Opinions 2006 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
12-18-06 to 12-22-06 Relativity grew from the Fitzgerald space-contraction idea to save the ether theory after the Michelson-Morley experiment. Idea of time t being the same for all matter and space everywhere in the universe no matter what velocity.
12-12-06 to 12-15-06
11-14-06 to 12-08-06
11-18-06 Democrats win majority in Senate and Congress, alternatives to Repubs being "thumped". Top list of things I am voting for and working towards as one of many popular leaders. Greenwald vids. Maxwell theory that heat is velocity of particles as relates to photons that may be variable or constant velocity with perfect elasticity.
11-05-06 more good vids, 9/11 done by first timers? sky lobbies blown, Pentagon dumpsters, Sheehan anti-gay, those who claim to know what a god wants, repubs are reckless, hydrogen+oxygen probably fuel of future, laser weapons, saddam death
10-21-06 Different tricks of the insiders in the thought-cam net, like make you swallow wrong, twitch yer eye muscle, etc
10-15-06 my views on the next election
10-13-06 Forget the globalists, Pnac, IMF, Bilderberg, the true powerful are the godders, antisexuals, psychologers, prohibitionists, thought-camera net, violentists, anti-full-democratists, anti-full-free-informationalists. Clear truths that fly in the face of the popular science.
09-22-06 Mechanical clocks tick more slowly the fast they move? The stuff I want to see if ever included into the camera thought net (so-called PSIGI)
09-15-06 Exploring photons obeying Newton's laws (speed of light not constant).
09-08-06 Einstein wrongly viewed light and everything else as two different things. Our descendents=spherical? from adapting to life with no gravity. Can planets explode/nova? It's the same time here as everywhere in the universe. We can disagree but let's make damn sure we jail murderers! Julian's 4th century CE criticisms of Christianity. The neocons stuffing their pockets with money and the poor children that lose their lives for them. Possible "gravity partially powered" electrical generator.
08-25-06 The cult of Jesus gave us the 9/11 mass murder. There is a massive unpunished violent criminal empire operating on earth. Astronomy and physics need to grow up like biology has. PSIKI. Was Hell created to be anti-Hellenic?
08-11-06 Nobody should have to live under a law that they do not get to vote on. Haltan Arp red-shift theories. Top 13 biggest mistaken beliefs of the 21st and 20th centuries.
08-04-06 This is like an Interrogation Nation and a constant Bad Suggestion Session. Nazi hunting for anti-9/11-truth people caught: Sciam and Shermer.
07-28-06 secretly hearing thought has turned average people into monsters, San Diego experience, public must view liars as telling truth and honest as lying
07-14-06 pulled over, is your child violent? or antisexual?, JFK DVD "The Case for Conspiracy", Tarpley
07-10-06 Internet voting, Ultra close votes hint at corruption, fragile earth, dual nature of atoms
07-03-06 Some person smashed my front driver's side window
06-30-06 Flag burning law fails by one vote, evolutionists being decimated by antievolutionists in terms of free videos, Morgan Reynolds
06-27-06 Excluded exclusive interview with murderer
06-26-06 Denton suicide, 10 secret technologies, 9/11 boils down to two theories for excluded, TP holds number 7 and 11 for "science" duration:long video.google.com
06-20-06 How about a "Public Thought Ipod" where the public gets $1 for each 3 minute thought listened to? Narrowing in on actual 9/11/01 story. Do objects eventually orbit each other in zero gravity?
06-09-06 The Pupin-thought-camera net owns and controls everything except our mouth muscles 100% of the time. How many times, are people going to have to quote "Loose Change" before justice is done?
06-07-06 A future universe of mostly globular galaxies? History of various kinds of cell reproduction (binary fission, budding, etc) important to understand. Primary Election Results
06-06-06 Major media all going with "Omen" theme (why not "Amityville" or "Exorcist"? or everybody different?), intermediate galaxies, many in China don't recognize "Tiananmen tank man", just like many in USA don't recognize images of Sturgis, Cesar, and Pupin.
06-02-06 Going to other stars, anti-gay marriage bill: how tolerant and warm and important.
05-31-06 Large amounts of rudeness in "Rude Idiot County". Southern California where the weather is the nicest but the people are the rudest. Recipe for instant rude person: just add camera-thought net
05-25-06 FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. Sex chromosomes oldest? Naked Guy death
05-18-06 What I tell childhood friends: what a terrible history the earth has, and we had no idea then.
05-16-06 Woke up, got out of bed, and a person used a laser to make me itch my nose
05-15-06 sexuality is a Molehill, the 9/11 inside job, Iraq and violence are a Mountain
05-13-06 My Votes for 06/06/06 election, updated 5/14/06
05-11-06 More comments on Bush clapping 4 times just after WTC2 collision. What if an academic was President? Like Einstein or Sagan?
05-10-06 rise in global epidemic of violence, religion and lies due to rise of neocons, full democracy not anarchy, time same here as in Andromeda? what were their last thoughts? Media, are less news reporters and more bulk ad sellers and distributors. Bush claps 4 times after second WTC collision.
05-08-06 What happens when everybody knows about 9/11, FF and TC? Saw Colbert video
05-05-06 Actual News: Orange County Nazis in true form thanks to Public Access Bush Documentary. There are only two basic 9/11 theories (reichstag or hijackers). Why do individuals have to do what major media and democrats have millions to do?
05-04-06 Vicente Fox goes back on word aligns with US naziistic neocons
05-03-06 small amounts of drugs legal in Mexico, non-sexual molestors with photon projectiles escape punishment, no soda in school, new public access shows
04-24-06 Ed Davis, Paul Wellstone, Cynthia McKinney, deemployed CIA woman
04-23-06 Next big police state move: We will be stopped at checkpoints and our pockets and computers searched for pornography
04-21-06 video.google.com is where it's at
04-20-06 This text is never going to match the secret videos
04-06-06 Words of encouragement to the excluded.
04-05-06 grew a bladder. life for me in OC like Neidermeyer to Flounder, but Neidermeyer is everybody.
04-04-06 How many of you like to be insulted? How many like to be zapped? made to itch? I think we have an overwhelming majority...why isn't our view in power though?
04-03-06 taxes, 9/11 videos
03-30-06 Carroll freed, arab virginia guy gets 30 years, stem cells from sperm producing cells
03-28-06 Earth passed Spring Equinox, many birds are singing
03-27-06 Bush suggests painting plane
03-23-06 Eukaryote nucleus probably was a prokaryote. 4 more public access shows, US gov consolodation, lower military spending to next closest nation=lower taxes
03-22-06 we need democracy damn soon!
03-20-06 Agnostics, Atheists, Buddists, Christians, Godders, Hindi, Islamists, Judeists, Zoroasterans, can all live in peace united as nonviolentists
03-17-06 1900s="century of lies". Portman movie. Lopez Obrador. Recent Iraq bombing
03-14-06 My views on what our government should spend on
03-13-06 Future of this star system. OC trial raises interesting issues.
03-10-06 What Thane Cesar will say in 2008
03-09-06 What do: Michael Jackson filmers, Tommy Chong, and Martha Stewart have in common?
03-08-06 Vote to ban violent people from access to beaming images and sounds onto brains. The Terry Hatcher molestation.
03-07-06 Proud of the AP to go to court for the names of those locked in jail without trials
03-06-06 Oscars, Voting for Conservatives is voting for more violence
03-03-06 Eukaryote nuclei=bacteria captured in sex? Glitter sentenced to 3 years
03-02-06 Prokaryote origin of eukaryote nucleus. The current danger of psychology
02-27-06 Future where people focus on sex and science?
02-24-06 Cody Posey kills 3 gets 40 days until possible parole
02-23-06 More words of wisdom from a kindly elderly gent
02-21-06 Time from spiral to elliptical=100 trillion years?
02-17-06 UN wants Guantanamo closed, Attorney General should be elected
02-16-06 http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ free audio shows
02-15-06 First sex on earth homosexual? Monomultiism
02-10-06 Logic versus sexual fever, Jill Carroll
02-08-06 Sex Slaves/"The Day My God Died"
02-07-06 The Newspaper headlines that should have been
02-06-06 Full email to Michael Moore
02-03-06 Stew Albert died at 66, avagadro
02-02-06 CHP video shooting
02-01-06 one more alternative to expanding universe, denuded Hydrogen (proton) combustion possible?
01-31-06 Alito confirmed, Female postal person, trampling love
01-30-06 Kirk Cameron free info-mercial on atheism. How the left and right wings should be in my opinion.
01-29-06 Castro is not left-wing to me, Castro is a dictator. What should be basic left-wing and right-wing ideals.
01-28-06 butane lighter may not be nuclear if mass is lost from electrons, but I have doubts
01-27-06 Which nation will be first to go public about hearing thought? What if France does?
01-22-06 This group of Republicans in power are not the enforcers of violent laws, they are violators of violent laws.
01-20-06 one of my cheapo bikes was stolen, wgbh video comments, wecht indicted. Canada election.
01-19-06 wgbh videos, Roberts and Scalia vote together, how about public 51% overrule law? Nigeria actually kills homosexuals.
01-17-06 Everybody has a calling, found "The Thought-Reading Machine" 1937 book
01-12-06 hundreds killed in Islamic ceremony, simple combustion
01-11-06 flying car may be compact helicopter
01-10-06 voyeurism secretly passed all other "kinks" and is unquestionably number 1!
01-09-06 simple problems with modern science
01-06-06 More shyten
01-05-06 living forever
01-04-06 living forever
01-03-06 Haught in Penthouse in 1990, Journey to Centauri song complete
01-02-06 Liberals must walk plank when a hair is out of place, conservatives start war killing thousands but don't get so much as a warning
12-18-06 to 12-22-06
12/18/06
I think what we need to worry about with electing conservatives is 24/7
9/11 7/7.
I found a very valuable puzzle piece of information in the history of
science. In 1889, George FitzGerald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Francis_FitzGerald
and http://understandingscience.ucc.ie/pages/sci_georgefrancisfitzgerald.htm),
came up with an explanation to save the ether theory, that was threatened
by the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and that explanation was
that matter contracts in the direction of motion just enough to allow
light to appear to move the same velocity in every direction. And this is
the concept of time and space dilation, that the faster an object is
moving (presumably relative to all other objects in the universe), the
more compressed the matter is. So everybody can see that this concept or
time and space dilation is a fundamental part of the General Theory of
Relativity, and everybody openly admits that this explanation to save the
theory of an "ether" which fills space is the ancestor of the theory of
relativity. Most people probably don't know this little piece of history.
In addition, Einstein dropped the idea of an ether (although I think this
is an important point that needs to be fully researched....since Einstein
adopted space dilation, and space dilation is a fundamental requirement
and the only difference between relativity and newtonian physics, isn't it
possible that Einstein also believed in the ether and light as a wave?
perhaps only just initially?), but retained the excuse FitzGerald provided
to save the theory of an ether (which Isaac Asimov explained is as old as
Aristotle). So, as a theory, which may be inaccurate, but one I am
entertaining, we should try to put ourselves back in 1889, and this idea
is that there are really two schools of thought, traditionalists who grew
up with ether theory, and modernists who supported Michelson's new view
without an ether. And I think one of the appeals of the general theory of
relativity (which Michelson rejected), is that it preserved the ether
theory (although not explicitly, and did infact explicity, according to
Asimov, reject the concept of ether). So these two schools exist even now,
its basically traditionalists and modernists, although in some way by
supporting Newton a person who rejects space-dilation might be viewed as a
traditionalist. In any event, this story about FitzGerald, I think shows
clearly that relativity is a descendent of the ether theory and that is
strong evidence that space dilation is inaccurate (beyond the other
explanations I have already offered). It has been 100 years of this 1800s
belief of ether and it is shocking how many people believe relativity.
Through history there are branchpoints such as the branch at Michelson and
FitzGerald, another exists with Aristarchos and ...(the earth centered,
this will persist for 1700 years and is perhaps the longest running
mistake in science on earth), another with the creation of the ether
theory (Aristotle and ...?), a very distinct one with Newton/Biot and
Thomas Young, one with Pupin and ...William Taft (and many others,
wikipedia hints that this was because of affairs he [and no doubt other
married men had] that would become public) and no doubt the openly racist
Woodrow Wilson and many many others?. And what we see is that those with
the more accurate view lose to those with a less accurate explanation. So
it is interesting to me to look at those people who were the more accurate
but lost the battle of popularity (Biot and Michelson being two prime
examples). It's interesting that there was a second "Albert" besides
Einstein, also a Jewish German speaking person living in the USA, "Albert
Michelson", whose views, as far as I can understand, were set in stark
contrast to Albert Einstein's, and are the more accurate. So I would list
the main arguments against relativity as being accurate as: 1) time is
probably the same throughout the universe 2) relativity is directly
descended from an excuse to save the ether theory 3) relativity rejects
the idea of photons as being matter and views them as separate from mass.
It's amazing that people actually claim that the Michelson-Morley
experiment actually helped the theory of relativity, and I think they are
missing a simple point that space dilation, the basis of relativity, was
created to accomodate the ether (or aether) theory. As an interesting
aside, Newton also believed in an aether, although rejected light as a
wave resulting from the movement of aether, thinking aether to be made of
smaller particles that interact with light particles (according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). This page explains
this: "Lorentz and Fitzgerald offered a more elegant solution to how the
motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction),
but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity
(1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether
at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor." So here, Einstein took this
matter-dilation excuse and incorporated it into the theory of relativity,
but removed the idea of a aether, theorizing that empty space itself
contracts. But that length contracting to explain the Michelson
experiment, was to defend the theory of the earth moving through an
aether...so relativity in my view is a total mistaken mixup...a mix of the
length-dilation to prop up the aether theory to satisfy the
traditionalists mixed with a sprinkling of new no-aether claim to satify
the modernists...that froze theoretical physics in 1905 (although this
freezing started with FitzGerald in 1889, and the aether theory was a
plague in theoretical physics long before). Another interesting point is
that the Doppler shift for light, I think is completely compatible with
Newtonian and Euclidean geometry. No trickery or other dimensions are
needed to explain that a source emitting photons moving with a velocity
relative to an observer will see the distance between the photons change
relative to the original frequency (for example the known frequency of the
spectral lines for sodium). In the view I support, although we should keep
an open mind, particles of light do travel along with the light source
(but in my view captured in atoms until they are released). But when
released from an atom, photons do not add in the velocity of the source
(which is a collective velocity of many photons captured in the form of
atoms), relative to some observer, in my view because the source also is
made of photons. So no object made of photons is going to be able to
accelerate or increase the velocity of photons being emitted. Any object
that nears the velocity of a photon could only be reduced to a single
photon, no tangle of photons will ever attain the speed of a single
photon, since two (or more) photons in orbit of each other will never move
in a straight line. In some way, relative to the velocity of photons, the
light source, a collection of photons, is basically at rest relative to
the exiting photon, when the photon exits the other photons of the source.
For example, imagine in this single frame or instant of time all the
photons are in fixed locations, frozen in time. Then in the next instant
of time all photons are in new positions (since none can ever be still,
although this is still a debate). We see that within the realm of photons,
collective, larger scale velocity, for example relative to the earth, the
size a human would observe is a meaningless quantity. I'm not entirely
happy with this explanation, and I will revisit this central idea of: why
do particles of light appear to not add in the velocity of the light
source. My basic simple answer for now it that light sources are made of
photons and at the scale of photons, the larger accumulation of photons in
atoms of, for example a flashlight have no influence on photons emitted.
This is a universe, in my view, of photons responding to gravity, the
larger, cumulative objects the result of many many countless photons. When
we look around us...it's unbelievable to me, how many particles we see in
a single glimpse. A few dead leaves blow by...each leaf has quadrillions
of atoms....each atom quadrillions of photons...and that is just a tiny
leaf, one of thousands, on a tiny planet, one of quadrillions of
planets...there is simply a very very inconceivably large number of
photons in just the theoretically tiny part of the universe we can see,
and whatever that number is, is far smaller than the number of
photon-sized spaces.
Getting back to a moving light source: Only a change of frequency is
detected in a moving light source, and photons are separated by more or
less distance from each other because of the velocity of the source.
Because of this the Doppler shift does happen for the frequency of
photons. Beyond this, a startling conclusion I think can be reached in the
theory that particles of light may not always maintain a constant
velocity, the one exception being when they collide with each other (that
is if they collide with each other), as in light reflecting off a mirror,
which may be similar to water drops bouncing into a pool or rubber balls
bouncing off each other. Understanding particles of light, which in my
view combine to form all other forms of matter, is in my opinion, the key
to understanding the physics of the universe (in addition, an explanation
of electricity using only gravitation must be accounted for). But this
idea of a constant velocity of light may still serve as an important part
of the explanation in the view I support. And this is that there may be a
limit on the force of gravity when two photons are very close together,
and perhaps even touching with a distance between them of 0. While in
Newton's equation this would cause a gravitational force of infinity, in
actuality, perhaps the universe has a limit, perhaps on this distance, or
more likely in my view, on the force of attraction between two or more
particles that can be obtained. And so this may be why particles of light
have a constant velocity, it is the fastest velocity that can be attained
given the force of gravity, and the force of gravity is too small to
significantly change the direction or velocity of photons, so they
maintain that velocity in the absence of any friction or collisions. Even
collisions, which can only be with other photons, preserve this velocity,
but change the direction of the photons...in some sense the photon
probably does reach an instant 0 velcity for an instant [this is a major
question of physics too...is there a delay in photon-photon collisions?]
and then completely reverse directions, the simple description is that
each photon exchanges velocit (and it is a perfectly elastic collision, no
velocity is lost at all). These ideas are still being developed in my
mind, and I don't doubt they will change over time.
In my view relativity is an epidemic of "crystal math" as opposed to math
which describes the actual universe.
This is interesting: I just got one of Michelson's books "Studies in
Optics", published by the U of Chicago Press in 1927 with reprints in 1962
and 1968. In this book, there is an asterisk to a note in the beginning of
the book on the chapter titled "Relativity". The asterisk leads to the
very first page of the book where a note from Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
explains "Michelson adopts a cautious attitude, sometimes giving the
impression of skepticism. Such an attitude was justifiable at the time in
view of the revolutionary character of the theory. However, at the present
time the experimental basis for special relativity is so wide and the
theoretical ramifications so many that there can no longer be any doubt
about its validity." and I think that is amazing. I mean that is really
unusual. Why would people go to such trouble to remove doubt about the
theory of relativity? You might have thought you were getting a book by
Michelson, as it turns out, that is not entirely true. To any decent
historian of science this brings memories of the story of Copernicus, how
his publisher inserted a statement about how the sun-centered theory was
only a mathematical convenience and doesn't apply to reality.
Chandrasekhar was also at the University of Chicago, where Michelson
taught, and maybe that explains why he was selected by ? some person to
insert this note before Michelson's work. Chandrasekhar won a Nobel prize
for his theory of the Chandrasekhar limit, a theory I highly question.
Eddington opposed this Chandrasekhar theory. So many theories have been
tainted by the inaccurate theory of space-dilation (relativity), and this
Chandrasekhar limit, I think, is one of them. To me, first, I think we can
rule out the existence of black holes, because they are a prediction based
on space-dilation. Beyond that, I even question the idea of red giant and
neutron stars (I am not saying they are absolutely false, but I am
skeptical). This also involves Michelson's size measurement of Betelguese,
which I want to learn more about, being much of the basis for the belief
in red giant stars. But the Chandrasekhar limit, black-holes and any
theory descended from space-dilation, which is, in effect, the ether
theory, I think is very doubtful. What happens, I think, is that, a
majority believes some theory, and many times, wealth has an influence,
and all opposition is crushed. What we have had in physics has been 100
years of a completely inaccurate basis, in my humble view. It is so
interesting that people can not just let Michelson's views and criticisms
stand as they are, they actively try to squash them. I am sure there are
other examples of mistakes Michelson made which have since been
corrected...where are the notes explaining them? After reading this
chapter, there is no clear objection to relativity. It is unusual to me
that Michelson echos the same proofs of relativity: the perihelon of
mercury, the displacement of light from a distant star around the eclipsed
sun, and electrons gaining mass as they are accelerated, and the
displacement of solar spectral lines, although Michelson, unlike most
other people, indicate that the "copuscular" theory of Newton predicted
different values (to this day, I have yet to see the math behind these two
examples, or the experimental images themselves. A theory that is thought
to be proven with only three reason experimentally tested once.). Perhaps
because there is no other alternative theory, Michelson appears to lend
support to the theory of relativity. But here again is this shocking view
that space dilation created to explain the presence of an ether is the
main component of relativity, but that relativity removes the theory of an
ether. It is interesting that the view Michelson gives is a common view,
that, for example, the displacement of solar spectral lines comes after
the theory of relativity...but wait...isn't the Doppler shift for light
already known by then? Maybe I am wrong, but this is an important point.
Because I have the feeling that people took known phenomena and then
claimed that relativity predicted them before they were known. All the
science historians take this view, and it is doubtful in my view, but how
could they all be wrong? Reading more from Michelson's "Light Waves and
Their Theories", it seems like much of what Michelson does is to try and
disprove the ether theory, in this book, he rejects the corpuscular (or
particle) theory of light. It's amazing to me, when and why did the
particle theory of light fall out of favor? I think it was with Thomas
Young, but it did supposedly come back, some claim with Einstein, but I
think that is hard to believe, because space-dilation is an ether theory
that was adapted to a non-ether theory. Michelson appears to take a
position supportive of relativity, as opposed to what I thought, that he
was part of a an opposing school, at least publically, it would be
interesting to see and hear his thoughts recorded before his death
perhaps...he died in 1931. Michelson does indicate that as a counter to
the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of matter, they tried substituting a
support of wood for one of stone and get the same result saying "Such a
hypothesis seems rather artificial, and it of course implies that such
contractions are independent of the elastic properties of the material.".
This is a new one to me...that all matter from a thick stone to a porous
sponge contract the same amount because of a velocity of a light source
relative to an observer (or possibly to the rest of matter in the
universe, which is an interesting issue: we only know something has a
velocity because we see it compared to some other object...perhaps even
ourselves. For example I think there might be a basic mistake if people
are measuring proper motions of stars without comparing to distant
galaxies, because they would all be based relative to the earth, and not
some distant comparably unmoving point. How do we know how much velocity
[relative to we observing here on earth] of star1 is the earth's, and then
how much of star2's velocity is that same quantity?). So Michelson came up
with another criticism, that it seems unlikely that contraction of matter
would be the same for all matter no matter how dense. This is not entirely
removed if Einstein claims that it is space that contracts. Some of my own
criticisms of the aether theory: what is the composition of aether if not
atoms or photons? It seems unlikely that there is any other matter in the
universe besides photons. It seems unlikely to me that just the space that
has matter moving with velocity would contract, leaving the space without
matter (having thus no velocity) uncontracted. I feel good that at least
publically and on record, Michelson openly expresses doubts about the
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction in 1927.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
in 1920 Einstein said:
"...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general
theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this
ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." So I think it is very
logical to think that Einstein believed in an ether in the universe at
least up until 1920, and that includes the entire time of creation of the
theory of relativity. This also implies that Einstein viewed light as a
wave which is transmitted by latitudinal vibrations in an ether. I think
the key thing is to do more experiments to show that the perihelon of
Mercury can result from Newtonian physics (again the only difference
between the two being space-time dilation), that clocks and other objects
move at their usual speed no matter what velocity relative to the earth or
some other reference point. The experiments that we all can see are going
to be the most convincing I think, while theoretical proofs are probably
less convincing. One point of these light experiments is that, light is so
small, and so fast, that I can't imagine there can be real precision and
certainty in any experiment done, until perhaps more time, and the natural
progression of development of engineering/invention as we move to live on
other planets and the planets of other stars. For example, new
experiments will be possible once we have people and robots on even a
single different planet...we can then measure a larger parallax of the
stars. Then when we are talking between two stars, an even larger
parallax, in addition to a larger collective telescope the effective size
of 4 light years for example.
12/20/06
I want to just add more notes about Michelson. Asimov ends his paragraph
on an "F" word which may mean that Michelson voted against the public
knowing about hearing thought. (Those in favor usually get words beginning
with A, S, Y, while those against words begining in N, and F), althought,
as I say, this may not have been Asimov's intention, but I can imagine
those included, as Asimov must have been, would not hesitate to hint a
little more of the story as revealed by archived survalience video and
thought images to the excluded public...those images add tremendously to
the story of a person, although in the current nazistic order they are
forbidden from explicitly stating. In 1920 Michelson opens his book with a
statement about how some science has had a deep impact on "my own mind",
and I think this is his acknowledging that he hears and sees thought,
being a professor at the University of Chicago, it seems likely he would
learn quickly about Pupin's work although kept secret (It is intersting to
see if any news stories, or any writing, perhaps in Pupin's archive reveal
more info about his seeing and hearing thought accomplishments...if they
did exist they probably have gone the way of so many other valuable
documents - through our criminal FBI and CIA. Michelson clearly was not
the hero I had hoped for, also apparently showing some bias towards male
supremecy (neutral hypothetical people, for example "for the person that
wants to experiment" are put in the male gender, ie "he that may want to
experiment", etc. This was around the time, women were just finally
winning the right to vote in the USA (1920).
One thing that is really a terrible aspect of these years is, although
perhaps many people may not realize it, antisexuality (and maybe more
appropriately anti-pleasure) has wide-spread popularity and serves as the
single most strong unifying factor among people of today. Even stronger
than anti-violence, anti-sexuality reigns unquestionably supreme. How else
could so many people care so little about the 9/11 mass murders? The
murders in Iraq, murders in the USA, the killers of Bonnie Bakely, Jam J,
JFK, MLK, RFK, Chandra Levy, (the list is in the millions of unsolved
unpunished homicides in the US alone) etc? One key example that is hard to
refute is the fact that there is a sex offender registry but no violent
offender registry. What this says clearly is that sex offending people are
far more hated and feared than violent offenders, such as non-sexual
assaulters, even murderers. Even murderers! Even murderers released from
prison are not required to have their current information made public for
all to see. No "murderer registry" is shocking, but even no "non-sexual
violent-crime"...even a simple "assaulter registry" is also an indication
that the laws against violent are not as popular as the laws against
sex-related crimes. It says that people are more afraid of their child
being sexually fondled than violently assaulted. Maybe people will
disagree with me, but I think the logic is hard to argue with. And I think
people should ask themselves about some of these comparisons: "which is
worse, unconsensual genital fondling or unconsensual violent assault?".
And there are a series of questions I think people should answer for
themselves. If given a choice, would they rather:
have their genitals fondled or be punched hard enough to leave a lasting
bruise?
genitals fondled or be stabbed?
genitals fondled or be shot nonfatally with no permanent damage?
etc.
and then even among the violent crime something as brutal as anal rape
sounds not as bad as other non-sexual assaults:
if you have only a choice between the two would you rather be:
anally raped or punched in a way that causes pain but no bruise
anally raped or punched with sufficient force to get a bruise (for example
a black eye)
anally raped or stabbed, but nonfatally, with only scarring and no other
permanent damage?
anally raped or an ulna bone fractured?
anally raped or an ulna bone broken?
anally raped or an finger bone bone fractured?
anally raped or an finger bone bone broken?
for me, the answer to almost every question is overwhelmingly and most
certainly that I would rather have genitals touched or anal rape (in
particular if there was the option of vaseline, or something to remove any
aspect of serious pain...I mean in a protology exam the doctor puts their
fingers in people's rectum...mostly the fear is embarrasment and loss of
sexual purity, not from actual pain) instead of any kind of violence that
gives lasting pain and/or damage. I mean there are some minor assults
where I probably would prefer the assault to anal rape, for example a tiny
laser burn or something, so long as there is no lasting mark on the skin
or any permanent damage. And clearly, any assault must be stopped, and all
assaulters punished with some kind of jail time, and I offer the idea of
small amounts of jail for small assaults, such as hours and days.
But the majority of society have the exact opposite view, apparently. I
think a very important service needs to be done by somebody and when I am
older maybe I will do some of this. This service is to report to the
public what crimes are being prosecuted and how many, and then what the
various jail sentences that are being handed out are. For example, this
person Vesches in Newport Beach was sentenced by an Orange County judge to
100 years for sucking the toes of children, but assaulters and even
murderers go free. 70+% voted this latest law that sex offenders must be
permanently manicled with GPS tracking, while murderers and non-sexual
assaulters do not need to be. It's something that blows my mind, honestly.
And this antisexuality is a powerhouse victory for republicans
conservative violent murdering criminals. This antisexuality is the ticket
to freedom for the 9/11 murders, and all murderers and assaulters. I think
there needs to be a registry of "violent nonsexual offenders", "violent
sexual offenders", "nonviolent sexual offenders". Maybe later people may
vote for "abduction offenders" (those who have abducted a person),
"restraining offenders" (those who have restrained a person, or confined
them to an unreasonably small or limited volume of space). Beyond this, we
live in a society filled with child assaulters. Both my parents assaulted
me (although only once or twice by spanking, one slap, etc...very minor
assaults and much less than most parents). My mom was brutally assaulted
with a belt on at least one occassion by her father. I routinely ask
people if they were spanked and if they spank, and the answer is almost
always yes...well...that is assault of a child...it is plain and
simple....there is no law protecting those who assault children to my
knowledge, in this ultra-violent society, the public simply chooses to
allow it...there is an unwritten law defending an adults right to assault
(in particular slapping their buttocks) any child born from their ovum or
sperm. Perhaps one should be enacted because there are so many child
assaulters out there who feel no hesitation to openly confess that they do
or did assault their child in the form of "spanking" or "belting". In my
view, no nonviolent child deserves to be assaulted, and for a violent
child, some kind of safe, violence and torture-free no-involuntary-work
imprisonment punishment is a better answer in my view. But just knowing
that people routinely assault children shows how barbaric and backward
this group of adults in the USA and on earth is. They send their kids
strapped up into head to head crunching pee-wee football, but children
kissing and touching is a no-no. Then to realize that young people, mostly
males, spend age 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, ...7 or 8 solid years where
they desparately crave the nude females they see in magazines, for whom it
is absolutely illegal upon vicious imprisonment and public ostrification
for any adult female to allow them to touch. It's a recipe for young male
violence, for young males to suffer hyper embarassment, confusion and
deparation about sexuality. And it's all in the name of religion, marriage
and tradition. Nobody can break the vicious cycle of antisexuality because
it is too embarassing to talk about, and those who do are ostricized as
perverts simply for even mentioning such simple facts.
What explains people's backwards views putting sex crimes as more
important than violent crimes? I don't know, but I think there is an
obsession with sex that violence cannot match. Humans are secretly
obsessed with sex and even pleasure. Maybe it's hormones...I don't
know...but people are absolutely obsessed with everything sexual. Sex gets
way more attention than even murder and certainly violent brutal assault.
Nothing make a heart pound and blood flow more than hearing about
sex-related things...not even stories about violence. But yet, sex is, to
an educated person, a biological process that is common-place, a regular
part of life for many species...something that almost all people will do
at some time in their lives...by all accounts, it should not be such a big
deal...where murder...murder is shocking...murder is terrible...nothing
changes a person's life like murder...a friend, a sibling, a child, a
parent...nothing is more upsetting than losing a friend to murder, but
yet....sex and pleasure seem to dominate when it comes to people's sense
of right and wrong. People seem disproporionately obsessed with genitals
and sex. Perhaps it is a latent sexual frustration, sexual jealousy
(against those getting more than they or getting sex in a way that they
will not permit themselves to, such as in an extra-marrital affair), some
kind of unfulfilled feeling inside them, a view of people having sex and
genital touching as being an endless source of mystery?
I think there may be scientific evidence to support the idea that males
may have more of a driving urgency in obtaining an orgasm than females,
but I don't know. In other words, are the two genders equally desparate
for orgasm or is one more desparate than the other. It seems like common
logic that males are traditionally at least the initiaters of sex, at
least for the human species, it is rare to hear about a female raping a
male, for example. If this is true, I think it is important for people to
realize that males on average are going to experience a stronger urge and
necessity to orgasm/ejaculate than females, and so maybe the feeling and
urgency for orgasm for most females may not apply as equally to the
feeling in most males. Maybe this is incorrect or inaccurate, but I think
if true, it might be helpful for society to realize that most males, in
particular young males, experience a very strong urge, almost requirement
to ejaculate, where females may not feel such an urgent urge. Maybe
females do feel an equivalent desperation or requirement, either way, it
is foolish to ignore, reject, or postpone that natural urge.
I think a person with a more tolerant mind than myself, although I am
entertaining this approach, could easily talk openly to those who wear
crosses about how they found the light of science, and do you believe
evolution? and have you ever heard about evolution? and what an amazing
story it is...and you should check it out...it's better than the stories
about Jesus...etc...but I can't being myself to use that approach, in
particular when the religious are rude (which is usually) to which I
usually throw out the idea of gentle attempts at conversion, and simply
express a vote that they should be let go, not supported, as rude people,
etc. which is also logical...that is a form of education...let them see
the power of those who are against rudeness. I am interested in total free
information, speaking of public registries, as I have said before, I want
a registry of the religious, the church-going, let us know who these
people are, because I don't want to support that Jones-town, cultish,
idiocy. But also the "rude registry", I certainly don't want to support
the rude, in particular the rude for money. Perhaps these are not as
important as the "violent registry" but still it's within the realm of the
first ammendment and free information.
It's amazing to me that Orange County is a lot like Fox television,
because all conversations are conservatives spewing their idiotic hateful
lies and liberals firing back at them. It's so unpleasant, it's like a
constant political warfare. It's so opposite mine, and I would have
guessed most mellow people's philosophy or life-style, but maybe I am
wrong about that. Always, whereever I go there are some agressive people,
many times males, with their "oh gay" (instead of "ok"), always pushing
their backwards intolerant views at me, and generally, I feel oblidged to
respond with "not see you later!" or "thane you! thane you very
much!"...over the years I have taken it upon myself to work together some
responses for common insults such as "freak!" (many times in place of
"free"), "perv", "ped", "retard", "psycho" (in place of "so I go"), "sane"
(instead of saying), etc...but who likes such a method of communication?
It is so unpleasant...it's like on Bill O'Reilly's show...or those two
guys...when they have a liberal...they constantly say "I think yer a nut."
(in particular those who tell the truth about 9/11), and it's on the guest
to defend the truth and go up against the nazi regime with "now that Jesus
cult...now that is sanity!...I mean Jesus brings 'em up from the
dead...Jesus splits the loaves into ten...sounds sane to me", etc. It's
just a shouting match...the nazis on Fox (or at the supermarket...many
times the nazis behind the scenes pay the kids in the supermarkets to spew
their nazi lies and propaganda, mostly along the lines of antigay,
psychology, threats of violence, orders to shutup, etc.) shout out their
filthy lies and then the liberals have to shout back the truth (in
particular that they all watch people in their houses, and have routinely
hear people's thoughts for decades, sturgis killed jfk, thane cesar killed
rfk, 9/11 was an inside job, no building falls to dust like that without
explosives and they know it, they are nazis, they lie for money, they
oppose full democracy, they support murderers, etc.).
Maybe I have noted this before, but let the record clearly reflect openly
and for all times: what is a popular nazi defense to justify homicide? to
justify dishonesty? to support lies and murderers? why none other than
good ol' psychology, and here is one of the most clear and open examples:
"Screw Loose Change". Yes, the reason it's ok to cover up the murder by
republicans of 3000 innocent people, and lie about the truth of
9/11...why? because those people that made "Loose Change" are
insane...that's why. Yes, we can reject the truth about mass murder, all
the clear evidence of an inside job....because...the makers of "Loose
Change" have a mental disease. And as obvious and ridiculously empty as
this claim is, that is the method they are choosing, and they choose this
for a very good reason: because people believe psychology more than
anything else...it's unbelievable. A person being "nuts", "a nut" (this is
commonly used on Fox...as if wiring up and demolishing two skyscrapers
with the employees and rescue workers still inside is a sane idea! and
then to defend such a crime for money or for free...still...sane or
no..it's purely evil...albeit nonviolently evil), "a psycho", on an
on...never "a goddamn killer! hello!", like that woman in Fahrenheit 9/11
"he's a butcher by god!". This time they didn't chose "gay", the hideous
"gay" offensive, nor the "heretic" offensive...the public simply doesn't
buy into heresy...it's going to have to be psycho or gay...yes, they have
not opted for the "perverts!...perverts! wild perverts on the loose!
running wild!"...the antisexuality, psychology...those are the two popular
claims in order to stop the truth, surpringly violence is not one of those
claims, I mean it could be if it relates to sexuality. So isn't that
interesting that the defense against the truth about 9/11 is that the
authors are insane, not any refuting of the claims or evidence (although
some of these nazi swine, like popular mechanics and others do actually
lie about the evidence, the biggest example being their description of the
hole in the pentagon being 40 or something feet wide, when anybody can see
it is no more than 20'...and other bold faced lies...they are banking on
being able to cry for mercy on the court floor....puuuuhleeesszzz....I had
no choice....dont ya see?....). In other 9/11 sell-out news NBC cozied up
to Penn and Teller for more of those Reichstag lies. A white guy sports
caster on NBC news in LA (channel 4, who are total vicious violent nazi
scum as far as I can gleen from what garbage talk they are paid to spew)
said "pull the trigger", and I think this goes to show the violent,
irresponsible, chaos loving nature of those in the major media who watch
the public in their houses and apartments. I think there is a growing
number of people who are ready to punish the major media, and I hope it
happens soon. Mainly, I hope even the individual people are sent to the
economic bottom, and that is definitely what they deserve for all their
lies and violence making abuse with advanced secret technology, but for
sure, that they a fined out of business, and that those they victimized
and violated the privacy, copyrights and minds of are compensated from
whatever remains from their assets and personal holdings. Beyond that,
they they should be never hired, and all video to their mind should be
permanently ended until dead. And even that, will not be fair enough.
Throw in all the record companies and people too, what a bunch of
hypocrite scum those people are.
One interesting theory is that being nice to all people may actually be
the most successful sexual stratagy for a person. It's an interesting
theory, but possibly the person who endures the most verbal abuse without
retaliating or becoming angry may actually sustain the most friends. I
don't know if it is true, but I think on a planet where so many are mean,
a nice person may provide a kind of relief to a person...a nice person
might look very good next to a mean person who is many times automatically
ruled out (there are examples of attraction to mean people, in kind of a
masochistic feeling, but I think these may be somewhat less common). I
just would not be surprised when all thought images and sounds are
analyzed that the most friendly people receive the most thoughts of
arousal, although much has to do with physical beauty, I don't think the
mind inside can be denied. There are many times where a person may be
physically pretty, but they are so mean, rude, and/or so stupid, that it
works against any physical beauty that may have. In some way friendliness
may actually progress into physical pleasure, it may be some kind of a
starting point to a physical friendship, it is just that there is so much
negativity, repression and backwardness around people living now that this
pattern is rarely expressed. I don't think any person can ever be nice all
the time, there is no way I can, it's simply not in my nature to take too
much abuse without sending insults and put-downs back to the source, but
some times I look upon rude people with a kind of curiosity...to try and
understand how their neurons are configured, where society went wrong,
what makes them feel the way they do, why do they strike out at other
people, etc. My advice to those who want pleasure is to try to sustain
friendliness as long as possible...it may work to your advantage in terms
of hooking up for love. It could be simple...some people keep pushing
hate, you can keep pushing love...and eventually...you may find another
person pushing love...but seriously...the probability is against it, in
particular if you are excluded from the camera-thought net, you can rule
out love with included, for them it's like loving a blind person, or a
person with a disability, they would not be able to think to each other
and it is frustrating, even for casual love, but there is no casual love
because of the rigid climate and secrecy in these decades, but even so,
there are excluded pushing love too, but many are unknowingly the victims
of the republican hate image sending machines, still, your work in
spreading love may have an effect, and it certainly is the best method
available as far as I know.
12/21/06
I support the "swarm defense", where violent people are overpowered by
stop violence people, captured, and jailed for their violence. Whereever
there is a bully, thug or aggressor using violence (with fists, knives,
guns, lasers, etc.) to push around innocent citizens they are to be
identified, swarmed upon, taken down, captured, cuffed, and their sentence
decided by the public on the Internet while the violent person is on their
way to jail.
The FBI released the "last" documents on John Lennon, now how about the
kilometers of hidden video and audio recordings including thought images
and sounds, in fact, why not just open up the public's "FBI video library"
to those who fund it. Why does the FOI law have to be constantly defended
and re-defended in the courts? Perhaps because autocratic presidents try
to control what the FBI director does. Why not elect the FBI director and
all their minions of cover-up? As it is the FBI is nothing more than a
vicious pit-bullian extension of the sitting president. Did you ever
wonder why the FBI does arrest for violence? They only arrest for theft
and similar powder-puff crimes. The federal police ought to have the
ability to arrest for murder in my opinion, once they are elected, I am
sure the state's right people disagree, but murder should be a federal
law, I have a tough time believing that there would be a state that
rejects a uniform law to punish homicide.
Has anybody ever noticed that jury duty pays $15 a day, far below minimum
wage, I may not necessarily agree with minimum wage laws, but if we have a
minimum wage law, why does the government not have to obey it?
I want to take a second to explain the basics between the two theories of
light as a particle and light as a wave, because I think I can express
this in a simple way.
In the wave theory of light, light is similar to sound in that a medium
(for sound this is atoms in air or other material) moves, in this view,
just as there is no sound particle, there is no light particle. In this
wave view, light moves as a transverse sine wave (sound is longitudinal,
the medium moves back in forth in the direction of the sound movement, not
transverse where the medium moves at 90 degree angles to the direction of
motion ), so that, just like sound, a wave peak and a wave trough (the
lowest part in the sine wave) will cancel each other out and leave a dark
area.
[Notes: Some people hypothesize that an ether is the medium for light,
although the ether theory is not popular, the concept lives on in
relativity, but the medium is the geometry of space itself (Einstein in
1920 claimed that there was still an ether in some sense, and a
fundamental requirement for the theory of relativity, space-contraction,
is descended directly from a theory by Fitzgerald and Lorentz to try and
support the ether theory after the Michelson-Morley null result
experiment.). There is a large amount of confusion about whether the
theory of relativity represents a particle or wave theory for light. In my
view it is mostly in line with a wave theory, descending from the
length-contraction, ether-based theory. However, even if defined as a
particle theory, a photon is viewed as massless, and different from other
matter, not part of all matter.]
The particle theory of light, in the form I see it, theorizes that light
is a particle, is a piece of matter (therefore obeying the law of
gravitation), and is the basis of all matter. In this way a photon may
never be created or destroyed. Light beams have wavelength, but are
straight lines, wavelength determined by space between photons. In an
interference pattern where dark areas are observed any light going into
such an interference device has to be conserved, and no photons are being
detroyed as is the case for the wave theory, photons are either reflected,
refracted (direction changed), or absorbed.
It seems unusual that there are almost no people in science trying to
adapt Newton's "corpuscular theory" (as Michelson referred to it, being
less accurate in comparison with relativity for the bending of light
beams) to observed phenomena, even simply to explore the idea. For
example, what if we want to express Newton's gravitational constant in
terms of photonmasses? The current theoretical gravitational constant (GC)
is 0.000000000066742, 6.6742e-11 m3/kg-s2. But what is this expressed in
photonmasses? If a photonmass is 10e-20kg, then perhaps the GC would be
6.67e-31 m3/photonmasses-s2. If this is true, then a single photon will
not bend until it sees a mass of around 10e30photonmasses (or 10e10kg).
But this seems wrong to me, because, according to the one known experiment
photons barely bend at all even for the mass of a star (10e30kg). It seems
more likely that the GC is much lower when viewing everything as photons.
For example, if a photonmass is 10e-20kg, it should take a mass of a star
10e30kg/10e-20kg/pm 10e50 photons to even bend a beam of photons slightly.
So when a photon, with mass of 1, will bend is around 10e50 photonmasses
(or fotonmasses fm), and that gives a GC of more like 1e-50 m3/pm-s2, much
lower. It is all speculation, but when applying the force of gravity to
photons, knowing that the bending is very small, it has to change the GC.
As an aside, I read that Newton also believed in an aether, but I want to
do more research, it is important to understand what Newton thought about
particles of light as relates to gravity.
Another EX: experiment when we have robots and humans on Mars is beaming
light and other stuff back and forth to each other past the sun to see how
much it bends or changes ever-loving velocity.
12/22/06
Well humans once again I am a day late in typing happy winter soltice, the
shortest day of the year for those of us in the northern hemisphere of
earth. One thing that is on my mind this morning is how the public, most
of which are excluded from seeing and hearing thought, are really treated
like 10th class citizens, and total scum by those powerful elite that see
and hear thought, whom they trust so much. People in the excluded are so
trusting, they very much truth the major media, and history will show that
this was a classic and major mistake of the highest order. The public
completely trusts the info from television and newspapers, and the
unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of it is paid for, and untrue.
In particular if you consider the truth about how they routinely watch
people in their houses, and have a completely different way of life, far
different from the excluded, their routine is to watch and listen to all
the popular thought images from the people whose thoughts they routinely
monitor, where most excluded's routine is to turn on the television, or
read news from major media (the big business propaganda and paid for ad
machine the "AP") on the Internet and these discusting people will not
even trickle out crumbs of truth to the excluded public who they treat
like dirt, in particular compare to the lavish information (I mean
people's thoughts!) they get. Just to know that thought was seen in 1910
and these evil people kept it from the public, and there grew this
separate system of the included abusing the excluded, feeding them the
tiniest crumbs, while they sat back and watched any person's thoughts they
wanted to. Then how they never bothered to tell the public about Frank
Fiorini, Thane Cesar, and most shockingly even the truth about
9/11...total scum...totally evil, although a few are nonviolent. But then,
what amazes me, again is how trusting the excluded public is, those that
do not routinely hear the thoughts of those around them (for those who may
not know you are in the excluded with me and many many others). They tend
to support the liars, and reject those tiny few telling the truth. It
really is a dream come true for the liars in the included...people reject
their enemies...those who are exposing them as frauds and liars, and
shower money and support on them. It truly is one of the biggest mistakes
the excluded will ever make in the history of exclusia. Why don't they
throw out those supporting the official 9/11 story? Why don't they throw
out those who support the official Oswald story (those who claim
conspiracy theorists are "grassy knollers", etc)? Why don't they throw out
any limits on information? in particular when it comes to the government.
