seem to matter to them). That's why they picked Kerry, he was the person that said the least, that was the least specific about his values, opinions, vision and plans. They will accept and tolerate only one thing and that is no opinion, any opinion and they will abandon ship.
12-23-2005
Usually I don't gab about my job, but it looks like I might get fired. I don't know for sure, but one person who is one of the rare friendly people said "fired" last week, and then two people (one who is a vicious nazi, and the other who is not, but still has said some mean things) both said "enjoying your last day?". I spent the last two years trying to leave THe University of California in Irvine, trying to go to San Francisco, I sent more than 50 applications...hundreds, it seemed like, but I didn't get any job. So, two years had gone by, and I thought...well, if I can't get a job in SF, I might as well buy a Condo here in Irvine (this was already after most people had gained $100,000 at least in two years of unbelievable appreciation on their condos and houses). So I did, and decided to again apply to SF in a year or two when I could sell my Condo, I thought, probably I would apply, because, if I couldn't get hired with hundreds of applications, I am not sure it's worth my time to try. So now, I am in a loan that has a 1-year prepay penalty of 2% which is like $6,000 or something (I have to check the actual penalty, it's something like that). They couldn't have picked a worse time to fire me, if they are going to. But in addition, I want to say what terrible people, parents and police the supervisors in Irvine are. It reminds me alot of my own parent parenting and the teachers in my high school...they do nothing to stop the violent attacks of innocent people, and they don't punish those who are rude. In the case of UC Irvine, they have a "code of conduct", but it appears that they bow to a code of "popular opinion", because those people I work with, 80% of them insulted me openly every day, calling me "freak", "gay", "rat", "psycho"...all kinds of put-downs, and I never put any of them down once (ocassionally, I would say "not-see" you later in response to some put-down). But beyond bad supervisors, and parents...at UC Irvine, they go beyond the "let them fight it out" apathy of my parents, to the "punish the victims" type of people. I mean, these people insult me and put me down every day, but then I am punished? I was fined $500 and lost my regular job duties, just for telling a person that I was tired of their put-downs, which definitely, and they all know happened. It's bizarre. You know, the police here (as they are in many places) are some of the most violently criminal (with those ceiling lasers and their secret camera supremecy). That type of lawless apathetic parenting and supervising is terrible. I think a good society would take those people, like most people, we all have our minor first degree assaults that didn't result in any serious damage, and jail them for a few hours, for 3 days, in a safe jail...just to curb their tendacy toward first degree violence. It was interesting that one neonazi I work with said something to me that was so like the "good-by Jews" line from that young girl in "Schindler's List", she said "out!". And here, like the Jewish people of the 1940s I was never even rude to this person. But then, a person who said "hey ped!" instead of "hi ted", who happens to be Jewish, appeared to be hanging out with that other nazi lady...and to me...it's like, somehow they can be vicious to a gentle person like me, but somehow stay friendly to each other...it's really a mystery. The best comparison I can come up with is that they are like Purhana... they are vicious to other species but friendly to each other. It was kind of like a final reich-wing slap in the face, to have the Schindler's list "goodbye Jews" humans and the "hey ped" jewish human walking together, and for the Jewish humans to make it a point to get by me and say "fire everone" instead of "bye everyone". And that is a common feeling I have heard before, the eye-net rude uneducated people argue that it is easier to fire me than to fire all the people that are rude to me. But my argument is that, it is simply an example of very poor parenting (supervising). Those rude people all should have disciplined for violating the "code of Conduct" and just simply the unwritten code of politeness and common courtesy, but because they are all in the camera network, and politically aligned with each other, they aren't ever punished. Being a liberal, I can blink, and I will be fined, but being conservatives in the eye-net they can yell insults (like "leave!") and put-downs from the reference desk at me, and it's like a moquito wing never flapped. And the entire time, I am just trying to do science, the job, to me is just something to survive in order to get money to tell the story of history and to build my walking robot...I don't spend time thinking of my co-workers (and certainly don't want to, if I do), and thinking of new put-downs I can tell them. I think, they should only fire the rude people, but then I realize, that is almost everybody. So, they basically only fire the nice people, I think history will reveal.
I think people will say about Irvine, that it is much like their liver program. They are do-nothing beaurocrats, conservatives that have contempt for science, that don't do the logical thing. They don't discipline the rude, they only fire the polite, they blame the victims, not the administrators. I mean here, people were dying because the UCI administrators would not clean up their act...it took a lawsuit to put their noses in their poop, only then do they change, and then, barely. One thing that is interesting, if you go to Newport Beach Public Library, or even Orange County Public Library, you will see an average library, it has DVDs and CDs on shelves available to be browsed, the UC libraries are a disgrace of backward old-worldian philosophy. I remember the first time I walked in to the MRC and asked "where are the videos?", and was told that I couldn't borrow or even see any, and those that can have to watch them in the media room. UCSD is the same way, it's like a kindergarden, they can't borrow the DVDs and CDs. Irvine is like the 1820's, but add in neonazi secret survalience technology.
One key point, about if I am fired, is that, because I have no money...again I just moved, and spent much of my saved money on furniture and flooring...I can't really fund myself for too long (even with the minimal unemployment, which I have been grateful for). So basically I would have to delete large portions of my web page, I don't think I can hired with all the opinions I have written here, and all my videos. So, for those people, which for all I know are very few <100 that make use of my web page, if you want a record of this stuff, make a backup of it because it is going to be removed from the web if I get fired.
In some way, there are a lot of positives in getting let go from UC Irvine, it shows that, no great scientists are going to be able to work there. It is more like a church. Most smart people are not only smart in science but smart in terms of history, etc. They understand that religion is a recent phenomenon, and the violent and dishonest history of religions. So, I have never felt comfortable which having my work associated with UC Irvine, with UC is ok...but UC irvine, is notorius for being right-wing Nixonian Reagan republican...they helped the Warren commission with fabricated evidence about the "magic bullet"....I mean, that's not a great legacy, although most people don't know the full truth yet. As I said, I tried for 2 solid years to get hired in San Francisco. The weather here is phenomenal, and the weather in SF is terrible, but the people here are so terrible that it's like a living hell everyday for me (and any decent person I think).
So I am, of course, glad to leave, and tried for two years to leave. Wy didn't they open the way then when the timing was good? I just hope that people have lined up a liberal to hire me in San Francisco or Los Angeles county, Cal State, or a community college. But, you know, these people are vicious, and so I wouldn't doubt that they care nothing about where I might get a job from here.
One thing that is interesting to me is how the right-wing, conservatives, are religious, and really are not supporters of science. Although they love to abuse the technology that was created through science, they care very little about science. So, it's an interesting thing...like the republicans basically took over the UC Irvine Library...before me, there was a liberal that was almost fired, but was only transfered, and a different liberal that was fired. I can't understand what conservatives would do with a university, or a library? Of what use is a science book or video to them? I think simply because, it's a building and teratory.
One comment in my mind is that republicans are the violent criminals, and democrats the passive idiots that don't punish them.
I don't doubt that there are many walking robots, and people have known that all matter is made of particles of light for years, secretly, but still, I am glad that with me will be moving a some part of the science of photons, and technology of walking robots, away from Irvine and into some place where science and technology are going to be tolerated if not funded. In addition, to all those ideas of full democracy, full free info, exposing Sturgis, and the republican crimes of the past, stopping violence, freeing the nonviolent, explaining of sexuality, etc. a part of all those things will go with me. For Bush jr, and many others it would probably only mean that they have to turn their head 30 degrees to the right to continue constantly watching me and my latest thoughts from San Francisco or Los Angeles county. In addition, a very popular show would be leaving, many people that don't like attention would be happy, but those that like attention (fame, large scale viewership) would probably be less happy.
This is all what people get for promoting the violent and lawless nazistic republicans to the top of government and business. They moved Howard Stern off of the public radio, jailed Tommy Chong, killed the Kennedies, MLK, John Lennon, and the liberals just sit back either in fear or in approval (as is the case for the invasion of Iraq, Hillary C"li"nton voted in favor of that, Kerry voted in favor of it, "Lie"berman did...just virtual republicans and supporters of homicide).
I hope the next place has full subscriptions to all the science journals because those are useful for my project ULSF, which would be even more delayed if I get fired. But I will definitely keep ULSF on my web page, since there is not too much controversial material there. They could use the camera networks to work together with me to transition me to some other place, compensating me for any time in between jobs, finding a job in a different location that I approve of, and where I will be accepted, etc, but they are vicious gestapos with secret technology, selfish, greedy and callous. For years they kept me at a PA I level, while others in the same exact job description (in different labs) were PA II level. I was telling people that if they want to see true Nazism, if they feel Nazism is dead, then let them come with me and a few cameras [I hope to have walking cameras very soon that will serve this purpose among many others] around to various orange county stores and restaurants, we will see rudeness and Nazism (and more specifically elitism) which has never died.
There are examples that come to mind with similar themes, the way Cyril Wecht was the only 1 of 10 pathologists to say that Kennedy was shot from the front in testimony to the Warren Commission, the way that Thomas Noguchi was the subject of a massive media and legal campaign against him, the way "The Second Gun" movie has been minimalized...there are many similar examples of this kind of thing where the popular opinion is simply evil, stupid, wrong...inaccurate, dishonest...there are many words to describe it, but it still is a terrible thing when the truth loses to popular opinion. Truth losing in a democracy is really the biggest flaw of democracy. Democracy (and really, full democracy, not this "representative" crap), is the fairest system there is, but at the same time, popular opinion is not guaranteed to be the most accurate, the smartest, etc. That is one reason that I spend so much time trying to educate the public on the basics of evolution and history of science, but this is sadly a one person war.
So, it's not clear if I am going to get fired, but it looks like a serious possibility, and that will most likely result in me removing large portions of my web page including all opinions, all books, all the "Photon Yes, Religion No" videos, the other pages would be vastly reduced. If I do get fired, I will indicate here and give 1 week for people to copy stuff.
12-22-2005
Is it ever permissable to use violence to stop the flow of information? That is a question we should ask. My answer and vote is "no".
Violent lawless conservatives or any people in power make for a very confusing violent time...because it's like the age old problems of, questions like, is what Erwin Planck, Max Planck's oldest son who was executed when implicated in the attempt on Hitler's life (the bomb in the briefcase, as far as I can remember). Was Erwin Planck doing a first degree homicide? How could people argue that? What mixed feeling liberals must have had. Here Hitler order the killing of 3 million innocent people...how could killing Hitler be remotely thought of as first degree homicide? And that is the kind of society that violent religious conservatives create. The Nazis were extreme conservatives, believers in Jesus, in God, wears of military uniforms, nationalistic, uneducated, violent, they were at the right end of the political spectrum. So, this is the kind of society conservatives make...it's like in war time...could a person walk into a barn and mow down humans in Nazi uniform? Yes, ofcourse. There is no arrest, that is the goal of war, and the chaotic kill or be killed society that war is. It's a breakdown of the homicide and assault laws. Because, so many people on both sides are killing and have been killed that who was first is too difficult to figure out, and then, for conservatives, they continue to do first degree murder anyway...so liberals are left to think...well...if Thane Cesar isn't going to be arrested...why would we help to arrest a killer of conservatives? why would we do that? That would be stupid. I think if the public would pull their head out the ground and start voting for good people, the homicide laws and arresting of killers (and even eventually of assaulters) could start to take shape on earth. But that is not going to happen for centuries the way people are voting now.
Many of us want to be daisy smelling scientists, but the reality we are thrust into, is fighting back against violent thug soldiers in daily combat against those that zap us with ceiling lasers, etc. Because conservatives don't want to be daisy smelling scientists that lay around letting robots service them while they get regular disease free sex, they want to kill, punch, zap, assault, threaten, and spread the Jesus God cult, watch tv and sports, I don't know...it's tough to know exactly what they want, but it seems clear that it is assault, murder, jesus, god, property, money, secrecy, everybody to look the same as them, to think the same as them, to agree with them 100%, to fill the prisons and hospitals with people they don't like, etc.
One of the worst problems of people I think is there willingness to forgive violent people. It's the effect of Jesus-ism. It stops the things that should really be happening, violent people being sent to prison, those that ignore, and threaten violence being demoted and let go. Instead the weight always seems to fall on forgiveness and forgetting, in the hope the bad things will not happen again (which ofcourse they always do, because they don't ever stop them the first time), and appeased by and believers of the lies of the violent.
One of the most disgusting things of all is that me (and many others) are walking around not even knowing that this violent guy in the car is getting near me. Just like RFK had no idea about Thane Cesar. Nobody bothered to beam onto John Lennon the important info about Chapman waiting there all day with a gun and thoughts to shoot Lennon. It's amazing, I mean, there must be a liberal part of the eye net. I was thinking earlier that probably by 1920 liberals realized that they had to make their own camera net...that there had to be at least two major eye nets...they had to put in their own cameras, and microphones, because ofcourse, you can't depend on conservatives to be showing you everything. So, I think that is certain...so then...why wasn't Lennon informed? Why didn't RFK know about Cesar? Why didn't Nicole Simpson know about her killer? Wasn't there anybody there in the eye net that is in charge of sending warnings and instructions to avoid violent people?
12/19/05
It's interesting thinking about what Mike Pupin did to see (and probably he was the one or near the one that heard first) thought.
Is hearing thought done thru light or sound? If sound it would be logical since Pupin is credited with sonar, and must have been involved in detecting sound. It is interesting that Pupin basically amplified things...he amplified photons with the secondary xray technique (and ofcourse what our eyes see), and then also electric current he amplified with an inductor.
One thing that is interesting also with Righi who proved that at least for shorter wavelengths that all frequencies of light can be reflected (which is a phenomenon in itself...it light particles actually stop then, light doesn't move at a constant velocity all the time, but if light orbits, that is amazing too that photons can change direction so quickly. Anyway, didn't somebody try to prove that the longer wavelengths also refract, reflect, etc? THere was some consequence to that awesome experiment (Righi must have contributed much to this understanding ... possibly he proved that light has no amplitude, but didn't recognize it) of seeing if radio could be focused by a lens. I think the feeling that I am getting is that maybe there is a frequency just below visible with a wave length that can easily be measured, which will show, once thru a lens, that amplitude of light is meaningless, in other words, light beams have no amplitude.
science: One key point in all of this is that, for example, photons with xray frequency (which is basically many more photons than visible and radio per second), goes through our skin, where photons with visible frequency do not, I mean obviously visible light does not go thru our arm, but with xray frequency it does. I think we can presume that no light with a frequency lower than visible can go through our arm and all above xray can. That is a simple (probably) truth, that I have never heard before. It's interesting that the (in my opinion) mistaken popular belief, is that, the xray wavelength is small enough to go thru our arm, but I think the reality may be that, there are simply enough photons to get to the other side, I mean it's related to the wavelength, but not in amplitude, it's related because the more photons per second, the more photons will not reflect, or be absorbed, and will get thru.
One interesting thought on the Hertz, very interestng, experiment. I would like to duplicate the Hertz experiment, because it is pretty interesting. It's radio for beginners and is easy to see, etc. The interesting thing is that, I think, possibly that, the Hertz experiment where circular pieces of metal with a tiny air gap, which spark when the wave moves past them, may be another form of the photoelectric effect. In other words, light, and I was thinking, that even visible light (since we see light from sparks), is transmitted from the original spark oscillator, and it collides with the metal of the detector and that causes current thru the photo electric effect. So light of any frequency probably causes current in metal, but the higher the frequency of light and the higher the intensity of the light (which is rarely mentioned when describing the photo-electric effect...mostly people try to stress the point about the higher the frequency the higher the energy of the electrons) the higher the current.
So back to the any light above xray can go thru our arm, and any light below cannot. How are these images, from our eyes captured? I tried using the Sony "night shot" camera with a visible blocking filter and I still get the photons reflected from the back of my head (and not the photons that go thru my eye holes). So, there is more to it. In fact, if the date of 1910 is correct for Pupin's pivotal finding, it took some time for him to figure out how to see what people see. It was 1896 when Pupin made his excellent find of "secondary xrays". So, if 1910 is correct, that is 14 years later. That's a long time. Maybe it was difficult to figure out, or maybe the date I have of 1910 is incorrect, but it has been confirmed at least once. Actually, Pupin was not the first to invent sonar, according to wikipedia, they don't even mention him. But it appears clear that Pupin added to the US sonar technology which clearly places him doing secretive government science, as does the Manhattan project taking place at Columbia University. They have a curious story of a riot at Columbia which resulted in the loss of some of their secret science research, so they claim. So back to the seeing photons reflected off the back of me head. Remembering the National Geographic movie more, it looks like the eyeball is actually visible, and if the eyeball is visible...how can that be? It looks kind of like an xray image, but maybe it is infrared. How can a person filter out light reflected off the back of a head, while still getting the light that went through the eyes? I was thinking that one way, might be to only detect the photon emission frequency of carbon from our heads. I have to feel proud of myself that I actaully came up with that idea. Maybe it was beamed on me. I still can't figure it out. I seriously doubt that photons in the x-ray are beamed thru our eyes to be detected on the other side, we would all get lukemia or cancer if that were true. There is the possibility of the detector being xray detectors and that there are enough xray frequency beams to make a picture, but then there would be enough xray beams reflecting off the back of our heads too. Infrared may be logical, because, our body is emitting photons in the infrared all the time. There must be some frequency that our body emits, that is different from that reflected from our body (ie the back of our heads) and that would be the frequency to tune in. How to filter one tiny frequency is unknown to me...it could be done with some kind of atomic filters (like modern camera filters), or electronically (but then you would need a grid of digital light detectors, that would run through the electronic/computer filter). It could have been done either was by 1910, but probably it was done with some photographic (atomic-based) infrared filters. And maybe that is what took so much time. The first realization may have been...'hey our eyes have holes that take in light...we should be able to see what a person sees'...or it was coincidental...'i was taking xray photos from behind a person's head and I realized that I was seeing what the person was seeing (in the photos or maybe even in real-time). So was seeing eyes the result of logical thought, or lucky experimental find? Clearly Pupin was a smart person. It's evidence that supports an open immigration policy. Clearly the US benefitted from the penniless Pupin. So, clearly, he was a smart person, and already a famous scientists by 1896. Still trying to figure out how he did it is frustrating. I think it has to be similar to his secondary x-ray process, but maybe for photons in some frequency (or range of frequencies) of infrared. So probably I just need more of an infrared filter, something that will block the infrared that is reflecting off my head (a small amount must be emitting from my hair, but perhaps the light through the eyes has more intensity). The key thing I was thinking of is that the light in the visible enters our eyes, and then collides with our neurons, and then I was thinking that the neurons probably emit some of those photons but with a lower frequency, but in the same pattern as the visible that collided with them. In other words, of every 10 photons the neurons take 1 photon is emitted, and that is what creates the infrared beams of photons behind our head. I don't know, send me email with any ideas you may have (that would be a shocking first).
There is so much wonderful science out there, if only people cared for it. I was thinking, as I have lamented many times. There are hundred thousand dollars professors by the million, universities by the thousands, and not one of those people, thought to make a free video, web or otherwise, ever really a mainstream paid-for video/DVD about the history of science, evolution, or the future. I dn't know why, but...I again was thinking...had people really followed science, they would have kept up with Pupin, they would have figured out what the latest greatest science was and would have relished it, and talked all about it...but they didn't and the reason has to the power of mainstream religion. That is my conclusion, that religion is why people do not follow science and all the latest greatest findings.
One thing I was thinking of, is what if Pupin really was evil (in the nonviolent secretive way), as a person that was in favor of killing those that told the secret...I seriously doubt it...it's not typical for people in science. Besides, one key point is that Pupin stood to get a lot of money had seeing thought been made public, because of the idiots that keep it secret Pupin lost a lot of money that really in many ways he deserved (or at least a portion of...in addition to the immense popularity seeing eyes would have brought to him). He is listed as really, a three paragraph scientist, and really, he probably has a few more paragraphs, one which puts him there with Edison, Marconi (although Marconi was brutal and idiotic in supporting Mussolini), etc...people that really accomplished something fantastic.
science: People still call them "x-ray photons", I have the opposite view of them as "photons in x-ray frequency". I think that the frequency is not an aspect of each photon, but an aspect of the distance between photons which are basically identical. It seems illogical to me to talk about photons have different "energies" since they are all the same, have no acceleration, and a constant velocity.
Back again to the idea of the maybe being enough background photons in the xray to detect thru our eyes (but then wouldn't they be reflecting off the back of our head too?...but maybe the light thru our eyes is stronger, or is still visible). in wikipedia there is a photo from Rosat, of the earth moon that is supposedly only photons in the xray at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xray. Not even a mention about Pupin there, whose 'secondary xray' find is still in use and a major part of xrays as far as I know.
I was glad to read about the popularity of Evo Morales in Bolivia. It is awesome to see that Morales is for making coca legal. I don't like all the anti-US talk, but who can blame the people of South America for the callous and barbaric violent way the majority of people in the US have treated them? The people that grow coca have their property violently destroyed, crops burned and poisoned, they are shot at, and locked in jail for years...treated worse than murderers, and here they are only growing plants that people want to buy. THe entire drug market is consentual and voluntary, and it would be totally nonviolent if drugs were legal. I hope Morales does legalize coca in Bolivia (and I ofcourse vote for the end to the drug war all over earth). It's unclear what Morales would do as President of Bolivia, but I hope that they can look back a year or two later and show how they lowered violence, how they freed the nonviolent, how they created jobs, how they raised the standard of living in Bolivia. I was thinking that, like here in the USA, if marijuana were made legal, and all the people locked in the prisons in the USA that were convicted for nonviolent drug possession charges were released, those people would be probably very grateful to the people in government that made that change. So, if Morales, does choose to release the many people in the Bolivia prisons that are there strictly for nonviolent drug possession, then no doubt those people would be grateful to him for their freedom, to be able to return to their families and continue their nonviolent lives. It is brutal to keep people that only grew or used drugs in jail, they are only hurting themselves if anybody. Violence, and really, even nonviolent theft are worse crimes. I hope Morales is smart and educated. That is the key thing I think necessary for good leadership. I am glad to see the rise of the two popular left-wing liberals Morales and Hugo Chavez, and I encourange them to increase the democracy, to support full democracy, and reject communism (since I think many people fear that left-wing people are supporters of communism, which is not a good system in my opinion). I can see keeping open and free trade with Cuba, China and other communist nations, but clearly it looks to me that the communist idea in Cuba, China and Viet Nam, etc. will change as time and technology continues...already in China there is popular support for democracy, and there is something wrong when, in the case of Cuba, one person is the leader for decades, that is more like monarchy. Only time will tell. My advice to those two leaders is to support science, free trade, free information, more democracy, stopping of violence (stopping of violence is what allows popular leaders to rule...for example look at the USA where popular liberals have been killed...JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon...without violence and violent people, those tragic losses can't happen), freeing the nonviolent (in particular for drugs and prostitution), providing minimum clear water, food, clothes, minimum health care, maybe even a room (eventually in the next centuries) for all people. I think people can get the best appeals of communism in a capitalist democratic society. The appeals of taking care of the poor...that can be done democratically by voting a budget and laws to stop starvation and dehydration, etc. I really want to encourage the people of South America to drop the religion and get with science. Christianity and the European gods forced upon them, should show them that religion is not any good. It is stupid to go back to the native religions, and just as stupid to adopt the european religions. What all people on earth should embrace is science, evolution, and technology. We ought to eradicate pain, and tolerate consentual pleasure. It's tough to get a perfect person as president, I am sure that ... for example Chavez seems like a tough character, he was in the military, not a teacher or anything. Still, I support the liberal cause and feel better with the liberals than with the conservatives, who have been violent, lawless, destructive, oppressive, intolerant, secretive, etc. I was thinking that something that people in Bolivia could do that is an interesting idea is making or raising a minimum wage, but keeping it low enough to attract US businesses, but high enough to raise the standard of living for the poor in Bolivia. (It is interesting the idea of a minimum wage...I kind of think the idea is kind of pointless, but I am still trying to figure it out. Pointless, because, raising the minimum wage, probably adds to inflation...the amount of paper currency in circulation...people earn more, so sellers raise their prices. It is funny the way the money in circulation keeps going up...people keep printing more and more paper money...it is an interesting phenomenon...but ultimately there is a trade with other nations and that keeps it a universal value market...there will even be trade of currency (probably only electronic) between planets, and us and the new settlers of Alpha Centauri.
Also some comments on the president of Iran. Those are some reckless statements, and stupid statements. It seems clear that the WW2 haulocaust is a fact, there is a lot of evidence to support it including films. But in addition, what a violent bunch of talk...death to Israel. Why not encourage living together in peace and nonviolence as they have for thousands of years? Why not promote science and extending the nation of Iran onto the moon and into orbit? I think we should focus more on growing off the tiny earth. Then the argument about, why not make an Israel in the US or Europe, and it seems clear that the US and Europe are home for many Arab and Jewish people. We need to start looking at the planet as one big democracy I think. I realize that anti-globalist people disagree, but I think democracy is scalable. A good example is Singapore, look at what they are getting away with there...it is shocking. They are killing drug users. In my opinion, and the opinion of many people, that goes beyond democratic scalability, and there ought to be arrests. It would be different if there was life imprisonment being handed out for drug use...then it could be put to the back as a lower priority. But because it is violent first degree murder, it violates the most popular law of earth, even if it happens to hold a majority in Singapore. But, for the most part, I can see tolerating brutal laws like drug laws if they are popular in some city or nation, because the benefit is for states like California where drugs would be legal and there would then be no planetary of national crack down and arrests because within it's own population, it is popular. Anyway, those statements by Ahmadinejad, the newly elected president of Iran are idiocy and violent. That is like the US conservative dream come true, because they could make an excuse that Iran is a home for terrorists and take it over and turn it democratic (again, Iran and the relgious fanatacism there makes it clear why democracy might not hold together on it's own with a large nation occupying the nation in Iran, Iraq, or other very fundamental religious nations). But in any event, it really is the truth, that all over the planet, there are religious conservatives, but the arab islamic religious conservatives have to be the most fervent and violent (at least individually). The arab people never had a renessaince as Europe did. A book I was reading said that in Islam, the science appears to go backward in time...the farther back in history you go, the better the science was. I look at the arab nations as being poor people with stone tool technology, not as a serious threat...in particular once all the cameras on the streets are available to the public, then we can start to clean up the planet, arresting all the violent people, whereever they are, using walking robots, etc. And in particular protecting the people who speech causes them to be in danger of violence from those that disagree with them. That is a key point and path to progress...if there are women that chose to go with less clothes, we have to make sure to protect them from violence, and to jail those that attempt violence. And that is just one of many examples. Take the example of the person that speaks openly against religion, there two, they must be protected from the people that violently oppose hearing anti-religious talk. In that way, progress can be made...they will have to start tolerating public nudity in images and in person...etc they will become enlightened eventually because violence will be removed as an option.
A cool thing is that the population of our star system may be directly related to how much matter is in orbit of this star. Outside of that, we would need to import (and probably will) matter from other star systems. Because, ultimately we are converting matter to living objects. Every 300 pound human is 300 pounds of matter that cannot be part of a planet, ship, water, air, etc, and the more humans there are, the less other matter there will be. Exporting matter from other stars will be a good gig for many big-time wealthy explorer people. But there may be reasons why each star system has a certain amount of matter...matter may naturally gravitate to evenly distribute the amount of matter around each star, but I think we probably will figure out exactly how much matter we can orbit around our star. I am thinking that life will move to other stars, a long time before this star system runs out of matter.
Biofuel, basically vegtable oil that is used in a diesel engine, is really almost another secret science, but is more public than seeing eyes. see wikipedia, there is good info there. There are pluses and minuses, but the pluses are many:
pluses:
1) not removing buried carbon from the ground and putting it into the atmosphere (because the plants that make the oil/fuel take CO2 from the air). People can compare putting the CO2 in the air from buried oil as like reversing those billions of years of photosynthesis and species and their fecies being buried.
2) no sulphur in emissions
3) does not smell bad like diesel (so wiki claims...I don't know)
4) we are running out of fossil fuel in the earth, it is a finite supply
5) higher flash point, so less combustible than gas in accident
minuses:
1) gells up when cold, diesal fuel is thinner....but there have to be easy ways around this, maybe permanently heating the fuel tank by using a battery, or mixing the fuel with some thinner material...finding a plant oil that is thinner, or genetically altering one.
2) costs more than diesel fuel, but maybe not forever, in particular with the price of gas now. I guess we can compare the price of a gallon of gas with a gallon of vegtable oil.
Maybe not everybody will be on board for biofuel but it's good to know about and keep experimenting and learning about. The article on wiki does not mention planes, helicopters, ships, etc.
There are other options on the horizons, I don't doubt that there is already somewhere some 50 year old secret technology kept from the public, by this same group of evil secretive power hungry public users and controllers that keeps eye images secret, some secret technology that uses tiny particle accelerators to separate atoms without photons in the gamma...some clean way of getting electricity or force out of atoms without the radioactivity. Although, it is interesting that a nuclear separation chain reaction can be ignited simply with photons (ie. a match, propane, etc), in addition to neutrons, (and perhaps electrons and protons). SO, burning Hydrogen really is separating protons (and neutrons if deuterium) into it's source photons...there is nothing else...there is no fission of Hydrogen, maybe there is fission of propane but, it is easier and probably more efficient to ignite propane with oxygen. I keep thinking that there must be other atoms beside oxygen, or maybe molecules without oxygen that make for good combustion. This is kind of interesting: http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/incompatibles.html. There are interesting concepts of flashpoint and firepoint, see wiki. It is interesting there is an autoignition temperature, a temperature at which some material will combust (or I guess that is separate into photons, even without a spark or flame). To me, that may be evidence of what is happening in the sun (I am openly exploring explanations other than the left over matter from 4 Hydrogens being converted to 1 Helium, which I can't understand because neutrons contain more matter than protons, but I don't rule this out). Diesel engines do not even need to use a spark to ignite the fuel, the temperature (because of the pressure) is enough.
as I said:
science: maybe atoms are separated into photons simply from the pressure of the matter in the sun.
Maybe the fame of Pupin is what made Putin so popular, it's ony 1 letter difference.
The interesting thing aobut seeing and hearing thought is that is radically changes the society as most people relate to it. Life is totally different when people can communicate thru thought. In my opinion it's radically better. Dishonesty is almost impossible, liars are quickly seen...all the homicides, ...even the smaller lies...finally the public would know the truth instantly or within days. But also, it is faster...it frees our vocal muscles...we don't need to talk any more we can communicate with much less effort by simply thinking. It changes society...now people don't look at a newspaper, its all beamed directly onto their head! In the shower, on the toilet, in bed...you can be watching a movie, or searching the Internet....with the images as clear as can be in your own head.
In the video at tedhuntington.com/bim.htm, you can just see outside of the skull of the human at the left edge. It is black...so that is curious, because wouldn't light be the same whether it went thru the eye or past the head? The brain doesn't amplify the light...or maybe it does. Again, maybe it is that frequency of light recorded is strictly emitted from the neurons of the human flesh (for example from Carbon, with Carbon spectral lines/frequencies), and then that frequency would not be in the light that is going by the the head. Pupin said "microscopic"...the eye is small, maybe they needed to magnify the light...but the eyeball looks to scale in this image. If the eyeball is white, I think it means that all the light is being transmitted there...if it were just the infrared from the back of the head, we would not see the eyeball...and the optic nerve. So the light we are seeing must be coming from in front of the eye ball and thru the head? I guess we can imagine a second eyeball to the right. I can see simply detecting one frequency of light in the infrared...the light goes thru the eye ball...so everything that is white is photons received onto the film, everything in black is the frequency absorbed that does not reach the film. The vein or optic nerve must not be emitting infrared, and in addition, is blocking infrared...perhaps that is after the eyeball. Here is some more poop: This image looks similar to other opthomology images I found on images.google.com. The tools are: opthalmoscope, retinoscope. I know there is one where people shine a light and can see the retina, and it looks similar, but why isn't there a black spot on the eye where the persons hand is? None of the web images have an eye chart on the "retina". Maybe thru one eye the eye chart is seen, and the other the person has the opthalmoscope. http://www.yorku.ca/eye/retview.htm explains that the white circle is called the "optic disc", and is a place where all the blood vessels and nerves converge and go out of the retina to the brain. The dark area is the fovea. So that is interesting, that this image is all inside the eyeball, not on the back of the head as I thought. The white disk is the back of the eyeball. So, now it is back to the mystery of how did they get the eye chart on the back of the eyeball? Maybe they simply used blending of the two films (which would not be great to do in my opinion...science should be shown without any optical tricks). I don't know how the eye chart got on the back of the retna, but it looks clear that the National Geographic images are from an opthalmoscope. I should have known they wouldn't show the thought images that must exist. But...perhaps this segment was meant to hint to people...it certainly worked for me. Hermann von Helmholtz invented the opthalmoscope. So I think, there goes my solid piece of evidence, and I feel a little less esteem for National Geographic, although still, they brought those never before seen images to the public in 1975 and so that is good. I still feel strongly that people can see eyes and hear thoughts, there is a lot of other evidence that I reveal on tedhuntington.com/bim.htm. Interestingly enough, I have yet to find an opthomoscope image that has anything like an eye chart on the back. It still seems clear that Michael Pupin was the first to see eyes...it all adds up, the PP, friends with Edison, Columbia University the center for secret science in the early 1900 for the USA including the Manhatten Project, the currency with the 5 million dinar image. So that is a plus and a minus, finding out about Pupin the plus, finding out that the 1975 National Geographic image is only from an opthalmoscope the minus. The major hope is to duplicate seeing from behind the head, and beyond that trying to intercept video images (but they probably are scrambled, maybe spread spectrum...I can imagine that might be difficult).
I hope the number of people hearing and seeing thoughts is increasing more than the population is, otherwise people are getting more secretive and elitist as time continues.
So there is an initial limit as to the number of humans if all the matter in this star system was converted to humans.
The mass of the planets and moons is ~ 2.8e27kg (the sun is ~2e30 kg about 1000 times more). So if the average human is 150kg (>300lbs) that is a 1.8e25 human limit, but then we need to realize that air, water, food, ships, fuel will take at least 1/2 (and probably more liek 9/10ths), then 9e24 humans. As large as that number seems, it is actually kind of small, when you look at a population that doubles every 100 years (now we are doubling every 40 years and this is only on a tiny planet, without a hint of science to increase aging, potentially to infinity), 9e24 might happen at the current rate around the year 5000AD only 3000 years away (we can look back at 1000BC and that is the amount of time, that all the matter in this star system will be converted to humans and humans will need to go to other stars and import more matter from other stars). That number 9e24 is 9 hexillion (or sesillion), 9000 pentillion people, 9 trillion Megapeople. At a slower population increase, for example at the rate that humans in developed nations are increasing (doubling every 278 years, .25% annually), this number would be reached around: 16000, so much later. That is 14,000 years away...still a finite time...it is like 12,000 BCE, a time before agriculture, but long after sapiens, and there are probably many stone tools that are older than 12,000BCE. So, even at a slow rate of population increase, the conversion of matter to life (and all it's necessary supplies), will probably happen before 16000 AD, 14,000 years from now. That is really a short amount of time. There are ofcourse plenty of other options, humans may feel strongly about preserving the planets of this star system (although...I am telling you...the earth will be wall to wall humans and city in a short amount of time) and import matter from other stars, and actively be moving to other stars. I don't doubt that humans will be importing and moving to other stars anyway...but when I have not calculated yet. This calculation of the limits on the amount of matter in this star system are putting limits on when we will go to other stars...I mean obviously it will be clear that we need to go to other stars by 5000AD, if it isn't already, since there will be no matter left that hasn't been converted to a human or supply. Most futurists tend to be too optomistic, and I want to try to be realistic about these estimations. I am basically predicting a very slow transistion to the other planets and into orbit. I am setting as a guideline, the number of people living on the moon to increase at 10x every 100 years, so 100 people on the moon at 2100, 1000 at 2200, 10000 at 2300 and then decreasing (in rate) from there to 9x every 100 years. There are absolute populations for all planets and that limits the population growth on their surface (and inside them). For example, for earth I doubt that there will ever be more than 1 quadrillion human, and more realistically, there will probably only be 100 trillion people (and that includes all buildings attached to earth), in orbit is a different story, earth orbit will be very crowded making the earth look like... surrounded by spheres of tiny white things. This is the first picture of the future earth of this kind that I have ever seen...nobody projects the earth in this way as I am doing...that there will be many spheres of little white dot ships that cover the earth to such an extent that little and perhaps no blue will be visible. Little or no light will reach the surface anymore, the surface will be totally electric light. It is a very interesting image. Most people will want to move to higher and higher orbits. The poorest will probably be stuck living on earth, and those that are sentimental...set in their ways...conservative.
12/20/2005
I skimmed thru "From Immigrant to Inventor", Pupin has near the beginning something like "I won't be disclosing any disclosures" and that is pretty much true throughout the book. Just as a quick review, Pupin expresses some amount of racism in the form of racial pride, saying the one thing he held on to as an immagrant to the US was his feeling of "pride in his race" which I thought was old-worldian (I have to forgive some of this because the book was written around 1920, nearly 100 years ago), but still, for me, amidst all the nazistic owellian society Pupin helped create (perhaps he didn't help...certainly mainly I blame the secretive), I hold on to my pride in "the truth", not "my race" or the English tradition. I think no matter what race a person is, many are against homicide, many are against lying, etc. We are connected not be race, but by shared values. I can certainly imagine being a person in some other nation, longing to be again with English speaking people, with English food, etc. But then, I can barely read the rest of the pulitzer prize winning book, because it is too boring. There are too many trivial asides. My time is too precious. But there are some interesting comments about the science of the day. I was disappointed about the talk about Cambridge, here I was interesting in seeing inside the lab experiences, but all Pupin did was graze over the reputation and the petty interactions involved in his appointment. Throughout the book Pupin does do a lot of hinting. He says "the picture in her mind", and "the image of the memory was so strong in my head", I am paraphrasing a little. One part of interest is his section that discusses how Edison gave him the flourescent screens. He was trying to take an x-ray of a person that had bullets in their hand...it is told differently on a web site I saw, or perhaps by Asimov. And Edison had given Pupin some "flourescent screens" (what a flourescent screen is I am not sure...but where do we all buy one?). Pupin could see the fragments in the hand when he held the flourescent screen over the hand (presumably when the xray bulb [as it is described] was on), so Pupin decided to hold the flourescent screen over the film plate and found that the exposure developed was very good and took only a few seconds. (perhaps he found that on the first exposure the film was all white/clear...so he realized he had to do a shorter exposure). Pupin later makes an interesting statement that he later found that any object xrays (basically photons with xray frequency...we can think of this as a beam chock full of photons...more than visible light and much more than radio...a beam thick with photons. It is unintuitive that we would not see a beam that is stronger than light, but it is because the light detectors in our eyes only can detect visible...it is interesting that a beam with more photons is not detected at all by our eyes...I would think that the photons that form lower frequencies in the beam would activate our detectors, but the quantity of photons ,perhaps disables the detectors all together, or the detectors function only at certain wave lengths ...which means were could see some wavelengths (multiples) of one's we can see....it is ineresting...but I would have to go with the idea that we can detect many frequencies, but our detectors are disabled for frequencies to high...or simply don't function even for the multiples of frequencies we can detect). So Pupin says that any object that is beamed on with xrays emits xrays.
12/21/05
I think that some times I have the feeling that innocent people are zapped by mostly conservatives, like a hostage holder...when the liberals in the eye net start to make noises about going public, the conservatives zap a few innocent of the excluded to say 'do you see...you don't want them being hurt now do you? ... these lasers get a lot more painful and (perhaps) can be used to kill a person in seconds...you wouldn't want us to excersize the option...now would you?".
Like those people testifying about torture at the hands of Saddam Hussain, I would like to testify publically now, about the torture I receive on just about a daily basis from Bush thugs and other right-wing criminally conservative people...I am zapped with lasers just about everyday. Many times they are used to burn my skin, other times, to make me itch certain areas of my skin, sometimes to try and induce cancerous tumors in my brain and other organs. I realize, like the victims of Hussain's henchman, without any good physical evidence, in particular some video of the assaulters, it's tough to believe, but that doesn't change the truth that the torture and first degree assaults are happening.
I am sure a number of people that realize that there are lasers zapping us eventually wonder, where is the center for all this zapping? Where is the person watching us from and zapping us from? I thought more about it, and I think that there have to be centers where people sit and their job is to watch and zap people. Some body owns these lasers in every building, some body administers the zapping, some body put the cameras in there, and somebody is watching them. I am basically concluding that, while there are corporations that do install and watch cameras, and potentially even lasers, the majority of the system is owned and run by people in the US government. In particular, the police, and military, outside of that, it is run by the state, county and city governments. Who else would have legal authority to wire up the nation? Who else has a coordinated network the scale of the nation? The police have special priviledges that the public are not allowed to have (special technology), and humans are afraid to question and investigate police/government, for fear of being arrested on trumped up/bogus charges. So it seems clear that in each city, there is a police station, and in each police station there is at least one secret room, where people are sitting, right now as you read this, watching many people, and zapping a few. It really is a terrible injustice, to have the least educated, most violent, conservative, male only people administering the ceiling cameras and lasers...and then the public does not even get to see. It's tough for me to know, I don't doubt that much of the public, mainly the conservatives do get to see, and that there is some interaction between the public and police.