For example, when Reagan and Bush say...it is illegal to show pictures of
people wounded or killed in Iraq...why not reject that? If the excluded
public is not even allowed to see picture of dead people, how on earth do
you think you are eventually going to see the images from inside people's
houses and heads that these insider scumbag routinely watch and abuse
every day? Why don't the excluded ever even get the tiniest realization of
what is going on? Why don't they even say...'hey we want at least street
cameras that we are allowed to routinely get images from', or 'hey we want
at least to know that thought can be seen and heard, and see the machines
demonstrated.', etc. and 'no we reject copyright...not until we all get to
see what the included wealthy artists get to see and hear, which is
people's thoughts', etc...they appear not to even have the tiniest idea
that they are viewed as scum, that they are living in an 1800s society
that has just invented the telephone, unaware of the massive advance in
technology that frees up the lives of only 1% of the population, the elite
insider evil. I hope the public gets smart some time soon, but there
appears to be not even a glimmer of hope to be found. Most of the
whistle-blowers of 9/11 of hearing thought of Sturgis and Thane Cesar live
in poverty and obscurity, while the official story liars live lavish lives
where the cup runneth over of money, property, job opportunities, and in
particular information, and any information you can possibly imagine
including from the far past, inside people's houses and apartments, and
ofcourse from inside their minds...the sounds they think, the images they
remember, even people's dreams. It's shocking that those who tell the
truth are many times despised by the excluded society...like the 9/11
people. What a perfect situation for the included elites to maintain
control over the excluded...they want to be controlled...they appear to
enjoy being left in total and complete ignorance, while their masters in
the included, who never even throw them a crumb, take care to oversee
their thoughts and the thoughts of the public. There is more than enough
info out there should the public decide to one day wake up and understand
even a fraction of the truth and start to promote and support the people
telling the truth about seeing and hearing thought, Sturgis, Cesar, 9/11,
etc. and demoting those who persistently lie about these truths.
I am thinking that it would be a fun idea to make an Atheist food drive,
or Atheist feed the starving group, or maybe a "Science drive against
hunger", to provide food for those who are going hungry (I'm not sure how
those people could be identified). But then it shows that the religious
aren't the only people who feed the starving. Also a "Science clothes
drive", and "Atheist clothing for the poor" group. In addition, it is nice
to provide starving people with clothes and food. For each science-lover,
and/or atheist (and agnostic), if everybody either gave $5, a piece of
clothes, or canned food, it might amount to thousands of even hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Maybe science-lovers and atheists-agnostics can
sponser free "history of atheism", "history of evolution", "history of
science" "the probable future of life on earth", "full democracy and total
free info", books for the poor.
Check out my webpage tedhuntington.com to hear my music and my theories
about the universe. It's a wonderful universe eh? Let hope they keep sex
legal hm? the puritans probably would like to stop all sex and even just
pleasure for that matter, bastards!
The murder of those 5 women in England raises again the question that
always seems to be asked among educated excluded: Since there can't
possibly be a murder without the people in the secret camera-thought net
knowing, what is the purpose of allowing the latest murder(s) or
scheduling those murders for those in power that see and hear everybody's
thoughts? I think this can only be to counter a pro-sexual movement of
some kind, maybe a pro-prostitution feeling that might have been in
England. Perhaps this is all Blair and the murderers of 9/11 could come up
with to scare the public. Because, I can imagine a person murdered in
maybe...like the Gobi desert...maybe the thought images of the murderer
might not be seen by this insideous network, but nowhere in England,
certainly not in Ipswitch, not in any square centimeter of England could a
human go without what their eyes see being seen and recorded by these
elites that control the government and every aspect of the media in the
secret camera thought (Pupin invented in 1910, but secret recording
started with the invention of Edison's grammophone) network.
Any trivial points, arguments, or delays in the truth about pupin,
sturgis, cesar, and 9/11 are only going to be a minor delay in the
inevitable motion forward of the big tractor that is going to expose it
all to the public and right so many wrongs of the last century and really
even the last thousands of years.
The fabric of society probably would not fall apart if all of the property
thefts were not stopped. Things would be chaotic, people would buy locks
for their bikes and cars, but being nonviolent, it would be a nuisance and
the fabric of society would not fall to complete chaos. I even advise not
stopping any copyright violation, privacy violation, drug use or
prostitution, neglecting to punish those activities is not going to tear
apart the fabric of society. But when society stops punishing for homicide
and assault of innocent humans, the violent laws (some might argue, unless
they actually start to punish for homicide and assault), I think it is
obvious that the fabric of society will fall apart. Because the murder law
is the foundation of law and orderly society, when this law is not obeyed,
as is the case for Frank Fiorini, Thane Cesar, and 9/11, I think that kind
of philosophy leads to total chaos and definitely will rip apart any
foundation of order that may have existed, and that is how many violent
conflicts and wars are started, simply because none of the violent laws
are enforced, in particular the homicide laws, society understands that
the system is different since the rule of law doesn't apply any more.
After the camera-thought net is exposed and public, let the rule be "no
included need apply" in reverse of the "no excluded need apply" that
exists now.
There really is an interesting phenomenon that most people in the
camera-thought network are rude to me right from the start...not even an
initial period to become angry, they start off rude. Perhaps even some
who are excluded, but hear rumors or have seen my web page, but generally
rudeness from a person I have never seen before is a strong indicator for
a person in the camera-thought net. They figure out in the camera-thought
network that they don't like you or disagree with you, then decide to be
rude to you in person (no doubt this system of rude put-downs is how most
people in the cam net communicate). Rude put-downs are viewed as cool by
many people I think. Many times, people think the simplicity of a rude
put-down tells a simple eternal truth, but the truth I think is that it
usually reflects a mistaken belief, but one held by a majority of people.
Rudeness, I think is also a symptom of conservatism. For whatever reason,
the conservatives are traditionally negative, nasty, angry, rude, etc. But
even many liberals, in particular if in the camera-thought net, are always
rude and hate everything. I think it's either the sourpussedness of
religion, a life without physical pleasure, and without logic, science,
etc. or the transference of negativity and rudeness from those who are
like that all the time. For me, it really is unusual, because I can't
imagine myself being nasty and rude 24 hours a day, these people have to
enjoy that, and I think that hating stuff and putting things down is there
favorite mode. I can't understand how these people are successful though.
Probably simply from connections, because eventually when a person is rude
to everybody, who would ever support them for a job, or a relationship,
etc.? Who wants to hear that rude stupid crap all day? It's annoying, and
it's stupid, it's almost always the same recycled crap, somebody is gay,
is insane, is perverted, is ... never does the issue of violence rear it's
ugly head...as I like to say 'their a g'dam killa!' That is one of my main
criticisms, but I save it for the web, I don't constantly go head to head
with the people around me, it's too much effort and work to constantly
come up with snappy comebacks and total verbal ideological combat every
minute of the day. I save my philosophy for my web notes and videos, I
speak out for the record once and for all, publically, clearly, perhaps I
should refer people to those comments instead of echo them, but ofcourse I
will keep trying to come up with new quick snappy comebacks. The views
expressed by those in the cam net, in particular the conservatives are so
far from the truth and decency that coming up with comebacks (although
completely new in history) is many times not difficult. (Who came up with
"thanes! (thanks!)"? you probably heard it from me.) A person would think
that in all this time, with all those resources they would have learned
something, but a person would be sadly mistaken.
12-12-06 to 12-18-06
12/12/06
One interesting thing I may have forgotten to report about "iceland spar",
a so-called "double-refraction" rock, is that when held against an LCD
screen, no double image is seen, indicating that the double image comes
from light from the other side which is reflected and moves back through
the crystal a second time. Perhaps the light from behind is washing out
the second image? A second image appears very clearly when putting the
stone against text on a paper, and clearly that example is where light of
the double image can only be from the opposite side of the page, and
passes through the stone twice, once on the way in, reflects off the page,
and then a second time through the stone on its way back in the direction
of the eye. I think people should measure to see if the angle of the image
is similar to the angle of the cleavage of the rock, which would imply
reflection instead of refraction. But it appears that the two images do
not separate the farther away the viewer is, and so any angle change
appears to be restored back, so the resulting two beams have the same
angle (but are separated by a fixed amount of space no matter how far or
near the viewer), which is typical of refraction. The double image appears
in the same direction as the cleavage as the stone is turned (if the
cleavage is tilted to the left, the second image will appear on the left,
if tilted above, the image appears above), which is characteristic of
reflection. I think possibly photons are reflecting off of tiny cracks
within the rock that act as tiny mirrors. Some of the photons go straight
through and reflect as if it was glass, while others may reflect back and
forth between these planes within the rock. There may be tilted "columns"
with side similar to mirrors, formed by the cleavage (the molecular and/or
atomic structure) that photons reflect down like a ping pong ball in a
small tunnel. The photons travel down this tunnel at an angle (while
others go straight through the stone and back where there are no
microscopic fractures, although many of the fractures a visible with the
naked eye) and so they arrive at the paper at a different location than if
they had gone straight in, simply from a series of reflections along
planes in the stone. Then the photons travel back up the tunnel and in the
direction of the viewer. If this was true, then the distance between the
two images probably relates to the depth of the stone. The taller the
stone, the longer the tunnel, and so the farther apart the two images. If
that is not true then I would doubt that this theory is true.
Revisiting the photon bounces or 180 degree orbits when reaching a mirror.
I think that the weight in my mind is moving more towards photons
colliding reflecting off each other, which would prove inaccurate a firmly
held belief, backed by all experimental data (although measuring evidence
for variable velocity for photons may be difficult to prove), that photons
are always the same velocity. I think there is an aspect of this concept
that needs to be addressed and that is that probably is a finite force to
gravity at the base level of photons. In other words, when two photons
collide, even if the space between them goes to 0, the force of gravity
must not reach infinity. There must be some limit on how high the force of
gravity gets when the distance between two masses is zero. ANd to me, it
seems that this finite gravitational force results in giving a photon a
velocity of 3e8 m/s, although how does it accelerate up to that velocity?
How long does that take? Clearly the acceleration ends or is so small that
it can't be measured (but then we have not measure the velocity of a
photon at two different distances, because individual photons are so small
and move so fast). It seems like when two photons collide, the photons
would come to a complete stop for an instant in time, and then reflect
back in their direction of origin, each with the velocity of the other.
And I think most probably that this collision is perfectly elastic without
any loss whatsoever because of friction (and in fact friction can probably
be explained as the perfectly elastic distribution of a velocity [since
the mass of a photon can be viewed as 1 at some scale, momentum {mv} can
be reduced to velocity] among many other particles).
I think for sure there are people recording each homicide and assault in
the thought camera net, waiting for a time in the future when all these
videos can be shown and hopefully the murderers and assaulters jailed.
12/13/06
I think the center of spiral galaxies are probably filled with stars and
star residue, and not any kind of black hole or singularity in space-time.
Maybe there are many stars, and by nature of their being close, they
collide and smash. Perhaps there are so many collisions that there is no
time to accumulate stars again. It seems to me it probably is a messy
place, it is doubtful that there is any one absolute center of mass for
any spiral galaxy, and so, the center shifts, and that pull apart matter.
More modeling of many billions of points will possibly shed light on this.
I was thinking more about the idea that time can be dependent on location
(space) and I think it is interesting to try and learn about this idea.
For example, according to one book I found, x^2+y^2+z^2-ct=0 is supposed
to be the space-time geometry that photons obey (<0 is for so-called other
matter [space-like] , they view photons as immaterial, >0 is time-like). I
don't know exactly how this theory is described in equations, but I may
search again for more info, now with the Internet there is probably more
good info on how to model something as simple as two photons since the
last time I checked. Where is the matter or mass in the equation? Isn't
mass part of the geometry of space-time? It's interesting that point
(1,1,1,1e-8) is one point of many solutions to this equation. 3=ct 3/3e8=t
1e-8s=t, that is given x=1,y=1,z=1 and solving for t. And likewise we
could solve for x given y=1,z=1,t=1e-8s. I don't really have any strong
final opinion yet about general relativity other than those expressed
before, that they missed the idea of photons as matter and the basic
component of all matter, and time-dilation is probably false. The
remaining question is: How does the GToR relate to Newton's equation? I
think we would be talking clearly about a changed GToR, which does not
include time or space dilation, in which photons are the (perhaps only but
certainly) base level of all matter. The main question in my mind (beyond
how do people use the GToR to model matter?) is, is a changed/or new GToR
(still maintaining a space-time geometry, and one question is: is this
possible?), a distinct new way of looking at, modeling, understanding the
universe, while being equivalent to Newton's equation for gravitation? I
think I may conclude that a new GToR based on the original (-time+space
dilation,+photons as matter), may be a geometrical interpretation of
Newton's equation, and is a different method, but the same basic paradigm
(the force of gravitation still basically determining the velocity of
matter). But perhaps a new GToR will only result in using 4 dimensional
points instead of 3 dimensional points and a time variable which is not
attached to any piece of matter. And this to me is a simple and clear
truth...that time, the variable t, can be attached to all pieces of
matter, but in my opinion, that value of time, (t) is always the same for
all matter in the universe. In other words, the current time here on
earth, is the same exact time as in the center of the Milky Way 30,000
light years away, and is exactly the same time as in any part of the
Andromeda Galaxy, millions of light years away. In this view, time is not
dependent on any individual piece of matter. So to assign a group of
points with quadordinates (coordinates) (x,y,z,t), the t must always be
the same for all points of matter at any given time presuming the model is
a real-time representation of any part of the universe. When t=4 seconds,
any point with t=3 is in the past and would not be a part of the current
image of the universe. I think the basic idea of the original GToR is that
time depends on the speed of a piece of matter, and the view I think is
more likely is that time is a constant throughout the universe, whatever
time it is here, is the same time it is everywhere, with no dependence on
velocity, space, matter, or location. But I think I want to thoroughly
explore the GToR and see how it is alleged to work. If the idea that time
is constant throughout the universe is true, then I think even a changed
or new GToR is going to be useless and inaccurate. We certainly can model
matter using 4 dimensional points (and any 3D model that exists for more
than 1 frame is a 4D model), (x,y,z,t), but given that t is always the
same (equal to the current frame of the model, however much time that may
represent), it is in some way, useless to even keep track of it for each
point, and in my view, it is not a completely new or different way of
modeling the universe; it's the same Newtonian method, but simply adding t
to each point, and the t is the same for all points and increments with
each frame (femtosecond, or whatever the time unit hypothesized) of the
model. Modeling points with different t values at any frame would be a new
paradigm, and certainly a new method of modeling the universe, but such a
system seems to me to be inaccurate, since time is probably the same
through the universe. One point is that, when a person models 3
dimensional points for any given time, using the tradition method, we see
all the objects at the same time, and this would not be accurate if these
represented photons traveling towards the screen or some other location.
For example any photon that we model, technically we would only see the
instant it collides with the screen at location z=0. When we see some 3D
object off in the distance, we should understand that we are seeing where
the points are, and not necessary photons reflecting off of them. We model
photons as points of light in order to see them, although if in theory we
would only ever see them when they are in the z=0 plane, but to see how
they move we draw them as projected into 3D space. It's a minor point in
my view. So again, a final opinion is forming in my mind, and it is helped
greatly by the "time is the same everywhere" hypothesis. Given this
hypothesis, a person can conclude that any General Theory of Relativity,
is not only not a new paradigm, but not even a new method of modeling the
universe, and is simply inaccurate (basing this conclusion, mainly on the
theory that time in any part of the universe does not depend at all on the
velocity of matter). Still, I do want to explore the General Theory of
Relativity, and see how the modeling is done. There are some strong
claims, in particular, one that even I think needs to be fully
investigated is the claim that mechanical clocks slow down the faster they
move (is this relative to the rest of the clock's own matter [inertial]?,
or maybe relative to all the matter in the rest of the universe?). I have
heard the claim that a watch ticks more slowly in an airplane than on the
earth. It's interesting that, relative to each other the plane and earth
are moving at the same velocity at any given time, as is the case when
comparing the velocity of any 2 points, the faster you move away from an
object, the faster it moves away from you (I guess in theory you are the
one with the velocity though, or certainly the origin of the velocity).
But perhaps we can compare the movement of the plane and person on earth
with a point in the center of the earth. Then the plane is moving faster
than the person on the surface. We could compare the velocity of the plane
a person on the surface relative to the position of the sun, in this view,
I guess it would matter if the plane was flying away from the sun, even
so, the plane would have a faster velocity, moving faster than the earth
is turning relative to a point in the center of the sun. Clearly the plane
covers more space in a shorter time than a human on the surface. Perhaps
most importantly, this claim should be verified many times in video, by
reputable honest people (this rules out the major media, the republican
party, and most of those in the camera-thought network). Honestly I may
not believe it unless I perform the experiment myself. And even if true,
which I have a lot of doubt about, there are other explanations besides
"time slowed down for the matter in the clock", friction with photons and
other particles of matter being one explanation. This can easily be done
with a variety of different clocks on the ground and on a plane, perhaps
100 at each location, even digital clocks, but by all means mechanical
clocks. Then let's see if there is any measurable change in time counting
by the clocks. It may be difficult, because all clocks, because of
mechanical microscopic differences (in machining and battery power among
other things) all click at different times, some may be slower and others
faster. I doubt after many tries that we would see any real trend either
faster or slower, but it's a strong claim, strongly believed, and it
should be properly and publically verified many times for all to see and
watch.
12/14/06
It's really amazing what Richard Dawkins has done with "The God Delusion".
Other people have written books explaining the truth about religion, James
Haught, for example, has written wonderful books critical of religion in
particular explaining religious atrocity of the past the powerful
religious establishment would rather delete from recorded history and
forget alltogether, Helen Ellerbee has "The Dark Side of Christianity",
and there are others (perhaps Sam Harris, to whom we should also be
grateful and who has very clear and intelligent arguments, is a notable
exception, also having books critical of religion which are popular), but
I don't think any have ever sold in such quantity. Clearly Dawkins is a
highly popular figure and his words and works are highly esteemed by the
public. I don't think there is any question about that, judging simply
from the sales of "The God Delusion" and his other books. Currently TGD is
ranked as the 11th best selling book at Amazon.com, ranking even higher
than such quality material as Bill O'Reilly's "Culture Warrior", Jim
Cramer's "Mad Money", and Steven Levitt's "Freakonomics", although it
appears Dawkins' book can not oust Grisham and Crichton (the entire
phenomenon of fiction books in this age of people seeing and hearing
thought seems to me like using a horse-drawn carriage to commute to work,
but I suppose if you had never seen a modern automobile you would think
the horse-drawn carriage modern technology, perhaps a better analogy is
those who restrict themselves to using the postal service to communicate
who have never seen a telephone). And then to see Dawkin's giving readings
from his book at universities and talking about it in interviews. It's
really amazing, and I think, this book is going to help many people
realize that religion is stupid, and science a much better idea to support
and believe in. I think there are people here on earth that honestly have
never ever heard even a single criticism of religion, and once they do
hear such criticisms, instantly wake up and see the light as if they
simply had never realized that the stories of the religions could possibly
be false. I think we all own Richard Dawkins a debt of gratitude for
opening people's minds about religion.
For my own online book and videos "Photon Yes, Religion No", I was
thinking this morning that, it is not my intent to make people feel bad,
sad, or that they are second class citizens for believing in religion. I
don't want to "hurt people's feelings", and I care deeply for people, the
other species, and life on earth. I simply have to tell the truth, in
particular about religion, and I'm sorry if that is upsetting, but the
truth is the more important thing to me. Promoting and continuing these
lies about religion, people who claim to speak as a mouthpiece for a god,
now those things are upsetting to me. Beyond that, I want to express my
opinions about religion, whether people chose to accept them as accurate
or not. I think many people are basically nonviolent, honest people
inside, but have been infected with the lies and tradition of religion,
and I view religion as a kind of virus attacking life on earth. Right now
this disease of religion has infected many innocent people and is causing
chaos on the earth, but it has not ended life on earth all together, so it
is diffult to know if religion will ultimately end life on earth. And the
cure, in my view, is the truth, telling people the truth. In some way,
those who speak the truth about the universe and religion, history, etc,
really are providing a medicine to those infected with religion, and it is
a medicine of talk, of moving air, that is helping people to start knowing
the truth about so many lies.
I think an important point I was thinking about is that, you know, look at
the current conservative/republican leaders, now this is a group who tell
many many lies and are very dishonest. They lie about 9/11, about Frank
Sturgis, about hearing thought, about WMD's in Iraq, about many many
things, and they are very deceptive, versus the other side (at least as I
see it, which is not necessarily the current group of democrats, but
certainly some democrats want the truth about 9/11, Sturgis and Cesar,
hearing thought, to be shown to the public) who wants the public to know
the truth and to let them decide what is good and bad, the side that wants
the public to know the truth about 9/11...that it was done by the neocons
and was an inside job, about hearing thought, about sending images to
brains and all that was found by Michael Pupin and others at the beginning
of the 1900s. Now think about that, and think about this: how honorable is
it to support Bush jr and this group of republican leaders? Is that an
honorable philosophy; to lie to the public for a secret cause which the
public supposedly cannot possibly understand? Or is it more honorable,
noble, decent, etc. to support telling the public the truth and the
opposition? I mean, clearly, in my mind, all the honor is on the side of
telling the truth about 9/11, who would feel a strong amount of support
for misleading the public in an elite secret society which tries
desparately to mislead those not members in their group? And in my novice
view, this is one reason why the Nazi empire collapsed once they were
seriously challanged for the first time, because simply, their goals were
dishonest, they constantly and obviously lied to the public, they were
violently criminal murdering and jailing those who fall out of favor and
innocent civilians, ... Nazism was a brutal system, the leaders were
brutal violent criminals, and I think the poor people enslaved as soldiers
in the military society under Nazism knew this, felt there was no honor in
supporting such a violent and dishonest plan, and surrendered in the hope
of a better existence for themselves, unwilling to murder or die for such
a terrible cause.
Speaking of the telephone, I am currently at the time in the history of
science where Alexander Graham Bell has invented the telephone. This is
1876, and the phone is exhibited at a celebration of the centennial of the
founding of the USA in Philadelphia. And it occurs to me that, something
very sinister happened between 1876 and 1910, something very evil infected
the people of earth at some time. Because, the telephone, which was a
shocking invention, to hear an object "talk", was very unusual to people,
was not supressed as "seeing eyes and thought" would be in only 34 short
years. What happened in those 34 years? Perhaps the roots of the disease
were already well formed in people's minds, from religion, from
anti-science and anti-sexual tradition. But it is clear that the telephone
was released on the open market, and this involved many powerful people,
Edison, Joseph Henry, all were involved in the development of the
telephone. Maybe there were people that said "the telephone must be kept
secret", but I doubt it, and I think it may be that, only with the rise of
an early survalience society did this disease of insiders manipulating
outsiders take shape. This process of included people misleading excluded
people is now a major industry (all the major media are nothing but paid
for advertisements designed to steer an uninformed excluded society), but
we should trace this back to it's origins which must have taken shape
after 1876. In 1876, there probably were very few people if any that were
watching Alexander Bell in his house, but that was soon to change. By the
time of Pupin in 1910, there must have been time to stop the spread of the
technology. This time the wealthy people in power were much more prepared
and seized on the invention of seeing and hearing thought. I don't know,
because I am not included, but clearly, these scientists at Columbia,
Pupin, the university president, probably very quickly the president of
the USA, miltary, police, the media leaders in particular (who in theory
wanted to print the story, but yet perhaps were inticed by the power such
technology to hear people's thoughts could give them over the public), all
were in discussions about the invention. There must have been those who
very forcefully argued that the invention must be announced publically,
and were disappointed and perhaps even somewhat shocked that it was not.
Probably, the president of the USA, the wealthy and powerful people, the
military and police leaders, all gave the best sounding arguement for
secrecy, arguing only a "small delay", they probably just wanted "a little
more time" to invetigate the technology, ofcourse, the argument came
forward that this powerful tool "can be used against our enemies". And so
the argument must have happened, and clearly, the result is known even to
some excluded: the conservatives won out and seeing and hearing thought
was kept a secret industry, Asimov hints that Edison "made it practical"
(MIP). Edison was the first in the USA to provide electrical power to
people, and so it seems likely that his company also would develop,
produce, and install many of the thought-hearing machines (perhaps their
customers were also their survalience subjects... but clearly at some
point all the major wealthy people were enjoying the past-time of
listening and watching the public in their houses). And what a terrible
story it is, how this powerful group kept Pupin's findings to themselves,
and how a secret industry arose and has grown into the monster were
experience now.
In some way religion is similar to any typical fraud. There is a
similarity in those who try to sell drugs based on fraudulent or
unimportant psychological theory, just like those who tried to sell snake
oil. Nobody should be jailed for trying to sell stuff to anybody, since
that is free speech and the free market, people have the right not to buy,
but it is sad to see so many people believing and propagating these
obvious lies, about santa claus, about jesus bringing dead people back to
life, about miracle wonder drugs that claim to but fail to cure diseases
real or not, the claims of horoscopes, psychics, fortune cookies, etc. But
I do think people are getting smarter in the long run, although not damn
fast enough for my liking!
We are living through a reichstag fire event, it's really an interesting
moment in the history of life of earth, although a terrible moment. What
is going to happen with this 9/11 inside job? I mean, eventually like the
first reichstag fire, people are ultimately going to find out, but when?
And then what will happen when they do? Already 40% of the public are
suspicious of the official story. I kind of think that, perhaps in 60 or
70 years, there may be one member of the 9/11 plotters and executers still
alive that might be actually prosecuted, perhaps a 90 year old guy who was
one of those who planted the explosives in the WTC buildings. That is how
fast the public catches on to stuff like this. One person in Germany who
exposes the truth about 9/11 being an inside job was saying in a video on
google a very good point, and that is that in 1963 when JFK was murdered
there was no Internet video, and things are different now. And I was
thinking that, possibly those in the camera-thought net may not have
realized that. They are probably used to the unquestionable power of
manipulating the excluded public by ownership and control of the
mainstream media (all television and newspapers) they enjoyed in the past.
Even in a best case scenario, the public slowly finds out and eventually
stops electing republicans and 9/11 official story supporters, and that
will take decades. Maybe there is some other path, video on the Internet
forcing the existing politicians to act, but it seems a long way away.
12/15/06
I have found many interesting things in looking at the story of the
universe, evolution, science and the probable future. I can't list them
all, it would take too long, but some are:
1) There is a controversy over the origin of cyanobacteria, one group
holding that the oldest fossils of life are cyanobacteria and are 3.5
billion years old, the other based on genetic evidence that cyanobacteria
are only 2.7 billion years old. I mean this is a difference of 1 billion
years, and is a major disagreement among those few people interested in
science. Clearly 67% (at least in the USA) reject the theory of evolution.
2) Fruit trees are actually flowers. In fact any tree with a fruit is a
flower to my intermediate knowledge. It seems like a tree is simply a
large plant.
3) Globular clusters are probably made or formed by advanced life, life
far more advanced than life stuck on earth. * see bottom notes
4) In the globular clusters, if we could see up close, we mights see large
spheres of matter orbiting around stars, pushing them around into
desireable positions.
5) That the ancestor of all humans may have gone back into africa from asia
6) that human language may have evolved in africa before humans left to
settle asia and europe, because all humans use the same sounds but
different words (except for "mama" and a few other words), if they don't
all use the same words, it shows that they probably would evolve different
sounds had language evolved in different locations separately. So human
language, with all major sounds probably came out of Africa at the time
the ancestor of all humans left Africa.
7) That new world monkies probably reached America accidentally on fallen
trees or other objects which formed rafts. (This is a conclusion Dawkins
makes in "Ancestor's Tale", based on the magnetic evidence that America
has already broken far apart of Africa by the time of the evolution of
primates 35 million years ago, and the mystery of how any primates could
have then reached America.)
8) Clearly in the transition from ocean to land, reptiles and subsequent
birds and mammals evolved to be dependent on fresh water only, unable to
survive on the salt-filled ocean water (as presumably reptiles, birds and
most mammals currently cannot-I guess whales, dolphins, and seals are an
exception? That seems like a basic question...seals must drink ocean water
and are able to extract the fresh water they need from that in a way most
mammals are not able to do). So, life on land was dependent on fresh water
sources, only where there were lakes or rivers could there be chordata
(invertebrates and vertebrates) (or possibly underground water, or living
objects that can survive on occassional rains that result in temporary
puddles).
9) The universe is probably infinitely large and old since there are
probably galaxies so far away that not one particle of light from them can
reach even our largest detecters. (Ofcourse, yes I have said this many
times). For this to be true, it requires that the red shifted light of the
most distant galaxies be due to some other effect besides Doppler shift,
for example from stretching from bending around large masses.
I can't remember all the interesting facts, but hopefully ULSF5 will
include every little detail of even the remotest importance to the story
of evolution science and the future. Some of these questions and issues
are basic, but it's no surprise that people have missed such basic
questions in this era of only 33% even believing evolution is true.
3) extended:
And what I just realized this morning is that, those advanced societies
could easily send tiny low cost probes around each of the 300 billion
stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, certainly around many of them. And
ofcourse, it seems very obvious that advanced life would be interested in
seeing close images of planets around the stars. The devices I am
envisioning are probably made of metal or some advanced molecules. They
probably don't store images, but only use photons from a star, process
them and transmit them back to the globular cluster, or a local station
the society from the globular cluster has established close to the plane
of the galaxy. Like the "Encyclopedia Galactica" Carl Sagan describes in
"Cosmos", it seems to me that possibly the only way to collect an
encyclopedia of planets around stars is to send probe devices/ships to
each star or as many as possible. It seems obvious that an advanced life
in a globular cluster would be very interested in watching all the planets
that have evolved over millions of years around all the stars in this
galaxy, think of our own interest in this matter. It would take millions
of years for the images from the plane of the galaxy to reach them, but
even so, very quickly after deploying such probes, they would be receiving
images from the probes, and eventually when the probes were in position
they would start to see what they had waited for many years to see, and
even if the show is a million years old, it is still very informative and
the info is ofcourse, new to them. For example, for 2.3 billion years at
least on earth, there was not even multicellular life, nothing larger than
a single celled bacteria, and stromatolites. And that would give an
advanced society plenty of time to put probes in place. In fact, when we
start to move between the planets, maybe we will start to find these probe
objects. Perhaps the probes are designed to be smart enough to avoid
detection, and the space around stars is very large. One issue is, how far
can you be to get a good image of the surface of a planet? For us, we need
to go very close, we have not figured out how to detect tiny quantities of
photons yet, and maybe it is impossible. My feeling is that probes would
have to be relatively close to detect photons, perhaps in orbit of each
star. It would be amazing to find some of these probes and analyze their
composition (although it would be a major issue for the members of our
advanced life society as to whether to even disturb the device at all. But
I think we might thinking that perhaps other life might expect us to, and
then perhaps even duplicating the design and restoring it to function
correctly. And there are not just a few globular clusters in this and
other galaxies, there are hundreds. In fact, we may be able to estimate
the age of the Milky Way from the number of advanced clusters that have
been developed. There are something like 300 at last count, and that to
me, says, the Milky Way has been around for a long time. If took at least
4 billion years to evolve life as advanced as we, able to visit a moon,
and send probes to other planets. Add to that the time needed to pull
stars together to form a multi-star civilization, of at least thousands of
years, and probably more like millions of years. Then the time it takes to
move themselves out of the plane of the Milky Way, which is probably more
millions of years. No doubt many globular clusters evolve together at the
same time, but some must come along later. The oldest globular cluster
societies must have a large amount of leverage in the galaxy having the
most time to learn about it. 300 seems a large number of globular clusters
(other galaxies must be at different stages and EXPERIMENT: we should
observe how many globular clusters each galaxy has. What stage of
evolution from nebula to globular are they in?). But clearly, there are
going to be more glbular clusters as the Milky Way continues to change
into a globular galaxy (hopefully including one of our own). We may form
one, but we may possibly be like many small clusters become part of a
larger cluster.
As I have said the wonderful big picture in my opinion is that nebuli
change into spiral galaxies, which change into globular galaxies and the
entire process may take on average 1e15 earth years from cloud to globular
galaxy, and there is never a shortage of new nebuli because photons
emitted from stars even in globular galaxies escape the galaxy and form
new clouds. It appears that most advanced life consumes photons, and
doesn't bother to try and capture every last one. If they did, things
would be different, but I think it is physically impossible to contain
photons, any container would always leak photons in the direction outside
the society. These are very interesting ideas and I don't understand why
most people on earth are not interested in talking about these ideas.
Finding these probes from advanced civilizations in globular clusters
would be a thrill for our descendents. Perhaps it would be like a game of
hide and go seek, or an easter egg hunt to find where the probes are,
inevitably we know, that there have to be some there. (It's similar to the
rise of the survalience society...each house has many listening and
imaging devices in them, place by groups of people with clearly more
advanced technology than those who live inside the house). I doubt there
will be stored images in the probe, although maybe there will be a few.
This is one reason why care would be extreme...knowing that we probably
may not understand their photon/information storage techniques if any. For
example, there might be a few images kept in the probe every ten thousand
years perhaps. It would be very valuable for us to see those and
understand the evolution of life around our own star (most of the images
would probably be sent on and not stored). Perhaps there might be a
message to anybody that finds it, describing their intent, how the object
works, instructions for the future. Images seems to me to be a uniform way
of relating that is not specific to life on earth, the same is true for
sound, recording the vibrations inside some mass (usually a gas or
liquid). Smell, on the other hand seems more specific, like something that
might be specific to life of earth, the process of detecting certain
molecules or parts of molecules is probably universal to all advanced life
(using technology, not their own body), but our own sensory cells
specifically evolved around specific molecules. But that is a minor point
of interest. Mainly, it seems clear that 2 dimensional photon captures,
basically, what we call images, and even sound information is probably
universal throughout the universe. I think we need to keep an open mind,
and allow that there may be technologies, particles, and methods of
observing particles we can not even imagine, ofcourse, but it seems likely
to me that this idea of a two dimensional grid of photon detecting is
probably very common, and may even serve as a primary form of
communication for advanced life. Although 2D image info can be encoded in
millions of different ways, they could be spread spectrum (like wireless
networks, a single beam with many different frequencies), but even
unencoded for single photon beams/streams/signals how do we know when a
row of pixels ends and the next row begins? Maybe they are being
transmitted in parallel as a square of pixels already formed into an
image. Scale is one issue too, what is a big picture for us might be like
a pixel for them, or on the other side, what is a pixel for us might be a
huge image for them. Sclae of life is an interesting thing, I am sure more
humans in their current scale (no doubt the size of average humans will
continue to change, in particular as we move out into empty [accept for
photons] space) would feel more comfortable with same-size other advanced
life, too large, and we would feel like insects, too small and we would
feel they they are insects. The issue of scale may be one reason why there
are different globular clusters, although I am sure there are strenuous
efforts to try and communicate at all scales to the largest and smallest
of advanced living objects. It's amazing to think that some insect sized
objects could be smart enough to conquer and move stars, and at the other
end that there could be an advanced life where individuals are as large as
a skyscraper or even larger. Perhaps like even we, large living objects
might be made of many smaller living objects all working together in a
symbiosis of mutual benefits. It's an amazing system, and I am sure people
will be interested in these ideas when this ULSF projects gets rolling out
onto the web.
For video player plugins on the web (Media Player, RealPlayer, Quicktime)?
Stream and seek already, damn! Flash may, but how about playing non flash
videos? We need an open source video player for all main formats and
browsers with streaming and ability to seek.
11-14-06 to 12-08-06
11/14/06
Think of how many of us are in the family of "assaulters", and can
rightfully be called "assaulters". Those who have ever slapped a person,
spanked a person, pushed a person, punched a person, elbowed a person,
scratched a person, kicked a person, or even a different species. I think
it would be difficult to come by a person that is not an assaulter. But
the important question is, how much of an assaulter? How many assaults?
What is the severity of the assault(s)? It must be a shock to people's
sense of perfection and superiority to know that the vast majority of them
are assaulters.
I think there is a phenomenon on earth, and it is hopeful, that the
violent, negative, rude, etc. eventually collapse on themselves...because
violent people are not just violent to one person, they are not mean to
individual people...usually, it's part of their inside...they are natually
angry, violent, rude...and eventually, it's like Nazism...they turn on
each other. And the positive are left behind. Mainly the friendly,
enlightened, nonviolent, don't retaliate, they don't respond to threats of
violence, but who does? Why the violent do. So, as has to happen,
eventually, violent threaten other violent and unlike nonviolent, the
violent accept the challange and generally one loses, many times their
life. Beyond that, even within the nonviolent realm, people who threaten
violence, are recognized by smart people as undesirable...problem people,
potential violent conflict starters, and so there is a natual selection
against those people too, in terms of them being hired, getting dates,
getting friends, etc. (although clearly this backward group on earth,
doesn't see threats of violence as being serious, while invitations for
pleasure are viewed as bad, in fact, threats of violence are viewed as
comedic...many times, it's presumed to be a joke...or a natural way of
communicating.)
It's interesting the roles of leadership on the two sides (as I see them).
On the one side are the violent, and they routinely assault people, they
are conservatives, republicans, christians, godders, very religious,
antisexuals (stop sexers), monarch/oligarch/rule by a special few,
secrecy, and on the other side are mostly their victims, sexuals,
nonviolent, atheists, agnostics, nonreligious, liberals,
democracy/majority rule, free info, etc. and so the leadership roles are
starkly different. On the liberals, there is no one leader, and many
times, individual people do not want to be seen as a single leader...if
somebody else wants to expose the camera network, to speak out against
violence, about the truth of 9/11 as a reichstag fire, it is seen as
relief,... it takes the pressure and risk off of those who feel compelled
to tell the truth, to speak out against violence, and again this side is
run by free will, most people only act willfully and are not forced into
decisions. On the other side, who is the leader is sharply defined, and
any body acting independently is seen as a threat to the leader and dealt
with harshly, this side is ruled by a very violent person generally who
the others fear. People are expected to follow the orders of the leader,
no matter if they want to or not, no matter how homicidal, suicidal or
simply stupid the order is. These people prefer a system where what they
are supposed to do is very clearly defined, and no thinking is needed. The
leadership of the two sides is like night and day. It can be simplified by
saying that the conservative side does violence and the liberal side stops
violence.
11/15/06
Perhaps, besides enjoying hearing my own voice, which keeps me company,
and reinforcing some idea in my mind by saying it out loud, I'm not used
to being secretive and deceptive like most people, so it's more natural
for me to talk out loud. And when I think about it, how wrong our society
is for locking up and ostracizing people who talk out loud any where they
go.
To continue the commentary on the proposition to make mandatory 2 year
hospital sentences for adults who genital touch minors, again I don't
advocate genital touching, and I warn people not to violate any law, to
obey all laws as best as possible. That being said, the entire issue of
minors having sexual activity with each other, I think is now on the table
for conservatives and antisexuals to seize upon. I am interesting in
seeing an opinion survey of people's feeling about the question: "Should
it be legal for minors to have sex with each other?", and "Should it be
illegal for a minor to touch the genital of a different minor?". This is
where the erroneous belief in a child as an unthinking piece of property
incapable of doing wrong may protect a minor versus the shocking wrong
bloodthirsty viciously violent hatred for sexuality and physical pleasure
go head to head. I kind of feel that the violent antisexuality might win
over the view that a person under 18 is incapable of making decisions and
can therefore do no wrong. Interestingly enough, in 1986 when I poked the
butt check of a different child, I myself was a minor at age 17, and so
this is an example of minors having sexual activity with themselves, and
is, to my knowledge, completely legal. And I can't help but think that
antisexuals, of which there is a shocking 70% or something majority (it
nearly perfectly coincides with those who are religious and wed, although
I am guessing), I can't help but think that antisexuals must view this as
some kind of a loop hole in the laws...I mean how can minors touch each
other's genitals, suck, rub, and screw all day and it not be illegal? It
seems, as I say to be some kind of loop hole in the laws, but yet it's
there. I think the feeling maybe that people don't want to see children
with their genitals out rubbing them with other children, kind of like
seeing the dog licking its balls. There is no harm done, but to these
sourpuss puritans, they prefer not to see such vulgar displays of anatomy,
and many times will invoke violent assault to stop such activity. So I can
see a "illegal child sex" law coming up in the future, that outlaws
children having sex with anybody other than themselves. It's interesting
that people have left open the door of a 16 or 17 year old male, who has
been probably masturbating for a solid 6 or 7 years, to have legal
consensual sex and genital touching with any human under the age of 18. I
kind of think prosecutors might somehow be able to pull some kind of
exception for these cases, so they can punish the older of the two minors
someway by hook or by crook. As another major point, forcing young males
into abstanence is so stupid, here these young males are sexually
frustrated, horny as they will ever be, and they can only have sex with
females under the age of 18, if that. And what happens? The female says
no, but the horny male many times forces the female against her choice, or
that rejected repressed need to ejaculate transfers into violence against
other people. Adults are expecting young horny males age 11-17 to be
abstinant, and it is unrealistic and asking for violence, and sure enough
these aggressive males, uninformed about sex, are viciously anti-gay,
embarassed about sex, desperate to get sex. Look how that person "Gwen"
was murdered in Northern California by the agressive males...to think that
people would murder somebody just because of sexuality, it shows that
there is a lot of hostility around sexuality. When I was young there were
not many bright spots, but one that I remember was a party that a girl had
in the 6th grade, when I must have been aged around 11 years old. At this
party were drinks, like soda, there wasn't any alcohol or smoking or
anything, and maybe some music, but eventually, they started playing some
form of "spin the bottle", and "five minutes in the closet", where each
person was supposed to kiss and fondle each other in the closet for some
time. It is funny, to look back on, and what a fun time, I got to kiss and
touch the breasts of a number of my female classmates. It gave me
confidence, before then, the first girl I asked to be my girlfriend (I
didn't know about asking out to the mall, or lunch, or anything, I think I
just asked if she wanted to "go steady", or to "be my girlfriend", there
was a pause on the phone...this was a year before when we were around age
10...then she came back to the phone with the message "my dad won't let
me", and that sunk my heart, and even the little friendship that existed
between us feel apart after that, no doubt from embarassment). To me, to
force children to go without kissing, touching, etc by anybody other than
pets and siblings is negligent, callous, brutal...its vicious, but
commonplace...it's the rule and far from the exception. Kissing all those
girls gave me such confidence, and that is such a good thing for children.
So many children, definitely including myself, feel so ugly, the few times
I tried to ask a female out always were rejected, and I wasn't good at
slowly working my way into a female's life, nobody told me anything, and
like most young males, I wanted so much to kiss and lay with females, but
I simply could not make the connection in between my own shyness, and my
inability to find the correct approach to successfully date a female. So
it just occurs to me that those kinds of things, like spin the bottle, 5
minutes in the closet (and I have put forward the more organized "touch
with consent" [computer and playing board versions] and "back rub club"
which I hope are helpful) are healthy, confidence building, pressure
relieving, friendship and relationship building kind of activities, but
can you imagine a parent organizing such a thing? I don't know, but
clearly, the girl who organized this party was advanced and put together a
smart idea, I doubt her parents knew, and no parents were there in her
basement with us. For me, it was a wonderful time, I remember another male
not participating...and I couldn't believe that...it was a mystery to me
as to how anybody could pass this kissing and groping our female
classmates up...but he explained, as I remember...that he felt the quality
of female was an issue...saying that it was not the act of kissing he
objects to but who there was to kiss, but of these females there were some
very pretty girls, two at least had overly large breasts for that age. But
beyond that...I just couldn't accept that even kissing an average looking
female was an opportunity to pass up, and interestingly enough, to my
memory all of the females participated, and there were no rejections,
which looking back seems unusual. That was funny, I wish I had taken a
path more like that instead of the idiotic path of celibacy [being even an
oral virgin until 18 and college, although again desparately not by
choice!], tobacco (my tobacco virginity I lost around 11), weed [although
I remain dedicated against jailing those who use drugs], sports, alcohol
(alcohol virginity lost around 11), male friends only, I fell into. I
wonder if this girl who made this party ever got in trouble for that, if
the parents knew they probably would have yelled at her parents. It
reminds me of the mother in California who was fined or maybe even jailed
for allowing a male stripper to perform at her underage daughter's
birthday party....oh the horror...
When talking about the 9/11 event, and other injustices, many people ask
"what should people do to solve these problems?", and typical answers are:
for example Barry Zwicker, an intreped canadian and clearly smart person,
echoed the age-old "write yer congressperson", but you know, in this time
where people see and hear thought...email is too slow...the congress
people all hear and see thought...they know what you think....they know
yer opinion...but we are stuck in a stalemate where everything is known
and nothing will change...one letter or email, even with 1000 signatures
is going to make 0% of difference, it's all done and known in the
camera-thought net. Jim Fetzer who is clearly a wise sage answered this
question with "vote down the encumbants", but you know the next batch is
going to be just as bad. What I am thinking may be the best answer to this
question that has many answers is: "vote for those who will guarentee full
and total free info". Ok, so who are those people, ok so there are none
right now. But I say this because we, as excluded (for those excluded out
there), are like in a line of millions of people...waiting to see a grand
movie....which many people are seeing and enjoying...but we are back here
in line....like in position 3 million...we can't even see, really, the
theater...from way back here. And to make matters worse, those inside the
theater are in no hurry to expand it, or let anybody else in to see this
grand movie. But the interesting thing is that, most excluded don't even
realize that there is such a movie to see. But to see these movies, is to
instantly answer all the questions of the last century, in particular the
last half century. Mainly who killed who, and who had sex with whom?
Clearly some of these images can be estimated by us back here in the crowd
of excluded who cannot even see the theater from where we are...clearly we
would see Sturgis killing JFK, we would see Bush senior's role in that
murder, we would see Thane Cesar killing RFK, we would see much of the
truth behind the MLK murder, we would see the more recent popular feature
of the planning and execution of 9/11 which the insiders have been
studying and assembling for 5 years now. And when I say see movies of
these people...I mean see their thoughts...see difinitive proof of their
dirty violent dishonest dealings. So I advocate vote for those people who
are talking about full free information, because don't you want to see
these movies? don't you want to see all the thoughts like so many insiders
already do? So I think, ofcourse, vote for those who speak out against
violence (when such people do appear on the scene if ever), those against
the drug war (and here, in the democrats is Kucinich...already we see that
this issue has penetrated the mainstream democratic party). Beyond that,
vote democrat (many people don't want to say "vote democrat" because they
don't want to scare off republicans, who they want to win over to their
cause, but the facts are clear, democrats haven't been murdering people
left and right, it's the republicans who have), the republicans killed
JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, they have been a cancer on the USA since 1963
and probably before.