This raises another good point and that is that: should some people be excluded from seeing and hearing thought, from seeing inside people's houses? Yes, I think, people that have been repeatedly first degree violent, and maybe even have made threats of first degree violence, at least until they have shown that they have stopped for a long time. But, there is a very important point: should those people not even be told that hearing and seeing thought is possible, that such networks exist? Here is where I vote "no". They should know that such systems exist. They should see examples of the technology in use in the past. That is one of the fundamental injustices of the secret of seeing eyes and hearing ears is that many people (and in addition, the excluded are many people like me, for the most part, never violent) are not even told that such technology exists. I think the public should know that what we see can be seen, even if we don't get to see the massive secret networks. It is good to tell people, that conservative enemies might be beaming images on their head...that terrible suggestions might be beamed on their head in the form of images and sounds, sounds that might seem very closely to be thoughts in your own voice, telling you to do violence, to hurt your self, etc. It would help to stop the massive chaos that conservatives are doing with this secret technology, and give people a particle of self protection against this powerful secret technology. I don't doubt for a second that there are many many videos of conservatives beaming suggestions onto innocent people's heads and the people promptly following the suggestion, a suggestion that resulted in their death. It must be terrible to see, and make decent people feel disgusted about the current state of society.
12/22/05
science=Here is something I thought about last night. Because of the simple conclusion that Hydrogen burning in oxygen is the complete separation (most call it the destruction or anhilation) or both Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms, it is clear that the photons received from such reactions would be not only from the electrons separated, but also from the protons and neutrons of both Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. Given that apparant truth, how do protons, neutrons and electrons emit photons? We recognize clearly the spectral signature of every atom, but the current theories of Bohr and Schrodinger describe this only as the changing of electrons to different orbits. How can this be, when the photons are coming from what was once not only the electrons (which again, even then are completely separated...not simply changing orbits), but also the protons and neutrons? Do protons and neutrons also have changing orbits? But then, we are talking about the complete separation, the spectrum lines are more about how photons exit particles, leaving nothing...how atoms disintingrate...not how electrons change orbits and absorb or emit photons. Perhaps ther are two phenomena here, one where current (electrons) are used to make matter luminesce, and a second where the matter is destroyed. Perhaps that is a possibility. But, the thing that angers me, is the question: "How long will the established people in science continue to ignore this truth, not only about hydrogen combustion being a nuclear reaction, but about photons emitted from Hydrogen combustion being not only from electrons but from the protons and neutrons of Hydrogen and Oxygen too, and publically ignoring the question of how photons exit protons and neutrons."
One interesting fact about science publishers (like Science and Nature), is that the amount of science they can publish is becoming less and less, because more and more of the advances in science are being labeled classified. When people make advances from info they have learned in the eye net, they are not allowed to publish their findings, and because much of modern science has been dragged into the secret realm and away from the public, most of those new additional findings cannot be published. The only things that can be published are things about biology (minus genetic experimentation), astronomy, physics (as long as it is old-world physics that embraces relativity, strings, worm-holes, black-holes, etc).
I like to talk about science. It appears unusual to other people who never talk about science. But, there is a transition that is happening, away from religion and sports...away from stupidity and ignorance of science and toward real discussion about the interesting history and future of science and life of earth...to me that is far more interesting that figuring out if the red team won some sports match, or what some people paid millions to act out exciting lives on sitcom television are doing. It's clear, from the number of people that enjoy watching me, that new finds in science and technology are very interesting.
Bill Gates has donated the most money of all humans on earth, but I think I have donated the most exposing and explaining of secrets to the public, which may not be of more value, but certainly takes more courage and concern for the public's level of awareness.
Another thing that pisses me off is how none of us know how much has been uncovered secretly. For all I know many of the things I am finding about how light is the basic particle of all matter has been indendently uncovered by a thousand people...or was recognized in 1920, but kept secret by the evil powers and people that be.
12-17-2005
Michael Pupin (Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin (1854 October 4 - March 12, 1935)) was probably the inventor, and first to see what people see from behind their head. That is what the "PP" was people hinted about is: "PuPin". Here is some good info on Pupin:
http://www.geocities.com/neveyaakov/electro_science/pupin.html
 |  |
Look how the circle aligns with the back of Pupin's head, the people of Yugoslavia could not hide their pride in relishing in Pupin's famous find.
So it was Columbia University where Pupin made his greatest achievement of seeing behind the human head. He worked closely with Thomas Edison, the first to make moving pictures. According to one of the above links, Edison gave Pupin a flourescent screen, which Pupin put next to a photographic film and exposed to photons with X-ray frequency. The flourescent screen amplified the photons in the X-ray onto the photographic film and made developing X-ray images available in seconds and not minutes. Before people had to do long exposures, waiting to accumulate photons. There is little duobt that this photon amplification process (with according to the above link is still in use today) was quickly used for other frequencies of light, and this is how Pupin was able, initially to capture images in the infrared (I mean I am still presuming that the photons from our heads are in the infrared), from the back of human heads, which show what the light going thru our eyes records. Wikipedia has:
"He in 1896 invented the method of placing a sheet of paper impregnated with fluorescent dyes next to the photographic plate, thereby permitting an exposure of only a few seconds, rather than that of an hour or more."
"For his work in mathematical physics and its application to the electric transmission of intelligence."
Pupin has a quote:
"Where are those one hundred million dollars which the invention has saved?" Pupin asked. "I know that not even a microscopic part of them is in the pockets of the inventor. I have figured out also, with the same accuracy with which I once figured out the invention, that those hundred million dollars are not in the pockets of the telephone company. They must be, therefore, in the pockets of the American public. The invention made it possible to provide the telephone service, which is now being given, at a lower rate than would otherwise have been possible."
I think this must related also to his feeling that he deserved more money for his invention, which was kept secret. It must be a very interesting story about how seeing thought was kept secret. I don't doubt that it came down to the science establishment versus the military establishment, and ofcourse, the science establishment is a bunch of nonviolent thinkers...so forget winning any kind of actual physical conflict. But it is surprising to the extent that the secretive have prevailed...I mean 100 years...that is some victory...the comparison that is probably always made is the X-ray which was made public very quickly.
By all means check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihajlo_Pupin
"Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin (1854 October 4 - March 12, 1935) (A.k.a "Michael I. Pupin") Serbian and American physicist, best known for devising a means of greatly extending the range of long-distance telephone communication by placing loading coils (of wire) at predetermined intervals along the transmitting wire."
Other interesting things:
Michael Pupin's autobiography, "From Immigrant to Inventor", won the Pulitzer Prize in 1924.
Again a "PP", Pulitzer was connected to Colubia University too. But look at the letters "FITI"...it could be "fight eye" (the eye network). He must have wanted seeing thought to go public and was pissed when it wasn't allowed by the puritans in power. And then his book: "Romance of the Machine" (1930), "ROTM", could be like "Rotten" which is basically the name for the opposite of the "rats" or "ratten"...that are for telling the secret to the public....basically I am thought to be "ratten" and I view the secretists as the "rotten". Although maybe I am wrong on this point, but obviously there is conflict between those for secrecy and those against.
What companies make these cameras? It has to be any company that makes cameras now: Sony, Canon, JVC, Raytheon, GE, Kodak (perhaps...although they haven't publically made video cameras). Perhaps "eye" seeing will come out in Japan before the USA, it's place of origin, because Japanese people seem to be more into technology, obviously most of the camera companies are Japanese. What do they have to lose? But then, look at the position Sonyhas taken, they bought a big movie studio, and are big into copy protection technology...the leaders at Sony seem to be supporting "planned obsolenscence" and belief that the copyright and secrecy is going to hold for a lot longer. So it is doubtful that they will be the people to first go public with seeing eyes (althought probably National Geographic gets credit as being the first to publically show images from behind a head or what eyes see).
So it was Michael Pupin...that was the "PP"...and most probably the inventor that was first to see what eyes see from behind a head. And then how his invention was supressed from the public by a virtual Nazi group in the USA for 90 years and counting. A very incredible story.
12-16-2005
explain relativity "proofs":
1) photons bend, (eclipse, quasar, in basement) due to gravity
2) particles slow down and become more massive (take on photons, maybe slowing result of nature of accelerating charged particles with magnetic fields, is slowing actually lack of constant accel?, we known because of match, that at the root of all matter is the photon. perhaps the particle is becoming more like a single photon, losing photons on the way, or maybe just the opposite gaining photons from the accelerator matter or the particles in the magnetic field, if there are particles in magnetic fields)
3) mercury perihelon, how are they using Newton's equations, Newton's equations used in a simulation can produce procession, if not, maybe not including effects of all atoms of water on earth, in air, etc. but more probable, mercury perihelon can be modeled with Newton equation, although I have not done it, or any planet, but I certainly have seen the procession of an elliptical orbit, and you can see it in the movies of "moving a star".
a) this is not an experiment, but the only difference between relativity and newton is time (and matter) dilation, which is highly unintuitive, and in addition, this was from people that lumped all matter into particles, without realizing that photons are the basis of even the particles...so they were thinking (and still are) that particles are very different from each other, for example, there would be a baseball particle, an earth particle, a human particle...when we know that a baseball, for example is a collection of protons, etc.
light as a wave
---------------
polarized light- shape of atoms may be responsible (not sine wave shape of light). Perhaps only light going perpendicular is transmitted, the rest is reflected, so "polarized" light, may simply be light that is only coming from 90 degrees (not 89, 60, 30 degrees etc.). When the second polarized material is turn at 90 degrees, perhaps the atoms on the polarized material then only allow light with direction other than 90 degrees (which has already been reflected by the first polarizing sheet).
quantum theory
--------------
1) can view standing wave, wave function of debroglie, schrodinger also as a logic function that maintains a photon must be in a circular orbit. The equation may describe how photons are absorbed and emitted, but it does not require that electrons even be orbiting the atom...in addition to elliptical or circular orbits, without any amplitude, the wave function could be viewed as a depth level of electrons statically held in place in some position in an atom.
Augusto Righi
-refracted non-visible light (particles),
(may have actually done radio thru lens experiment, but perhaps didn't know to prove that light has no amplitude). asimov said that Righi could not refract (bend light thru a lens for example) for lower frequencies only for higher ones.
1:15pm 12/16/05
A dark skinned male, arab, polynesian or maybe mongolian looking, with a very round big face, about age 20 with medium curly black hair in black sun glasses learned out of the passenger side of a black car, pointed his finger at me and yelled "I do it" as the car sped by. To which I yelled "hey!" because what the person said hadn't registered for a few seconds. This happened on campus drive right after the bridge near university. I had my video camera (no not like the 5 billion hidden cameras, this one is a consumer camera), but there wasn't time to film the car. It reminds me of a white guy on campus drive, who, a few years ago was the passenger in a pickup that pointed out his finger like a gun at me and lowered his thumb in a typical gun firing gesture. That was scary, but this one is scary too. I can imagine that this guy is in the camera net...how people like that, that threaten violence and homicide, can be included in hearing people's inner most thoughts, and seeing inside their houses and apartments can only be because of the belief that violence is not a big deal. In addition, this kind of thing happens more around Christmas, that was when John Lennon was killed...it's violent Christian religious ferver, under a violent Christian religious furor. Lasers could be used to zap people like that to make them move to protect their heads, but instead lasers were a few minutes later applied to my head! As I continued bicycling, I thought...I better go back to wearing a helmet (one Christmas time I wore my kevlar vest and that confirmed people's suspicious of my insanity...I was stopped in a Salt Lake City airport for wearing kevlar) at least for the rest of December. And I thought ... ever notice how the people in security are the most rabidly Christian conservatives? Is that the best policy? I think it is just a natural flow...security is a job most people don't want because you have to confront violent people...most people don't want they kind of risk, they would rather sit in a nice toasty room and sip hot chocolate. I think security could be a good job for an smart person if the two jobs were clearly separated...in other words people that confront violent people are one job type, and those that simply identify violent people are a different job type and the two never do the same job...in other words, one security job would never have to confront a violent person, they would be working behind the scenes with computers and cameras dispatching the larger violence facing people to ...or wait I am being lasered to the head again...hold on...vote to jail them for assault....zap them back...again...again I say...it's not stopping but I will continue on....to go capture or stop people doing or about to do violence...like this guy. Why include people like that in the infrared eye net? Why allow them to stay in the net? Why accept them into a university? Why hire them for a job? Isn't there some fear that they may make threats of violence against co-workers they dislike, or actually translate those threats into actual violence? Where is the fear of violence? I think for many, it is replaced with the fear of psychiatric people, there is no distinction between if the psychiatric victim was ever violent or not. Here, there is a guy who at least made a threat of homicide with a gun...which I have never done...except maybe in my mind. Any way I look at it, violent lawless males are perfect recruits for republicans, what do they care about violence? They love violence! It's sexuality, science, honesty, freedom of info, an informed public they hate. The other interesting point on my mind is, a person probably never enjoys freedom until that freedom is taken away from them. Most people ever locked in jail or hospital (yes people locked in hospital...it's kind of a secret that is why is sounds so weird), probably realize about day 2 or 3 maybe within hours that they would rather be at home relaxing with the tv or whatever...a big bong and some music...or whatever it is people do. Not stuck in a 5x5 room with no chance of being out any time soonm using a community bathroom, etc...what goes thru their minds many times is the thing that brought them there. Many times, no doubt, the feeling is "how could I be so stupid?", I feel so different now...I can't believe I did what I did...that was so stupid. I don't know, I could drive my car to work instead of my bike, but how much safer is that? Plus I like biking to work...parking is a hassle at UCI. If somebody wants to hurt me, I seriously doubt being on a bike or in a car is going to matter. The more important thing is identifying those people, their plans, and then pulling them over and talking with them in the minutes before their plan to break up their plan of violence, or even threats of violence. The street cameras on campus certainly identified the black car there around 1:15pm with the person in the front passenger seat. But, you know, I don't like calling the police. My mom was locked in a hospital for a month when she did. Somehow, I think they already know...and knew...it's gross and getting grosser by the year, the way society is operating now. That is interesting that "do it" language. It was the actual audio, but in Chapman's own voice that was played again and again on Chapman's head before and during his murder of John Lennon. I was saying earlier this week how in a murder, many times there is a tiny victory for the losing side in that one more Republican pawn is jailed for life (or at least for 20 years...the person in Australia was jailed for 25 years for murdering a guy in a car...people get more time for molestation, and drugs, and there there isn't ever even a scratch of damage or pain! let alone a person killed). So, many times the Republican brain image sending pawn will be jailed or hospitalized (until cured of the possibility of doing violence, of course), ... the wonderful liberal leader, JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, etc. is dead so they won the largest victory, but the liberals at least get the consolation that the killer, and yet one more religious fanatical right-wing Republican violent zelot is off the streets. But this is not the case for JFK and RFK interestingly enough, where it probably is for MLK, and Lennon...for MLK there was really no even small victory for liberals, because James Earle Ray was looking at life in prison if he didn't kill MLK probably anyway. For JFK and RFK the killer was never arrested and perhaps went on to kill again for the Republicans. Some people suspect that Fiorini was involved in the MLK murder, Ray tried to pin Sturgis as "Raul"...I think the translation is simply that Ray was in the camera net and perhaps worked with Sturgis. You tell us, oh mighty cult of infrared see it alls that never show any. There may be a play on "I" as in "eye" network. As I said before, the eye network, the infrared eyeball network as I sometimes call them...I don't doubt that they have an organized name, and maybe uniforms...who knows...but no doubt they have the loyalty of like a Klan, etc. I kind of hope there are two sides, I would definitely be on the other side...against the secret. One thing that I think will be definite when the secret is out, and info is unstoppable, in particular the way things are going with the Internet, cameras and video. And that is that those people that actually did homicide for the eye net will definitely be jailed by the public, I think that is without question, and perhaps executed if in California. I don't know what the deal on that guy is, but my feeling is that it is a younger aggresive perhaps even violent (I mean obviously...but gun violence many times is done by non-fist fighting type people....what is scary is that a group of young male thugs from the camera net or other could easily beat me or anybody to death the way things are now) male, a young agressive male, probably angry...angry about me telling the secret of the eye net, embarrassed and frustrated about sexuality, jealous of the attention I get, ... I don't know...then again...he could simply be a paid employee of some evil group....but clearly stupid, not much doubt there. Who would throw their life away like that? only an idiot would even pretned to do first degree homicide or violence.
12-15-2005
There must be a set of "most asked questions" for people just initiated in to the thought infrared camera see behind the eyes network. Probably some of the most asked questions:
1) Details about the killing of JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, Marilyn Monroe, Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison.
2) Secret science finds, secret technology
3) secret heros, villians
I guess I am really in a minority as a dreamer and science lover. I am active and ready, looking forward to walking robots, rocket planes, moon vacations, Centauri. Others, no. They do not share my loves and interests. They are clearly different people. Not science and future dreamers. Their focus is on sports, religion, and other things. Are we part of a different evolution? Perhaps different lines of hominids, one with the appreciation of science and one without...or maybe it is strictly social, in other words we all the the potential to be interested in science, physical and intellectual pleasure, but not all are taught or exposed to that way of life. I think that many people would chose science, and pleasure if it was popular, if the majority did. It really is amazing though, how different I am from most people, in dreaming all the time of going to other stars, kissing, vacationing on the moon, voting on the laws we have to live under, walking around with a bunch of robots, etc.
There is only one group more conservative than the religious right in the USA, and that is the religious right in Islam (and possibly in Judeism). The conservatives in Islam make the US republicans look like hippies and peaceniks. On the entire planet, as we sum up the values of all humans, we are asking: who are the most conservative, who are the most violent, etc. who is the prettiest...all kinds of questions like those. When you look at who is the most conservative, it's tough to know what conservative is...I looked it up at dictionary.com:
"Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change"
this is basically what I was thinking. And since a traditional view is religion, conservative are most always in favor of religion, although religion may not have always been so fervently enforced, in particular before the rise of monotheism, or if you look at the tolerance of Pagan Greece. So it is tough to separate the people from radically conservative, and radically religious. But for the most part, the radical conservatives are very religious, and the very religious are usually radical conservatives. So, there is a spectrum, there are liberals, the educated on one side, and conservatives and the religious on the other. It is rare to see a conservative intellectual, in particular with the Nixon-Reagan-Bush dynasty. The closest I think is William F Buckley, or somebody like that...most are uneducated...it is difficult to be educated and still fooled by the lies of the religions. So really, I view Osama Bin Laden as being to the right of Bush jr, but both are on the right side of the spectrum, Bin Laden espouses the views of women as second class citizens, very religious, very into the religious writings, contempt for pleasure, education, all the things typically associated with religion. It is just, I think, enlightening to figure out where all humans fit on a single spectrum of beliefs.
Here comes more anti-republican ranting, but honestly, this happens to be the truth. I am trying to put together the secret coup of 1963, all that has followed, the secret infrared red...trying to understand the truth of our situation in the USA and on earth and to me, it is becoming clearer that the republicans, maybe not all, but the vast majority, have been very bad for life...ok now on with the rant:
There have been two or three dead small field mice on the bike trail I use, there used to be large killed rats, but not it appears small killed field mice. How long would a dead field mouse, let alone two together last on a nature trail? In any event, I recognize this dead mouse/dead rat thing. A simple street camera on campus available and archived for the public would reveal at least the automobile used (if any), the car could be followed...who was it? Who are they connected with? Is it a lone right wing nazi white supremecist, or something...in the infrared eye net acting alone...or is it a person that is part of the police? or...the republican party...somebody taking orders from somebody else? somebody paid to put these dead mice there?...this could be learned by independent interest people in the public with some good public street cameras. Maybe it is not illegal to kill mice and put them in the path of a person, but it is helpful to know who is thinking like that, and doing those kinds of things. I have to wonder what kind of "profile" these type of people have...violent, uneducated, territorial, ritualistic...like many serial killers.
I kind of suspect, as I usually do, right wing conservative republicans, the people that killed the Kennedy's, that covered it all up, that protect murderers like Frank Sturgis, Thane Cesar, etc. Republicans, like it or not, are a terrorist organization. People may reject that claim, but look at the evidence:
Sturgis killed JFK, Bush Senior, Nixon, other high ranking republican party members were deeply involved in the killing, and then the coverup that exPresident and high ranking republican Gerald Ford was highly involved in, with Dulles...They didn't start or stop there...but can we all accept that 1st degree murder and protecting those involved in murder of political opponents is terrorism? Then they were involved with Thane Cesar killing RFK, which they still cover up. The republicans are a lawless, violent, terrorist organization that does not stand for law, order and democracy, civil rights, freedom of expression. There is growing evidence that many republicans were in the Klu Klux Klan, a recognized terrorist group. Maybe people like John McCain are different, and I don't doubt it, but still, after the Nixon, Regan, Bush group, who could support any Republican. I have complaints with the Democrats, but my vote for Democrats is mainly a vote of "absolutely no Republicans", not until Sturgis and Thane Cesar are in jail publically. These dead rats come under the full view of your leaders, Bush jr, Swartzenegger, the people in police hired, not to intimidate nonviolent citizens, but paid to stop intimidation, threats of violence, etc...there is a lot more we need to do with government and in particular with police. We need to open the cameras to the public, integrate the police and the public, remove overly different uniforms/clothing, open up their activities/911 calls, etc for public survallaince, viewing, interaction. Who put the dead mice on the trail along campus road? a simple public camera might get a car model, make, time...the public could track that car and person...what would we uncover? Those people that plant the dead mice, and that assault people with lasers are similar to serial murderes many people, like FBI study to understand...they are violence, many times ritualistic...don't have sex alot, have scewed views on sexuality, what makes them assault, or kill mice, then plant them for people to find? What is their profile? Is it only for money? But what about the people that pay them and instruct them? what is their profile?
People that cover their mouth or make "shhh", etc...they say when it comes to secrets "don't tell!...unless it's me...of course....then tell. Be secretive, unless it is me, then tell all and don't leave out any details...don't keep anything secret from me!".
Should we call a metric ton a Megagram?
ok this is for science buffs. This is awesome. Months ago, I had asked: "can we red shift light here on earth?", thinking that that would probably be impossible ... thinking we would have to send light from here to Neptune to see even a tiny shift in frequency. But I did some reading in Asimov's catalog of scientists, and found that in 1930 a person, Venkata Raman, one of the few Indian scientists won a Nobel prize for experiments that show that the frequency of light can be red shifted (and even blue shifted), by many substances. http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1930/raman-lecture.html is the link of Raman's speech. He was working on the effect first uncovered by Arthur Compton, the "Compton effect", where Compton found that photons with xray frequency would lower have their freqeuncy lowered by crystals. Compton won a Nobel prize in 1927: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1927/compton-lecture.html. So, not only can light be red-shifted by atoms here on earth in a small laboratory, but they can be red-shifted by the many atoms in between the galaxies. I don't doubt that the doppler effect for closer galaxies does represent their relative velocity to the observer (which may be red or blue), but I think that the red shift of the most distant galaxies, which is uniformly red shifted, may be due more to Raman effect than to velocity. In any event, it opens the fact that not only velocity of source can change the frequency of light, but many other substances can too. The gas CO, N2O, ice, glycerine all shifted light to the red. The interesting thing is that this was uncovered in 1930! Way back when the expanding universe theory was being made...it's almost as if, these experiments were done precisely to explore that theory and alternate explanations...but perhaps I am wrong. But why do people alive today, not openly declare that such an effect is possibile or not possible for those that would naturally think it might be? This current group of "scientists" is like a Stalin-group...unchanging...intolerant...absolutely correct in their theory...without a particle of doubt or receptivity to new theories. It is an interesting phenomenon, in any event. It is interesting that the frequency of photons must be greater in the the atom where the delay is, or perhaps every other photon is reflected to compensate. The Compston effect is interesting too, and the formula that Compton made is simple. The equation relates the angle that a beam of photons with x-ray frequecy reflect off the surface of a crystal (or any material I think), and involves the distance between the atoms in the crystal. But the interesting thing to me was that, if a detector was place vertically, the frequency change in the beam of photons might be due to the change in the Y component of the reflected angle. Because the photons are reflected with a greater Y component angle than the Y component of the initial angle, at the detector, it takes a small amount more of time for each photon to arrive at the detector. If the detector were changed to the angle of the reflected light maybe it would be the same frequency? It seems too simple to be possible, but maybe that is what is happening. Otherwise, even putting the detector directly perpendicular to the resulting beam would show a lowering of the original frequency. I think they measured mainly the same initial frequency and only a small amount of shifted frequency, still moving the detector at various angles would reveal if frequency is effected by detector angle. In any event, no matter what the result, the effect has been confirmed and is clearly fact...light can be red shifted by many materials, and the red shift of the light of the most distant galaxies may be the result of raman effect. But wouldn't some photons get through at the original frequency? Since, the Raman effect only effects a small portion of photons in the original beam, wouldn't most photons make it to here unshifted? I don't know, but I think that those galaxies are so distant that the Raman effect is only the average effect over vast distances...I don't know I have to keep thinking about it, and you should too.
Sometimes I feel like I must be a simpleton, or something because, for example, I wonder, why is lava red hot...is that only when it meats the oxygen? How can light be emited from molten liquid rock/metal in the center of the earth without oxygen? It's like the sun, we see a great fire...but we measure that there is very little oxygen there...so many have accepted the conclusion that it is not the typical "combustion effect" we see when we make a chain reaction by igniting a methane (hydrogen, or propane, etc) flame. The photons are coming from a different process that does not separate oxygen. many concluded that for the sun that effect is the pushing together of Hydrogen atoms to form Helium atoms, with the remaining matter (the matter left over from that smushing event) being emitted as photons. I offered the idea that Hydrogen (and potentially other) atoms are compressed under the weight of the outer matter, until they separate into their original photons. In any event, it is interesting as applied to the molten center of the earth. As a reminder, I showed that the heavier the matter, the more it goes to the center, so by that thinking, which may not be 100% perfect and accurate...we should definitely entertain other ideas...but by that thinking, the sun may contain most of the heavy atoms of the star system. But back to the earth core...which appears to be liquid hot metal/material, as ejected by volcanos (including those in the oceans). How could could it burn without oxygen? Definitely all matter emits photons, only much more slowly than, for example in a flame...like a burning stick. The stick emits photons all the time, but when mixed with a spark, and oxygen, the photons come out much faster. I am rambling here, but the basic question is, what color is the material near the center of the earth...I guess it would take some light to look at it, but if in a vacuum/or empty space, it probably would look like red hot metal, emitting photons with visible red frequency. So, it seems clear that more photons can be squeezed out of matter that is under pressure. The more pressure (from weight for example) the more photons are released and the faster the atoms decay. Maybe there are some experiments in here. Do atoms decay by emitting photons faster when they are compressed? Is the sun like the earth but without a crust? (Most people would rant on and on about fusion, and blah blah blah, they have one singular theory and that is the only one.) One thing that is different is that: does the sun emit photons with gamma frequency and the earth does not? Then there is a clear difference between the two processes that result in molten red hot material.
Here is an interesting fact I uncovered this week:
Did you know that the earth is the biggest terrestrial body in this star system yet found? I didn't know that and it is interesting. Here is the order:
1) Earth 6378 1.00
2) Venus 6052 0.95
---
3) Mars 3397 0.53
--
4) J-Ganymede 2641 0.41
5) S-Titan 2575 0.40
6) Mercury 2439 0.38
7) J-Callisto 2400 0.38
-----
8) J-Io 1815 0.28
9) Moon 1738 0.27
10) J-Europa 1569 0.25
-----
11) S-Iapetus 730 0.11
12) S-Tethys 530 0.08
13) S-Enceladus 249 0.04
14) S-Mimas 199 0.03
(did you know that Mars is actually quite small, Venus will hold more humans after the atmosphere is transformed or removed maybe with lasers who to hell knows?). I found all kinds of interesting things when thinking about the future which I will share later in ULSF. One thing I will share now is that humans will probably grow from the earth out initially. So, the highest population will probably be on earth, and in earth orbit until those are maxed out (including the moon), and then mars will become maxed out, Venus, Jupiter will be maxed out next...there will probably be a huge rush to Venus once the temperature is brought down as people rush to own (and also occupy) that precious real estate. But getting back to the above...that is really it for large terrestrial bodies. only 14! That's it. and of those 14, there are 2 earth sized, 1 half that, 4 about a third of that, 3 only a quarter of that, and 4 a tenth or less. There are many other tiny "worldlets", but the need for matter may result in those tiny bodies being separated into H2, O2, N2 and other important atoms to grow living objects.
This is an interesting thing I found. If the sun emits 5 billion kg of matter in the form of photons every second, people could, in theory, bring those photons back together to make 5 billion kg of some other kind of matter, for example 5e9 kg of H2, which could then be used to separate again for electricity, or whatever. But, I calculated that, even if we stood on the surface of the sun, a 1 meter square device that could perfectly (no loss to heat, etc) convert those photons back into protons would result in under 1 gram of matter/year, because the sun is so large. It would be a mammoth effort even to get a gram of matter back, in particular the farther away from the sun you go...although the conversion of photons to electrons, for electricity is very useful.
In the photoelectric effect, are photons separating the atom's electrons, replacing them, or forming new electrons? This can be tested by putting some metal on an insulating material, running the photoelectric effect for some time, then opening the circuit. Is the metal positively charged? If no, then the electrons were replaced, if yes, then the electrons were not replaced. From this people can measure the ratio of photons to electrons (although it is difficult to know which photons went in which atoms), but it still may be a good estimate as to the size and mass of a photon as compared to an electron. Number of Photons/Number of Electons=? 1 Electron=X Photons? I don't understand how the E=hf equation can relate to how many electrons are made from the number of photons beamed on the metal, without knowing the intensity and dimensions of the light beam.
For me, movies fall into one of two catagories: those that take place on the earth and other.
I think it is clear that much of science went the way of the infrared seeing behind the eyes technology; went secret and out of the hands of the public around the early 1900s. Probably it was just the continuation of the paranoia that fueled secrecy before the invention of the microphone and camera. I wonder what the inventors of that technique exposed so well in the National Geographic 1975 video "The Incredible Human Machine", said as the years passed on. For the first ten years they must have thought for sure, within 10 years this thing will come out, just like the xray did. After 20 years, they probably became a little more agitated...around 1930...then 30 years later 1940 they must have started making discouraging statements...Finaly 50 years later when they were all dying of old age around 1960 they must have made deathbed statements about how terrible the secrecy around the invention had become and how Orwellian and Nazistic the USA and society had become. Perhaps they took the more elitist view...the view where it was necessary to keep their invention a secret, that the public could not be trusted with such technology, and it was in better hands with the wealthy elites in power, and in the government. The sciences that went secret are:
1) seeing what eyes see (includes seeing dreams)
2) hearing what brain thinks
3) sending images to brain
4) sending sounds to brain
5) moving muscles remotely using voltage or electron beams
6) using lasers to make people itch
7) the handheld laser as weapon (the CO2 laser is used to cut metal, but the US military has never publically used hand held lasers, and the industrial lasers are too big for handheld)
8) building up and down atoms from protons (Hydrogen) to Ununhexium (element 115), there is a tiny amount of data out there, but clearly people have been converting matter and perfecting this interesting, exciting, and useful activity. But have they made the photon to proton conversion yet?
Electrons are at least 2 photons, because I am beginning to see that electrons are probably not photons as I had suspected. Electrons, like in a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) move freely through empty space, and respond to the electric/magnetic effect where photons, so far as we know, do not. So a photon also moves thru empty space, but is not effected by the electric force. Which is simple, but it is also clear that the photon and electron are intimately related. If you look at the photoelectric effect, photons are replacing (in my opinion) electrons. The mainstream argument is that photons are causing atoms to release electrons, but I doubt the atoms become positively charged in the metals. I think it is also clear that photons are intimately related to all matter, including electrons because we see photons exit a match and the match become less in size. So an electron is not 1 photon, and so it is at least 2 photons tangled together. I don't doubt that an electron may be 1000 photons or even higher. We should try to figure out how many photons each "particle" is.
One of my goals is to eliminate the use of the word "radiation" from the mainstream description of light. We should say (particles of) light, helium nuclei, or electrons. We need to "light is a particle-ize" all of science and then go from there. I can see saying something is "radioactive", but it seems too abstract to call photons with xray frequency "radiation", maybe "gamma rays" would be more specific. I don't know, I just think "radiation" is misleading. Of course I am for full and complete freedom of all nonviolent speech.
Here is an interesting thought. There is the "Newton purist" theory, I guess, i mean, I don't really know exactly what Newton believed. The theory that light particles behave like all matter in obeying the laws of gravity. There are pluses to this: all of matter follows one law, and minuses: since a photon has never been observed to change velocity, and other matter has, there would need to be, as far as I can see, some other interpretation of space-matter-time or just space, where gravitation results in photons keeping a constant velocity at least when moving freely (since we can't see when photons go inside atoms, but perhaps one time can measure the delay). I can't understand how that kind of a theory would work, mainly because light particles, although they certainly change direction because of gravity (as evidenced by double images of quasars, etc), they have never been seen to change velocity, although I remembering seeing somewhere that people had stopped a photon. There are some tricky things that happen, for example, when two photons collide. Do they reflect? Do they change direction so that collision is impossible? If they bounce off each other (as I kind of lean toward), then their velocity could be changed, depending on the nature of photon and photon collisions. There could be three photons that collide...it is a rich source of mystery. When I added colliding into my models I got this:
photon_collide3.avi
Basically photons collapse into a static form because they are trapped between a photon in front of them and the gravitational influence of the photons in the mass they are trapped in. So it is interesting. I am trying to figure out the answer to a complicated problem now, because, I can't make this "photon direction" model result in the larger scale effect that gravity has on things like planets where objects take on elliptical orbits, all my objects fall into static points, and eventually collapse into one big object. I need, perhaps, to make the gravitational influence less...I am still working on this theory. A planet is much, much bigger than an atom, and an atom may be much much bigger than a photon, and so, perhaps those gravitational effects are much larger, and I don't have the computing power to model that. But what can be modeled at the atomic scale can be modeled at the galactic scale, using different representations for each point. So to conclude, I think there is the possibility of what I am calling the "Newton purist" theory, and maybe photons change velocity inside atoms, ... it's worth exploring...maybe photons are so light (pun...maybe light is just very light ahaha) that it results in them moving at 3e8m/s, but also that photons move as beams of light is very interesting, why so orderly? why don't they ever combine within a light beam? They don't feel each other's effect within a light beam or not enough to make them group together to form other larger particles. Perhaps it is the way photons enter in and exit out of atoms, in such orderly ways. I think the picture is getting clearer, and I think humans may know soon or maybe already do, and then the public may know centuries after that.
I will never abandon or reject the idea that all matter is made of photons (and really only photons), it is too obvious because of the match that releases light. It's intuitive, and simple. But certainly, all theories must be doubted, questioned, probed, tested, etc. I know that there are photons in every match, and in uranium, and in oxygen, and it seems logical to presume that all matter, even we, have photons "in" us (and really more accurately "are" us). How can you deny the logic and observation? Now, for me, at least, the questions relate to how do you get planets with elliptical orbits? how do you get the electric effect? From a physics where particles of light never change velocity but only change direction as a result of attraction to other particles of light? I know the light is in there...but how do I (or does anybody) explain everything else?
Maybe there is some thing different, for example, I am using inverse distance squared, although I have tried inverse distance, distance, squareroot of distance, and except for square root they all do similar things, square root of distance (as I remember it's been a long time) is interesting...the closer the particles get the less attracted they are, it's interesting, but I doubt it is the way the universe is. I tried inverse distance to the 1.002 power, etc. trying to reduce the attraction of the photons...Can you imagine a universe where photons changed direction by 1/distance^1.002 ? That is highly doubtful, but oh well.
Here is what I need:
1) a constant velocity particle
2) larger scale effects of planet type momentum (where groups of matter pass each other, and take on elliptical orbits-now they just flop together and form a big mass which does have interesting stuff within it...it is the model where things are maxed out...all the photons have collapsed to one point but because there is not enough space they have to occupy other more outer spaces)
3) larger scale electric effect.
4) simulation of at least one living object, an object that appears to control some aspect of it's own bodily movement.
We really should try to culture (grow in a lab) every prokaryote and protist we can, finding exactly what things they need to survive (O2, H2O, light, etc).
I think that the Democrats in the USA may be accepting money to lose. Are Democrats paid to lose? Paid by those wealthy Republicans with all that "grandma's pennies to the millionaire televangelists" money no doubt. I mean, here the Republicans call them gays, psychos, perverts, hippies, so do they return with complaints about Sturgis? Cesar? the violence of the repubs? no microslides of effects of missiles in Iraq? no 9/11 doubts? like vonKleist and that tiny hole in the Pentagon? nothing? Why do they lay down and die? I think it can only be for money, lots of money. It can't possibly be from a lack of material and evidence of crimes, nazism and brutality by republicans.
You know, I voted for George Bush Senior in 1988, the first time I was allowed to vote...of course I had no idea...no idea that he was so closely linked to the killing of JFK...how could I have known that? The Democrats don't make the tiniest effort to expose what Bush Senior did. Dukakis should have been running ad after ad showing the Hoover memo the day after JFK was killed that showed George Bush was in his office, the testimony of the woman in Florida that said Sturgis admitted to killing JFK...it links Nixon at least...Bush's connection to the anti-castro cubans in Florida....Bush's silence about the violence issue, the assault issue,...the filling of the gulags with marijuana users...but Dukakis and the other Democrats didn't do a thing.
The democrats should have voted no, for invasion of Iraq, that was a Fahrenheit 9/11 Dachle "I will help the President" moment. How can they condone murder like that? It must have been because a majority of the idiot public (including democrats) supported it. I would have voted no, and gone down with the ship of law obidingness and stopping not starting violence theory.
Now, comes my most compelling and convincing argument against voting for conservatives. It is very difficult to reject the logic I am going to put forward here by anybody that cares for truth. By voting for the conservatives in the USA you are making your life worse, and here is why. First I propose that seeing and hearing thought would be considered benficial by a person...that most people would prefer, and in fact vote to hear and see thought ("behing the eyes") if they could. Those that do get to hear thought love it and it is like some kind of super purified cocaine complete with big time dealers, etc. So, it seems clear that most people would prefer being able to hear thoughts, and not to be excluded from such technology. Given that truth, here comes the crushing weight of truth conclusion: what people are for allowing the public to see and hear thought...in other words, what people are hinting the most heavily to the public that thought can be heard and seen? What people? Why liberals...the educated. The prime example is the National Geographic 1975 video "The Incredible Human Machine". Each word is carefully chosen, the narrator says "How we still see things right side up is still not fully understood". Clearly, they are expressing that they are left-wing, how people still vote for Nixon, after he was connected to the JFK killing and coverup is a mystery, etc. So, National Geographic, clearly left-wing liberal, educators. Then we have JFK himself, a democrat, and liberal saying in 1960 "the inside of men's minds", how can anybody forget that? I wasn't even alive, but recognized the sentence at an early age from videos. Again, a very strong hint to the public about the possibility that thought could be heard and or seen (ofcourse it didn't do them no good...they just continued to sleep away). So, we have JFK in 1960, NG in 1975, then, the next big hint that I am aware of came in 1985 with Carl Sagan and "Cosmos", Sagan says "it may one day be possible to translate the thoughts..." I can't remember, but I can promise you that each word is carefully chosen. I don't know what "a disquieting thought" means (adt...a dqt...I give up...but it must mean something, maybe a tiny paid for ad for adt security). So Sagan was a professor, an atheist, a clear science-loving, antiracist, left-wing liberal without much doubt. Ok so, those are the three biggest hints I can think of. Are there any conservatives that hinted about this massive multimillion people 100 year old secret technology? No. So, ok, now the conclusion. If you want to hear thought some time before you die, the chances are probably higher that you will if you only vote democrat, and not republican. It is simple logic. The democrats are more for the public getting to hear thought: JFK, NG, Sagan...all left-wing liberals. There is not one right-wing conservative I have ever heard hinting about hearing and seeing thought, or making an impassioned and risky plea to reveal the technology to the public. The liberals/educated/democrats appear to be the only people with doubts about the ethicalness and morality of keeping those infrared cameras a secret from the public. The republicans appear to have no internal conflict with that secret. So, again, to conclude, if you want to see and hear thought, vote democratic party already. The sad truth is that, Clinton never hinted, ... even if a democrat wins, it's no guarantee that they will bother to let the public see or try to make any change for free information at all. Along those lines, you ought to vote for the most pro-free information democratic candidate available if any exist, and if you are determined to see and hear thought, and get in on the infrared cameras.
Do you notice how the infrared thermal imaging cameras are so expensive and only made by companies like "Raytheon"? They start at $10,000, but a webcam costs $20...Is there really, they much expense that goes into making an infrared camera as opposed to a visible camera? It is interesting to try and understand that kind of price fixing.
I think it would be funny to make a promo video with Sally Struthers, or some similar person, pleading the public to contribute money to help:
end the drug war...these people have lost their homes...their families...
help the stupid...these people can't use a computer...I dunno...
to end religion: can't you donate a dollar to help these people?...look at this person...they actually believe Jesus rose from the dead...I mean their gone...their gone...(waving hand over head)
for science...these people have never heard of vesalius, galen, anaxagarus...can't you help?...
to stop violence
against antisexuality
We need to put together and vote together new phonetic signs for sign language (unless I don't doubt there have already been some symbols put together...that is fine lets's hope they are intuitive and simple). It may be easier for deaf people trying to learn how to correctly sound out words, to use signs connected to their sounds, using a one sign=one sound set of signs (based on the traditional signs of course, but with new signs for the "a" in "cat", the "i" in "big", the "o" in "hot", etc.)
The person "Tookie" was killed, and I continue to vote against the dealth penalty for people already in prison (I mean if somebody is doing violence, I agree with the right to use self defense, defense of a human, and violence to stop a violent person, etc). In particular, because of the way the justice system is now, it's far from fully democratic and open. What happened to Sirhan is a perfect example, he would have been killed, and what he did was terrible, he wounded and permanently damaged (to my knowledge) 5 people, but he didn't commit homicide as fate, or luck, or whatever would have it. It was only because of the US supreme court stopping executions in the 1970's that Sirhan is still alive today. There must be even worse examples. People who were later proven to be innocent of murders because of DNA testing. Life in prison is enough, in particular without everybody getting to see all the evidence, and when I say evidence, I am talking about street cameras, eye images, fingerprints, DNA, everything and even then I would leave room for doubt given our secret and violent history as a nation and planet, our involvement with large scale fraud and injustice (like the Warren Commission, the infrared eyeball network, etc). I am for locking up the violent and freeing the nonviolent (for the most part, I can see myself voting to jail some nonviolent people for some amount of time, but only the most violence threatening, theiving, etc people and then only for smaller time than for actual violence). I am a person that is probably more outraged by violence than most other people, and I want to make clear that if Tookie did do the violence he was accused of, he should have been in jail for life, but I have never seen any evidence, and probably never will, and our votes don't currently matter anyway.
12-05-2005
If we were to roll the dice, of 1000 planets, not one would be home to living objects that curse their method of reproduction, that lie about seeing behind eyes for 100 years, that punish and supress truth...it's a one in a million kind of stupidity on this planet.
Just as a reminder, we don't hire the Lee Oswalds, Thane Cesars, Frank Sturgises, the John Wilkes-Boothes, or even the the Pat Robertsons; but don't worry, the multibillion dollar conservative movement will hire and take care of them.
after the relative peace, this week=laser war week, and it stretched from 11/15 to even today 12/2 but is tapering off, there have been some nasty high intesity laser burns given to me, but nothing that left a scar. What's the deal...I have to wonder...they appeared to slow when Bush jr got back from China, maybe that was coincidence. As usual, continue to vote to "zap them back", and to jail them. Without your active permission/order (in thought or aloud), to zap back, somebody has to do it for you (the computer may be rigged to automatically zap the zapper back if you express that request, let's hope), and if somebody has to zap a person for you...it's not as pleasant because they might be zapped...when you do it through the computer there is no body but the computer to blame (and the creators of the computer, but I doubt that happens). So remember people, unless you take the time to think "zap them back", (simply visualizing a person with a solemn wish to zap them back may be enough for the computer), the person will probably not be zapped back. In addition or as an alternative, please remember to vote in your mind to jail them, a simple "jail'm" in sound in your mind is probably enough, you may want to include "an hour per [first degree zap assault/itch]". Through using our brain and working together we can defeat the violent criminals that assault us secretly with lasers in our ceilings and in satellites that currently live free and out of prison.
ok so the Infidel Guy family was on national television and here are my comments. As a quick summary, I am grateful that an atheist family was on national television, no smart atheist can say that this was a loss, ofcourse that is a plus, but ay carramba did the makers twist the truth, leaving me feel reminded of the infamous "quiz show" debacle where the contestants had the answers. The show appeared highly controlled and coached. The best example is how Reggie cries, I don't know, but after hearing about 20 interviews, I just have the feeling that Finley is not really much of a crier. In addition "psycho" violing music was played, as the narrator questioned if Finley was losing his "sanity". So, they painted Reggie (and atheism) as mentally unstable people, emotionally unstable...I mean, I guess that was the intent. I was impressed with Reggie's son Dorian, who has a slow thought-out careful delivery in his method of talking...he just sounds very smart, in addition to the Stone-Rock young female who was very mouthy and lively. I can't believe that people actually wash out childs mouth with soap, and I think that is a minor assault, in particular because it is punishment for nonviolent activity. So initially, I thought that the Stonerock father was very puritanical, authoritarian, but later he appeared to be more open minded and gentle. I thought Amber was impressive. She said, "I don't hear voices in my head telling me...etc" which gives excluded people everywhere the possibility to understand what is happening. I kind of think that "girl stuff" is not necessary for females...they can do anything, including "guy things" or "non-girl" things, etc. they should be free to pursue their wants, so that was kind of a loss for people that are strongly for female equal rights, etc. I wish Reggie hadn't been so confrontational with the Stonerock female, instead opting for something like "You are entitled to your opinions, but I disagree with your conclusion that I don't spend enough time with my kids, or I want to explain how desparate our economic situation is, etc." instead of being kind of agressive and defensive, but maybe I am putting a magnifying glass on this show. It was funny and a nice double-meaning when Amber sez "I hope those balls are nice and soft", people falling asleep or in a different room must have asked what kind of show was on, ahaa. abc.com really supressed the Finley "wife swap" show, delaying it for weeks, and then only putting the photo and promo info on the wife swap page at the last minute on Monday and quickly replacing it Tuesday. So, in summary, it's good.
There is a big hub-ub about Wallmart, Greenwald, EJK blog...need I say more? Greenwald who has made some good DVDs, and has released them through the Internet has released his next film speaking out against Walmart. I bought Greenwald's "Outfoxed" and enjoyed that, and "Un-something"...about the war, and that was kind of sedate...kind of mellow, but there was some good poop there. Teddy Kennedy initiated his new "blog" with comments about Walmart that I found interesting and amusing. It's fantastic to see Teddy Kennedy making a b-log, you know...most people in government are secretive...don't tell you what they really think. It's proof to me that Ted Kennedy is still very much alive inside and open minded to embrace the idea of a log of his comments for the public, even allowing the public to comment, and there are some nasty, ridiculous comments after Kennedy's thoughtful typings.
The one point about Greenwald, is that...ok here...Walmart...they are not really a dangerous, nasty, frightening group...they are not the republicans and bush jr, etc. they aren't sturgis, cesar, the cia...the klan, the dea, the eye camera network people, the really vicious, dangerous, violent people, etc...it's kind of a powder-puff group to take on compared to what needs to happen. We need DVDs on the violence problem, the way people care nothing about violence, that there is not one arrest for spanking, not one ad against assault 2) the nonviolent people in prison, the drug arrests...that drug use is terrible, like alcohol abuse, but that jailing people that are only hurting themselves is too brutal, and the same is true for prositution 3) full democracy...what does that involve? Us voting on the laws...it that anarchy...would we destroy ourselves...would it be corrupt and easily abused? 4) full free infomation...what would life be like without privacy, copyrights, patents...? how could popular artists be rewarded, and not be abused? 5) science, with the nsf budget, and the money donated to universities, they cannot make one history of science DVD free for the public on the web? Is this a conspiracy? Is this some kind of anti-science movement, and high level supression? 6) religion, isn't religion becoming a problem? Will religion ever disappear? 7) seeing our eyes...what is the deal with this national geographic image? why won't anybody tell us? we want to see behind the heads of people in what looks like the infrared too...8) cameras on the street are awesome for stopping killers...but when does the public get to see? 9) minimum health care for all thru the gov 10) a gov program to end hunger in the US...a UN program to identify and stop starvation? 11) Sturgis, endless hours, of, yes, Sturgis. etc. etc. etc...these are the real issues...walmart...yeah, ok...maybe there are some unpleasant things there....but what about the lives of the millions in prison simply for using marijuana...their lives ruined...etc..and the same for Kennedy (and all the rest of the democrats) too
There are claims that Wallmart is:
racist:
I feel, that ...and this is not a popular view, but that the answer to racism is free information. We need to stop violence, and tolerate bad opinions as best we can. If a group of people is racist, let's expose them like Greenwald and Kennedy are doing (although only with their opinions, and I have yet to see evidence...but I don't doubt that Greenwald presents some evidence in his DVD). Let's get the truth out to the public, and so anti-racist people, such as myself, can find alternative places to buy, speak out myself, etc. Then, I don't doubt that there are groups, businesses, that honestly never realized that the public cared so much about a multi-racial equal gender workforce. I might be convinced to enforce integration by law with arrests and/or fines, but I think ultimately we can't jail people for racism.
Wallmart is a monopoly, too big:
I think there is competition, amazon is huge, ... wallmart has not penetrated the web as much as amazon has. I kind of lean towards free market...if the public feels walmart is too big they can do something thru government and their own actions.
[uc point] changing public disclosure of salaries? what and advocate secrecy?! Are they openly and publically advocating secrecy?!
This is unbelievable. Debra Lafave, an attractive 25 year old, who had consentual sex with a 14 year old male, who no doubt enjoyed the sex and could have stopped at any time. Lafave was sentenced to 3 years home arrest, 7 years probation, and no money can be gained from her story. She plea bargained...she could have gotten 15 years in jail! She was charged with "battery", which is a total lie. There was no damage, no assault to speak of, consentual sex is not a violent crime. Only because the public is so antisexual and stupid, can that trick work. If they had they tiniest sense of logic, it would never work. 15 years in jail...and people that actually assulat children, even much younger than 14, never get a day in jail...I mean assault, with an open hand...with a belt...with a fist (in particular siblings)...leaving bruises, welts...no arrest. The added "no money from story" stipulation, added by the DA, is vindictive...that really, to me, sez...puritan...white male...married...regular jesus church-going anti-sexual "anti-pornography lecture group" puritan. To be that vicious...and then...how does anybody know that the television interview or book is strictly based on what happened to her? This way, the puritans in Florida (and all over), can squash the story. For example, if somebody pays her to pose nude...is that ONLY because she was in trouble for having sex with a 14 year old? I doubt it, maybe partially because the person is attractive. Then...you know, I cannot say enough about how...you know, puritans like the Bush family who lock up these sexual people for minute little touches, and toe sucks, blow-jobs, and shit...but here they killed the Kennedies, King, Lennon, they assault adults and children with ceiling and satellite lasers every day...they are brutal violent criminals...tough tough violent people. Here this woman will be a registered "sex offender", where are the "violent offender" public registries? I've asked a thousand times. People who assaulted and killed don't even have a registry, are people liek this woman more of a threat to our physical safety than people convicted of violent crime? It may seem shocking, but I honestly think that eventally there will be no age laws for consentual sex, and we can still punish for assault (sexual or otherwise). First it will be males 12+ whose parents and they both want them to be masturbated, given oral sex, to have sex with a consenting female over age 18, etc...this will be around 2200 AD, then 2300 females 12+ whose parents also agree, will be allowed to touch genitals of other people, have their genitals touched, etc. maybe by 2500 AD, all age laws against consentual sex of any consentual kind will be voted down.
A would-be assassin of Bush jr, Abu Ali was jailed and may get life imprison. I think we should really try to be as logical and uniform in our decisions as possible, giving all people equal treatment under the same laws we all should live under. So, I have to compare the movie, Flemming made about Bill Gates being assassinated. While, I would never even joke about assassination of a nonviolent person, still...I don't think Flemming should be jailed for plotting a first degree murder. There are plenty of examples of where...it's not pleasant speech, but...there simply is no active attempt at a homicide. It is a difficult thing...I can see people that threaten violence maybe receiving a small amount of jail time. By the way, on the topic, I vote against the auschwitz denying human being jailed in Germany...I think that is overboard and a violation of free speech... in particular when there are no threats of violence. Ofcourse, I accept the reality of Auschwitz, I don't deny the extermination of 3 million Jewish and other people in World War 2, I have very little doubt, and have read a number of accounts from people who survived like Rudy Verba, Philip Muller, and Shoah, and recommend those stories and videos to all. For Abu Ali, I would have to see the evidence...it depends how actively a plan of violence was pursued, simply drawing anti-bush images, I think is not enough...you know the classic picture of a person with an "X" or something...I think is clearly covered under free info. Infact, when I think about it...look at the video games...no doubt people will be blowing away recognized people on earth soon if they are not already...it's complicated and reckless, but...and I am strongly in favor of actively stopping people attempting violence, but I think video games will have a certain amount of freedom by public opinion to pursue violent scenarios...it's tough to stop the freeflow of info, but I hope it is easier to stop people that attempt to do actual violence...in particular as time continues, and, in theory, as more info reaches the public.
I think the Saudi confession is questionable, because any one us could be coerced to lie, but without evidence of bruising it might be more difficult to prove. This could be one way, without the loss of one life, without any assault, or physical damage, to jail a nonviolent liberal, or political opponents for life.
People in stores and that I work with allude to violence all the time, in particular because I expose the eye net...but jail them for life? I vote against that, but perhaps they should receive some jail time for supporting a first degree homicide. Wait until the images start flooding in about the JFK killing, a thousand people, although many dead, actively participated in the JFK murder, and then the coverup, both of which are definately illegal and usually harshly punished. I can see voting some jail time for those who make threats of violence with clear video evidence, even the casual "kick your ass". Why don't people help me to eradicate assault? I think we can end assault, or at least a large amount of it.
As a final note on people involved in plots to do violence, I want to make clear that my advice is for people to not get involved in plots of violence, but I think video games or pictures of violence are not a big deal, and without doubt images of actual violence must always be legal to see and show.
Many of the people now, I think are spoiled rotten. They get to see and hear thoughts, can assault people with lasers in ceiling, ... can you imagine surfing the web on the screen in your head? That's what they get to do...but then surf not only the web, but through your neighbor's houses! All your neighbors nude, and their sexy thoughts...that must be nice...but they feel like it's nothing, they still are like the bratty kid that yells at their mom who buys them everything in the store. It's gross, in particular, because so many, like me, don't get to see a photon from these networks.
I went again to Native Foods in Costa Mesa and an older female with dyed black hair said "get out of hear!" in a whiny type voice. Initially I thought I would call in my order and then just walk in, get my food and I wouldn't have to stay for any geers and put-downs, but I called and the person put me on hold for a long time, so after 5 minutes I called back and I got the answering machine two times, then got through and was put on hold, so I decided, just to go there. So when I got there and walked in, the older female in the dyed black hair then said "get out of here!" in a whiny tone. I look forward to walking around with a robot to capture the actual video and audio of these people...because most people might not believe me. I said "I will need a formal request" not the inphantile annoying "go away tomato with that?" hints. Maybe people will have "we do not serve people that spent time in psychiatric hospital" signs, and I think like not hiring people that smoke...it is the free market and is their choice. Can you imagine seeing "no tatooes", or "no ex-cons"? I think I will scrap my "once a month" plan, and just stay away from Native Foods. It's masochistic for a person like me to go to a place like that. You know, it's very similar to black people in the southeast USA, how they would sit at these lunch counters and the people would spit on them, pour flour on them, beat them to the ground and then kick them....but then shockingly...the black people would go back! My opinion is to not support people that run an elitist business like that, not to fund them! It seems ironic that black people would want to get service at a place full of people that are mean and even violent to them...wouldn't it be more logical for black and white people to pull together and make a lunch counter of their own, fully integrated for all people, that actively rejected rudeness and violence? That is ultimately one of my dreams: to make a vegitarian restaurant that all people can be welcome at, where they won't be insulted and geered at, in particular where I can sit, eat and be welcome. I was just in Albertson's on campus, and the second I walked in, that Nate guy swooped down on me, but didn't say anything until later. Then, later over the loudspeaker, a female voice said "banager". Can you imagine if I got banned from Albertsons and then "crazy, crazy, crazy" Ralphs? I would have to pay somebody to go shopping for me, and then what if they were banned? I would hope that liberal people would put together some kind of food network, I have no idea...how else could I get food to eat?! And then to imagine what my crime is...I have never been violent, and in particular I am not even rude. I don't walk into Native Foods and say "you camera network nazis...give me a burger, asshole"...ofcourse not, I am polite to all people. I don't do put-downs, exept in retaliation, and even then, rarely, except in my mind which I can't stop from responding anyway, but for the most part, I am a pleasant person. When my dad said he wanted to go to Native Foods I kind of grimaced, because, he lives in a christian cloud, and ofcourse is in the eye net, ... but he doesn't know these people like I do, they are 100% nazi to the marrow...they don't change ever...there is no compromising or mediation....or anything like that...they are rude, and stubborn believers in psychology, gods, greedy, elitist...what ever the case may be. I have never seen even one of them ever change for any extended period of time, but people like my cloud-based dad, think people are enlightened and regular, etc... I have never seen rudeness and nastiness like here in southern california and in my opinion it is all a direct result of the secret infrared see-behind-the-eyes like the National Geogaphic picture secret network. It is creating a new nazi USA with two classes, the included and the excluded, and the excluded are viewed as some kind of disease without any rights, even though most have never committed any crime, and are polite as can be.
Some people may find my opinion that "Photon Yes, Religion No" will be popular for a million Neptune years as arrogant. maybe, but that was not my intention, as far as I remember. Perhaps, I wanted to put a statement that would go against the massive view that I am inferior, or to be given second-class status and priveledges. But, in addition, I want to open people's minds about the fact that there are other planets, and that "the year" (it's funny in star was obi-wan says "10 years"...and I thought...earth years...that's based on the planet earth... you know...that is kind of a local small place for such a wide ranging galactic story...I might have used "seconds" or something else), "the year" is the amount of time the earth takes to complete 1 orbit, the year for mars is longer, for venus is less, etc. An earth year, evolved into a very important concept for our ancestors (but perhaps less so for future people). Finally, I think this can be taken to mean, that the idea of all photons being the basis of all matter, etc. is a scientific advance (many deny it, in this time, ofcourse), and humans will look back, I think, on those of us, who advocated such a view as heros and brainy, like some of us look back at Eritosthenes, Aristarchus, etc...what did they say? What did they wear? What did they think about life? we wonder with great interest, etc. An older female human at Newport Beach central library sez to me "you do back at...", the "you do", again hammering home that opinion that I am arrogant. The more I think about it, it's totally like the time when Hitler said "if the jews do not stop oppressing us" (and I am paraphrasing but it was something similar)...as if the jewish people were oppressing the nazis...now the excluded are persecuting the included...evil people tend to express the absolute polar opposite of the truth...when they lie they go for the biggest and most false lie...I am not sure why, but I think because there are always many people that simply believe everything they hear without questioning, and so that cements the needed excuse in people's minds. The other point I would make about me being arrogant is that I always return ligitimate email messages and phone calls (not people asking for money, etc.). My rule is that I am willing to talk to each human on the earth at least once for at least 1 minute, and for the most part I talk to anybody that types me many times, even the shitheads. I corresponded with an idiot who evey letter consisted of "take yer meds"...eventually I stopped replying and they stopped sending I am glad to say. But I want to make a list of the people too arrogant to reply to my email messages. People in the camera network are uber-elitist-arrogant to the extreme...we don't get to hear their thought...we don't get to know about Sturgis...we get the tiniest crumbs from the ocean they get. Then...am I rude? I am obnoxious to them? no...I am polite as can be...they are the people that are not satisfied, curiously. They are the ones who express that nazi sneer and nasty put-downs...I don't need to tell them..."you do", I don't have some point or issue with them...or if I do..you know...I make a video expressing my opinions and philosophy for all people in an general way addressing those larger issues. So here is a partial list of those that did and did not reply to my email:
DID REPLY:
Bill Clinton, White House
Russell Doolittle, UCSD
Reggie "Infidel Guy" Finley
Carl Sagan, Cornell
LA Times female reporter, cannot remember name...there are other people I don't remember, but I hope there is a big "not too arrogant" database somewhere
Dave vonKleist
Nina Hartley (did but then got scared and didn't)
DID NOT REPLY:
Ellen Degeneres, Disney/ABC
John Fuerst, U of Queensland, Australia
Raul Hilberg, Vermont
William Schopf, UCLA
Julia Sweeney
Linus Torvalds
Rudy Verba
I joke that after a week without a response I should send an email with just: "asshole", but I don't, although that does make me laugh every time.
What about Singapore killing that guy that was caught with heroine?! In my opinion that is simply a first degree homicide. Maybe they will eradicate their drug problem, but aren't they creating a first degree homicide problem? I think any person that kills nonviolent humans in Singapore ought to be identified and arrested if they ever set foot in a nation where killing drug users is illegal. Can you imagine if the Grateful Dead played a show in Singapore?! It would be a mass murder! The people in the Singapore government would probably open fire with machine guns into the Dead-head audience perhaps chanting "drug user must die", or perhaps utilize gas chambers for efficiency. Where were the people speaking out against this homicide like me? I could find no comment from Bush jr, none from John Howard, none from Tony Blair, none from Vladimir Putin, the pope...I guess killing a drug user is ok, or certainly a drug user is not somebody they are going to defend. It's the irony that killing a nonviolent person who was only in theory hurting themselves is somehow ok, but using drugs is much much worse. I am the only person to vote for arresting those people that have killed nonviolent people in Singapore...here one of them was being interviewed in an Australian newspaper...here they are talking with a person that has killed many innocent people and is still free. The amazing thing about drug use, is that it is very similar to overeating. Being overweight is unhealthy and may lead to an early death, but I vote against locking overweight people in jail until they reach a healthy weight. In my opinion, it is a person's choice to hurt themselves or to live an unhealthy lifestyle that only harms them and nobody else directly. There are plenty of alternatives the people of Singapore ought to vote for, and this shows the unthinking illogical rigid conformity ... nobody wants to defend drug use...but I tell you all...you can say that drugs are bad, and that nobody should use illegal drugs and still be against jailing people that use drugs. There are plenty of alternatives, they could ban a person from their nation, they could jail a human ... even for life...killing is so vicious and beyond that it is illegal in most nations (since drug use does not justify homicide).
You know, I am against oppressing people that are popular...it's undemocratic. Even somebody like Jerry Falwell, I can't stand that Falwell is popular, but a person that popular should not be excluded from the camera network. It's a tough issue, because, I can imagine that people in the eyeball camera net only want to include people that are anti-privacy, anti-copyright etc...that are not going to complain about their privacy being violated. Still, there is something very undemocratic about excluding popular people like me, the most watched...in addition to being unfair. We have to endure the abuse from the many people that watch us, but many of us, I know for sure that I don't receive any extra benefit, or even normal and average people's priviledges or basic services...if any thing I get less benefits, and all the abuse. It is like what I say about public access television...all the abuse that famous people receive but none of the money.
I kind of wonder if there are anti-neutrinos...because there are no anti-neutrons. Maybe the missing mass in the neutron decay to a proton and electron (which again is very revealing...that, in my opinion, there are electrons in the nucleus, stuck in neutrons)...maybe that missing mass was in the form of photons. Or it certainly was in the form of photons in any event, but perhaps they were orbiting each other in a particle like a neutrino, etc.
People in the eyeball infrared network love to pick on weak people, but when it come to criticisms of the really scary people like the Bushes, Thane Cesar, etc...they are never as brave or rude. They are kind of like wolves that see a sheep on the ground, some of us think...let's help the sheep up, help it to heal, but most of them have the mind-set of beat more on the weak sheep. Kind of like sharks that get a taste of blood. It's really animalistic in my opinion what many of the people around me in the eyeball net are like. Just recently in the last week, one human, a jewish human, no less, said "you're a ped" instead of "[hi] ted", another called me a freak, I could go on...maybe it's the holidays that make people even more vicious. I can tell you without reservation that these evil put-downs and rudeness come from people of every gender and race. There are black people that vigourously believe in psychology and would jail, torture and drug a nonviolent person they think is insane without a second thought, jewish people with the same exact philosophy...gender or race is no guarantee of being friendly or wise. I have seen the evils of mind policing, psychological elitism, violence, dishonesty in all types of people. They have holiday parties here, and honestly, 80% of the people are so vicious "vicious bishes" I call them in my thoughts...so unbelievably rude...honestly, my advice to thinking people it to bring a fencing helmet and an athletic supporter to these things, because the people are always ready with insults and put-downs they have been saving up., always interested in nastiness, in conflict. Some of us have funny, thoughtful, scientific based thoughts...or warm appreciations of beauty...most of the people I experience at work and in the community have minds focused on their next put-down...never positive, never thinking about history, or some project, only bitter, nasty, elitist, etc.
Lately one metaphor seems to fit..and that is "talk with the animals"..."walk with the animals"...it sounds elitist, but I swear it's exactly what life is like for me...if I pick up the phone to call some place...say to order a pizza...I can count on some put-down like "gay" "ped" "weird" something like that...almost never a kind word...when I go to a store...again there are going to be rude put-downs...people are ...I can only conclude paid by right wing conservatives to give these put-downs whether they believe them or not, but I don't doubt that many of them believe the shyte out of their mouthes. It reminds me of the part in "People vs Larry Flynt" where Flynt fires the blow dried jerk motherfucker, and sez "send him out with the animals!"...that is the truth...it's dog eat dog...people are vicious, violent, antisexual, greedy, dishonest, rude, uneducated, religious...we live in a frightening group with bizarre values. I was saying...here we could be focusing on our fate of building walking robots, rocket planes, moon stations...moving to other stars, getting all the sex we want, disease and pregnancy free...fulfilling all our pleasures...but no...millions waste their time in churches, violently supress pleasure, sexuality, nudity, any criticism of religion, technology, cameras, etc. This group of people cannot possibly pull themselves up out of the stone age of ancient religions and books. Hey read a new book already assholes.
What's the deal with the pope's anti-gay ranting? That is pure nazism. There is nothing wrong with gayness, lesbianism, bisexuality...nothing wrong with that at all. It's ridiculous to see homosexuality as immoral or bad in any way. It was just like the Nazi's who were so anti-gay...they passed anti-gay laws...again, I was thinking...the true evil, or at least a large part of that evil, comes from the people that vote those brutal laws and people into power...those idiots standing in rows heiling Hitler, etc...they are just as much the evil as was Hitler, and that should never be denied or forgotten...we should never pretend that evil people act alone...many times the roots of evil, for example the prejudices, antisexuality and antiscience antilogicness of religion are still with us. Can you imagine an antipope? A person that says.."ok get licked to orgasm 3 times and say 4 'there are no gods', and you will be forgiven for your sins of antigayness, or proreligion activities...really pursue pleasure...don't bore yourself by forcing yourself to go to church, synogogue, mosque or temple each week...that is my answer to your confession...live it up...have fun and forget about all the negativity of religion". I guess a truly evil leader would be advocating violence, dishonesty, pain, suffering...hey wait a minute...I guess that is kind of like the pope of the Jesus based religion and the ammams of Islam....for the pope I guess perhaps with the exception of advocating violence...that stopped in the 1600s, after they were burning nonviolent science people on the stake and torturing "heretics" and "witches" with red hot irons, which they definitely did, but are not very interested in telling that truth to any and all people. People like me have to dig out that history, because 90% of the planet supresses those uncomfortable truths.
I was wondering if people in the camera net get to freely copy, or see free copies of copyrighted DVDs. I wonder if there ever are complaints from copyright holders in the eyeball camera net. What could they do though? There probably is nothing they can do...the camera network is like a major union...they have a lot of leverage and power. That must be an interesting issue. I was reading an Asimov book, and he hinted at something like that...it was tough to read into but that was the feeling I got...that there were artists that were angry about the copying and distribution of their copyrighted works in the camera network...but probably they realize not only is there nothing they can do about it, that they are still getting a lot of money from the excluded people, and finally, that they do enjoy freely receiving other people's copyrighted works within the eyeball infrared camera network.
Again, an interesting idea that may have already been done, but it would be interesting to accelerate various atoms...not just the components of atoms like protons, antiprotons, electrons, etc. For example accelerating oxygen ions (the atoms need to have a charge to be moved by electromagnetism)...really any atom...I think the goal is to see what kinds of matter can be made. Ultimately it is clear to me that there are two major processes:
1) separating atoms into the source photons
2) putting photons together to build atoms
In addition to those two, perhaps building up atoms from existing atoms, or separating atoms to make lower atoms. So, I think the main process, on the moon of earth for example, will be focused not on shipping water from earth, but on using particle accelerators to convert the many atoms of silicon (or iron) for example to smaller atoms like oxygen and hydrogen which can then be used to make water, and of course oxygen to breathe. Enrico Fermi indicated in his Nobel prize speech (since good luck finding any info on what must be millions of experiments of building up and down atoms using neutrons and other particles), that most of the time, photons with gamma frequency are emited (and I can guess helium nuclei, so-called alpha particles). That means that many photons are being emitted from the atoms at one time. I was thinking that perhaps those photons could be absorbed by water surrounding the conversion chamber...who really knows what people will come up with? But it seems clear to me that humans will eventually reach the process that probably all advanced life of the universe reaches, although we are probably not there yet, or certainly not there in the best way possible. That process, is the conversion of matter from any form to any other form, from iron to oxygen, from potasium to platinum, etc. even from photons to hydrogen.
It's amazing to think about the globular clusters, and the elliptical galaxies. It is a billion year truth I think...it's our destiny. Things are so slow in the universe, that the plan is easy to see and understand. What an amazing thing to think of, that there are only 140 or something globular clusters around the milky way galaxy, and that that might mean that only 140 different advanced life lines have evolved in all the stars of the milky way in it's unknown age. Each of those 140 clusters has millions of stars. Each of the stars is closer to each other than stars around us. It is very clear that planets can be used to move a star, as I have shown in a video simulation (see videos page), continuously ignored by all major media...I guess they known best what the public is interested in seeing. Just thinking that the life of the globular clusters: is each cluster a specific type of life...for example...living objects that evolved around one star? I kind of think they probably have many different life lines in just one cluster, but I don't know ofcourse. it's like us...we can grow out and using robots...there will be a period just like the 1400 and 1500s of total expansionism...we will be sending robots to explore and colonize all the nearby stars...to stake our claim as owners of those stars and planets...we may scoop up hundreds...thousands of planets...to call our own...some might have life....but perhaps most will not have life any more advanced than us or even you know fish, etc...species clearly not capable of moving from planet to planet and so those would be incorporated into our system, but eventually our most distant robots would encounter advanced life doing the same thing as us...conquering and claiming star systems for their ever growing civilization. basically we are converting matter into humans at a rate approaching the rate bacteria convert matter to bacteria. It would be interesting, and most likely, both sides would agree that those two star systems would serve as the border for the two civilizations. The two civilizations might have different philosophies...there are issues of...how fast to grow, amount of concern for other life...for example...perhaps they are self centered and view their form of life as the only acceptaible form...species-ists that reject living together with other species. I kind of find that doubtful, but I don't doubt that there are weaker species even in our own galaxy. we are a prime example. We can't possibly compete with or challange life of a globular cluster...it's currently no contest...we can't even get off our own measily planet. They would look at us like a moquito...what could we possibly offer them? But no doubt, as civilizations like our grow, we would learn and attain everything those living objects did, and would reach a steady-state equilibrium with very little else to uncover or develop. At some point...can you imagine...the organization involved in globular clusters finally forming the elliptical galaxy? It is masssive planning of millions of stars coming together...converting the last of the hydrogen gas clouds...perhaps even converting larger or smaller stars to some uniform size. Then reaching the stage where everything is all set in the elliptical galaxy to journey to other galaxies pursuing our mysterious goal...is the goal to make the entire universe an elliptical galaxy? I doubt there is enough matter for that...basically I think the goal would be to make the largest elliptical galaxy possible. I don't know what the goal would be, but no doubt living objects would be on a constant unquenchable search for new things to see and learn about. A desire that I doubt will ever be complete in this universe, that appears to be infinitely big and old.
In the book "Past, Present, Future" Isaac Asimov has the sentence (I am paraphrasing) "perhaps every person will have their own television channel", and I think that is very revealing. I think that is very similar to what exists now, and certainly will exist in the future. Basically smart sofware that uses the many public cameras to follow individual people. Ofcourse, each camera has it's own "channel", but it must also be nice to be able to have each moving object tracked on it's own "channel".
I thought that was a smart statement from Senator Charles Schumer of NY, the phrase "legal precident" which is ofcourse very funny...yeah, let's hope the next president is a damn legal president. Somebody that is law abiding, is elected by a popular majority vote. Mainly, the shock to me, is how people up and elected the son of a person that appears to be clearly linked to the killing of a former president. I mean...talk about mistakes! The person that is elected president should be, as I have said before, at least an average person...you know... a person that has lived a nonviolent, law abiding life...I mean we could ofcourse do better, but let's try to get at least that!
I think we have reached the stage in our technological evolution where the use of missiles and explosives is not necessary anymore. Missiles are too messy, we have cameras, we have computers, we have people in police...we can arrest instead of kill people suspected of violent crime. It comes down to the decision of explode a building where a person wanted for a violent crime lives, or try to capture that person using the existing technology (and in particular metal running robots which will be here very soon). And exploding that building will probably kill that person wanted for murder, but it may also kill the neighbor downstairs, the children that live on the other side of the street, etc. and that is if the missile is on target. Haven't we reached the stage of advanced democratic nations working together that we can identify and capture people wanted for violent crime by now without having to use missiles?
My votes on the supreme court nominations, ofcourse are "no" to all three that have come down the pike. I am sorry, but I couldn't possibly condone those people. I doubt it would matter though.
I think a key word for these next few decades is "suggestion", because the evil done with the beaming of images and sounds onto people's heads must be absolutely without question a terrible terrible thing. These are people that I have called "good samaritans", you know...that beam suggestions like "...hey jump off that bridge or that window...", "...give your car away...", "...take off your clothes and run outside...", "kill your children", "drive into traffic", (and ofcourse, anything you can imagine...all for their evil entertainment) etc... it's terrible...and then the poor people, the excluded people...they don't know that some idiot evil human is beaming terrible suggestions onto their head, many times they think that the suggestions are their own...from their own mind...and worse...they think that the messages are from a god....and feel they must comply...it is truly truly terrible. terrible people. I can't understand why the decent people, if such people exist, in the camera infrared eyeball network don't show more responsibility. but the truth is that they are conservative criminals that assault innocent people with ceiling lasers...I mean...you can't expect these Nixonian people to care for human rights and human safety, etc. It seems shocking that people would, for example take the advice of the voice beamed in their head telling them to kill their children...most of us would shrug it off...as a bad feeling...like we do when driving and those pricks beam the drive off the road shit...you have to shake it off and pretend to be a robot...I don't know what to tell you...it's nasty. But many of those people...I know from experience...they literally have not the tiniest idea that somebody is beaming sounds and images on their brain...not the tiniest hint...and if told would probably not believe it. So, those suggestions are very powerful indeed, and as I said, many times the poor excluded person will think that a god is telling them to do something. I just want to end this paragraph by making clear that my advice to people is not to hurt or kill their children in any way, not to drive into traffic, not to hurt themselves, life should be for pleasure, physical and intellectual, not for suffering and pain.
I was getting some nasty burns from ceiling (or satellite I guess) lasers last week...burns I definitely could feel, and it was difficult to block them because they adjust the intensity, I mean I guess! I don't get the instruction manual. And it got me to thinking more about the ceiling lasers. I wonder how powerful they are. There was a smart guy at the SLAC, in Stanford that gave a science demonstration in celebration of the 100 year anniversary of Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity that had a smart statement saying "I won't point this laser out into the audience"...because it's true...there are people out there in power...probably conservatives in governmnet poloce and military that are doing just that! zapping innocents with lasers. So, can those lasers actually burn and cut like CO2 lasers that can cut through metal? Those lasers have to be focused and I am not sure the distance that they can cut, but there is no doubt that the CO2 laser, which is not very difficult to make, can cut clean through iron...and if it can cut through iron, it definitely can cut through human flesh. I mean could they chop off a person's arm or leg with a ceiling laser? If yes, I have never seen it done, obviously. Somewhere thought, somebody must have had a limb severed with a CO2 (or other) laser...it is almost a statistical certainty, although no video exists that the public gets to see. The lasers I have seen are very large...there must be some way of making them very small...I dont know. As they are, there is no way that could be a handheld weapon, but that is a good idea for self defense. Just a laser that could burn a person without killing them. Still, you would have to watch out for mirrors, if you have ever seen some video games, they have laser weapons, ofcourse, star wars, and other science fiction movies have lasers...but lasers are a reality...kept secret from the public. Why hand-lasers are not brought out to the public like the way handguns are is interesting. But again, getting back to that issue...we stand looking at an uncertain future...the tools of mass abuse are in place but the conservative elitists that wield them are kind of like...I can only describe it as being like a dog with a handgun...kind of toying and playing around with it...they zap us and make us itch...but the capability is there to end our lives in a few seconds should they ever chose to exercize that option. (I don't doubt that it would spell the end for many of them too, but as spartan violent religious criminals they care less than people like me, liberal and anti-violence).
I'm not a big fan of scientology, but am of science, as I define science as the equivalent of truth (modern science is more like a religion in supporting only one major party line, that of general relativity, which string theory, supersymmetry theory, etc all derive from, and rejecting and supressing any idea of a photon as matter and the basis of all matter, which is obvious when a person lights a match and the matter in the match exits as photons)...but I think every person ought to fear psychology, as the system exists now. If psychiatric treatment was consentual, maybe it would be a different story. But many nonviolent people, are locked in psychiatric hospitals, without a trial, without a sentence, without a crime being committed (other than to them and their right to habeus corpus, a trial, a finite sentence, etc). So, it never ceases to shock me when educated people are for the mind policing elitism that psychology offers...it's the view that..."my beliefs are the correct beliefs...and all others are disease and dangerous delusion that must receive forced treatment until my beliefs are echoed from the person, or they stop echoing their delusional beliefs".
I can see a time when psychology is voluntary only, and moves out of the realm of human involuntary experimentation which was outlawed in theory in Nuremburg after WW2...then perhaps I would feel better about psychology since again, everything would be clearly consentual and voluntary with not one particle of coercion, involutary physical (for example 4 point) restraint, torture or drugging of nonviolent humans. So again, it's the unconsentual drugging, bodily restraints, and imprisonment without a crime, trial, or sentence that I object to. But I would add, also the arrogant view that only 1 or a handful of theories about the universe is accurate...it's the mind policing that is so disgusting to me...the arrogance that one person claims that their thoughts are sane and other peoples are insane and must not be tolerated. I reject the theories of "psychosis" and "scitzophrenia"...as being too abstract without any real criteria...for example like labels of "violent", and "delusional" where the problem is clearly defined, so I reject even using pychology based words like "crazy", "insane", and prefer "inaccurate", because psychology has been nothing but human rights abuses since it's foundation.
I am against secrecy and pseudoscience, but applaud the critism of psychology. I am in favor of believing in an accurate view of the universe, and so see belief in gods as delusion, belief in Jesus being resurrected as delusion, but those people should not be restrained with four-point restraints, and jailed indefinitely or even jailed for 1 second.
I finished a song "Those Aren't Your Friends" last night:
Those Aren't Your Friends
11-28-2005
Sorry I'm late, but the Infidel Guy and family are going to be on "Wife Swap" on ABC tonight so check it out. My cable hasn't been activated because of a technical problem for 3 months so I am trying to see with the antennae which is a terrible picture, why don't they web cast the shows already? It could only increase the number of people the advertising reaches. This is exciting, my interview where I spoke out about all those truthes is only 4 or 5 clicks away from being on national television, that is awesome. Hopefully, many people will learn the truth about the eye network, history, religion, the drug war, psychology, free info, full and total democracy where out votes are constantly counted, seeing thoughts, hearing thoughts, history of science, freeing the nonviolent, legal prostitution, speaking out against antisexuality, the entire 9 meters. An atheist on television, that can only be good for this group of people on earth.
11-17-2005
I saw a DVD on Noam Chomsky and concluded one thing after: People can be lead to peace or war, it only depends on how many $4s (ie. how many digits are in the money paid to the major media).
I figured something out about Oprah, and many other people that profile and arrest sex and drug offenders: they prefer to take on nonviolent people. This is why you don't see Oprah profiling any violent people...who wants a violent person pissed at you? Much easier to take on the nonviolent druggie or molester. People in police, for example, know they haven't ever been violent, so you don't have to worry about violence happening to them, in particular for molestation and weed, those people will never be violent.
Isaac Asimov in his history of the world says bravely that with the rise of Christianity the focus became punishing sexual immorality. It would be interesting to see exactly how that was. The history channel did a history of sex, but as far as I remember, it only scratched the surface.
The torture debate: It's revealing to me that the Bush administration is openly opposed to the law that was just passed the senate (although may still be vetoed) specifically outlawing torture of prisoners. That shows them to be on the extreme view, not the mainstream american view. The two republicans Chuck Hagel (R NE) and John McCain (R AZ) both oppose the use of torture. Some people might think they are trying to portray themselves as liberal for the 2008 election, but I kind of think simply that...no decent person would support the use of torture, or would oppose a law making the use of torture illegal. Here, people can see and hear thoughts...what more information can they extract? Use the cameras already. In addition, beyond torture being brutal, the data is probably never accurate because people will confess to anything.
Bush jr said "we do not torture", no, it appears they let other people torture for them...but Bush jr lies all the damn time...60% of the US realizes that by now. The threat to veot the torture bill, now the revelations that there are secret prisons, and the subsequent CIA investigation to find out who informed the public of that aweful (what must be if there is an CIA investigation) truth.
I want to make a funny point about how radically different Bush jr is from the person he claims was his favorite philospher "Christ". Can you imagine Jesus in those first bombers over Afghanistan blowing up buildings...carnage and flames everywhere...Jesus lets another missile fly....blam! a building explodes and body parts go flying....the copilot then says "nice kill savior..." savior: "thanks". I mean, the view is so far removed from Jesus the advocate of peace and nonviolence, the ghandian, so-called "offer the other cheek" philosophy and/or way of life.
"Kansas on the Coast?"
In this section, I will describe my future prediction of the California coast political orientation. When we look at the blue and red maps, we see clearly: the blue is where the biggest cities are, where the most educated are, the red is rural, less formal education, less development. The coast of California where are the people and major cities are (as an aside: if you are a liberal in the US and want to live in warm weather year round, you are looking at California and no where else. Eventually Florida will turn blue with a majority of liberals, but until then, California is the only blue state in the USA that has warm weather year round. It would be interesting to see the blue/red coloring of Mexico and South America. good luck finding that...i tried "mexico polictical map" but nothing, that and a poll on the publics support for copyright and free information we shall not see for years..it's one of those catch-22s for media). So the coast where all the cities are in California is mostly blue, except for Orange and San Diego County. But let me put out a prediction that we can check in 50 years. I predict that both Orange and San Diego County will go blue, that is have a majority of people that vote democrat over republican if not in 50 years, then within 100. (In fact, JFK-gate and RFK-gate may spell the end for the republican party some century). It is a trend. In some way, that tells us that the property value of Orange and San Diego counties will still grow, because it's not filled up yet, as LA and SF are (although Sacramento may be an exception to that, being blue already, and perhaps less developed). The trend is clear, that eventually, the earth will look like the death star but with square ocean aquariums or something, who knows. So, there are similarities between orange county (where I live) and a place like Kansas, where teaching of religious alternative theories to evolution just passed. Both are less developed, have less education...in any event, they both clearly have a red or republican majority. So is Orange county "kansas on the coast?" in terms of their political views, I think there is a good argument that there are many similarities, but things will change here sooner than there. Orange county will go democratic, and my prediction is in 50 years, but we could look at the trends and get a more accurate date. I think it seems clear that, the educated vote democrat, the less educated vote republican. I think that we are looking at just about tipping the scale into a long liberal majority...with the election of Clinton-Gore we appeared to be right on the verge of gaining a 55% majority that could hold strong for many years. I think we are almost there, perhaps less than 25 years away, as more and more people get access to education, information, civilization...as things become more developed, as cities grow.