Here is an interesting point. There is a clear division in the government
of the USA, and here is one way of interpretting it (although I am sure
people may disagree): there are the people for a fully democratic
government, that is majority rule, therefore their name: the "democrats",
and those people for a republic government, which is rule by
representatives, or some form other than democracy, and therefore their
name "republicans". Initially "republican" was set in contrast to
"monarchy", "loyalists" and "royalists", and the history of both of these
parties is an interesting part of history. Clearly, people should know
that the republicans are the conservatives, they get support by the
strongly religious christians, mostly white males, while the democrats are
the liberals, the educated, non religious. This much, I think people can
agree with. A full democracy is the newer idea, while a republic is the
older idea. For myself, I see a "republic", whatever it is, as being
inferior to a "democracy". People might argue that democrats are not
necessarily democratists, and it seems clear that many are for
representative democracy, instead of full democracy. And maybe there will
be a "full democracy" party which is even more liberal than the old stodgy
democratic party, which is a defacto "representative democratic" party.
Within full democracy there are a variety of implementations. My own
recommendation is one where the majority opinion of a smaller group may
overrule the majority opinion of a larger group within the volume of space
of that smaller group's location. Here is a typical example: medical
marijuana. In the USA, hypothetically lets say that the majority is
against medical marijuana being legal (this appears to be untrue, but it
is the position of the current leaders of the federal government). So
then, a person can say "medical marijuana is illegal in the USA", but then
a majority in the state of California approved medical marijuana. Then in
my view, medical marijuana may be illegal in the USA, with the exception
of those in the state of California (since a local majority may overrule a
larger majority). And it is more logical, we wouldn't expect people in
Washington DC, or Uganda to enforce their majority opinion on people
halfway around the planet in California, or vice-versa. So then imagine,
that within California the city of San Diego votes against medical
marijuana. Then I would say that medical marijuana is illegal in the USA
and San Diego but legal in all other parts of California. And then, the
people of the city of Chula Vista vote to have legal medical marijuana.
Their majority should rule the city of Chula Vista, and the majority of
San Diego should not be able to enforce their opinion on the residents of
Chula Vista. So then medical marijuana would be illegal throught the
entire USA, except in all parts of California except San Diego, but within
San Diego, excluding Chula Vista, where medical marijuana has been decided
to be legal by the majority. It sounds complicated, but yet it is simple
and logical. Each city should be able to determine their own laws. The
planetary majority opinion may be a good guide for how to vote, but many
times, that view may be rejected by some state or city of people.
There are many aspects of the secret technology that we in the excluded
can only piece together. And here is one more piece. Ok so, some time I
will be sleeping, or just barely sleeping, and occassionally there will be
a thought, mostly audio, that feels exactly like I am consciously thinking
it, but in the few seconds immediately after, I realize that it is an
absurd statement, or one I firmly do not agree with. In other words,
somehow I was made to consciously think something that at the time felt
like I originated the idea, but milliseconds later, I realize was clearly
a foreign thought of external origin. It's difficult to describe but I
will try my best. Usually sounds, in our own voice, are beamed onto some
portion of our brain where we have a tiny few milliseconds to chose
whether we accept or reject the statement as being something we agree or
disagree with. But perhaps there is some location on our brain that the
audio can be beamed, and it seems as though we are consciously thinking
the audio...in other words that we originated the statement ourselves,
when in reality it is of an external origin (ie: some criminal in the
government with this secret advanced sound beaming technology developed
over a century). So it seems very clear that this technology can be used
to simply totally control a person's thoughts, making them absolutely
think and do anything that is wanted, however, for some reason, people
have currently chosen only to beam onto areas of the human brain that
allow the human to still retain control over this central point...giving
them the opportunity (albeit not much of an opportunity) to reject the
audio suggestions. Perhaps it is more convincing to discredit a person's
ethics if they themselves accept an evil suggestion from a camera-thought
net beamer human. For example, if they beamed some racist belief, in a
person's own voice, onto their brain at this one central point (for lack
of a better name), it would feel to that person as natural as one of their
own thoughts, in effect they would be taken over and their
thought's/opinions completely controlled by these people in the
camera-thought net, without them ever being able to stop it, or even
knowing that it is happening to them. Such is the nature of this area in
the brain, I am speculating. But this approach is not done, for some
reason...or only rarely done...for example...when a person is sleeping,
and then only for a second, perhaps to introduce the full capability of
this technology to the excluded. Because what they usually do is beam the
negative thought, in this example a racist thought, (but it could be a
genderist thought, or violent thought, etc), on a part of the brain that
allows a human to dismiss it as being something they don't believe it...in
other words, the individual is left to control their own mind (again,
although the suggestions are very powerful, in particular to those who
have never heard that sending sound onto brains is possible, which is
probably the majority of people on earth). So, it seems relatively clear
that this sound sending technology can be used to literally take over the
brain of any species with a brain. But maybe I am wrong, maybe a person
could somehow recognize that the opinions beamed on their brain are not
their own. It seems like our current thought pointer, like a current
program pointer, controls our current thought, but not the vast data bank
of memories and opinions that may be stored in our brains, which would
seem to me to be difficult to change. All I know is that these peculiar
thought beamings are very different from the common daily ones, like the
common ones a person has no choice but to hear them, but unlike the common
beamings, it truly feels like it is your own thought, and that you
absolutely agree with it...only seconds later do you understand that it
was a statement beamed onto your brain that you completely disagree with,
and feel the shock and embarrassment of feeling that you had thought it
(when in reality you had no choice as the thought was beamed there, and
unlike these common beamings where there is choice, in these currently
rare special-unknown-kind of beamings there is no choice).
11/16/06
The key to these voyeurs in the cam-thought net is that their victims
never know they are being watched. That is really the key to voyeurism, it
only works, there is only the thrill when the victim (all us excluded)
don't know they are being watched. That is the special kink for them. As
any person in police, it's much more fun to watch people that to be
watched. And part of that voyeuristic kink that the people in police and
conservatives have is watching people in their houses and their thoughts,
but the important thing...is that the victims can't ever know that they
are being watched...it is the all important critical point, and these
voyeurs will murder, assault, detroy info, you name it...to keep things
that way, to allow them to enjoy that secret pleasure of having power and
control over other people. Once a person knows they are being watched,
it's nowhere near as fun for the evil power hungry included.
William de Wiveleslie Abney was the first to invent a photographic
material that works for infrared light around 1887. This is a key point on
the development to Pupin seeing what a brain's eyes see in addition to the
thought screen that most species with brains have. Asimov has no less than
3 "mip" (Michael I Pupin) phrases in his paragraph on Abney. Interesting
how Pupin said "fight the eye net"...I mean that's an interesting
statement from the inventor of the technology. I think that is
saying...fight those who want to keep hearing thought for themselves and
away from the public. Have fun trying to find info on Abney, such as a
date for his infrared invention.
It seems clear that, for example, with the cathode ray tube that spews
photons in the xray, that there have been decades of progress in research,
development and production of these tools, cameras, in particular infrared
cameras and laser beams, but the only thing available to the public are
these huge clunky ultra-overpriced objects (cameras, lasers, cathode ray
tubes, etc) special bloated companies like Raytheon must have a secret
market where microscopic or tiny cameras are secretly sold, while the
consumer gets the huge box model, and then for thousands of dollars. Like
an infrared camera is such an expensive thing to build. It's gross, and it
has been happening since 1910 with Pupin's invention of seeing what eyes
see in the infrared, and seeing the thought screen in every brain (where a
person can draw a triangle in their mind, for example).
An included friend hinted to me that there are some big breasted women
reading my opinions, if so, definitely contact me because I would like to
suck (and/or maybe just squeeze) on those big boobs, but only with
permission of course. Even medium ones, that's ok. There is nothing wrong
with a little consensual pleasure, I am reading now that Epikouros
(Epicurus) was not the first to say pleasure is good and pain is bad. He
was a student of the Kurinikoi (Cyrenaic) school of philosophers that
include student of Socrates based in Cyrene (Cyrene was founded before
Alexander around 600BCE), the northern coast of Africa, modern Libya.
Aristippus was the founder. Although sadly, some of the Cyrenaic
philosophers saw no value in natural science (although at least one saw
natural science as a pleasure). Isn't it funny how humans like to squeeze
on soft round objects? That is interesting. Generally speaking, any brainy
female regardless of breast size should contact me to flush out these main
10 issues (svts, cfoai, fyrn, etc), and as always the rounder the ass, the
better, but first braininess, then nice breasts, then pretty face, then
round ass. Mainly when it comes to friends, all nonviolent are accepted
and tolerated and even the small-time only a few minor violent events
ofcourse, of the remaining nonviolent probably welcomed least will be
those that, "threaten first degree violence", then those who abduct or
contain nonviolent, nonabducter, noncontainer people, those who steal, the
rude, the antisexuals, the psychology-believers, the religious, the
secretive/antifreeinfo, the antidemocracy, liars will probably be welcomed
less. It's good to figure all this info out, because, look what has
happened, killers run the government and the innocent are slaughtered
without even being seen...so we need to start to identify and record who
is and who is not violent for example, and then by all means don't elect
them president, vp, into congress, into court, etc.
You should see this included system, such a large part of it is run by
money. For example there is a massive secret system of payments. One
person pays another to zap a person, clearly the zappers are low level
scum bags, poor people, who get money to: 1) zap people, 2) spread
propaganda ...and so on, everybody does something for money, and money is
the main motivation for most people. There are certainly lines that people
will not cross for money, one major one is doing violence because they
ethically disagree, or risk imprisonment, etc. But generally, poor people
will do a lot for money. And it's interesting that money is just a bunch
of paper, now even just electric information. Soon, money may be paperless
altogether. The rich people have all the electronic credits, and therefore
their opinions (and needless to say, the prevailing opinions of the
wealthy are shockingly immoral, illegal, violent, dishonest and
unethical). But I need to add $ lines to my images of the camera-thought
net. All those thugs who zap innocent people are paid, and perhaps even
paid per zap/itch/muscle move and paid by scummy wealthy people, without
educations, with only sourpuss anger and backwards midievil beliefs.
A new book about the Paul Wellston death is available:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Assassination-Strange-Senator-Wellstone/dp/0975276301/sr=8-1/qid=1163724631/ref=sr_1_1/104-4457624-4910361?ie=UTF8&s=books
and David Ray Griffen has given a good review of it. One thing they
mention is how the FBI arrived at the crash scene first within 2 hours of
the crash. There have to be teams of people dedicated to rounding up and
stopping any possible evidence from reaching the public. The FBI did the
very same thing for the Pentagon gas station video. The FBI must be the
main camera net go to for all the republican crime that needs to have
evidence stopped. If Wellstone was murdered, and I doubt a person like
Fetzer (most likely in the camera-thought net) would go to the trouble to
spend time on something that was not true, and then that Griffen (somewhat
clearly in the camera-thought net) would give it a positive review if it
was not true. Plus just looking at the info, it looks like a typical
murder...the camera-thought net control everything, all the media, even
the thoughts of the people...as I say the only way to combat this network
is by creating total free information...it's the only answer I can see
that is going to work. And its amazing when you see the FOI act of
1977...it doesn't even stick....people have to go to the supreme court to
make the government give up information, and then it's all blacked out,
and there is still not one audio or video that they have released to the
public in decades of secret recording. It really requires that the public
finally gets a whiff of the rottenness in the government and society,
starts to imagine that there might be people hearing their thought, starts
to understand the history of science, and of the USA. It's slow going.
Look at this reason number 10, I mean this stuff is shocking:
"The NTSB investigation was headed by Acting Director Carol Carmody, a
Bush appointee who had earlier ruled that there was no foul play in the
small airplane crash in 2000 that took the life of Governor Mel Carnahan
of Missouri, the Democratic candidate for the Senate who was killed 3
weeks before his expected victory (over John Ashcroft). "
Here the republicans killed two democrat senators and next to nothing
happens...that is so gross, what a bunch of lawless violent criminals. And
you know, it seems clear to me in my mind that violent criminal
organizations don't walk around with black cowboy hats and black bandanas
over their mouths...they look more like the Nazi elite...suits and ties,
military uniforms, thought to be upstanding members of society with
families...but yet they are involved in hundreds and thousands of first
degree murders of innocent people who hold any opposing philosophy and
then some that don't even, a number of victims in the WTC and no doubt the
Pentagon voted for Bush, they elected their own murderer and therefore
made it possible.
11/20/06
I wish I could close my eyes and wake up in a different century. One far
in the future.
With the person that was tasered at UCLA, to me the answer is simple, no
taser should ever be used accept in self defense. In other words a taser
should not be used to move a nonviolent person. In addition, I think the
taser is not a good tool to be using. Aren't hand cuffs enough? For
trespassing-type events, a person should be asked to leave, at least 2 or
3 times, warned that they will be forcibly removed at least twice, then I
think there needs to be focus on the method of moving a person. One method
is for two people to each take an arm, another is to use handcuffs (since
clearly the person refuses to leave despite at least 3 (recently within a
few minutes) requests by representatives of the property. For nonviolent
people no handcuff should even be used, but I think it should be decided
democratically for each city. I think a taser can be used only when the
person being removed from the property has (recently within a few minutes)
assaulted somebody besides themselves or is in the act of assaulting some
person besides themselves. To me that seems, looking at the video, and
eyewitnesses, it seems like the person was not violent. In addition, this
person shot a homeless person twice, definitely use of a metal bullet gun
against a person without a weapon should be forbidden and punished by
deemployment at the very least. I am glad for the cell phone video
cameras, it's nice knowing that people must accept that at any given
moment their actions might be recorded on video. I like that, other people
don't.
There was a conference "Beyond Belief" that is nice to see, with free
videos on the web, beyondbelief2006.org.
11/22
One reason I am not racist is because it allows me to grope and fondle a
more diverse group of women, but only consensually, ofcourse.
Things have really changed with the recent popularity of political
correctness. Now for example, it's "violenter american", instead of simply
"violenter", and "sexually challanged" instead of "antisexual", etc.
11/27/06
Kind of an informative video about the origin of Christmas:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7951618892821637153
A christian guy set this to me. Remeber that this is from christian
people, and is pro christianity (I am not religious), and so I would be
skeptical about the info presented, nobody confuses history and fact like
the religious. Here's a good expose on Cheney: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-410313931558811701
from the same person.
I think it would be interesting to see if there is some way of detecting
the pressure of any particle. If photons bounce and are elastic than even
the smallest particle may exert pressure on other particles that can be
measured electronically somehow. Who to hell knows?
I saw a wonderful movie "The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Files".
Garrison died (at age 70, perhaps murdered) the same year this film was
made in 1992. Garrison was awarded 30 minutes of air time on NBC, and one
clip shows this with Garrison saying (paraphased) "what's that? You say
you want to see the xrays of the President's brain?" which may be a hint
at seeing thought in the infrared. His closing statement in the Shaw trial
in 1969 starts with "May it please the court" which is "MIP" (Mihajlo
Idvorski Pupin, the first to see thought). There is video of the evil
Nicholas Katzenbach stating his opinion that Garrison was an "absolute
nut", clearly evil because they all know the truth. It reminds me of Bill
O'Reilly calling Fetzer a nut, here O'Reilly lies to the public about the
9/11 mass murder, he knows all about, that he has seen in the
camera-thought net with many others. It has to be a bizarres feeling in
their head to know the truth, but tell the exact opposite on television
for a living. O'Reilly and similar paid for liars for murdering
conservatives are the modern Goebbells. Many people ask how could so many
keep 9/11 a secret, how could so many be involved, and one example is the
Mahattan Project, but another are the gas chambers...the gas chambers was
such a well kept secret by many thousands of people that victims did not
even know until the very last few seconds they were going to be murdered,
and ofcourse, for those political prisoner guards who did know, telling
them only made matters worse. And the key principle of this mass secrecy
is the pupin camera thought net, ... the secret of hearing thought. It's
one of the main reasons that these secrets are kept, that many thousands
of people can organize 9/11 plots, without the majority of the public ever
knowing. As an aside, Fetzer put forward some very unlikely theories about
the JFK murder in a youtube video, sadly, but as an excluded I don't know
for sure, and have to remain open minded. Fetzer claimed that the fatal
shot came from above a sewer hole on the overpass (and a second from a
similar sewer hole on the other side), when it seems clear that the Mormon
photo shows even us excluded that Sturgis, Hunt, and Arnold were the three
behind the fence. Then Fetzer goes on to say that the Zupruter film was
recreated, which I find very doubtful, he then goes on to cover for Dan
Rather, who Robert Groden (definitely his "The Case for Conspiracy" is
worth seeing) says in this Garrison video, lied to the public saying that
JFK was thrown forward in the Zupruter film before the Zupruter film
disapeared from public view. Groden amusingly states that...JFK being
thrown back and to the left is one of the main and only things people that
see the Zapruter film walk away remembering. There is so much to the
credit of Fetzer it is a tiny point, for all his 9/11 work, and for
example Fetzer correctly identifies Posner as a total paid-for propaganda
puppet of the murders and supporters of the JFK murder. That type of
potentially purposely misleading info makes more honest people (although
clearly we all lie from time to time, in particular with the
camera-thought secret net) doubt the honesty of their other claims, but
ultimately, facts align together, for example a video is one piece of
evidence, the seismic data a second, eyewitness testimony another, etc.
and ultimately separate pieces of evidence tend to confirm a theory, and
so some amount of truth can be known. So far, I have not detected any even
remote sell-out/purposeful insider lie from David Ray Griffen, and Griffen
openly supports Fetzer's coauthored book about the probable murder of Paul
Wellstone, and so the Wellstone death still remains a probable murder.
My feeling on Garrison was that, there was evidence of Shaw's guilt, and
beyond that...look at what happened to David Ferrie...and others, like the
Dallas police officer, Roger Craig:
from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeaths.htm
"Craig was also with Seymour Weitzman when the rifle was found on the
sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. He insisted that the rifle was a
7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.
In 1967 Roger D. Craig went to New Orleans and was a prosecution witness
at the trial of Clay Shaw. Later that year he was shot at while walking to
a car park. The bullet only grazed his head. In 1973 a car forced Craig's
car off a mountain road. He was badly injured but he survived the
accident. In 1974 he surviving another shooting in Waxahachie, Texas. The
following year he was seriously wounded when his car engine exploded.
Craig told friends that the Mafia had decided to kill him. Craig was found
dead from on 15th May, 1975. It was later decided he had died as a result
of self-inflicted gunshot wounds."
Perry Russo is a credible witness. There was other evidence too. But, you
know, clearly Sturgis is the main person who should have been jailed for
first degree murder. Fletcher Proudly adds to the evidence against George
bush Senior's involvement (which is already well beyond any reasonable
doubt, the Hoover memo, Zapata Oil, his relationship with Hunt and
Sturgis, insiders like Josiah Thompson who said "saw a puff of smoke under
some bushes", etc), Prouty uses the phrase people are familiar with
for George Bush "Great Big", saying (paraphasing) "if Garrison had won,
the public would be confronted with that great big truth, spell it out,
W-H-Y". What if Garrison had really protected Ferrie? Maybe they would
have had more, but even the testimony of Perry Russo was apparently not
enough. In this video some nice things are: Groden saying how the Lincoln
was cleaned up, instead of preserved as a piece of physical evidence like
most cars would be, and even stored in the smithsonian. And that the photo
of Oswald holding the gun is definitely fake, I had seen this before, and
now it really sinks in, the heads on two photos are identical, one was
tilted, but the bodies are at different distances from the camera and so
the heads should be different sizes...another video explains how an exact
pixel-for-pixel match of the two heads would be a virtual impossibility.
And to think that that was on the cover of Life magazine...how like
Stalin's abuse of photographs that is, how Nazistic. I couple that with
the "drawn" autopsy photos as being one of the more Nazistic examples of
the events surrounding the JFK murder. But why does the public never
realize to vote democratic until the truth about JFK is fully uncovered?
The stories of Madeleine Duncan Brown are amazing...they show that LBJ had
many people murdered, and Malcolm Wallace.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6962062879996612313&q=madeleine+duncan+brown&hl=en.
It's an amazing set of stories Brown told. Clearly nobody doubts that her
son was the child of LBJ, and DNA tests would prove it. That story about
what happened to her son...and then her nanny...holy shit...that is
shocking. Put together with the truth about how Wallace only got 5 years
of probation for the first degree murder of a man who had sex with LBJ's
sister. Again this shows that our court system needs to be opened for full
democracy and not just the verdict of one easily corruptible person. Here
this guy Wallace was a college graduate.
We still live in the secret camera thought net society, but that time is
coming to a close, and we are entering the full free info society where
there are cameras on the street, but the images are available to the
public, and the public has their own cameras through-out their property
(houses, cars, etc.), and even personal robots that capture images and
sounds of their every move...murderers like those of Jam Jay, Anna
Politkovskaya, and thousands of others will never go unidentified as they
do now, but holy shit, lets hurry up already with that massive camera
coverage that we all can see before more of these murderers go free.
11/29
bravo and kudos to the history channel for their history of illegal drugs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJr7a7aqEvE&mode=related&search=
I see the Internet as being easier if only the MAC address (the unique 10
digit number every network device has) is used, and so a person can call a
MAC address like a phone number, everything can be ready to go just by
plugging the network cable in the wall. Where people can ping a Mac
address for example.
I think we are moving from an era of total free information for an elite
few to an era of total free information for all people. Currently for a
century a growing number of people have been seeing thoughts, and inside
houses, and this will continue maybe even for another century, but slowly
we see the public network growing too. Although now just a meager
Internet, with a few photos and videos, a tiny amount compared to the
voluminous secret net (it may shock people to know that the data on the
all the Internet is probably much smaller than all the secret data stored
in the secret camera thought net data which has been accumulating images
and audio of people's thoughts for 100 years...that is without question
terabytes upon terabytes of information). Slowly there are public cameras,
initially on the streets, in businesses, in residents...and eventually, in
particular for the street cameras the public will probably be able to see
the archived images when they finally come around and get smart. That
alone will change the structure of society...no longer will people wonder
who killed Anna Politkovskaya, Jam Jay, Nicole Simpson, Bonnie
Bakely...the public will see how a person and in particular a vehicle is
traced from street to street, and murderers will no longer roam free and
on the loose...which is the scary way things are now...I mean many of the
people around us are murderers and certainly multiple assaulters...just be
sheer probability, because most of them are not being jailed or even seen
by the public, and only if the public sees them is anything done.
12/01/06
kind of a far out idea, but nonetheless within the realm of free
information is the idea supernovi only being the result of advanced life.
A person can argue that, because most stars are liquid, that any kind of
fracture or instability is unlikely, and would quickly be filled in (as
opposed to a solid body where a fracture might break it apart). Another
interesting idea is that, possibly the true life cycle of stars is from
large and blue to small and red (although it seems clear that there are
large red stars too), because of the idea that clearly stars are losing
matter as they continue to burn, they give off far more matter than they
take in, and so ultimately over the millions of years, stars lose matter,
I don't think most people disagree with that. So similar to Plank's black
body radiation, the star cools down as it contains less and less matter,
and so the number of photons per second it releases becomes less, and so
it's color changes from blue to yellow and then to red, (although some
appear to be white colored, which is a conglomeration of different
frequencies). I question and doubt many of the modern theories.
quote: "The universe is not expanding, but is unending."
I think that the new view of the universe is more awesome than even the
earlier view. "The universe is not expanding, but is unending." and that,
to me, is more awe inspiring...that there simply appears to be no end to
the universe in terms of space, matter or time. Therefore, I think the
view that the red shift of light of distant galaxies is not only due to
Doppler shift, as was mistakenly believed (and continues to be mistakenly
believed) for close to a century, but that this red shift of distant
galaxies is due mainly to the stretching of light that occurs when light
is bent around gravitational objects. But, I want to keep an open mind,
and wait for the experimental evidence that light bent by gravity actually
does show a slowing of frequency.
Can you imagine if JFK had the ability to get down in the car after the
first shot to his throught? Things would have been entirely different.
History in the USA would have probably been vastly changed. JFK would
probably be left with a disability, leaving him with a changed voice,
perhaps a horse sounding voice. But, just knowing how JFK fired Dulles and
Cabal, it seems clear that JFK would have used his authority as president
to round up all those involved. Sturgis, Hunt, Arnold...all three would
have been quickly identified and jailed. Oswald might have lived, Marcello
would have probably been convicted that same day, Ruby, Ferrie,
Shaw...probably would have been jailed. George Bush Senior probably would
have been jailed. Dulles might have been jailed. LBJ probably would be
forced to resign. It's not clear, but I think JFK would have made serious
changes, even from the hospital bed perhaps.
12/04/06
I think a clear truth is that, the future is either going to be a pleasure
society or pain society, and because most people dislike pain, it will
probably become a pleasure society, where all pleasure is embraced and
tolerated. Some people are heading for that pleasure society in the
future, but many, and perhaps even most set limits on pleasure, and even
head towards a pain society (those who endorse and commit violence, for
example).
Because the laws are not supported democratically (by a constant
democratic majority, who gets to routinely vote on them), byt those who
have to live under them, people view our laws as if they are a joke, or as
if they don't really apply (or are applied selectively) to daily life.
Even the homicide law has been watered down by the republicans, for
example, who do 9/11, killed JFK, RFK, and others and the killers are
still free and on the loose. They routinely missile innocent people of
undeveloped nations, killing thousands of civilians in first degree murder
that ofcourse goes unpunished, and even unseen by most people. The right
to trial is removed for psychiatric and terrorism arrests. It's a terrible
thing, that because our laws are viewed as subject to those in power, we
live under a virtual anarchy, a lawless society. When you remove the
highest law, homicide, and apply it only selectively, any other laws are
only less important, and it's not the kind of society that should be.
After thinking more about the General Theory of relativity, Quantum
physics, and the standard model, I feel, for the most part, that all three
are probably not true, and that Newton's physics are probably still the
interpretation of the universe closest to truth. For the General Theory of
Relativity, as it stands, even without analyzing the equations, it can be
shown to be wrong on a theoretical basis, because time-dilation is most
probably false (a photon is the fastest moving piece of matter, and it
does not appear to gain mass, the physical phenomena people describe...the
mechanical motion of clocks slowing the faster [relative to the rest of
the universe] they move, I doubt, and has never been shown to be true to
my satisfaction, in addition, even if true, there are other
explanations...increased friction with photons for example, the other
example of particles gaining mass in particle accelerators I think can be
explaned as a phenomenon of electric fields accelerating charged
particles, in that the faster the particle is moving, the more force needs
to be applied to accelerate it any further.). The perihelon of Mercury...I
very much doubt cannot be explained by Newtonian physics, and you know, if
Newtonian physics does not explain the motion of Mercury, I would go back
and calculate more. It's not a simple model, and modeling planets as
points is far from accurate. The sun is billions upon billions of atoms in
liquid form, as are much of the terrestrial planets...it appears likely
that all planets have molten metal (perhaps mostly iron) in their centers.
Perhaps the distribution of matter in the sun effects the motion of
Mercury. I find it very hard to believe that Newton's laws do not work for
planet Mercury. Then the bending photons, this is simply photons
responding to the effect of gravity, because yes, I think photons are
matter, and the basis of all matter, and this idea...that light particles
are part of all matter, is absolutely, 100%, missing from relativitity, in
fact, a completely separate case is made for light. But even when using
just the light-like equation (x^2+y^2+z^2-ct^2=0) to describe all matter,
(which may remove the idea of time dilation, I don't know, but in any
event time-dilation [and matter-increasing] is most likely false) ... it's
difficult to know how to apply this equation for space on even one
particle of matter. For example with Newton's equations, a person can
easily explain the motion of two pieces of matter...this is one of the
most basic and simplest proofs of the theory of gravitation. But where is
the equivalent proof using relativity? I have never seen it in my entire
life...the simple modeling on computer or on paper of two pieces of matter
using the general theory of relativity. How does the matter fit into the
model of space-time? But as I said, even without knowing the equations,
you can show that the GToR is probably wrong simply because light is
treated differently from the rest of matter, is viewed as massless, and
that time dilation is probably false because all matter is made of photons
(I mean it is simple, when we light a match we see photons...photons emit
from every piece of matter in the form of heat...now isn't it only logical
that the photons were there, in the atoms, all the time? It seems highly
unintuitive that photons would be created at the time of lighting a match,
or being emited from a body). So, I think, it needs to be said, that the
GToR (General Theory of Relativity) has been, as is becoming clearer as
time continues, a completely inaccurate, useless, mistake, or even
outright fraud (since where is the public proof?, Why does nobody address
these issues I raise?). I still want to find more evidence that the GToR
is completely inaccurate. Then remember how the expanding universe theory
(which appears to be growing to be a 100 year mistake...as is the
GToR...which is now a 100 year mistake...like keeping pupin's finds a
secret...again a centurial mistake...and counting), was magically said to
apply perfectly to the GToR, as if the two had been made for each other...
and now the question about..."who doubted?", and strictly who doubted with
scientific objections? Where are they? Who were they? What arguments did
they use? They are lost comments buried behind the glaring domination of
the GToR, some of which were probably accurate. So, as I continue to
investigate the history of science, I am leaning more and more towards the
idea that the GToR, in it's current form, is completely inaccurate. But I
don't know, if some form of a space-time geometry, light-like only, or
minus time-dilation can be shown to be equivalent to Newton's gravity...my
feeling is that ultimately, the equations can be reduced to Newton's, and
therefore, time is viewed as not dependent on changes in space. Probably
by now, there is enough information and experiment within the
camera-thought net to show that time-dilation is false. In addition,
people have probably already figured out that the red-shift of light is
not only due to velocity, but due also to stretching from
gravity...probably a 100 year mistake...again that appears in my mind to
have nothing to do with the GToR, and is mostly a conclusions drawn from
Hubble's and other people's analysis of the spectra of stars and galaxies.
This theory, the General theory of relativity forms the basis of the
belief in black holes, in worm holes, and that is the basis of the work of
Steven Hawking, and most other physicists and astronomers...they all
believe it and espouse it. And what does that say? It's like the
earth-centered theory, or "vitalism", the "ether" theory, the "phlogiston"
theory theory of heat, the "caloric" theory of heat, ... each had it's
believers. And ofcourse, people will look back in 500 years on our
theories and understand them to be more primitive that theirs. (although
clearly the GToR was a step back, and Newton still stands, in my view,
even looking back 300 years later, as being the most accurate system).
Quickly onto quantum physics: first I reject the idea that any particle
exists only because we observe it (if that is a central tenet of qp),
clearly particles exist no matter if observed or not. I reject the idea
that a particle "appears" out of empty space. I view the universe as being
much more simple and straight forward...more like that of Newton's:
particles of matter moving in empty space and that is it...that's all
there is. All larger particles, atoms, molecules, planets...are basically
combinations of photons. So, I think, for example Heisenberg's equation,
and this is a simple point I am surprised has not been
recognized...applies to the limits of human technology, but not to the
actual universe...in other words, as we measure something, the smaller the
measurement, the less accurate, is simply a result of the physical
properties of the matter we are using in detection, ... the actual
particles at that scale move on as they always do without any change
whatsoever...their movements are real, and actual...it is simply our
measurement of those movements that are inaccurate, and ofcourse, yes, our
matter in measuring becomes part of the equation, but the universe of
particles moving in space remains intact and very simple.
Finally with the standard model, which I interpret as being "force
conveyed by particles", I have, again, many doubts. I doubt gravity is
conveyed by a particle, and although it is abstract, view gravity as more
of an intrinsic part of the universe. Perhaps gravity is in the nature of
the geometry of space, matter and time in the universe (similar to
Einstein's view, but minus the dependence of time on space, and therefore
any kind of time or space-dilation). I doubt that photons convey the
electric force. The electric force in my view is a combination of many
particles which results primarily from gravity. electricity (which is, I
think identical to magnetism...in other words that a current in permanent
magnets causes it's electric (magnetic) field, although what the field is
made of is still unknown to me...I think perhaps photons or electrons or
neither but some kind of collective system of atoms which causes the
attraction or repulsion of magnets). So, I reject the theory of quarks,
simply because there is no physical evidence, and it seems to me that any
number of particles can be created simply be combining photons. I reject
the idea of antimatter as being antimatter, and I think it is simply
electrical opposite matter. I reject the idea of a "quantum number"
(Infidel Guy, Reggie Finley also hints at this belief in one of his free
videos debunking the ancient theory of "souls"). But by all means, let
people explain this to the public, and prove me wrong. Those people in
particle physics believe all of these theories, and it's shocking to think
that they would so strongly accept theories that they cannot prove with
physical evidence. But this brings me to a point that I think is very
relevent. And this point is that, there appear to be very very few people
who criticize prevailing theories. In particular the theories of emminent,
welathy and powerful people (in particular those who routinely can afford
and are accepted for publication). Nobody appears willing to criticize the
General Theory of relativity, the nobel prize winning electroweak theory
(I reject the strong and weak nuclear forces and think the atom to be held
together and to separate by gravity only, but I think, you know, the atom
is small, and because we cannot directly observe it, we need to keep a
particularly open mind to it's composition), nobody is going to openly
question those theories in print besides a renegade person who is not
going to be published, and who will be ostracized by their peers. And
maybe it is upsetting to see a renegade view in print, but the alternative
is to accept and compound dogmatic inaccurate theories for centuries
without the truth ever heard or even hinted at.
I am a person who is simply interested in the truth, I prefer people to
back up (or dispute) these claims with physical evidence and new
explanations...I really do want to know the truth.
More commentary about "Beyond Belief 2006". There were some good comments,
but also, some disappointments and tough to accept truths. First I think
mainly, the interesting people were Dawkins, Harris, Porko, and Druyen
being openly atheist. Dawkins and Harris openly promote their criticism of
religion, while Porko and Druyen are not quite as vocal. Dawkins,
ofcourse, has some enjoyable commentary about religion, religion as child
abuse, a separate speaker quoted from Dawkins book (some video is on
video.google.com of Dawkins relating the "The God Delusion"), about how a
child will believe their parents lie about Santa Claus, and this is one of
the best and most clear examples of this terrible deception of children by
adults...while the speaker argued against this being wrong, I think this
is one of the best examples of why the lies of religion are so terrible.
Here young people have to eventually reach the conclusion that their
parents, for whom, they believe everything out of their mouth, and trust
so strongly, lied to them...lying is terrible, and in particular to young
people who look up to and trust parents so much...it just seems cruel to
me, spanking is worse, but lying can't possibly be good. Harris had a nice
quote that our conversation could be set in the year 200 CE, as it is in
religion, or our talk could be about this century. The point is a good
one, and one I raise in FYRN, that these people that religious people are
using as their guide to the universe, thought the sun went around the
earth, didn't have novacaine, had never traveled above the clouds, and
probably felt certain that nobody ever would get above the clouds, etc.
Porko, openly admited rejecting a belief in any gods, which was the first
time I heard about that, maybe she came out of the atheist closest
publicaly just then, and good for her and all of us, the more the better.
And then, surprisingly to me, sez that she "got off" on something...and I
can't accept that they cold blooded camera-thought net, wealthy elites
will openly admit to even a particle of sexuality...I mean we are all to
presume that they are celibates, both publically and privately, and
anything else is to be less than human...to show any remote appearance of
sexuality (despite being a biological mandate), is a shock and
surprise...I think we were all taken aback....humans...as something other
than asexual and frigid? hard to believe! But then Porko sez people should
"stick" something somewhere, and we quickly recognize the violent
antisexuality in all people coming back home. "Stick it!" is the rallying
cry of the antipleasurable. The violent tend to "punch" a key, while the
nonviolent tend to "press" them. Druyen told the story about how her
grandfather told her dad it was better not to pretend about being
religious, that there was a Carl Sagan high school opened in North
Carolina, and that she has a new book about Sagan. Druyen commented that
her hope is that people wake up and reject religion, which was nice, and
also an interesting comment, while she was promoting Porkoism, about all
these images that the public has paid for but has never seen...and my
thoughts go instantly to the secret 100 year pupin camera-thought net
image archives. And then I remember that Carl Sagan was one of the cloaked
camera-thought beam-it-to-our-eyes network, which includes virtually all
wealthy and powerful people (and even middle income and poor elitists!),
who drew back the hood to reveal his face for a second by saying that
hearing thought may one day be possible (and not big business for 90+
years), before slipping back under the cloak hood. From there it went
downhill. Although Druyen actually openly said "history of science", which
is violating a taboo...people in the cloaked eye-net society are not
supposed to openly endorse any good idea which has exited the mouth of Ted
Huntington. Some of these people are not strong speakers...many of their
voices quivered. Dawkins, Harris, Porko and the host all have strong
enough presentation, public speaking styles, but others Druyen included
don't have such strong public speaking voices. It takes time to overcome
the fear of public speaking, one way I do it is by realiing that the
people in the audience can't possible tell me about the universe, even if
they could...they chose not to. As a result, I feel more confident that I
do have some important information to tell people. But I understand shakey
voices...I mean this is an era of absolute chaos...people have been
secretly hearing thought for 100 years, people watch other people in their
houses...9/11 was an inside job but we are to accept that it was 13
hijackers...Sturgis was never arrested for the murder of JFK, Thane Cesar
is still free...and this is just scraping the surface...but yet we are to
carry on as if nothing is wrong or unusual? I thought it was low brow for
Druyen to refer to the "spirituality" of Porko's talk...there is no
spirit, and therefore no spirituality...that is total fraud, and perhaps
an appeal for money from those on the fence about spirits and religion,
but maybe I'm wrong. When people talk publically, we all get an
opportunity to see their beliefs, and that is nice, but it always seems to
be the same for me...they are antisexuals, they are believers in
psychology, they are religious, they are for secrecy, ... it is always a
dissapointment...I don't know why I both to even view one video, because I
know it's probably the camera-thought net antisexual religious violent
psychologers, who else could it possibly be? Are they going to tell me all
matter is made of photons, about full and constant democracy, make a plea
for full free info ending the copyrights, patents and privacy? no, to hear
that I need watch myself. For example, in a sentence Druyen makes the
point to loudly say "down!" (like a dog that humps a person's leg), and it
occured to me just how old-worldish some of Druyen's views are, aside from
her atheism. This antisexual view is really wrong in my opinion. I think
it's smart to promote and defend sexuality and pleasure, and I think
people that speak out against pleasure are flawed in that view...I think
it's stupid to speak out against physical pleasure, in particular when
physical pleasure feels so good, and nothing in science or common logic
tells us that there is anything remotely wrong with physical pleasure.
There is nothing wrong with nudity in public of private, nothing wrong
with sex for free and even for money. And this is an interesting
phenomenon: people who are smart enough to throw off the shackles of
religion, but not antisexuality, and many times not psychology. Sagan
crudely used the word "bonkers" in "Cosmos", and it's clear that Sagan
believed in the pseudoscience theories of psychology. Usually, in my
opinion, those who believe in psychology are those who don't know much
about the history of science, or science in general, and psychology serves
as their "science". Instead of talking about how a cell evolved, or how
machines work, they are more concerned with who is "nuts", or "psycho".
Dawkins is a believer in the very obscure theories of psychology and that
is amazing, for such a smart person. Harris refered to "sociopathic"
people, which is, I think close to meaningless...I guess "sociopathic"
people are those who cannot "fit" into society...perhaps like a homeless
person, or a hermit....well...you know...as long as they obey the laws,
and are nonviolent, I can't see any real problem with not wanting to
socialize, or with wanting to socialize...it seems a trivial choice. And
this is the funny aspect of psychology...here Jeff Daumer (the sociopathic
person Harris refers to)...it doesn't matter that the guy is a
murderer...killed people...the real issue is his social skills, and the
reasoning behind why a person kills and eats other humans. And this is
classically applied to Adolf Hitler, here this guy authorizes the murder
of 3 million people, but the real problem was that he had mental
problems...not that he advocated violence, had violentobia, had a serious
case of the violencia germ, was on a murderathon, I mean if I could say it
more clearly the bad people are the violent! violent! violent! damn!
halleluja, I want to pull the wool off of societies eyes. Yes, we can
analyze why humans (or others) are violent, but to me that is secondary.
But this entire conversation opens this issue that is forming in my mind I
refer to as "overvalued/undervalued", and this seems a clear principle.
Atheists generally are undervalued...they are genius level people, many of
them, but are treated like garbage by the majority. Celebrities generally
are highly overvalued, people stand in line to hear them to blow wind, but
most only have high school diplomas and a very unenlightened
interpretation of the universe and bad ethics...many endorse violence,
religion, psychology, horoscopes, antisexuality, secrecy, etc. very
low-brow ideas. Beautiful people are undervalued, people with nice bodies,
because the majority cares very little about physical beauty, women with
shockingly beautiful bodies go unknown, while women with average bodies
are paid millions, and the same is true for males. Although thinness is
very important and well rewarded, large breasts are of little value to the
sourpuss christian majority, and so those in modeling get the benefit of
being able to pay low amounts of money to fabulously beautiful women,
because they have no other offer (although no doubt many busty females get
money from wealthy people). Smart people are very undervalued. Wisdom
means very little in this age of religion, secrecy, greed and violence.
Very smart people probably have trouble getting hired, or finding even
minimum wage employment, while dumb people sail to the top, in this age
where telling the truth can only work against you. So, getting back to the
Druyen thing, I view many of these speakers, certainly all the supporters
of religion as being overvalued (the pope is highly overvalued, because
look at the lack of good info he provides...it's useless...highly
abstract, I prefer hearing about Pupin, how thought got heard, how these
people did transmutation of atoms, about the future for life on earth,
etc). Only really parts of the talk from the atheists do I find even
remotely entertaining or interesting. One point is that none of these
people took on psychology, nor did any of them take on antisexuality. And
these two tools are two of the major tools in the religious toolbox. As I
said Harris refered to "sociopaths" buying into psychology, Dawkin's books
are littered with psychology...the religious supporting people were
appearing to go for personal criticisms as opposed to taking on the
physical evidence. For example, one suggested that just the thought that I
might have put on women's clothes should be enough to reject any theories
I might express. Another refered to Dawkins as "bitchard", implying
perhaps that Dawkins' heterosexuality is at issue, instead of addressing
the actual truth of falsehoods of religions. This is a common claim by the
antisexuals...an appeal to anti-gay feelings, but most people (and perhaps
even other species) are primarily heterosexual, but show a rare
occassional consideration of homosexuality. Those that argue against
bisexuality, have only to masturbate once to same gender touching and they
are proven hypocrites, and that I think is very likely. But none of the
atheists took on antisexuality, and perhaps it is difficult to take on
openly, and needs to be addressed more subtley, but in any event, I think
the sexual and those for pleasure need to start revving up their
pro-pleasure propaganda, and this is what I have been saying for a long
time...that nothing in science indicates that there is anything wrong with
having as much sex as people want. This was an unusual part of "Cosmos",
when Sagan says "if we capitulate to superstition,
greed...sexuality"....wait a minute "sexuality"? If we capitulate to
sexuality? What can possibly be wrong with enjoying sexuality? It's like
capitulating to hunger for food, or knowledge...I don't see that as being
a good statement...yes we should not surrender to superstition, or
greed...but our sexual interests? No, we should pursue our sexual
interests, and to think there is something wrong with physical pleasure, I
think, is stupid, and backward...it reflects a religious tradition of
antisexuality. Some might argue that sexual assault is the result of
absolute physical pleasure, a full pleasure society, but this is obviously
wrong, because there is at least one person, the victim of sexual assault
that is feeling pain, and so clearly this is a violation of a pleasure
society. Only physical pleasure with full consent by all parties is what I
think the future is, and within that realm is a wide variety of physical
activities many that do not even involve genital touching. For example, I
think that making it illegal for humans under the age of 18 to touch an
adult's genitals is a form of child abuse, it's neglect, it's unfair, it's
callous, it forces them to live as untouching, unfeeling people, hardened
and made more brutal from a lack of physical pleasure. In particular males
under 18. They are forced to masturbate to images of females over age 18,
and the law requires that they stay celibate, and even that they are
forbidden to touch a breast, to have their penis touched, until age 18,
and that makes them vicious, angry, hostile, and violent. But the
antisexual will not bend, and cannot be swayed from their brutal walk into
the wall of nature and biology, as dictated by the traditions of religion
and marriage. I picked up a book by Druyen about Sagan's last days, and
leafed through it, and, without trying to be rude, but simply honest, I
found it to be very dull and was uninterested in reading it. One passage
caught my eye and I remember this even now, that Druyen describes when
Carl proposed marriage to her, and Druyen asked "this time it's for
keeps?", to which Carl replied "yeah, this time it's for keeps." And, I
have to be from a different planet, but this felt to me kind of funny. It
seemed like, you know, Druyen was some kind of piece of property to be
owned...that a person could keep or sell. But then I don't understand or
condone marriage at all. It's so formal. Then to show such pride in such a
statement seems unusual because, to me, as with every marriage, my feeling
is, that if two people really love each other, why the need for a formal
(and non-financial) agreement? I can see perhaps a financial agreement
with contractual obligations, but why a marriage certificate and trinket
such as ring? It's almost like a person that gives a confession on video
tape, but then decides to make it official by signing a written
confession...isn't the video enough? Well, no doubt the signed confession
helps too. I don't understand why a person would be excited over a
marriage agreement, as opposed to the birth of a child, or sex, for
example...people celebrate the marriage, not a birth as much, and
certainly not a new sexual encounter. Then there is the communal "mixing
of the assets", like all of the sudden, nobody knows where all this money
and property came from! Gee...was it hers or his?...well it's all a
communal property now. It's ironic that a people so opposed to communism
would embrace such a communistic idea of splitting marriage assets 50/50.
And there are numerous examples, Steven Spielberg is a good example, his
exwife took half of his money, but clearly Spielberg was the principle
earner of that money. And there are countless other cases of this unfair,
basically "theft". But wait...what about the children! Even without a
marriage agreement, I think it is understood legally that both parents
have an equal legal responsibility to care for their children. I have
never heard of a parent not having to legally pay for their child. So
there is nothing wrong with all the pleasure, sex, pregnancy, birth that
any and everybody wants, nothing at all wrong, in public, in private, for
free and even...yes...even for money. And we can absolutely expect never
to hear any appeal for decriminalizing prostitution from wealthy and
powerful people. There are numerous examples of antisexuality in atheists,
people smart enough to throw off the chains of religion, but not
antisexuality. Gloria Steinum is a good example. Here she is openly
atheist, and clearly that takes smarts, but apparently feels that
pornography and prostitution is anti-women, is a violation of human
rights, and that is stupid, in my view, because, touching genitals, sex,
etc. is just like any other job, like cleaning a toilet, cooking food for
money...perhaps it's not pleasant, many people don't like to work, but
yet, they consent to, and males do too. It's brutal to fill the prisons
and keep prostitution illegal. It helps to spread disease and violence
beyond that. So this view of Druyen's is very old-worldy and nun-like, in
my view, although somewhat surprisingly common (I am only slowly learning
the extent of people's hostility towards pleasure, which is ironic since
these are the biggest voyeurs on earth...who routinely watch kids in their
panties and then closely examine all their thoughts), maybe it's to win
money from antisexuals and not her own belief, but the "for keeps" quote,
to me says that this is a person who believes deeply in the tradition of
marriage. I find many religious to be rude, and the same is true for
antisexuals and supporters of marriage, rather than take on the issues
they resort to name calling and buzz words. Because I don't think they can
effectively win the debate against pleasure with logic, but have to resort
to labels like "slut", "ped" and "pervert", all of which are mistaken,
traditional, illogical beliefs. Their is nothing wrong with loving other
people in principle, even physically, as long as their is consent and no
objection as often as a person wants. And those labels are an example of
people working towads a pain-based or antisexual society...they are not
working towards a future where all people enjoy all the pleasure they want
consensually and openly. Some argue that too much pleasure is unhealthy,
but too much pleasure, for example, excessive rubbing of genitals leads to
pain and discomfort and then would be stopped...and we are talking about
trivial issues so long as nobody is hurt whatever it is is no serious
crime, despite the belief of many. there is simply nothing wrong with all
the pleasure anybody can do, and only sour puss "anti-pleasurists"...yes I
created a new word...reject that. One other aspect was that a religious
supporter said that the atheists all sell their books for money, and the
atheists took issue with that. I think people probably publish books to
promote their ideas, or perhaps just to entertain people, but clearly,
there is a point there. They could give their books away as I do, and many
give away free videos on the internet, in particular, it's ironic, that
here, they sell their books and get to watch our thoughts either for free
or for money (imagine the bastards who get all that money for those who
pay them to see popular people like me...and then we the watched don't get
a dime...fair eh!?), and then those of us who give away our books and
videos for free don't even get to see and hear their thoughts...how
backward is dat? 12/05 update: I mostly to focus on being positive,
stating my views honestly, and not being rude, or getting into personal
insults. To me saying "down!" or "stick!" is somewhat rude. I like to hear
about the future, about walking robots, about hearing thoughts, about the
history of science, about how sex is good, and pleasure is not bad as many
people believe, how religion is full of lies, etc...I'm not interested in
hearing the backward conservative elitist erroneous constantantly echoed.
But you have to realize with all these wealthy, powerful people...they are
all insiders, and they are never going to tell the excluded openly, and in
plain terms about hearing thoughts, and that is what is really needed, so
most of their talks are all corrupted. They are like cocaine addicts, the
cocaine being seeing and hearing thoughts, and the last thing they are
going to do is jeapordize the source of their drug addiction. And so the
second they are admited into the secret cloaked camera-thought 100 year
old Pupin secret net, they are morally corrupted, and corrupted to such a
degree that they are nearly useless, and anything out of their mouths of
less value...in particular anything from the movie that they are all
watching...what ever that might be...we excluded can only guess. So
shouldn't we have nothing but contempt for those in power? for those in
the camera-thought net? Why support them? Why listen to them, when we know
we will not hear the truth about seeing and hearing thought?
12/05/06
I mainly want to focus on the issues, I think I want to state my beliefs
clearly, without being rude, without being nasty, and I think that is
possible, and that is what I am striving towards.
My mind and life are mostly positive and happy, where I find most other
people bitter, angry, mean, rude, hostile most of the time. But then, I
don't watch tv, listen to radio, or really even interact with other people
that often, and when I do, they are usually rude, it pisses me off, it
angers me, but I soon enough return to my thoughts about the future, to
going to other stars, to the history of science...and everything in my
mind is positive again. But ofcourse, the animals with the camera thought
technology beam all kinds of idiotic shit on my mind, and I need to
constantly push their bogus images, sounds, and who knows what out of my
head.
I really have concluded that most people are vicious and terrible, in
particular those in the secret camera-thought network, ... I don't need
any more convincing of that, but yet...I am optomistic about the work I am
doing. I think there is a lot of positivity and good feelings in ULSF,
it's an interesting project, and I'm enjoying learning about this story,
and look forward to getting the video out on the web.
I want people, including myself, to ask all people these questions, and
record the answers, in particular major public figures, and scientists:
1) Do you believe in the big bang theory?
2) Do you think the universe is smaller than 50 billion light years?
3) Do you think that all matter is made of photons?
4) Do you believe the theory of time-dilation is true?
5) Do you believe there are black holes?
6) Do you believe globular clusters are not made by advanced life?
7) Do you think people figured out how to hear thoughts?
8) Do you think people figured out how to send images to human brains?
9) Are you against first strike violence?
10) Are you for people getting to quit the military?
11) Are you for full democracy?
12) Are you for full freedom of all information?
13) Do you support involuntary drugging of nonviolent people?
14) Do you support restraining nonviolent people to hospital beds with 4
point restraints?
15) Do you think Jesus rose from the dead and spoke to living humans?
Because let's get these people on record for history's sake, and to force
them to think about these issues, and take a position. Let's put together
more questions as time continues and start keeping track of who refuses to
answer, and of those who do answer and their answers. Give people time to
answer, and let them update and change their answers.
One thing in my mind that I want to share with the other excluded people
is that: When you are supporting people with your money...contributing to
their political campaigns, buying their books, watching their videos,
seeing their movies, watching their team play a sport, etc...think about
this: you are funding the included. You are basically pouring your money
into a group of people who are going to do nothing to help you to see and
hear thoughts. Those people are going to continue to take whatever ideas
are in your mind, and use them to their fullest extent, or simply throw
them away, but the last thing they are going to do is tell you about
hearing thought. If you fund them...you will live 100 years more of
secrecy, but...if on the other hand....you fund me....and nobody has yet
done this, beside the UC, my employer....if you fund me, you are funding
somebody that is going to tell the truth about seeing and hearing thought,
and even about sending images and sounds to brains, and the entire history
in full detail, as much as I understand, which I routinely type out here
and on my bim.htm page. By funding me, you are directly contributing to
you eventually getting to see the movie all the elite insiders are
secretly watching. Why fund any major person, any wealthy person? You know
they routinely hear and see thoughts and are not going to lift a finger to
tell you this. Why continue to fund people like that? I think the excluded
clearly don't realize that these people are seeing and hearing
thought...it is like Jewish people being murdered in gas chambers in Nazi
Germany...it's too shocking and outlandish to believe. But look at the
growing evidence. JFK hinted, Sagan hinted, many people have hinted, how
unbelievable is it that people could figure out how to see what our eyes
see from behind our head in the infrared? Not very. What about the people
you work with? First, do you see video in your eyes? if no, you are like
me, an excluded...an outsider in "out"land. If yes, who gives a shit about
you...or rather...how about coughing up the truth about how you see and
hear thought? But if you don't see and hear thought or get video in your
eyes hear me out. Let's work together...and I think these groups are on
the horizon. Although not one person has contacted me. Think about those
you work with, one woman I worked with repeated my thought "a brain like a
pidgeon", there must be similar occurances in your life. Let's talk about
them, let's share our evidence. I think we will see groups start to form,
like the abolishonist group, and the sufferagettes...but they will be the
people for seeing and hearing thought...the pupinists, or who knows?
It occurs to me that in this secret camera thought net, clearly people get
offers for money to say things, and they may not even know who is paying
the money...they just know it goes into their secret or public account
(this is still a mystery about how the money in the secret net is handled)
as I said, but here is something interesting: none of the consumers of the
secret camera thought net...the telephone that didn't reach the public for
100 years and counting...can ever own or produce a hard copy...that is a
paper copy of a thought image. And how could they? Perhaps they know how
by now, but...they absolutely cannot produce a paper copy of all the
voluminous video that is beamed in front of their eyes. They have to
simply remember whatever they have seen or heard, or perhaps they can
request to see or hear it again. So in some way, opening up the net, and
letting everybody know that such machines exist, will free up their
lives...they can enjoy hard copies of anything beamed in the net, and
publically. In addition, there probably are many people that are willing
to fund the cost to store many of these images, but instead the data gets
deleted, because of the paranoid people who control the net (I mean we own
the net, we are the unwitting owners...they prevent us from controlling it
though) don't want the images getting around. So the camera-thought net
consumers are like the "pets" of the camera-thought controllers, much like
a person addicted to cocaine, the consumers are powerless against their
monsterous service providers.
Funding the powerful, wealthy, and included, for the most part, is not
going to make public the story of pupin, hearing thought, the history of
science, the history of evolution, the story of the future, criticism of
religion, criticism of antisexuality, promoting full democracy, promoting
free info, while funding me, perhaps sounding selfish, but it is in all
honesty the truth, is going to make public the history of science, of
hearing thought, of the future, the end of secrecy, the promoting of full
free info and democracy where we vote directly on the laws we have to live
under. So lets stop giving our time and money to these wealthy insiders
and start to search around for those exposing the truth about 9/11, about
hearing thought, about Frank Fiorini, about Thane Cesar...they are out
there...nothing more for those who promote the official 9/11 story or say
nothing at all, we need to get smarter to bring down this stalinesqe wall
of secrecy and murder.
I have to keep reminding myself that when I turn on the television, or
radio, look in a magazine, or watch an Internet video...what do I expect
to see and hear? I have to remember a simple fact, there is no way I am
ever going to hear about Pupin and how he and others figured out how to
see and hear thought...the wealthy are never going to tell us the truth
about how they get video beamed directly in front of their eyes and how a
massive "desktop" kind of system of secret video retreival has evolved
over the last 100 years while the majority of the public lived with
virtual a "outhouse" for toilet in comparison, used as sheep and victims
by these greedy power-hungry secretive users.
We ought to be voting for people who are talking about total free
information. Look how the 1977 freedom of information act is viewed as a
joke by those we pay in the FBI. Most people don't even realize that...you
know...the FBI, CIA, and others have been collecting video and audio
recordings since the early 1900s...where are those movies and recordings?
what do they show? we paid for them, we ought to get to see them, and
those who stand in the way are some evil, albeit nonviolent on this
particular point, but evil nonetheless, it's wrong to not show the public
what they've paid for and own, to stnad above them as a human with special
rights not provided to every other citizen.
12/06/06
It's interesting to realize that most humans are dead. By far of all the
humans that have lived, the very vast majority are now dead. Looking at
photos, most of the people are already dead...Einstein, Lincoln, Stanton,
Edison, almost all of them lived and died in the past. Most people from
books, the pharohs, Socrates, Kaesar, Confutsu, many trillions of people
and other species, all dead, lived their very short youth, grew gray,
feeble and old, and then went the way of trillions before them. In fact,
this is really a planet of objects that live for a very short time and
then die. A huge number of living objects lived briefly and have been long
dead. Death is one thing all humans will do, given the current
configuration of our DNA. And I think this truth should show us that we
should really enjoy our short lives to the fullest.
With many people I have to see things like this: they take money to say
rude comments to me from the secret net (perhaps as I typed before, they
do not even know who is funding them, maybe they just see like little
green "$20" or "$50" symbols they must approve with their thoughts), and I
have to remember that it's some nazi err... I mean republican hidden
person talking through the person, and the person next to me is just
greedily taking payments to try and grate on my nerves for some other
master. Again the analogy of cocaine addicts and cocaine dealers is 100%
accurate for the secret camera-thought network. The customers of hearing
and seeing thought will give everything, bend over backward to support,
protect, defend their source of cocaine...er...I mean...camera-thought net
service. And the second a person is "included" they are "corrupted", and
any truth or information about the camera thought net will never exit
their mouth, they absolutely cannot jeapordize their drug source, even if
they murder, assault, anything.
I was watching a Dawkins reading of "The God Delusion", which is
enjoyable, everything is clear and true, although I would not use many of
the words such as "whoring" and "chink", but it's free info. But a more
important point was raised, and this is a common point...the religious
claim that people cannot be moral without belief in a god, and I find that
to be so ironically false. In fact, the opposite is true, they can only be
immoral with belief in a god, god is the only excuse a murderer can give
that will throw away secular law, and murder and assault for a diety is
what is being used to justify the reichstag 9/11 mass murder, the killing
of JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon, you name it...people either excuse it with
"it's god's will", or "god commanded it", or "god forgives the murder",
like so many killings approved by the diety in religious literature.
Without a diety, we have the nonreligious law from which no excuses can be
found, clearly first degree murder is not in self defense, not in defense
of a human, not consensual...murder to defend an idea or ideal is simply
not accepted by those deciding the fate of a first degree murderer or
accessory to murder before the fact, there is not much forgiveness without
the authority of a diety to veto away any arrest and prison sentence that
would otherwise be enforced by nonreligious logic, and democratic law.
12/07/06
I am waiting for somebody to publically do the experiment, which is a
difficult, precise experiment that requires a major telescope and high
quality spectrometer, which determines if there is any red shift in light
when a massive object passes in front of another object, causing light
from the object to be bent. Perhaps this decrease in frequency, if any, is
too small to detect with anything we can detect the motion of, but I am
looking forward to even negative results, any results will be informative.
I think the main thing shifting to the red is going to be the faces of
those who supported the big bang, expanding 15-billion year old universe
theories.
I think it is very difficult to argue against the logicical theory that
our sun, and all suns pass through 2 stages: an accumulation stage and a
dispersal stage. In the accumulation stage, the star is built up by
condensing matter from a gas cloud, first it is a small red dwarf star,
slowly accumulating matter, the other planets proceed in exactly the same
way, although more slowly, not being the main mass in the center of the
spinning condensing cloud, so there are originally small spheres of molten
metal accumulating as centers of mass, slowly the matter in the center
grows from a smaller molten red sphere to a larger molten orange sphere as
more matter falls into it's sphere. Many stars continue to gain matter,
depending on the initial density and size of the nebula in this localized
collapsing region. Stars may gain enough matter to glow yellow, in
accordance with Plank's theory of black-body radiation, stars may continue
to grow into the largest blue stars if there is enough matter in the
accumulation phase. But eventually, all the matter is swept up, and the
second phase of every star starts, the phase where matter is slowly
dispersed in the form of photons. As this process continues over many
millions of rotations, the star starts to lose matter, and the main color
emitted by the star is lowered from blue, to yellow, to red (interesting
that there are no green stars...it seems unusual, but I think the reason
is that, the atoms, perhaps mostly iron and other metals emit photons with
highly specific frequencies. There is still a large amount to be learned
and understood about stars), and eventually, to blackened, crusted red
molten spheres such as the earth, venus, mercury, mars, the moons of
jupiter, basically all planets, and moons, comets being the acception
without a molten metal inside. I want to look again a what evidence there
is of the Oort cloud, and Kuiper belt. Here is a good link:
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/kboc.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud has a nice 3D image (wouldn't one
imagine that the matter would extend linearly or exponentially to other
stars and not just stop in the shape of a sphere?). The question for me
is, how many ice chunks are actually there? a few thousand? hundreds of
thousands? million? billions? I think, it will be interesting for the
first probes to really see how many there are. I kind of think people may
be overestimating the number. I'm not sure I would call this a belt or
cloud, but emphasize that this is simply a natural extension of matter
from the formation of the star system, in the form of ice chunks. Perhaps
the farther a ship travels away from a star the number of ice chunks
decreases until the next star where the amount of matter again, starts to
increase as a s hip moves closer to any star. So this main idea of every
star going through 2 major periods, one of accumulation, moving from red,
to orange, to yellow, possibly to blue if enough matter, and then back
down to yellow, orange, red, and then simply a crusted over molten sphere
like the earth. So perhaps our star was a blue star at one time. One
mistake I think people have made is in saying that a giant blue star burns
more rapidly. Clearly that is true, but once it has lost enough matter to
be a yellow star the rate of emission clearly slows down. Has that been
included in the simple equation? Where are these somewhat simple
equations? Ttoend=Moriginal/Rateofmassloss is the incorrect constantly
decreasing equation. I think this is like the opposite of a compounding
interest equation (F=P*(1+%)^Years), a compounding decrease equation. But
I don't know it off the top of my head. But in addition, this issue raises
questions about the evidence for red giant stars. I don't doubt that there
may be many intricate complexities in star formation, and duration (I
can't really say a star's lifetime, or a star is born or dies, because,
while I think the analogy is fine, I just think clearly stars are never
living as we understand living objects, but then perhaps all matter is
living in some sense), but the theory of red giants otherwises stands as
an anomaly in an intuitive theory of stars growing and dying in a two
stage process of accumulating and then dispersing mass in the form of
photons. It also draws doubts or an interest in verifying the physical
evidence for supernova events. Black holes (or so-called black-hole
stars) I have already ruled out for my own opinion, and potentially even
neutron stars. I think it is very difficult to talk about accurate numbers
in astronomy, and that is one reason why measuring red shift of bent light
might be very difficult, it has to be very precise, and measuring the
exact pixel or more of where a star is has to be exact. The supposed red
giant, Betelgeuse, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse, for which
wikipedia relates: "The distance to Betelgeuse is not precisely known" and
"The precise diameter is not easy to define". I guess the other
alternative is that Betelgeuse is a small star, smaller than our own star,
but just damn close. I don't know, probably people would have measured a
large parallax, a parallax larger than Centauri for sure. Even if
Betelgeuse is large and far, there are still many explanations why, could
be advanced life on the outside, maybe the popular and official theory of
stars exploding in size and vastly lowering their density to red giants as
a requirement of every star is true, people have been so wrong...about the
big bang, the expanding universe, time-dilation...I find it unlikely that
an official astronomy theory will be accurate, but it can't be ruled out.
I think the problem with many of the believers in time-dilation is not a
problem of crystal meth, but crystaline math, and that the universe is
probably much more simple, dull, and straightforward, containing only
space and matter in the form of photons, interacting mainly by gravity,
but with complexity because of the vast number of photons and space.
I just saw a propaganda big pharma funded "news" story in the BBC about
actual physical scientific evidence to prove the claim of
"schitzophrenia": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6211104.stm and I am
very doubtful over the claim. First, knowing that there simply is no
scientific basis for the claimed diseases of psychosis, neurosis, and
schitzophrenia, how can there possibly be physical evidence to prove
something which is so abstract and used to label people all over the
spectrum, with no actual description that can is more specific than simply
"delusional" or "most likely inaccurate interpretation of universe and/or
actual events on earth". So it is interesting to see what these big pharma
money people have done now to secure millions of dollars in psychology
drug sales at the expense of human suffering. The technique used in this
case is a classic, they identify the "schitzophreniacs" as having an
"ancestral history" of schitzophrenia. It's like having an ancestry of
"witchcraft" or other mythical claims...an ancestral history of "good
luck", or "rabel rousyness", etc. And then they proceed to find common
links in CAT scans and MRI images. I'm highly doubtful that they have
uncovered anything, but keeping an open mind, perhaps they have found some
specific link between certain kinds of people that has nothing to do with
"schitzophrenia", but more to do with some kind of "free thinking" gene or
brain pattern or some similar thing. I'm doubtful of the entire claim,
just knowing the history of the theories of psychology (the blood letting,
the tooth pulling, the spinning chair, treatments for "nymphomania",
lobotomy, shock therapy...and then all done with restraints and 99% of the
time against the will of the victim). I think we are edging into a time
when these greedy drug companies may get into trouble, not for consensual
trade of drugs, which I can see the value of...even if people are buying
drugs for made up non-existent diseases, like the classic "cure-all" meds,
as long as their is consent, I see no problem with an open unregulated
drug market where everybody can lie about the results of a drug....it's
all within free info, but where I think these greedy pharma companies are
going to get into trouble is when people are forced against their will to
buy and use drugs for fraudulent diseases, nonexistant diseases based on
fraudulent scientific claims, such as psychosis, neurosis, schitzophrenia.
I would even put "depression", "Attention-Deficit" in this group, since
these are trivial symptoms, if existent at all, to force drugs onto a
person (and in fact I feel the only time a drug may be used without
consent is in the case of sedating/tranquilizing a person in the act of
first degree violence). The explanation that these "diseases" are trivial
is simple and clear enough, it's like labeling crying a disease, overusing
computer games, and so on... using a certain phrase too often....just
trivial, nonviolent, completely legal phenomena. If "depression" why not
"overly happy"? if "attention deficit" why not "attention surplus"? And
you can see they are going for some middle ground of absolutely the most
rigid and dull humans, all alike, all the same, without any unusual or
unique or even natural and progressive differences.
On the political scene just some quick notes: recently Charles Rangel
(House D NY) again put forward the idea of the draft, to which Pelosi
verbally rejected. And my outsider view is that republicans pay Rangel to
put forward this. It's conservatives, republicans, these war mongers who
want the draft in my outsider opinion. They pay Rangel to put forward such
bills. Let me just say that the direction we need to be moving in, is not
only no draft, which I cannot believe was actually mentioned, but to
remove involuntary military service and all other forms of forced labor.
Again, this is a very simple point. No company can jail, fine or otherwise
penalize a person who choses to quit, Walmart can't do this, McDonalds,
etc...if a person wants to quit, there is and can be no punishment
whatsoever that may be brought against that employee simply for the act of
quitting. This coerced and forced labor in the US military needs to be
stopped, because it is a violation of the laws against forced labor and
the basic natural principle of consensual only labor. Perhaps exceptions
can be made if the USA is under attack (and not simply from an isolated
terrorist event), but even when under a sustained and constant invasion,
we should always adhere to our principle of consent-only activity and free
choice which is the basis of this and many other nations and all advanced
societies.
I was thinking that the total stud-girl and stud-boy might procede like
thais: get the phone/email of many many people they might want to make out
with, and then go through a long list of them, each day to find new people
to go out (maybe to dinner, something like that), then sift through the
"not at home", going in order of preference through the vast list, the
"busy", the "not interested", until inevitably...with enough phone numbers
and emails...you know...you are going to find somebody willing...and from
there work towards a smootch, and if not...save it for later...maybe jane
or joe cool will get another opportunity. Most people can't do this
because...you can't find an entrance to ask for a phone number or email,
even if that itself implies almost nothing other than you are a person
looking to make friends (but in reality, you should be focusing on people
that you want to kiss on...be careful to watch out for violent monogomous
partners...perhaps asking...'do you have a g'friend/b'friend?') that and
the embarrassment of rejection. The most successful will be that person
without the tiniest fear of rejection, that accepts rejection as a
statistical reality, and has a positive reply to lighten any anger or fear
that results around rejection. Finally, probably one of the largest snags
in this plan is that you have to dedicate time to going out with people.
But there are creative alternatives...you can find some special thing you
are interested in (science, robots, free info, etc) and make the "dates"
in the form of group meetings, etc. There are many varieties of this
formula. For some the goal will be smootching with as many different
people as possible, for others, collecting vast numbers of friends and
learning about people.
I think it's interesting closing in on the truth about the idea of
"energy". I think it was used to describe an abstract, collective
phenomenon, but one thing I can say for sure is that it seems clear to me
that energy cannot be converted into matter. This may sound shocking or
unusual, but it seems true to me, because of the theory that no matter can
be made from empty space and no photon can ever be destroyed into empty
space. I realize that people, for example Hawking argue that matter can be
created from empty space, and I disagree with that theory, but ofcourse
both theories are in the realm of speculation and free thought. Following
that line of thinking, that no matter can be made from empty space, it
seems logical to conclude that no matter can be made from velocity. In
other words, the velocity of a piece of matter in no way changes it's mass
(although perhaps it may change the distribution and direction of photons
within some collective piece of mass). Some people argue that photons are
energy and I reject that claim. Photons do represent mass in the view I
support. When hydrogen is combusted with oxygen I view the light and heat
that is emited as being responsible for the loss of some mass, although
very very small and perhaps so small that it is beyond measure with
current and even the best measuring equipment, and such a small quantity
that given the accepted amount of error and precision, it may difficult to
exactly quantitify...how many photons for example...how many grams of mass
are lost in hydrogen+oxygen combustion in the form of photons. As far as I
understand, this is the modern belief that...the more energy an object
has, the more mass it can produce...that somehow the creation and/or
conversion of mass relates to the energy of some matter. Some might claim
the argument of "potential energy" as being a form of energy. A ball at
the top of a hill has potential energy, because it can roll down a hill,
while the ball at the bottom of the hill has less potential energy. But,
clearly, the amount of matter in the ball on the top and on the bottom of
the hill remains the same at all times. A nuclear fission is, in this
view, simply a separate of matter that already exists in atoms. The matter
definitely changes direction, expands in many different directions, many
atoms, collectives of photons take on increased velocities, but I think it
can be argued that all velocities were already in the atoms but compacted,
as particles in orbit of each other, so in fact velocity is conserved,
momentum is conserved, at the photon level, even in an explosion of any
kind of material. Clearly, the idea of any kind of kinetic energy
resulting in matter, or being converted from matter is false, and I think
the same is true for the concept of potential energy. The origin of the
concept energy center around the 1800s, when people saw that mechanical
movement translated into heat, the classic example, was boring cannons
with metal bits. Drilling the cannon hole produces an enormous amount of
heat. The explanation eventually came to be that the mechanical energy was
converted to heat energy. And this is an interesting and, in my mind,
somewhat complex issue. I think that in drilling metal, we feel heat, and
that heat is from photons with infrared spacing emitted from the drilled
metal. So clearly, the metal is releasing particles and therefore losing
mass (although immeasurable small) in the form of photons that are not
present with a cold undrilled cannon. I think the generation of heat has
more to do with friction causing atoms to move faster...the added
complexity comes from explaining the energy of human muscle movement,
which is electrical and chemical. It's a tough issue in my mind, maybe
somebody can simplify it, and I hope to simplify it more as time continues
and I learn more about the history of science. But the starting point I
have is that, it seems unlikely that energy can be converted into matter
or matter into energy, and therefore the "energy" concept is potentially
dying, but I still use the word energy to describe matter, including
myself, for example, "I don't have the energy I need to do this". The
concept that "energy" involves, again, seems to me, to include many
particles, many velocities, many collective movements, and so is therefore
somewhat complex, hopefully somebody can make it simple and cast it into
the can of inaccurate ideas as I think will probably happen.
I am saying that light is matter and has mass, but that light is not
heavy, in other words, that light is also, yes, light (in weight). Simply
put, light (noun) is very light (adj).
One thing that is interesting about modeling the universe, and in
particular the star system (from nebula to stars), is that the model takes
a long time to settle down into regular movement. Clearly it takes a long
long time, many millions of years for gravity to form star(s) and planets,
and so clearly any model would have to reproduce the same amount of time.
No matter what advanced life in the universe models it it would take
billions of years to have 1 completed simulation. Perhaps there is a way
to speed it up, but I doubt it. There certainly are ways to generalize it,
and we can view planets as points and give them an initial velocity. This
initial velocity is something no physicist (of those who model with
computers) talks about publically in my experience. A person needs to give
each planet an initial x,y,z velocity, rotation, etc. starting each planet
at some recorded starting positions.
I think a cool question is: is there a limit on the velocity that can be
achieved from gravity? Certainly this applies to gravitational assist for
intersteller and interplanetary vehicles, but it also may apply to photons
colliding. Is there a finite amount of gravitational force that can exist
between two colliding photons? At that time, in theory the distance=0, and
therefore the force of gravity=infinity, infinitely strong to create an
infinitely high velocity, but in reality, it seems more likely to me that
there is a limit as to the minimum distance between two photons, and a
maximum limit on the force of gravity between two photons, or any other
particles or objects. It seems logical that no particle would gain a
velocity higher after a collision that the velocity it had before the
collision, even though, as I said, if the distance is less than 1.0
(whatever units of space are used, presumably the smallest for all
practical purposes would be one space the size of a photon occupies [or
is, and this is another debate, does space move with matter, of matter
fill an unmoving space? my vote is for 2, the nonmoving space]), the
velocity would increase, but maybe that is not the class. And it seems
likely that there may be a top velocity for particles accelerated by
gravity and that it could be the speed of light 3e8m/s. But we should keep
an open mind. This implies that when two photons collide, at 3e8m/s (or
perhaps even much less for all I know), the resulting opposite velocity of
a perfectly elastic collision can only reach 3e8m/s. But I must tell you,
the idea of a photon accelerating seems highly unlikely, but we need to
keep open minds. The current approach to a Grand Unified Theory of the
Universe (GUT) in my opinion, has not been adequately proven or even
described. In my opinion, it is taking on 3 potential possible branches,
1) photons do infact obey Newton's equations for gravity (again photons
may acclerate, change velocity...mainly that the photons bounce off the
mirror) 2) photons do not obey Newton's equations, but maintain a constant
velocity without acceleration (the photons orbit other photons in the
mirror, or potentially could bounce back too) or 3) some other idea that
proves Newton's equation for gravity, and any equations for 2) inaccurate.
We should not claim there is an answer if there really is not clearly an
answer, no matter how much we would like to. I kind of lean towards 1)
which would tend to prove that Newton's (with help from Halley and others)
equation for gravity may even apply to light particles, and is therefore
very visionary although perhaps by coincidence, because the question still
is unanswered to my knowledge of if Newton realized that particles of
light (which clearly he understood) 1) are matter and 2) are the basis of
all matter, and perhaps 3) obey his equation for gravity.
As I age, I kind of think that the real pleasure of physical pleasure, is
partially physical beauty, but some part of it, in my novice view is
novelty, in other words, touching some person you have never touched, and
less interesting or exciting kissing, for example, the same person you
have kissed for a longer amount of time. Maybe I am wrong, and probably
everybody is different, and maybe even there are different kinds of love
phenomena, but it seems, as I age, that novelty (in other words some body
new) is a major part of arousal. I am interested to see what those who
have study pleasure have found as to what each species is aroused by.
Clearly, there are a variety of phenomena.
12/08/06
On the seeing what our eyes see from behind our head front, I tried using
my Sony video camera with "Night Shot" and an infrared filter to see the
light from a flashlight beamed into my eyes. This experiment was not
really overwhelmingly successful if at all, I am sad to report. I was
hoping to really see the light clearly beaming from behind my head. While
it was almost impossible to detect any light eminating in the infrared
from behind my head, I think I do see something, there is a very small and
subtle change in lighting in the video. I can see how, it may be, that the
image is projected from our eyes to a very wide image as a person moves
away from the back of the head. In other words, the lens in our eye may
cause the light to spread out in a cone shape, like a projector, the
farther away, the larger the image we see. If this is true, perhaps it
takes a wall of sensors to record what a person sees. Pupin specifically
uses the word "microscopic", and I presume he is refering to the size of
the detectors and transmitters, but maybe he is (perhaps also) refering to
the size of the image coming from the back of the head...perhaps it is
very small, or microscopic. I conclude that the infrared detector (which
is a grid of detectors in a video camera) is not sufficient to detect the
infrared frequency necessary to see light from the eyes behind the head.
For example, there are "thermal imaging" cameras that are much better at
clearly and strongly detecting infrared light...the cameras that are sold
starting at $10,000 dollars by Raytheon and other specific companies,
surprisingly, since, I can't imagine building such a camera could possibly
be that expensive. Those cameras, there is one, for example, in the San
Francisco science museum, can see clearly a living object walking many
meters away, the heat of an animal on a person's lawn for example. People
in police use these cameras to scan for heat sources, and it is very easy
to see heat emitting objects. The engine of a car after running shows up
in bright white while the rest of the car is dark. So, I don't doubt at
all that these Sony "nightshot" cameras are purposely not equipped with
such infrared detection, although I feel strongly that they easily could
for almost no difference in price...it's mainly control by the
administrators (again they are clearly not the owners, just the
controllers) of the technology to see and hear thought that grew from the
1910 work of Michael Pupin. So I don't know where to proceed from here,
with these experiments. I think I might need to try to put together some
home-built photon detectors, and that can't be incredibly easy. Perhaps
some light sensor (CCD) can be adapted to detect photon beams with larger
spacing between photons. That doesn't sound incredibly easy either. Simply
working with wireless communication, and wireless video is going to be a
good start for average people working to try and figure out how to see and
hear thought on their own, to reproduce Pupin's 1910 and after
experiments. It seems like what would be a basic tool, is a grid that
detects light in any variety of spacing, so some objects can be looked at
at every frequency of light from low radio to gamma. I can see using a
fast computer to periodically sample some sensors once every 10 seconds, 1
second, .1 second, 1ms, 1us, 1ns, ... after that computers are not fast
enough yet, but eventually perhaps 1 picosecond, 1 femtosecond, etc.
One question in my mind about the Hydrogen fusing in the center of every
star theory is: if Hydrogen is a light atom...and the center of stars is
most likely dense molten metal, how can Hydrogen atoms...so light...be
found in the center of something do dense? Maybe they are bonded to some
other atoms? Even so, I somewhat doubt that Hydrogen in the center fusing
to Helium is the source of all the photons in stars. I think it has to do
more with a burning ball of liquid metal, heated from friction, perhaps,
from the constant rotation, or from from pressure that results from
gravity...whatever it is, there is a major problem with other theories,
because the center of the earth is an exact duplicate. As far as I can
see, the center of earth is nearly identical to a star in being a red hot
liquid metal, which we see sometimes spewing or simply dribbling out of
volcanos. What could be more simple and logical? Why would matter
coalesce, accumulate differently for a planet then a star, why would the
anatomy of a star be radically different from that of a planet? What
explains the molten metal core of the planets? Is Hydrogen to Helium
fusion happening in the core there too?
More about this Betelgeuse being close idea. I want to explain, that I am
interested in believing the red giant theory, but I want to entertain
other theories too. Something just occurs to me that probably does not
effect a parallax measurement significantly (I have found in wikipedia
that alpha centarui has a parallx of 747 mas [milliarcseconds] and
Betelgeuse only 7.63 mas, so a difference of 100x, 2 magnitudes of base
10, a significant difference. But what about the 3D direction and velocity
of a star? How do we know, how can we know, what the direction of a star
is? Perhaps from Doppler shift, but then, we are only seeing the "z"
component of it's velocity from us, there are x and y components too.
Clearly, to calculate parallax correctly, the velocity of a star, the
so-called "proper motion" must be substracted. We must subtract any
movement the star makes in the time it takes for the earth to be in two
positions far enough apart for a parallax measurement (perhaps there are
two locations on earth where a parallax measurement can be instantly
made...this makes me what to learn more about how modern parallax
measurements are made. Eventually, the best parallax will be from 2
telescopes in different parts of the star system, one near earth and one
near Jupiter perhaps). An instant parallax measurement (in particular one
measured between earth and Jupiter) would probably remove the issue of
star velocity. It seems clear that star velocity, can only be known from
measurements (from the same exact location...which is another issue...the
movement of the earth and star system alltogether relative to other stars)
over time. This is the problem of extrapolating a 3D motion from only 2D
images. And this relates also to human and robot vision, we are able to
detemine 3D movement from 2D images in our eyes, although it's not
perfect, this is how we can catch a ball thrown to us for example. I guess
we can use the Doppler shift to determine Z velocity, and visual position
changes to determine X and Y, then put that all together to make a 3D
vector with velocity (magnitude) for each star. However it is done, I am
interested in seeing how these star motions are measaured, mapped and
tracked. How can we measure our movement in the Milky Way? I think this
needs to be done using distant galaxies as a fixed point reference, or
perhaps some stars in or near the Milky Way center, and then over a period
of time. Parallax is a precise measurement, and according to one page, and
Asimov relates this too: "William Herschel looked for it (steller
parallax) in vain. Not until 1838 was parallax finally found." In fact,
the lack of an observed parallax of stars was actually used as an argument
for the earth centered universe, since people were sure that if the earth
moved around the sun a parallax of the stars would be observed...the
argument for the sun centered universe was that the stars are so far that
parallax cannot be measured, which must have felt like a weak argument,
but yet was true. This person
(http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/starsiz.htm) goes on to write: "The
introduction of photography made it much easier to measure parallaxes. It
was only necessary to compare plates taken 6 months apart, and special
intstruments were developed to facilitate the task. When the two plates
were presented alternately to the eye, nearby stars would jump back and
forth, while the distant ones remained unmoved." and "the parallax of
Betelgeuse, a Orionis, was taken as 0.018" in 1920, but now a figure of
0.0055" is accepted. ". I think definitely, it is difficult to argue with
the idea that a telescope near Jupiter (or Saturn would be even more
precise), even a low cost quickly telescope, could provide more accurate,
and instantaneous parallax measurements of the nearest stars. Maybe I
should call up NASA or some university astronomers and propose this
experiment. It probably has been done, but in secret, soz the enemy won't
be able to know which star is where.
One thing that is interesting is that there are collisions of matter (or
at least according to one theory), perhaps even photons collide. Newton,
to my knowledge, never mentioned anything about collisions, other than
saying that particles travel with the same velocity unless changed
(presumably by a collision, or gravitational force). Collisions may play
an important role in understanding how matter groups together. I mentioned
that a simulation of matter accumulating into a star system might take a
million years to simulate, but by adding a loss of velocity because of
"friction" (much as large ice chunks of matter when colliding distribute
much of the collective velocity to individual particles, and appear to
lose velocity), the models fall to "star systems" very readily. I put more
videos on my web page to show this. What happens is that most particles,
which start with 0 velocity, quickly accumulate an initial velocity
because of a gravitational attraction to the center of the mass. It seems
clear that a gas might have the same phenomenon. Another point is that I
speed up time by using a much higher gravitational constant...but it seems
to me that you can use any variation of the gravitational constant 667000,
6.67, .667, .0000667, an interpret the results as being viewed at a
certain scale, presuming the constant of gravity remains the same no
matter what scale. In other words, we might think of viewing particles of
mass 1g, moving 1 m/s with a gravitational constant of .667, and at the
same time we could actually be looking at 1000g particles moving with a
gravitational constant of .000667. The velocity and models are identical.
So these, in my view, are valid models of the actual effect of
gravitation. Perhaps I should change it to have the big masses and actual
constant (I find simply working with mass=1 easier but since I am modeling
star systems, and view these particles as big ice chunks and planets no
doubt larger masses are a better way of viewing it). In any event, the
gravititational model of planets, supposedly is identical to that of
particles. One idea is that the gravitational constant changes depending
on the scale, I find that hard to accept. If the gc was a constant and not
variable, we would see almost no gravitational effect on small particles
although it would exist, and slowly be accumulating over time. The
equivalent view is that each point represents 10 billion kg of mass with
the unscaled gravitational constant. By comparison the moon is 7 trillion
times more massive. Even at 10 billion kg, these points are comparatively
small, 10 million metric tons, a big-ass ice chunk if even there were.
It's interesting to conclude, and perhaps wrongly, that the orbit of
planets may be the result of a velocity that was directly the result of
particles collpasing to the center. In other words, initially atoms of gas
have very little velocity, but as they fall to the center of mass in the
cloud, that velocity ultimately results in the orbits (and velocity) the
planets have today. That is a theory I have never heard before although it
is implied by the gas cloud collapse theory, but it's interesting anyway.
Ofcourse, those individual gas atoms with the velocity perhaps from the
initial collapse, accumulate with other particles, and take on a
collective velocity. In these simulation videos, loss of velocity due to
friction only happens with collisions, otherwise there is no loss of
velocity due to friction, so the objects that collide the least will
retain the highest velocity over time, although gravity can accelerate or
decelerate objects and therefore change velocity. It's interesting how
planet-like many of the points are, in many simulations two points find
orbits in the same plane. One interesting simulation resulted in precisely
3 objects that remained orbiting the center, one for each dimension, all
whose orbits are perfectly 90 degrees from each other (collisionfriction500pt.avi. In
theory people might expect there to be 3 planes of planets around stars,
but perhaps over the long spans of time, perhaps they collapse to only
one, as we understand our star system. And then, mainly from collisions.
Through collision and successful position, the final direction and plane
may be determined. If the gravitational constant really is a constant and
not a variable then people might probably not expect little planetary
systems in atoms, nor I suppose galaxies to be like huge planetary
systems, but in addition, how matter is distributed has an effect. In
these models so far, I have not seen any two points clump together. Only
in the center do they clump together. I would like to run this simulation
larger and larger, for example, I am doing 1000 points now, but what about
doing billions of points? It would take days to calculate, but what might
we see? It's kind of interesting to think that very matter-filled models
might produce some interesting effects, I doubt we would see images of DNA
or cell shaped matter that engulf other cell shaped matter rising up over
the centuries of modeling, like the surviving/remaining planets that
happened to have the best velocity, location, gravitational events, and
collisions to be the one we see after hundreds of frames (or milliseconds)
of modeling, but how can we rule that out without trying?
=======
end 11/14-12/08/06
========
11-18-2006
11/06/06
It should be clear to those who observe that most if not all of the
current republicans, and much of those in the pupin camera-thought net are
basically immersed in the practice of evil, and evil, as I define evil, in
very simple terms, which has nothing to do with being religious, but put
simply that they murder, study murder, immerse themselves in murder,
assault, lies, theft, etc. They plan murders like 9/11, they routinely
assault innocent people using lasers, they sabotage children's milk, lead
people off cliffs and buildings by sending images onto their brains, etc.
and the list goes on and on. Most of us are not immersed in this study of
evil, again as simply defined mainly as violence, dishonesty, theft. But
it should be clear to even those who are excluded, but certainly to those
that see and hear thought, that these conservatives are immersed in this
study and practice of the art of evil, how to commit crime and get away
with it. But this appears to be an old tradition, and an old rivalry,
because, the foundation of excusing it all is there, for example, they
somehow claim that murder, property destruction, lying, theft is moral due
to religious grounds, in the interest of national defense, and other
reasons. And typically, other conservatives accept this line of reasoning,
and ironically, view those interested in exposing the murders, assaults,
lies, thefts, as being the evil-doers. And so this two sided battle
continues on, the liberals, generally as stop violence, pro-honesty,
anti-theft people, and the conservatives as pro-violence, pro-lies, and
pro-theft, ... but each side sees themselves as the good side, as the
ethical ones, as the upright and moral, and sees the other side as evil,
generally speaking. Although I honestly think that if many excluded
conservatives could see they would most likely be opposed to the violence,
lies and theft, and then ofcourse, it would be very difficult to do
violence, lie or steal in the first place.
11/07/06
Today is the day many people vote in the USA. I wish our votes were
counted every day. Maybe sometime soon. I hope the democrats win, and
honestly, I hope we never see the republican party ever again, after the
murder of JFK, the Warren Commission, RFK and they way they still protect
Thane Cesar, now 9/11...I can only imagine the other murders, not to
mention their support for secrecy and the continuing injustice of the
pupin thought network. I was thinking last night when going to sleep and
this morning when waking up: Imagine a nation where the people in the
government assault the citizens. What kind of a government is that?
Because all you need to do is feel the laser assaults coming from above
you to know that somebody in our government is assaulting innocent
civilians using this secret laser technology. James Fetzer says it nicely
at the end of one video: (paraphasing) "It seems clear that the government
has been practicing acts of terrorism against the american people." TAP is
clearly someone or something, others echo this same letter combination.
Possibly it's just "AP" Associated Press who must have many many videos
that would expose many many murderers, which they chose not to show or
release. But still, the AP does not have any television network or
newspaper, so I'm not sure how they would release those vids. Many times
the letter combinations take on multiple meanings, and that is why they
are so useful. Maybe its also ATA P, that ATTA is being held in some place
that begins with P, Pennsylvania, Pensacola, Paris, Paraguay, ... The
passangers and alledged hijackers have to be being jailed somewhere, in
some camp. Its a tiny glimmer that remains from 9/11...perhaps those
people on the planes are still alive. It's one of the biggest unsolved
questions for excluded, and so it would be no wonder if included were
hinting to them about it.
Another wonderful video by Robert Greenwald. Unconstitutional:
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6582099850410121223&q=%22Robert+Greenwald%22&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6582099850410121223&q=%22Robert+Greenwald%22&hl=en
Here Greenwald and others make some excellent points. Tarpley argues that
Bush is more like a communist than other leaders, and I have argued that
the republicans, and in particular Bush are more like communists than
liberals. I think it's because the conservatives have traditionally
claimed to be so anti-communism that many people reject this comparison.
But many people are anti-communism, but not to the point of initiating
violence, and infact, I argue that initiating violence against people in
communist nations is exactly like a communist, oppressive, illegal,
monarch, criminal group. I say that, the cam-net is like communists
because they have these communal groups that determine the fates of all
the excluded. Or in any event, only the included's votes count. Beyond
that communism almost always collapses into monarchy or oligarchy (and in
fact democracies can too, as was the case for Germany around 1935). But in
this movie, I think a crystal clear example is given, and it has to do
with the prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. The point is clear, that the
conservatives like to use Cuba for their prison, because there, they are
not subject to the laws of the USA forged by years of democracy and
popular opinion. They want to step outside of the US democratic system
(what exists of it)...and so clearly, this is communist behavior...they
don't want to adhere to the laws of a democratic society. You tell me, how
anybody can explain this stepping around democracy. In addition, here
people are not even allowed to visit Cuba, but they are paying Castro to
keep a camp there? It boggles the mind that such an arrangement has been
made. It shows that somehow, these people are working together with
Castro. I can see opening trade on all info and non-weapon products with
Cuba, and allowing everybody to visit (perhaps with a clear warning and
policy on what happens to people who experience violence, are imprisoned,
stolen from, etc), but doesn't seem unusual for conservatives to be
working so closely with Castro, adopting the ideal of working around
democratic law? To me, it shows how similar the conservatives
are...whether they are Islamic, or Christian...they all want power, to
rule forever as a monarch or oligarch, they seek to violently supress
opposition, free speech, and on and on...where democratic leaders are much
more humble...much more interested in letter popular opinion rule, more
than happy to step down as a representative so long as a more popular
representative is replacing them (and not some dictator, king, etc.). In
fact, what we see with true, full and constant democracy (not
representative with elections every 4 years) is that popular leaders rise
and fall all the time. No one person can ever stay on the top forever.
There is a constant and rapid fluctuation, and I think that is
wonderful...you know...from my own view...if I am wrong...let the people
with the better idea win, etc. If you think about it, you can see...even
the smartest person can never come up with a continuous stream of the best
ideas...the best ideas many times come from unknown people, from less
popular people...no doubt a popular person comes up with some good
ideas...but the majority of time a popular leader is embracing the better
ideas of others, improving their original view.
Some news I found out earlier: "Cirrus" is the only plane manufacturer to
install parachutes, and the planes they sell with parachutes are
comparable in price to all other equivalent parachute-less planes. The one
plane the yankee pitcher was flying was a cirrus, but I think that was
done by neocons, and was only some kind of small snack for them, but we
should keep an open mind, and in addition, compare safety ratings of all
planes. I hope the heliplane becomes a practical low-cost vehicle soon.
Perhaps the change to Hydrogen combustion engine will happen first, or
electric engine, who knows?
11/08/06
I can see value in a molecular detector of photons, because the smaller
the photon detector, the more detail that can be seen of distant stars,
galaxies, in addition to microscopic objects.