We have a problem in the FDA. Here they are rejecting all the science to reject making the morning after Plan-B pill available over the counter. I think there needs to be a law passed that the senate can overrule the FDA, inparticular when a majority of independent scientists view a drug as safe. The FDA and these antisexual conservatives are always in the way of science, always slowing technical progress.
I can't understand with the eye networks, there have to be more than 1, and so there must be competition...wouldn't they want to be like cable companies and get as many users as possible? Wouldn't getting more people to use their image sending services mean more money in their pockets? Why are they so slow to grow?
In my nightly masturbations, which are right handed, at one point upon ejaculation I felt a sharp quick pain in my left testicle, perhaps in the vas deferens. So I looked in wikipedia and got a good lesson of anatomy on the human penis and testicles. I was not even aware that, yes, there are 2 separate tubes that carry sperm from the testicales to the urethra. So, I decided to start masturbating with my left hand, which was not nearly as easy as using my right hand, but I can succeed in ejaculating using only my left hand. This experience brings me to feel more strongly that some kind of experimenting should be done try and prove that masturbation takes place in the right or left side, that using right or left hand does or does not make a difference in which brain area is used and in particular that sperm is ejected in equal amounts from both vas deferens', or that sperm comes exclusively from one testicle, or more sperm comes from one testicle than the other. There is at least one experiment I can think of and that is to inject (only with consent ofcourse) dye into a person's testicles and measure the exact color of the sperm that is ejaculated using only right and left hands and comparing for different people. But because of the fervent antisexuality, the science and understanding surrounding sex and sexuality is back in the stone age. Perhaps this relates to why one testicle hangs lower than the other for some people, but maybe not.
I was rememebering a Tabash quote: "you can pay for pain but not pleasure, now that is sick." I was thinking as I was being zapped with hidden lasers...it's unbelievable...here we could be all getting pleasure, sex without disease or pregnancy, building walking robots, rocket planes, vacationing on the moon, with suffering, pain and religion a distant bad memory, but no....this group needs constant suffering...constant laser tag/fights...it's lame...very lame...it's a shyte fest of idiocy.
There are some University of California scandals happening. I think the UCI Medical center scandal is the worst of the scandals yet for UCI, because people actually died as a result of their actions. That is the hospital I go to, and now I have to wonder about what other kind of problems may exist there. I wish people cared more about science and less about sports and acting. People should care deeply about who is performing the best among the doctors, who is less successful, etc. who is making the most contributions to the science of health, medicine, surgury, etc. Then, these problems would be caught earlier. Let me try to summarize what this scandal is about, and I am simply echoing what I have read in the latimes.com. Basically, 1) many people that needed liver transplants did not receive them because livers were rejected by UCI doctors, livers that were later used successfully. In some cases, people died as a result of not getting a liver in time. It appears that they were overly picky about the quality of liver accepted 2) they never informed the people that livers were being offered for transplant 3) there were many warning signs along the way that were not addressed...the procedure for accepting donated livers was changed so that the doctor directly was the only person aware of potential donated livers 4) there were no liver transplant doctors there, only 2 mainly at UCSD that were shared...this is Irvine and UCI they have mega-cash...they should have recognized the problem (they had 2 years to do that)...and quickly hired at least 1 liver transplant doctor...they have more than enough money...now they have sacrificed their reputation for years..hopefully the data will reflect any improvement 5) it was claimed that the main liver doctor at this time was building a practice around liver surgury and not liver transplants (so I guess it's ok to just let those people die damn!). 6) perhaps most importantly, their success rate on the liver transplants they did was in the 60%s, below the national average. There may be other offenses, but those are the basics to my knowledge. One thing that I thought of in all this was, that in the UC, it's very monarchical...many leaders and supervisors are appointed, not elected, and then they have their positions for life. If things were democratic, we would see more movement...a person at the top might lose popularity one year and have a secondary position, or might lose the top highest paying administrative position, but then, years later might very well rise up again in popularity to be in the highest employment again...that is the nature of democracy. Now, with this current structure, it's a little more vicious I think...when there is a scandal sometimes people at the top are "amputated" (or let go) instead of simply sinking lower in a way that reflects popular opinion (even if only among staff). I think, clearly, that this liver transplant scandal is terrible, in particular in the wake of the wonderful success with the stem cell experiments. It is clearly less than average supervision and decision making in terms of the decisions made for the liver transplanet program at the UCI hospital. I hope that they get a much better set of programs and quality checking as we continue into the future.
The other UC scandal is the executive salaries. It is an interesting argument. Being employed in UC, I support the effort before the Regeants to try and make salaries the same as the market. I have outpoken public opinions on this issue of executive salaries and I will repeat them here. I simply think that the salary structure in a true democracy would be more of a pyramid and less of an Eiffel tower. In other words, the bottom level grunts, clerks, etc. may get minimum wage, perhaps $30k/year, then next layer, their supervisors, higher skilled laborers $40k/year, then their supervisors, first level managers, etc $50k, their supervisors, department heads/managers $60, store/building managers $70, company first line employees/regional heads $80, vps $90, ceos/presidents $100, etc... many places have 10+ layers of employment types...I can see the $10k linear increment being a basic guide for voters. But what we see, in universities, and corporations clearly in an exponential scale. The difference between the desk clerk and their supervisor is $10k, but the difference between the vice president and president is $100k, not $200k to $210k...$200k to $300k. What's the deal there? You know, and the funniest thing is the argument..."we just can't get a decent president...we can't compete with a lower salary..."...I have to laugh at that...because...who doesn't want to be president? everybody wants to be CEO. I guess one of the arguments against keeping salaries competetive is that, people are taking money away from students, and university equipment...that that money is going into better benefits, that we pay a price for our wonderful educated surrounding and atmosphere...for job stability...I can recognize all those arguments. There is a web page at the ucop that explains how other university presidents get more money, and CEOs get far more. I think that there is nothing wrong with a university becoming the first fully democratic entity, but I doubt anything like that will happen anytime soon. I don't know what will be the first thing to go totally democratic, it's between government, and corporations/organizations. Still, I think as there is more and more information, more and more public participation, we will see the executive salaries come down into a straight line, but ofcourse I may be wrong. You just have to imagine what would happen if people were allowed to vote on other people salaries, for example, if all the employees could vote for each other's salaries. I guess in theory they could easily ruin a business by voting themselves too much money. Maybe there is some feeling that has remained from the old days of monarchy, a feeling that a leader should be lavishly wealthy, far and away from the rest of the group...and I think that idea is opposed to the recent upstart idea of democracy where the common people have a say, have a chance to rise in the structure from poverty, the common people are viewed as having equality, an equal vote, etc. which for years was denied to them, for example in Athens and other early democracies.
We need to remember people that were outspoken for copyright. Just this week, in China, California Governor Arnold Swartzenegger spoke out against "piracy"...well, they are the biggest pirates of all, they are pirates of the public. I find it highly hypocritical that Swartzenegger so vocally speaks against music and film piracy in China, when here, he and many others are participating in large scale storage of the public's works (presumably copyrighted), their thoughts, their eye images, in secret networks. So, I think we should definitely keep the public records very clear. Swartzenegger (and many other), clearly, without any question, without any doubt at all, fully and publically actively advocated punishing those who were doing exactly what they do, copying images, data and sound. Let's definitely remember...because I have a feeling their stories are going to change when all of the secret network goes public in a few years.
I think we are heading for a society where playing a Michael Jackson song 10 miles from a school will be a felony...because of the witch-huntery of pedomolesto fever in this era (not krustopedia now...im talking about pedolovers)...I thought more about it, and it's a fag-hunt age. People are zeolous about their gays. There is one theory that is prevalent, and that is that nonviolent people are gay...in other words, if you are not violent...you can only be gay. But does the evidence support that? no, ofcourse not. aggressiveness is not a requirement of sex, plenty of nonviolent males are predominantly hetero-sexual, and are far removed from agression and violence. So the arguments flip-flop back and forth. First they scream that everybody is a psycho and pervert, but when the issue is raised that the violent are worse than the nonviolent, they turn to the idea that nonviolent people are fags and wimps, or lesbian if independent, not married and female, etc. It's an interesting phenomenon, I have identified as this: people are mainly concerned with religion, psychology (ie a person's mental status), antisexuality...they care very little for the issues of violence...I mean how else could Thane Cesar live in freedom for so long? How else could OJ get away with double homicide? How else could common assaults be unpunished? How else could spanking be de-facto legal, but consentual genital touching, not only illegal, but getting sentences longer than violent crimes, including homicide?
I have to wonder what the status of the government in Iraq is. First a lawyer for Hussain was murdered, then a second lawyer...I thought...even at the first one...what a lawless place...then the second...you have got to be joking....hello? police? street cameras? nanogram of civilization? now they found 100+ prisoners in the basement of a government building, and the president is claiming that he will investigate...investigate? investigate what is going on in his own damn basement? I found that unusual. In particular with the eye net, which most of the wealthy there must have...it's highly doubtful they didn't know, and then these people were not just warehoused...two were paralyzed...I mean that is brutal. So, it appears much like I have said...I am glad for an experiment of democracy in a nation like Iraq (although I disapprove of the destructive method used), but you simply cannot make a democracy in a nation that is that lawless and violent...in particular when we have not even cleaned up the violence in our own nation.
You know, in summary, I feel more and more that I am a victim of one main thing: "dumb". People elected Bush jr, now that was just dumb, they do a 9/11, that is dumb, damn dumb. They invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and not only was that dumb, but now many people are dead, damn dead. This guy charges up our credit card for the wars, taken a surplus and giving us the biggest deficit ever, if you are the person that own's that credit card, that would be dumb, very dumb...you would not want to charge up your card like that...the interest rates are absurd if you didn't know. Then they re-elect these buffoons who care nothing about evolution, science, sexuality, pleasure, true democracy, free info, stopping violence, freeing nonviolent people. Cmon. dumb. But more than that...it's dumb people...that rule the planet...that insist Jesus rose from the dead...that deny evolution...they run the show, that keep the eye images secret...dumb people I tells yih.
A fun animation would be all the gods battling against each other, although I can't stand violence...maybe trying to fuck each other...I don't know. But I don't doubt Jesus might be able to win over Zeus, and other dieties...but could he take "God"? I doubt it...but for sure, Jesus could waste the "holy ghost" whatever the hell that is, to get rid of anything on his way to the top. But what about Yahweh...technically god and yahweh are different...sure Ball and Marduct would be goners...but what about the biggies...Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, God, Buddha? the big 5. Who would take the title of those 5?
I was kind of wondering how people request stuff in the eyeball net. What do they ask to see. Shockingly, to me, many request to watch and hear me, I am their favorite show. Many times, people want to see the people that they work with...it's a very interesting phenomenon. Humans are more interested in those they work with, than in other people...even more beuatiful people in different parts of the planet...I guess, perhaps because they see the people they work (or go to class) with much more than other people, so they tend to think more about them. But more people are watching me (and getting reports about what my eyes see) than Brittany Speers it seems like to me, but ofcourse, I don't receive a penny...they have seen their way to heap money on to people with equivalent popularity like those on television, but not me. One favorite, is seeing what I masturbated to...because...I tell you...nothing happens in my life...people in my view have entered an area beyond the dull...and into the "infradull". So probably the biggest news in my life is what I jerk off to, since allowing me any actual sex is out of the question as being way to wild and uncontrollably exciting. But what about the rest of my day? Here is one thing I definitely recognize. A person cannot watch a different person 24 hours a day...they have to sleep. so 12 hours a day...no again...what about their own life? There are many many events in their own life. Think about how often you watch television. Almost never for many of us...even when I enjoyed watching every "Forensic Files"...that was only 1 or 2 hours a day...the rest were original eye images of my life..me fixing food...pooping...pissing. But I tell you...the detail some of these people have on my life is miniscule...I mean totally hum-drum...the dullest of the dull facts about my life and/or day. I can see, for example, glancing at video of my latest projects to see how I am coming along...my latest witty comments....ofcourse yes...latest masturbations...you sexual sexites...[at least that is my hope]...and I am glad that people want to see me...not because I am overly beautiful, but because of the wisdom I impart to everybody. People, I guess, do not want to watch dumb people...they are too predictable...or in any event...boring...there is no masturbation...no sex except with their same old monogomous partner, if even that...people must enjoy watching beautiful people...no doubt about that...but beyond that I think they crave intellectual pleasure. They want the poop on technology, on the nature of the universe...they poo-poo the religious and those that are stuck in churches (which may even be themselves). and finally, there is a certain "sheep" quality, that makes anybody that achieves a tiny amount of popularity gain larger populartiy over the years...but there are many people that gain some popularity but it doesn't pan out because they are not smart enough or honest enough, etc to capture people's attention. It is a serious commitment to watch some body...I found that Forensic Files, I couldn't do it anymore...I am not getting my own work done. Although I like to lounge around and see the web videos now, that is only when I eat because I need to move forward on my own projects.
Just one final note on the Alito nomination. I have a feeling that the entire Miers thing was planned. They would find somebody they knew they would obey their command to resign 2 weeks into it, that republicans would complain... that it would look like Bush jr was for women's rights, women's equality, and women's representation, but that it was the senate that didn't want that. Maybe yes but maybe no, I can only guess, many of you in the eye net know for sure. Any way you look at it, this latest nomination of Alito is not good for female humans in the USA. It takes us back to the time before there were females allowed on the Supreme Court. O'Connor was the first female human appointed to the supreme court. But, can we talk, O'Connor was no prize. In any event, Alito appears to be an uneducated, brown-nosing, no science, church education only, antisexual, antiabortion, proviolence, good old white man only network person. Openly said a woman should not have the right to her own body in the case of abortion (there is something wrong when somebody else own's a person's body besides themselves). Let's face the facts, Alito, is an extreme conservative christian, and does not represent the views and values of average USA citizens. And I blame the people of the USA for this idiocy. A majority of them voted for Bush jr, even re-electing this foo. That's what you get, you asked for it and now will get it, a pox on yourselves and your rights. I had a memory of that time when the west point males were jumping up and down when that one female dropped out...that is scary. I had to pause for a second to regain breathing when the republicans were claiming that Miers was too liberal. But, I think, probably she was just held out there to make Bush jr appear to be a supporter of women's rights. It's back to that statement that I said at the time Oconnor was stepping down: they could even get a female that would be a total puppet for them...give them everything they ever could have dreamed of (as Scalia has)...but no...they don't like women. As far as I can see...or at least professional women, independent self sufficient women. They want white guys...white christian guys....married white christian guys...with black hair...no asian, mexican, negroid, arab, indian, native people ofcourse again no ladies...that's what you republican females get for voting for those pricks. ok now I am done.
11-15-2005
Static Atom Models:
----start all current comments on this atom model--------
conclusions about atom modeling with theory that particle groups are:
1) same size
2) are no closer than a speherical radius of the same size for all groups
3) get as close to all particles as possible/ or only particles that fit in the best position will stick to the atom
main issues:
1) atom is sphere? if yes, problem with (electron and nuclear) shells
2) dual nature of atoms?
3) atomic masses correct? more protons+neutrons than thought, or some other phenomenon?
4) find shells using idea of photons groups that require a certain radius of empty space
5) does the nucleus have shells (like the electrons) too? Does the structure of the nucleus of an atom have anything to do with the way atoms bond, or are the outer-most electrons the only component involved in atom to atom bonding and the properties of all atoms?
1) I found that there are, in some models, for example radius=1, clear "shells", where new photon groups must take a significantly more distant location. But for radii of 2,3,4, and 5 the shells, if any exist were not clearly identifiable.
2) There may be a "dual" nature to atoms on the periodic table. A sphere volume grows exponentially with the equation 4/3*pi*R^3, so if atoms are spherical, their shells should grow in size and number of particles. It is a simple conclusion that as a sphere grows, the amount of surface area (A=4*pi*R) also increases. But, we see the pattern of atoms on the periodic table as increasing, not linearly but in a "double" way. The order of shells between noble gas atoms is represented by particles (protons + neutrons) in groups of: 4,+8,+8,+18,+18,+32,+32 (it is presumed that +32 is this outer shell...the tantalizing atom 118, the inert/noble gas was claimed to have been created in 1995 at Berkeley, but was later retracted...so far no Uuo118 has ever been created publically). So, will this atom be a last shell atom (if it can ever be made)? Will it display properties of an inert gas? So back to the "dual nature" that may exist in atoms. I find it highly doubtful, but have to entertain the possibility that atoms may be built in two parts, atoms may have two basic particles, or spheres of matter. Then, the shells would grow as we would expect spheres to grow: 2+2 8+8 18+18 36+36. There is something beautiful about that model, and it fits the periodic table, but I can't help but think how unlikely it would be for only 1 side of an atom half to fill, while the other half waits...there would undoubtably be combinations of atoms that had, for example, 2+2 3+4 and did not fill: 2+2 0+7. One way, out of the problem that atoms do not grow with a spherical shape is described in more detail
in conclusion
3) that the measurements of atomic mass are correct, but that the interpretation of how many protons and neutrons are in the atoms (with more than 2x mass of protons and neutrons) is incorrect, and that there are actually more protons and neutrons in those atoms. There is something lingering in my mind about how a sphere of spheres grows, and in my experiments, I have found that the spheres do always grow in radius, but...perhaps somehow the way when a sphere grows, the increase of volume creates more spaces to connect on and so ...maybe there is some way that a sphere would have shells of 4 8 and then 8....I have to flush this out and see if there is anything there...I don't think there is.
4) There is an issue about atomic mass. Why is there a difference between the measure atomic mass and the theorized number of protons and neutrons? First the "official" explanation: the extra matter is in "binding energy". I have to doubt that because, I interpret the idea of energy and mass being equivalent, first I doubt the existence of "energy", but I interpret the so-called "energy" as being in a material form, i.e. photons, when in mass form. There are two main possiblities I can think of:
a) the measurements of mass with a mass spectrometer is not accurate, because of some inherent flaw...particles from the spectrometer interfere...heavier atoms have extra problems in a beam that lighter atoms do not have...I am only guessing, there could be a million reasons why.
b) That mass is in the form of neutrons and protons, and there actually are more protons and neutrons in those atoms (and every atom after them). This would mean that Argon, the inert gas, is the first atom that appears to have an extra proton and neutron, for example. This theory tends to help the idea that atoms are spheres. And that is a basic idea. Are atoms spheres or some other shape? If they are spheres, then there is aproblem with the current interpretation. But in addition, there is the major split of two branches of theory that have atoms as rotating/moving versus static (although the photons that compose the protons and neutrons are rotating each other). I don't know which is more accurate, but the rotating atom (although I am the first that I have seen to verbally describe the so-called "nucleus" particles as rotating...I have seen this representation in videos. In other words, people are not proudly and openly proclaiming that protons and neutrons orbit each other to my knowledge, but then only 30% actually believe evolution, so perhaps that is the nature of this and many subsequent centuries).
5) in my experiements, many atoms take on similar shapes...one or more spheres in the center, a row of spheres in circumference (many times 5 or 6), and a group of spheres (many times 2 or 3 spheres) on top and bottom. This is one easier way of looking at these models...how many spheres in: 1) center 2) perimeter 3) top 4) bottom.
6) If integer average distances indicate a new shell (which is doubtful, but maybe there is a similarity and there is insight from presuming such a thing), then the order of spheres (protons+neutrons) in each shell would be something like: 19,63,153, but the atoms on the periodic chart show shells (although they are presumed to be electron shells, the number of protons and neutrons is also equal to the number of electrons) more like 20,39,83 (by atomic mass, or 20,36,72 if going by atomic number) a much more compact structure. So perhaps protons and neutrons form spheres of different sizes. One thing that appears clear is that neutrons are protons+electrons+anti-nutrinos and so perhaps that structure should be modeled.
notes:
1) so-called "alpha particles" or helium nuclei appear to be the only way atoms decay (atoms can be separated in a variety of ways...but people never see/measure naked protons or neutrons? or do they=have to check), so perhaps helium units of 4 particles. If the number of protons and neutrons is correct (the excessive atomic masses are incorrect), then it would tend to support the idea that atoms are built on units of 4. Each inert gas is divisible by 4 (4,20,36,72,108,172,236) can all be made by (1,5,9,18,27,43,59) units of 4. Explore more what kinds of particles are emited from atoms. I know: 1) photons,
2) electrons, 3) helium nuclei, 4) protons?, 5) neutrons? I know that atoms can be split, so maybe...any cmobination of protons, neutrons, etc is possible. After all, burning propane is completely destroying those atoms into photons. Does burning of gases ever result in protons or neutrons?
2) still can check other
a) shapes (ellipsoids, ...)
b) mixed sized shapes (1 larger sphere and 1 smaller sphere)
this kind of testing I think would need to be automated...it would take a large amount of time
3) glue marbles together
4) I think there is a basic idea of electron shells and nucleus (or nuclear) shells. This prompts the experiment of combining two atoms denuded/stripped of electrons...do they still form molecules? or are the electrons necessary components of all atom to atom bonds? Possible examples, include H+ and O+12, do they still form H2O? or NA+11 and CL+17=do they still form NaCl? If no, then is removing electrons a form of making atoms inert from other atoms that do not have electrons? I suppose electrons could be easily removed from neighboring atoms, and it would be difficult to keep atoms without electrons. I just find it hard to believe that nucleus structure has nothing to do with atomic bonding, and that only the electrons connect atoms, that everything depends on the electron shells. Again, it is not clear to me how electrons hold atoms together. Do they orbit both atoms? Do they orbit other electrons from the other atom? Do they temporarily fill a space where an electrons should be in a different atom? A structural model of the atom where electrons are stationary and attached to the other atom is easier to explain and understand.
5) One thing that was kind of a cool thought was that, perhaps somehow, electromagnetic collective gravitational effect (force) can be explained as a difference in size between particles. Only a certain size particle can move through the atomic lattice (mercury as a liquid conducts electricity so that needs to be thought about too). I don't know, but ultimately, I think that electricity is the pulling of matter to a place where there is more matter, basically gravity, but because of some collective group effect, the force is stronger (perhaps multiplied by quantity of particles, or close interactions [like a small ship with Jupiter] gravitational .
questions:
1) shouldn't the atom configurations be the same for all radii? Because the radius of all atoms is the same size. I think the reason there are differences is strictly from integer only differences that would not exist if floating point was used. It seems clear to me that the universe does not function like floating point numbers do, because a particle occupies 1 cubic unit of space, not .5 of a unit of space, etc. It is only the vast difference in size that makes objects appear to have fractional locations, velocities, etc.
2) What are the real differences between using spheres with radius 1, 2, etc. Why do differences exist? What is the representation that should be thought of? Is 1 pixel, 1 of the smallest units of space, or is 1 cubic pixel the smallest unit of space a photon group can fit in?
videos:
This is kind of cool. These are 12 transparent spheres stuck together as closely as possible, but within 1 radius of each other:
atoms12_trans.avi
Here you can see how one more sphere makes 13 spheres which forms a closed shell. Any new sphere will be significantly more distant from the center, in a new outer shell.
atoms13_trans.avi
Here is the 13 sphere shape, more realistically showing how photon groups might gravitationally balance each other. The distances are the same as the video above (10 pixels), but the spheres are only 1 pixel in radius.
atoms_r1_r10_13.avi
The next shell in the radius=1 pixel model was easy enough to find. It is a 3x3x3 cube:
atoms_r1_27.avi
Again, these shapes evolve naturally, given the formula: for each new sphere (of equal radius) added, find the smallest distance to all spheres, such that this distance is at least as large as the sphere radius. When I did spheres of radius=1, but the minimum distance between their centers could be 10, it was different from the above radius of 1 (I thought it would be the same since radius of 10 is the same as 1 (only everything is *10) in integer only math)
atoms_r1_r10_27.avi
13 and 27 do not fit the periodic table (4,20,40 does...or perhaps 4,20,36), so this shape is probably not how protons and neutrons are put together. 4x4x4 (64 spheres) doesn't form a cube, because the sphere shape starts to show itself beyond 3x3x3:
After 13 spheres, finding the next shell was very difficult. I would need to spend more time adding one sphere at a time...sometimes there are consistent geometries, where spheres will be well balanced together (the 13 spheres video above is a good example, you can see 3 on top, 3 on bottom, 6 around the perimeter, and 1 in the center...very nicely balanced), but more often, there is no symmetrical geometry or a very complicated one.
Here are 134 spheres (protons+neutrons) connected one at a time:
atoms_r1_134b3.avi
Here are 200 spheres connected one at a time, colored by distance.
average distance from all other spheres:
1 pixel=red (19)
2 pixels=orange (44)
3 pixels=yellow (109)
4 pixels=green
This model is growing larger faster than the atoms on the periodic table do, so perhaps the spheres are smaller (or in integer representation fit more closely at a size of 8 or 9 pixels, since this should be identical to spheres of .8 and .9). 200 spheres is the equivalent of a Platinum, Gold, Mercury, etc atoms, massive atoms. It would be awesome if we some time could actually build atoms like this.
atoms_r1_200.avi
When the required minimum distance is 2*radius, the model is like holding a group of marbles together in your hand or with glue. Although, I doubt this model represents the way protons and neutrons hold together.
atoms_r1_200b.avi
----this concludes all current comments on this atom model--------
Planet Moves Star:
----start planet moves star model-----------
This model uses planets to move a star up or down (out of a spiral galaxy to an orbit of a globular cluster).
There is a way to move a star, using gravity. This experiment seeks to find how easy moving a massive star may be. Our star, the sun, is 1 million times more massive than the earth, the earth pulls on the star, but only in very small force. The Sun is 1000 times more massive than planet Jupiter, and Jupiter has enough mass to pull our sun back and forth in a larger amount. Some things seem clear when talking about moving a star with a planet, or some kind of star moving huge piece of matter:
1) A large amount of planning, and continuous checking probably must go into verifying the movement of the star, since the movement of all the atoms in stars and planets cannot be known, only estimates may be used and that requires constant adjustment.
2) A large amount of fuel is needed. For each thrust a planet gives, for example, from some massive Hydrogen+Oxygen engine at it's south pole, a huge number of photons are released from the fuel (H2 and O2), and that makes the mass of the planet less. Perhaps a small initial thrust is all that is needed to set a star moving in a plus or minus y direction, that is what I hope to understand through doing this experiment.
There must be massive trade-offs, probably the smallest star-moving matter will be wanted initially, although advanced civilizations may have massive objects with massive engines for just such purposes. Early advanced life would probably have to start small, with the smallest planet (or star-mover) possible. They would probably accept a very very slow change in star velocity. Perhaps there would be no hurry to get out of the plane of a spiral galaxy. In addition, there is the problem of where all the fuel will come from. Perhaps fuel will need to be imported. Even a tiny thrust might be all that is needed to send a star up or down out of the Milky Way, but then, without doubt that star will come back down some where else in the Galaxy. I would think that globular clusters put together by advanced life would want to stay relatively close to the plane of the spiral galaxy to get more matter to use as fuel, since there is no doubt that they are losing more matter (in the form of stars emiting photons, and any other matter they use that results in photons being lost, all matter emits photons) than they can get from photons they can collect from other distant stars and galaxies.
Notes:
1) possible to move star very quickly and orderly in -y direction with constant
-.1ypixel/frame constant thrust on 1/100 mass planet.
star100x_planet_up_const.avi
For a reference, let's say that this planet is where Jupiter is 800e6 km from the star. Each pixel is then 8 million km.
This is a planet 10x the mass of Jupiter, thrusting continuously to produce a velocity of .1 pixel a frame= 3 pixels/sec=2.4e6 km/s 2.4 million km every second (that sounds like too much).
2) 1/1000 mass planet, I can see that moving a star might require very little thrust indeed.
star1000x_planet_down_30f.avi
In this video, a planet the mass of Jupiter (1/1000x the star) moves a star down, you have to compare the star at the beginning and at the end of the video to see the change in location of the star, which is large, but the velocity of the star is so slow, that the movement is basically unnoticable. The planet thrusts this time for only 1 second at the beginning. The thrust is still huge, resulting in .1 pixel/frame 2.4 million km/second.
3) 1/1000 mass planet, this time with a more realistic initial thrust of 1000km/s for 1 second, this translates to .000033 pixels/frame...a very small change in velocity.
I won't bother to show the video, because the position of the star changes by only a fraction of a pixel. The velocity (in the y [down] direction) of the star changes from 0 to: 1.28e-7 pixels/frame = 997 million km/year. At that rate it would take 10,000 years to move 1 light year. But then, only the tiniest amount of thrust was used, a thrust that produced a velocity of 1000 km/s on Jupiter in the y direction for only 1 second. The fastest jet can move 3x the speed of sound ~1 km/s, I don't know how to calculate the amount of fuel needed, and the size of the engine needed to move a planet the mass of Jupiter.
I am not sure what a realistic goal would be, but it seems like, the velocity of the star would be the thing being adjusted. I guess a civilization might want the velocity of the star to be 1 light year/an earth year...that is kind of fast...in four years we would sail by Centauri (4 ly away)...in fact it is the speed of a photon, so is very unrealistic. More realistic would be a tenth of that. We would go past Centauri in 40 years.
4) 1/1000 mass planet, 1 second of thrust that results in planet velocity of .1c 30,000 km/s.
again, no real velocity is imparted to the star. I have learned more. Here is some cool stuff: The velocity added to the planet is indirectly tranfered to the star. The planet loses y velocity (after that initial 1s thrust) while the star gains velocity. In this example, the sun y velocity went from 0 to 3.8e-6 (30 km/s) and the planet's y velocity fell from 1.25e-4 (1000 km/s) to 6.8e-5 (544 km/s). Again there was no noticable difference in the location of the star since it did not move even 1 pixel.
5) 1/1000 mass planet, 10 seconds of thrust that makes the velocity .1c (30,000 km/s).
This was closer to seeing actual movement in the star. The star velocity went from 0 to 3.7e-5. After only 10 seconds the star had moved .006 of a pixel=48,000km 4,800km/s just over 1% c, which would get us to Centauri in 400 years. That means 10 seconds of a relatively small thrust on Jupiter, could move our star to Centauri in 400 years, not too bad.
6) what about bringing Jupiter in closer, to the distance of Mercury? 5 pixels away at 46 million km from the sun. Actually, things get kind of nasty at that distance because the planet is too close to the star...it is tough to control that close. Because the closer it gets to the star the more gravitational influence (inverse distance squared, so the force is exponential). 1/2 the Jupiter distance is easier to control, 400 million km away, about 100 million km outside of Mars orbit.
I am starting to think about the perfect ship to build, and I think that a good idea would be a ship that has 4 main engines, one on top, bottom, and 2 in the middle on opposite sides. Perhaps even two engines is all that would be needed, one main engine for thrust and the one side engine, the side engine is pulled out to spin the ship on the axis of the main thrust engine. Actually a third engine would be needed to spin the ship at a 90 degree angle to the other steering thruster. Anything else about the ship is open to anything...it could be a sphere, a hollow sphere, a cylinder, a cube, rectoid, ...anything. Probably the ship would have many living compartments, perhaps an all transparent surface so that the inhabitants (at least in the prized outermost units, perhaps many would be public shared spaces) could look out at the universe. It is difficult to know how the future will play out, but potentially, the real business of feeding people may result from atom separating and constructing machines, and have very little to do with growing plants. It is a startling possibility. Any old matter could be turned into any new matter. Probably the valuable matter of trash and human waste would be converted to new delicious food dishes, air, water, etc. How interesting it would be to be living on a huge human-made ship that was thrusting to move the central star (and all accompanying planets, comets, etc...basically every smaller piece of matter in orbit) to a better location. Ofcourse when a star moves up, the much more massive center of the Milky Way Galaxy will pull the star back down eventually, and that equation is even more complex, because of the hundreds of millions of stars, but it too could probably be realtively accurately generalized.
ok the simulation is done. Again, the star did not move 1 pixel (8e6km) in 10 seconds, it moved: .007 of a pixel, so better than before (only .006), but not the real noticable difference I was hoping for. The star had a final velocity of: One problem is getting the initial velocity of the planet to make a perfect unchanging ellipse.
7) ok 2 planets, with the same thrust above in 6).
These models are kind of interesting in that a small object is using wisdom to move a bigger object. Ideally, if we could put the engine in the star we would be getting the most efficient star system movement, but since that is not easily possible, moving a large piece of matter as close as possible is the next best thing.
With two planets, there is little change. The star's velocity goes to: 7.5e-5 (I was hoping for 14e-5 or twice the amount, but there was no such result). But again, we are only using a tiny thrust, and only thrusting for 10 seconds.
star1000x_2planets_down_30f.avi
8) I think a good goal would be to get the star to move 1% to 10% the speed of light, that would move us:
1% = 400 years to Centauri
5% = 80 years to Centauri
10% = 40 years to Centauri
1%c=3e4 km/s To move 1 pixel at this scale would take (8e6km/3e4km/s) 266 seconds and would be 3.75e-3 pixels/s, 1.25e-4 pixels/frame (.000125). The most I could get in 7) with 2 planets at 10% the speed of light was .000075, about half that. I am not going to make a 300 second (5 minute) video just to see the star move 1 pixel, but the principle is neat; that it is not too difficult to imagine a relatively advanced civilization (I would say, like us, perhaps in a few thousand years) to actively move their star system without too much trouble. In fact, there is no doubt that with the creation of large ships, the cumulative effect on the star would definately have to be modeled and planned carefully. Ships would be built very small at first, but no doubt they would be modularized, so that they could be combined to form larger ships. The largest ships might be built of many millions of smaller ships.
To get a star to reach that velocity in only 10 seconds is perhaps unrealistic; to get the star to reach that velocity in 10 years might be more realistic...to have 10 solid years of thrust...it would make for an exiting decade for those in that star system, in particular anybody living on the star mover.
This is a basic idea that we can use S=v*t, the distance will equal the velocity*t, so 1-10% c velocity for the sun is probably a good goal for any star system. Actually, I need to see how the velocity of the star is changing over time. Vstar=Vstar+X each second given a constant thrust, so what is
X? V=at is the equation, so I see that for 6) the change in velocity (acceleration) of the star is 8e-6 pix/s/s or 64 km/s/s
V will equal
.01c in [3000 km/s=64*t]=47 seconds (so 47 seconds of thrust on Jupiter should put the star at .01c)
.05c in [15000 km/s=64*t]=234 seconds ~4 minutes (about 4 minutes of thrust that results in .1c velocity on Jupiter)
.10c in [30000 km/s=64*t]=470 seconds ~8 minutes (about 8 minutes of thrust, and the star is going .1c the desired velocity)
Going back to 1 planet, the same mass as Jupiter and same distance. Let's see if we can get the star to go .01c in 47 seconds [1410 frames] of constant thrust. ok it ran past 1410 frames, and at 1749 the velocity of the star is 7.66e-5 pix/sec = 613km/s, still not enough (so the acceleration on the star must be less than 64 km/s/s, here it is only 17km/s^2)....ok I just realized that I stopped the planet thrust after 10 seconds so that explains the lower acceleration. I will keep the simulation going until it reaches .01c, .05c and .10c using constant thrust that results in .1c on the planet. Actually this thrust can be looked at as an acceleration of .000125 pix/frame or 30,000 km/s/s since I am adding this to the velocity of the planet each frame. Perhaps a more realistic acceleration for a planet would be only 1,000 km/s or even less. Yes, it is very unrealistic, since adding .1c to the velocity of the planet quickly puts the planet near the velocity of light. I will test that acceleration
Here are the results for 1 jupiter accelerating at .1c every second:
To reach:
.01c [3000km/s] took 1504 frames = 50 seconds (acceleration=60 km/s^2)
.05c [15000km/s] took [estimate at 60 km/s^2= 250 s = 4 minutes] 7516 frames = 250s=4 minutes, an exact match to the estimate
I can see that, no doubt advanced life would go for a lower constant long term thrust on the planet/star mover. That is a nice capability to have for adjusting velocities later too. In addition, the nature of fuel rationing would favor smaller thrusting over longer times.
Here is a more realistic acceleration on the planet of 1000km/s^2. This could perhaps be thought of as 1000 jet engines, since the fastest jet can go 1km/s.
.01c [3,000 km/s]
.05c [15,000 km/s]
I am going to skip this because it is too unrealistic.
Maybe I should just go for maintaining a constant velocity on the planet, since adding up acceleration may be unrealistic since, as something starts to accelerate, [think of a jet, for example] it becomes more difficult to accelerate more...it takes more fuel to maintain a constant acceleration...like in a car...it is easy to maintain a constant velocity, but you can imagine trying to accelerate at even 1 mi/hour per second more, because the engine is "topped out" and going as fast as it can at 200 mph and can not go any faster. So how long would it take if a constant velocity of 1000km/s could be maintained on Jupiter? I think a constant velocity on Jupiter would mean a constant velocity on the star, so again, we are stuck with the basic idea of: the star will move slower (perhaps .5 the velocity of the planet...this I will check).
Ok, the Y velocity of the star is roughly 1/10 that of the planet and does increase (perhaps because the planet is at times closer to the star and so the velocity is felt more strongly there).
Vplanet=3000km/s (.01c) Vstar=30 km/s (.001c) (3.7e-6 pix/frame) the star has a velocity a tenth the velocity of the planet [this velocity would take 4000 years to Centauri...that would probably be too slow]
[the most accurate thrust is probably some where in here between 1 and 5% c]
Vplanet=15000km/s Vstar= 6480km/s (2.7e-5 pix/frame) 43% planet and 2%c...not bad...reach Centauri in 185 years
the average velocity after 46s was 13,955km/s, 93%
after 495s the average velocity of the star was 14,329 km/s 96% efficiency, that is phenomenal, but other stars and planets in the Milky Way would make the efficiency less. Centauri would be reached very near 200 years.
ok at 11 minutes the velocity of the star is 15,549 km/s, at 16 minutes the star reached .10c, so something is definitely wrong with my model here.
At 54 minutes the ave velocity of:
star: 14,771 km/s
planet:
after 20 hours:
star: 14,679 km/s
planet: 14,748km/s
One interesting thing I noticed after 20 hours of simulation is how little the elliptical orbit of the planet changed, there was no recognizable rotation called "procession", where the ellipse rotates (the path the earth takes, an ellipse, rotates very slowly). I can only imagine what billions of years of rotating does to matter and what that would look like sped up into a few minutes.
so I guess this is accurate, since neither velocity averages over 15,000km/s and they are both very close to that velocity. It says to me that almost all the velocity applied to a planet is echoed in the star with almost 100% efficiency because there is very little friction between planets and star. But I have to think that distance from the star when thrust is applied does make a large amount of difference.
This high a velocity is kind of unrealistic, maybe a constant velocity would not be wanted, but a constant thrust instead. I am not sure how to add in thrust to the velocity that results from gravity, because thrusting an engine produces an acceleration that is related to the existing velocity of the engine relative to the rest of the universe. The faster the planet moves, the less acceleration thrusting will add. This phenomenon, I don't completely understand, I think it has to do with the interaction of the photons in the engine, the thrust is produced by photons being thrown in one direction against those photons that are part of the engine that results in movement in the opposite direction. Most people don't describe rocket engines (or any engine) in this way.
Perhaps I am doing the calculation wrong here. I calculate the force (using inverse distance square m/dist^2) of each other piece of matter on each individual piece of matter, add those together (so in theory, the more matter, the larger the force, and the larger the velocity...). I was doing m1*m2/d^2 but quickly saw that one any given piece of matter only the other mass matters, because I am calculating the force on that one piece of matter. In addition, I am not using the gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, but I think that is ok because it relates to the mass, and I am simply using proportianal masses, but perhaps I should include the actual masses and the gravitational constant. Since multiplying these is linera, it would be the same result but at a different scale.
?) 1/1000 mass planet, this time with a constant thrust of 1000km/s, perhaps this too, is relatively realistic, although, as fuel was used, the mass of the planet would go down (I do not account for this, in this model yet).
major points
1) Should the advanced civilization go for a large initial thrust or a constant (or long term) smaller thrust? I have to think that smaller thrusts from time to time may be used to correct or adjust the star movement. A large initial thrust that gives the star a larger initial velocity, might add up over time, where with smaller thrusts the velocity would be built up over a longer time.
2) Use one big piece of matter or many smaller pieces of matter to move star? I really didn't answer this one, in the one simulation I did there was no significant gain from adding an extra Jupiter-sized star mover, but I find it hard to believe that two planets would not double the velocity of a star.