I am at the part in the history of science where Maxwell views heat and
temperature as being related to the average velocity of molecules of
matter (for example in a gas). In other words, Maxwell put forward the
idea that as the average velocity of molecules of gas increase the
temperature increases, and as the velocity of molecules decreases the
temperature decreases. And as far as I know, most people accept this, but
I think there is at least one other theory that I want to put forward, and
probably some person in the secret camera thought net has already figured
this out, perhaps even years ago, since this find of Maxwell's happened
around 1850, around the time of the first photograph. This other theory is
that temperature is measured only at a point the size of a photon, and the
value of that temperature measure is determined by the number of photons
that collide with (or go through) a photon detector (which is then a
thermometer), the temperature being the number of photons per second
colliding with the detector. In this way temperature is not a measure of
velocity as much as a measure of quantity or density of matter. This
presumes that photons maintain a constant velocity with perfectly elastic
collisions. (Maxwell had also imagined perfectly elastic collisions, but
for gas molecules, he rejected the particle theory for light and
electricity.) So I think we need to keep an open mind about what
temperature and heat might actually be: is it related to velocity or
quantity? or both or neither? I think one phenomenon of interest is that
the temperature of a gas increases when the volume is reduced, and
decreases with the volume is increased. As a container of gas is made
smaller, the temperature of the gas increases (to my knowledge, its
Charles' Law V1/T1=V2/T2, a subset of the ideal gas law P1*V1/T1=P2*V2/T2,
but somehow this looks wrong...how could temperature increase when volume
increases?) and this is the basis of refridgeration (the pressure is made
less on a gas, the same effect happens when a gas is released into a
larger container: it's temperature decreases). So does the velocity of
molecules increase when the container size of a gas is descreased or is
there simply more molecules (maintaining their velocity) in a smaller
space which results in a higher temperature? Does molecule velocity change
effect temperature? One aspect of this is true if temperature is how many
particles move past a single space every second (or some duration of time,
temperature is a measurement over time usually, and in fact, the
temperature of a single point is either 0 or 1 depending on if a photon is
there. The temperature of some finite volume of space [or the universe] at
a single instant in time is also meaningless, or would be perhaps
determined by the ratio of matter to space in the volume of space at that
instant in my view). So as molecules increase velocity, the change a
molecule would move past some space (where the thermometer is) is higher
(more often) over time, and so indirectly a higher molecule velocity would
also result in a higher temperature reading (but is that actually
happening?). How does this apply to liquids and solids? A good example is
boring a cannon, how the metal heats up. Are the molecules (of atoms) of
metal increasing their velocity or are more pieces of matter passing some
point in space (and velocity is not important)? I guess in theory a gamma
beam would be hotter than an infrared beam, and that is not observed to my
knowledge. Part of the issue is how atoms accept and emit photons. Atoms
only accept photons in specific frequency. So, for example, when we feel
the heat over a bored cannon, we are feeling photons with infrared
spacing, when the cannon is cold there are less photons with infrared
spacing emitting from the cannon. When we use a flame to heat something,
are we increasing the velocity of the matter (for example water), or are
we adding photons to the atoms of the matter? Is it's velocity increasing
or is its density (and with it, its mass) increasing? (or perhaps even
both?) It's an idea I need to think about more.
Maxwell created an experiment with two containers filled with gas at equal
temperature, in the center there is a door, faster molecules go to the
left while slower molecules go to the right, and so after time, the left
side would heat up and the right side cool down, as explained by his
temperature is the average velocity of molecules theory. There are other
experiment ideas: in a linear particle accelerator, is the temperature of
the charged particle beam more at a part where the particles have higher
velocity or is it the same there? If the temperature of the beam is hotter
where it has a higher velocity than that is evidence that the velocity of
matter determines temperature (although, the argument can also be made
that particles are passing the thermometer each second, meaning that it is
an issue of quantity and less of velocity). I guess one way to look at it,
is this: is the temperature of two beams of electrons more than a single
beam? If yes, it shows that particle velocity is less important that
particle quantity. The idea of temperature and heat still needs to be
flushed out I think. Is it the velocity of matter passing some point, the
frequency of matter passing some point, or both? I suppose with a
theoretical single point in space (the size of a photon the smallest known
piece of matter), velocity would in theory be irrelevant. So I think that
is a better definition, that temperature is the frequency of matter
passing some point. But it seems clear that how a human feels heat, and
how atoms heat up, has more to do with specific freqeuencies of light in
the infrared. I need to think about it more.
government has to make monthly payments? I just thought of such a simple
idea, but yet it has never been mentioned to my knowledge. How does the
government take on and pay off debt? Do they have to make monthly
payments? Who do they make those monthly payments to? It is interesting,
for example this issue of issuing bonds. All the ballot measures that
create a new tax failed, while those that create a bond succeeded, and I
can't help but think that it has to do with the wording. People understand
a tax, and they reject it for the most part, but they don't quite
understand a bond...or at least...that it is basically the equivalent of a
new tax. Because, ultimately the government needs to pay for the bond and
interest, and that money can only come from their income, which is our
taxes. What happens when there is no money in the government bank
account(?) to cover the monthly payments it has to make on its debt? I
suppose the lender might seize government assets in order to recover the
missing monthly payment. My view, and I am open to other ideas, is that we
should be looking at the existing income each year, and determining how
that is going to be divided. I can see possibly charging up debt, but I
think there is something to be said for restricting any use of debt
(usually a natural disaster ruins this plan, unless people could actually
save for such an event). I think we ought to be using and voting to
partition the existing income, not creating more debt which ultimately
will have to be paid with (to my knowledge) monthly payments...and to
cover those monthly payments...if they can't and the lender is going to
seize property...they will have to raise taxes to get more income...it's
that or sell off government property.
11/09/06
Good news for Democrats to win majority of House and Senate.
The president said the republicans got "thumped", which is a nick name for
me, and I can't figure it out. Maybe it's because I am the champion of
champions, but perhaps more likely because he is holding me up to the
people as an example of what unrestrained liberalism will result in...in
other words I am the worst or most extreme example of the liberals. I
don't know, but look how many other liberals there are that are probably
much more popular and active than I am. He could have said that:
"we needed Moore republicans"
"the republicans must have been in the John and I'm aPauled"
"I have only Stern words for those who voted against us and will have to
Dawk their pay."
"We were Loose Jane'd!"
"I'm going to need a Hankey if we keep losing like this"
"Next the Greenwald party is going to take over!"
"We ran outta Flynt and could start a fire under the voters"
"I guess this shows that even republicans Ken a die"
(ok look, I'm not incredibly good at this, maybe you people can produce
some of these phrases, and not necessarily in this order that just occurs
in my mind.)
"I guess the infidels have won"
"I'm making out my Will, and none of you bastards that voted against us
are going to receive all that juicy defense industry money we took from
yih."
"This is going to Marr my Jesus day"
but no instead they got thumped...and that is such a violent word...it's
slang for "assault" too, as if they were beat, and fist fights are common
place ... you know they should be stopping people who get "thumped". I
hate to see what the repubs are saying because I know it aint going to be
good to sound rednecky for a minute. I thought...oh great, I'll probably
be punched on my way to work, gladly that did not happen. But also the
"ped" of "thumped" is a victory for conservatives, in California something
like 72% of the people approved the ballot measure against all kinds of
"sex offenders", even those who were 18 and had sex with a 17 year old 30
years ago, I could go on for hours about how poorly formed that bill and
now law is, and I will go on with that later if time permits. And the
shocking truth is that republicans support murder and assault of
children...they did 9/11, they kill and torture kids in Iraq and
Afghanistan, they don't stop assault and have no "stop violence" program,
cruse the idea and any who request stopping violence as "pussies", so for
republicans, violence, assault, murder is ok, ... their language is filled
with nothing but allusions to violence as far as I can tell, but
consensual pleasure is the big crime...yes pleasure is the big evil,
people get out of jail for cold blooded first degree murder in 20 years
(presuming they get jailed unlike Frank Sturgis, Thane Cesar, killers of
Nicole Simpson, Jam Jay, Bonnie Blake...it's in the millions, millions of
"unsolved" murders), and they don't need to wear a GPS bracelet and can
live anywhere in the USA, violent non-sex offenders are protected from
even being in a public registry. I could go on for days about this
terrible phenomenon. But there are many other liberals out there, and
people appear to reject whatever I say anyway...I spent hours typing
against the republicans in 2004 and it made little to no difference. I
still am pessimistic, after all this nation re-elected Bush jr, and that
to me is shocking, but I am certainly glad for the democrats taking the
majority in the Senate and House. Unlike many other people, my views are
clear and simple, so clear and simple I can express them in a few
sentences. So if people are worried that electing democrats will result in
so-called "extremists" like me, I want to reiterate my main goals which
are 1) stopping violence (lowering homicide and assault in the USA by 50%
in 10 years, jailing Thane Cesar, and all other murderers) 2) working
towards full democracy where the public gets to vote on the government
decisions 3) working towards more freedom of info (exposing the truth
about Pupin, hearing, seeing and sending thought, about Frank Sturgis,
Thane Cesar, all the secret unpunished homicides) 4) stopping arrests of
those for drugs and prost 5) a free history of science video 6) a free
history of evolution video 7) free history of the probable future video 8)
a moon station (we should be conquering the moon and mars, not other
nations on earth, the real future valuable property is on those other
moons and planets, which should be colonized by democratic science loving
people) 9) assistant walking robots 10) stopping involuntary treatment
11) integrating all prisons, hospitals, military courts into one legal
system which includes a right to trial 12) ending starvation in the USA
(free food to low income people) possibly: 13) free minimum health care
14) free bathrooms 15) free showers 16) free soap 17) free clothes 18)
free rooms 19) voting down US military spending by 50% 20) voting down
wasteful spending... and so you can see basically what I am interested
in...mainly making a violence free society with advanced science and
technology, working towards total free info and full democracy. Most of
these idea I think should be decided by the majority. Majority rule is
the most fair system, so I reject the idea of imposing my beliefs on the
majority and it wouldn't suprise me if a system decided by popular opinion
is the most popular. This direction of the republicans is clearly a bad
direction, doing a 9/11, then using that to start 2 pointless bloody
wars...spending trillions in overpriced defense industry costs...I can't
believe the public would vote for that, but clearly there are problems in
the USA, there is so much violence, secrecy, lack of science,
antisexuality, fanatical religion...it is going to take decades for this
group to stumble into a forward direction...to expose the truth about
Pupin, about the JFK murder and so many others...for that...I can't see
that taking anything other than decades...just remembering that this group
re-elected Bush jr, ... I mean, I don't think the people in the USA are
incredibly wise...but perhaps they are simply vastly underinformed. I
can't possibly be optimistic just knowing the history of the USA since
1910 and in particular since the murders of the Kennedy's and I can only
guess how many others. The biggest light of hope has come from the
increasing speed and popularity of the Internet (which is ending a very
long tradition of control of what the public sees and hears), and perhaps
with the coming of walking robots. I'm glad for this election, and look
forward to progress and the 2008 election. I think it shows that this
group in the USA, however bad in decision making, is not going to take us
into a total nazi fascist government yet, they came into the fires but
then backed away. One person said it so clearly, the republicans are for
constant and total war, and that is a terrible philosophy. With Bill
Clinton, for example, I wish we had much more, but at least we lived in
peace and had a budget surplus. When we are living in peace, we can take
advantage of that by using money to improve the standard of living in the
USA, increasing democratic voting, lowering violent crime, and start to
work towards expanding the US empire onto the moon, mars, into orbit, and
eventually to the Alpha Centauri system.
You know, but as far as that 9/11 thing to me, in my honest opinion, its
as phony as a 3 dollar bill, a 5-leaf clover, a 7-wheel bus, a rubber
nickel, .. ok I'm out of phrases.
Its interesting there are not many females that are outspoken liberals
that I can think of. Maybe because of not having the same money or access
as males. In the 9/11 truth there is Judy Brown, Ellen Johnson is the prez
of American Atheists, there are actors, comedians and musicians like
Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Streisand. It's tough to come up with many
female liberal leaders and that is so wrong. I'm sure they are out there,
but perhaps just not making as many videos or gaining access to the
public.
With this sex offender proposition, I can go on for hours, first I need to
issue a 30 minute preamble: I don't support molestation, I don't engage in
molestation, I don't engage in child pornography, and I tell people not to
get involved with genital touching of people under age 18, owning images
of people touching genitals under age 18, or even owning, downloading, or
viewing images of nude children, including your own children. The
hysteria is shockingly violent and dangerous. A guy here in Orange County
got 100 years from a judge for sucking the toes of a child, people who
murder and assault children get less time. All over California 70+%
supported this sex offender bill. My arguments are: why don't they
separate violent from nonviolent? Why not a public registry for violent
offenders? I mean murder and assault are worse than nonviolent
molestation. I mean I hope people can understand that, but if no, we
should open up the debate and see where people are at. One interesting
aspect is that the psychologers got in on this one...they are going to get
a cut of government money from this law. Now, sex offenders, and there are
millions...the 40 year old guy who got a blow job from a 17 year old
female when he was 18, but hasn't touched a child since, etc. (I mean you
have to look at these people and really see what they did and do, have
they ever done violence? abduction?) in particular nonviolent people who
are no violent threat to children, are not going to jail, but into
psychiatric hospitals, where they do not get a trial, and no sentence,
they can be held there indefinitely. So clearly, people in their mind are
saying...rubbing genitals of children is a psychiatric disorder. Many
people might agree with that, but then, is beating a child a psychiatric
disorder? What about beating an adult? What about theft? Can't they all be
thought of as psychiatric disorders? I'm sure the psychologers would like
that, it means much more money and authority over human lives and freedom
for them. When there is no sentence, the included don't have to bribe the
judges for freedom, they have to bribe the doctors instead. I think this
shows how limitless the antisexuality is on earth. Perhaps a 'mutilate a
molestor's genitals' law might be passed, and that is wrong, because
somebody simply touching a genital, even of a child, in particular with no
clear objection, is not equal to genital mutilation, say with a sledge
hammer as probably many antisexuals would like...so clearly the punishment
would far outweigh the crime. And what is interesting is that the public
is really overwhelmingly saying (except in SF where only 50% approved this
bill), we don't want adults teaching sex to children. Perhaps they want
children finding about sex on their own. 70% don't want humans under age
18 entering into genital touching with anybody over 18. So this leaves
people under age 18, no matter how much they want to, denied from the
right to touch the genitals of those 18 or older. This law makes no
restriction about 2 people under the age of 18 touching each others
genitals, but that is probably soon to come. Probably there will be an all
out ban on all genital touching under age 18, except perhaps your own
genitals, but not publically. I think a counter law, would try to
guarentee an adult's right to show nude images to a child for the purpose
of sexual education and explanation. I think a good law is to legalize
child pornography on any object older than 100 years old (otherwise
ancient Greek vases and paintings might be smashed by the nazistic
antisexual hypocrite pupin thought eye net thugs that watch nude children
and their thoughts in their homes). Much of this law, is 70% of the people
saying, we want to control the rights of children, we want to control the
bodies of children. And a useful comparison can be made to similar past
occurances. For example, the Nazis restricting the rights of Jewish people
in Nazi Germany (maybe next, no mixing of adults and children, curfews for
children, special restrooms, etc), the restrictions placed on women and
black people, etc. They want to stop children from being able to vote,
from being able to work, from being able to touch a genital, from seeing
nudity, from seeing violence, from buying cigarettes, from buying drugs,
from buying alcohol, from owning property, from having a bank account, on
and on and on....it is a terrible approach, to draw a line between child
and adult in my view, and it creates a terrible unnatural class system of
the adults having full rights, while those under 18, no matter how smart,
and independent having very little rights. And this group, unlike adult
african americans, and female humans cannot defend themselves as well as
adults can, because they don't have much experience, and it is sad to see
the adult majority stripping them of their natural universe given rights.
Another fine law is one that allows a child to touch adult genitals if
they provide a written consent stating that touching a genital is what
they want to do, that they deserve the right to touch a genital, etc.
People can still keep unconsensual touching illegal, and even adult
instigated touching of genitals illegal, but why not give the child some
freedom to learn about genitals, human anatomy, and sexual reproduction?
Then, and I can go on for hours about this because nobody has ever talked
about it, and perhaps next, and I swear this is probably coming, even
talking about molestation or child pornography is going to be illegal. As
it is already, those who do, are probably viewed with hostility, and
people make plans for jailing them on made-up charges using their
outspoken views as evidence of their involvement in child abuse rings.
(Just like 9/11 truth people could be labeled terrorists for rejecting the
official story, and defenders of "witches" would be next to be dunked and
accused of sorcery). Maybe children will have to wear a special badge or
something. This law does not address those who assault children non
sexually, those people do not have to wear a GPS bracelet, and are not
restricted in any way. It's an interesting idea, banning any person with a
violent conviction from the earth, a nation or city. One thing is the
phenomenon of people who, like nazis, generally play the role of accusers,
and never see themselves in the role of the accused. Because there is an
important aspect of molestation law that people don't think much about,
and that is that there is usually no physical evidence of molestation,
unlike violent crime, nonviolent molestation is usually convicted on
eyewitness testimony. Video of a molestation would be physical evidence,
but that is, I am sure, rare. So now, I would not doubt that this hysteria
is going to continue to serve as a useful tool against enemies. All you
need to do is convince some person's poor child to make an accusation of
gential touching, and probably the person accused will be jailed, and
certainly their reputation will be ruined. So like locking people in
psychiatric hospitals, no person can recover from that kind of damage to
their reputation...they will not be able to find a job, people will put
them down at every turn with rude insider insults, even when they know the
accusation is false...it's a shocking phenomenon of conformity. People
still to this day say "bug" for money at republican's request even though
I have never buggered any human...the myth is enough for them to think I
did, even when they know I didn't. One psychologer once screamed out "but
you wanted to!". Well,...if a person does or does not want to, I vote that
those thoughts should not be illegal..I mean those are just thoughts,
nobody is directly hurt from a thought (in particular a nonviolent
thought). It's like the even worse (at least in my unusual mind) thoughts
of permanent damage causing violence, maybe they are reason to monitor a
person and their thoughts, but it's not enough for arrest. And this is a
separate issue, but one that interests me...I want to ask the most ardent
free speechers and free information people, "The people that orchestrated
the 9/11 mass murder, the republicans and those in the US
military,...and/or funded it...should those people be allowed and go
unpunished as protected by free speech and thought or should those
plotters and funders be locked in jail?". That is a tough one, currently,
the majority view is that not only should those people go to jail, but
that they should be executed, anybody with foreknowledge and active
participation (what the true democratic opinion is I don't know, but that
is what the law and legal precedent has been). I think in the future
people will probably not even be jailed for plotting violence, protected
under free speech and thought, but probably not for a long time, and it's
probably best that way...violence is out of control on the earth, and even
plotting an assault or murder should be enough reason to expose those
people and maybe some small jail time, unless successful then more jail
time. But you know, 70% of California, probably the USA, and no doubt the
rest of earth, have a very backward view of physical pleasure. I wonder
where the antisexuals will go next...since there appears to be no bottom
to people's violent hostility towards sexuality....I think stopping
children from having sex and jailing children who engage in sex
perhaps...raising the consensual sex age to 21, making sex without
marriage illegal, back to illegal anal sex, back to illegal seduction,...
I don't know, perhaps this is a special feeling of children adults and
sexuality...there need to be certain ingredients for the public to bite
into it. Many times the real charm is having a word like "molestor" that
strikes fear into people's minds, which they equate with a murderer of
children (but not like those with missiles in Iraq, for example). The word
"molestor" really, in my view, is not completely accurate, because many of
these genital touchings are not "bothersome" or a "nuisance" as the word
"molest" implies. Instead a child may be indifferent, unbothered, or even
approve of or request such touching. So "molest" doesn't really accurately
describe the crime. And I think the real hatred is the idea that a child
might lose their sexual purity. I guess in theory, we don't mind if adults
consensually shake the hand of as many children as they want to, it's when
they touch genitals that is the big deal. It says, and I think people
should be clear about this, that they don't want anybody over the age of
18 touching the genitals of any person under the age of 18, whether it
bothers the person under 18 or not, even if they request such touching, it
is to be illegal. As a final note, I think young people should be allowed
to touch genitals (although again, I encourage people over 18 to obey all
laws, and not to let their genitals be touched by humans under the age of
18, and not to touch any genitals of people under the age of 18) if they
want to (and maybe if their parents do not object too), I know for myself,
I dreamed of touching busty women and masted about that as early as age
11, how I would have loved to have even oral sex with the women in nude
magazines, what a denial and trajedy to deny young males that opportunity.
I don't know the average age for females but again, as I have said before,
there really is a physical difference when it comes to sex for females and
males (although I think in the future ultimately clear consent at any age
will be the eventual law), for example sex for a male is not painful,
while for a female it may be (the first few times). Males are ready for
sex around age 11, while female (and I am not the expert) are not until
around age 16 (as a time when they can enjoy sexual pleasure without
pain). To me it seems clear that the current view, and a very popular view
at 70% is that children cannot and should not make decisions for
themselves, and should be viewed as not responsible for their actions,
etc. I see the future as giving full rights to all citizens with no regard
to age.
11/18/06
Since the belief in many gods came before the belief in one god, so why would the belief in one god be any more accurate than the belief in many?
11-05-2006
10/23/06
An excellent video examining 9/11 is
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along&hl=en
In this video, how a spool emits from the reinforced "sky lobby" is shown
(the WTC buildings were 3 buildings in 1 separated by 2 reinforced sky
lobbies. The chances of this happening by chance are remote. In addition,
another video interview with Steven Jones and the usual crew of 9/11 truth
tellers, explains another important point: what are the chances of the 47
core columns, each 4 inch thick steel, all breaking at the same time? And
then, perhaps more importantly, breaking symmetrically all the way down to
the ground level? Falling, as the above video narrator states, in the path
of most resistance. Another important point is that, the basement filled
with much of the molten metal from the thermate and explosives, without
the basement, that molten metal would have rolled out into the streets
potentially.
But thinking more about 9/11/01, it seems clear that Bush jr and the
neocons didn't just wake up one morning and say "you know, I think I
wouldn't mind having a few thousand murders on my record.", which implies
that plotting the 9/11 murders was not that big of a deal to them...they
probably didn't feel alot of moral uncertainty about having thousands of
murders on their record, and how could that be? It can only be if they
were already involved in many murders before 9/11. Can you imagine a
person with a clean record of no murders, feeling completely comfortable
with allowing a mass murder like 9/11 to go forward? No, they would never
brave such a thing. The 9/11 mass murder has to be preceded by a life of
watching and probably even participating in many murders. For sure, the
wealthy neocon children grew up watching the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK so
clearly orchestrated by all their friends and fathers. As an aside, it's
an interesting point about the wonderful movie "Loose Change", the song
lyric the person says "how many thrills?", and it seems clear that 9/11
and other murders done by republicans are "thrill kills". in other words,
they are stimulated by murder. They are fascinated, as many people are, at
watching people last thoughts before jumping of the WTC towers, before
being blown to pieces. They are fascinated by murder, death, pain, humans
being tortured, etc. Perhaps they feel their own mortality, or the thrill
of power in ending a human life. Different from the millions of people who
are naturally fascinated by watching humans murdered, the republicans have
the added fascination that they are directly responsible for those
murders. They didn't detonate the wired up explosives in the WTC
buildings, but they authorized it, and ordered it. Everybody that sees
understands that they are the people with the main responsibility for the
9/11 mass murder, plotting it from the ground up, assembling the
resources, funding it, shielding it from being exposed or stopped,
executing it, and now working and funding to cover up the truth about it.
So it just occured to me this morning, that you know, as an excluded, I
have to do a lot of theorizing about included life, that Bush jr, probably
didn't just out of nowhere take on 3000 murders onto his record, but there
must have been thousands of secret murders he was involved with before
hand, and the same is true for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Robertson,
McCain, and all the other republicans. They view it like war probably,
that it's ok to kill people viewed as the enemy. This is a common
phenomenon, Castro did and no doubt does it too, it seems to be the status
quo (although the republicans in the USA have probably murdered more
people than any other nation, but it's debatable), for example, Castro
killed his way into power, and then probably kills (or jails) anybody that
disagrees with him, or challanges his rule with full democracy, and other
similar systems. And the same is true for the republicans in the USA, they
viewed JFK as an enemy (like all democrats, liberals, intellectuals,
educated) and they murdered him, the same for MLK, and RFK, and the proof
is in the way they protect Sturgis and Cesar to this very day. The proof
is in the 9/11 books they publish, the lies they tell about 9/11, etc. You
have to see things the way they do, inside people's houses and heads. For
me, I will be glad for murderers to be stopped, exposed, jailed, etc...but
you know...these people want their enemies murdered, and then care nothing
about the murder of innocent civilians. The republicans under Bush jr
represent probably the largest group of murderers ever to be free on earth
since the reign of the Nazi people. Viewing images of violence, or
anything is not a serious thing to me, looking at images even repeatedly
of violent murder, 9/11, anything like that, is no crime. One of the big
mistakes of this time is the belief that simply looking at or owning
images should be a crime, when looking at an image is no crime, it's those
in the image that are doing the crime. People have to be able to separate
those simply looking at a crime, versus those in the images actually doing
the crime, and I don't think they will be able to understand this
distinction anytime soon. So where these conservative murderers are so
evil is that they enjoy plotting murder and then watching it over and
over. Simply watching it over and over is no serious thing, it's the
enjoyment of doing a murder (and then watching it over and over) that is
evil. The watching is not evil, it's the murder that is obviously to me,
but not to the public. The last frontiers of information secrecy, images
people can be actually jailed for owning are images that violate:
copyright, privacy, child pornography (although owning violent images of a
nonsexual nature are apparently legal to my limited legal knowledge, and
then there is the debate about ancient art that depicts child
pornography), government information (for some reason the service body of
the public has a special priviledge of privacy, which should not exist in
my humble opinion. They work as a public body and therefore should not
have any private parts, and should be completely open to public scrutiny).
All other images are legal to own. But I think the time will come when the
public supports total free information, where people cannot be jailed or
even fined for any image owned. This entire 9/11 thing currently makes me
think about a CourtTV show I saw about the college kid killer Danny
Rollins who is supposed to be killed by lethal injection sometime soon,
who wrote that song "Mystery Rider", but I would substitute "Mystery 9/11
killers, what's yer name? Yer criminals, with controlled demolition gone
insane". Who knows what makes people kill, I think it's a selfish desire.
Perhaps a desire to be feared. I dunno. For Rollins, maybe he is like most
people highly suggestible when images are beamed on his head and he didn't
know that people might be sending images, and some practical jokers beamed
images of him killing onto his head, and he follow those suggestions much
to their (and no doubt other insiders) amusement. But another point is that he wanted sex, and the only way he could get any was to take it without permission. Free market prost might have provided an alternative, but puritans have everything figured out I guess. Clearly these 9/11
killers were no virgin first time killers, to just up and kill 3000 people
one day, and then 10,000 more in Afghan and Iraq.
For those people who program on both Windows and UNIX I found a cool
"gedit" like editor that allows tabbed editing, and allows to save in UNIX
[only chr(10) carriage return] format for Windows: Notepad++ at
sourceforge.net.
10/24/06
This was fast, like a Bush into Hell.
I think the Democrats, liberals and intellectuals need to organize and
communicate better. For example clearly we should vote down the Dems, like
Feinstein and Clinton who vote in favor of invading Iraq, but then who to
vote for? My advice? In the primary vote the the openly anti-war democrat
contender, but as usual when the encumbant war monger wins the primary,
vote for the Green candidate (or Libertarian...whoever gets the most
votes, which I think is Green), because you know both of those people are
going to be antiwar. You know how would Feinstein, Clinton, Lieberman, Kerry, and
all the other Dems who voted to invade Iraq, when they all knew that Bush
jr and the neocons did 9/11, like it if a helmet was put on them and they
were shipped out to Iraq since they are so gung-ho for US children to
murder Iraqi people, and live a life holding loaded guns all day. Maybe
some of those kids forced to be in Iraq, which is the new Russian
roulette, it's Iraq-roulette, have the choice to come back to the USA if
they are there against their choice, and then without being jailed,
declared AWOL, a deserter, dishonorably discharged, etc. just like
McDonalds, Sears and Walmart if they had the right to quit working, quit
their job whenever they want to. Isn't that a basic human right? To be
able to quit your job? Most people may not even know that Feinstein,
Clinton, Kerry and Lieberman all voted to send US youngsters to kill Iraqi
people. But wouldn't true democrats oppose the republicans in this
murderous act? Boxer did and I support her. Wouldn't those war mongering
murderous conservatives parading as democrats seek to allow the young
people taken to Iraq the right to quit the US military? no, I guess not.
So when, as many times happens, a war monger is the Democratic encumbant,
I think the antiwar people need to organize and vote for the Green
candidate. We need to have a liberal to fall back onto. I think we should
be looking for a party that is going to be more liberal than the
democrats, like "full democrats", or "free info democrats", something that
is going to take it to the next level. For example, the current group of
Dems is fine, Angelides, etc. but we need somebody ultimately beyond that,
somebody that is really going to openly be shutting down violence, maybe
the "antiviolence democratic party", or the "expose violence democratic
party", beyond this group of popular democrats, beyond into the future,
for example an outspoken proponent of total free information, of copyright
restriction, or of ending jail terms for information violaters,
introducing "no illegal images" legislation, of decriminalizing
recreational drugs and consensual prost for adults, some person that is
going to increase the democracy by recording the public's votes...isn't
that nice how Feinstein and others vote for us, so we don't have to
trouble? Isn't that such a wonderful system? We don't have to hurt our
finger muscles by voting...ok yes I am being sarcastic...I am more than
happy to take the time to vote against the Iraq invasion and other life
and death decisions. For people as old as me, 37, sending poor
youngsters to kill in Iraq (no doubt Feinstein and other religious
fanatics [opposed Newdow, and supports children in the USA echoing the
mind numbing pledge and marching in unthinking lock step to the Neocon
nationalistic machinery] are more concerned that those being blow up in
Iraq and not experiencing any sensual pleasure, being blown up is fine,
but being blown is high crime) is not a life and death decision that
fossilized Feinstein and lying Lieberman make for us, but it is a life or death
decision for many poor young people who joined the army not knowing that
they would be hauled off to kill and be killed so Bush and Cheney can stuff their
pockets with defense contract money.
http://www.vote-smart.org/ has a lot of the voting records of people in
the senate. The vote I think is most murderous is:
"Use of Military Force Against Iraq"
Feinstein, Lieberman, Biden, Harkin, Landrieu, Kerry, Reid, Schumer,
Clinton, among others voted for this atrocity and criminal homicide. They
all should be voted out of congress for such a violation of law, ethics,
and basic human right to life. And it's nothing personal, I simply think
condoning first degree homicide is a bad idea, is illegal and rightly so
in my opinion, is wreckless, is immoral, etc. It doesn't matter who does
it, it is just wrong in my opinion.
I found a relatively old reichstag event in 560 BCE in a book by Diogenes
Laertius (~200s CE). Solon accused Pisistratos of harming himself, then
claiming he was attacked and is then granted 400 young men with clubs for
protection (by the archons presumably) which he uses to take over and end
the representative democracy in Athens (my history may not be perfect, but
this is the story as I understand it). Solon was an archon (an elected
representative), and he fled, although, Pisistratos sent Solon a nice
letter allowing him to return and guarenteeing his safety, but Solon sends
a letter back respectfully rejecting the invitation writing that he would
be going against the principle of democracy which he believes in if he
returned.
Just as I said "it's ok to have differences in opinions about religion,
drugs, sex, and government but let's be damn sure that people who kill
other people are locked in jail!" (this can be commemorated with "darn
sure"), so now I am saying "We could have two sides battling it out in a
nasty secret violent battle of the bulk, and perhaps that may already be
happening behind the Pupin curtain, but it would be a hell of a lot easier
to simply nonviolently show all the people what the other side has been
doing, how Pupin saw the thought screen in brains using infrared, how
Sturgis killed JFK and millions of thought-hearing Republicans cover it
up, how Cesar killed RFK and those that helped, how 9/11 was done and
covered up, in winning the fight for truth, justice and decency, and then
all without a single scratch, done by a properly informed majority of both
sides." (this phrase can be commemorated with simply "heck of a lot
(easier)").
10/26/06
my view on gods: To believe in a god is not a very offensive position or
claim in my opinion, although I think a good examination of history would
provide enough evidence to show that the claim or theory of the existence
of gods is useless and most likely untrue. Simply believing there is a god
is less offensive in my view, than going a step further and claiming to
know what a god wants, which I view as very arrogant and similar to the
claim that a person is a god. How could a person know what a god wants?
Because to claim that a person knows what a god wants or prefers implies
that they themselves are god-like, or are a god, since to know the mind of
a god, a person would have to be a god, or to somehow have a different
relationship to a god than other humans. This is what we see in so many
televangelists, this claim that they know exactly what God wants, and they
can reveal what God wants, etc, and to me it's the height of arrogance to
claim to know what a god wants. So for example, I see no reason for
churches, temples, synogogues or mosques, although ofcourse they must be
allowed to exist, but in my view attendance should not be mandatory,
should not be viewed as a requirement, since, again, nobody can know what
a god wants since they are not a god, or on the same plane as a god
themselves, and to claim such a thing would be wrong, and overextending
their bounds as a mortal. And the same is true for any kind of holy books
such as the Bible, Koran, etc since no human can truthfully know the mind
of God, and any that claim to know the dictates of a god are guessing and
lying. Many people use the power of claims that they know what God wants
to influence people, they use the authority of a god and place it into
their own hands. People then think that God is telling them what the
person is telling them, in other words, that this person is an
interpretter for a god that they cannot talk to or hear from directly. And
to me that is very wrong, and it's a scam, because those people can
understand a diety no more than anybody else can, and understanding a
diety is impossible for either. People are certainly entitled to guess at
what a god wants, and then, in my view, that is simply the same as our own
views of what is ethical, what should be legal, what is immoral, etc. We
would find that our own individual preferences exactly coincide with that
of a god.
Can you imagine a time when humans are walking around with handheld lasers
that can chop a person in half in seconds? The photon is actually perhaps
more dangerous and definitely faster than metal projectiles from
conventional guns. Imagine what that must be like to see in a second your
lower half severed from your body. You would instantly feel the pain, and
all your intestines would spill out (it reminds me of the scene when Han
Solo cuts open the TanTan which was dead for heat...maybe they were trying
to get the message to the public, or simply describing what they had seen
many times, but maybe just coincidence). You would instantly lose feeling
in your legs and lower half, and probably within minutes would die from
blood loss. Having a person swipe off your head would probably be quicker
and less painful. Then imagine a computer programmed to track and laser in
half 6 billion people within seconds. I would not want to be the person
that pressed that "enter" button. But that is the reality that people are
faced with and to keep it a secret, I think is asking for trouble. Abuse
usually is done by a minority of priviledged, and rarely by a large group
who all agree on one thing. Generally, the more people that know, the
fairer a decision is, the less people that know, the less fair. The more people included, the more safe things are, the less, the more dangerous. There are
limitations for hand held lasers, although who knows what has been
developed over the century of secrecy? Mainly the supply of electricity is one limiting factor,
eventually the laser pointer battery runs out, and in particular probably
for a CO2 laser, that can cut metal, a large amount of electrons are
needed.
10/27/06
If I had to guess I would say that Hydrogen, probably taken from so-called
nuclear power (separating atoms somehow, maybe simply getting more photons
out than those put in, for a reaction of bombarding objects with
electrically negative antiprotons, or perhaps traditional uranium and
plutonium splitting), hydrogen and oxygen will probably be the future
fuel, with fossil fuel becoming obsolete and eventually unused. I think we
may see Hydrogen combustion engines in addition to fuel cell engines (and ofcourse the traditional hydrogen combustion propulsion used in many rockets: this will probably be the main method up and down on the moon since there is no air.).
Already hydrogen and oxygen combustion is used for rockets, star ship one
it, most interplanetary ships use it. Plus hydrogen simply drifts out of
the atmosphere (although possibly it might create more water than was
originally here, but then, water will be in large demand in orbit, the moon,
etc). Interestingly enough, apparently oxygen is not consumed in
combustion, it simply changes molecules. I guess, theoretically, oxygen is only a catalyst for combustion (although I have doubts, the mass of photons emitted must come from particles). The only other possible choice on
the horizon I see is biofuels, and for that I think there needs to be some
new advances that harness every molecule of plant throwaway...the space
for growing food on earth is going to continue to decrease, and food
growing will move out into orbit, the moon, mars, etc. probably, where
space and light are not factors.
Come to think of it, it seems likely that there must be some atoms where
antiprotons, neutrons, would probably produce more photons than put in,
since the atoms are losing photons (some perhaps gain matter, most
probably lose matter upon such collisions).
Each generation should present their predictions of the future, at least
once a year. Certainly people will be wrong and inaccurate, but it
forces people to think about the future, and it is interesting to look
back and see how accurate the people before them were. In some way, some
of these events, for example, humans going to the closest star appear
inevitable, although when is probably not known clearly. So there are some
clear stepping stones that would probably appear on most people's
estimation of the future.
10/30/06
Every day brings us closer to knowing the truth about 9/11, about the
murder of RFK, MLK, JFK and many many other innocent people. Every day
brings us closer to walking around with personal assistant robots that
capture our every image and sounds for our own protection in case
republicans and other violenters try to harm us and keep it a secret as
they have consistently done throughout history. Every day we are getting
closer to vacationing in orbit, on the moon, on planet mars. With each
day, more cameras are being produced, for example, in 1968 all that the
fascists republican nazis needed to do was confiscate Scott Enyart's
photos, and maybe a few other films, but for 9/11 they needed to
confiscate a heck of a lot more films to cover up the truth, and we are
reaching a time when the evil wealthy powerful conservatives will not be
able to confiscate, destroy or otherwise supress the video of their
violent activities, and I look forward to that time and welcome that
change. So every day brings us closer to justice, to a more complete and
informed understanding of our history. The election of republicans in 2000
and 2004 has set us back into a mini dark age of mass murder and war, but
this is only a temporary set back, and we must remember that voting for
republicans is voting for war, while voting for democrats is voting for
peace. There is an alternative to war, and it's called law. Look at the
way 70 people were just murdered by Musharef in Pakistan, again like so
many violent leaders, no arrest, no trial, ... just quick murder by
missile and unknown people working in the shadows. We need to work towards
internation laws that make homicide illegal in all nations, so that those
who murder can be openly identified to all with satellite videos, and
captured, and given a constant trial, and finally jailed if ever they step
into a democratic nation. Perhaps this was another US missile, look how
the young nonviolent person who reported the earlier US missile that
killed civilians was murdered. What a terrible chaos of violence the
republicans and conservative religious fanatics have opened up on the tiny
earth. Now I think the least people can do, is allow those people in
Afghanistan and Iraq that want to quit the military the choice to quit and
come home, without any penalty, anything else is forced labor and is
wrong. Nobody should be forced into labor, in particle such a dangerous
violent lawless type of job.
I saw Ed Asner talk at UCI, and he had some good stuff to say but jetted
away when I went to shake his hand. Plus his talk was all god this and god
that, who gives a shit about gods? Nothing about Bush doing 9/11, which
seems to me the best truth to tell, that and Bush's dad killed JFK, and Thane
Cesar is still on the loose. But I have to tell you people there was
something really amazing at this rally, Cindy Sheehan didn't show up but
talked over a cellphone and says "gaaaaaaaay"...and it was kind of funny,
because it's like a patented sell-out. Sheehan is such a scum bag. Can you
imagine being the guest of honor to rally the democrats, and then her
moment comes and she does her republican paid for piss on the crowd. And
that is royal piss. Sheehan is like this bloated way overpopular person
who, I think has done little to nothing for peace and the democrats. She
just sits back on the couch with her poking stick to change the channels
while nazi republicans beam offers of money onto her empty uneducated
brain. And the sadest part is that it will take decades for the public to
finally figure it out. How much money did Sheehan get paid? One speaker
said "they right that check". To me, it shows how corrupted and fragile
the democrats and liberal are, to have such a spineless sell-out as a
featured person, whose photo is constantly on newspapers. It's almost like
Sheehan is a republican paid for prop. It takes serious cashish to buy
your picture on a newspaper...where does it come from? She doesn't sound
like a serious force for democracy, for the democrats, for liberals,
against violence, against the murders of 9/11, in Afghanistan or Iraq. But
the public will never understand that until 200 years from now when
everybody gets to see who pays her. I honestly hope, the true liberals on
the earth remember Sheehan's anti-gay statement and let her fall to the
bottom with the rest of the people whose main value is money. It sends a
tingle down my spine to hear such a truth revealed in front of maybe a
hundred people. It was just like a Hollywood thing in some way, to see the
naked dirty truth in person about some person written up as a hero, how
they are just this bloated money for sell-out person. It's
really an interesting phenomenon, and as I said, the excluded public can't
keep up with it. Even I couldn't...how was I supposed to know what she is
like? I don't see inside her house and head as she does us. The liberals
need solid leadership, Sheehan is a total scum and sell-out, they can't be
funding her or allowing her to ruin their rallies, honestly...that is
stupid. One thing I was going to comment on earlier but didn't because I
didn't want to lower the steam of the liberal movement, was how Sheehan
was calling for a meeting with Bush, and I thought that was such an ass
kiss...what does anybody have to say to this asshole? He did 9/11! You
think he is going to be changed by some chit-chat? That was idiocy. And
looking back, I would not, seriously be surprised if the entire "Sheehan"
phenomenon was funded and created. So many things are funded now, people's
values are defined by the money they accept to propagandize for the
republicans who are a nazistic, rogue, violent, criminal group. That was
amazing, just to see this patented sell-out. The liberals are a sad story,
I wish they would stand up like the 9/11-truth people and get tough on the
violent lawless republicans, instead of being murdered, then the killers,
like Sturgis and Cesar...I mean can you imagine how many others? don't
even ever get seen let alone jailed. I told Steve Young who came up to
shake hands..."how do you feel about democratizing the government
more...like letting people vote directly on the decisions"...and Young said
"...you mean like a town hall?.." I said "no..like on the Internet, voting
directly on government decisions..."...and Young says "they had a town
hall in Boston...", and as he walked away I said "how about more stopping
violence and teaching science....". isn't that amazing about Sheehan, and
that is like so many others. Let's see who was the last sell out I
remember...9/11 has presented endless examples. Michael Shermer, ASCE,
Penn & Teller, Scientific American, are a few. Sadly, many people might
argue...there are so many sell-out scum bags...there is nobody left...we
have to listen to them...there is nobody else. I find that very hard to
believe. Send the sell-out scum to the bottom, it's a constant process of
democratic renewel. A new person appears with a fresh message, they rise
up in popularity starting with very little, but when they have a large
amount of popularity they start getting offers (although I don't and I
would refuse any such offers anyway, just experiencing the stomach-turning
feeling of seeing popular people sell-out to the highest bidder is
nausiating to me, but beyond that I stand for something, and I want change
in my lifetime and for the future. You can see Asner has a spine and is in
it for the long haul...he probably really does want change...he funds many
liberal videos that no other wealthy or popular liberals will...so I think
we need to find more people like Asner and don't support those like
Sheehan who turn on a dime for a few thousand dollars. And how much did
Sheehan get paid...I have to guess...I think it was a small
sell-out...maybe 200 people...a few cameras...but ofcourse, with me there,
among the included...it gets seen or heard as it were. If yer excluded and
reading this, you are ofcourse, getting only a brief summary of events
that happened months before, while the republican nazi machinery goes on
in real-time. It was interesting, that Asner sounded interesting at first
and gave a relatively positive helpful speech, he starts with "There are
some wicked wicked people...." that try to supress the truth...I can't
remember exactly, but it would be better if they mention
all the violent murders of the past, and ofcourse 9/11...I had to yell out
"Bush did Nine-eleven!" damn...get a clue people. So I think Sheehan
probably got paid...$25,000? maybe more. There are probably bigger
sell-outs down the road at other stops. That is amazing. It's a touring
republican show parading as a democrat rally...I mean clearly...if Sheehan
is the featured guest and selling-out like this at each stop for $50k a
piece. I think that Mimi Kennedy said "scum!" just before talking which
was nice and how stomach turningly true. It shitheads like Sheehan, circus
Penn and never Teller, and others that leave people of integrity left like
Yoda and the two backstabbing guards in Revenge of the Sith, but many
liberals would try to embrace these sell-out traitors you know like brain
dead shit fer brains, never seeing them for who they really are and the
natural order of the best rising, and the worst falling. The entire
"representative" phenomenon is going to fall to the past, once the first
decent representative gets elected, and implements the long delayed full
and constant democratic voting. It's amazing, only now do I know the deal
on Sheehan...and then only because I bothered to see this rally,
otherwise, like most excluded, I would never have known she is such a
stupid sell-out. It's interesting that Asner, Young and Kennedy chose to
go forward with Sheehan's sell-out comments...perhaps they want to let her
deflate her popularity? to stop her from gaining more popularity? For me,
I would have said fuck that...I'm not letting this idiot sell-out poop all
over liberals...it doesn't look good on them...they look like passive
Jesus-ites who let people bully them around. Young himself was spewing all
that love yer enemy bs. Hop outta that Jesus cloud bank and check into
reality...these people are vicious murderers, and liars, and you can't win
by trying to massage the jellyfish that is the public, you have to show and tell them the
truth about 9/11, the truth about thane cesar, the truth about pupin...lets
go already. Sell-outs come and sell-outs go, when are you going to stop
supporting them?, that's what I'd like to know. It's a natural process,
over time the honest and true rise up, the corrupted should sink down in
popularity. It's nothing personal, its like those who supported the Iraq
invasion...its nothing personal, I just think what they did is illegal, or
should be, is unethical, and immoral...it's not a clickish, or special
friend phenomenon, it's a universal principle applied to all. So to the
bottom of popularity with Sheehan, the 9/11 liars, those who voted to
invade Iraq, and all other shit for brains sell outs, and it's not
personal, it's just the law of nature and self preservation, we can't
elect murderers and expect them to respect the right to life, its basic
math, and so we are clearly in trouble here on earth. I hope the sheeple
get smart and take back the keys from the wolves, it seems more logical
than what they are doing now. It has to be a good feeling for der furor to
see somebody so apparently high up in the democratic group licking his
spiked boot, even though for money, it still has to feel like having a
large amount of power. Here the furor and his group directly control a
popular leader of the democrats, and most of the public don't even know. Also at
this rally, there were some republicans mostly white males with short
hair, but one white female, and one non-white male who held signs up
espousing patriotism...they support their country through thick and
thin...and all other idiotic bs. These people would march into a gas
chamber saluting the entire way. They are all uneducated, ultra religious
fanatics, the easily duped, that Jesus rose from the dead and split one
loaf into 7, and yadda yadda, all that religious bs, a god is in the cloud
and their god is the only true god, etc. When you see these people, you
are looking at the supporters of first degree murder. And the supporters
of first degree cold-blooded murder are gadamn everywhere. Where the f are
the laws? I can't believe Bush and the republicans can kill 3,000 people
and the public scarsely changes. On one night they bomb Afghanistan...then
one clear peaceful night they bomb Iraq...it's pure first degree assault
and homicide of people who have lived nonviolent lives. We need to enforce
the homicide and assault laws, not violate them. Then, what about even
seeing the photos of what is happening there? We see the guns firing, but
not the people who are fired upon. It's totally gross...I mean, it's a
bloody slaughter on both sides, the republicans can't even stop violence
in the USA, and ofcourse these people don't try...they love violence.