3) I think the equation can be generalized by v=at. The longer the planet accelerates in the Y, the higher the end Y velocity of the entire system will be. So, for example, to aim for a 1%c end velocity, a variety of "accel*time" combinations exist:
a t (to get to a velocity of .01c)
3000km/s^2 1 sec
300km/s^2 10 sec
30km/s^2 100 sec (1.6 min) *
3km/s^2 1,000 sec (16 min)
300m/s^2 10,000 sec (167 min or 2.7 hours)
30m/s^2 100,000 sec (1,667 min or 27.7 hours)
* let's run this simulation. 100 seconds of 30km/s^2 acceleration. Do we (star and planet) reach a velocity of .01c (3,000km/s)?
after about 6 minutes (12,000 frames), long after the thrust has stopped, it looks like the Y velocity of the planet is oscillating between 2,000km/s and -2,000km/s (it's going up and down in it's periodic orbit). The star is oscillating but much less, between 74km/s and 105km/s. So potentially, it will take more time for the system to settle down and oscillate less. Perhaps then, the remaining portion of the Y velocity that appears in the planet will be more evenly distributed between the star and planet, resulting in something like 150km/s for both star and planet. So it looks like the velocities are far less than the desired 3,000km/s. I guess acceleration on a tiny planet 1/1000 the size of the sun goes 1000 times less on the star. Currently the star only took 3% of the 3,000km/s. If the star will only take at most 5% of this planet's velocity we would need to accelerate for 20x longer [2,000 sec] or 20x larger [600km/s^2] in theory.
looking again, both star and planet are still oscillating but the planet picked up velocity (from only planet-star distance differences I guess) to 88,000km/s to -96,000km/s, and the star 256km/s to -56km/s. So, perhaps the star may reach a final steady-state velocity of more...at least as much as 256km/s almost 10% of the original goal. ok I just measured and the star has an average velocity of 2,504km/s over the last 745 seconds, 83% of the goal. I guess, the velocty of the star of planet at any given time is very misleading, and the average velocity (simply Ystar/time of simulation) is a better guide. As a guide 2,500km/s would go .83%c would go 1 light year in 120 years, 4 light years to the stars of Centauri would be 480 years... it seems unbearably long to people used to our life of flying from city to city, but for a long term plan of moving out of the star system it might be acceptable...in addition, we might not have any choice, given our lack of matter and size of engines, etc. That is simply thrusting with an acceleration of 30km/s^2...in theory even an acceleration as tiny as 30m/s^2 for a few hours could achieve the same result. I don't doubt that advanced life will be going with small engines that constantly thrust (although you have to remember that the matter used for fuel would probably be finite, and have to be highly conserved). I don't doubt at the scale of moving a Jupiter-mass planet, that separating mass from fuel to photons would show a measurable difference in mass on the planet.
It is interesting to think about how the members of some advanced civilization would react to the idea of moving a star. Even after many simulations and assurances, I am sure that many, and even most would be reluctant to try and change the natural order of the movement of the planets and stars in their system...no doubt a smaller and newer test star system would be experimented on first...or would lead the way for the rest of the systems. After seeing the theory successfully performed on one star system, others would probably feel less worried or unsure of success for their star system. Things move on such a slow time scale, that there would probably be large amounts of time and fuel to fix any errors...those living objects would have plenty of time to observe the results of the experiment.
the average velocity of the star is increasing:
850s = ave velocity 2,525km/s
1048s = ave velocity 2,553km/s
23m = ave velocity
the sun reached .01c (3,000 km/s) at 1048 seconds, and .05c (15,000 km/s) in 24 minutes, so clearly there is some kind of cumulative feedback loop happening. The planet now has an oscillating velocity with maximum 1,000,000+ km/s so there is definately some amount of feedback (when a planet can have a fractional distance [less than 1.0], the force may be larger than the planet's initial force).
Perhaps I am using these equations inaccurately (perhaps I should use the gravitational constant and the actual masses, and perhaps something is wrong with simply adding the force exerted by each other object as velocity). I am not sure what to conclude other than that moving stars with planets is definitely possible, but that I need to experiment more to understand the basic relationships between thrusting a distant planet and what effect that has on the star in the center. I thought that I would be able to conclude that over time any force applied to a planet would be applied to the star with almost no loss, in other words the average velocity of the above star and planet would eventually go to 3,000km/s, and I have not ruled that out, but it looks like the velocity of the star (and planet) are exceeding the initial velocity because of close interactions, or for some other reason. Perhaps that is something to watch out for...close interaction with the star that will amplify the Y velocity component.
Perhaps one lesson is that any tiny change in movement may be amplified over time and that may be something to watch out for.
[trying 3km/s^2 for 1,000 sec (16 min) same results?]
finally, for some fun simulations:
1) fast down to centauri direction
star1000x_planet_down_const.avi
2) diagonal
10 seconds of thrust in the +X-Y
star1000x_upleft_10sth_5xy.avi
3) sideways shuffle
10 seconds of thrust in the X:
star1000x_right_10sth_5x.avi
notes:
1) There are only 151 known globular clusters of the Milky Way Galaxy. That is an interesting number. It could mean 151 advanced civilizations have arisen since the creation of the Milky Way Galaxy. Is the largest cluster the oldest? But there may be even more advanced civilizations that simply joined an existing cluster.
2) http://mb-soft.com/public/globular.html has a few good points...if globular clusters crossed the plane of the glaxy wouldn't they pick up diverse stars? are the clusters close to the central mass of the Milky Way?
3) Globular cluster 47 Tucanae is moving in our direction at 19km/s (.006%c=would take 15,789 years to move 1 light year...to me that seems like a long time, but maybe that is the best a globular cluster can do). M4 is the closest globular cluster to us at 6800 light years. I doubt we could get there in less than 68,000 years and that would be going .1c which is very fast. Perhaps we will make our own globular cluster. I don't doubt that advanced life in the globular clusters would be very observant, and may take a strong interest in knowing what planets are growing life that is advanced enough to go to other stars...or perhaps even advanced enough to leave it's planet of birth. It would be to their advantage to try and steer that new developing life in a way that they want...it's like seeing somebody that is lost...many people would probably want to give them a map. Perhaps they want to control those new civilizations, to stop them from growing uncontrollably...with a civilization that moves star systems around, I seriously doubt there would be any real resistence from new comers like us, ligitimate resistence could probably only come from other medium-developed globular clusters. Are globular clusters built by advanced life? maybe no, but why not pursue both ideas? It is interesting to think about communication with those advanced objects. We certainly would want info...scientific info and history about the galaxy. Some of that could be learned by watching them (capturing photons emiting from them). Everybody wants matter probably...to grow more stars, living objects, etc. It must be a constant quest for more matter, to grow more, in order to reproduce, just like it is for bacteria and most living objects even on the earth.
it is important to track the globular clusters, are they following regular motions, or unusual motions that might indicate the presence of advanced life? Do they cross the plane of the Milky Way? What has their motion been? That should be modeled and shown to the public. In addition to the individual stars in globular clusters and elliptical galaxies.
---end planets move star model------------
11-08-2005
I never received my absentee voter papers and so, frustratingly I have to vote in a church. Why can't we vote in non-religious places? Voting should be (perhaps just voluntarily at first) on the Internet in the first place and so we can check our vote too.
Just a quick opinion on the ballot measures (here in Orange County and in California): again, a most trivial set of measures. I feel nearly no opinion on all of them except the abortion one. Ballot measure 73: I strongly vote no. I am for full and equal rights for all humans of all ages. Children should enjoy full rights under the laws, and in particular the right to their own body, to make unrestricted choices and decisions about what they will do with their own bodies and that includes any part of their body, including any fetus, using alcohol and other drugs, touching genitals, working, owning property, to press charges for assaults like spanking, sibling and school assaults, etc. Perhaps advice to wait before an abortion is good advice, but I reject the idea that this idea should be enforced by law, maybe we should create a set of sentences that constitute "advice", and that is where I would place the set of sentences in this proposition 73.
I have many, many comments, which I have made to those with hidden cameras, and eye receivers, but I will summarize some of the more major points later.
I look forward to seeing these ballot measures:
Actual meaningful ballot measures:
Measure 213: "violent offender free public registry act"
(est 2050)
(this would decimate the Republican numbers, however)
Measure 215: "Government employees cannot confiscate film act"
(est 2100)
(Call it the "Enyart act", or "9/11 Pentagon gas station act", "Police film confiscation abuse act"...make the owner of the film be legally required and receive compensation for providing a copy of the original film, there has been too many events of people in police and FBI destroying valuable eye witness film, like that of Scott Enyart, and the 9/11 Pentagon gas station)
Measure 216B: "vote directly on Internet act"
(est 2050)
Measure 216B: "count votes on court decisions by Internet voting act"
(est 2150)
Measure 217: "right to bear breasts in public"
(est 2100)
Measure 218: "right to bear buttocks in public"
(est 2100)
Measure 219: "no arrest for any image act"
(est 2100)
Measure 220: "Solder can quit from military act"
(est 2250)
Measure 221: "no copyright act"
(est 2100)
Measure 222: "camera net abuse copyright and privacy reimbursement penalty act"
(est 2150)
Measure 223: "kissing for money legal act"
(est 2100)
Measure 224: "touching genitals for money legal act"
(est 2150)
Measure 238: "masturbating for money legal act"
(est 2150)
Measure 239: "free history of science video on .gov Internet"
(est 2200)
Measure 240: "free story of evolution video on .gov Internet"
(est 2200)
Measure 243: "no jail for marijuana act"
(est 2050)
This is just a start...finally some real ballot measures that will make some decent change around here, although probably not until 2050.
10-26-2005
I guess no hurry for RFK
I guess there is no hurry in the public's mind to make justice for RFK by arresting Thane Cesar when they continuosly elect republican governors and presidents. I guess those in the know are saying: 'Thane Cesar can be free for more time...the murder of RFK is not that important'. And that Thane Cesar is still free, and that the coverup of what actually happened to RFK continues to this day is evidence of how bad things really are in the USA, and even in California...the good ol' white boys...those old cigar smoking men that supervised the coverup of the RFK murder in 1968 are still basically in power...maybe not those same individuals, but like-minded people that were younger then. They still stand over the truth about Thane Cesar killing RFK and refuse to allow the truth to be told.
century remembered as 'everybody lies about eyes century'
I think this century will be remembered for the way that millions of people actively participated in secretly seeing behind people's eyes and did nothing or very little to inform the public about their daily habit, addiction, or hobby. All the people you can think of...they were all involved...all the most recognized people of this time. They will all be remembered as participants in the secrecy. It will stand, as the rise of Nazism and other phenomenons do, as an interesting example of the strength and pressure of conformity, even in the face of ridiculously unethical behavior....some how, like religion, no matter how unbelievable the stories are, or nazism, no matter how barbaric the violence to innocent humans is, nobody dares to break the cycle or speak out. I was glad to hear the Phil Collins song with the words "take a look through my eyes". I don't doubt that, after spending years participating in the secret society of those that watch eyes, felt some amount of responsibility to reach out to and try to help the public understand this new phenomenon. I understand it is not easy to do, and takes a large amount of bravery, but ofcourse, I don't doubt that there is some feeling of guilt, some fear of what the public will think in the minds of those who have enjoyed the advantage of being in the eye networks...it has to become public some time...there is not less information as time continues...eventually the public will find out...and I don't doubt many people that have been listening to thought for years recognize that there may be some anger on the part of the public for keeping the technology secret for so much time. I don't know, but I think it will probably be like the end of aparteid in South Africa, or prohibition of alcohol in the USA, slavory, women's right to vote, ...very little retribution...most people getting away with their gains from the unfair era without any punishment.
CNN bravely covered a story about a couple in Pennsylvania that had their new born baby taken from them and placed in foster care because the guy had a rape conviction 20 years before. I thought that was shocking, but it raises the point and problem that I see: People should ask themselves if they are making such decisions because they are anti-violence, or because they are anti-sexuality. Rape is an assault and is obviously violent, but in the example of molestation, many times the punishments appear overly harsh (a male in Irvine got 100 years for toe-sucking, a guy in Florida 100 years on allegations that he kissed the penis of a young male, etc...I don't think people need to look hard for examples of longer than 10 year sentences for molestation)...and I think the truth is that, there appears to be a very fervent bias against sexuality...and not against violence. An assault of a child, which causes much more pain than molestation, is not a shocking taboo...it only garners a few weeks prison sentence if that. So the big point, and I think the clearest flaw in the thinking of removing the children from parents that live together, where one of the people has a past rape offence, is the logical conclusions that if rape is an excuse to remove children and make the taxpayer pay to raise the child in the often love-less, brutal, laborific foster homes, then isn't any assault? even nonsexual assaults like spanking a child, or even assaulting an adult? Clearly, if a person assaulted an adult, even 20 years ago, doesn't that say that this person chose first degree violence and that this violent behavior is dangerous for a child? The entire thing is far beyond out of control in my opinion...after people have done their time for violent crime, they should get a new opportunity...if they do violence again, then by all means let's arrest them, but I object to the idea of guilty before a crime is committed.
I have a bad habit of wanting to repeat out loud my thoughts...I am not sure why...it's almost like the felling that the millions of people that watch me need to hear what I am thinking...I seems to forget that they can already hear what I am thinking and there is no need to repeat out loud what I think...that repeating out loud what I think is kind of annoying for them...it slows things down...it is almost like when we talk, if we had to say everything twice...then life would move twice as slowly, every food order would take twice as long, etc. It's a tough habit to break for me...but I am getting better at it...part of the reason is that I don't get to hear thoughts so I am not in the flow of sending and receiving...I am one of those "read-only" people (as one person described it in a video I saw), because the uptight won't let me hear thoughts, for fear that I will invoke a good time for all. My dad, who is one of the included, was kind of enough to say "you can say that again!" when I saw him last...it's helpful to at least acknowledge what is happening. Sometimes I like to say my thoughts out loud (actually quite often when nobody is near me) because, in this age of people beaming images and songs on our heads, many times it's difficult for the weak signal that originates in my own mind to stay in my brain, so talking out loud, more solidifies my thoughts on some topic that I want to think about. I think probably the most annoying thing for those voyeurs that watch people like me is people that repeat thoughts, that is less annoying than people that think out loud (without repeating any thoughts). How many species "rehearse" the sounds they are going to make? I think it's relatively safe to say, that most people rehearse what they are going to say in their mind, before they say it, although it is done very quickly. When a person hears thoughts...like in a meeting of 10 people, for example, it must sound like many of the things that are eventually said out loud circulate in thought before being said out loud. One thing is clear about the other species, for many of them, the image in their heads is no where near as high resolution (number of pixels width x height) as humans, they may only see 100x100...like an old web cam. In a true free information and free speech society, thinking out loud would not be unusual, or certainly would be more tolerated, after all it's only air.
It is absurd to waste precious time like we do. We should be actively building walking robots, rocket planes into orbit, moon stations, full democracy, full free info...but instead people waste endless hours praying, meeting in religious buildings, watching tv, playing sports, reading...people should do what they like, but to me, I hate to see precious time wasted in such frivolous ways. Millions of people could be enjoying full democracy, regular sex with a different person each week, seeing video histories of the past, but instead watch the idiocy of television in the hopes of something remotely interesting happening.
Think of the available buttons for people that administer the secret eye and camera nets:
1) The image receiving button
2) The sound receiving button
3) The image sending buttong
4) the sound sending button
5) The smell receiving button
6) The smell sending button
7) The "cause an itch/scratch" laser button (this is also used to cause a person to make a gesture)
8) The cause a tumor beam button
9) The muscle moving button
10) The laser "zapper" button also known as the "strong prick" button
It must be a battle of many options to try and figure out which button the conservative idiot in charge may want to wield. There is a clear feeling among the administrators of this secret technology, that muscles moves should be very very brief, that all "sending" activity (receiving in constant...since no body detects receiving of images and sounds from their brain) should be very very brief...the longer they are sending, the more risk of the public catching on...detecting very unusual feelings and experiences and talking about them. The longest sends I have experienced are what I can only call "the tumor beam"...or the "minor pain" beam...this is the one that stays on you for solid minutes at a time. Occasionally there will be long sends on internal organs...those are the most difficult to detect, because the person is left to think..."is this a natural pain or uncomfortable feeling in my body, or is this one of the many conservative criminal beams?" If anybody knows of any other beams, please let me know. I just read about a device, which is now public, that can make a person move by changing their sense of balance by using electricity. I still don't understand how mucle moving is done, Galvani is really where the story starts, and he used voltage to move muscle...but how do you apply voltage to a human muscle without putting any metal on them? Perhaps by activating the neurons in a person's brain that generates the voltages (this is probably more likely), but how do you activate those neurons without putting metal on both sides of them? How can it be done remotely from a ceiling device or satellite? However that may be, it appears clear, that some people on earth figured it out, but never informed the public.
I realized that my photon model needs a few improvements:
1) first I was making the mistake of normalizing the collective influence on the direction of a photon with x/(x+y+z) not x/magnitude (magnitude=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^.5, changing this, had little effect on the model though, the only thing I could notice is that there was a more distributed clumping of photons.
2) I have to include what happens when two or more photons collide (or would occupy the same location). I decided to treat this phenomenon like billiard balls. In this view, the photons bounce off each other, and can be stopped. This photon stopping happens when, for example, two photons collide head on, and one photon has a photon directly behind it...the photon in the middle constantly bounces off the two and stays in the same location, the other interesting point that people may not realize is that the photon on the outside, that you would think...it has free space...why wouldn't it move over and bounce off into empty space, is still attracted to the main matter in the middle and so it's direction is constantly to go to the center...only distant photons can pull it, and they are not close enough to change the direction of the photon. As a result of this new model, photons clump in to a sphere-like object...but these models are probably not entirely accurate...one problem is that there are so many photons in the universe that it is very difficult and time consuming to model even a very tiny space and group of photons...because the influence of the infinite number of other photons in the universe cannot be ignored. Perhaps there is a way to summarize that influence...as an influence that is basically equal in all directions and exibits a definite pull on the photons. It is still a mystery as to how there could always be something "outside" of some space...eventually wouldn't a person have to reach some edge? Perhaps the universe is infinite in space, and so there is no boundary...it is impossible to visualize. For example we recognize 3 dimensional space (or even if you think of time as a spacial dimension)...we can see a 3-d box, but there is always space outside the box...and that space has no end I guess.
Some thing very unusual is happening to me in regard to Cox Communications and my cable service. They won't hook me up in my Condo, but many other people in this condo get Cox Cable. The excuse they gave was that the cable signal is not strong enough, but the person at the HOA told me that Cox installed the cable there months after SBC did the initial install. Thankfully, the HOA is looking into it for me. Perhaps there really is something wrong with the cable, but in that case, since the contract (I presume) was to wire all units, Cox should fulfill their contract and wire my unit with the correct cable, but I worry that this may be one of the many times I am being discriminated against because of my religious and political views and for my choice of lifestyle, in particular, because they want me to stop producing my "Stop violence, teach science" public access show. I have to wonder about the values of people like that...they don't intimidate or threaten those people like the Merlows (Brian and Mercedes) who have a show all about Jesus and Christianity, telling the public during prime time "Jesus couldn't be held in any grave...Jesus is ever living", versus my meager "stop violence" message. The interesting truth, I think about cable is that it will fall to the telephone companies and the Internet. But why be nasty on the way down?
I am shocked at the number of people that have the will power and smarts to not actually subscribe to violence...after all violence is touted on television as the "manly" responsibility. Any person that choses not to use physical violence is called a fag, wimp or pussy. All that peer pressure and even pressure from adults to stand up and be violent. The peer pressure to use marijuana, tobacco and alcohol is not even that strong, but yet, even without one national ad against assault, young and old, people still show the wisdom to not choose first degree violence. It is amazing, and a testiment to the will power of the human species, our independent nature, to pursue our own internal feeling and belief of nonviolence, even if it is overwhelmingly not popular.
I definitely recommend the book "Asimov's chronology of the world", by Isaac Asimov, isbn 0062700367, as being a very smart brief summary of history in an entertaining way, full of clever insights that I had never heard before. One example, of these clear insights is what I read last night: that around 800 BCE, the majority of people in Israel were polytheists, not believers in only one god, in fact, the one-god only Yahwahists were viewed as puritanical and extremists, but when, in the future, the single-god believers became the majority, they portrayed the King at that time, "Ahab" and his wife "Jezabel" in the old testiment writings in a bad light, while the two early Yahwayists (I forget their names) were written as positive figures. But there are many other insights made by Asimov, some probably inaccurate, but many that may probably be true. One exciting insight is Asimov telling that the Phoenetians people, the major traders and sea explorers of the time, who had Cuneiform to the north and Egyptian hieroglyph, developed the first alphabet where symbols could be used to represent any language, so the invention, in that context makes sense, being traders that need to communicate with people of different languages...that scribes were needed, because without an alphabet, there were many accumulated symbols for each object that only a person trained could read...all excellent points that I have never heard before. That, while written language evolved independently at least 3 times (Asimov sights The Tigres-Euphrates, China, and Mexico...although I think we should really put together the evidence and think about this, because there was probably a large amount of intercommunication), the alphabet evolved only once, and all other alphabets evolved from that first phoenecian alphabet. Each page has some interesting insight like those.
The only way to punish unethical immoral people, in my opinion, is to expose them to the public, so that is why I tell the truth about some of the experience I encounter in my life, from people who are biggots, malicious, rude, homophobes, violent, threateners of violence, antisexuals, puritans, mind policers, etc:
I sent in a $25 rebate for a D-Link product, throu Global Fullfillment Services, and they claimed that my purchase was out of the period, but the receipt (I scanned fortunately) shows clearly that the purchase was within the period. It is only $25, but I suspect discrimination by elitist that want to do malicious things like waste my time, or frustrate me.
I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau against D-Link, and Global Fulfillment Services. Eventually, a person from Young-America (I thought the company was Global-Fullfillment?) contacted me, I sent the person a scan of my receipt and the person claims that the check is now on the way to me. I saw that the BBB rates D-Link in Fountain Valley with a CCC, which they call good, but since when has a "C" been a good consumer grade?
D-Link is here in Orange County, so I don't doubt that the owners of D-Link, and no doubt Global Fullfillment Services fervently oppose my views on religion, sexuality, etc. At the very least, there appears to be some kind of scam for money going on there. My first guess is that they are malicious christian republicans that was to do their evil to nonviolent honest people like me, and second that they are involved in some kind of money scam where they purposely mark a certain number of rebates as being invalid.
Anyway I look at this, I still have a great amount of suspicion and mistrust about the people and products from D-Link, Young-America, and Global Services. In this day and age of advanced technology, and given the high profile nature of my life and beliefs, I seriously doubt this kind of dishonesty is accidental, but rather deliberate and malicious. Perhaps this type of activity on the part of D-Link, Global Fullfillment Services and Young-America is some kind of unethical (and no doubt illegal) money getting scheme. Without any real physical evidence, and for such a small amount of money, there is no point in pursuing this matter further at this time, but I look forward to a future where everybody's actions are clearly shown to all in the light of day instead of secretly behind close doors seen only by an elitist few. Halleluja (whatever that means) for the time retribution comes, when everybody gets to see the dishonesty and lies of those in the eye networks. Finally, the dishonest will get what they have had coming for a long time, even if only the recognition of the majority of honest people that they are liars...which is much better than now, where they are viewed by the uninformed public as upstanding members of society. I say to those people that want me to move to a different state, that they should move to a red state where their backward views and old-time lifestyles are the majority.
10-20-2005
Saddam/Bush "never pulled trigger" defense
My advice to Saddam Hussain and his lawyers, and also to Bush senior and Jr is to argue the "I didn't pull the trigger" defense. At worst they simply ordered the execution (for example of Kurds in the case of Saddam, JFK in the case of Bush sr, and possibly the people in 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and perhaps US liberals in the case of Bush jr. They didn't actually do the homicide. Hussain could even claim that he never ordered them to be killed, saying..."did I say 'get out of here' in Arabic..yes...but I didn't say 'kill them'...I never explicitlly said 'kill them' (although he probably did have to say something...but maybe not...maybe it was unspoken...the paid for executioners just did what they usually do). Bush senior's lawyers could argue...'sure I was in Hoover's office the day after JFK was killed', 'sure I trained anticastro cubans', 'and yes, I even funded CIA employees Frank Fiorini and E Howard Hunt, ...but I didn't shoot JFK...Fiorini did!'. It's sad but true. It is a little preposterous to actually argue legal points, because the Saddam trial is, ofcourse, just a "show trial"...there is no regard to actual law or logic. But it is interesting to think about. I think that there may eventually be a time where evil popular leaders still bark out execution orders, but all their pawns have been jailed and they are powerless to make people do violence for them.
Miers
It is clear that Miers, who wears a cross, is from Texas, is close friends with the Bush family...is against abortion rights except when a female may die as a result of birth. There is no mystery to me...when I saw a headline about conservatives angry Miers might not be conservative enough I had to chuckle...I don't think there is a particle of doubt in my mind that any person in Bush's group would not be ultra conservative, even extremely conservative....religious and pro first strike violence extremists...so I can't understand...maybe all the headlines are just paid for propaganda to get liberals to vote for Miers thinking her liberal. The entire point makes no difference, yes, is moot, because even if all liberals (in Congress ofcourse, this is not actual democracy where we pee-on public get to vote) vote against Miers, she will still get enough republican support (like Roberts) to win. And if she doesn't, Bush will bring on somebody equally as conservative...there is not going to be anything good for our supreme court for decades because of the way people in the USA voted [plus a few dirty tricks] one day in November in 2000 and then that other day in 2004. The entire topic is mind numbing...
violence down
I was glad to see that the recorded rate of violence has gone down since 1992 both in the USA and on the earth. I think we can reduce the amount of violence even more, because this level of violence is completely ridiculous. No body needs to use violence, and ofcourse, violence is illegal. We can live in peace without violence, and certainly without 1st degree violence. There is a certain amount of agression in jailing people that have done violence, but that does not involve assault, it is mostly physical restraint.
tolerance for people with nonviolent "mental/behavioral" disabilities.
That movie with Jodie Foster, where she claims somebody stole her child, made me realize (not that I saw that movie or many movies...those people have too much money already, the movies are all dull, have nothing to do with science, the future, all take place on earth...are filled with religion, myths about demons, etc...to sum it up, they are made by and for idiots, mainly, although there are exceptions.) that there are special designs made for handicapped people, sensitive people will construct ramps...it is even the law in many places...businesses have to provide toilets for people in wheelchairs. I am glad that people provide those things for those in wheelchairs and other physical disabilities. But, when it comes to people that have inaccurate views of the universe, it is an entirely different story. For example, if they continue to make claims to police that somebody has broken into their house, somebody stole their child who has been dead for years, etc. they will be locked in a psychiatric hospital without consent, without a trial, without a sentence, without anybody outside even being informed. Does that sound like tolerance? Ofcourse not. In particular when these people have always been nonviolent, and have not stolen any property...which if they have, disability or no, I think they should be punished...we can try and help, as we try to help all people in prison for violence and theft, but at some point, all there is, is punishment by jailing...removal from free society according to popular law. So, I think that people can tolerate people with innacurate stories, and build systems around such people. People, which experience has shown will always exist. There will always be people that call 911 with a nonexistent emergency. Even if they know there is not an emergency (which may not be the case for many inaccurate people), still we should have computer programs that can tell us: "This person routinely makes claims that are inaccurate. These calls are almost always that a person has abducted her child, but her child has been dead since 1902.", etc.
I can see a time when we will enter the name, or some infomation about a person and get a nice big profile on that person, with images, video, audio, and a summaries of: their criminal record (mainly violence perhaps, but also involuntary hospitalizations) and brief comments about the circumstances of each arrest/event, their medical history, ...probably the first thing people will see is the most important information about a person...maybe even just ratings...is the person violent often? is the person liberal or conservative? married? etc. Can you imagine finding the record of a person that has "masturbated: N"?! What could you tell them....what would you say...it would be shocking.
Ofcourse the female in SF that threw her children in the Bay was beamed on...I think black people are probably targeted more than others with suggestions to commit suicide and homicide...ofcourse by those "good samaritans" that beam images and sounds on people's heads. Couple that with religion, belief in gods, etc...and ofcourse, a person could think a god is telling them to sacrifice the thing they love most, their children, or even worse. You have to see things the way these people that can see what our eyes do...imagine a female who has been told about a god..who has related all of life to a god and then somebody beams a strong image of her throwing her children off a bridge...or into the bay...etc...or even the sound "throw your children in..." played on her brain...maybe in her own voice! it is a powerful influence...many of us can sit back and say...oh I would never be fooled by images and sounds beamed on my head telling me to do violence or do something stupid...but many people have not been told over these decades that maybe some people are beaming images on their brain...that it is people...not any gods. Then, ofcourse, where are the people that try to stop such things? I guess there aren't enough of them to go around with this group of people in the USA...what about people out there that might try to stop the violence and chaos caused by evil suggestions being beamed on innocent unsuspecting people?
I was thinking, and it's funny. Many people think I am weird, and perhaps some people would thank people that call them weird, because they prefer not to be thought of as dull, one-collective-mind type people. But in my experience, I can tell you, that when people have heard a rumor that you are weird, they become ultra-weird themselves...many times out-weirding the supposed weird person. It is a bizarre phenomenon, people go out of their normal way to say or do something unusual...usually overly harsh when around me....or just unusual...say things that they normally don't say (although not one has become overly sexual...to the point where I actually got anything...normally it's overly and unusually rude). The phenomenon I experience is very similar to the "emperor wears no clothes" phenomenon...millions think I am insane, violent, dangerous, unpredictable, overly sexual...but it simply isn't true. My views on the universe are as accurate as any in science, and more accurate than any in religion, which are the majority. I have never been violent to the extent of causing so much as a bruise with the exception of one bitten nipple when I was drunk 9 years ago (and I basically don't drink alcohol now) that was not permanently damaged. I think like a robot or computer...most people can easily predict what my opinions on issues will be...it's the basis for a computer program I want to write...basically violence is bad, consentual pleasure is good. Oversexual...we can argue, but I don't think I search more on the Internet for sex related things than most other people...I am more open and honest about my sexuality, no doubt about that, but am I more sexual than average people? I doubt I get as much sex as average people do. I didn't get sex until age 18. Maybe I do like sexuality more than an average person, although, again, I think that may not be true, but if true, I hardly think that there is anything wrong with that or that being overly sexual is unhealthy, in particular in a person that is so openly and vocally antiviolence, and pro consent-only touching. It's like the sad truth about Jesus of Nazareth...he was just a regular human made of DNA, not a magic messiah...it may make some people cry, it may make others violent...but it happens to be the unpopular, perhaps dull and unfantastic truth.
10-17-2005
Here is the photons thru a prism model using Snall's law of refraction (and an index of refraction that is smaller than glass, because I am using floating point and the round off causes problems at the edges). In this video, the photons only change direction at the transitions from empty space (or air) to glass, not in each atom. That phenomenon alone is unintuitive, and should be thought about more...why does the photon change direction (some call slowing down, but I don't think that is clear...the photon simply changes direction) only going from empty space to atoms of glass and then atoms of glass to empty space. I want to model this all in integer, but I am not sure how to do everything like photon direction that I am currently doing to have a magnitude of 1.0 pixels/frame.
Here is the video:
prism9_snell.avi
What is not clear to me is that the photons are grouping in the blue toward the bottom. I think maybe, but it's not clear from my primitive model. In addition, can you see a model, where the geometrical shape of the atoms is included as 3d shapes? That would be amazing. I would point out that the photon changing direction may not be a collision but may be a partial orbit, (or maybe and careful measurements would reveal potentially any minor slow downs, but that must require an unbelievable precision). Again, looking at this video, I don't see the grouping that was clear in the other model where each atom does change the direction (although I have to lean seriously toward the Snell model [although with particles of light] since there is so much experimental evidence to support it). Again, this video shows the "oygbiv" experiment is possible, by blocking the top portion of the light the red portion of the spectrum should be blocked because that is where those photons are coming from according to both models.
How would eiffel tower prisms, and the opposite (boob-shaped) prisms change light?
In other news, this morning some person unhooked my front brake on my bike. It's frightening. I want to have cameras on my car and bike at all times, and most importantly on myself...look at that recent homicide in SF County...we are stuck without being on videos all the time...all that will change when everybody has a few walking robots following them around, and also with more free info. It's scary...this is like the time without lampposts!
That bastard, premiere of India Kalam, what an elitist. He can watch satellites any time he wants, but the untouchables in the public aren't allowed to see. This is such a serious problem on the earth. How do these elitists get elected? We need to elect people that are going to be battling for us, so that we can see all the info there is. I don't doubt that Kalam must have a lot to hide...in particular that he watched everybody's eyes without them knowing for a few decades.
The Boy George arrest...again...never call the police is the rule...you are only asking for trouble. Then to add insult to injury they charge George with filing a false report...that is brutal and vindictive. First George was potentially burglerized, then some people in police did steal property from his house (even if the coke was not his, still the people in police should have no right to steal property from a house...I hope people change the laws to make theft more serious than drug possession). Then to read that George could get 15 years just because some body found cocaine in his house...that is absurd! People that assault other people don't get even 1 year. It seems like a huge injustice, the drug war is nothing but Nazism...let people use drugs...guns are legal and do far more damage, the same is true for fists and knives! People using drugs...the public has it all wrong...it's like over eating...no body but the self (if even that) is being hurt. People can easily say don't do drugs, and doing drugs is bad...but nobody should lock another human in jail for deciding themselves to use drugs, that is barbaric. Maybe this was just a publicity stunt by George, but I seriously doubt it...15 potential years in jail to be in some headlines? Again, I think this George arrest proves what many people already understand...when there is a person in a police uniform, feel fear...alot of fear...! Again, with the arrest of the NY person for prostitution, I feel I should remind people in the NorthEast that they are the blue states, not the brutal people that support that type of brutality and backwards thinking.
I got my car repaired, and one delaership was charging $100/hour, can you believe that? And people will pay it! I get under $20/hour, that is unbelievable. It's interesting that the car companies are not racing onto walking robots and moon vehicles...wading in piles of money...they basically are turning stuff from the ground into cars and selling them, then fixing them at $100/hour. It's interesting, that got me thinking about computers. Who gets all the money? Never the hardware people...Gigabit, Biostar, ...other motherboard manufacturers...it's the software person, Microsoft, from the copyright that is getting loads of cash. That seems so backwards to me, because, shouldn't the physical property be worth more? When people sell infomation they just make up a price, above and beyond the actual price to produce the physical media.
10-14-2005
These videos are RLE encoded, and definitely play in Microsoft Media Player, but I had trouble getting them to play in some Linux/Unix PC programs.
prism12_eachatom.avi
prism11_eachatom.avi
prism10_eachatom.avi
Take a look at these videos I put together of photons going through a prism. I am still experimenting. I am learning many things here. First, these videos show a model of photons and atoms. In this model in these videos: the direction of photons is changed by each atom of glass in the prism, not as the popular opinion is that (as far as I know) only at the transitions of photons and atoms is the photon direction changed. In fact, I don't change the photons back when they exit the prism. I am trying to duplicate images of light through a prism that I have seen, by my own experimenting and on the web, like this wonderful image from Nasa
.
prism1.avi
a mirror object
prism2.avi
atoms spread out in a mirror object
prism6_hand.avi
same as above
So to make this model, I had to lower the index of refraction for glass from 1.517 to 1.03, because again, each atom in this model changes (or "slows") the photons of light. The color red is simply a lower frequency of photons. The more space between photons, the more red (and less blue) visible light is. So here, in some way, if this model is true...a prism is a way to red shift light, the same exact way that light is red shifted from distance galaxies. The popular view is that a prism, simply spreads light out (which I agree with), but I think (although I need to experiment and think more about it) that the photons are also being slowed (ie. diverted from their original path)...I actually have read that the view that the photons are slowed by water, glass, diamond, etc. (and we really should try to understand what makes molecules clear to photons with visible frequency...is it simply more space between the atoms?). An entire big idea is being opened up here...what happens when the prism is wider...is the spectrum larger? It seems logical in these models that it might because the photons must go thru more matter. I can't understand some aspects of this. Since, clearly, the index of refraction does not depend on how much matter the light is passing through, how can this model be correct? Because in this model, the light is bent more if it is going thru more matter. Also, perhaps this model is inaccurate in another way, because perhaps photons only change direction when they are near an atom. Glass and prisms, etc are amazing things to me, because...here we have an object that absorbs, reflects, and refracts. Most objects only absorb and reflect. Again, what determines if a photon will be absorbed, reflected or refracted by an atom? I think it has to do with the structure of each atom, how the photon collides with (or just misses) the atom.
There are still other phenomena to examine: the double-slit method of separating white light, objects that "polarize" light, and I want to model both of those. I refuse to give up on the "light as a particle" idea...everything seems to be explanable with it. It seems ridiculous to argue anything else, but that is certainly within the realm of free thought and speech. I think that the double-slit is done with reflection, or perhaps even photons changing each other's direction... It will certainly be interesting to see what I can model when I get there. The polarization of light I probably will model first, because it is easier. It seems clear to me that the way atoms are shaped could easily allow photons thru, or reflect photons depending on their orientation. Can a prism compress a spectrum of light back together? It must be able to, but we don't usually talk about prisms as light compressers...it's like a lens effect. How far does infrared extend above visible on outside? The photons with red frequency toward the top must come from the top of the white light beam. Can the red be blocked (while the oygbiv continues)?
I think it should be clear what the US (and to some extent the planet earth) political chart looks like, for some reason these ideas, and many others, are not told to the public by the single-minded evil media corporations:
In theory, I guess this would be 3-d and there would be other groups, greens/enviromentalists, libertarians, independents, communists, monarchists, etc. Most of those groups will probably never gain a majority, although I think the green and libertarian and no doubt many ideas of independents will make gains in the future.
I think that I was not entirely honest in my descriptions of people like the Clintons and Kerrys. Clearly, people like that are going to do nothing to solve the real problems on earth and in the USA. They are a bunch of powder-puff, religious, uneducated, secretive, beauracrats who do nothing but sit on their ass and look pretty. This is the way the public is voting now. We need somebody that is going to do something about violence. Has John Kerry or Hillary Clinton ever spoken out against violence? made any promises to try to lower the amount of assaults and homicides in the USA? No, ofcourse not. Bill Clinton threatened violence against somebody who criticised Hillary Clinton. Does that sound like a person that's going to enforce the assault laws on our playgrounds and parks? Ofcourse not. Ofcourse, Bush jr is worse, yes, Bush jr is much worse. Look what the people gave us: two wars, 9/11...religion in government worse than ever. Still, that is no excuse for electing empty headed leaders. Kerry is wishy-washy, has no strong feelings towards science, democracy, free info....anything...he should have said...I promise to vigorously promote evolution, the history of science, all the great scientists, moon stations...we will be first to build cities on the moon, not the Chinese...we are going to vacation in orbit...and all the big business that goes with that and walking robots too! but no...they are all christian, do-nothing... Has Hillary ever openly supported evolution? no ofcourse not. But let me be precise. Do they speak out against violence? no. Do they talk about freeing the nonviolent, about reversing the Reagan mandatory drug sentence minimimums? no. to her credit Hillary spoke out against the Rockefeller drugs laws in NYC, but Bill Clinton is responsible for filling the US prisons full of nonviolent people like himself that simply used drugs. More people are in the prisons of the USA, than China or Russia, former communist nations...I mean we are ruining and oppressing the people in our own nation. But these powder-puff type people, to make one small point, always take the moral high ground on drug use....they never did any! same for sex...no they are not sexual! Back to my main line here: Do they promote science? no. Clinton and Kerry that all Jesus cult followers and users of christianity for popular gain. no more jesus ponzi pyramid scheme..enough already! I want the science ponzi pyramid scheme to win. enough with these godders and christians. Again. How about free info? The Clintons, and Kerrys are media darlings...they love the Time Warner Disney money for copyrights, and privacy...they take the media big money over the public little dollar. No chatter about free info...a tiny quote from Bill Clinton about supporting the freedom of information act which is a total myth. But ofcourse, they watch people in their houses and hear thought, watch their eyes...they are up to their necks, like millions of others, in that elitest group. The fact is, they are controlled by money and popular religion. They can't support truth and justice, they would be ruined. How about democracy? Where do they stand on letting us vote on the laws we all have to live under? Doesn't that seem fair? We have to live under these laws...shouldn't we get we get to vote on them? Can't they count our votes? Having to live under laws we never voted for, is "legislation without representation". Was Clinton ever vocally against the electoral college? ofcourse not. Only Dean, and other more liberal democrats finally started to play ball with those that want democracy, by publically questioning the electoral college. As a minor point...and an aside...one of the most annoying idiocies of the idiots on earth, is how they pick some uber-trivial thing out of thin air...and then make that their platform for life...for example..."flip-flop" with Kerry, but even more trivial is the sound Howard Dean made...those idiots on the news media, still always refer to that...it's become a new moniker for Dean...and it was a tiny sound...the most trivial bunch of bs...now we throw away all those ideas? all that a person stands for? ...it is total idiocy. Back to finalize this paragraph...I am simply going on record now to say that...is the Bush regime terrible, yes...are they worse than the Clintons, etc...yes, ofcourse. But let me be clear, that politics in the USA is dead. Both sides are christian conservatives. We are not going to get a real leader, and real justice, and decency, honesty, free info, stopping of violence, promoting science and sexuality...for decades. Let us never be fooled, there will be no end to the drug war under any Clinton or Kerry. Why not support Kucinich? He is not perfect, but at least he has the decency to do something about the drug war and those people whose lives are being and have already been ruined. Never let us forget, that, it is clear, that the christian and godder conservatives are going to be running this boring, dull, do nothing, antilogic, sentimental, pseudoscience, powder-puff show for a few more decades. Why bother getting involved? This is not the half-century of science, truth, and sexuality. That won't stop me from talking, and sharing these truths and ideas with the public. I want to draw the pictures of what justice looks like, and then...we know what we need to do...we know what justice will at least look like.
10/26/05
I want to add that, ofcourse I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, as I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, but the truth is, that I want to see stronger liberal leaders, people that don't roll over for the republicans, that stand up against invasions, war, that are for exposing Sturgis and Thane Cesar, that are openly against filling the prisons with nonviolent drug users and people doing prostitution, that speak out against violence, that are for free information and vocally so, a strong supporter of science, and critic of religion...the republicans never seem to roll over for the liberals, why do the liberals give up at the tiniest sign of defeat? They could have battled the 2000 election, only 1 senator needed to sign, but many could have worked to expose and pursue the evidence of voter fraud. They could and should have been firm and spoken out against an invasion of Iraq, and they should respect the popular vote against that invasion and occupation...why do the liberals and those in the government reject the popular opinion against the occupation of Iraq? I could go on for hours, but to summarize...will I vote for the democratic nominee in 2008 no matter who it is? yes, but I think we as a nation need to do much better in terms of who we elect to represent us.