Anybody that rejects allowing them to violate the violence laws is called
a pussy and fag, just for believing that homicide and assault is wrong and
those laws should be enforced. We don't need to live with violence, we are
advanced enough to live without violence, we have laws against violence,
and it's time those laws are enforced. Imagine the viewpoint that those
who oppose violence are pussies. This is one of the main arguements coming
out of the republican hole now, to honestly think that assaulting a person
is a good thing to do, that it's a good idea to run out and assault your
neighbor, I mean that is ridiculous. We don't need violence, violence
doesn't prove manhood. And the amazing idiocy of this republican theory is
clear when you start to add up...ok...one person has a fist (some people
can't handle the responsibility of owning a fist, let alone a weapon)...ok
this person has a knife...ok maybe they are more manly because they
probably will inflict more damage...ok this person has a gun...maybe they
are the biggest and toughest man (I sometimes say the toughest guy is the
one that wears a pink shirt), ...here this person has a surface to air
missile launcher...well, perhaps they are the most manly...I mean it's
idiocy. Why don't people just want to get regular sex with a variety of
different people, vote on a full democracy, have full free information,
build walking robots, round up and jail the violent (ok this will take
years, but it will happen), build rocket planes into orbit, build cities
on the moon, mars, go to Centauri, send robots there...I mean...where are
the obvious goals that seem so simple to me?
10/31/06
More about the Sheehan sell-out. I think most people can see that Cindy
She-hands-it-to-women, and so is a hypocrite, if not, and I seriously
doubt it, she is a dull mind-chained nazi. The nazi's were so concerned
with homosexuality but not with violence obviously because like the
republicans they are the violent. The nazis and republicans both liked to
punish the weak and the minorities: homosexuals, non-whites, women, the
ill, the poor, drug users, people in prostitution. It's interesting in
some way that this sell-out of Sheehan is typical of the "iron-fist" of
the republicans, its like Saddam and other dictators...they like to use
their wealth to do displays of power. The question in my mind, is: "do
people want the iron fist, or do they oppose it?". I don't know. There is
a tradition in the USA of people who don't like being force-fed, but
because of the empty minds that religion propagates, there are many people
who like to be told what to do, how to live, forced down one narrow path,
etc. It's an interesting story about Sheehan, here she has become, I think
similar to a person with a false charity...abusing her status as the
mother of a victim of the Bush regime. We see this all the time, people
faking blindness for money, fake charities, false wheelchairs, etc. I am
interested to see how Sheehan falls in popularity, and the same for
Penn&Teller, Shermer, Popular Mechanics, and all those who play an active
role in covering up the truth about 9/11, Thane Cesar, Frank Fiorini,
Pupin, etc. those who speak out against homosexuality, those who are racists,
genderists, etc. In my experience I think the public does listen and is
affected, just simply not fast and full enough.
It's kind of interesting that Bush jr is a cheerleader turned mass
murderer. That is an interesting combination. Kind of a cheerleader gone
too far...you know "blow them up, blow them up...blow them way up!".
Here agin, another example of how Cheney and the republicans support
torture, Cheney saying that water dunking torture is a no-brainer. It is a
no-brainer, obviously...torture is barbaric and should never be done.
There is no need for torture, in particular with the billions of cameras
and thought-machines...is there something these Orwellian people don't
know? They see and hear our thoughts, they have vast video archives of our
lives that they routinely access, getting the search results beamed onto their heads....but yet we know
surprisingly little about them, without so much as a polaroid of their
lives of lies.
I am a simple person, I just simply want a life on earth, free from
violence, and I don't think that is asking too much. I look forward to a
time where we all can look down on those in the camera thought network,
and quickly see who is assaulting people with ceiling lasers, or whatever,
and shut them down and jail them in accordance with democratic voting
quickly...first because it is illegal to assault people, and secondly to
stop the evolution of an all out laser war, when as is inevitable, the
victimized side fires back.
That was one other point about that Sheehan sell-out anti-gay story, that
I am so tired of the passive Jesus forgive everybody people. There are at
least two kinds of people that reacted to that Sheehan "gaaaay", the
one's, like me, who say, "get this piece of shit the fuck outta here, what
a dumb ass shit", and those like Steve Young and many Christian people,
who say "oh...forgive her...". They are like spineless jellyfish, you
know, and they are the reason Sturgis, Thane Cesar, and the truth about
9/11 is unknown...not even shown! I much prefer the "get this piece of
shit the fuck outta here" people, those that exist of them, halleluja for
common sense. This wonderful logical solid group also is banning Popular
Mechanics, Scientific American, Penn & Teller, Michael Shermer, ASCE, and
any other piece o shit that takes money to lie about 9/11, JFK, RFK or any
other republican murder. The "forgive everybody people" routinely forgive
murderers, assaulters...you name it, they forgive it...in the name of
Jesus. It has made a routine establishment of jail ministries...they know
the quickest path to freedom...claim Jesus and get forgiven by mindless
spineless forgive even the most frequently violent, Christian people.
So many of the things we see with the secret thought-cam net are similar
to nazism, and we have to remember that one of the worst things about
living in this time is that we are very shortly on the heels of WW2 and
the rise of Nazism. It was only 60-70 years ago that people embraced the
Nazi ideal, and philosophy of Hitler. Less than a century has passed since
large numbers of people casually embraced Nazism. And things are no
different today. Religion and racism are just as popular as ever if not
more so. All the ingredients, secrecy, no full democracy, no free info,
etc are all in place for similar events, and the rise of Bush jr and
Swartzenegger is about as close as I think ever has been to a repeat of
the rise of Hitler. Bush jr's grandfather was punished for working with
Fritz Thiessan the main financier of Hitler, and Swartzenegger's father
was in the Gestapo. It seems clear that Arnold probably would have
followed in his father's footsteps and been a member of the German high
command, in the gestapo like his dad. Picture the show and tell for the
young Arnold...some children: "my dad is a salesman", "my dad is a scientist"...arnold: "my dad
systematically kills thousands of jewish people and political prisoners using
zyklon B gas every day"....other kids:"oh". Did Arnold's dad hunt down Jewish people? I think we need to ask ourselves that, and take another look at the videos of what the gestapo did for a living every day at the office. There are republicans whose grandfathers
did not work with the Nazis, and whose fathers were not in the gestapo,
but...curiously...they don't get the popular support and funding the
Bushes and Swartzenegger appear to get. Swartzenegger, whose father probably went door to door asking "is your father home? We want to talk to him." taking the Jewish men of Germany and removing them forever from their families. And ofcourse Swartzenegger publically supports Bush (as he did at the Republican convention), and therefore the 9/11 mass murder. And what we see is a large amount
of dog-eat-dog kind of behavior by those victims of the evil regime,
Jewish people called these people "Quizzlings", those who sold out other
Jewish people who idiotically trusted them by secretly working with the
Nazis. The same exact characteristics are true today in the age old battle of conservatives and liberals.
It's amazing to me, that of all the wealthy people who have died, none
have done anything extraordinary to expose the truth about Michael Pupin,
seeing and hearing thought. All it would take to make a beautiful gesture
to the humans and future of earth, is perhaps $100,000, maybe even
less...perhaps as little as $10,000....for many wealthy people that is
nothing. But yet none, to my knowledge have done this: simply producing a
DVD, maybe in their final years, that tells the story of Pupin, hearing
thought, how everybody sees thought, the history of all the secrets, and
then produce 10,000-100,000...maybe perhaps 1 million, 10 million DVDs,
and pay for enough postage to cover the postage cost for the year the
person would definitely be dead by, and give an attourney or trusted
employee or friend the instruction to bulk mail those DVDs [it would be
interesting...that evil people in the government would no doubt swoop down
and confiscate them all]. Perhaps a court case could be raised, using
evidence of government confiscation of the person's DVDs. Perhaps people
could be paid to deliver the DVDs door to door, or at supermarkets. In
particular, that none of those people, a good example is Carl Sagan,
perhaps JFK or RFK, MLK, John Lennon, could have reached many excluded
with the truth about the included, about Pupin, ... come to think of
it...many insiders could have and most definitely should have warned John
Lennon about Chapman who had to have been a focus of attention in the thought-cam net in the weeks preceeding the murder...I find this same negligence...I am surrounded by evil paid for
positioned people...but there is not one communication to me...to watch
out...the person in the car is paid to do something...the person next to
you is going to do something they are paid to do, etc...not one message
comes to me or any other fine liberals. Isn't it surprising that no other
people saw or see fit to tell the truth about Pupin, hearing thought, the
massive secrets and lies in their final years as a gift to the people and
future of earth? It's very selfish and unthinking that they don't, and
here, I am doing this publically on the Internet for free in what is left
of my youth.
Is there any question that Republicans are the party that plays with
matches? That starts violence? And if you are a person that is thinking
that we need to make the earth safe, and should not be reckless, you
should not vote for the Republicans. The Republicans, like any bully, feel
no hesitation to assault some person without the slightest
provocation...many times they manufacture weak excuses for provocation,
they did 9/11, they invaded afghan and iraq, completely unprovoked, and
they have no program to stop violence, Bush jr entertained the idea of
using nuclear weapons...all of this destabilizes the planet, and opens the
door to planetary destruction. Look at the planet before the rise of
Hitler...there was peace, although there was poverty and starvation, but
Hitler was the primary cause of millions of murders and the choas that
destroyed many people, buildings, artifacts of history, etc. it was pure
idiocy, and reckless, reckless decision making on the part of people,
mainly people in Germany. Now it seems that a similar incredibly reckless
phenomenon has happened in the USA. Why won't the people ever learn? It's
amazing. You can't keep electing first strike violent people...it's
dangerous to the future existence of life on earth. We need to stop
violence, not start it up. Electing republicans is clearly pouring gas on
an already out of control fire of violence that the forces of stop
violence can't control...I mean we can't even see the murderers of many of
these people...there is not even a photo of them...Andrew O, Tom E, the
9/11 killers, and thousands of others.
This thing with Kevin Barrett is unbelievable. Here, just for questioning
the official 9/11 story, 60 state legislators are calling for him to be
fired...I mean that is gross...in particular because Barrett is telling
the truth. It's like a herd of SS. That is so gross the way they are
trying to power through a big lie. Why do people vote for those people?
And here, this is Wisconsin of all places, maybe I could expect that kind
of nazistic conformity in the old south, but in Wisconsin? That is
frightening. How proud the honest should be of the U of Wisconsin for standing up to these big
time fascist liars. That is my view too of people like Fetzer, Steven
Jones, all the 9/11 people...it's really an amazing thing they are doing
and my support and thanks goes out to them.
Here are more people working to protect the killers of the 3000 victims of
9/11:
FR Greening, a Canadian chemist,
Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University
Professors,
Michael Newman of NIST (and no doubt most of the NIST employees, like
Controlled Demolition. In fact, that Controlled Demolition was used to
clean up 9/11 proves that they were in on the demolition because whoever
does the cleanup is going to see evidence of cutter charges, etc. Then,
that controlled demolition did the clean up on Oklahoma city, is strong
evidence that they were hired by some part of the US government to do the Oklahoma city explosions, probably
the military, which is like a secondary government in the USA...I shit you
not, they operate on their own, nobody can stop them because ofcourse,
they have all the weapons. All this should show people that the Pupin
network is out of control...it needs to be exposed, before more mass
murders are coordinated by this huge-ass murderous criminal group in the
US military [and clearly in the offensive...they can hardly be called
defense...industry])
Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican
http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1439.cfm
Fetzer says in a recent video that Judy Wood may have lost her job for
telling the truth about 9/11. I think the time is coming when the honest
and educated are in power and the liars and antiscience are in the
minority, probably with the arrival of more videos, walking robots, ...
the robots will walk out and then the violent will walk in to prison
probably. One of Wood's students, who was heavily involved in exposing the
truth about 9/11 was apparently murdered, Michael Zebuhr,
http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Michael.html and somehow,
despite seeing thought, and inside people's houses, the killer has not and
probably will not be captured, or even identified as far as I can gleen
from the Internet. That is fucking scary. The person robbed his mom who
didn't resist and then just shot Zebuhr twice. It looks like Steven Jones
was banned from teaching in the classroom...this is unbelievable:
http://www.rense.com/general73/ZZIBN.HTM
Wood has an informative page at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com
The beam weapons, basically these are photon guns (and electron,
antiproton guns perhaps), and I think we should show a simple CO2 laser
chopping up a piece of meat, metal, etc...just to educate the public about
the reality of this scientific advance. Check out the video at:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html and how a large laser is
used to destroy missiles.
Is you search for laser weapon in video.google.com, here is a vid:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2160832135608196496&q=laser+weapon&hl=en
Clearly this laser, from powerlabs.org, whose size or kind is not
explained, would be a nasty beam to be in front of. This is a CO2 laser.
http://www.powerlabs.org/laser.htm
11/01/06
Another symbolic Star Wars scene that must relate to a secret practice
among the included is when Obi Wan goes into the archive to verify that
Anakin Skywalker killed the young Jedi children, the so-called younglings.
This must be a common practice among included, to verify the monetary
transaction, or even money-free promise, and in particular any violence
that a person has done...to see for themselves, as many of us like to do,
even when we trust those who tell us the news.
11/02/06
There should be another 9/11 commission, under a Democratic president.
David Ray Griffen suggests that somebody like Jimmy Carter should chair
it, but I think I would feel better, and my vote goes to Griffen
himself, Jim Fetzer, and Steven Jones chairing and running a second 9/11
commission, because unlike Carter, in terms of 9/11, they are already
proven commodoties. We can't be sure people like Carter would explain in
the detail that Griffen, Fetzer, Jones, vonKleist, Avery, etc already
have. And so I would vote for and expect that a second 9/11 report would then be published that describes all
the details uncovered by this new second commission.
I was thinking, and it's interesting, I have to ask, in the battle of what
is and what is not sane: how sane is violence? Is doing a first degree
unprovoked murder a sane choice? Is assaulting some innocent person sane?
is that a sane sound logical choice? How about antisexuality...is that
sane? Is the detest for nude images, the view that the nude human body
should be kept secret...is that sane? That sex should be secret, etc. is
that a sane logical philosophy? How about religion...is that sane? Is it
sane to preach that Jesus split 1 loaf into 10? Is it sane to forbid
drawings of Muhommed? The more I think about it, the more I think,
violence, antisexuality and religion...the foundations of much of our
modern society are far from having a sane, sound, logical basis and
foundation.
I'll tell you what is disrepectful to our troops, and all humanity, is
sending then into Iraq to be killed for no reason at all, that is a
disgrace to all humans. I can see paying people in police to arrest a
violent person, but invading Iraq is ridiculous. Bush did 9/11, that is
clear, and even beyond that, there are no WMDs in Iraq which proves even
the secondary reason to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation, false. How about
letting those people quit? Now that is disrepectful to human decency and
the most basic of human rights. Can you imagine, you work at Walmart, and
decide to quit, and they haul you off to prison for disobeying an order,
for going awol, etc....it's forced labor, and it absolutely has to stop.
It's a violation of the most basic principles of human rights.
As an aside, you know what stinks? John Kerry's voting record. How he
supported the draft (I just read this today. It's another example of how
Kerry's intuition is usually wrong. We need to move to people being able
to quit the army at any time, moving into the future), how he, like
Hillary Clinton, supported the Iraq invasion, how he sees no value in the
moon land, we need leaders with vision, and it's not personal, its only
logical. Then how even though Kerry served in Vietnam (which to me, the
smart choice was made by people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
who dodged the draft), he back peddles and has a jellyfish spine when it
comes to his recent comment about people staying in college to avoid
Iraq...which is the most trivial statement...the entire thing is like
some...ridiculous powder puff bunch of cloud blowing material...why don't
they stand up and say...this occupation in Iraq is wrong, the invasion of
Afghanistan was wrong, and Bush and the republicans did 9/11...40% of
Americans know it. Here the people in Iraq are being used as pawns to die
for Bush, Cheney and these uber-wealthy defense industry companies and
owners....they care nothing for a human life, but we are to believe that
they are respectful of our military and troops? I mean that's shocking.
Here they send these kids to kill and die for them, and that is respect?
While they sit back in their powder-puff billion dollar lives puffing
cigars and cognac watching it all in their secret camera thought network
like some sick-ass war movie.
With these redneck yokels who constantly assault the american public with
lasers, and other secret technology. Should they be jailed? Probably. You
know, maybe not forever, but probably for some time. But what I think is
the most important thing is just showing the goddamn public...just show
them...you know also, with 9/11...maybe Bush and the organizers will be
protected by the first ammendment, and popular support for free speech,
but at least, as a bare minimum show the public...show them how Robertson
and Falwell supported doing 9/11, show them how Bush and Cheney made 9/11
happen...etc...show them and tell them how thousands of criminal people,
mostly white males, are paid by our tax money to sit and watch the public,
occassionally zapping them to make an eye muscle twitch, or to make them
itch their nose, or to beam bad suggestions onto their heads....that is
the most important thing of all...to show and tell the
public...then...whether those people are free to continue their activity,
jailed, fined, whatever...it matters less to me than the fact that the
public got to see, halleluja, the public finally got to see, and now the
issue is not trying to show them, but how do they feel about such things
as doing 9/11, zapping people in their homes, etc.? Finally the furor
first family, the Bushes will be recognized for all of their murders...and
people will truly know their vast accomplishments, in addition to those of
the republicans, and true credit will be given to all those conservatives
who have secretly worked overtime behind the scenes in the secret pupin
camera net, never receiving the credit due them, even by fellow supporters
in the excluded. These muscle movers, eye flickers, make-you-itch people,
microwave people need to be identified, they need to be exposed, they need
to be punished...or else...why would they ever stop committing violent
crime after violent crime? I am simply saying...I think we can all
agree...that exposing them...showing the excluded, and explaining the
pupin technology is really the first step to work on, on the long, dull,
frightening and torturous journey to actually seeing and jailing them.
These beamers have to know they have it coming. They know what awaits them
if ever caught.
I think we can expect another mass murder. Also, Osama
bin Laden may already be in custody, and like the Iran hostage release,
the republicans are waiting to spring him out right before an election, to
trick the excluded. Again, Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. The
republicans planned 9/11 for perhaps a full year in advance. They planted
explosives in WTC 1,2, and 7 (possibly even the Pentagon) weeks before as
many employees in the WTC have testified, and Securacom/Stratasec was/is
run by Marvin Bush and Wort Walker...that is some choice for security. and
on and on the evidence is clear, but the public...appears ... well 40% or
something think the Bush and the republicans knew about 9/11, but still
even that is ridiculous...any search of the Internet should provide ample
evidence...and for example....any David Ray Griffen video or Jim Fetzer
video ... Loose Change...will explain in fine detail, with surprisingly
very little doubt or speculation...what really happened on 9/11. The
physical evidence tells it all. The latest revelation is from Fetzer who
shows how these twisted evil bastards in the Pentagon burned some garbage
or something in some dumpsters...and it's obvious...the photos show it
clearly. This dumpster thing is evidence of how stupid these 9/11 plotters
are, that and the controlled demolition of the 3 WTCs, and everywhere is
nothing but gaping holes in their 9/11 story. Lucky for them, and the only
thing that is saving them appears to be that the average person in the
public is as equally stupid as they are...which I can't understand. This
was the big problem in Nazi Germany, as stupid as the Nazi leaders were,
the people were just as stupid and failed to stop the rise of Hitler
believing everything out of his mouth, despite obvious evidence of
dishonesty.
As a prediction, the republicans will go down, if they go down, as
Goebbells and the Nazis did, denying that anything is wrong until the end.
Remember Goebbells standing in the tank factory saying..."do you want more
total radical war!" and the crowd cheering....even as the allies were
entering Germany unslowed in any way, and it was clear that the end was
near. And this is my prediction for 9/11, the Bushes...hopefully, if the
truth, in particular about Pupin gets exposed, and none too early I might
add. In other words, they are not going to make any effort to adjust their
9/11 story...it seems doubtful, but instead that they will go to the end
with their established lie. Although Norad changed their story 3 times.
One thing that is interesting that nobody but me appears to admit is that
red shifted light is not strictly caused by Doppler shift alone, that
light can be red-shifted by other phenomena. This is an establish fact,
proven by Raman. Light can be red-shifted because of interaction with
atoms. Even if that is not the explanation for the red-shift of other
stars...why won't they accept and admit that there is at least one other
phenomenon that changes the frequency of light besides Doppler shift? I
think, currently, the most likely cause of the red-shift of distant
galaxies....another point rarely mentioned...that this red-shift property
of galaxies doesn't really apply to galaxies relatively close to us, which
may be blue-shifted (like M31). So I think currently that this red-shift
is due to gravitational stretching of light beams. Interestingly enough,
this is one of the few explanations that can actual accomodate the
galaxies Arp claims to be physically connected, but yet have different
red-shifts. We see the way galaxies are stretched around a large mass...I
find it hard to believe that light bent from a large mass would not be
stretched out and lowered in frequency. And if true this leaves us with an
interesting interpretation of the distance of galaxies. It says, that the
distance should be judged more by size than by Doppler shift. It says that
Doppler shift may not be an accurate measure of distance, but is more a
measure of how much light has been bent. So, in someway, on average, the
more bent, the more red-shifted, probably the more distant. It's leaves us
on an uncertain ground. In particular, there are examples where a highly
red shifted galaxy is the same size and appears to interact with galaxies
with less red-shift, and chances are that light from that galaxy is bent
from its neighboring galaxy, and we are actually seeing the galaxy in a
different position than it actually is. Light is somewhat tricky in that
way, that where we see something might not be where it actually is. But
the most awesome aspect of this find if true, and we need to perform many
experiments to determine if gravitational bending light also changes light
frequency to find if this really is what is happening, is that the
universe is most likely much larger than even the farthest galaxies we
see, and that those galaxies are no different from any around us (in other
words that quasars are probably just regular galaxies, and any apparent
differences need to be explored and explained). So I find that an amazing
truth, if true, that the universe is infinite in size and matter.
There is a ratio of space to matter in the universe. I don't know what it
is, but there is clearly far more space than matter. I would put this
ratio at about, just completely guessing and estimating at, 1 million to
1. In other words there are 1 million photon sized spaces to each photon.
Why has nobody ever mentioned this before? It is a simple fact, but yet,
no matter to space ratio has ever been discussed. I have read that a ratio
of elements has been estimated, with most elements being H, He, but why no
ratio of space to matter? I think because people shockingly cannot grasp
the idea of a photon as a piece of matter and the base piece of matter of
all matter. If a photon is matter then it causes an interesting
debate...because photons do not appear to follow Newton's laws with the
current gravitational constant. I don't know, I mean...I suppose possibly
things should be measured in number of photons instead of grams. I think
it may be possible that photons do obey Newton's laws, but I can't get the
model to work correctly yet. Some interesting things happen if photons do
obey Newton's law/equation. (Possibly some part of the equation needs to
be modified, certainly the use of grams instead of photons). For example,
a beam of photons might orbit a dense matter...although this has never
been observed. I think because it takes a very very large matter to even
bend a photon from its direction. But yet, if photons are the basis of all
atoms, clearly they are being bent...maybe the distance between photons is
what causes them to change direction, if it is very small. Clearly atoms
absorb and emit photons all the time. Photons get stuck in atoms, and so
therefore are clearly changing direction. That is one interesting aspect,
if photons obey Newton's equation, then they change velocity, and this has
never been observed. We have never seen beams of light slow down or speed
up, but then, we have never looked for that, and measuring such a thing,
might not be easy. The only evidence of photons changing velocity that I
am aware of is photon reflection. (Some might argue that photons/light in
water slows down and then speeds back up upon exiting). This is a classic
question that will perhaps be around for awhile: When light reflects (for
example off a mirror), do the photons come to a complete stop, that is a
velocity of 0m/s, before quickly returning to their usual speed of 3e8m/s
or do they only rotate 180 degrees around some particle(s) and never lose
their usual velocity? Evidence for stopping and quickly accelerating comes
from water drops into a pool of water, with photons the action-reaction
may be even more perfectly elastic. But yet, photons may never stop and
orbit 180 degrees, although it is unlikely in some people's minds that a
photon would exit at exactly 180 degrees, why not some other angle? The
problem is that we can't see inside the atom, so we don't know from visual
inspection. The light slowing in water is interesting, if it really is
slowing, is it because of gravity? Are the photons in the water slowing
the photons passing through, but yet, not changing their direction? (in an any angle other than the index of refraction)
Now in terms of exposing the work of Pupin, and hearing thought. We ought
to start with the video provided to the pulbic by UC Berkeley employee Dr
Yang Dan.
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=834975715926377089&q=yang+dan&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=834975715926377089&q=yang+dan&hl=en
Ive said it before, but its true:
recipe
instant asshole: just add secret camera thought network.
it seems to be the rule and not the exception, although there are
exceptions, at least I guess, since none of us excluded really know for
sure who has vid in their eyes and who doesn't.
Recently, some people finally succeeded at making the largest inert gas,
element 118, and it rapidly collapsed. It is interesting that it does not
attain an inert quality of very long half life, but maybe because it is
unstable to begin with. Again, one thing I think is interesting, is that
some of these atoms, when made, last for milliseconds, but many, like
Plutonium while not occuring naturally (as far as I know) may last for
centuries once made. That is kind of interesting. In my opinion, a
radioactive atom is a perfect battery, as long as the photons, helium
nuclei and electrons can be contained to a small volume. One key thing is
how to convert the photons emitted directly into electrical current
without having to heat water to move a piston/dynamo to generate eletricity. We can only guess as to
what has been found in a century of secret research on an international
scale.
It's tough to know what being in the included network is like. For
example, I think it must be a thrill for the very dumb to be able to
twitch somebody's eye and know that they are moving a famous person's eye.
You know, like some poor famous popular person, who millions of people
watch. Wealthy people pay these scum bag security camera-thought net
technicians, and maybe form a line, paying some absurd amount, $1000/a
zap, just to make a celebrity itch their nose (using these hidden lasers),
or to twitch their muscle...it must be a thrill for them, to be
interacting with a famous person (albeit in the most annoying way), in
particular for excluded people like myself, when the victim can't see them
and can't possibly know their scummy identity. Mostly the scummy admins of
the cam-net do the beaming at the command of their bosses, who get money
from the assistants of wealthy crapulent minded people. Mainly for
political propagandizing. There they can see, perhaps beamed onto their
eyes or on an LCD screen...how they press the button and the celebrity
scratches their nose...and they clap and laugh...probably many rich old
people engage in this type of activity. Mostly thought, probably these are
people we fund in what was once the US military, but now has become a
grotesque secret criminal organiztion, that watches people without their
knowledge, zaps them, watches their thoughts, etc. secretly develops the
technology Pupin should be credited as being the first to invent.
11/03/06
Ofcourse we must always remember, the simple truth, that what stinks more
than John Kerry's voting record, is the way the republicans did 9/11.
When hiring people, my advice is to check these things in the secret
cam-thought net routinely:
-violence: do they have a history of violence?
-advocates of violence: are they believers, supporters, advocates of
violence?
-rude: do they have a history of being rude to nice people?
-psychologers: this one is confusing, but let me explain as best as
possible. Are they people who routinely accuse people of being psycho,
insane, nuts, nut-job, nutter, wacko, weird, kookoo, etc (schitzo is not
used as often). Because think of yourself being labeled this way, do you
honestly think you will be able to stop the rumor by using logic? I think
most of us understand that logic is not going to persuade people who
believe a rumor of insanity. It's similar to nazism, and witchcraft,
because, if somebody claimed you were a witch in 1600, you might be
tortured and forced to confess, turn in your family and friends, etc. if
enough people believed it. Even though, now, we understand that witchcraft
is not a real phenomenon, most of us, enough to stop a person from being
prosecuted for witchcraft. Some important people must have stood up in the
past against charges of witchcraft (and laws against blasphomy)...and they were wealthy, influential
enough to not be a victim of the inevitable accusations of witchcraft that
would be cast on anybody who questioned the popular opinion. Here is a
wonderful observation...do you know that those people who call everybody
psycho, etc. ofcourse know nothing about the theory of psychology...they
don't know anything about the criteria of determining if somebody suffers
from psychosis, they know nothing about the history of psychology, or
psychology as a "science"...they are not big followers of Freud and have
probably never heard of Pinel. What they understand is the stigma of
psychology, the power of labeling somebody with a psychological disease. A
similar phenomenon is seen in religions. Most religious people don't
really know anything about Jesus, they don't even know he was Jewish and a
believer in Judeism, Islamic people don't know about history, etc.
Religious people only know that everybody is doing religion, that
everybody has to go to a church, temple, synogogue or mosque every 7 or
whatever earth rotations. They know they have to, in order to be accepted,
to have job opportunities, to have social connections. But do they believe
that Jesus split 1 loaf into 7? Maybe some do, but probably many didn't
know that claim was even ever made. It's funny in some ways the stories in
religion, but also sad. In the polytheism before Christianity, people used
to sacrifice virgin females...kill them with no arrest of the murderer, no anything...no
punishment...and then watch how the victim fell and try to make
predictions about the future from the victim's position...they tell
stories of talking birds, and all kinds of obviously false things...people
raising the dead is a popular tale. It's funny because the stories are
ridiculously false and obvious lies, but sad because so many believe them.
-antisexuals: there is nothing worse then sour-puss antisexuals who preach
constantly against those sexuals or sexual-wannabees, constantly
advocating abstanence and monogomy, celebrating HIV, they want everybody
to have a sexless or boring sex life like they do, they are jealous if
anybody is enjoying physical pleasure while they cant. To them, females
are whores, sluts, males are fags and gay. It's interesting because
sexuality is nonviolent (I view sexual violence as a subset of violence,
but it can be argued to be a subset of sexuality), and healthy. These
people are callous, cold, rude, hostile, intolerant, unfeeling,
insensitive. It's interesting why they take such an interest in the sex
lives of other people...most people would allow a human to make their own
choices...their sexual choices would not seem important..I know they don't
to me. I am more interested in the content of their values and opinions.
Who with and how they have sex is interesting, but it makes little
difference to me, where it is of absolute upmost importance to these a/s
people. There is a war on pleasure, and its a hysterical illogical war
that runs over anybody in the way, ... and it has nothing to do with
stopping violence (or else wouldn't people clearly make a distinction
between the violent and nonviolent offenders, sexual or otherwise, instead
of grouping them all together into one group? wouldn't there be a war on
violence? wouldn't there be "stop violence" groups? a registry of violent
offenders?), its main goal is stopping pleasure.
-antiscience ofcourse, if you are an antiscientist, you probably want to
hire these people, but if a science lover, it can't possibly help. There
are some who claim...this is a way to reach into the antiscience movement,
and make converts, but I think this is a weak claim...the truth is more
like a trojan horse that is looking to take down science.
-religious: see above with psychology. With so many religious, I think
this may be less important than ofcourse violent, advocate of violence,
rude, psy, a/s, antisci ... if they have good scores on all of those, they
probably will be relatively fine.
I was on the phone, and the wealthy elitist republican 9/11 murder group,
connect me to a black guy who clucks out "koo koo" (its a third
interval...or what I would define as an 5:1 interval ... traditionally used
to imply that a person has a mental disease). The repubs will pick a
useful sell-out..."kookoo" coming from a white male is not as effective as
"kookoo" coming from a non-white, in particular a liberal. This is the
name of the sell-out game...mostly the repubs pay big bucks (although gee
where is the news story and hidden video to explain this to the public?) to so-called liberals to sell
out their "friends", and/or fellow-liberals. This is why Shermer "debunks"
the 9/11-truth, why Sheehan speaks out against homosexuality, etc. For
this quick-pay to be possible, think about it, they have to have some kind
of secret accounts...I mean I doubt they have these payments directly
debitted from their official person accounts. They have to have secret
credit card accounts perhaps, in a secret money transfer system...but then
even the recipiant of the bribe has to have a secret account. None of
their activity can be trackable by excluded investigators. It's really
amazing...that some kind of thought-network secret transaction
multi-trillion dollar system has to exist outside of the common person's
system. Perhaps Visa/MC are involved, or perhaps each bank has "covert"
accounts, or somehow .,...I guess the only thing that is needed for a
really slimmed down system is to cover up the nature of the transaction. A
stool pidgeon gets a payment from "John Doe Inc" (for this each payer has
to set up a business front to hide their name). More likely, these
transactions never appear on any public balance statement, which implies
that there are 2 systems of "books", the public records and the secret
mind-net records. Is there then "secret account" customer service? Probably this is done on the thought net. And I thought more about it, and I encounter these paid
for insulters and propaganders all the time, and I came up with some
creative ideas and approaches:
1: try to get info about the pupin net out of them...under pressure they
may spill some info, mostly you will get "I don't know what yer talking
about", "Im sorry", lots of "I'm sorry", and "I don't know what you mean".
The key is not to stop and explain, but to continue with more questions.
Here are some:
a) How much were you paid to say that?
b) Who paid you to say that? How is it credited to you? Is it in yer checking account or some secret account?
c) How old were you when you were allowed to hear?
d) Who let you in?
e) Was it yer dad?
f) Did yer mom tell you about hearing thought?
g) Was it Pupin at Columbia who first saw thought?
h) Is there a screen in our mind in addition to the screen we see what
our eyes sees with?
and on and on...
I doubt you will get any answers, and you know...don't waste yer time,
but remember, there is nothing they can do, and you can't be fired from
yer job because you don't work with them.
i) Why did you take money to sell out the truth?
2: try to convert them
a) Why don't you stop torture in the psychiatric hospitals?
b) Don't those people deserve the right to a trial?
c) Did you know that the first people gassed by the Nazis were in
psychiatric hospitals?
d) are you evolutionist or creationist?
e) do you know we do not even have a history of science movie for the
large screen?
f) Did you know Jesus never did anything in science? Pliny wrote an
encyclopedia around the same time.
g) Do you think Jesus broke 1 loaf of bread into 7?
h) do you think Jesus rose from the dead?
i) Did you know Jesus was a follower of Judaism?
1) yeah, he is quoted as saying "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" god, god
, why have you forsaken me?...he was calling out to the god of
Judeism, because he was a follower of Judeism at the time of his
death.
and so on...turn them on to science and a religion free life
j) do you go to a church?
1) you know I don't think people need to go to church, because its so
arrogant for people to claim to know what a god wants...how do they
know a god wants us to go to a church every 7 days? Are they gods? Are
they so important that they can understand what a god wants? and that
a god wants us to go to a church, or that a bible written by people is
exactly what the god said?
3: advertise good messages
a. Bush knocked down the towers!
b. decriminalize it!
c. no more prohibition!
d. stop the violence yo! or stv bee!
e. no moa drug woa
f. I'll see you later ... on the moon!
g. long live the walking robot servants!
h. keep sex legal!
and so on, but remember...if you are a person who can explain stuff like
that...then you are valuable and should not waste time on paid for,
sell-out, nazi thought-cam net scum...you have a life of your own...but if
you have a second...why not do something creative?
Speaking of people locked in psychiatric hospitals and never given a
chance at a trial, do you know I thought more about this, and I encourage
you to too. Do you know that this means, that they are presumed to be
guilty? Yes, whatever the claim is...whatever law they are claimed to have
violated...since there is no trial to determine from evidence if they are
guilty or not guilty...they are basically presumed to be guilty. If you
are locked in a psychiatric hospital...for example, just pulled
over...just pulled off a train...whatever...you will never have a chance
to prove your innocense in a court of law. And abuse of this...people in
police just arresting people, probably is what led to the first right to
trial. Even though many people are only locked in psychiatric hospitals
for 72 hours, many times, they didn't violate any law, and as I said, if
innocent of any wrong doing, it will never be proven in a court of law,
they are presumed to be guilty. And that's why the 72 hour law,
technically, and my vote is against it, is a violation of the principle of
the right to trial for all those incarcerated. My view is that the
psychiatric system needs to be divided into those who are lawful but can
use voluntary assistence in their home, a shelter, or on the street and
those who are unlawful and may consent to free voluntary treatment from
prison while serving time for their crime.
Saw a great movie
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en
and it raises the point: any time one race of people occupies another race
it never works out. The Soviets occupying the mainly arab nation of
Afghanistan was wrong and failed, and the same is true with the US
occupation. It failed for France and the USA in Vietnam. Eventually the
indigenous people are united by race, language, and religion against the
foreign occupiers, rarely is there acceptance. I mean I see nothing wrong with funding like-minded people of any race, and perhaps even giving them weapons to defend themselves, certainly pproviding pro-full-democracy and stop violence people with all info (and for the most part I am for full free info for all people...but I think perhaps restrictions such as delays for repeat violent offenders). That is yet one more reason
why it was stupid to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, and like a
movie that keeps playing over and over, sure enough, the indigenous people
there hate the occupiers, and rally around ousting them out of what they
consider to be their homeland. Only when the soviets left, did this
battle end and their attention turn to other issues. The issue of foreign
occupiers always seems to be the top of the list for an occupied people.
The republicans claim that they are not there to occupy but simply until a
democratic government can rule, but I think the way they made the
pipeline, and guard the oil, that they don't want to leave that to a
native government, in particular one whose rulers may change thru
democratic election. And then probably, we will see what happened with
Iran, a democratic leader will rise who basically nationalizes the oil,
takes it back, pours the proceeds back into the people, into the
infrastructure of the cities, and everything will be back to the way it
was before the US invasion, with the exception of a representative
democracy instead of a dictatorship. But even a representative democracy
in some of the fanatically Islamic nations can fall to a dictatorship, and
Iran is a perfect example of that. The CIA world factbook lists Iran as a
theocratic republic and Saudi Arabia as a monarchy. Isn't it interesting
in this video how these fanatical islamic people were the allies of the
republicans then, but now are the patsies for 9/11 and the manufactured
villian.
There is something wrong when a person that wants sex does not even have
sex once a year. In my view that is a recipe for destruction. First lets
work to keep sex legal, our survival depends on it. Beyond that, I am
talking about even oral sex, anal, or mast. Things that for sure will not result
in preg. And while on the topic, people should answer the pregnancy
question before doing anything sexual in my opinion. They ought to have an
answer at the ready. For example, are they chosing abstenance (although
even then I would think of a backup. ), is the female going to be required
to use the morning-before or morning-after pill? is the male going to be
required to use a condom or pill (soon despite the a/s, this pill may
reach the open drug market)? And then...is oral seks, anal sex or hand mast a
possibility? since that issue is not related to the all important
pregnancy...although some people may feel that the more sexual they are
with other people, the less people will be interested in having a
monogomous relationship with them when they do, if ever, decide to go for
pregnancy. For me, as I said, a society that believes young people who
want to enjoy physical pleasure consentually with other young people, as
being some how wrong is one barbaric society, that is callous, cold,
unfeeling, and produces a society of frustrated frigid hostile humans in
my opinion. There is no good reason for people to stave off physical
affection because of worry of being labeled a slut, whore, or promiscuous,
in my view...we need to dismantle those labels, and paradigms, and accept
that nonsex affection is fine between any number of people, and regular
sex, perhaps just pregnant-free sex (with a pill, oral, or mast), perhaps
once a month is more healthy and natural than going without for those who
want to feel physical pleasure. I can imagine a female that uses the
morning after pill, or only kisses, cuddles, or masts other people and is
masted, and to me, I can't imagine there being anything remotely wrong
about that, or that the value of the person is any less. There are many
issues, and if it wasn't such an controversial topic I would probably
explore those more. For example, I think going into sex without figuring
out what to do about pregnancy while commonplace is not a good idea. For
example, even if the pregnancy issue is solved, there should be a backup
plan in the event of pregnancy, I myself have only abstractly formed one
for myself which is basically a pledge to make sure the child has enough
to eat, a place to sleep, until 18 and probably beyond. But, the best idea
is to be prepared for no-chance-of-preg sex, and also have a complete plan
for the aftermath of planned preg sex, which includes all financial
responsibilities and other requirements into the far future. So many
people just stumble into pregnancy, or deny themselves until after
marriage, and I think both are not the best plans of life.
Thinking more about those who are included, many young people are
included, and this shows that they must be being included at a young age,
before 18. Perhaps they are included from birth. Perhaps by the age they
understand language the camera-thought beaming on their brain system is
explained to them. But one key I think, and I am guessing, is that the
parents have to be native to the area for at least 1 generation, and in
particular they have to attend a Christian (or Judeo) church on a weekly
basis. And probably through the Jesus cult church is how the most people
are included. The single qualifying criteria is that they have to pay lip
service to, and openly pledge allegiance to the cult leader Jesus, beyond
that they can't badmouth the cult leader, and they have to keep the
thought network an absolute secret. And when I say secret, I mean, a
secret that goes beyond family ties even, a secret that if revealed might
result in their being murdered.
I simply think that this hearing thought, beaming vids on people's heads
ought to be made public, as it should have been in 1910. It's harmless,
and it's like the telephone, or computer. It's a hassle to deny it, to
work around it, to have to announce outloud one's thoughts when most
people already know. At the most basic level, simply explaining the
technology, even though most people might not have access to it, then the
incessant annoying lying and denial can be reduced. The pupin secret is
probably the number one divider of people, the number cause of murder,
suicide, theft, murderers never being caught or even identified, etc.
11/05/06
I saw "Enemy of the State" which is refered to by John Hankey, and it is really a positive movie, and a good starter to understanding the current state of technology, although it only scratches the surface. There are many references to me, like a person is murdered in Syracuse, Hackman sez "take a poke at me" (we often do we invite people to assault us, ok there were some plot flaws or unlikely scenarios, but for the info given to the audience I think they can be overlooked). It's made by Jerry Bruckheimer, with Will Smith, Gene Hackman, John Voight, Lisa Bonet, Jack Black, who all are probably somewhat liberal. Smith says the line "those g'damn rightists" or something. Again, I think the right-left paradigm is not any good since there are many issues and not everything can be separated by 1 bit, but generally, the left are democrats, intellectuals and the right are republicans, religious. I would have taken the plot in a different direction, for example, taking the copy of the video of the murder (which is a very clever idea, a motion-detected nature film captures a murder...like the Rodney King video, there are increasing numbers of videos, unlike the Zapruter [also mentioned in this film], Enyart films, the Pentagon gas station video, that can't all be confiscated by crooked criminals in the US government) to media contacts...television, and finding that they won't play the video, and newspapers, perhaps being told candidly that the media is all part of the network and has already been corrupted years ago. Hinting at the scale of this survalience thought-hearing network. As I said they only scratch the surface of surveillance, but at one point towards the end Voight says (paraphrasing, although perhaps there is some important info in this sentence, since it is a powerful truth line) "the only place that is still private is the inside of your head, and maybe that's the best thing", and ofcourse, that is such a basic point the public needs to figure out, that thought can be seen, heard, and sent back onto a brain, and then....not since 10 years ago, not since 20, 30, 40 years ago...not since the 60s, the 50s, or even the 40s...but since the 20s! since 1910...I mean it's something to comprehend. It was somewhat a false message, the message that is represented through Hackman, because it's clear that nobody, but nobody escapes surveillance...most people can't control their thoughts (as an aside it has to be funny to hear the thoughts of the big bullshitters Bush and Blair giving their propaganda speeches...we tend to think of exactly what we dont want to...for example...probably Blair will be saying..."and it's imperative that we continue the challanges posed by terrorism..." while his thoughts are "Bush did 911...Bushy did 911 Bushy Bushy ... did...911...Bush...did...." etc...perhaps even beamed there by some people, although wealthy people, and powerful people can probably stop or control many of the images and sounds being beamed on them, unlike most of us poor powerless people, but he must think of memories that he probably would rather supress but can't.) So this view of the character Hackman plays is very unlikely. A better "good person" would have been a team of people out to stop homicide, a group that exists within the government. I would have played more of that spy vs spy aspect, between the two larger groups. Because the only hope for the stop violent, the honest, etc. is the half of the government against murder, basically the democrats...but you can see, that this group is so spineless, is so corrupted, is so weak that it is virtually like not having anybody there at all, or worse, having enemies there too...people who go along with 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, protecting Sturgis, Cesar, sturgio-cesar-philes, etc. I'm surprised there aren't more people like me who want to expose Sturgis, Cesar, the truth about PUpin, even the simple battle against homicide, assault, against prohibition, for more democracy, free info. You know, I was thinking, after JFK, MLK, RFK, and then for sure, after 9/11...the public should have demanded and started talking about an "anti-patriot act", where we increase the surveillance of our government, forcing them to be on public camera during their working hours, stopping government secrecy, etc. It's an informative video, it's worth checking out at the public library, or even now you can buy it for $4 at amazon.com.
Think of a killer, any killer, a 7/11 killer, Jam Jay, Nicole Simpson, Mark Chapman, Bonnie Bakely, ... now think of that killer as President of the USA, as a virtual king of the USA....and that is what has happened and been happening in the USA with the rise of the Bushes. I can't understand how people can't despise a murderer like Mark Chapman, or pick a famous murderer in 1930 Germany, but then elect Adolf Hitler, one of the biggest murderers of history. It is really a bizarre phenomenon. I think people have to understand that murder is murder, and the motivation is similar between Jeff Daumer, and the 9/11 murderers...they see killing humans as acceptable for some goal, where most of us (I would like to think at least, egad!) think killing humans is deplorable, frightening, one of the most evil acts a human can do. Other hints in the movie: a very camoflauged "Columbia" cough by Hackman.
The Saddam verdict of death by hanging, does not bode well for Bush. This is a classic example of an oppressed people becoming very vindictive, very vengeful. In any event, I would argue for both Saddam and Bush that what they did was nonviolent, they may have ordered, or allowed many murders, but the murders were always actually committed by underlings, low level murderers (this is also the defense I would have argued for the character John Voight plays in 'Enemy of the State'...since he didn't actually do the murder, he just stood there and observed his right to free speech and freedom of movement). This is one of the most complex arguments, in my mind, about these orderers of murder...is what they do free speech? I want to ask the most die hard advocates of free info and free speech...is ordering murder by a powerful leader upon pain of imprisonment, for example, ... is that protected under free speech to the extent that the person cannot be convicted of accessory to murder? Most people would argue...no, ordering a murder, in particular one that is successful, must result in prison time. This is the basis of the "conspiracy to commit murder", and "accessory to murder before the fact" laws...in some states in the USA, this act carries a life sentence, even the death penalty. Many view ordering a murder as just as bad as committing the murder yourself (I tend to disagree, my own personal view and vote, currently is for small jail time for the orderers of murder and other violence....we need to work towards a society where people are responsible for their own actions, and they understand this...not like now where pawns sign up to murder for their kings, and the wealthy). It's going to be interesting with 9/11...is it too big to fool the public? or will it go the way of so many other murders...Sturgis, Cesar...all protected for decades? No honest person can really say. We simply don't know. On the one hand, we are entering an information age where video is reaching the public in unprecedented amounts, but on the other hand, the public (and those in the USA govt) have consistently protected the truth from becoming public, or affecting elections (few people connect Sturgis to the killing of JFK, even 40 years later, nor do they understand what Pupin did). 11/05/06 One article probably has it correct, that the Saddam verdict, on the trial that would not end...went on for 3 years or something...surprisingly just raps up a few days before a US election.
Robert Greenwald has made an informative movie aobut the private defense contractors in Iraq:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&hl=en
It's amazing, their income has gone up by billions of dollars since Bush got into power, and ofcourse, all that money is coming directly from the US taxpayer. Then this movie shows how these 4 or 5 companies change $40 for a six pack of soda, $100 for each load of laundry, throw away trucks for a flat tire, lease SUVs for $250,000 etc.
10-21-2006
10/13/06
David Ray Griffen hinted that Muhammed Atta was "undermined", in other
words that Atta
does not see and hear thought, and therefore makes a better pawn. It seems
it would be a requirement that the hijackers not know what was planned for
them (that they would be shown as suicide hijackers and held indefinitely
in a prison camp somewhere...and nobody of the excluded really knows where
yet), as they may have had they been able to see and hear thought.
10/17/06
You know, the entire theme of the Bush jr 8 years is completely fake, its
totally fabricated. They did 9/11, they changed from the relatively
passive era of Clinton/Gore, back into the old school Vietnam, big
military, fear tactics. Put simply, they did 9/11, they changed the theme
to "war on terror", and its total fraud.
I called the UC Irvine School of Opthamology for an eye exam, and one
employee "Candy" called me "vert" and the soonest appointment they can
make for me is November 29th, a month and a half away, with the one doctor
Edward Wang. To me anybody who uses "vert" is a low-brow antisexual scum
bag, my usual response in thought is, "perhaps then you can stop secretly
watching me and my thoughts in my bathroom, you all have cornered the
market on vertism". But also "why do we have them?", "where does it come
from?", "cut it off", etc. all apply. These are people who don't see
anything wrong with the 9/11 neocon antics. What rude people and dumb. By
the way an Insight Optometric Center (on campus) employee said her name
was "jewey" instead of "julie", "right now" and "alrighty"...so they are
no doubt naziistic there. But back to the UC Irvine, just like the
passport office, I am amazed at how rude and low-life so many of the
employees are. But also look at the inefficiency and rubber-stamping.
First they sat back and watched the last thoughts of those who were denied
livers...they couldn't find anything wrong with that, the most abrassive
rude people freely insult for money constantly without even the tiniest
warning or punishment, and any person that might complain is quickly and
definitely punished. Look at how they don't hire a new doctor to do eye
exams for the many people that appear to be making appointments, and then
an enlightened, smart, friendly person (and honestly I would not have
hired Wong with that kind of behavior, and my own vote is to let those
people go, no matter how radical that seems, it would be a taste of their
own medicine for the republicans since the only people that are let go or
punished are enlightened liberals)...it's just a backwards operation in my
experience, although ofcourse I'm sure I don't see the worst of it.
Ofcourse in the UC there are some very smart excellent people, for
example, there are astronomers, biologists, chemists, etc. and I am still
employed here which says alot for the amount of tolerance of truth and
honest opinion. Sadly, though, so many people that are far from decent are
also tolerated, in addition to the unmoving beaurocracy that results in
people dying from not getting livers, etc. update: then one Brenda sez
"narkay (ok)", so prosecret antifreeinfo ppl, and probably to keep that
neocon massive, massive illegal drug money which is so wonderful to have
available to them any time they choose to make a bust from their routine
watching in the cam-thought net. It would be a surprise to find people in
the illegal drug industry (included those millions who have ever used
drugs) more comfortable with the crooked insiders than the full public.
Free info is inevitable, even for images of violence and porno, totally
ending privacy, and copyright, simply if only because the cam-net rotten
people have already showed us this. Crying "perv" is a lot like the way
Hitler cried "It is the Jews!" towards the end of his life. He kept
blaming Jewish people for all of his problems. All the resources, trains,
etc went into murdering more Jewish people and not to those probably more
realistic concerns like supplies for the defense of Nazi Germany, etc.
People nowadays cry "It is the pervs!" even though, you know, 3000 people
were murdered in the WTCs, buildings are crumbling around them, 10,000 or
something US citizens have been killed in Afganistan and Iraq, violence
surrounds us all the time, 48 people are murdered in the USA every day,
and that does not even mention assaults. The money being charged up on the
public's credit cards for two useless occupations continues to accumulate
as debt unpaid for, collecting interest. According to the latest FBI
report, violence in the USA is increasing. But these people continue to
blame nonviolent people and abstract perceived problems. And crying perv
is like beating a dead horse, already nobody is having sex. I'm a 37 year
old who hasn't had sex (oral or vaginal) in years. I'm far from my sexual
prime. And very few people are having sex in my opinion, mainly because
they don't want a reputation for promiscuity (and of the excluded they
fear HIV and other STDs), they already know fully well that sexuality is
frowned upon by the vast majority of society. They see those who do engage
in sex ostracised. It's the same with drugs. But people continue to beat
the "It is the druggies!" dead horse. We often hear "It is the gays!".
Never do we hear "It is the violent!", now it's mostly "It is the
terrorists!" which translates loosely to "It is the Arabs!". Drugs and
sexuality are not the big problems, in my opinion, and while those poor
people accussed of drugs and being sexual are being beaten down and fill
the prisons, the true criminals, the violent, continue to get away with
murder and assault. Anybody that is rude to me, basically, is a supporter
of the opposite side, of protecting Thane Cesar, of covering up the truth
about 9/11...or else they would see me as an ally, somebody on the same
side, the exact opposite of a threat...as basically supporting the same
things. They might not agree with everything I say, but if they agree with
the main thrust of my arguments on the major issues, against Sturgis,
Cesar, against the 9/11 murderers, but disagree with me on minor issues,
it's doubtful they would be rude to me, but simply give me common courtesy
as fellow intellectual, liberal, etc. (Perhaps it's the camera thought net
plus lack of any education that makes people so rude...for exmaple, I
don't see any reason to be rude even to murderers, for example, and those
people I think are terrible...rudeness is stupid in my view. But perhaps
the rude view rudeness as a way of promoting their philosophies, where I
generally do that in videos on the Internet, in my web log, etc. But I
find that I have to keep an arsenal of "snappy comebacks" to offset the
idiots who look for verbal combat every second of life. Another snappy
comeback to the mental police is "I might be tied up then!". Most of us
have projects that consume our lives and minds and don't get involved in
putting down those we encounter from day to day.)
I would think that atheists, agnostics, intellectuals, liberals would band
together to inform each other who is who, to warn about neocon,
conservative, nazistic people, and businesses...but they don't! it's tough
to call them intellectual or enlightened. As a result, most intellectuals
have to spend hours researching doctors, restaurants, etc, or simply learn
from trial and error. At least I am sharing what little I have learned
about many people in the cities in Southern California. But that is tiny
in comparison with the info the included have in the camera-thought net.
When people are hidden by the wall of anonymity the secret camera thought
net provides then they feel more free to murder, assault, insult, etc.
with feelings of no possibility of reprisal or identification by the many
excluded, but when there is no wall, or when they are exposed to the
public it's a different story. In Europe, in the psychiatric hospitals,
the torturers used to hold up masks so that their victims would not be
able to identify them. It's the same principle with those who zap the
excluded with lasers. Only the included know who they are, the excluded
can't possibly punish them, because they have no idea what they even look
like. It must be a feeling of safety, a feeling that no matter how nasty
you are, no matter how violent, your victim will never ever be able to see
you.
It's interesting that we get a possible peek at what Nazi Europe might
have looked like had the Nazis won all of Europe in the example of Spain
who was not liberated in 1945. Spain did not topple it's Nazi
sympathathetic leader until the 1970s when he died, and even then Aznar
was similar in being ultraconservative. It's evidence that eventually
Nazism would have failed, although it would take as we seen in Spain many
decades. Now in the USA an interesting thing is happening. The Nazis are
in power and nearly democratically put there too. But this time there are
no allies to bail out those oppressed under Nazi rule, or the only allies
there might be are half of the US military, but that I think is doubtful,
it would require drastic disobedience and would be the source of nasty
conflict, unless such structure and independence already exists. The only
ray of hope is if the public can vote out the republicans from power in
that tiny time frame, that one day they get to vote. So you can see that
this Nazi take over has the potential to be much worse than the Nazis of
the 1940s, because this time there are no allies to bring down the Nazi
machine. It's almost like HIV, a virus that infects the immune system.
There is still time for the public to disarm this terrible leadership, in
theory if the vote is overwhelmingly against the Nazis/Republicans so
altering the vote counts enough would be very difficult and prohibitively
expensive. It is still very easy for the Nazi people in power, the repubs
to end elections altogether, as I have said there is only 1 measily
election one day every 4 years, they come less often than eclipses.
Psychology justifies a corrupt social order. Don't like something somebody
says? Why you can claim they have a mental disease, and threaten them with
incarceration without trial, sentence, etc. Instead of addressing a
person's claims, they don't address a person's claims or the physical
data, they address a person's mental stability, their mental purity, with
mythological diseases. That is how they try to win arguments, and this has
been a classic approach to covering up the JFK murder and protecting Frank
Fiorini, why...anybody that disputes is a nut, and 9/11 and RFK, and on
and on. Instead of simply saying...where is the physical evidence? and
addressing the inaccuracy of a person's claim. When you hear claims of
psychology, it should be an indication of foul play...why don't they argue
on the facts instead of resorting to stigma?
10/18/06
that the thing with orwell and big brother...many of us ask "how about
letting little brother see?" and then ofcourse big sis and lil sis, ma and
pa. I think the public can handle seeing it.
I tell yiz, I called this one dentist looking for beatrice lu to get some
info about her dentist skills and methods and this lady answers and sez
she's gone but Dr Chin (a guy) is taking her patients, and then she sez
"next jeer" (year), which was nice, but then sez yerwellian (yer willing)
[orwell sa far as I know was warning against only an elite people seeing
cameras, like the way it is now, I am saying let all people (or at least
all but the most violent and then let them at least know about it) so we
can all use this advanced technology like a telephone already, and sez
"get out of here", "not", and "jew" (you) (all slyly, working them into
sentences as usual) which...maybe she is angry at the guy I don't know
(people shouldn't hire rudites and racists from the cam net if so), but
maybe they really are supporters of nazism. It wasn't pleasant.
10/19/06
Sometimes before an election the republicans stop assaulting people to try
and trick democrats, liberals, etc that they aren't so bad and that is
nice for those who are the victims of secret republican violence.
One male at "Wash and Go" off Harvard (near BK and Ralph's) said "gay"
(just like the way Alfie of the SHell on Culver sez "All Bi's, Gay's and
Lesbians should be gassed!", and then makes a left hand limp wrist at me.
This is a light skinned younger native american-white mix male with a
round face and possibly brown medium length hair. I hope the lawful people
of the USA expose, track down, and arrest every last nazi from the 9/11
reichstag fire mass murder, and those like Thane Cesar involved in the RFK
and JFK nazi murders and shut down the nazi republicans in the USA all the
way down to a Texas bunker, and start a new era of honesty, decency,
sexuality, creativity, diversity, artistry, engineering, and science, free
of violence in the USA, and lets do it for the people who are gay, black,
asian, native american, arab, white, italian, jewish, the countless
victims of violence, those addicted to drugs, who chose prostitution, and
those of any and no religion who choose nonviolence, to stop violence and
tell the truth. A few seconds later a larger older darker skinned native
american male yellz "no!" out of nowhere, and children and dogs ran away
(ok Im joking about the last part). Clearly a nasty two people, and no
doubt paid to say and do their nasty pawn propaganda for white and/or
wealthy owners. That is a phenomenon in southern cal and no doubt many
places, but here, poor native american people take money from rich white
people to spread the republican propaganda. So I am calling for a ban and
boycott on "Wash and Go Hand Car Wash" 3080 Main St, Irvine, CA 92614,
(949) 863-1550. There was also a woman, an older white woman with black
hair that I want a ban (hiring, etc) on who had a fist at her mouth, if
that was intended as "we will assault those who talk" which no doubt it
must be, I then put my right hand behind my back as in being handcuffed,
which is what may in fact happen to the 9/11 plotters, and then to confirm
her job as a republican propaganda puppet this older female walks by and
made another propaganda gesture, putting her left hand behind as in a
cuffing (sorry lady, I was first, that copying back the gesture convinces
only the dumbest although we all idiotically do that sometimes, its the
violent criminals we need to expose and jail, the rest who gives as
shit?). So people need to remember that the ban is on those two
individuals and the business, and not anybody else that works there. I
think we need to be specific and only punish those puppets of the
republican gestapo, and let the rest continue. I think I am just going to
wash my car myself, like my oil changing which I do myself after having to
replace an oil pan for $700 because some ahole stripped my oil plug, there
is too much corruption because of the thought-cam net. It's impossible for
an excluded to know who is who. There is a coin operated hose station on
Bristol for those who feel like I do, and then a few minutes with a few
rags and window spray is all that's needed. Within the included, many
peopel I am sure keep careful records of all these points against people
but in the excluded we don't have access to them.
I was thinking last night that it seems so obvious to me that the honest
people telling the truth about 9/11, the JFK and RFK murder are the little
people, without alot of money. Like Ted Charach, John Hankey, the makers
of Loose Change, In Plane Site, Scholars for 9/11 truth, etc. they are the
little people that stand up against the massive machinery of the 9/11,
JFK, etc. official story. It's like the Tiananmen Tank Man, it's really
remarkable. And we are seeing I think a similar thing, like Tiananmen
square, the marchs on Washington for equal rights, protests like those at
Kent State, there are a growing number of little people that are standing
up against the massive lies and constant war machinery. It's amazing to me
that the people do this without any support from democrats, the people who
probably stand to gain the most from the truth these people are
explaining.
I think many people vote for republicans because they think the
republicans are going to make the USA strong and a dominant force on the
earth, but I think that is an inaccurate conclusion. Think about the
future, in reality we should be developing in orbit, on the moon, on mars,
and expanding the USA instead of expending all our money and time propping
up third world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan. Because other nations
like China, Japan, Europe, are not stuck with Iraq and Afghanistan
occupations (aside from the obvious crime of invading sovereign nations,
hardly something Jesus would have condoned)...they are free to develop
their designs for orbit, the moon and mars. We should be building the
first US cities on the moon, growing US corn and potatos in orbit and on
the moon. It is stupid to by fighting third world nations on earth. At the
same time, I can see working together with the other nations so that they
can get to the moon eventually to. Probably the arab and african nations
will be the last to develop the valuable land on the moon, but we can help
them out by making free history of science videos available to them, and
free video advice about developing science and learning about the history
of science, evolution and the probable future (and this should be done for
the developed nations too). I think we should catagorized the "war on
terrorism" as a subset of the "war on violence (and unauthorized
destruction)", that seems more logical to me, promoting two way free info,
and focusing on the existing homicide, assault, property damage, laws
mainly, working together democractically in accord with popular opinion to
harness the collective power of likeminded (anti-violent) people from all
the nations of earth.
Some decisions in Europe are kind of stupid, but the USA has a large
amount of stupid laws too. For example the prison sentence for haulocaust
denial, for albanian genocide denial, and wearing veils in school illegal.
I vote against all three laws for California, the USA and the Earth laws,
such that they exist.
This new law with the military trials is an issue that was resolved in the
1400s...its basic, that all people deserve a democratic trial, and that is
my vote, so I vote against this new law. I would ammend this to say that
all people deserve a constant democratic trial with all votes recorded.
I think it's becoming clear to even the excluded thatn Osama bin Laden is
a total patsy, he's the Oswald of the 2000s, but unlike Oswald, Laden is
probably 100% innocent of 9/11, since obviously just glancing briefly at
the video evidence anybody can see that Bush and the neocons did 9/11.
You have to imagine this, as my left eye muscle is being flicked remotely,
that there is some low-life person who clicks some button on a screen,
perhaps clicks on a close-up of my face where they would like the muscle
moved (or skin to be itched), I can only guess but the included all know.
Think about that though, that there is some person who is willing to spend
the time executing a few muscle twitchs on some person, and then the
person who actually spends the time out of their life, to pay for
it...there is somebody out there, the included know who they are (or what
their name and history is), that has enough money to pay the people who
click the laser or whatever to make a person's eye-lid muscle twitch, who
is willing to spend that kind of time watching the victim, and enjoying
seeing their eye muscle twitched...and feeling satisfied that their
opinion has been amplified...or observed...talk about dull...and no life
to speak of. wow that sounds like fun, sitting around and making jane doe
or richard roe's feckin eye muscle twitch. It's like a new age
interactive tv or movie or something for them...imagine watching a movie
and you can make the person on the screen have to itch their nose!
wouldn't that be fun...? no, I don't think it would, but beyond...it's a
nuisance...people complain about genital touching...this is similar, but
in this case there is even clear objection. But that's the mind of a
person...its like true molestation...a person being bothered...and clearly
bothered...not even pleasured or something...being truly bothered. It's
nonviolent, but it's molestation...its to physically irritate a person.
Another one is to make the popular victim (used to propagandize to the
many watching them) itch under their eye, or on their eye...to say..."boo
hooo....you pussy liberal..." (this is the argument too against those who
question the homicide and assaults done by the republicans). My question
is: are they made to itch back? I feckin hope so, and certainly vote so.
It seems natural and fair. If not, that really is nazism and a
frightningly one sided nazism...and so typical of nazism...the public has
not 1% of an idea of what is going on behind the curtain. If yes, they are
made to itch, then what a stupid bunch of idiots to endure such a
nuisance. The eye twitch, I am guessing is for those people who hoot and
holler for insane jokes...the finger around the ear, flipping the lip,
they believe in the theories of psychology (mainly by default, the neural
connections are made in their brain without any actually basis in
fact...it's like race jokes...they are only funny if you believe a race is
inferior or has some kind of deficiency or problem), you have to believe
it for it to be funny, unless somebody is beaming on the laugh center in
our brains (and there is also a cry center). But also the eye twitch is
to propagandize the people watching some great individual...I mean clearly
they are popular enough to attract such attention, audience, expense, etc.
to try and lower the person's popularity, to make the topic..."insanity"
instead of whatever it may have been. There is a constant war over "the
topic". Currently the repubs own it with .... just check news.google.com,
or news.yahoo.com, cnn.com, ... the AP basically...they determine what is
"the topic", and for the most part it's "terror", which is a nearly
fictional creation of the repubs since they did 9/11...in some way I can
"terror" applying as a topic, but the terrorists are the republicans, a
massive wealthy group of people that order and pay violent criminals, and
advocates of violent crime themselves. Most of us would probably call the
planner and funder of homicide, a violent criminal, but technically...it
depends on your definition...those people are nonviolent, they are only
the funders and orderers, advocates of violent crime, they rarely do the
actual violent crime themselves. It's the power of money, mainly, the
power of military order, that fuels the actual violent criminal who
carries out the dirty work. Sturgis for example, was strictly controlled
with money, (even more addictive than cocaine, in particular when you have
to pay for food and rent, and legal objects) to my knowledge. It's kind of
funny that in theory, the person with the most of these little bits of
paper is the richest person. Here "with" can be "that owns". And ownership
is usually determined by a piece of paper. I think that eye twitch may
relate to a Pink Panther Movie, with Peter Sellers, where the bad guy
trying to destroy the earth had an eye twitch, no doubt made to imply that
he had a mental disease (perhaps even a neurological disorder). There is a
funny scene where they both inhale nitrous oxide. I think nitrous should
be legal as a recreational drug, an chemist in England, Davy the person
who first inhaled it of record (also the first taster of CO2 dissolved in
water, soda water), thought so too.
Common types of thought-cam net insider "tricks":
1. muscle moving:
a. Muscle twitching
1. twitch eye="remember, this person is insane/has a mental disease"
b. Changing what person says
1. person needs to have rehearsed, or next word must be known, but
can be done in milliseconds by computers.
2. used to make a person look bad by saying something bad (example:
substituting, "um" with "dum" by adding a "d" vocalization to their
muscle control sensors). Takes sophisticated synchronization,
developed probably with the first computers (1960s?).
c. Changing what a person types
1. Sophisticated, unlike changing on the computer side, this has to be
pulled off w/o being overly obvious (although perhaps at the finger
level, when moving fast people tend not to notice or feel their
fingers being pulled in a way they didn't plan). Many times, keys of
new word are near originally intended word.
d. Making a persons leg swing wide while walking to stub their toe into
an object. (is a sophisticated operation and takes precision 3D
calculations.)
2. making a person itching/gesturing:
a. itch eye="boo hoo, this person is too much of a wimp"
b. itch front of nose="right on the nose" (exactly what we have been
saying for years)
c. itch inside nose=make person look bad because they pick their nose
d. itch left back: "remeber, this person is on the left, if you think
you are on the right, reject what you were just believing what they
thought/said".
e. itch right back: opposite of d.
f. Itch right upper back: results in a "bent elbow heil", generally used
sarcastically to imply repubs are neonazis.
g. itch left upper back: opposite of f.
h. itch JFK spot: simply to remind people of the JFK murder (almost
strictly used by liberals, but some minority conservatives)
i. itch RFK spot: same as f.
j. opposite JFK, RFK spot: that the official theory on the JFK, RFK
murders is correct. This can only be used effectively on excluded, since
most in the included know, but surprisingly, it does even work on a
small number of included (I presume).
3. Sending images to mind screen
4. Sending images to eyes
5. Sending sounds
6. Sending smells
a. urine smell
b. a smell can be used in a sophisticated way for a person to remember
the past. Perhaps even distinct smells are beamed onto a brain, in order
to make a person remember a location and time in the past (for example a
nursery school, or some job) by sending that same smell signal. Probably
the majority of this is recording the smell (and taste) data and playing
it back later to remind a person, perhaps to suggest they eat a food.
7. Changing computer text
a. don't print character person typed
8. Burning a person with a laser
a. This forms a very large "mutual deterrent" system, similar to this
phenomenon with missiles, guns, other high-speed weapons. The speed of
the weapon creates a potential quick large scale victory for a first
strike group (typically nazis, republicans, conservatives, violent first
strike unprovoked assaulters and murderers). Even publically the
strength of photons and other particles is known to be able to cut
through metal, so human skin is much less dense and a person can without
question be cut in half, decapitated, fatally damaged in milliseconds
using a laser. The power of the lasers in everybody's houses is not
publically known, a CO2 laser, for example, which uses photons to cut
through metal, wood, and any other object, publically is a large device.
Clearly these would be available in a satellite and so a person walking
outside (and perhaps even in a building) could be cut
vertically/murdered in milliseconds. That seems a definite and probable
reality people in the excluded really should accept, talk about and
think about. Currently these lasers, publically are not being used.
b. small burn, enough to feel: serves as a reminder of such technology,
used to explain to excluded victim larger picture of mutual laser
pointing
What an excluded (and ofcourse included too) can do in defense of these
assaults and nuisances:
1) vote thru thought to ban the assailant from sending anything to you
2) vote thru thought to ban the assailant from hearing thought, etc.
3) vote thru thought to jail the assailant for some amount of time or
indefinitely
These people are like people that hide behind a mask or curtain. Perhaps
they feel they are safe because the excluded cannot see them and do not
know who is assaulting or pestering them, while they can see endless
videos from the life of the poor excluded victim, inside the victim's
house, even video of the victim's thoughts...and this video goes back...I
mean years...it goes back to the early 1900s, perhaps even the 1800s.
Before 1960 the video is probably limited to wealthy and popular people,
but after the 1960s it is relatively clear that most people's entire lives
are probably available in video, not only the video of their bodies (and
people are no doubt excited to see all these videos, those few who accept
what I am saying of the excluded), but video of what the see in their
mind, the audio around them, and the audio from their mind in particular.
Mainly people are probably curious about famous people like the sex life
of Marilyn Monroe, what Elvis thought about, the sex that the beatles had,
what their life behind the scenes in hotels was like when they become
famous, what tv people do at home, etc. but ofcourse there is also all the
info about murders, the story about JFK, MLK, RFK, John Lennon and
probably many that the excluded public doesn't even know were
homicides...and no doubt a lot of it is probably something sad to see for
a person who is smart, how massive groups of people orchestrate and
organize murder of innocent democratic leaders and intellectuals, and then
ofcourse just innocent other people, and then no doubt a few nasty
people...the stories must be very interesting...and make the television
shown to the public appear like some kind of ... dull oatmeal or something
immeasurably less interesting. Beyond that, there is the secret science,
kept from the public, all the inventions that would have been in use right
when they were invented in a normal evolution, and progressed life in a
normal way (like the color television and microwave improved out lives)
had it not been for nazis that bullied their way into power and maintain a
backwards society unaware that basic technological progress resulted in
hearing thought 100 years ago...like living for 100 years without the
majority of people knowing about paper, radio, photography, or movies.
People will look back at this time and the elephant in the room, so to
speak, which Richard Dawkins uses, and which applies so well to this time,
is: why does nobody talk about hearing thought, and all this technology?
They appear to have created a system designed to enhance the lie that such
technology exists. I guess within the included they are talk about it,
mainly, it probably forms the basis of much of their thoughts and perhaps
even openly vocal talk. It's possible that vocalizing anything about the
secret technology is strictly forbidden and punished with loss of service
for some time, and perhaps even permanently. Maybe even included thinking
about the secret technology is either forbidden or frowned upon. I
constantly see people covering their mouth with their hand, and even in
the 1940s the finger over the mouth "shush" sign is popular. I think it
must apply to even those included talking among themselves, and perhaps
even thinking among themselves about the history of Pupin and the
technology, what they see and hear in the thought nets, which include
shocking video of people being killed in their houses, some are even
included, most are excluded, people being assaulted, sexually or
otherwise. It must be some frightning video to see, and the amazing thing
is that they do nothing about any of the murders...they leave it like some
kind of 1920s society. And my view is that some scientists stumbled on
this wonderful technology on how to hear and see thought, how to play
movies in front of people's eyes by sending them directly to their brain,
and instead of everybody being happy and wonderfully announcing this new
find, and all of the earth enjoying this new wonderful technology,
powerful wealthy people, with backward religious views, feel that the
technology can be used against their enemies, and that it is better to
keep it just among an elite group to control society according to their
beliefs and wants. This pattern had already been set into motion
early...the photograph (Daguerrotype) was publically announced around
1850, but clearly by 1910 people in the governments were starting to delay
and stop indefinitely the publication (and patents) of certain scientific
findings, seeing eyes, seeing thought, hearing thought, sending to eyes,
sending to thought, sending sound directly to the brain, were all stopped,
and we can only imagine what other technologies were stopped from being
explained to the public. Even nuclear fission, and nuclear bombs have been
explained to the public...it really is a shocking thing, and a terrible
history of secrecy at the hands of a wealthy greedy minority who has
horded this technology for themselves using flimsy excuses for keeping it
a secret for just themselves such as the public cannot handle hearing
thought, that it can be used to stop the spread of communism, etc. So,
people will look back and it will be interesting, in light, of how hearing
thought will be commonly accepted that for 100 years nobody talked about
it, or it was only thought about by a small elite group of terrible greedy
people who absolutely made a ridiculously bad decision in keeping it a
secret for an elite few. The same can be said for religion, where for 2000
years they have been talking about a remote guy who did nothing called
Jesus, or 1300 of talking about Muhommed, with a penalty of death for
those who say anything bad about these cult figures, not even knowing that
the sun is one of billions of stars, in a universe of an infinite number
of galaxies.
I am interested in seeing how much of an addiction hearing thought it...is
it more of an addiction than money? than sexual reputation? than food?
That has to be tough to measure, and it's a brutal society that makes such
questions relevent.
There is a difference between Plank's black body radiation for a
combusting objects, and an object heated by electricity, it seems to me,
because photons are released in distinct frequencies in, for example,
fluorescent lights heated by electrons, versus, iron on a stove...black
body radiation, as far as I know, describes a set of frequencies in a
curve where most frequencies are lower. This seems like a simple thing to
figure out, either photons emit in black body or in specific frequencies,
perhaps it's black body but in specific frequencies along a black body
curve?
10-15-2006
When a person sends me a letter, there is a return address. WHen they send me an email, there is a reply-to address. For an instat message we see the userid. But for an image sent to my mind or to my eyes, where is the sender? what's the MAC address of the sender? When somebody zaps my leg, where's the reply-to address?
Add to the no-hire ban list:
Ray Rivera (rayrivera.net) and Abby Scott http://abbyscott.blogspot.com/ both of "Conspiracy Wars" what is probably a republican funded video. They are one of two things:
1) included and know that the neocons did 9/11 or
2) excluded and simply stupid
It seems clear that they are both 1). Scott adheres to the classic method of "accuse them with our biggest flaw" when the first thing out her mouth is "next yer going to accuse me! my dad's in the us military and you are going to accuse me of being involved in 9/11, etc". Another 9/11 official story person can be seen in the NYC 9/11/06 video screaming "they're paid to be here!" (of the 9/11 truth people), again the exact opposite is probably true, but I am excluded and supposing, it just seems logical they would use that well-worn "accuse them with my worst flaw" technique. Nixon used this in classic form when he said "are we going to let these thugs...?" refering to the democratic primary in Chicago, the so-called liberal "pansies" are the thugs, and Nixon is the peacenik I guess. Evidence that they are included is on Rivera's site he is "very, very poor" as a lame excuse as to why he took the republican money. (the repubs fund many dishonest people, that "no child left behind" million to that guy is only scratching the surface of a massive money for votes, money for propaganda system that goes on in the cam-thought net). Scott has on her site descriptions of hearing people's thoughts (some person thinks "no it's not, I want a hotdog"...she probably actually heard that and found it a useful quote for her propaganda.
I think I can describe what happened. In Plane Site and Loose Change came out of nowhere, repubs are used to dems rolling over and accepting their punishment without any resistance, and so it takes the repubs time to adjust to seeing liberals actually question their violent crimes. It takes them perhaps a full year to adjust and to figure out what is happening and to come up with an effective plan to combat it. The repubs don't understand the Internet video phenomenon at first and pour money into television, newspapers, magazines, radio, thought-cam word of mouth propaganda. Eventually, and this takes some time, they figure out..."hey we need to get some of these 'self made' videos on google and youtube", and this is a little different than what they usually do. Usually they just use the cam-thought net to spread their bs and lies, so ....very late in the game...they start to pay "popular mechanics"...they had already paid off so many people involved directly with 9/11, and much of that money came from taxpayers. The repubs probably paid pop mechanics $1 million for their one issue cover story. Then they paid Circus Penn and Never Teller probably only $100k to critisize the 9/11 conspiracy people. Penn claims to be an atheist, and so many intellectuals came to watch them, and that is who the repubs are trying to reach it appears. Then they found a willing participant in Michael Shermer and Scientific American. They probably shelled out $200k to Shermer, and a cool $2 million to Scientific American. Why did they spend so much on sciam? Because they are paying for the sciam reputation and audience. Much of sciam's audience are excluded intellectuals (again the name of the game is convincing the excluded, included already know....there are really two sides of the game...1) paying off and convincing included to lie to excluded and 2) trying to mislead the excluded directly.) So mainly the excluded, who are the majority are the ones who all the propaganda is meant for. With Shermer and Sciam they are definitely going for the influential intellectuals, atheists and agnosts...the so-called intelligencia. For all I know they are going for the dumb, low-brow, but it appears mainly to be atheists (albeit scummy ones) interestingly enough. So for Rivera I would say that he is definitely paid, and that he is not white is important to these repubs/cia/etc I am going to guess that Rivera was paid $50k for a webpage, blog, and the 1 video, but they may be asked to make more videos. I kind of doubt it. Probably the more effective method is paying new people each time, it spreads out the message. So this guy will probably forever be known as the guy who took the money to lie about a mass murder committed by a large portion of people in the US government, in corporations and individuals. For Scott, it's a tough call, she may have made the video for free, to please her dad, for the republican christian cause, but probably she took $30k for a blog and vid. It must be an interesting movie for those in the included who really can see all this stuff. I wish the 9/11 truth people would be more vocal about these paid for propagandizers. One of the 9/11 official story people was yelling and many of them appear to be violent which the 9/11 truth people ought to draw attention to too.
Bush jr passed a law making online gambling illegal, my vote is for a legal free and open market for gambling. I am against controls of the open market, and people should be allowed to gamble with their own property. It's free speech, free trade, free information, it's nonviolent. I see nothing wrong with it. Mainly it's the religious who don't like gambling, but also those who like to control the people. They like to stop anybody having a good time. People can gamble in church bingo, and gambling is fine in vegas, it seems puritanical and counter-free-market principles to prohibit online gambling. That being said, I don't advise people to gamble, luck is not a real phenomenon. I used to think like many people "I am probably lucky", or " there is a god or gods out there that is looking out for me and going to make me make this basket, or win this game, etc." but none of that is true honestly. The gambling games are designed to win the dealer money. Some people do win, but ultimately the casino and owners win in the long term. But in addition, some games are entertaining, video games, etc. but who can sit there and play black jack or slot machines for hours? That is sad if people can be entertained that way. My advice, don't gamble, I don't (but you know I can see throwing away a few dollars on gambling if bored ... I usually don't) but it's your choice, it's your money and property etc.
It's sad that millions of people are limited to watching a few people on a few tv shows and movies. They all know the show theme songs, they've all seen each episode and quote the funny lines they all know. The people on the shows are idolized like Stalin and Mao were...millions watching only a few hundred while the truly interesting heroic people go unknown. But the Internet is changing all of that. 10/15/06 Widespread popularity is natural and fine, but the most popular people should be people who have earned popularity by a smart and well informed public public (eventually in a few centuries) for telling the truth, for contributions to science, etc, not simply for having great wealth, for their image being advertised everywhere, etc. When we look at the most popular, we should see people who have made significant contributions to the public and life of earth, not people who simply paid to be shown to millions, or where randomly selected to be shown to millions. Its the nature of how millions of people all have to watch 3 or for television stations, how they all know the shows, that is so unhealthy and wrong to me. In particular knowing that many people now are selecting from the vast 6 billion people on earth to watch, watching them in their houses and apartments, hearing their thoughts...that is a much more natural system, where real heros are more likely to emerge as popular, as opposed to the phony, heavily restricted and limited 4 tv station, paid for major media system that is currently in place. Evidence of this is seen on the Internet, the future source of videos and information, that will replace the dull and corrupted major media. We see all these 9/11 truth heros rise up, most of them never appear on television...it's like night and day, on the Internet they are known by all, on television they have rarely if ever been seen. It's similar to those who openly question the JFK and RFK murder. On the Internet people can see and hear the story of Ted Charach, Frank Sturgis, from me, John Hankey, and many others. On the television, those people are unknown. The most popular people of the Internet are unknown to television, newspapers, magazines, movies, radio...it's unusual, because wouldn't popularity be a universal? Wouldn't popularity on the Internet be the same as popularity on television? Ofcourse it is, popularity is popularity, there is no difference. Why these people are not invited onto the television, newspapers, etc. is for monetary and political reasons, because the major media owner or two, wants to keep the truth out of the public's view. They can't do that on the Internet, but they can on their major media company. Perhaps they ever receive money for such banning of popular Internet people, a subsidy from those who murdered JFK and the 9/11 people, from the repubs. So we see are more honest nature of democracy on the Internet than we do on television, newspapers, etc. It's like oil and water many times. On one, all the popular are vigorously telling the truth about JFK, 9/11, religion, establishing their popularity on those principles, and on the other the most popular never mention those things, or only hint at such things in passing, establishing their popularity on sheer repetition and buying of air time without any actual issues or scientific contributions.
I am voting no on all the ballot measures and I will tell you why. Although had people really made their case to me that special money needs to be made to improve the roads, schools, levies, etc. I would probably vote in favor of that but that case was not made to me well enough. In addition there is a very important point that I just thought about. And you out there, correct me if I am wrong. Ok, so many of these propositions start with "bond"...they are going to create a bond and sell to people and then pay interest on the bond. I think it's like a trick to fool the public into thinking..."hey they are not raising taxes...it's a bond...it's not a new tax". But they are wrong! It is a new tax. Correct me if I am wrong, but the interest to pay off the interest on that bond comes from our income (sales and property) taxes, then in addition, we have to pay the billions that is the bond...it's a loan from the public and the money to pay it back when it is due comes from our taxes. So I am waiting for a ballot measure that says "uses existing tax money for ...", and deals with how the current funds are divided instead of creating new taxes and new sources of government income. And here is such a point as you will never see. Ok I am looking at condos, and in 2003 a single condo is $100,000, and in 2006 it's $400,000. That is an unbelievable increase, and that means that at 1.1% (for Irvine), the property taxes have to have gone through the roof...I mean the people that administer the property taxes must have been like...holy shit!....we are rolling in dough....millions and millions more. So do they do the honest thing, and lower the tax rate? no! They don't mention it. Not a word. Do they reveal how they are using this massive influx of money to improve the roads, schools, levies, beaches, free rooms, soap, health care, etc.? no! Maybe you are like me, and I swear to you people, I have to take a loan out just to pay my property taxes. The property taxes are sending me further into debt than my income taxes. So, it's shocking to me...that they want to make more taxes, in particular one says they are going to raise funds through more property taxes (maybe I read it wrong and I am not going to look for it). The government has way too much money already. We can easily feed and shelter all the humans by simply reducing our military costs in half to the next nearest nation, by ending the drug arrests (here the drug war is creating a social program beyond most fiscal conservatives wildest dreams, 3 hot meals, a room, clothes, soap, toilets....if they were not locked in there, if they simply had a key to their room and were there voluntarily, I would say that is one of the most advanced social programs of any nation), ending funding for involuntary psychiatric hospitals and simply jailing people who violate laws (perhaps working with trying to solve their law-breaking problems there). Voting on the Internet, the many "counciling" programs can be ended, all propaganda can be ended, the CIA should be ended. For al the money in the gov, they cannot produce one evolution video, cannot give away one piece of bread, not one cup of water, not one room, not one history of science video, not one future of life video. It's total waste. And ofcourse, end the funds to other countries and simply deliver food to those starving in the USA first, and then maybe other nations. End the Iraq and Afghan occupation, right there we would have no deficit, that is a shocking waste of money.
On the ballot measures in particular one gross one is 83. The psychiatric system is a completely illegal unconstitutional system because there is no trial, no sentence, torture (4 point restraints where humans have less room to move than a chicken in a cage does), drugging. Then when it comes to molestation, have you ever heard of physical evidence for molestation? No you never have because the only form that can exist is a video of the molestation. The claim of genital touching is enough. So anybody could come out of nowhere and accuse somebody they don't like of molestation, and the entire trial depends only on if 12 people think the accuser is lying or not. Physicial evidence doesn't exist, there is only the word of the alleged victim. And then, we are talking about a nonviolent crime. How serious can a genital touching be next to a spanking or other assault to a child or any human? This ballot measure is going to be evidence of how low can the antisexual fanatics go. I know it's low, there appears to be no bottom when it comes to children and sexuality. And an interesting point is that the ferver around molestation is not a ferver about child safety and protecting children from violence, pain and damage. It's mainly an antisexual thing. Because if it was about child safety, they would be ranting on and on about an end to spanking in the interest of the child, an end to belting, and end to sibling fighting, an end to playground fighting...but we hear never a peep about those things...so clearly the physical safety of the child is not as important as their sexual history, their sexual purity, their understanding of sex. Maybe someone else can shed light on this too. It seems pretty obvious to me that these fanatic people are not concerned with the physical safety of children or else they would be up in arms over spanking and assault. But most people appear to view child violence as "toughening the child", who should not be a "momma's boy" or "Momma's girl" even. The concern is that a male may be affeminate or gay if they don't fight and rough-house, but that is not true...violence is illegal for good reason, although rarely enforced. There is no need for violence or even aggression for sexual arousal. Maybe people can prove me wrong, but I think sex works just fine without assault (against others or a mate) ever.
One point on this prop 83, is a point I can't make clear enough. Laws against sexual assault are all covered under the existing assault law. It's kind of interesting that people are thinking...you know...we never made molestation and violent sexual assault of children illegal....perhaps the thinking is now (by the wealthy who fund these propositions)...we've been going easy on these people who genital touch (never those who genital assault)...
People continue to create more and more laws, 20 page laws, when I really think the future will be a set of working popular laws that people maybe adjust a word or two on every year, etc. No doubt new and specific laws will be voted up, but then everything will be very simple...otherwise people would never be able to know if they were violating a law or not. Some of these ballot measure have so many specific stipulations...the money can only be used for this, and only under these special conditions...who can remember all of that? I am voting and advocating a much more simple system where the public votes constantly, enacting new laws, voting down unpopular ones, etc.
A point again I make every voting time: these ballot measure are so dull and useless. When are we going to see:
The government has to record the publics votes over the Internet on all laws.
Every person must have their own cell when locked or even held in a prison.
The court system must be open everyday.
People can make bail by using a credit card when the bail is <$1000.
No person can be jailed for owning, using, buying or selling Marijuana.
No person can be jailed or fined for asking for sex for money or for free.
All government cameras must have the images archived and made available to the public on the Internet.
No employee of the government can take photographic, video, or audio recordings as evidence. They must get a copy of the recording from the owner.
No videos confiscated by the government can be kept from the public.
...
I have a million of them.
For example prop 1e, people will say of those who oppose: you care nothing about our roads, etc. we could be flooded like katrina. But the truth from my view is that, if we need to fix our roads, lets redivide the existing pie of government income, let's not generate endless new taxes. And then, if that money is not enough, let's vote to raise income (or property) taxes. I am for removing sales tax all together, it's a hassle, it's penny pinching, it adds to the complexity of business and life, an income tax is enough.
For this prop 85, waiting period for abortion. There is a clear and simple guiding principle I think we should ultimately adhere to and that is principle of "full human rights for children." I don't think we are going to get there for centuries, it's too difficult for parents to accept or understand. Children are different than adults in that their bodies are not as developed, although perhaps old people's bodies are overdeveloped by that criteria. And children have had less time to learn about life, althought even adults fail to learn any history, and there is probably too much for any one human to remember. Still, I think humans of all ages should enjoy the same basic rights, I remember when I was younger understanding how wrong it was to be treated differently and to have limited rights, to not be able to work, to vote, to not get into R rated movies, to not buy pornography, etc. It was frustrating and angering. Young people are one of the last groups to win their full rights, mainly because of this problem of them being inexperienced, they don't know that they are being cheated, and they don't have the skills needed to confront it. Black people, women and homo/bisexual people are clear examples of how people overcame unfair laws, to get the right to own property, to vote, etc. It would be nice if adults helped young people gain their full and equal rights.
I like the idea of 1c, and I almost voted it for it, but again it's a bond. Use the existing money I say (actually it looks like the money comes from the existing money $6 billion...I don't know the full budget and so I don't know how much of the budget this is, I might approve it). It's in a good directoin. This is one of the few props I thought was ok and almost got my support. One thing is the military veterans, perhaps those from WW2, but just being hired in the military shouldn't give people extra benefits in my view. We don't give extra benefits to other government employees like police. Many people are homeless, and they all deserve some rooms or at least enough food to stop starvation and/or dehydration, a place to shower with some free soap and shampoo, maybe a few free tee-shirts and shorts each year and that's about it.
It seems to me that the goal of included is not to include people, and they are probably very unhappy and suspicious to include new people. Probably a lot of begging and bribing on the part of other included for excluded family members and friends is the preferred and most common method, there is probably not a lot of recruiting of excluded to be included done on the part of included. The included probably jealously guard their priviledge to see and hear thoughts and inside people's apartments and houses, knowing that more people included means less power for them. In addition, more people included brings closer the day when the truth is shown to all. It probably goes like this: repub president: # of included decreases, dem pres: $ of included increases.
Many people, even in the 9/11 group fail to see any difference between democrats and republicans, and you know I think this is because they are trying to trick republicans into supporting their cause. The truth seems clear to me, and I will agree that many democrats are spineless (although if you look at Dean and Kucinich there is some 9/11 questioning), but whatever people do...do not elect more republicans...holy shit...the republicans have been terrible for the USA, and the truth is clear...anybody is better or less worse than the republicans. They killed JFK, MLK, RFK, Lennon, they did 9/11! they did 9/11...I mean what more proof do you need that repubs are not good for the USA? Average decent people, I would think...you know...would have said after the JFK murder...ok no more republicans until we know who killed JFK...until we see the Zubruter film...no Time-Life hiding it for years, ... we absolutely reject all republicans until we get to see the truth about JFK, a democratically elected president was murdered, it seems strongly that it was not Oswald, and we will not elect a republican until the full story is told and shown to us. That would be the basic mind set of any decent people of average smarts. But then they go and elect Nixon...these are the people that re-elected Bush jr. Which brings me to, what I think is one of the best metaphors for Bush jr that I have seen in a while. Even though the South Park creators have been corrupted, in particular, I don't think many liberals will forget their bogus view on Michael Moore and other liberals in the last movie. In this one, it's right on the money in terms of how the people who vote republicans view Bush jr. One tiny point is that maybe people are afraid to vote against Bush jr, and this is the view of fear versus freedom, it's always better to rule by popular support not be fear. This video says it all. It's comical how stupid the people that vote for Bush jr. and the repubs are...all the popular liberal leaders murdered and their murderers openly protected for years...who can understand how stupid people are?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6437069303151444343&q=southpark&hl=en
It's frightening to read about this: the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence. In particular when you think about a person with like a youtube.com web site where people can upload video, unless you watch every video and make sure there is not one second of porn, you could be doing jail time. And then to think that Walsh and all of those people watch people in their houses, and have seen numerous child pornos just by watching people's memories and thoughts in addition to watching people in their houses and apartments. It's gross and highly dishonest what Walsh and others do. In particular because we really should be headed towards a free info society where people aren't jailed no matter what images they own. This law is a victory for those who want to stop free information, child porn is their best weapon, as is invasion of privacy, national security, and copyright. I argue that allowing images of violence or sexual touching against children shuold be legal so we all can see who is doing the violence and that nobody is afraid to actively study and analyze those images to figure out who is out there assaulting people. Many people argue that only the police should, but look at the Internet provider, for example, they have child porn on their computers, and so they are now guilty too, but they chose to call the police and apparently they were not arrested...the people in the police viewed the porno as belonging to somebody else even though it was on their computers. But beyond that example, think of anybody who stumbles onto child porno...most would delete, flush or destroy the images because who wants to involve the police? That could only bring trouble and suspicion on you. Another point that I think really lows open the child porno issue is that there are examples of child pornography that are ancient artifacts, ancient Greek pottery for example, woodcuts, 1800s paintings, early photographs. These are valuable objects...some of them are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Are peopel saying now...that these valuable ancient drawings, painting, pottery must now be confiscated and destroyed? I mean that's shocking. And then to think that adults in a society are not strong enough to see such images...it's unbelievable. I think we are big enough to handle seeing them. But when will the rest of society feel that way too?