Monetary penalties on those in the eye network to those excluded. It really comes down to: will the excluded majority, outnumber those in that are in the eye network? And then, will they agree that those people in the secret eye nets should be penalized and the money distributed to those they watched (which includes most of them)? As I see things, it is simply what the popular opinion will be once everybody gets to see all the eye images of the past. It is clear to me, that those people that own the media companies, Time Warner, Microsoft, ABC, ...and the individual people...so-called celebrities...are clearly getting wealthy on the copyright, while freely violating the copyrights of those people in the public by watching them in their houses and hearing their thoughts in a one-way only network. It just seems fair to me, that those excluded, in particular, those most abused, ought to be compensated for this injustice. And the scale set back to equal where all information is free, there are no privacy laws, or copyright laws, and every body can proceed as those in the eye network do, with simply copying and seeing anything they want. In addition, I think, my vote is for a period of time for them to be excluded from hearing and seeing thought and in people's houses. In my mind, that seems fair. Perhaps other excluded people will feel differently, and no doubt, those in the eye network will vote against that. Hopefully, the excluded will form a clear majority when everybody gets to see.
I saw in the news, I am glad to say, it was reported to the public, that Oswaldy Orwellian Oprah Winfrey, temporarily unleashed her massive brain-washed unthinking followers to find and capture a person wanted for "molestation", a so-called "molestor" from the FBI "most wanted" list. I have said this a number of times, but, why do they pass over the "assaulters"? I want to start promoting the vigorous identification and arrests of those that spank, slap, belt, punch, and otherwise assault nonviolent humans under the age of 18. So, the funders of Oprah, no doubt Jesus and God cult members, in addition to members in the Orwellian secret "eye" network of hidden cameras, are chosing to stop sexuality as opposed to violence. They are not profiling people wanted for homicide, assault, rape, any violent crime. Joe Walsh is another example of people who take money to do this. I want to add that it's shocking still that the US FBI places people wanted for nonviolent crimes above those with violent crimes, that is some logic there...we got the kid back, they were beaten and killed by the assaulters and killers, but at least their genitals were not messaged, and they were not subjected to feeling any kind of sexual pleasure.
It is truly neo-nazi what people like Oprah and Walsh do (except for profiling violent people, which again...unless the physical evidence is presented...I still don't trust Oprah or Walsh and the other eye netters as far as I can vomit).
I want to ask Oprah Winfrey: "Do you watch what people see from behind their heads with infrared cameras?", "Do you watch people in their houses?", "Are you part of a group of people that is surpressing the fact that thoughts can be seen and heard?", "Do you think evolution is a fact?", "Have you ever masturbated?", "What thoughts do you think of when you masturbate?", "Have you ever seen child pornography?", "Who is your favorite scientist?", "Did you ever use drugs?", "Did you ever drink alcohol?", "Do you think Jesus rose from the dead?", "did you ever punch, or slap any nonviolent person?"...why will they never answer those questions? Why do they have everything to hide?
Many people think people that molest are dangerous people, worse than those that assault. They believe there is a strong link between molestation and homicide. Does such a link exist? Even if there is a small link, there is a larger link relating those that murder, to those that own hand guns...so now, are we to jail those caught with hand guns to lower the murder rate?
There is one thing that is lost in all this, and that is the idea of violent crime. People like Walsh and others like to argue to remember his son "Adam", and that stirs up people...they equate molestation with homicide...it's the old switcharoo...a person that says molestation (which is nonviolent) is not a serious crime, and more like a minor nuisance...compared to being made to itch with a ceiling laser...all the sudden are supporters of homicide! But wait...look at the truth. I am a person who is absolutely against homicide and assault, to adults and children...I am even against touching or restraining against objection (although again...I think that is a minor and complex crime). The fact is that I don't doubt that Walsh has a couple violent assaults against people, and maybe even minors...but that info is not shown to the public. Walsh is a guy that wears a murdered cow...I mean that should be a tip-off. I don't doubt that he would have spanked Adam, if he didn't before Adam was murdered...it's unfashionable to say, but the truth is more important...I don't doubt that Walsh was ready to suit up his child and send them into combat for sporting entertainment, for example, in football, wrestling or boxing. So, those so-called "child-protectors" many times are authoritarian spartan type people that are more likely labelled "child-controllers". In any event, they want to make sure that children are not feeling any sexual pleasure, but feel no real concern when a child is spanked, slapped, beaten, for example in school fist fights, etc. People like Oprah and Walsh are not anti-child-assault...not that I have seen...Oprah takes money from any body, as does Walsh (except atheists, pornographers, etc.), people that protect Thane Cesar, Frank Sturgis...your typical Warren Commision white christian killers...so..ofcourse, Oprah did a show to speak out against "domestic violence", violence against housewives. I think people should understand that Oprah, and the other people on television are part of a thug group of people that are violently enforcing secrecy around the eye network. That fact does not come through on her 1 hour show. The public doesn't get to hear the thoughts in Oprah's head, only Oprah gets to hear their thoughts and ofcourse, watch them in their apartments and houses. I am glad that a black person in on television, but, excuse me for life, a liar and secretive filler of the prisons with nonviolent people of any race is a scumbag. Letterman is the same, Leno is, they all are the same, Peter Jennings, he was a total scum bag who lied and lied about the JFK killing, for money, lots of money. They all are total scum, in my opinion, liars, voyeurs, hypocrites, openly antisexual secretly sexual, supporters of secrecy and secret violence. They sit back and watch murder after murder...why didn't they protect Jam Master Jay? Why don't they force or pay people to capture the person they ALL SAW kill Jam Jay? A simple street camera must have captured the images...I am not even talking aobut all the hidden infrared eye seeing cameras. What about Bonnie Bakley? Why didn't Oprah and Leno do something to protect her? To prosecute ther person that killed her? Why do they continue to keep Thane Cesar a secret? Why didn't they protect Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? Why didn't they reveal what they know about who murdered them? Why? Because they are scum...hello? Maybe they haven't been violent themselves, to their credit...who really knows? they do! UPDATE: think of all the humans that could have been helped with the eye imaging, just like xrays. TO see what children are thinking...are they crying because they are hungry (seeing pictures of food in their mind perhaps) or some other reason? Is the person in the coma still remembering images? I hate to think people are ending the lives of those whose brains may still be seeing images. In addition, think of all the homicides that would be prevented if the eye images were in the hands of the public or even decent people. All the assaults by repeat offenders that could be stopped. Oprah, Walsh and others see millions of assaults, on children and adults, many homicides, and they do nothing. They sit back and watch it all. They can not even bring themselves to casually speak out for free info...then they go after people wanted for molesting...why? Why not go after all those assaulters and child beaters they see every day before the genital touchers? Why? Because they take money from christian antisexuals...the christian antisexual run every show with an iron fist...no opposing views or dissent even if they have money is ever tolerated or shown. One final point...people watch shows like Oprah and Sally, etc...and what a lovely feel-good time...but the truth, to my mind...is much different...they sit back and collect money on the myths of copyright and privacy, they watch people in their houses, etc...watch our eyes, hear our thoughts...without us getting to see or hear them...if the secrecy continues...they get richer! If free info floureshes...they are off to the court house...maybe jail... seeing a homicide and doing nothing about it is illegal...it's complicity....knowing a homicide or assault will happen and doing nothing to stop it is illegal. I don't agree with it, but it is. Seeing into people's houses I think will be interepretted as being against the constitutional ammendment, right to privacy...I think that is what most people would expect. Again, I don't vote in favor of that ammendment, but it is the law. So, I want to make it clear, that Oprah and Letterman...etc...people on television...all are thugs that tell people to "shut up" about the secret eye network, that intimidate people to be quiet about what they have seen in those secret networks, they intimidate them with threats of violence, in addition to other nonviolent threats. For most...they don't even need to threaten...but some people were hinting to me that there are "displays" of rotting human corpses of people everybody reconizes tried to tell people about the camera net (and no-doubt displays on the opposite side of dead human corpses of those that killed people to keep the secrets). Those must serve as nasty reminders to people, maybe not entirely, since many people must let secrets slide, and certainly many hints are distributed around. I am still alive, and I presume those in National Geographic are still alive and have never even been bruised or assaulted except with lasers...but not permanently, and we are the biggest revealers of the camera "eye" network to my knowledge. What can people do? Vote...speak out..tell the truth...spread the word...make videos...vote for people like Kucinich...even though he is the cam net...clearly the conservatives are the worst...vote for liberal people with loose lips...look at Bill Mahr...he is in the eye network...but he is one of the lessor offensive people...he said "loose lips save ships"...he at least tried to express some help to the underinformed public, those of us who are excluded (where are all of you?), and he was punished and removed from the massive media white wash. So Oprah, Walsh, and the FBI take money from conservative Jesus cult members to clearly vault past the homiciders, the assaulters (sexual or otherwise)...and go for the "genital touchers". I don't touch genitals of people under 18, I know a helluva lot better, but those that do...I don't doubt that there are 14 year old males that touch adult female boobs and the female is jailed for molestation! There are plenty of young males 12-17 that are masturbating, that want sex desperately (if they can figure out what it is and how to do it), sex doesn't hurt for them...but probably many "molestors" are people that touched the penis, scrotum, breasts, vagina of young humans....and I know it sounds shocking...but can you imagine that a child might like to have their genitals touched? Is that out of the realm of possibility? Might there be some parents that think a young 14 year old male should be allowed to touch a breast or genital? to be masturbated? I don't think it's out of the question...and then, as I say in "Emergency News"...what parents are doing in not allowing their 12-17 year old male, and female to touch genitals is negligent, callous...unfeeling..insensitive...brutal...etc. They are denying their child their constitutional right to pursue pleasure and happiness. There is the entire catagory of "molestation" that is "child-driven"...in other words the child initiates and/or requests and directs the touching. That catagory is not even discussed. Final statements on this Orwellian Oprah deal...the fact is that this molestor guy she profiled and that was caught, was wanted for a nonviolent crime...why the focus on nonviolent crime? why not assault? why not violent crime? It's because there is more interest in stopping sex than violence, as shocking as that sounds...what many and perhaps even most of those people jailed for molestation are doing is not abduction or rape...it's probably trying to make children sexual...to make them masturbate...to convince them to masturbate the adult...it's probably very similar to how adults try to get other adults to touch their genitals...thru kissing...etc..in some way I think molestation probably takes the form (although...nobody has publically studied molestation, except for antisexual puritans who are predisposed against sexuality, or are taking money from religious to try and make ligitimate their antisexual beliefs) of people trying to love (cuddle, suckle, kiss, ejaculate, etc.) other people, but those other people are under the age of 18. The phenomenon is probably identical to teaching young adults sexuality. There are no doubt exceptions, but I seriously doubt the "exploitation" theory. That the child is being totally used...I don't doubt that many times, the arousal in the adult comes from making the child feel pleasure. It's neonazism to be trying to stop sexuality and pleasure...the question echos through these 2 millenia of Christianity..."why do they hate sexuality?" "Why are they uncomforatble with sex?". I dunno why, but they (the majority) certainly are. Many are that way from tradition, they took it in with their mother's milk. But I think...maybe it is the tiny tiny minority of violent events that relate to sex...well, maybe it's larger than a tiny number...but violence and sex are not linked for the major majority. Most people equate sex with consentual pleasure. Perhaps there are some other reasons, ask the Kinsey people, who knows?
For me, back to the Oprah Celsius 233 (Fahrenheit 451 in metric)....what was it about that person that the FBI felt was somehow so bad...what was special about that one guy? There are a million people that are wanted for molestation, a million wanted for assault, thousands for homicide...what was it about that guy? Maybe it was random...I don't doubt it...perhaps it was his name...his name represents something they don't like...or perhaps that they do like...was he one who exposes the camera net? Was there anything special about him...but then what were the official reasons? The people in the FBI are secretive and the closest thing to gestapo except the CIA, and perhaps military that the US taxpayer funds without ever checking or even seeing their duties. So I doubt they are talking, but perhaps something about the nature of the molestation...wasn't it the usual touching of a cube sack or titty? Maybe there was an unusual combo...a titty touching, ass grabbing, clitty licking, touch hole tonguing, dick sucking extravajanga? Somehow different from your garden variety molestation...i can't figure it out. I mean, it had to be nonviolent...by definition molestation must always be nonviolent...it had to deal with genitals...although kissing, and toe sucking have been included as forms of molestation....I guess any touching of a child that a person may feel sexual about is punishable as molestation. It is a tough thing to figure out, because most people don't want the child they made to have their genitals touched...or perhaps even be touched nonsexually...although I think compassionate parents would potentially allow the children they made to touch and have their genitals touched consentually and in a controlled setting, and if legal. But still, there is the nuisance of those that touch without consent..what to do about them? It is a tough question, because, I can see voting for small amounts of jail time for people that persist in purposely touching humans (of any age) without consent, whether genitals or other, but I think we should strive for a different system where those people do not need to be jailed for any time because what they are doing is simply a nuisance and not violent (like those that constantly use those lasers in the ceilings against us...what to do with them?). One added extra, is my vote against a 2 year statue of limitations on assault. Can you believe that? molestation carries a 15 year statue of limitations...and that is after the humans turns 18! Two years goes by and those ceiling assaulters are going to start whining about statue of limitations.
Kind of the exciting nature of the modern big brother...montag relationship is that, the more truth that the montag reveals to the public (although the story in F451 is different from today's situation)...the hotter the water around him gets...the higher on the "dangerous to big brother" list he goes...the higher chance of arrest, hospitalization, assault or murder, etc. It's unbelievable...the more people like the maker of "JFK II" and "9/11 In Plane Site" try to inform the public of the truth, the more dangerous their lives become...it's shocking and backwards, that telling the truth to the public would be a life threatening activity. But, because there are so many Montags, like Michael Moore, ... there are many...I won't name all 5 of them...perhaps it's the "swarm defense"...there are too many and it is confusing to pick out who is the worst, in addition, the more truth revealed, in theory, the more popular the person becomes, and therefore more difficult to oppress. So it is a constant battle of info...its a battle of boredom versus fear for me, disgust versus fear. Hey, maybe that's why "Montel" got the job...but he is no Montag...none of them are, even Montag was not a hero, he was a victim. There are real heros though, and the story is fantastic...well..it's very tragic so far, let's hope it gets much much better soon.
I am sorry, but I cannot fail to mention this last item. I am again shocked by the level or dullness and the level of boredom that can be endured by most people alive on earth today. All I want is, like most people, regular daily head and/or sex, including kissing and sucking on boobs, a few walking robots, maybe a vacation on the moon...I have very simple wants, a nice veggie meal, a nice hot shower, enough sleep...I can't believe peopel can sit thru churches and synogogues...can actually watch people on the television...and then not even one tit or penis do we ever see, not any talk about questioning of religion enters the television, not one person that opposed the drug war, the prostitution war, that thinks total free info may some day be a reality....all this stuff could be happening now, but no... it seems to me so inevitable...we build the walking robots, we live on the moon, we all get consentual regular sex with many different people, we care for our children, nobody goes hungry or cold...I mean cmon...it is not difficult to figure out. But the capacity for boredom in most people is shocking to me. They do indeed have "attention surplus disorder"...I mean it is unnatural and unhealthy to have be that boring and dull...to be able to sit through a church session...to not have to see any nudity...to never hear any truth. I find it hard to believe that people can be so asexual...how do they do it? When my peen gets hard...I think it should be ejaculated...that is what feels good...I am looking for those boobs, that pretty face...that round ass...what the f are they looking for? a bible, or some dust on a table? Has they secretly had their clits and balls sanded off? Has a softener been added to their peens? Has a vaginal drier been applicated? How do they do it? Then that they care nothing for science...that they buy into religion and mystic bs...don't they see...walking robots...moon vacation...centauri...all pleasure...no pain...all consent...no objection...pure democracy...no monarchy...all truth...no lies...oh...don't get me started I won't never cold stop.
I sense that many young people are angry, confused and embarrassed about sex. To me, this anger, confusion and embrassment is a terrible thing that is happening. To me, sexuality is not a big deal...people constantly put me down as being gay (which is not true...I love breasts more than most people, at least I admit I entertain thoughts and masturbate to same gender touching although have never been brave enough to actually do any same gender touching...and things are moving so slow, that I will be happy to find a nice smart pretty female to reproduce with...only one for my entire fuck free dull life!), for things from my past, like "retard", etc., but to me, I feel like, you know, I don't get enough sex or physical pleasure, so I feel like I want to promote sex, not demote it...these people all act like they either get more than enough sex and are sexually satisfied, or that they don't need sex ("down boy" I get alot). As I have said before, there have been thousands and thousands of years of penises getting erect...sex is what keeps humans alive and reproducing on earth...sex is why we persist. So, I think the reality is that many people are very sexual, but none will admit it, and that is unhealthy and dishonest. There is also many stigmas, like slut...somehow a female getting regular sex is bad...that everybody is fat, overweight and or ugly...but when you are talking about a clit lick or blow job...for myself I don't care about a female that is overweight...plus...I think there are certainly some "mercenary" people out there that are willing to at least masturbate people (ugly, overweight, or otherwise) for money so that they can feel the pleasure of sex. A little liquid comes out of a penis...big deal...it happens everyday like defication, urination, eating, sleeping...without pregnancy it's not a big deal at all, it is like eating a sandwich...perfectly natural and normal..has been happening for centuries...nothing new..nothing violent...nothing painful...nothing shocking. It's bizarre and such a waste of time to be so antisexual...can you imagine young people that try to turn other people on? It happens. I don't doubt that there are those people who are the opposite of the antisexuals, people that try to make people horney. That to me is more positive...why turn people off instead of turning them on? The only reason I can think of is those that don't want to make a person think that they want any kind of touching. I can understand that, but I think there is also the phenomenon of people being overly selective...and I understand why...that one human you finally do have sex with, or even touch genitals with...that may be your f'in partner for life! Better pick carefully, any mistake here, and there is no reversal...you can only have sex with one person, and that damn well better be the correct person for life. I see a future where people have sex every day with different people...some people they really like...others..that are so-so...some very attractive inside and out...others no so hot...but in addition I can see a future free market where people are ranked according to their popularity, etc. I've said this many times, but...I don't doubt...even the most attractive people probably don't get a lot of sex...there is this atmosphere of puritanicalism that pollutes this century and the centuries to come...that people should not be sexual, that pleasure is bad, etc. People some times ask what is there to do, in a boring city, or college and I say "you can fuck more...", and even "you could lick and suck each other off more...". Those are some ideas that aren't given by most people when asked how to alleviate boredom. Perhaps people with sanitary gloves could set up a booth and provide free sanitary hand jobs as a courtesy to passers by. I am just throwing out ideas, not every one is going to be a keeper.
10/15/05
I want to add that I forgot to add some responses to antisexual (yes we all by now know "antisexual"), but let me volunteer more:
Here is a byute when somebody thinks "down boy!"..think "hey warm up you frigid bitch" [what better way to counter the constant labels of "slut"?], "get sexual", "hey...eunoch...",...all these I had to invent basically...how many people have reposonses to antisexualism? nun! you cold unfeeling callous antisexual (yes, ok there are few words to describe antisexuality, and antiphysical love, antipleasure, etc...). I will endeaver to single-handedly come up with more. "it's called touching [hugging, kissing, etc]...look into it [look it up]", It's as if, no people have ever addressed the problem of antisexuality, antipleasure...they simply shrinked down apologized and wimpered away, got violent, sanded off their genitals...I dunno..wut do they do? Here are some choice thought responses..."get warm you frigid babe...it's hugging...it's still legal"...i gotta million of them. keep um cuming baby!
I looked at buyblue.org and it is shocking...there are only a very few companies that gave to the democratic party, the vast majority gave to the republican party. Google gave to the democrats...shockingly yahoo gave to the republicans...who can understand that? yahoo...in san francisco...ebay gave to the dems...even Heinz gave to the repubs. With all that funding of repubs...I kind of am left here wondering...how on earth did the dems get as close as they did to winning the 2004 election? Clearly the corporate money was with the republicans. Those people that want to fund the Sturgis Cesar show! Blood bath 63! 68! 01! woohooo!
10-08-2005
Did the ancestors of dolphins and whales have hands? I want to look at the closest rRNA relatives of mammals that live in the ocean and see if they have hands.
Did the first amphibians come from the ocean or fresh water. Certainly most amphibians currently alive live in fresh water, for example frogs, turtles (although some turtles live in the ocean), salamanders. Again I think a look at the rRNA ancestors might reveal where (fresh or salt water) the earliest amphibians came from.
This raises questions about the nature of fresh water lakes and rivers on earth. Clearly evaporation of water on the surface of earth happened very quickly after the formation of the earth, as soon as the surface of the earth cooled down enough to hold water in liquid form, water probably condensed in the atmosphere and fell to the ground, although much water may have been gained through collisions of comets with earth over the 4.6 billion year existence of the planet earth. So very few people talk about it, but there must have been many salt-free lakes and rivers on the early earth. Evaporation is a good water purifier. It removes the salt (NaCl), does it remove bacteria? or are bacteria and viruses small enough to hitch a ride on the H2O in gas form? What is filtered from the water when it goes from ocean (or lake) to cloud? The first lakes and rivers must have had large amounts of iron, and other atoms that have since bonded with oxygen to form solids which fall to the bottom of bodies of water, since the rise of oxygen on earth. What explains all the salt in the oceans, but not in the lakes? Is it stictly that NaCl is too big to be evaporated with H2O?
10-07-2005
there is the question of: do all atoms refract photons
or only those atoms at the boundry?
another great question is: Why and how do some photons reflect, some are absorbed, and others refract when colliding with glass of a prism?
Similarly, why and how do some photons reflect off of any glass, why many other photons in the same beam transmit through the glass?
is it 1) a property of the atom (ie changes in the atom cause some photons to reflect, and others to transmit...in this view all photons are the same)
2) the direction of each photon (in addition to the structure of the atom) determines if the photon reflects or is transmitted. Transmitted=photon missed atom, reflected=photon collided with some part of the atom, refracted=photon missed atom, but was close enough to have direction changed.
3) most unlikely: some how photons are different from each other and some reflect (perhaps are too big to get past the atom), while others are small enough to get thru.
another question is: do photons in the same beam all reflect, absorb or transmit?
or can photons of a single beam transmit and others of that same beam reflect?
I think this has to do with the direction of the photons
(either they:
1) collide with the atom and bounce or rotate back
2) collide with the atom but only partially rotate direction
3) just miss the atom and partially rotate
4) completely miss the atom and continue in the same direction
it is amazing to me that photons will be refracted by glass and then refracted back exactly to their original (vector) direction upon leaving.
Is the reflection of photons a phenomenon that happens with only 1 photon and 1 atom, or is it a phenomenon that depends on 1 photon and many atoms? In other words, when we tilt a mirror, and light reflects off in a different direction, are the photons each bouncing off of individual atoms in the mirror, or do they interact with neighboring atoms too?
Is a diamond lens possible? The index of refraction for diamond is 2.417 while glass is only 1.51714. Would a diamond lens refract light more per size than glass? That might make refractor telescopes magnify more for a smaller size lens.
A few experiments:
1) He2-neutrons=H2? if no, then there really is a clear difference between what is an atom and what is a molecule. I am not sure how to remove the neutrons...removing the protons or electrons is easily done with electric/magnetic difference [opposite]. Maybe adding neutrons to H2, would that given D2 or He (not sure how He is isolated), or even He2?
2) experiments with neutron/proton atom separation, always photons in gamma? can separate results of uranium fission? any atom separation that result in no atoms remaining?
3) red shift a light beam on earth
a) box with various gasses, H2, CO2, He2, CH4, etc.. send beam of sodium light thru, reflect with mirrors to lengthen the path of the photons...is there any detectible red shift when the photons exit the box/room? perhaps could be done outside: Is there red shift simply because of gasses in air? The idea is that, we all understand that photons are delayed by other atoms (for example water is the classic example), but is there some way to delay photons in a way that lowers their frequency? The amazing thing to me, is with all the brilliant people on earth, there is no person that can lower the frequency of light? (there are obvious ways, like the way visible light on a dark object, results in light released with frequencies in the infrared...clearly the black object has changed the frequency of the light). It is tough to understand how a beam of photons can be delayed and still maintain the same direction (although we see clearly that photon beams are changing direction as the result of galaxies, etc). How can photons rotate matter (perhaps other photons going other directions, protons, Hydrogen atoms, etc) and return to the same original direction?
10-06-2005
Clusters of Galaxies do not look like galaxies (they do not take spiral shapes), galaxies do not look like star systems (although there are similarities, but stars rotating is different from planets rotating), living objects don't look like star systems or galaxies, potentially atoms may not look like star systems of galaxies. The amazing thing to me, is that matter takes on such a variety of shapes at different magnifications. The way matter groups at the scale of galactic clusters is different from the way matter groups at the scale of star systems. What is it about the math of the billions of pieces of matter that form clusters of galaxies, versus the billions of pieces of matter that form galaxies? There must be some large scale collective effects of matter that only exist with large amounts, or something about the nature of math at those dimensions that is different from other dimensions.
Use of the word "Terror", in particular in "the war on terror" by conservatives, perhaps relates to "The Terror", a reference to the French Revolution, where the antimonarchists went overboard killing numerous people with guillotines. In some way, I don't doubt that many conservatives side with monarchy as opposed to democracy, basically they are for conservatism, where things go back to the past or stay the same, against progress. In addition, I think there is a fear of public rule, democracy by many of those in power. I don't doubt that Bush jr and the conservatives play on people's fear of how the public might react in finding about how people kept seeing what species see from behind their heads a secret for 100 years. Many people must have fear about what the uninformed public would do if they ever found out. Would they kill those that watched their eyes? Would they execute those people that supported secrecy as they executed the supporters of the monarchy in the French Revolution? It is rare for democratists to have the upper hand in history, in particular for liberals to have the upper hand. It must be a wonderful feeling, for example, for black people in South Africa to get Nelson Mandela elected, for those that have been excluded for years to get to see those who watched their eyes...I don't doubt it would be very emotional, and a real surge of power for those people...would they go overboard and persecute those that once persecuted them? That is what I think the conservatives are warning about to gain support, but for myself, I seriously doubt anybody would be executed for seeing "eyes". I think many people would be shocked, and certainly angry, and there might even be monetary fines, and perhaps even jail time for some people (although I doubt it), but I doubt seriously that any violence would happen. So should those in power really fear some kind of new "The Terror"? I seriously doubt it. One interesting thing is that perhaps the constant invoking of "terror" may hint that the "total democracy" (or whatever it is called) people or group really is starting to represent a group with substantial power, and a potential threat to those people in government that would not keep their jobs, or who knows, maybe a threat to people that think they would not fair well with the public determining their fate. If that is not happening now, I think that it will happen eventually. Full democracy, all people voting on laws, court decisions, etc, seems inevitable to me, but in addition, it is not a left or right thing because it includes all people. I don't doubt full democracy would result in victories for both liberals and conservatives.
It is interesting to think about the order of how research went when people were first looking at "eyes". Eventually, and probably very quickly, the new technology was applied to all the other species to see what kind of memories they have. They must have seen quickly that, for example, most earlier evolved species have lower size and resolution "screens" in their brain. The human brain and eyes have a marvelous size and resolution that I can only guess is 50,000 pixels x 50,000 pixels with 1um pixels. Most computers screens only have 2,000 x 2,000 pixels with 1mm pixels. This is what allows us to see depth so well, because there are many pixels of difference between the position of an object in one eye versus the other eye. In species with fewer pixels (which must be neurons or groups of neurons), depth perception must be more difficult. But what wonders they must have found and are keeping secret from the public. It really is up to the public to vote against copyright, for total free info if they want to end this charade and injustice.
Speaking about the people getting power, I was about to throw away an old VCR because the picture was totally snowy, but I did a quick search on the Internet and found this wonderful page:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/165
Using simple strips of printer paper and alcohol I was able to clean my video heads (I lnly now realized where they are! on that big metal cylinder). I put in the tape and the picture was clear as can be. I can't believe that shit, and here I was going to throw this thing out. Down with the secrecy, bring on the truth and science already.
When matter gets close, it takes off.
The closer two pieces of matter are, the higher their velocity will be because the relationship is inverse distance squared. The smaller the distance, the higher the "force" between them, this is why ships like Voyager took off when they went around planet jupiter. The people that designed Voyager purposely steered the Voyagers to get that gravitational boost from Jupiter.
I found an interesting thing when modeling 500 points, again with the 1 thru 5 scale, I reversed it to be more in alignment with star colors, with red being mass=1, and blue=mass 5. In addition, I start the points in a sphere, the starting position of the points makes a difference in the shape of the matter in the future. What I found was that when the matter is distributed in a sphere of radius 5, the points fly out with a velocity that is so high that they will not come back together for a long long time, as opposed to starting the points in a sphere of radius 50, where the points settle back together very quickly. Here are two videos, 500 randomly distributed points in a sphere of 5 pixels radius as viewed from 1 million pixels away 1e6_500pt_rad5.avi
and then with a sphere of 50 pixels radius: 1e6_500pt_rad50.avi
. We can imagine that each point is a star, and that they are 1 light year in diameter, and that we are 1 million light years away, or even that we are looking at the components of a star exploding from a great distance away. It was so interesting to me that at radius of 5 (and 10, and 20) the points would not come back within 1 million pixels, that I decided to look at this "explosion" from 1 billion pixels away. At that distance, I didn't see anything but a point, but at 100 million pixels (or I like to pretend, 100 million light years away) I did. Here is what 500 randomly positioned points of mass 1 to 5 look like when grouped in a sphere with a radius of 5 pixels from 100 million pixels away: 1e8_500pt_rad5a.avi
It looks kind of like a super nova, but there is an interesting difference in that, the blue heavier matter is the first out, as opposed to actual supernovas (as far as I know) that explode with the heaviest matter exiting last (but it is interesting to think that some compression of matter, similar to these models is what is happening when a star explodes, or perhaps even when atoms or other objects explode). This gets me thinking that, since the speed of single naked photons is so fast, perhaps I need to change my photon models to make the velocity of the particles much higher to see any effects of large groups of matter (I was just worried that using a velocity more than 1 pixel/frame would create photon hopping, or skipping...like, the photon appears at 0,0,0 and then suddenly at 5,0,0 when in reality the photon covers each pixel...actually maybe I need to view a frame as a partial second...but then I think it's equivalent to what I already have. It's pretty amazing that we are 100 million light years (pixels) away and can still see the matter exploding...it's covering a large amount of space very quickly. That was the amazing thing, that an object can explode from gravity alone (although the points are placed that close together initially, there is every reason to think that pieces of matter might be pushed together in a similar way).
Halleluja the ban on torture that just passed.
I am amazed: A company called "Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc." sent me a check for the full amount of the second bicycle of mine that was stolen at UC Irvine because I sent a completed claim form to universal card (my at&t universal card that has 5% cash back reward, 5% cash back reward is awesome, I charge everything instead of using cash...I am looking forward to the time when we just look into the camera and press a button...no cash, no plastic cards, etc.). So that was fantastic, I will always buy every expensive item with my AT&T Universal Card now (although I want to check my other cash back citibank card too for "buyer protection") because of the buyer protection plan. I still feel good about that...finally some damn justice for me.
10-03-2005
Heavier matter goes to center. I made some videos of random positioned and weighted points from mass 1 to 5, color coding the points using roygbiv, red=1 (gram for example), orange=2, yellow=3, green=4,blue is heaviest =5. It is clear that the heavier blue points go to the center and basically stay there, the lighter red and orange points take on long elliptical orbits around the central mass. Perhaps galaxies and star systems move the same way, but perhaps other models are more accurate. One question that arises when making these random point simulations is: when does the matter settle down into a spiral? Does that take a few minutes, hours, days, months, years, centuries?!, ... I think I have to dedicate one computer to just running one simulation for a few years and see how much time it takes for a group of points to form a spiral (one power outage or computer problem and I would have to restart the simulation). Video: rgb1000.avi
The heavier blue points (can be thought of a stars too, interesting that there are no green or pink stars...it must have to do with how Helium separates into source photons...a process that ejects photons at specific rates) being heaviest appear to move the fastest, and cover the smallest amount of distance, so they probably are the first points to define the future shape of the cluster of matter, while the lighter points take much longer times, and move over much more distance, slowly making large elliptical orbits around the central mass.
Sometimes I feel like I am going to simply stop commenting on my web page. There is plenty of video of me giving my comments from my room. This is a total waste of time and makes this video more dull for future people, but yet something stirs me on. In addition, this group of humans is hopeless, we are never going to get even the tiniest bit of justice or progress. So don't be surprised if I simply stop typing commentary and even remove all my past notes (but ofcourse I would make them available to any body interested). In addition, my main feeling is that, I can not change US politics in any way, although exposing Thane Cesar, Fiorini, etc. I feel is mostly in the "stop violence", stopping "crime" realm...has more to do with law abiding, justice, etc. than government, I have given more than enough info for people to get the basics of what happened, besides being a person that does not get to see eyes, I have only limited info to give. But mainly in terms of trying to help liberals get elected into the US government...my feeling is that this group is bent on not having any progress to speak of, I really feel like I am totally powerless to change the direction people are taking us in. Finally, I am much more interested in science...this next project ULSF, is going to be fantastic. Already if you look at http://tedhuntington.com/ulsfout.htm you will see my beginning of this project. This is going to be awesome, and much better than getting involved with the stinky government in the USA, which will not change for centuries. I hope the younger people and future generations have more vision than this group does and did. I don't think all a complete and total loss or waste of time, there was some amount of progressive opinions from Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, Kucinich in favor of decriminalizing drugs, and Dean mentioned ending the electoral college, so those people and opinions are out there, available to the public when they are ready to chose them, and are getting some number of votes.
Future of sex matches when people lighten up. Try to imagine what the future might be like. It is the main source of relief for me...thinking of how the future will be for life of earth. Can you imagine for example, if consentual sex eventually became not a big deal and people paid money to see two people have sex? Perhaps the public would vote and two popular people would get paid to have sex with each other. There is no doubt that the public might be interested in seeing two opposite type people having sex (for example an extreme liberal and extreme conservative), just for fun and entertainment. I don't doubt that many people would not accept money to have sex, but still, if there was going to be a large amount of money, and everything was legal, I don't doubt that many of us might take the money...after all it's only a few minutes of sex for potentially thousands of dollars. THere would, no doubt, be commentary like "she looks to be not putting as much effort as he is into it..." and "it looks like he is going to go for the old 'grab the boob from behind' manuver", etc.
Arrest of Natalia McLennan for prostitution in NY with potential for 15 years in jail is excessive and brutal. 15 years for prostitution?! time to clean up the NY laws. I can't understand when the public accepts pornography, which is a person paying two people to have sex, that somehow a person paying for sex for themselves is such a different an offensive idea. People get less jail time for violent crime. That is brutalx1000. And in NY where the majority is liberal. This is what I have been saying lately, that antisexuality and psychology is where so-called liberal and conservative meet. The conservatives say "cmon you know you hate freaks and perverts...come to the evil...join us...", and many so-called liberals can relate to that because they hate sexuality, and are believers in religions, superstitions, and pseudoscience, so the conservatives (who are also into that stuff) play into that. Legalizing drugs and prostitution should be mainstream liberal positions/opinions. The great advocate of women's rights, Elenor Roosevelt called for decriminlaizing prostitution, CEDAW almost passed under Jimmy Carter, and the Carter administration was seriously focusing on decriminizing drugs for the first time in US history, when the entire Reagan christian uprising swept into power with the Ayatollah in 1980.
Bush jr Supreme Court nomination of Miers: I am tired, Bush probably could appoint anybody he wants to, the people have given us a republican government. That Bush jr picked a female is a good thing, even if a hard core conservative that is going to reverse Roe-v-Wade and end abortion rights for females, here at least is a female that worked for her life. There is nothing any liberals can do, it seems to me. Perhaps they should be glad that Bush jr picked a female, he could easily have picked a male and they would have been approved. All this has shown me, that we need a planetary court system. Bush jr opposes that because he claims he doesn't want people in the US military going to jail, but I claim that they should not be violating a planetary law to begin with, although I have doubts that any planetary court would be even remotely democratic. It shows me that the US court system is frighteningly undemocratic and much to powerful. There was a good article from an international news source, that compared the US supreme court with other nations and described the fact that the supreme court has the final word in the USA, as opposed to other nations where the "legislature" (or some century perhaps even "the public") does. I don't doubt that the US supreme court has helped to liberalize many people with decisions that ended segregation, etc, but I have to think that there have been more undemocratic decisions that have not helped the liberal cause. In my mind, democracy should always prevail, it's the least unfair system in existence. It is curious that Bush jr appears to favor people that live in Texas as opposed to people from the south east and other conservative states that brought him into power. This is looking to be an all-Texas government. It is interesting, because for me, I am connected to people through science and wisdom, Bush jr appears to be mainly connected through Texas, as opposed to conservativism, religiousity, etc.
The William Bennett, former DEA drug czar, comment that aborting black newborns would lower crime, I think is typical of extreme conservative opinion. While Bennett said that type of action would be deplorable or something...the truth is that aborting black children, presumably without consent, would create more crime in the form of assaults on black women's bodies, obviously. But, here we see, something that seems to me to be carved out of nature, we see that the DEA is aligned with the extreme conservatives, so in some way, I feel like, the DEA is mainly a conservative, republican organization, and that the idea of a DEA and drug war is not a mainstream liberal agenda. But that is clearly not a public view...we are supposed to believe that the nation is 50/50 on board for the drug war, that the DEA is supported by equal amounts of democrats and republicans, and I think comments from Bennett like this abortion comment, show that 70 years of drug war and prohibition has drawn up sides with conservatives on one side and the educated, progressives on the other. To me, the main new argument about the drug war I am putting forward is this: for some people, maybe the sentence is: "yes, I am very much against illegal drug use, but I am also very much against locking people in jail that use drugs". Then we can have our multimillion dollar anti drug ads, and feel good about ourselves because we are not ruining peoples lives, breaking up their families, with prison for simply putting drugs in their own body. Drug use, may or may not, have a bad effect, or even ruin a person's life, (just like alcohol, tobacoo, violence, or over eating), but jailing people that choose to use drugs will definitely ruin their lives. One of the worst effects of using drugs is possibly death or illness from overdose (although that is very rare according to DOJ statistics), but next would have to be, being caught and locked in a jail for drugs. People were asking for an apology, and I don't doubt Bennett will give one, but I don't care about any apology, I am more interested in exposing that type of thinking...a person would mention the idea of aborting only black humans, this is taken from the fact that most violent crime is done by black people, but couldn't people look at that data, and agree that, more violent crime is done by poor people, just as easily? more violent crime is done by those who have been oppressed for 200 years, ... there are other ways of looking at that data, and other explanations as to what is happening there. To me, I don't think there is any truth to the idea that people with a more negro DNA will be on average more violent, or more likely to commit crime...I think the truth is closer to the idea that any human, of any DNA, would be more likely to commit crime, after 200 years of persecution, living in poverty, being ostracized or treated as a second class citizen, not getting a good education, having fewer or no role models. I don't think violent crime is a race thing, I think it is a societal thing. In any event, no matter what race of person is doing violent crime, they must all be equally stopped and punished.
09-28-2005
Rudeness and smug nastiness is the usual expression or commentary I experience from those in the eyball network. It is interesting and ironic to me...here they have the planet at their fingertips, they get to know it all...everything about science, who killed who...who are the friendly sexual lovers and who are the rude nasty haters...(I find that a simple way of catagorizing people I see are smart, friendly, sexual versus stupid, rude, antisexual...but some people vary from time to time, and are not all one or the other). Why do those in the eyball thought hearing tend to be rude? I don't know, but I think there are some things that are clear. 1) you can't have an elite eyeball camera system and not have your nazism too...it just doesn't work that way...that there would be an all white network that would somehow treat nonwhites fairly and equaly. 2) I think they are angry with themselves...or angry with the injustice of the system...embarrassed by being exposed by a person like me. Outside of those two theories...I don't really know. But the fact remains, the majority of those in the secret eye thought network tend to be rude and meaner than average people. Here is a potential 3) they get to see everybody's flaws...all the assaults you did when you were 12, that time you wore a dildo or a bra etc...and they tend to forget that they have flaws, but that they are simply never mentioned...but also that there is a real advantage in knowing that millions of people are watching you that those that don't know don't think about. Would you really steal that object if you knew that thousands would secretly see and hold it over you for the rest of your life, and it would be on your "credit" history for the rest of time? I doubt it.
I read about William Hershel last night and I thought that I doubt people could see galaxies clearly until the invention of time lapse (or long exposure) photography...I remember reading that Hubble could distinguish individual stars in the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) with a telescope he used.
When will the public get compensated for the piracy of their copyrights? I vote against copyright, and you know, the camera network people are the test bed of a information free society...a society without privacy etc...and they function perfectly well as far as I know... But the copyright laws still exist and hold popular support, so even after the public overthrows the copyright laws, there are those copyrighted violations of the past to litigate. By definition, any work a person does is instantly copyrighted. Any book or song a person ever makes is copyrighted...so if a large number of illegal copies of that book or song were made, and it can be proven, under the copyright law, that person is entitled to a percentage or penalty of all the money received from illegal copies of those works. I am not sure how it will play out or when it will ever happen, but it seems clear that, popular people like me would get a large amount of money, because many of our copyrighted songs, books, works, etc. were illegally copied for profit. The more popular a person is, the more people want to buy illegal copies of their songs, books, even their speeches given in their homes...basically every live image and sound of the person. Vast illegal networks have been made that record our thoughts, our speeches, in our houses and apartments, and those people, no doubt, get paid money by people interested in seeing. Don't the most popular people deserve a percentage of that money? In a total free info society, people would probably say "no", because there is no copyright, and it's free trade of info, but we don't live in a free info society, and those people get money for their copyrights. So I don't know how it will play out, but I don't doubt for a second that those that are getting the most money for copyrights will get the biggest penalty for violation of public copyrights or "the copyrights of excluded people". We the pee-on public, are having our copyrights violated by those people, such as Microsoft, people in the federal governments, Warner Brothers, RIAA, etc. that pursue penalties for copyright violations and piracy law, and I think we will eventually be compensated. It seems logical to me, a copyright is a copyright, and every work we create is technically copyrighted. (For myself, I have removed the copyright on all my work, but there was a time before I did that, when all my work was rigorously copyrighted, including with the library of congress where some of my works are still recorded for copyright, and I deserve compensation for those illegal copies...and I am mainly focused on those that received money for illegal copies, like people in the US government, Time Warner, Microsoft, etc.). Just like the movie industry, [some people that pirated Star Wars were charged by Gonzoles and the Bush admin/the fed today] every illegal pirated copy of the public's thoughts and works by people in the US government and media corporations is less money that the popular people in the public that are being illegally copied from are receiving. We need to force the people in the US government and media corporations to stop pirating illegal copies of our works, and pay their fair share for legal copies of our thoughts, videos, songs, typings, writings, and printings. Ultimately, the public should vote down the copyright, trademark, patent and privacy laws, get compensation from the uber-wealthy coroprations that abused copyright, privacy, patent, trademark and let the thing die to the past.
One interesting result of a free info society without copyrights, patents, trademarks, or privacy [people will probably still suppoort a right to owning property and trespassing laws] is that there could be companies that take on the names of larger corporations, so there could be a mom and pop grocery store calling themselves Kroger, which would be kind of funny. A potato chip company that also calls themselves "Frito-Lay" (not "Frita-Lay" as they have to now). It is kind of funny, and info would be important, a person would want to know which store is the biggest, etc, but...basically, people would know who is who...or if products of a company claiming to be some major corporation were not as good. The truth, I think will always come out in a total free info society...it's secrecy that makes people ignorant of the facts, of who is who, of what products are good or bad, etc. I can tell you that the Taco Bell on Culver is better [or the people are less mean] than the Taco Bell on Campus. Is the Taco Bell on Culver more "Taco Bellish?" than the one on Campus? Obviously, there are quality differences even in one corporation.
09-27-2005
I am glad for the peace marches. That is awesome to see. I hope we can escape this decade of war and get back on the road to peace, science, truth and justice for all people.
09-26-2005
I'm not going to go on for hours, but there are a few quick issues:
Bushes drop in popularity: I am always amazed at these things...I change, but one thing I should mention is that by age 30 I had reached basically my well formed philosophy on life, my values, learned enough about history, etc...so I can't understand when massive numbers of people over the course of a month suddenly turn in favor or against a person like Bush jr...has he changed in the last month? ofcourse not. Perhaps this is grandma and grandpa finally finding out that Bush jr was involved in 9/11...that or just fickleness...as if Bush jr, was not the same violent vicious religious fanatical uneducated antiscience antisexual puritan white supremecist person he and his family have always been...
I am fully in favor of google in this most recent law suit and against copyright, as usual. I think the way that millions of people poop all over the copyrights of the "excluded" by watching us in our apartments and what our eyes see, but then the excluded are expected to obey the "included" people's copyrights is pure nazism and hypocricy.
The mystery of flight 77: It appears very clear that the Pentagon was hit with a missile on 9/11/01, not by flight 77 an American Airlines 757 plane. All the physical evidence, the news videos and photos show exactly the size of the hole, and that it was tiny ... only damaging an area of about 4 windows on the first two floors. I don't doubt that people planted charges to collapse that part of the pentagon to make it look bigger. In any event, the clear reality is that the official story of 9/11 has a fatal flaw in the Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon claim. So, if they are lying about that...what else are they lying about? (aside from seeing what our eyes see for 100 years, ofcourse). One person shed a large amount of light for the public when they said "there was a great ball of fire and smoke came billowing out"...it appears that "great ball" is "GB=George Bush" and "billowing" is "Bill Clinton"...so I conclude although I am guessing, that it's the classic battle of conservatives versus liberals and the liberals sent a missile (probably by a plane...but it is not clear) into the Pentagon in response to the twin tower mass murder committed by Bush jr and the conservatives. The biggest shock in all of this, I think, but perhaps I am wrong, is the question that is probably on the tip of many people's tongue and that is: what the fuck did the reich do with the people on Flight 77? Dave vonKliest suggests that the plane was shot down over the Atlantic...a news report (later retracked) has Flight 77 landing in Ohio...one person claims they are in Guantanamo...it is clear that no flight 77 hit the Pentagon...I mean...if you believe anything...that seems to be true.
It was interesting that of my comments last week, that none of them generated any anger...not legal drugs, legal nudity or prostitution, total free info...the only anger I experienced and nasty comments came regarding my statement to the effect that molestation is not as serious as assault. I am not going to go on for hours, but people appear to be violently angered at the idea of anybody defending molestation even remotely. To me, I want to say that talking about these things is a good idea...through talking about these issues we can flush out the truth, and there is nothing wrong with openly talking about anything in my opinion (with the exception of plotting violence...which I think is certainly free speech but nothing I want to be involved with). In addition, I want to say that I understand I don't win any popularity contents by mentioning that I think molestation is not as serious a crime as many people are making it out to be. I am simply trying to undo what I see as potential paths to future holocausts...or massive decent people being jailed without any real crime committed. Psychology and antisexuality appear to be two main paths thru which that could happen, and so I try to speak out against the hysteria relating to those issues, to prevent nonviolent people from being warehoused like cattle in prisons and hospitals as happened before and during WW2, the violent people left free to run the planet. People have to remember that when we are talking about molestation, we are talking about a nonviolent crime...it's not rape, it's not assault. As I understand, it more or less involves touching a human under the age of 18 in a way that is sexual, or that makes them feel sexual, touching genitals is a classic example, but court decisions have shown that even sucking toes, and no doubt kissing on the lips is also deemed molestation or lewd conduct. There are some things to think about...for example, I think that there exists the case of young people wanting to touch genitals..young males that want sex from age 12 to 17...this law basically denies them that right, when in reality it might not be such a big deal to many young people and their parents to allow some young male to touch or suck a breast, or even for a young male to fuck an older female with a condom or without the chance of pregnancy, etc. Many people may not mind if their under 18 female child was allowed to pursue an interest in touching a penis, etc. So there is child-directed touching of genitals, and I can't see jailing some adult that obliges an under the age 18 person in touching of genitals. These laws also punish people like Mary Latourno, the older woman that a young male fucked, fully consentually...one puritan judge was going to give her 30 years or something, a different judge in Nevada only gave her 6 months of probation (thankfully, a decent person in the US court system...what are the chances?!). When there are such wide divergent opinions on what the sentences should be for under age 18 touching and sexuality I think we should open up a public debate and come to some universal conclusions about how we all feel about what those sentences should be, because clearly they are currently all over the board. Clearly, for my two cents, nonviolent touching is far from a serious crime, violence is a serious crime. I am willing to conceed some points...I can see jail time for abduction with I think is serious, I can see voting for some small jail time for people that repeatedly touch people (of any age) without consent, or in a way that bothers them. I know that when I was 12-17 I dreamed of touching female breasts (and ofcourse still do), and fucking women...but any female that ever tried to pursue fulfilling my dream would be looking at life in prison! How unfair is that? There is a natural system of young males interested in older more developed females, and older females being interested in younger, more easily erect males...it's natural. Only puritans have constructed a dam blocking that natural system from happening. I think there is a gender difference, males from age 12 to 17 should be allowed to fuck legally...it is a different phenomenon for a female...the vagina may not be ready for sex until 17 or 18 and sex could be consentual, but would be no doubt painful...but for a male at 12 there is absolutely no pain at all! They love to ejeculate and feel no pain. I see nothing wrong with a female under the age of 18 touching genitals consentually, and ofcourse I think that eventually, as upsetting and stupid as it sounds, people will have to allow for people to consent to things that may hurt them, even those under the age of 18. I could go on for hours, because there is so much detail there that needs to be considered. For example, do you know that I am the only person I have ever heard that has raised the idea that, I am opposed to violence against children, except in self defense, and perhaps as punishment for violence...no body has ever mentioned that to my knownledge, that a person may have to beat a child (a human under age 18) to defend themselves against that child's attack...that is clearly not "child abuse", but at the same time....I am the first person of my knowledge to identify that spanking is technically illegal because of assault laws (again presuming that it is not in self defense, or perhaps even as punishment by somebody the child did violence to), and to identify the important point that spaking is without doubt an assault if spanking is a punishment for some nonviolent behavior (swearing, lying, staying out too late, accidentally spilling a drink, ... even potentially violence against property...) Perhaps if there was a better system of safe prisons for violent people, parents would feel better about using the prison system to lightly punish violent children, in a way where they could see them, and that the children would be safe, and not be forced to be in close physical contact with other violent people, etc.
It is amazing that we can see the National Geographic video at tedhuntington.com/bim.htm. We can see clearly that what our eyes see, can be seen from the back of our head...but where is the national interest?! Don't we want to know more about it? What it came from? What the machine that captured those images is like? I mean...come on...it seems clear...it's like the hole in the Pentagon... if you believe any images you see...I just don't think that National Geographic faked the images...it seems consistent with all the idiots around me hearing my thoughts and seeing what I do in my condo...when is the public going to finally start getting on the National Geographic "what's the deal with the bim eye chart" band wagon?!
People are such hypocrites, we are genetically coded to love sex, and clearly people are fucking all over the place, because more and more humans are being produced, they must like it...but none will admit it!
The death of the person that died as a result from boxing reminds me of the quote: "It is shocking that on earth, people can pay to see two people beat their brains out, but it is illegal to pay them to have sex."
To add a few tiny news items. A person died while pledging and I want to record my opinion that I think hazing is not a good idea. I wish I hadn't pledged a fraternity and had instead focused on getting good grades and dating females. My grades suffered terribly as a result of pledging. I remember one thing that stands out in my memories, that there were some honorable people in the fraternity that made the motion that one of the unpleasant pledging events be discontinued, I voted in favor of that, but it didn't pass. I just remember those that hazed me as assholes, even after I got in...I never hazed anybody (except once ordering a pledge to get me a pop-tart), I couldn't bring myself to participate in something I thought was wrong, and so I never hazed. Hazing (or yelling at, beating, etc) appeared only to be nasty angry people with an opportunity to take out their aggression and frustration on other innocent people.
Along the lines of me thinking I was Jesus, there are many people that got into the "Age of Aquarius" "hair" movement because I am an aquarius and the play "hair" opened around the late 60s when I was born. I am not a believer in astrology. Some young people did the play "Hair" at UC Irvine, and I heard that they all went nude...what a group of smart, brave people ... and I am sure that it was such a bold statement that it will be remembered for years. I support many of the ideas shown in "hair", but I think an "age of aquarius" and me being aquarius (like millions of people are) is nothing more than coincidence. Believing in astrology is popular, Nancy Reagan had an astrologer, astrology has been practiced for years, and there is just no truth to it, ... horoscope predictions litter every newspaper...it's unbelievable to me. I am interested in the real truth of the universe, and I am trying to figure out what that is, traditionally the method is labeled "science", but the current public view of science is far from what I believe...I believe in evolution, but not in the big bang, that antimatter is antimatter, in black holes, in time dilation, etc. One last comment was that it is kind of surreal for me, if such a play was done to support me, because I still have yet to get included in the eyeball network and really make so much as one friend in my 36 years on earth, not one person will talk to me honestly. All this production around me...but not one person will include me into the "liberal" group...it's ironic and/or stupidity.
09-22-2005
I think the people of Vermont and Louisiana ought to vote for other liberals besides Leahy and Landrieu. Both Leahy and Landrieu have been big supporters of clamping down on free info, promoting secrecy and elitism. And I think I know why, because there must be so many videos of them accepting briefcases of money from conservatives for their conservative votes that they fear being exposed if any of those many videos reaches the public. What else explains their bizarre support of Roberts, a person that clearly opposed the Roe vs Wade decision, and is so closely linked to the corrupt Bush family? Even us in the pee-on public got that info. That view of elitism, that only they can see, and we in the public should not get to see, is an old-world view. The view of secrecy, anti-womens rights (it's shocking in particular for Landrieu), is of the past, it's not of now. This is the time when millions are file sharing and more women are getting doctor's degrees than men. Do their backwards views really represent the liberals of today? Leahy used the word "conscience", and I think it should be more like "anti-science". I was angered to see Leahy sponsoring the:
"Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act" (S. 2560)
Sponsors: Sen. Hatch (R-UT) [now there is one backward vicious violent secretive bastard]and Sen. Leahy (D-VT)
Introduction: June 22, 2004
* To prevent infringement over peer-to-peer systems, S. 2560 would amend copyright law to create a new form of secondary copyright liability: intentional inducement
* Libraries oppose because bill threatens continued growth of the information technology industry, thereby endangering libraries’ access to affordable digital technology
* see also Anti-Piracy Legislation
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/copyrightb/copyrightagenda/bad2004.htm
But yet, both Leahy and Hatch have been watching eyes for years.
Talk about true definition of hypocrite:
http://www.senate.gov/~landrieu/releases/02/2002417521.html
"Under a new bill introduced today by Senator Mary Landrieu(D-La.), secretly videotaping a person in intimate situations without their consent would become a federal crime."
Again, Landrieu has been watching eyes and hearing thoughts for years...but it's not ok for us to see all that juicy video they get to watch? I can't understand what Landrieu is trying to do there...is she trying to bring down the massive camera eyeball network?... the network she uses so much of or more likely, trying to stop amateur voyeur people from getting in on the action? Even is she is opposed to the people that provide her with all the eye images, are those the kind of people we want to support?! no, ofcourse not...we want to eventually let all people see and have real free flow of all info. We can't stop the camera-eye ball-thought network, and should not try to. It sounds shocking, but it is already happening, and no body should be locked in jail for simply owning an image, ... sure breaking into a house is illegal and should be, but simply owning photos should never be.
I can't do this stuff forever, the people of earth have to learn by themselves like all of us do. The evil hypocrites and elitists are not going to publicize their thoughts for all to see.
I am glad to see Kerry and Ted Kennedy voting no, Boxer and Feinstein voting no...they obviously see more than I do, but it seems clear that Roberts has bad values very similar to Renquist, and the obvious fact is that, a female ought to replace O'Conner...and also Renquist...the court should reflect the current population which is 50/50....or at least that should be the guide to how democratic and representative the court is. I think a vote for Roberts is a vote for ultra-conservatism, as far as I can see, it's against sexual freedom, against freedom of thought, against gender equality, against a human's right to their own body, ... the list goes on and on...
Remember my words now that my feeling is that Roberts is a neo-version of Renquist. Maybe I am wrong, but I seriously doubt it. In any event, it may not make any difference if every single democrat votes against Roberts, he may be approved on republican votes alone! That is the bizarre backward set of events that the public has given us.
On to a different topic. There must be some people out there that say things like this:
"I simply want the glory of Frank Sturgis and Thane Cesar shown to the public...the way the conservatives showed the liberals who was in charge...", etc
"It's time the public knew about the work the republicans and conservative christians have been doing behind the scenes to keep conservative christians at the top."
Basically, people that want the truth about the conservative christians involvement with the murders of civil rights leaders, etc shown to the public, to get credit for all they have done in the cause of christianity and conservatism...that the public should know all the work they put into keeping christians and conservatives at the top, the work they put into removing popular liberal leaders like Martine Luthur King jr, and John Lennon. How they killed Vicki Morgon to save the career of Ronald Reagan, etc...all their victories that have been secret from the public for years and years.
Why don't we hear and see more of that? Why aren't their conservatives openly proud of their "achievements"? Aren't they proud of what they did? How they shutup RFK and MLK? How they erased them from popular view? How they changed the USA from going liberal?
It reminds me of a video of a gonzo film journalist that filmed the north vietnamese taking over south vietnam saying "I've been waiting here for you all along, commrade"...the people that try to expose Fiorini and Thane Cesar..."why we've been trying to show the awesome victories of the party all along, commrade".
We don't see or hear much of that... an occasional clap...(I can only guess, but perhaps those people that watch all the eye images...clap when a person is killed...like when Lennon was killed or Reagan was shot...vicious people...but...I guess if you watch...it's understood that...it's a vicious tournament...and the weak simply lose). The conservatives (who have done by far the majority of the killing without question), are not very openly pruod of all their "accomplishments". Why is that? I think the answer, to me, is that they recognize that average people would be shocked and very upset to learn about their murders...to learn the truth about how they killed their way to the top, etc. How they killed people like JFK, MLK, RFK, ...countless others without doubt... they must fear that, that info reaching the public would cause them to lose popular support. I have to agree that...the public's values are probably not as vicious and violent as the Bush family, Pat Robertson...the many vicious religious conservatives that clearly and openly support violence against citizens of other nations.
Finishing up on that point about my emergence from mysticism into science...in 1992 I was deeply affected by people saying my thoughts on national and local television....and again, not one person came to my aid (which is how the rest of my life has been too, it is clear that people have to help themselves at this time). It appeared clear to me that many people were watching me (most likely, at that point, as a result of the music I was writing...not because of my contributions to science which is perhaps more the case now...although clearly the wisdom I showed in criticising religion contributed to my popularity...I would add that I think "Big Breasts", and "I Don't Wanna Marry You", from that time will stand until people stop loving big breasts, and the end of marriage...for many years...), and so I imagined many incorrect theories, for example that I was a reincarnation of Jesus or Nazareth, a second coming of Jesus, and I can't remember other inaccurate theories I had then...that I would be killed in Colorado (much of this was driven by mystics in the image sending network...even now, I fear being in Colorado because of humans that might want to make that idiotic idea a self-fullfilled prophecy..or whatever it's called...when humans make some myth come true)...I simply many times, believed what ever was beamed onto my head...or incorporated it into my own thoughts. There are many people that I sarcastically label "good samaritans"...those with image sending machines that constantly give bad suggestions to people. Suggestions like jumping off a bridge a person happens to be walking on, or into the grand canyon, even ideas like "hey..grab that girl's butt!"... they beam sounds and images to try and make people that don't know that sounds and images are being beamed onto their brains do unusual or dangerous things. I don't doubt for a second that many of those aweful suggestions are actually taken up by innocent unsuspecting people. Here other people can now even move our own muscles even if we don't want to.
I only briefly fully embraced the mystical ideas that I was a second coming of Jesus (without christianity we would never have these idiotic stories), that would end the drug war and free the nonviolent oppressed people of the earth, restoring logic and justice, exposing what happened to JFK, RFK and the many innocent people that were murdered, etc...for example the song "I am Here", and "Jesus Was A Good Man" were designed to have more than one explanation..."I am Here" (like a Jesus), but also "I am Here", (like a Ted...or just a person that is willing to stand up for the truth...I am simply here on the earth...here to stop evil...I don't need to be a Jesus...to pick up where John Lennon and many others left off...nothing magical...nothing supernatural...), etc. I am glad I pulled myself up by my own boot straps (unlike many others), to get back onto that path of truth, science, pleasure, ... it didn't take me long to make songs like "There is no god" (in 2000 or sometime), 8 years later I was refinding that path of science and truth. "Brain Imaging Machine" I made around then, "Evolution"....I was dropping all the mysticism, negativity, ... learning about the secret technology, the idiocy, the denial of evolution and science, the massive religions and their violent history, I was reading about world history, and learning about the amazing past. I realized that all matter is made of light, that light is a particle, that if light traveled in a sine wave (which I think now is absolutely ridiculous) it would move 3.81e8 m/s. I wrote "Photon Yes, Religion No". It was clear that there was no going back to mysticism or any kind of religion for me at that point. By the time "Stop Violence, Teach Science" was complete, I had basically reached the path and form that I will most likely stay with until I die...the path that I am most happy with, that of truth, science, pleasure, history, the future, social justice, democracy, walking robots... and so now, I am making what I think will be the most significant contribution of my life, "Universe, Life, Science, Future", and this is the culmination, the end product, or main product perhaps of my entire life. I am sure I will continue and make many more projects, I still want to make a walking robot although I am very behind many others, I don't doubt I will have a fun hobby in walking robots, I still want to model photons and do more there, to talk about what is happening with humans on earth, to speak out for change here on earth and on my home planet too (just kidding ahaha...). One thing that I recognized in 1992 was that in any event, aside from any reincarnated Jesus' that I am clearly a special person that is somehow isolated and different from other people of this time...it's very bizarre, because I think what I believe is very normal, and what I do is very average...but somehow no other people can see that all matter is made of particles of light, that religions were made by humans and are not any good, that evolution is a fact (there are others but we are only 33%)... None can speak out against violence, the drug war, the illogical zelotry of jailing people for molestation but not for spaking, against jailing people for nudity, exposing the vast hypocritical feeling of antisexuality [pointing out that somebody must be sexual to keep life going, even though none admit it], for legal prostitution, for full democracy where we get to vote, for full free info, for questioning psychology and mind policing, for exposing the secret eye and hearing thought networks... there must be others, and no doubt they are special too where ever they are. It's a messy thing to talk about...much of this paragraph, but it happens to be the truth. Jesus was just a person of recent history, like many that claim to have a special connection to a god, the theory of gods is an oldy, but not nearly as old as human language, and evolution of life on earth, which is most likely a recent phenomenon compared to the age of the universe which I think may be infinite. The story of Jesus was used (not the story of many other persecuted people...just by coincidence it happened to be the story of Jesus and not the person crucified next to him) by leaders of that cult to gain power over the people. It's not entirely clear to me what happened, but I think it's like many things...when everybody wears blue...most people would feel uncomfortable wearing green or something...it's conformity and intolerance of difference, ... if people conformed to truth and science, I think we would have a better life, the popular view of what is true changes and is many times inaccurate...classic examples are the popularity of religious myths, the earth centered theory, the theory that a god created life on earth, that the sun was the center of the galaxy, that our galaxy is the only galaxy, etc. I just want to go on record as saying that I am not a second coming of Jesus, I think I have a much better philosophy than Jesus had...Jesus never spoke out against violence, for science, for going to other stars, for tolerating sexuality with clear consent, for free info...Jesus was just like a person of today that claims that god will punish people for their free market society, their interest in gold and nudity, etc... or perhaps for being in the wrong religion...it's tough to know what Jesus' gripes were, but I feel confident that my gripes are better and more helpful.
I feel embarrassed about thinking I might be Jesus, but don't feel as embarrassed when I think about how hard it is to believe that people can hear and see our thoughts and what our eyes see, and that it's a massive secret that has lasted at least since the 40s...that far back...how many people have realized that people can see and hear their thoughts that were not included besides me? I have to think that is a small group of people, and what an interesting smart group! come to mention it. In addition, I am like a number of people that actually change. I am constantly improving myself, learning new skills, reevaluating older decisions, etc. I compare it to people like John Lennon, or Kurt Cobain...they weren't afraid to make mistakes or too embarassed to change their philosophies. I can't think of many other people like that, that shed off a previous belief system for a new, more accurate one...John Lennon is really a classic example...there are those that take a turn for the worse, but I am mostly interested in those that break free of religion, or innacurate brutal past traditions or beliefs. Many times, people have to go thru many crappy past beliefs to reach a new found truth. There are many different roads to truth, and we all have baggage that stops or slows us from getting there, and what the truth is, is not clearly defined. It is probably too abstract, but, I am glad to be that way...a person not afraid to change in order to reach what I think is the best way of life possible, and that is what much of my life through the 20's was like, here in the 30's my path has become much more clear, sadly, my body is getting older ... I wish I knew then what I know now (although, there is not going to be any good time or even the tiniest good feeling on this planet for probably centuries with this group and at this rate).
Just for my own memory and records: "Sen. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Wisconsin Democrats, and the committee's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.". Maybe Roberts will turn out to be a real human of science, gender and race equality, sexual tolerance, opposed to violence, for free info, and a supporter of right to body, ... but I kinda doubt it...only time will make that as clear as day for the pee-on second class public of which I am a member. Still I can be proud and happy for Feinstein who shocked me with that godder pledge bill, in addition to Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Durbin (IL), Reid (NV) for all voting against Roberts.
09-21-2005
Hey everybody it's those warm, fuzzy, cheery republicans! It's kind of funny, because as most people recognize, the conservatives and republicans are the most sourpuss, angry, nasty, violence-loving, antisexual people on the planet.
Some conservatives, as usual, trying to open any tiny crevace that might be available, have compared my video "Another Critic in the Way" to an appeal to fascism, because I wear all black. I want to state clearly, that I have always opposed fascism, and that video is not an appeal to fascism. I support full democracy and have for my entire life. My thinking in making that video, which was way back in 1997 (or near there) was to make a gimmick, something to catch people's attention. If you are just a person in regular closthes many people may turn the channel, or think it's boring, but if you are in a costume, people may stay and watch. Look at many music videos, many people use costumes to get attention, the Beasties all dressed in coveralls, ... almost all musical groups have done similar things...the Beatles had suits, but also wore many costumes, for example in Sgt Peppers. There have been other mistakes I think I have made, in 1992 I had a large amount of attention on me for the first time, and, but ofcourse, nobody came to help me or inform me, to introduce me to the massive camera eyeball net...so I think that many of those messages are very mystical and I don't really support many of the messages in songs I wrote then, for example "Is it Dead", the lyrics are too mystical for my liking now, and the same is true for comparing myself to the anti-Hitler...a little too mystical for my tastes now (and no doubt inaccurate, although I do have some popularity...no where near as much as Hitler did, obviously...only brutal, violence, lying, militant conservatives and mass murderers can attain that kind of popularity). I like my more recent messages critisizing psychology, speaking out against violence, ... I can't fail to mention that some of those 1992 songs still get my approval and support, like "Pot Grower"...nothing has changed in my mind about that, and I think that song is a classic, and will probably only fade out when the drug war is over, and then be remembered with the rest of the anti-prohibition memorabilia in a historical setting. "Sermon: the gospel truth", although it is a derivative of Yes "Round About" and Van Halen ("Running with the Devil", which I am sure people could analyze, and it is unfortunate coincidence that I happened to copy that guitar riff, because atheists get labeled devil-worshippers by many religious, and that is far from the truth, atheists simply are people that do not believe in any gods or devils. I don't doubt that the actual Van Halen song, and people would have to ask the maker of the lyrics, but I think as more of a ... metaphorical "devil"...like the way people that take risks...or disobey their parents...that party too much...have sex...as just an expression, not that they kneel at an alter with a big bull head, and torches, etc...). But the lyrics of the song still stand, as a nice criticism of organized religion, and will probably be interesting until the end of organized religion, at that time, they probably will again, become a tiny part of the history of how religion was finally defeated.
The election in Germany is interesting. First, it is amazing that conservatives would elect a female as chancellor (I guess...they don't have a president and vice president as far as I know)...here females have only risen as high as Senator, and Vice Presidential candidate for a major party (and then, the liberals as most people would expect), but not here in the USA where females got the right to vote in 1920 years before many other nations. Another point that is interesting is that the government system in Germany, and New Zealand are different in that somehow, the votes from various parties are added together to get a majority...I am not exactly sure how it works, but it got me thinking that: Perhaps there should be a run-off vote for president between the two highest vote getting people in the USA, because, there are many people that probably would vote for the liberal (or consertvative) if there were only 2 choices, but instead voted for a third party candidate. Then we could see who the true majority of people in the USA support when given a choice between two people, or liberal versus conservative. I think most of the Greens and perhaps libertarians would add to the democrat vote, but for example, many of those that voted for Ross Perot, would probably have voted republican.
I worry about conservatives in Germany, and this could signal further, the planet sinking into a very nasty age, but perhaps, humans on earth will rise out of this small backwards motion and it will simply be a tiny decade of evil and backwards christian popularity. Nobody can possibly know. I think that the Internet, and the growing spread of information is on our side, the side of science, truth, law and order, justice, democracy...but the current trend is for lies, religion, chaos, war, injustice, elitism, secrecy... I could see military conservatives using a female to win the government, to change the liberal policies and laws, get a foot hold, and then do a full conservative christian take over with all white military males. It is amazing that this could be people following the changes that happened here in the USA with the rise of Bush and the religious conservatives. But what is happening here is terrible and backwards. It's shocking to realize that the family that is deeply linked (George Bush Senior was in Hoover's FBI office the day after JFK was killed, but lied and denied it) to the killing of JFK is so entrenched in the current US and state governments.
One thing that is surprising to me is that, people in the USA have lost what most people refer to as "common sense" in re-electing George Bush jr. When a catastrophe happens, on the scale of 9/11, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, etc... isn't it time to change the leadership? to roll the dice again...maybe those presidents are not in any way responsible for the devastation, but isn't it a good idea to change leadership, just in case they are? What if they purposely allowed it to happen? Wouldn't most people want to start fresh with a new President to try a different approach, or to clean out any possibility of corruption? ...in any event, I think it is clear that people clearly think that Bush jr had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and was not in any way negligent in his role as president. Even for Clinton with the world trade center garage truck bomb...couldn't he have done more? Couldn't he have spoken out against fanatical religion, against violence, increased tracking of explosives and guns? Focused on stopping violence, and less on nonviolent crime? There are many things presidents can do to stop violence and the causes of destruction.
Good to see the federal research that concludes many expensive drugs to treat "schitzophrenia" are about the same as older less expensive drugs with the same level of side effects. The thing that pops into my head is...it's like drugs to cure "witchcraft", "wizardry", "unluckiness", "the effects of coments"...I think I will save those pills for later. Schitzophrenia is such an abstract "disease", I think simply "delusional", "hallucinates", etc...are more accurate descriptive labels.
I am glad to see the report done by people employed at UC Irvine on human stem cells healing nerve damage in mice. How exciting that is. What a shocking find. To think that millions of people handicapped with nerve injuries may be actually healed and able to leave their wheelchairs and walk...religious people would label it a miracle, but I know better. It's simply the benefits of science, and understanding the universe we live in and are part of. Who could have guessed that such a phenomenal useful thing could come from stem cell research so quickly? and here people were just throwing away these cells. Ofcourse, we should never forget the way many conservative religious people opposed and still opposed stem cell research...the way Bush junior cancelled and refuses to fund any stem cell research at the federal level...they are refusing to help heal those with nerve damage. Through out history, the conservative religious have always stood in the way of human health and scientific progress. It's a great thing for UCI, and for all of us that may benefit from such a finding. I think that many people suspected that such a finding may come from stem cells, the first time I saw a hint of such a thing was the somewhat cruel animation of Chris Reeve ripping of the head of a fetus to be able to walk, in a "Southpark" show. Although brutal and nasty, it did show the belief that many people must have realized or at least suspected that stem cells might allow people with nerve damage to heal. To his credit, this finding was funded in part by Christopher Reeve, who has been dead for some time. At least Reeve funded science (and not religion) to find a cure for nerve damage, I wish others would too, and this really serves as a positive event to the memory of Reeve as a person that funded something that we all will benefit from. This really will open up a major line of health research...how can the stem cells be made best, to not be rejected, can all nerve injuries be healed with stem cells, does the amount of time after the nerve injury matter?...there are many many questions that people will answer and many paths of research that people will explore.
I've got 4 more public access shows coming up so get ready to check them out. There was some nastiness about copyright permissions, but I think we will be able to work something out. In addition, there are 2 new "Photon Yes, Religion No" video segments ("Sound" and part of "Drugs"), plus the rest of the info section which is already on the web but hasn't aired on public access yet.
09-16-2005
09/16/05
We need a planet where JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon and Nicole Simpson, nonviolent people, live and are protected from violence, and where Frank Fiorini Sturgis, James Earl Ray, Thane Eugene Cesar, Mark David Chapman, and OJ Simpson (if he killed Nicole which I think the evidence shows he did) either do not live on (as they did after their murder), or live on in jail. Not the opposite, which was the way the earth, and inparticular the USA is now. Nonviolent people get killed, and the violent people live on, but most shockingly, two of those people Frank Fiorini and Thane Cesar have never been even arrested for their homicide! The first step is to stop a person that is intent on murdering a human...that would be killing Fiorini on the grassy knoll, or even on the road from Florida to Dallas...I think there was enough intent shown by then, clearly arresting those people is a better approach, but I think most people would accept killing people that are actively pursuing first degree murder. Again, arresting those people for attempted murder is the best approach. But think of how the USA would be different had Fiorini been killed before shooting JFK, killed perhaps because people saw he was actively pursuing plans to kill President Kennedy. What if somebody had stopped Thane Cesar before Cesar killed RFK? Somebody could have simply stopped Cesar and kept him away from RFK for the night. But then there is step 2. The person has already done the murder, it is clear that they are now a first degree murderer. We can't get the innocent murdered person back, they are gone forever, all that remains is either killing the killer, or jailing the killer. For most people it may be that jailing the (majority agreed on) killer is the better answer, but most shockingly, this has not ever happened for Fiorini, who is now reported to have died of old age, nor Thane Cesar who is still alive. Not only were they not stopped, but they have never even been jailed for their murders! What a total failure of the US, our system of justice, even simple everyday justice. It shows just how corrupt and stupid the people of the USA are, here they never caught up with Fiorini, and they are not even headed in the correct direction to catch Thane Cesar. So we as a nation are way off track on stopping violence, and in particular very behind and off track on even the simple act of punishing those people that have already done violence.
My thoughts this morning were: there is much to love in the universe, even if we here on earth can only love each other secretly. Or in some way there is no way of finding love between humans, since it is all but outlawed and heavily regulated, in addition to being socially unacceptable (for example hugging is not popular...it's seen as too corny, but mainly the major taboo is promiscuity...even at the level of kissing or sleeping together with many people but not even having sex, and fear of sexual diseases may be an even more popular reason). Still, my point, is that, there is much to love in the universe...the stories and thoughts of what must be out there, what the future holds for us humans, what our past was, what other life, planets, stars and galaxies might be like. I don't doubt that many people secretly want to hug and kiss other people, I would not doubt that as many as 60% of people dream of kissing and hugging other people (some person they have never hugged or kissed), but do not act on it. While probably only 5% or less actually do, and then of those perhaps only in 3% is the feeling mutual. But that, and I am guessing, that 60% want to hug and or kiss other people, to me, shows that perhaps, that this current group of sapiens may contain a large amount of love at birth, but that they learn to supressed it.
09-15-2005
09/15/05
It is interesting to see the history of the moon written on it's surface. One questino that came to mind when I was looking at close up images of the moon is: Since many, and perhaps most of the impact crators on the moon of earth are circular, does that indicate that the objects that collided with the moon where spherical? It would be interesting if most of the meteors that collided with the moon of earth where small (compared to the planet earth) spheres. It's tough to imagine that water ice, metals, etc would form spheres, looking at the moons (which may be captured early star system pieces) demios and phobos, they are clearly not spherical. Perhaps the round shape of the impact crators can be explained by something else? Perhaps the meteors send equal amounts of particles in every direction? I have only a few ideas, but I don't doubt simple impact experiments would shed light on the shape of the impact crator that remains after impact.
I hope the democrat humans in congress reject Roberts for the Supreme Court, they have a better view of his values than I, and are certainly more informed, but my feeling is that Bush is putting forward an extremely one-sided choice first to see if the person will be approved...for the first pick, they pick their favorite, if that doesn't pass, then they have to find somebody more moderate for a second choice (is the thinking at least, but perhaps they would follow some other pattern). It seems clear that Bush and company chose an extremely one-sided person, because if Roberts gets approved they get exactly everything they wanted, as opposed to a moderate or progressive, a more bipartisan choice, where their views may not be fully and unthinkingly obeyed. My fear, and perhaps the reality is that, the people have stacked our governmnet so far to the extreme republican that the democrats form a minority that do not number enough to force two sided appointments, or form any opposition to the extreme brutal cristian conservative uneducated majority.
I think that if we could hear the thoughts of big whig conservatives in the US, we would hear support for the christian democrat party in this next German election, not for Schoeder and the social democrats. This is a fact that repeats itself through history, but sppears to be of no concern to the people of the USA. I don't doubt that the US republicans, the US religious conservatives, naturally support and align themselves with the German christian democrats, the German religious conservatives. We see that the Nazis were an extremely conservative religious party, that shared many values with conservatives around the globe. It was just like the way Prescott Bush was punished for supporting the Nazis, and then turned to financially support Richard Nixon...there just is very little difference between the philosophy of conservatives and the Nazi people. What is shocking to me, is the way people seem to forget what that extreme conservatism and rejection of wisdom, science and education gave us. Extreme conservatism has the appearance of order, clenliness and harmony, but the reality is that extreme conservatism ruined Germany in the 40s. Why would it work for us in the USA? These patterns seems to exist though...extreme conservatives rise in power cause catastophe and chaos, and only then do the people finally turn to the opposite side. The pattern seems to repeat itself, because people are not willing to address and/or reject the causes, which are religion, antisexuality, conformity, hatred of science, intolerance, etc. Now, the mystery is to me...who and what were the reasons for those that opposed Nazism in the 1940's to begin with?...were they truly anti-racist? Were they truly for science and free thought? for human rights? or was their some other motivation? Because, ... obviously with the election and relection of Bush, such an extreme religious conservative, aligned with typically conservative views and people, ... is that anti-nazi view really still in existence in the USA? or was it ever?
I think conservatives must be grateful for psychology and antisexuality. Those two are the main theories that are used to confuse and conflict liberals. In my experience, those two are the main views expressed by other-wise liberal people when there is conflict or turmoil among liberals...when liberals lose. Those two are what gives the republicans their victories. I might include privacy and/or secrecy as a third region of success for the conservatives and conservative philosophy (and likewise the "philosophy of evil", at least as I interpret evil, which is certainly a human prejudice, but I thought more about it, and I think that there may even be universe views of good and bad, for example that destroying some matter that appears to be alive may be "bad"...although there is no doubt that massive civilizations are probably routinely converted to star ship fuel without any thought of good or bad). I am in favor of making one uniform set of laws for the planet, or at least one uniform system of law sets for the earth, all open to vote on by every person at all times...or working toward that goal. Because now we have the shadow system of psychiatric hospitals/laws, the shadow system of the military laws, international treaties...there should be one system so that all humans are guaranteed a democratic jury trial (for example), sentence, etc., and other human rights guarantees. Probably I could include "religion/lack of science" as a fourth "liberals gunna lose" catagory. So all together that makes "psychology", "antisexuality", "privacy/secrecy", "religion/antiscience"...perhaps there is something with "violence"...the way that the liberals cannot stand up against violence that has really been a downfall for liberals, at least in the USA.
How brutal is the 4 year prison sentence for asking for money to not sell nude photos of Cameron Diaz? Steve Cooley and the LA County DA pressed the charge, and Mike Pastor handed out the sentence. I don't think asking for money to not sell a photo should be illegal, and I don't think any nonviolent crime deserves 4 years in jail. That is scary.
9/16 Diaz can simply say "no, I won't pay you to not sell the photos". It's hardly a serious matter, or a crime in any way. Those that think asking for money to not do some nonviolent activity is illegal, I think have poor values. Think of all the examples of this, people could say "give me some money or I will not talk to you any more"...now they should be jailed for 4 years? "Give me 10 dollars or I will buy a computer"...again 4 years in jail for that question? "give me a dollar or I will take your picture", "give me a dollar or I will not take your picture"...the last sounds like a typical sale...pay somebody a dollar to take your picture...now all potential sales are extorsion? To me...extorsion is more like "give me $10 or I will do violence (break your leg, smash your window, etc...) to you. Which is really just a subset of threats of violence. One catagory that is interesting is "allusions to violence", which I get at work often. Both threats and in particular allusions to violence, many argue, are free speech, and protected under the 1st ammendment, and by the perhaps popular belief that all speech should be legal and nobody should be jailed for the content of anything they say, but I lean towards threats of violence (not allusions to), getting some (very small...in hours and days, not weeks unless repeated) jail time. I view threats to expose a person, requsts for money to not expose a person, etc, as perfectly legal, or at least that is my vote if ever counted.
---end 9/16/05 comment
There are plenty of alternate in between fully democratic and single/multi judge decisions. For example, since people are supposed to get a jury trial, a jury of 12 people, wouldn't it seem logical to open appeals to a larger jury? Then instead of 9 people on the supreme court being the final word, a million people could have their vote recorded over the Internet. The corruption of single and multi judge decisions is ruining the justice system and the planet. It is already past the time to open the courts up to public viewing and voting.
09-13-2005
09/13/05
One thing that amazes me, and I think about often, is what an enormous universe we live in. Most people don't talk about it in daily conversation, but think of the number of galaxies and stars...trillions and trillions of stars and planets...and on each of those planets, a huge set of events is unraveling. Billions of grains of sand are blowing on Mars today, just like they do on countless millions of planets of stars, a very tiny few of those planets humans may eventually see and share images of, but most will go unseen by humans eyes for ever. It's a stunning reality. I like to dream of going to other stars, or even visiting Venus and being part of the project to cool the surface, or moving my house-ship to Centauri or some other star system...it helps me sleep, and is an endless source of interest and adventure for me. But just to think, like most humans on earth do not, that the universe is filled with stars and planets...billions of stars, trillions of planets...slowly evolved over millions of years, and that on many of those planets there must be life, similar to us, and then life very different from us, the possibilities of matter forming objects we would call alive seem infinite. There must be massive unions of living societies with trillions and trillions of members, and without doubt, massive catastrophe's in the history of the universe where countless living species were destroyed from conflict or by accident. Countless stories, planets, stars, galaxies....as Carl Sagan recognized "numberless moments...". Few recognize our daily reality, but what an awesome and unending truth that is.
I forgot to mention that humans will definitely model every piece of matter (probably generalizing large bodies like the planets, asteroids and comets) to view into the future where all the matter will be, to estimate collisions in the future, etc. But those models will have to be updated all the time because of tiny inaccuracies. Not many people will admit this, but our models of the universe, and in particular the matter in our star system must have to be updated all the time, because the oceans on earth, the influence of the many billions of galaxies, the way objects are modeled for their mass (amount of matter) and not their shape, etc. All these things throw off human estimates and the positions of asteroids, the moons and planets of our system have to be updated, I guess as often as possible. This process has to happen so regularly, that I don't doubt, humans will have machines that meaure and update the actual position of planets, moons and comets automatically.
If people call you "vert", "ped", "molestor", etc...call them "eunuch!" ("antisexual" is an alternative, but has too many syllables which would be spelled "SiLuBL" or something similar had the public enough logic).
09-12-2005
09/12/05
I was reading "Stars and Planets", and there is a part on sunspots, and I was thinking, and I certainly could be wrong, and probably am, but could sun spots be chunks of matter that are being burned? Like ice chunks that float in the arctic ocean, maybe sun spots are pieces of liquid iron, or something that come up from the inside of the star and are separated into their source photons at the surface. It is interesting that, it seems clear that the surface of the sun must be the coldest since that is where the 0 degree freezing empty space meets the sun, and I don't doubt that the inside of the sun is even hotter, but because of the pressure, perhaps the inside is liquid (one claim in this book is that the sun is all gas, which I kind of doubt)...I can't believe that there is anything as thin as gas in the sun...people can look at the mass (amount of matter), and the size, see the average density and determine whether that includes liquid, which I think it does. I think there has to be liquid iron in the center or else where would the magnetic field (very visible in the way matter moves on the surface) come from? In fact the explanation given by most people is that sun spots are made by the magnetic fields. One thing that people have completely 100% missed is the idea that all matter is made of photons, and so they have not thought of this idea. One thing that I conclude is that much of the light from stars is not from Hydrogen being fused to helium, but from the chain reaction of hydrogen gas being burned (or separated in source photons). It's like burning a hydrogen gas flame, there is a chain reaction which destroys the protons that are Hydrogen.
There will be a time (presuming humans live for a few more thousand years at least), where humans will definitely lower the temperature of Venus. They could simply want to use all of that dense matter to build ships to other stars, but I think the sentimental, planet-loving humans will win the majority vote to make Venus an oxygen+nitrogen earth-like planet (perhaps they will hollow Venus out, but keep it a hollow sphere as a compromise). I am not sure how the temperature of Venus will be lowered but there is no doubt that some time will mark the beginning and end of that project. It's like the chunnel or any other large engineering project, it seems inevitable that humans will approach it with many good solutions and take it on at some time when the resources are available.
Again, one of the major mile stones, or meter stones...perhaps there is a better word in the history of the future, is when humans are able to take a block of iron and convert it into water, (even Hydrogen would be an accomplishment...which is no doubt already a reality), or any other atom that is wanted. Humans will probably use big blocks of iron to propel themselves in house-ships around the star system. Some of the block will go to propulsion (probably hydrogen and oxygen gas...or who knows?), some of it will go to water (although probably much of the water will be recycled because there will definitely be a price in photons needed to convert iron to water, oxygen, carbon, etc.). I don't know how, but I think the most promising method is through particle accelerators using so-called anti-matter, which could perhaps be called negative matter, but still the idea is that it is simply a different form of matter.
09-08-2005
09/08/05
Swartzenegger is going to veto the gay marriage bill, claiming that the majority oppose it, and perhaps that may be true...it is difficult to know without counting the votes of the people. Most polls show that support for same gender marriage does not have a majority in California yet, but that is is gaining and will in perhaps a decade or two. Still making marijuana just a fine is clearly the popular majority but I don't see the conservatives running to make that law out of concern that the popular opinion is not being reflected in the laws.
I want to ask all people, including those elitist secret eye network celebrities if they support:
1) locking nonviolent people in hospitals without any sentences
2) use of 4 point restraints on nonviolent people
3) involuntary drugging of nonviolent people
4) locking nonviolent people in hospitals without legal defense or trial
5) believe evolution is a fact
6) think people that use drugs should be locked in jail
and many other questions. Somehow I am sure no "celebrities" would ever answer.
The fact remains that any person, any Jane Doe, Richard Roe, Lupe Alverez, Hasan Chan, etc can be picked up by people in police any where and locked in a psychiatric hospital indefinitely. period. It happens all the time. And the fact remains, that no body, not Michael Moore, not any body, will come to their defense to try and get them free. Can you imagine a person saying "free the people from the psychiatric hospitals!". Who is going to come to your defense, who is going to take legal action to get you free? nobody. People like Michael Moore will never speak out against those nonviolent innocent people locked in psychiatric hospitals, because it's like the old witch trials...if you say "free Jimmy Doe from Benjamin Rush..." people look at you and think...you must have a mental problem...maybe you are insane! In addition, like defending a person accused of witchcraft, not only do you not want to be labelled a witch, or witch-lover, you don't want witches coming around associating with you...or as applies to people locked in psychiatric hospitals, so-called wackos and psychos becoming involved with you. Although the fact remains, like those people in guantanamo...there may be overwhelming evidence that they have never been violent in any way, have lived a life of nonviolence, have accurate views of the universe, have committed no crime, never violated one law, in particular no violent law. So the fact remains, and a frightening fact that will not be addressed for many decades, that a person can be picked up by people in police, committed to a psychiatric hospital, not having broken one law, not having ever been violent, not even having caused a public disturbance. Does that happen? I can only presume, that yes, it definitely does happen, since the possibility exists. I have heard of at least one example of an older female [a witness to the Martin Luthur King jr, shooting, from the Mark Lane and James Earl Ray book] that was committed involuntarily for life.
I think it is clear now with Bush jr picking 2 supreme court justices that our supreme court is gone, and justice in the US is over for a least 25 years. It will take at least 25 years to make a progressive or liberal educated nonreligious intellectual majority in the supreme court, and the public appears not even to be solidly in that direction. With Bush jr, eventually the original crimes will be in the past, but the stink still lives on in the supreme court. Most people will eventually think...why bother pursuing that issue in the courts? Because, you know the backward majority of conservatives are going to ultimately vote any truth and justice down after millions of dollars and years of struggle. In addition, there is no chance of a planetary court with more authority, or planetary law system, or police to back up any planetary court decisions. Beyond that, we can be sure that any planetary court would be far from democratic, since the UN appears to be the only form of planetary government and that is far removed and no where near or even headed toward more democracy or public voting.
09-07-2005
09/07/05
Awesome to see same gender marriage pass the California Senate or whatever it is...now we will get to see if Swatzenegger is going to allow the majority to rule (at least as reflected by the representatives in the CA senate), or if he is going to be a typical republican and make their puritanical backwards religious conservative minority views rule.
I have never actually touched a different male in a sexual way, I have never been brave enough to do that, but at least I have masturbated about it, I am at least that brave. I am not like the chicken-shyte people that will not allow themselves to even masturbate about it...what a bunch of cowards and closed and feeble-minded sapiens.
Michael Moore sent this out: "Our country is in an immediate state of vulnerability. More hurricanes, wars, and other disasters are on the way, and a lazy bunch of self-satisfied lunatics are still running the show."
I'm glad to see what Michael Moore is up to, but I think the word "lunatic" shows that he is a big believer in psychology, and cares little for science. I support his effort to expose Bush and company, and am glad for all his efforts, but it's a reminder that people for science can expect very little from Moore...he's not big into science or supporting the telling of evolution or history of science. It's an interesting phenomenon, how people learn to embrace the far-fetched theories of psychology used to lock people in hospitals without trials or sentences, but care little to disguss the history of science or support the idea of science in daily life. There is no doubt that Bush's interpretation of the universe is far from accurate, I doubt he even believes evolution is a fact, and Bush's lawless and violent philosophy is perhaps not rational or cetainly not ethical or good, making it perhaps insane or "lunacy"...that debate over who's ideas are "sane" will rage for years...I think Moore's philosophy and anti-war opinions are probably more law-abiding, realistic, and safer, but I doubt he really has a very accurate view of the universe that includes light as a particle, evolution, a Jesus made of DNA with no magical powers, etc. What concerns me about Bush is not that his ideas are insane, but that he is so willing to do violence, that he supports religion over science, etc. For centuries though, that idea of "insanity" will be used to try and discredit people...my view is...millions of people are insane...the important thing is are they going to support first degree violence? I hope they find evolution (as 67% in the US have yet to do), I hope they learn about Vesalius, Anaxagarus and others (as 80% or something in the US have yet to do)...but of most importance is enforcing the homicide and assault laws around the planet, and trying to make full democracy where we get to vote. The truth about psychology and labels of insane are that they are being used as a second set of laws to jail people indefinitely...I guess those labels would be less of a concern for me (and the labels are not a huge concern...it's more of a phenomenon...it's interesting to me...why do so many believe in psychology but not science?...what is the appeal of calling people psychos and sickos? but not anti-scientists, stupids, antisexuals or religious fanatics?) if the massive druggings and jailings of people without trials or sentences wasn't the legal end result of such a system.
In terms of relief for people suffering from Hurricaine Katrina I think we need a policy for our government that includes the idea of "no human will be allowed to go thirsty or hungry in the USA". With that rule, motto, or law, (and we could include be without access to a shower, toilet, room, will not need to be cold) many of these disasters would receive the minimum amount of response.
I hate to say something negative about Michael Moore, and I support a large amount of what he is doing, but he hasn't hesitated to question psychology and openly support those defective and offensive theories, ... so much of what Moore does I support, but he is more of like a religious sports kind of anti-bush anti-republican person, not a person that I relate to fully, that would be vocal in favor of evolution, a history of science, etc. so he has a different philosophy or approach than I do (but then so does everybody apparently!). So, I am looking forward to what Michael Moore will do next, but I know it's not going to be something that involves support for science, atheism, or most of the stuff I am interested in...much of Moore's popularity, I think comes from Christians, there is a shyte-load of money christians have...the majority are christians so that's why Moore is the most popular (although how many anti-bush rich people can you name? there are almost none....and the true liberals are few and far between...people like Ted Charach that exposed Thane Cesar, the killer of RFK [or at least is trying to since 1970]...these people are special and I think we are only seeing the very beginning of a second side, a side for truth, against violent crime, for free info, exposing the killers and violent criminals parading as republicans).
That type of language gives this "victorian"-kind of idea of being very careful about what we say..and thoughts of..."am i insane?...is what i said ok?..." where I am for wild ideas and full and open speech. I am not saying let's lock people up without trials or fine them for advocating religion and psychology,...I am simply using language to say...let's open up our tolerance of bizarre ideas...otherwise we are left like a bunch of field mice afraid to say anything for fear of it being inappropriate or being viewed as weird. The worst ideas involve violence anything else is just air blowing...and violent ideas are just bad ideas...it's simple to me...
I have said this before, but it is funny that people find torture and insanity funny...like "el pollo loco", and "crazy eddie", etc... some how delusion and involuntary treatments like drugging is comedic to many people...but then murder is very funny to many people. It's all remnents of religion and a backward interpretation of the universe and life...where sex is bad, pleasure is bad, and violence is acceptable.
There is actually an interesting larger picture that is involved when Moore uses the word "lunatic"...because they are people that are part of the eye networks, etc. they hear thoughts...and I get the feeling that they play big "demographic" games...like...they carefully choose their words to try and scoop up the most supporters, so there must be a need for Moore to separate himself from me...to support psychology...perhaps to diversify the democrats (or potential democrats)...to scoop up those that don't dig what I am saying....for those that are full believers in psychology and need a liberal hero or... leader...there is Moore...he will call a cat a psycho just as soon as look at her...he is one of those mamby-pamby anti-psychologers...he will echo the language they like to hear. So, that's what I think those things are for, not just that Moore believes in the fraudulent theories of psychology (or religion, etc), but that he and his crew are looking to scoop up or maintain those people, religious, psychologer-based, etc. that probably vote democrat. I don't need to pick up such people I have a career on my own...or ... I am more interested in the truth at the expense of popularity. This phenomenon is something I sense all the time...people trying to use language as a result of what they see in the camera network. Remember when Kerry said "boy...", no doubt he saw that many racists were not voting for him, and even though he probably is offended by racism, he needed votes so that a nonracist philospohy could carry the next four years...it's the decision of one slightly racist remark to win enough racist votes to have 4 years with a nonracist leader.
09-06-2005
09/06/05
Person at Chili's on Alton in Irvine says "Ped?", after I say my name is "Ted". I later said: "Shame on Chili's for watching what our eyes see without our permission in secret. How unethical is that?", "Thane you", and "Not see you later".
It didn't take much searching on the Internet to find this page:
http://www.buyblue.org/detail.php?corpId=29#
Chili's (and Macaroni Grill) is owned by "Brinker International". They are centered in Dallas Texas, and according to the buyblue page heavily contribute to conservatives. As I looked around I saw only white employees, except for one asian female, and one mexican male that was cleaning a table. There was one black person, a female customer eating. I thought: "I wonder if she would eat here knowing that Chili's is probably Klan owned, or certainly heavy supporters of republicans, a party known for racism". So stop going to Chili's and Macoroni Grill to stop funding these nazi eye network antisexual racist republican white male only corporations. Look at the owners of Brinker, they are all white males, not one female. If you are a female or nonwhite, why would you use their service? To keep female and nonwhite rights down for another century? So I will never go into a Chili's again (or macaroni grill) if at all possible. There were two Irvine police cars and people there like it was some kind of civil rights movement struggle going on, for a liberal to get a black bean burger, which shat the bed anyway. It was spicy and tasted alot like the gardenburger black bean burger. I thought it would be like the burger I had at a restaurant in Syracuse...The sports something brewery or something which was delicious, this was just a puck of shyte, just like the garden burger black bean burger, nothing to cheer about. Plus the rest of the menu is all meat.
2003-2004 Election Cycle Contribution Statistics
View BuyBlue.org Methodology
Total Spent: $90,000.00
16.34% to Democratic Party candidates
83.66% to Republican Party candidates
0% to Other candidates
Douglas H. (Doug) Brooks - Chairman, President, and CEO
$2,000 to BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC (R) on 2003-07-07
(FEC Schedule A: 23992051346)
$1,000 to PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS 2004 (R) on 2004-03-29
(FEC Schedule A: 24991057422)
Thanks to buyblue.org, but why don't other liberals connect me and tell me? Why are they so bent on losing? Don't they want the public to know, to inform themselves, so they can avoid funding or interacting with rascists, antisexuals, homophobes, antiwomen rights, far right wing rude radical religious people? I am so tired of liberal democratic people walking into conservative republican restaurants without knowing it, why don't people tell them? Tell them about Frank Fiorini...they don't know! Tell them about Thane Cesar...they don't know...are we just going to let the criminals, liars, and murderers walk away with our government, our nation and our lives? Tell them!
While on the topic of restaurants to watch out for, those in Irvine, watch out for the Taco Bell, KFC on Campus. They always have an insult at the ready for me. The last time (and I think the last time I will go there) a female taking drive thru orders said "freak", to which I said "nazi", and we left it at that, but how disgusting...who wants that. And then...watch out for this...I got a 7 layer burrito, and it happened twice that the rice was from the bottom and so was rock-hard (many times the beans are scraped from the bottom as happened at Baja grill one time). So liberals beware of that Taco Bell/KFC, other Taco Bell/KFCs I have not had any kind of problem like the one on Culver, ... the one on Jamboree...only once did they do something...I can't remember exactly. But the one on campus, for sure, everytime they have said something rude, stay clear of them if you don't want the "black person's food in the all-white restaurant" experience. As an aside, it is amazing how much the reichers at Chili's sound just like Victor from Wheel of Life, and many others, who I would presume are democrats or liberals, being vegetarians...they echo the same thing "ped" "psycho" "freak" etc... but shockingly they are defacto supporters of the republicans and conservatives (which the conservatives focus on, as a place or concept where they won so-called liberals to their side and the democrats lost). This phenomenon must have been seen in Nazi Germany by smart Jewish people...many must have thought...that Nazi ass kissing shithead...what do they hope to gain? A delayed road to the crematoria?
I think that Bush, Cheney and others know that fascism can't possibly win. The lies about Fiorini and Thane Cesar cannot persist. Eventually, like all Musolini's, the fascists fail. If it wasn't for the 3 tiny tv stations they control, the public would already know all about Frank Sturgis, Thane Cesar, seeing what our eyes see in the infrared...that thought must scare the shit out of Bush and the other people with much to lose...mostly conservatives. They must realize the public would be pissed at them for all the killing and lying, in particular about JFK, RFK, 9/11...the question really is when not if. They are insulated, and protected by the massive lie machinery of the television stations and major media. What keeps the eye images of Thane Cesar and Fiorini ... like the Zubruter film out of the view of the public for decades.
It is interesting that the sun, the star the earth rotates, is releasing billions and billions of photons every second. It is releasing many more photons than it is taking in. A person can simply add up the amount of matter (mass) of our star, divide by the number of photons emitted each second and get an estimate of the maximum age the sun can continue burning (although, as the age burns off matter, it's surface area gets smaller so it would burn less)...in fact the sun is getting smaller each second as it loses more matter. I wonder if we will ever be able to actually measure a difference in diameter after centuries.
Another thing I was thinking about is the way sometime the light from the sun, directly from the same direction, feels hotter than on other days, could that be from solar flares? or simply from high humidity (water in the air that makes the light from the sun feel hotter)?
Awesome to see Alan Dershowitz tell the truth about Supreme Court judge Rehnquist. What an evil piece of shit (although perhaps nonviolent) Rehnquist was, as Dershowitz typed, he was a racist, homophobe, antiwomen rights, religious, conservative, and I am adding a person that pissed all over the public and human rights. We should examine closely those 5 humans that allowed Bush and the confederacy to take over for 8 years: Rehnquist (who had to die rather than retire), Thomas (way to sell out the black people), O'Connor (way to sell out women) [both Reagan appointed], Kennedy (I think was Reagan appointed - just think opposite of other Kennedy family for all decisions...reagan clearly wanted to confuse the public, and depolarize the kennedy versus conservative growth), Scalia (who is a total midevil back-ass backward reicher). What amazes me are that people are supposed to respect and kiss the ass of a person like Rehnquist who stomped all over their rights and freedoms? That 9 humans sit there and decide the laws for 300 million humans is a disgrace and major injustice, let us vote already!
08-28-2005
8/25/05
My mom was so excited about an article she read about a female being appointed head chef at the white house that she sent it to a female friend of mine, and my feeling is like...doesn't she understand what is going on...? the conservatives are trying to offset the supreme court nomination of John Roberts...it's all to manipulate the public (and worked perfectly on my mom). who cares about who the head chef at the white house is? that changes every few months...this is the supreme court, a person that will be ruining the USA for 20 or more years....that is replacing a female...instead of replacing with a female, and filing the supreme court making equal representation for women....for example, 4 females and 5 males would be more representative of the US population...we are a few weeks from losing the right to abortion...and she is glad because a female was made head chef? It is such a shallow simple minded political manuever designed to manipulate unsuspecting people who don't undersand the way it works, people pay money to directly print the AP, etc news stories, down to the very words... my mom is old, not in the camera eyeball net, doesn't hear thoughts, got a 1940s education...
I was thinking that they could have found a rapid right wing pawn (like kathreen harris in florida), to end abortion, or do whatever they wanted to...a total christian right wing conservative, knows her place female...but they chose not to. Did Roberts make significant campaign contributions? What moved him forward...did he make some important favorable decisions for the Bush family and fellow conservatives? But I think to answer the question, why not a woman? they view females in the traditional way, that they should serve their husbands, that they should not work, or that a female that is not married, or is employed is a lesbian or trying to be a man. It's only been 85 years since female humans were legally allowed to vote. Those views cannot be easily changed in such a short amount of time. That is why no female, even a pawn that will absolutely echo their wants was chosen. I was thinking, that perhaps it was an extra safeguard to push through making abortion totally illegal...a female might have second thoughts, or waiver...thinking of her own body or be empathethic to other women.
My biggest complaint against psychology is the "treatment without consent" issue, more than the pseudoscience issue.
People should not be drugged, even if they have violated some law...even people in prison have basic rights.
The right not to be drugged, unconsentually, for example as part of a medical experient.
In addition, my biggest complaint about psychology is the jailing of people being restrained with 4 point restraints, without trials, sentences, basic legal rights any person charged with a crime usually has.
So, I see the future of psychology, like the future of psychics and astrology as voluntary. There will probably be a psychologer, just like a psychic on a street
somewhere, trying to get some money. As long as there is not drugging, restraints or unwillful containment, I think that is the free market, and should be legal (although highly unethical, trickery, dishonest, and far removed from an accurate description of the universe as explained through science).
8/24/05, ammended 8/25/05
My $380 bike was stolen from Steinhaus Hall at UC Irvine. A second bike stolen at UCI.
And this bike was locked (the other bike was stolen in 20 minutes but was unlocked).
The trajedy is that a simple $30 web camera could have solved or at least helped to solve
the crime.
9/15/05 made changes
I want to tell the story about what happened to me at work, I usually don't put this stuff on the web, but it was so disgusting that I want to comment to the public about what my life is like. I was fined $500 (5 days leave without salary) for telling a coworker I was going to complain if she continued giving me put-downs (I'm not going to unload the entire boring saga, but as a summary it is totally gross and disgusting.
The entire thing is stomach turning.
Basically they all lied, I told the truth, and I was punished.
It was like when one sibling is punished for causing the other sibling to beat them up,
or like the old south where a black person was put-down or assaulted, but if they so-much as complained they were punished ultra harshly, and the person that they talked back to gets "are you ok?...did that black man hurt you?..." and ultra compassionate treatment.
All the people here, and I don't doubt on all of the earth are so dishonest and crappy...
we are not going to have justice for centuries with this group. For them 3=7 or whatever
is needed.
The co-worker said "freak" instead of "free" loudly directed at me as usual.
Many of them are like high-schoolers, never went to college and so that high school behavior is still with them (although many of us were polite and mature even in high school).
A number of them regularly call me "psycho", "douche", "ped", "kookoo", "freak" (although many times very subtlely, and rarely directly)...I am nothing but polite to them, but they claim I have a social interaction problem.
People need 600 math SAT to attend UC, a phd to teach at UC, but they don't need any SAT, or degree to work here.
Their life is centered around watching my eyes (and hearing my thoughts) with millions of other people,
they have nothing outside of that.
Some examples include the person that called me a "douche" by attaching "sh" to the end of the word "do" and a long list of "psycho", one said "fffag"...
I recorded over 200 similar disrepectful put-downs by a few dozen people over a period of 6 months. It was very interesting, just for my own records to see who was the rudest/meanest. People must chart and rate all the people of earth to see who are the meanest, rudest, politest and friendliest. I don't doubt that many of the people I work with would clearly receive high "rude" and "mean" scores.
In my "recording insults experiment" many people varied like the dow jones, but some rose to the top (or bottom depending on your perspective) as the most prolific insulters.
They all lied, and everybody in the secret camera eye net knows it,
I was punished harshly but the others didn't get so much as a warning letter,
the HR person was totally one sided, they all are,
a total camera net reicher, one example was the person that said telling a person:
"get out of here" and "leave" [I compare it to "Shindler's List" where the young girl yells
"good bye jews!"] is not disrespectful, nor is calling a person "gay"
He didn't mention my claims of being called "psycho", "freak", "fffag", "douche", but I don't doubt he would actually claim that those are not disrespectful.
They found my telling the person I was going to complain if she continued the put-downs (and I did calmly), made people fear for their safety. Next if I don't say "bless you" when somebody sneezes I may be given a month and a half of administrative (albeit paid) leave as was what happened this time.
[it was implied in the HR person's report that the same is true for calling a person a "psycho", or it was asserted that they didn't believe me]),
They rejected my offer to wear a hidden camera and microphone,
or use a web camera and microphone on my computer,
because they already see what our eyes see, and lie lie lie.
and now my new bike stolen within 3 days of owning it,
I feel disappointed in the leadership and administration of UC.
Certainly at the level of university Librarian, HR, Vice Chancellor and Chancellor.
The code of conduct, or the idea of mutual respect in the workplace is a total joke.
These people are viscous, and I am nothing but friendly to them.
They all appear to support the idea of lying. Not one of those brutal rude people was punished or even given a warning, in some way, it's like they are encouraged. And I don't doubt that much of their insults are funded...they actually get paid money
(like a $20,$50, or $100 for calling me "psycho", or some conservative christian buzzword).
Mark my words, we will not have 1 web camera on the central parts of UCI [like where my bike was stolen] (unlike USC, Berkeley and many other universities) before the UC monarchy [they aren't elected and don't serve terms] is done.
Nor will I ever get my 2 bikes back.
As an example, there had to be a law, the Jean Clearly law, to make them even report their statistics on violent crime. They are a bunch of secretive, way overpaid, do nothing brutal people.
The people in the eyeball secret networks just sit there and watched them get stolen and do nothing.
I think the faculty, students and staff should get to vote for the presidents at UC,
and in particular on their outrageously unproportionately giant salaries.
The entire UC, not to mention the USA, and earth is just a big mush brained
group of brutal people, spineless, violent, lawless, liars.
I think bike theft insurance may be a possible answer for me (but there may be a deductible, my bike is only $400).
it's just bullies, criminals and liars.
They have surrounded me, my entire life.
They picked on my in high school, they put me down at work and in the stores,
they destroy and steal my property, they exclude me from seeing eyes, ...
but through it all, I think there is something positive through it all,
and in the universe. I understand the mightyness of the truth that
all matter is photons...there must be some kind of ...maybe justice...
but some kind of physical equality in the universe. There is some future path for all those photons.
We, as photons, probably can never know what those billions of paths are, but yet they exist, will happen, and are as certain as time.
So I feel bad that they chose to go with the lie instead of trying to put a stop to workplace rudeness, bullying and putdowns. In some way, I suppose they are on the side of the bullies and rudites, certainly bonded by the secret "behind the eyes" network, sworn forever to secrecy, but beyond that, they sided on the side of even simple rudeness and repeated put-downs, instead of shoosing to honestly address those rude people, rudeness and put-downs based on sexual preference, perceived mental disability, etc.
As a result my job changed and I have to see fewer of the rude people I did, I have my own office, I still have job and same salary.
Again simply for telling a person I didn't appreciate being called "freak", they feared for their safety (despite years of nonviolent history, at least for me, and many videos expressing an interest to stop violence, matched by their silence and lack support for such messages).
In any event, my feeling is that, things are very bad...in particular here at UCI, in Orange County, the USA, and earth.
but mainly here, for me...my conclusion was a helpful one: just ignore the insults, or only answer in my mind, which they hear.
Don't sink down to their level, don't let them use up the valuable time of my life. Let their rude insult be the words that ring and echo in their head, not your reply. Make it clear who is rude, think of the positive stuff you want and need to, to get moving on the projects in your life.
I am not going to go through all the pluses and minuses, see my paper on "rudeness" for that.
In some ways, things have worked out for the better, although, it is shocking that I was punished, when I have been nothing but polite to all people, even if they are persistently rude to me.
09-13-05 update
This is funny, I saw a liberal friend that I work with and she said she was interviewed during that white-wash warren commission "investigation" into my making an employee cry and my complaints of rude put-downs, and she told me that she told the interviewers that yes, she did hear the person call me a "freak" but on a different occassion (a time I kind of remember too, but there are so many put-downs, that I usually forget many of them...they all blend together...I used to keep notes to jog my memory) where the person slammed down some papers and said loudly "freak!". So a person did come to my defense! And to show what a white-wash and dishonest, biased group of people and activities the people conducting the "investigation" are and performed, that interview was omitted entirely from the report given me, it was as if it never happened! All of the person's comments were not included, and no mention was made that the person was even interviewed! What a total coverup and one sided bunch of lies. It's just the way nazis and nazism is, you know, they have their decision which has nothing to do with the truth, and then they change the star system to conform to that decision, surpressing fact after fact. Talking with this person was probably like two people that survived WW2 talking about the bizarre and frightening injustice done before and during WW2, and what a relief to have survived and be able to talk openly about the injustice, brutality and lies done. There is, ofcourse, nothing I can do, and nothing would happen because the entire structure is rotten to the core, but still, it is interesting to see the extent those people went to lie and coverup the truth, in addition to punishing those that tell the truth.
end 09-13-05 update
on a small scale of earth, for every put-down, theft, lie, etc.
the evil people continue to go down and the good people go up.
Through it all, I think there will be justice and people will
get to see and that a majority of decent people will come along and
correct the terrible past of life on earth, and solve all of our problems
(at least the idiotically simple problems that plague us now).
I view psychology as a disease. Just like religion and antisexuality. Perhaps psychology is even more widespread, because even atheists buy into the bogus theories of psychology (like "psychosis" which is applied to nonviolent old ladies, and violent killers, and usually by those that swear on bibles...so they must be sane). I've concluded that anybody that rejects that particles of light are the basis of all matter is insane, or certainly less accurate than me in describing the universe....delusional in their interpretation of the universe with photons as "massless" and not the basis of all matter (or with none or a god based theory).
What is the appeal of psychology where science has failed to reach everyday chat?
We hear average people using words like "psycho", "mental", etc...but no stories about science or history.
Why did psychology of all professions gain popularity, where chemistry and math have failed to capture the public interest?
I can only make an educated guess, but I think that it is because psychology, like religion provides people with a basis for a corrupt social order. It allows people to ignore the truth. Who cares if what the person says is true, we can label them insane so it doesn't matter, it can be ignored, we can win even though we are lying and what they say is true. Like religion, psychology allows people to justify lies and inequality and prejudice in hiring, for example.
It's when I hear a person support "sanity", call somebody a "psycho", etc, when I think "yep, see...they have it...they've been infected..."
It's like religion, when I hear people talking about accepting jesus into yer heart, it's the same thing...disease that has spread like kudsu and wildfire.
Psychology is what is stopping the spread of truth, when scientists are viewed as "wacky" and people that claim JFK was shot from the front as "crazies"...at evey turn I have never seen any good come from psychology, or the torturing and drugging of nonviolent people. Mainly, psychology, like religion, is used by people that view themselves as superior to others, they have the "sane" view, many times those people openly wear crosses and claim Jesus made 10 loaves from 1, etc.
I think people will come to me eventually, because they will eventually want the truth, want to support the truth, hear more from those who speak the truth. In particular about the photon is matter ideas. Perhaps this will only happen after I am dead, but I think it is inevitable. It cannot be denied, it is only a matter of time before the majority take an interest, understand and accept what I am saying about all the matter in the universe (and even the so-called "anti-matter") being made of photons. People will want to talk with me eventually, but perhaps by then it will be too late. Already, people are ridiculously late in presenting these theories to the public.
More on the Robertson demand for violence: To his credit Chavez did not issue any "fatwas" in retailiation against Robertson.
To me, that says that Chavez is the more civilized. Just like Robertson there are many dedicated followers and supporters of Chavez and the message they got is one of peace.
Robertson calls for violence, I call for stopping violence, we are clearly polar opposites.
Robertson has the appearance of Fred Rodgers with a buttoned sweater, but clearly his message is far from "won't you be my neighbor", which is what the message to Venzuela and South and Central America should be, one of working together, as equals, openly, learning from each other, working together in a free market, a free trade of ideas, opening the borders, together as one hemisphere and one planet.
Chavez is the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Robertson is calling for the murder of a democratically elected (and recently tested as popular favorite) president, Robertson is certainly not pro-democracy. Robertson opnly supports democracy when a Chrisitian leader is popular, not when somebody from the opposite side is.
Despite what Robertson doing as being basically illegal, and people have been given life sentences for plotting murder, I think the law needs to be updated to account for free speech. Even calls for first degree violence (including miltary/slaveowner orders) is a nonviolent activity (although unethical). I don't doubt that we will see 3d shoot-em-up games with preachers versus scientists, etc. In some way those video games are good, beyond being entertaining, nonviolent (even if the game shows images of violence), because they allow a person to relieve their anger, anger that might otherwise be release as actual violence. But the most important message is that those are all nonviolent free speech activities (again, although some might say unethical or dangerous).
As a final note, there are those people on cable, christians requesting money to feed starving people, I see nothing wrong with that, and I think that is a good cause, although the cause of religion is not any good. but, look at Pat Robertson, here this guy requests money for another rolls royce to add to his collection.
I think the words of the VP of Venezuela are good. Robertson's call for murder is a call for terrorism. ("violence" and "homicide" don't register with most people in the US now, because "terror" has been pumped out to them by the millions). In addition, how important to see a person critical of "fundamentalist religion" in South America. The Jesus cult was thrust upon the native american people of south america by the people that conquered the americas from Spain, and I want to see the native (and all) people of the americas through off the shackles and idiocy of religion.
08/23
Pat Robertson is calling for the killing of the nonviolent Hugo Chavez.
This proves that Robertson is a violent criminal.
Plotting homicide of nonviolent people, 1st degree "cold blooded" homicide is illegal.
The aw is refered to as "conspiracy to commit murder".
Why do nonviolent, law abiding people support Robertson?
I was thinking of the history of the stop violence laws.
The assault laws are a recent phenomenon, not nearly as old as the homicide law.
The homicide law is at least as old as the famous old testiment commandent "thou shalt not kill", commandment number 1.
Where was the "Thou shalt not even assault"?
I think the Robertson blood thirsty call for first degree murder, is more evidence that christianity is a dangerous cult.
The past is littered with Chrisitan first degree murder. The phrase attributed to Jesus of "turn the other cheeck", is far removed from the powerful people in the religion that now holds Jesus as their founder. Many of them echo Robertson's views of first strike violence being an acceptable an preferable way of life, even though it is illegal and barbaric. Where are the calls to stop violence around the planet?
Robertson is calling on his massive following to perform murder for him, and I hate to think that some young impressionable people might feel that they should do violence for Robertson (or any other person). I tell you now, don't do violence. Many people that try to do violence get killed in the process. We have much to live for, and we can live in peace, we need to stop all the violence on earth.
I want to add that I don't agree with everything Chavez in Venzuela is doing, but there is no evidence that Chavez has done violence, and if he has, than, like all violent people, they should be captured, arrested, tried and jailed, not physically hurt or killed, obviously, we have laws and civilization.
It's not clear that Chavez is pro-communism, and as always, I am anti-communism, and strongly pro-full-democracy.
Again, it is just terrible that some impressionable young people might be conflicted about the violent blood thirsty message from Robertson. how callous and irresponsible Robertson is to try and influence some poor pawn to do murder for him. Why don't they try to spread peace and love through the planets?
For many religious people, the truth, law, science, civilization is of no value. When we have no homicide laws, the most important law, what does that say about our civilization? The other frightening aspect, is not only the way important laws are ignored, but the way truth and logic is ignored...for many religious truth is of no value, and I think that is a very dangerous reality.
I don't doubt that Robertson actually verbalized what many of the religious conservative republicans think, believe, but don't say in public. His words remind me of a "Geiko" ad where a baseball coach says "I'm takin' you out!". These people are not warm fuzzy people you want to gather the family around to enjoy wholesome good time entertainment, unless your into bloody execution and persecution of the innocent.
08-21-2005
8/19
q: Life on earth is a 4 billion year old unbroken chain. 4 billion years at least, and maybe even more.
8/17
I feel like telling people: "welcome to the democratic party, where we expose Thane Cesar and Frank Fiorini, Bush senior's connection to the killing of JFK, where we speak out against violence, for freeing the nonviolent, against arresting people for drug use, selling sex, and where we openly expose the lies of 9/11. Who that other party is, we don't know...but the feeling is that they are a rebellious adjunct of the Republican party." There are like 4 or 5 of us, me, the maker of "JFK II", "The Second Gun" (Charach), and a handful of others.
Now we see (although not the actual video - now why is that? Who would have something to hide in not showing a subway video camera?) that the person shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder casually walked on the train and sat down, and was in a denim jacket, not an overcoat. What is shocking is how dishonest the so-called eye-witnesses were. Wow, am I glad for ameras, the humans are a total diappointment. Maybe this was a death sentence given on a subway for a person that was involved in the subway bombings. If yes, than I think the court system is a far better way to punish people. But, the public claim from people in the UK government is that the person was not even involved, which makes it a first degree homicide, perhaps with tiny extenuating circumstances. Without doubt the person or persons that shot still unidentified to the public) should definately be banned from owning or using loaded guns or explosives. In addition, the person ought to be charged with some form of homicide. It is shocking how little value is given to human life in this century. Perhaps because so little value is given to the lives of the other species. I don't know, but it is clear, that humans care very little for punishing, stopping or even identifying homicide. Then 43! people were killed in a bomb in Bagdad today. Maybe some street cameras would at least expose where many of these bombs originate from.
For any people in science and education that voted for Bush jr, look at how he is dismantling evolution in schools, and adding christianity to the schools. It is ironic, I think, to see people in education and science that voted for Bush jr, because here, Bush jr, is dismantling their career by dismantling science. It is pure idiocy in my mind. The religious help their cause, they funded and brought one of their own to power, on the opposite side of the spectrum, what have the truthful and pro-science done? Who have they catapulted to the top? No one, many of them supported the christian representative Bush jr. It is really a secret, perhaps, that we in science should not be hiring or promoting the religious, in particular the christians. They are already too dangerous, their message is already too powerful and influential, dangerously influential. Their message is lawless, violent, illogical, dishonest.
8/16
I think it is kinda cool, that humans may buy ships that are more like houses as life grows to and moves between the planets and stars. Even in earth orbit, we will start to see "three story" ships, equipped with steering and fuel tank (perhaps the fuel will be standard blocks of iron or platinum [one of the densest atoms] attached to the back or bottom of each ship), and the usual, bedrooms, bathrooms (water will probably be recycled, and I am sure will be atomically pure, because I doubt like now people will pipe water, or electricity from ship to ship). I was thinking that, I may have to even throw away the idea of a huge ship going to other stars...(although perhaps there might be reasons for a big ship, based on the engine, or speed requirements...or perhaps other reasons)...I see no reason that, like modern highways and airways, smaller individual ships could easily take well travelled paths to the closest stars (again, there are serious time limits on how fast humans in the current form can accelerate, and therefore how fast they can move, in addition to serious limits on engine designs that can only use photons to propel them). Along those highways, maybe there would be "truck stops" and mini cities where people get supplies, where rescue operations are launched, where more fuel can be obtained (the entire idea of trading is kind of interesting if matter can be easily converted into any form, but I don't doubt that converting matter will take some matter to do, so existing forms of matter may have more value...it's interesting that a bar of iron is commonplace, and contains the equivalent of 8 times [or something] the amount of H20, but if a human is thirsty atoms of already made water would probably be more valuable...it all depends on what humans value, I like to get paid in hot babes...ahaha.)
There may be a time when the public changes to support people like me, the honest people.
At this time, they prefer to be lied to. They would rather be treated like children.
The truth is too upsetting for them, too shocking or upsettingto believe.
They are promoting those that will lie to them, sending those people into great wealth and power.
But I think that the time is coming for our group, the honest. I feel strongly that people
will eventually get smart and support the truth. In fact, history has slowly been moving that way.
People are not burned at the stake for Christian heresy in the western nations any more, slavory was outlawed,
women have the right to vote. Eventually, the honest may rise to the top, instead of wallowing at the bottom of income and influence.
08-14-2005
I think in the future, our strongest friends and long term allies are not going to be our sex partners. I think the two forms of love are not really related. Long term love based on philosophical agreement is of a familiar nature while I think sexual love is based on a new never experienced nature, where people that are familiar to us are not sexy. Perhaps the future will be different where sexuality is closely related to philosophical long term friendships. It's tough to know for sure, because, I doubt people will want to have sex with people that have too many philosophical differences. Mainly when I am talking about an interest in variety it relates to physical appearance (including face, race, shape, etc). And I think that when the idiotic taboos are removed from sex, perhaps people will view sex between long term friends less uncomfortably, as a natural thing like handing a friend a toilet paper.
In the future, humans may reproduce and make many children that move between planets and stars, some may come to be long term allies with their parent, others may not. I wonder if the idea of a family unit that lives together will last as we see walking robots, moving between planets and stars, and people being more honest about there sexual preferences and acceptableness (with no chance of disease) of sex with a variety of different people. There is no doubt that young humans will stay near one or both parents for years until reaching maturity. I don't doubt that humans will definately make new humans that do not age within the next 1000 years. Then life of earth will be a different game altogether. Reproductions may be very carefully regulated, or many people will probably go hungry or thirsty (unless humans can grow at a rate to accumulate enough matter to feed the growing life). Since no humans will be dying (or less humans will be), more and more matter will be being converted into humans (where before it was being recycled). In addition, matter will need to be converted into water and oxygen to maintain the growing unaging life of earth.
The phenomenon of democracy appears to me to be a phenomenon of those at the bottom toppling those at the top. It has always been a battle between the powerless versus the powerful. The lower income majority versus a higher income minority. Eventually in most populations, the majority (the lower income), come to win. It's more fair, since they are the majority, and how terrible those in power and with wealth abuse their advantage to lie, cover up the truth, to keep secret advanced technology they have the wealth to see first, my experience is that most of those in power are almost always terrible. They are overpaid, do little or nothing for those below, ignore popular opinion, and every word out of their mouth is a lie to the majority.
History is full of examples, of the majority or the powerless overthrowing the minority of the powerful. The US rebellion against England, the French rebellion against the French monarchy, the Russian overthrow of the monarchy, ...
I think it is clear that the truth about Fiorini, Thane Cesar, the eye images, the ceililng lasers, the moving of muscles... all of it is going to come out to the public. We know it is. It has to happen. No secret can be kept that long. The truth is very tough to suppress. Maybe that will not happen for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years...maybe not even for 00 years, or even 300 years...I find that hard to believe. If I had to guess, I would say within 50 years, certainly no more than 100 years. And what will happen when all those images come pouring out? How will the public react? Will they quietly accept the past crimes, and slowly try to jail those exposed as killers of humans? Or will they react very harshly against those that kept the secrets? Will there be nuremberg type trials for thousands of people? My feeling is that the release of all those imag