10/15/06
How about that guy that murdered 3 young Amish children because he felt bad about touching the genitals of 2 children 20 years before? What if he had heard from those saying that violence against children is a much worse crime than gential touching, and that gentital touching, while perhaps unethical for most and unwanted for many is not a big deal, it's not something where the victim is going to feel pain, be damaged, or their life ended, it's something they are going to be able to walk away from without even any pain, unlike violence, where the child definitely feels pain, and murder where the child is permanently damaged and no longer alive, that in my humble opinion seems much worse, but no doubt in the mind of the killer the genital touching was worse and I understand the hysteria and ferver that he probably experienced.
THere is a wonderful page if you have never heard of it, and it's the archive.com, the way back machine that has saved the contents of millions of webpages, even the images, audio and video and they are all available.
10/18 A person has to mow 10 laws just to be able to afford a quarter ounce of weed? Now that is ridiculous. I hope people choose not to use weed, but for those who decide to, they shouldn't be driven into poverty for their hobby/habit.
10-13-2006
==============================
OPINIONS WENT OFFLINE 09/27/06
==============================
groups in power over the earth, and those many claim to be:
ok so I am thinking that I want to name the groups I feel are the most powerful and exert the most control over the earth:
1) godders/diests (those who are in the cult of God or Gods)
a) subset: Jesus, Mary, etc cult
b) subset: Mohammed cult
c) subset: Buddha cult
d) subset: Vishnu, etc. cult
e) subset: Moses, Yahweh, Zion
f) synonyms: evangelicals
2) camera-thought net
a) based on Pupin inventions and other 18 secret technologies
3) psychologers
a) those who believe in psychiatric diseases as serious and scientific theories
1) in particular make use of fraudulent theories of psychosis, neurosis, scitzophrenia
4) antisexuals
a) against images and live acts of nudity/sex in public
b) against legal prostitution
c) against homosexuality/bisexuality
5) prohibitionists
a) for jailing those who use drugs
6) antiscientists
a) against history of science
b) against teaching of evolution
c) against new theories in science
d) against questioning popular theories in science
7) antifreeinformationists
a) against full free information
b) in favor of secrecy
c) in favor of national security
d) in favor of copyright, patent, trademark
8) antifulldemocratists
a) in favor of representative democracy
b) against even public vote being counted by government
9) violentists
a) believe violence not a big deal, should be tolerated, nonviolent are "pussies" or "gay"
b) assault, homicide ok
So, in contrast other groups appear to be more popular (again I am excluded, and no doubt these people see more than I:
1) Globalists (Alex Jones, many others)
a) to me, doesn't appear to be major group
2) Malthusians (A Jones, Tarpley)
a) think overpopulation is a problem and poor should be killed or starved off
b) is similar to old-time "Eugenic" movement
c) based on writings of Malthus
d) no doubt this philosophy exists, but is it stronger than the belief in god? in Jizuz? stronger than the influence of the camera net? Beyond this, I am the only person to ever counter claims of overpopulation by saying there is more than enough matter and space in the universe for all of life in earth, should we ever chose to go there. Others catagorically ignore this arguement.
3) World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund
a) clearly some evil people, but they only dispense a few millions dollars...I doubt they have as much influence as the pope, and other religious leaders...perhaps it's the collective views of religion that wield the big power.
4) Council on Foreign Relations, PNAC, neocons
a) no doubt an influential group of people, but isn't it really this same group of people, the neocons, no matter what title they take, no matter what group they meet in...you know, it's the Bushes, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Eberheart, Nixon, Kissinger, ... they don't necessarily have a title...they could just as easily be called "the violent criminal network", "the murdering group", the "9/11 Reichstag plotters", etc. The republican party is a similar group.
5) Bilderburg Group
a) this one, I just doubt, and then that there are wealthy people that influence things, well clearly wealthy people have influence, but I doubt they meet around the planet etc...they see each other in the camera-thought net, there is no need to meet and it is a waste of precious time.
I should note that of those that see and hear thought Alex Jones, Tarpley (in fact most people the publically lecture) are members, and so, with all due respect, and I greatly respect those and other people's works, it takes a lot of guts to stand up and tell the truth about 9/11, about the Bush family and others. Excluded have to remember that these people are members of the secret camera-thought net, and therefore have access to all the opportunity to quick case corruption that includes. For example, it is a very rapid process of getting a payment of thousands of dollars to promote some view (such as anti-globalist, etc)...they never appear to expose the hearing-thought secret society and I think that shows that they are not above corruption. So to me the big groups are the godders, camera-thought net, violenters, psychologers, antisexuals, antifullfreeinfo, ... none of which are a concern to any other people, or certainly not a large number of people. It's almost a different language, but one I think people need to learn.
Clear and remarkable truths that fly in the face of the popular views of science:
1) Universe is probably infinitely large and old
evidence= there have to be galaxies so far that not one photon or beam of light is going in our direction. In fact the farther we move from a star then more possible directions (or angles are created), but this simple fact is denied, buried and ignored by all major people in science (and that number is in the millions).
a) Big bang is false
b) background radiation is only photons from unseen galaxies nearly too distant to detect in our tiny detectors.
c) universe is probably not expanding
1) red shift is probably due to some other phenomenon like gravity stretched light beams that have bent around other objects. Raman red-shifted light and is not a difficult thing to do.
2) photons are matter and the basic component of all matter
evidence=all objects emit photons, is strong evidence that they are made of photons.
a) photons are not energy (although perhaps the idea of energy can still be preserved as velocity of photons that collide may be transfered to other photons or reflected)
b) photons are not massless (photons having no mass is a highly unintuitive claim and photons are held out as somehow different from all the other matter)
c) this is potentially where the fraudulent claims of dark energy and dark matter may go. Any matter that is dark is simply not emitting photons in the direction of the detectors, it is still made of photons, it's not some unknown substance.
3) no time dilation
evidence=since the creators of general relativity did not understand that photons are the basic components of all matter, time and space bending was applied to composite matter (such as protons, atoms, molecules). It is more logical to believe that the current time is the same time everywhere in the universe, instead of each piece of matter having a specific time assigned to it.
a) removes idea of black holes, worm holes (even recently I saw this
4) antimatter is probably only electrical opposite matter
evidence=more logical to presume a more simple explanation, explains why not antineutrons, antiphotons, etc. only electrical particles have antiparticles. Some claim difference in "magnetic moment", but magnetism appears to be (a form of standing) electrism.
5) photons have no amplitude and move in a straight line.
evidence=beams of light could not be focused to a point through a lens if they have amplitude, in other words the focus to have an amplitude of zero, so it is logical to conclude that they have no amplitude to begin with instead of the amplitude somehow being distorted or temporarily lost.
6) Cycle of Galaxies
a) Nebuli condense into galaxies like the LMC, then form spirals like the Milky Way and M31, then as advanced life evolves the galaxies turn into globular galaxies such as M87.
1) New galaxies are most probably being created despite very dubious popular belief that no new galaxies are being formed.
2) The mechanism is that all the particles of light from stars in galaxies is emitted out into the universe where it condenses into Hydrogen and Helium clouds. While stars in galaxies eventually run out of their supply of photons, new forming nebuli galaxies absorb those photons, and so the cycle is circular and complete.
a) This hints at how old the age of the Milky Way Galaxy is. It depends on the duration from gas cloud to spiral to globular.
b) It is possible that advanced life preserves their globular galaxy by absorbing matter from other galaxies, nebuli, or even simply passing photons.
c) The age of a spiral galaxy can be determined by the number of globular clusters. The most globular a galaxy the older. Once a galaxy is fully globular we can only say that it is past some certain age (perhaps a trillion years old), only when there is still dust can we say that this galaxy is somewhere between 1 and (in theory) a trillion years old. In fact perhaps we should estimate how many galactic rotations a galaxy lives for. Perhaps it is only a few thousand, before it is filled with advanced life, but maybe more.
3) Globular clusters are almost assuredly shaped by advanced life. My video "planet moves star" is clear evidence that controlling the direction of a star with a planet is very easy to do, in particular over long periods of time.
a) The number of globular clusters <200 tells us how many major colllections of advanced life may have arisen so far in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy.
4) It is very logical that there must be advanced life within the galaxy, the Drake equation and similar efforts show that advanced life is inevitable in the Milky Way. Given this inevitability, it seems logical that advanced life would be moving stars together to form steller communities such as globular clusters.
a) There is evidence that this idea, while not public, was figured out at least 30 years ago (1974) when a message was sent to M13. It is curious why no public comment has ever been made to the extent "we sent a message to a globular cluster because we think that is where advanced life is.".
b) It shows us how primitive our own development is compared to the life that must be around globular clusters, we who have not reached even a different star, let alone controlling the direction of a star.
c) knowing that advanced life probably form glublar clusters, we should carefully observe globular clusters, track the motions of stars within the cluster (in particular to observe unusual motions, for example, stops or sharp changes in direction). In addition to gearing the search for signals in photons from advanced life at globular clusters.
7) center of sun is molten iron like center of earth
evidence=clearly the heavier atoms gravitate towards the center of any star system. The inside of stars are revealed in star explosions to have cores of iron and other heavy metals.
a) current erroneous belief is that the center of the sun is Hydrogen to Helium fusion.
8) ofcourse thought can be heard, and the 18 secret technologies
a) serves as a major reason why all the above is not debated.
I wonder what the liberals in the included were thinking before 9/11, perhaps something like "...we will let the republicans do their little 9/11...mhm...and then we will prosecute them after...yes...ahaha....ahahahaha.....ahahahahahahaha...., etc."
9/26/06
Maybe I had already mentioned this, but I verified in the Bush clapping video from the Florida school, that Bush claps within 1 minute of the WTC2 plane collision. You can time backwards from the infamous "whisper in the ear" at 9:05a according to the official story and the 9/11 timelines. It shows how airtight they view the secret of beaming images onto people's heads...it must seem like the public will never in a million years figure it out...it's basically a defacto feeling, they basically feel very confident that the excluded have no chance at all of knowing about the video beaming system (VBS).
09/27/06
A person was arrested for being AWOL, can you imagine a person being arrested for not showing up to work at Walmart, or Sears, etc? Let's get a bill so people can quit the military already. It makes a hellas of an amount of sense.
Every 30 minutes a person is killed in the USA, every 15 minutes a human is killed in India. That is 2 humans killed an hour in the USA, 48 humans killed a day, but yet none of that reaches the news.
I added a spamcombo.txt file so with keywords separated by && so I can target specific kinds of emails where variables change the contents but many things stay the same, without deleting emails that might use those keywords. I have entries like this:
Company:&&Target Price:&&Recommendation:&&STRONG-BUY
Company Name:&&Current Price:&&HOT STOCK
erectin&&pil&&plesure&&problem
(you can see, for example, many legitimate emails have "problem", but if it's "problem", "erectin", and "pil" then probably it's a viagara message, etc. Never do I get "The Nazis hear our thoughts! The Nazis hear our thoughts!" messages, now that would have been useful and informative.
This simple spam program is working wonderfully, I just checked and it deleted 21 of 24 messages and just now 9 of 10. The vast majority in spambody.txt (there are only 352 lines) are links, unique phrases that are very unlikely to be in a legitimate email (you have to be sure never to put common words like "and", "t", etc on a line, as this will delete the majority of email messages), they should be very specific such as: "Get the Finest Replicas!", which you know will basically never match anything other than spam. I am basically saying any email with "zaicheg.com" in the body, can be deleted without being read, the current owner of zaicheg.com has lost any chance of reaching me with an email with any reference to that URL, and perhaps unfortunately some ligitamate person will come to own that domain name (zaicheg.com) and their email will be automatically deleted. Perhaps I should not go by link, but more by combined text, but URL seems like the simplest link, and generally is related to the source of the spam. I auto delete any email with "A Genuine University Degree" (case sensitive). And then many lines are parts of images, for example any image where any part matches this: "ZSBhbHNvIHByb3ZpZGUgc2".
10/03
What terrible parenting there is on the planet, in particular in the camera network...they sit back and do nothing while the wolves beam all kinds of suicidal thoughts on the excluded children. Another interesting point is that many included (thought who were connected into the secret PUpin thought-hearing video beamed onto yer eyes and thought-screen people from somebody they knew that must have a government police or military friend or connection, or simply are wealthy...also many connections come from the Jesus cult churches) constantly preach about how they have such pristine and pious lives, and the poor excluded have done all kinds of unethical things. But you have to realize that as included people they knew for example, when an evil included beams "steal that" to some poor excluded, the excluded thinks the suggestion is their own thought, and they no doubt will then steal the object, where an included knows that ofcourse everybody would know if they steal something, and so ... lo and behold...the included youngster doesn't steal. They know they would be caught. But the poor excluded child doesn't know that, and probably accepts the suggestions as their own and thinks probably nobody will see them and be any the wiser, etc.
One thing I told my mom in an effort to help understand the nature of this 97 year secret technology is this (because she still has trouble understanding it, although it's becoming more and more clear to me what it all involves, although ofcourse there must be many specifics I don't know.): There is a big difference once a person knows that it's possible for people to beam images and sounds on your brain. Once you realize people are doing that, you can quickly understand that thoughts in your head might originate from some evil bastards in the camera-thought net and then your can toss them off...you know they are not your own thoughts and are probably sent there by evil people trying to get you to do stupid (to put it mildly) things. But for those poor excluded people, they are almost all of them 100% victims, and then as a common point, this is again why I say what terrible people are in the camera-thought net to not even provide a thimble for a shield to the poor excluded. The excluded, when thought images and sounds are beamed on their heads, almost all of them, accept these images and sounds as if they are their own thoughts. The concept of somebody else beaming thought onto a person's head is never even a possibility. I mean, listen to how bizarre it is to tell people that thoughts in their head may not be their own, but may be from an external source...it's hard to fully understand even for many who use the technology every day, and also those excluded, like me, who at least know that such technology exists. So those images and sounds which are suggestions, for example, somebody beams a picture of french fries into your mind...40% or something of excluded will then eat french fries within 1 week. 25% of excluded will eat french fries within 24 hours after the suggestion is beamed on their head. Included people may receive the same image, but they know..oh it's just a suggestion...I'm not thinking that...some body else wants me to eat french fries...infact included might have the opposite effect, rejecting what they see as a suggestion that is imposed. Or ofcourse a smell too, the smell of french fries may be sent. So the poor excluded...and you can take this french fry example into very bad directions indeed, where people receive images of them jumping off buildings, hurting themselves, going out in the nude, stealing, beating...you name it, it's all done routinely. Included shrug off these images and sounds, but excluded many times, may even feel that such images are sent not from a person named Jonesy in the CIA (or army, republican, or TimeWarner hq) as may be the case, but that the images are being sent directly from their diety! directly sent from their god of choice! And if a god is suggestiong they do something, no matter how terrible, no matter how it may ruin their reputation, career, whatever...they must do it, they must obey the images their god is sending to them. And so, you can see that this is 97 years of terrible abuses.
With that music beamed onto our heads...its the next big thing since the "walkman", now it can sent directlyl to our minds...maybe it can be called the "headman", or the "walkhead", or "headtunes".
Eventually most brutal humans, when in an argument, when angry at a different human, eventually start to turn to violence...arguing by principle is not enough, defeating the person with words is not as satisfying and they need to resort to threats of violence. And it's kind of interesting that when people threaten violence. there really are a limited number of threats they can make, because ultimately they simply want the person dead or to be in pain. Many times the threats are not simply to kill, or beat, but have a sexual relation...people are shocked and fascinated by sexuality, so many times, it's threats of things being shoved into the ever loved ass, ("up yours!" is descended from this love), also genital mutilation is a favorite ("It [the genital] should be chopped off!"). But beyond genital and anal related violence, there is not much else. ultimately it comes down to threats to kill "kill the ump", etc.
more snappy comebacks (for those excluded/included who...for some reason spend lots of time creating them, to me it seems a waste of time):
(in thought: "no we're not sexual!")
(to antisexuals) "that's healthy" "it's not a big deal" "it's just a matter of figuring out what is the highest priority, getting my priorities together"
(to "it's crazy") "its brutal" "its harsh" "its torture"
"Thats no lie!"
(to included) "tell me if you need any more information" "tell me if there is anything you dont already know, and I can tell you"
"some people ask, why do we have these systems?" (abbr: "why do we have them?")
10/04/06
I have a partial theory about how a diffraction grating works. I worked it out for a single slit and from there it is easy to apply it to a diffraction grating. Ok so, my conclusion is that some photons move through the slit without touching a side, those form node 0, not spread into a spectrum, a reflection of the light source. But then on either side are the two nodes (the so-called m=-1 and m=+1) which I am saying are possibly photons that have been reflected only 1 time. In other words, these are photons that have a direction that is relatively straight, but angled just enough to bounce off the side of the slit and reflect. These nodes are spread into a spectrum. (Why I don't understand, perhaps their frequency relates to their angle of reflection, one theory I had was that simply less photons are in those angled directions and so therefore form a smaller number of photons that translates into a lower frequency, but I can see that for example a single frequency of green light needs to always reflect to the same position and appears to have nothing to do with the angle of light. But one conclusion is that the intensity is less [as is observed], because there are fewer photons with no straight angles, it seems the frequency of the photons is uneffected.) I want to model this with photons and really see the phenomenon and develop more info about this theory. It is so simple, I think somebody secretly must have figured this out already, it doesn't take much to figure it out, a sinple line drawing with two vertical lines for a magnified slit. Some photons trace a path in a straight line, some reflect only once, others reflect twice, some three times, etc. For a photon to reflect three or more times, that is a very steep angle of incidence (perhaps 45%), whereas a photon that reflects off of only one side of the (presuming a horizontal) side of the slit has a smaller angle (perhaps only 10 or 20% to the slit side surface). I tried to build a single slit pinhole camera box but did not get any spectrum. But we can look at the back of a CD to see a diffraction grating, in addition there is a $10 diffration grating/spectromoeter sold on the Internet which I definitely recommend to see the difference between an object like the sun with an apparently continuous spectrum versus a flourescent light with only a few individual lines in the spectrum. I wish low cost spectrometers existed for average people with a computer, perhaps soon. I want to actually see the spectrum spread over many pixels, and to see the dark lines which I have never seen in person. So I think this theory may work, one point I think cannot be denied is that, when a slit is opened a light goes through without any spreading, and so, clearly this a reflection phenomenon in my opinion, (not a bending of light as is claimed, light does bend but only around large gravity so far as is publically known), but I am keeping an open mind. This theory is still missing an intuitive explanation for the spreading of light. Also, one other thing is that, this theory also works for a reflecting diffraction grating such as the bottom of a DVD. The only difference is that all light is reflected once (for node 0), twice (for the two next nodes. As a note, the nature of the two sides is clear when seeing that photons that reflect only once are going to reflect off the right side and off the left side of the side of the slit. Perhaps for a square slit we would see even spectrum going up and down, perhaps in a circle around node 0.) The key is that I can only guess without seeing video of all the experiments, and doing experiments myself. That is the best way of really knowing what the truth is, people can hypothesize all the time, and that is fine, but looking at the actual phenomenon is in my mind the most important thing. In addition, a grating has thousands of tiny carved lines in a tiny space, and I think that this simply amplifies the spectrum, which is normally very dim, because each frequency is really a tiny fraction of the source light. I think the double-slit is probably like two gratings, but my home-made double-slit box doesn't produce a spectrum, just two white fuzzy lines. So this is really an interesting theory, but what explains the spreading out by frequency? I have tried to think creatively and, I think, maybe there is some property of the photons that determines the angle it reflects at. For example, since only the reflected photons spread out, I can envision a beam of photons collides with atoms in the mirror-like side of the prism...the atom nucleons, or electrons, or even other photons, recoils, bounces into another photon and bounces back (like a water drop will send water up in the air) sending the first photon into the opposite direction. Perhaps the frequency that the photon/atom that pushes back varies depending on the frequency of the beam of source photons doing the initial push, and the amount of push determines angle of reflection. I don't know, it's just a guess. One question is, is white light made of tiny individual beams each with a regular frequency? Another is, is a photon with a blue frequency always going to be in a blue frequency? I kind of doubt it, because frequency is only determined by space between photons. So a photon that is a green photon one minute could perhaps be in a beam of orange light the next. Infact, one theory is that a high frequency light is made using photons of lower multiples, so a laser beam with 20 nm wavelength actually contains a 40 nm wavelength within it, 20,40,60,80,100 nm, etc. all may be contained in that single beam. I guess according to that theory, you could make the color red by simply filtering the color blue. So Violet with 380nm wavelength, could become red at 760nm wavelength if you could remove (absorb or reflect) every other photon. I guess in theory if you beam a violet light on a red filter you should see only red light continuing past the filter, if not, that would be revealing. I only have a red laser, so, so much for that experiment.
EX: Can red light be produced from violet light? My advice is to use a simple red filter and a violet laser.
Perhaps even other "multiple frequencies" can be found within the visible spectrum.
I am reading that the second order spectrum is even more spread out, so that is interesting. One thing that appears a problem with this is that why would light spread out for a reflection in a slit and not for an ordinary mirror? I think it has to have something to do with the small number of photons going through a slit.
I am playing around with a pinhole camera. These things are cool, I encourage you to throw one together for yourself if you have never looked into one. It takes 2 seconds, just take a 1 foot cubed box (or really most boxes work) and on one side poke (or cut) a big hole (about an inch in diameter) towards the top, and poke a smaller hole (about 1/4-1/2 inch) towards the bottom, point the thing near a lit scene (in particular outdoors, but even indoors it works), close the box so it is dark inside, and look in the big hole. I taped a white sheet of printer paper on the opposite side where the light is projected. Outside, it's like looking at a dim blurry photograph. A person can add a lens, or angle a mirror at 45 degrees so you can look in from a different angle. You should add the mirror and lens inside the box when you find the focal point, where the light comes to a point. The image a person sees in a pinhole camera is, perhaps unintuitively at first, upside down. It takes a second to figure out why. First, a tiny beam of light is entering the box, so any light that reaches the top or bottom of the screen must be coming in at an angle. Comprende? ok das is goot. The only light that has that angle, for example to the bottom of the projection screen, traces back to the ceiling, and to the top traces back to the floor. So the light enters and there is a point where most of these beams of light are all in a tiny point (where the image turns upside down), and that is the focal point to use to mirror or magnify/focus the image. I'm not the expert but play around with it, it's fun. Looking at this pinhole camera, it's something everybody sould do at least once, because it's like the Faraday magnet experiment to make a current...if yer interested in science it helps to actually see the experiment, to see the phenomenon and to play around with it, to understand the specifics of how to make it work.
10/05/05
people fascinated and very attuned to sex, very interested in every sexual detail. Sex events rate up there with violent events for capturing the publics interest, so people are very very interested in sex and physical pleasure, genitals, etc. but yet, ironically, at this time, most people live lives of celbacy and total abstanence from physical pleasure, or practice monogomous sex, and then I think for many people exciting sex is long gone, but they view each other as best friends, and want to make a family. They make a conscious decision to have sex strictly, and mainly for the purpose of reproducing.
I found a place where people can review doctors and I wrote a review of a dentist that I got service from for a few years.
Dr Alysia Borgman: Borgman is technically profficient and was one of the first people to have a web page, but I was shocked when she revealed that she doesn't believe in evolution. She got her degree from Loma Linda and that is a religious school. Beyond that, Borgman and her staff could occassionally be rude, more her staff than Borgman herself. One example of a few is how I asked about the cost (I had to ask for a receit) and the receptionist said "cheap!", and I said "poor people usually are!". Kind of a little low-brow rudeness, but then we probably can expect this from those who don't accept something as simple as the theory of evolution. It was just unpleasant, but Borgman is technically skilled and I don't think any work she did on my teeth was unneccesary and was done with a good skill level. Borgman advocated the use of flouride and did measure pocket depth each time, both of which I think are good. Borgman uses a cottonswab to numb the gum before injecting novacaine which is lowers some of the pain of the needle going in and uses digital xray (which probably most people do now I suppose). I think this doctoroogle.com is wonderful, I wish it was free, its good to compare notes like ratemyteacher.com and get to the truth about everything. I will add in this web review that Borgman called me "Ped" instead of Ted one time which I thought was evidence of brutality, stupidity, and no small amount of comformity. I think she didn't like all the attention, in particular bad attention that having me as a customer brings on, and so said "Ped" thinking (and correctly so) that I would then leave as that is annoying...(Victor in the Wheel of Life said the same thing, some of it must be about money too)...you know, nobody likes verbal abuse, and while I accept a certain amount of abuse, too much I don't think I need to tolerate in particular when I never dish any out (I could go on and on about how they are in the Jesus cult, believe in gods and heaven is in the clouds, ...do you see any demons in my teeth? and how they are antisexuals and hypocrites, but I don't because I have a life and many projects that consume my mind, I have better things to do and think of, I'm not trying to hurt people's feelings). It was the rudeness and the fact that she doesn't believe something as simple as evolution that I decided to stop going to Borgman. Now I'm looking for a person that graduated from a non-religious school, and hopefully not a fervent Christian, ideally an atheist (if only an atheist network/registry existed we all could access, I've been calling for a "church-going registry" for years, who are those idiots? where are they? I know they exist and I don't want to donate a dollar to that cause if at all possible.).
In other news:
cnn reports a guy plea bargins to 5 years in jail for beating to death at 74 year old.
the head of HP is looking at 7 years in jail for spying? that's absurd and Lockyer is doing this. I have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes, you know it has to be dirty dirty dirty, as most nonviolent charges are. Whenever we see stuff like this, people charged with nonviolent crimes I have a large amount of skepticism and distrust, knowing that most of these people hears and sees thought. The only real nonviolent crimes, are mainly theft, where, many times simply paying back the money, maybe plus interest, or small amount of jail time for repeat offenders and those who cannot afford to pay back the money is enough.
I could go on for days about this kind of stuff in the news...it's so stupid and frightening. I summarized before by simply saying that when a person kills another person, all those in the camera net know exactly what happened, ie who the killer is, within a few hours, maybe within a day, but the investigation will go on for years, many times, murders will go "unsolved" and unpunished for decades, and then when a person is charged, the trials go on for years and years. Our court system is a disgrace, but what is worse is that the public refuses to talk about it, and beyond that the major media rejects any new ideas such as full democracy voting in the courts, discussion about violent versus nonviolent crime and which is more serious, etc.
I have to ask: why are their lasers mounted in every building and street lamp? I mean what is the thinking behind that? Are they strong enough to actually murder a person? Do we need mounted guns on the streets? and in orbit? Whether we vote yes or no, they are there anyway.
Many people will not look kindly on this view, but I think the truth is more important, and that is this: while I vote in favor of many items on the constitution, for free speech, for free expression, for right to trial, and agree with large portions of the constitution, I think ultimately, like the bible, or any law, popular opinion has to have a higher value. I think ultimately full free and honest democracy is more important than the constitution or any paper. I think it's obvious that the constitution is going to eventually, some century be superceeded by (and no doubt the best parts included in) popular law. I definitely disagree with most of the popular views but I still think laws supported by the majority of people is the fairest system there is. To that I would add the advice of stopping violence and destruction as the highest priority, enforcing full and free information, freeing the wrongly imprisoned, and all the other items I repeat just about every day. With this voting, it should be constant (votes standing for the duration of a person's life), and publically accessible (perhaps initially only voluntarily). 10/06/06 My understanding is that the US consitution forms the beginning of all the laws in the USA, although Habeus Corpus and older laws are also accepted as being included in the US law. But as I have said before, we need to update and prune our laws in accordance with popular opinion, we should not be subject to any backwards views of the past that no longer hold popular support. Any law that does not win popular support should be removed from the current working set of laws.
10/06/06
Just a quick comment about a Nobel prize going to the Coby satellite founders. I think that since this satellite collected actual experimental data that there is some value in that data, as opposed to some theoretical find that perhaps no physical data exists for. I'm interested in looking at that data and drawing my own conclusions. It's not clear to me what Coby actually found. Some reports say that the "background radiation" is in the form of black-body radiation, and others add that it appears to be "lumpy". So I want to find the actual nature report and see what is claimed. Ofcourse, as I have said before, I reject the theory of a big bang, and expanding universe and think the universe is more likely to be infinitely old and infinitely large. The only evidence I can give is that there have to be some galaxies too far away for our telescopes to see. There is a simple relationship between a viewer and a galaxy: the farther a viewer is from a galaxy, the more possible direction the light can be moving in. The farther a viewer, the less chance any beam of light from a distance galaxy will reach them. I think the red shift of the apparantely most distant galaxies is not because of their velocity compared to us, but is because of some other phenomenon, perhaps the stretching of light from gravity. For example, it seems clear that when we look at a gravitational lens we see a spiral galaxy, for example, spread over a larger area, and if we think of how this effect might look from a 90 degrees angle, perhaps the light is being stretched into a lower frequency there. Maybe that is wrong, but there is also the experiments done by another Nobel prize winner C.V. Raman that show that frequency of light can be shifted into the red by reflecting off of many objects. So I have said before, and still stand by the claim that the "background radiation" is probably photons from galaxies too far to see, or maybe even stray photons from galaxies we can see. One thing I think we can say with some amount of certainty about these photons is that whatever their source, it has to be from some source relatively close to us, because after some distance the possibility of a photon reaching our tiny detectors is basically zero percent. What that distance is I don't know, but we can take the largest galaxy known, perhaps M87, and keep theoretically moving that back and find when not one beam of light will reach the largest of our detectors (which is perhaps the Hubble? or maybe an interferometer the diameter of earth). In fact, come to think of it, perhaps an interferometer could find the farthest galaxies not yet seen or only partially seen by other telescopes. Clearly, that distance, currently for the farthest light source is under 20 billion light years. Any galaxy beyond 20 billion light years away can not possibly be seen with our current technology.
As an update, kingsizedirect.com made the $15 coupon that was 15% now $15 off to their credit. They have good prices in their clearance. Hey maybe big and tall man can match up with wild woman? That's a new song I'm putting together called "wild woman".
10/10/06
It must be clear a pattern for the included to see that the excluded all have to masturbate but the included can usually find sex. Where could the excluded turn to find a partner for sex? How could the included not find somebody with all the people they can interact with? Plus, it is probably a clear pattern how excluded have colorful lives, while included have less colorful lives, because the included known everybody can see them and so they are less adventurous and tend not to stray from the mainstream behavior they see.
On the Russian reporter that was murdered by a person with a handgun. It looks to me like Pupin either made this or allowed this to happen. You have to remember that clearly Pupin and those people in the Russian government all see and hear thought and have for decades. So, many many people around the planet know exactly who killed this poor woman. My guess is that there will be no arrest, and that is very strong evidence, in light of knowing that all the people in the police know precisely who did it. What citizen would be angry at a reporter enough to risk life in jail and maybe the death penalty for murder? Only those in the government would do such a thing, knowing that they won't be prosecuted. It's frightening, in comparison, Bush jr has murdered more (3000 in 9/11 alone), but each murder of an innocent person is frightening, wrong and illegal.
I heard the "Inside Job" by Don Henley, that sounds like a good song, although, I think the reality of total free info has lessened the ability of people to steal ideas, but even in a totally free society, if the people are immoral, stupid, deceitful, etc. no amount of free info is going to make any difference, and that is the big problem we currently face, is the lack of basic honesty and wisdom in the average person, and in particular those in the included. How else could millions see all the evidence of an inside job in 9/11 and re-elect Bush jr? Perhaps most didn't see the evidence fully explained well enough. But it's clear Henley doesn't need the money, and so it's nice he took on the extra risk to hint to the public about the truth about many terrible crimes.
Apparently Pupin first saw what eyes see behind the head in October 1910. But I can't be sure. It seems clear now that Pupin may have used the same infrared technology to see eyes that sees thoughts...and may have uncovered a very interesting double-find all at once in seeing eyes and the thought screen (traditionally refered to as the mind). But how much longer was hearing thought behind that? And then sending images to both the eyes and mind screen (it probably is the same technology).
Just to cover every possibility, it is possible that some assaults are done through sound (ultrasound)...it's interesting that simply sometimes touching your skin makes the pain go away (not always though), and that would seem logic either if people suddly stop the beam, or the beam is disrupted on the skin cells by the motion of your fingers. I'm not sure how much force can be inflicted and directed with ultrasound.
10/12/06
I was learning about the Helios plane crash, and this is the main example of why the very simple addition of parachutes to commercial planes should be done very soon. This is not a bizarre or unusual request because look at how many capsules, rockets, and even now small planes have parachute systems that successfully save lives and have been functioning properly for years. Simply 3 thick cloth parachutes on the top of commercial planes from Airbus, Boeing, etc attached to the metal frame of the plane, electronically triggered to open upon a rapid decent, perhaps when a plane is out of fuel, when a wing is missing, and even controlled by a control in the cockpit. Perhaps even procedures should exist for how to deploy the chutes, for example turning the plane up to slow its horizontal velocity before opening the chutes. The parachute emergency landing system could automatically shut off the engines seconds before opening. A simple parachute system would have saved the lives of those 400 or something people on the Helios plane, and in other similar situations when the pilots are incapacitated. In addition, parachutes, like a car airbag that triggers when a large acceleration is experienced, could have saved those people on flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA (theoretically if the official story was true, which it ofcourse, is not). It seems to me so suicidal and stupid to send up a huge cyclinder of metal with only 1 method back down, that of a perfect landing, with no emergency landing systems at all, the most obvious being a parachute system. Perhaps it is an expensive system to test, with the possibility of losing some test plane if there is an error, but I think people should explore the physics of it and think about tough parachutes and how they might work. I think people will look back in 500 years when parachutes are a standard feature on all flying vehicles, and marvel at how primitive people are now. I should add that a person mentioned the idea of ejecting individual people which is probably an expensive (but nonetheless technically possible) alternative and will probably be done in the future, but I see the simply 3 parachutes (or even more) on the top of a plane
Not a good indication that the Nobel prize committee are endorsing the ancient theory of "souls" and "spirits", next they will be believing in "phlogiston" and "caloric".
I have found other people that have actually started talking about hearing and seeing thought, it's unbelievable...for years there has been nobody but me and a few included hinters. It's "Out There TV": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8386744922901050611&q=out+there+tv+911&hl=en with an interview of one Billy Lewis. They also interview David Ray Griffen who Fetzer claims is probably the best authority on the 9/11 event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1770248447205753124&q=out+there+tv+911&hl=en Some of the more probably highly inaccurate stories they tell are about aliens (it's very unlikely that a species would evolve eyes, nose and mouth on the same positions on a very human-like body), alien abductions (I can accept that perhaps those in the pupin cam net have possibly decoded a message from some advanced life, maybe from a globular cluster, but I'm doubtful, but on the other hand, they figured out how to see and hear thought, it can't be ruled out.), asparatame poisoning (Mae Brussell supported this, and in my opinion it discredited her otherwise more accurate work. I haven't really heard the evidence, but I have doubts about it, these are people that relish the illegal market for weed and other drugs, if they could make it illegal they probably would have by now), fake moon landing (it's just very doubtful, all the technology is adequate, people reaching the moon is certainly within the realm of technical possibility. 9/11 is certainly an inside job, but I seriously doubt the moon landing was staged in a studio.), ... these stories tend to cast doubt on the other "news" expressed on "Out There TV", but the far-fetched nature of these stories, probably allows them to talk about the truth about 9/11 and hearing thought with more immunity. I can't forget crop circles, some guy raised his hand and asked Paul Kurtz "So you think them crop circles ain't real?", and a rush of feeling went down my spine and I had to reevaluate why I was there, and what I was doing there, because that is shockingly stupid. The hosts are funny, in particular Richard, who asks what the deal with the public is to not be able to figure out the truth about 9/11 postulating that perhaps they have been "flourodated". I think its clear that they have been "godified", "jesufied" and massively underinformed by the television, magazine and newspaper companies. The "Out There TV" people appear to fit into typical, I guess what I would call liberal or neoliberal order, which is surprisingly uniform. If not liberal, I would say it's libertarian. They all view "globalists" as the big enemy, which defines them as "nationalists" (I view globalization as not as serious a threat as violence, jailing of nonviolent, secrecy, religion [I am for ending religion consensualy through science education, free info and free choice], we need to remember that nationism was a major feature of Nazism, they felt that they were the master race and master nation), religion is a central theme (the claim is that the globalists want to end religion, atheism is associated to communism, where I think atheism is inevitable and is wisdom...to claim Jesus rose from the dead and made 10 loaves of one, that a diety burned the tablets for Moses, Moses parted the red sea, etc...it's all hard to believe and only those who are easily duped believe the outlandish claims of the religions rejected by individual people even 2000 years before now), privacy is a big issue (where I lean more towards free info, but I do oppose free info for the government without free info for the public, and reject people in government having any more right to info than the public even for 911 calls and health records). But this new aspect of coming clean about hearing thought is nice to see (in addition to exposing 9/11 which is fortunately a mainstay of this group) and is a refreshing injection of truth into this typical cannonized liberal/libertarian philosophy. Speaking of injections, antipsychology doesn't form a part, infact psychology does form a part in this philosophy, and is used in the "you're the one that's crazy" mode, which is a method of throwing off claims that a person is insane...its a classical thing...as long as a person is on the "crazy offensive" there is less chance that claims of them being crazy will stick, where I take the view that I want to stop advocating the claims of insanity that get people tortured and jailed without trial or sentence, this includes "psychosis", "neurosis", "scitzophrenia", "insane", "crazy" and then the crude forms "nutter", "nut-job", "nuts", "bananas", prefering to use the words "inaccurate", and possibly "delusional" for a person like a hard core religionist who cannot accept evolution despite the more than sufficient evidence. But I see complaints about the right to trial, against restraining people with less room to move than a dog-cage, without any sentence, mixing violent and nonviolent together, etc. as on the horizon for this group, because the conspiracy theory people and liberals are almost always the ones locked in psychiatric hospitals, it's rarely the spartans, Warren Commission, 9/11 official storiers. It's through the 1984 Orwellian big brother paradigm that people are exposing the hearing and seeing thought secret, which is an interesting method. I use a different method myself of viewing it as a technological innovation that needs to be opened up to the public, but whatever works, damn just expose it already! Also the "more democracy" issue will probably start to make a stronger appearance in this group as time continues, as will decrim/legal prost and drugs, but clearly those issues have not entered mainstream yet.
A US citizen was arrested in Orange County with the charge of "treason", the new article states that a charge of "treason" has not been issued in years and that the punishment ranges from 5 years to the death sentence. What a narrow range eh? But you know, I have been voting against a treason law for years, because its too abstract, its a nonviolent crime, (therefore the death penalty does not fit the crime), and there are many nonviolent alternatives including simply banning a person from a nation, state, city etc. Most of the cases of treason have to do with a person who has access to secret info that sells the info to other nations, and in that case, since it is an information crime, I think they could be simply exposed and let go from any government job, but in a society of total free info there would never be any secrets and that is the way it should be in my vote. Some people argue the neocons that did 9/11 should be charged with treason, but it seems clear to me that is should be "accessory to murder before the fact". The best defense attorney in my view would argue that the neocon 9/11 plotters simply exercized their right to free speech, they didn't murder 3000 people, that it was Andrew O and Tom E that murdered those people, that the neocons simply gave the order which is free speech and nonviolent, and that their right to free speech is part of the constitution, where accessory to murder is a later law (to my limited knowledge) and is therefore unconstitutional and is a violation of the first ammendment right to free speech and expression. But I think most people side on jail time for assessory before the fact to murder and for good reason. But I see life of this star system ultimately supporting total free info and jailing only those who actually do violence, perhaps in thousands of years when violence is much less common. But I can see that the nazi neocons might be testing the waters to see about jailing liberals and democrats for terrorism and other bogus charges. I think that first they can jail the minorities: atheists, homo/bisexuals, 911/JFK/MLK/RFK conspiracy people, those labeled insane, misc perverts/pornsters, prostitutes, drug dealers/users, ... because the religious majority will allow it. The one group that will not be jailed or hospitalized are the murderers and assaulters, because the religious majority feel that violence is ok as long as its done by those in the pupin net, or certainly they are not spending a thought or dime on capturing those murderers and assaulters, Thane Cesar is living proof, as are AO and TE of 9/11. I was thinking how easy it would be to throw away what little democracy exists in the USA...I mean we only have 1 solitary day of voting every 4 years. All a president needs to do is delay it indefinitely. And you might think I am just making this up and it's crazy talk, but check it out, Tom Ridge (correct me if I'm wrong) from homeland security said in 2004 that they might need to postpone the election because of concerns about a terrorist attack (maybe they needed more time to work their election-rigging together). Then a US general, Tommy Franks (I guess only people named Tom issue these statements) said that if there is another terrorist attack they might have to repeal the constitution, end elections and declare a state of emergency. So we need to increase the public voting, not reduce it. We need to increase it more than just one day every four years, to maybe once a year, once a month, and ultimately to a constant and continuous public vote on all government decisions.
Let me say while I still remember: Don't let the antisexuals win! and Don't let the psychologers win! Let's make the defenders of consensual sex and thought-freedom people win for once and for ever.
A good NY Times article on how religious people get tax benefits the nonreligious don't. Look at the photo of a church near where I live. It's shocking to me that people can endure that kind of dullness and fraud. The guy there sold a quarter million copies of his abstract religious book. People are so dumb, its unbelievable. I want to say again how shockingly boring and dull church services are...it takes a special kind of person and a kind of mental numbness to endure that kind of idiocy and dullness. I was thinking that perhaps if people really believe in magic it might not be as dull, you could pretend that what the person is saying might actually be true, that angels fly around us, and people rise up from the dead and float around reassuring people still alive, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html?hp&ex=1160625600&en=3e7ff24164bf9aae&ei=5094&partner=homepage
10/13/06
I see a time when all people and business have to pay the same taxes, and hopefully just a single income tax. Maybe just a single income tax on people and not even on businesses. I guess I can see a property tax too possibly. Eventually people are moving to the moon, mars, the moons of jupiter, a changed venus. While I am here, its good to know that Pupin at Columbia figured out how to hear and see thought in 1910. There is more important news though, there is what an animal sees, but also what an animal thinks, and so there are two screens in an animal's mind. This is demonstrated by how we can visualize a triangle even when our eyes are open and we are processing images through our eyes. Now many of you are included and already know this, but many of you are like me and excluded, so this news really is for you.
In addition, I want to tell people that the future looks good, we are going to have walking robots in a few decades, and I mean everywhere, probably replacing all low-skill jobs and there will have to be food, soap etc programs to accomodate the many people without jobs, as we transistion to a humans-don't-work society. As we grow to the other stars, we will find that there is more than enough space and matter to continue population growth unhindered for thousands of years. Humans will no doubt change physical form however, like the way hippos evolved into whales...they gained size in the ocean because of less force of gravity in water, similarly humans will probably be spherical, their legs turning more into arms and grow very large as they live between the planets and stars because of the low gravity in addition to the selective advantage of more neurons and accomodating birth. But even ending aging by altering DNA so that a fetus grows to 20 and stops aging, even regenerating lost organs like other species.
Other ideas: we need to recognize the enemy: the republicans with their mass 911 murders and lies, check out videos on video.google.com loose change, in plane site. the antisexuals who despise sexuality may they never win, and the psychologers, the mind police of the planet. Beyond that, the secretists, watch out for the secretive, we need total free info, ofcourse the violent, those who jail and hospitalize the nonviolent, we have to recognize the enemies out there, religion is no good, the antiscientists, the antidemocracy and I am talking about full total and constant democracy, not that representative one day every four years crap. It's amazing to me that people can openly claim that Jesus rose from the dead, that Muhommed was magical, etc. and they are considered realistic.
Just a little info to those out there looking for some interesting truth.
09-22-2006
09/18?/06
EX: Do photons change velocity around a large mass such as a star or large planet?
09/20/06
I think the star system would be a much lonelier place without the many different races of people.
Mechanical clocks slow down the faster they go.
I question whether this is really true or not, and I think this really needs to be experimentally shown in video and proven clearly for all to see if true. If true, that mechanical clocks slow down the faster they are moving relative to all the other matter in the universe, then I think we need to ask, "Does time slow down, or do the particles slow down?". I for one, think that time does not slow down, but I can accept that the motions of a mechanical clock might slow, perhaps due to friction with other particles, for example. I am keeping an open mind, in particular in the absence of clear demonstrations that mechanical clocks tick more slowly the faster their velocity relative to the rest of the universe. In addition there is a logical relation that applies, if the mechanics of a clock slow down, so much the mechanics of all particles. So for example, a clock may slow down for example on an airplane relative to a clock on earth, and so, then so do our biological process, does our hearth muscle pump a tiny fraction slower? Do we walk slightly more slowly? (ie the motion of the particles of our muscles is slowed). I think that people may have erroneously interpolated or applied the example of electric particles in an accelerator to all other matter. For that example, I think that there is simply a limit on how fast an electric particle can be accelerated, because of the physical nature of electric fields, and not because of "time-dilation", or the idea that time slows down for the particle. I think it may be an effect similar to a car, plane or rocket where at some point there is no way to make an engine go any faster because it is already going the fastest it can, or simply, the higher the velocity of some object, the more the amount of fuel needed to make acceleration. For example a rocket a 10 km/hour can be accelerated by burning 10 pounds of fuel/second. But 10 pounds of fuel/second won't be enough to accelerate a rocket with a velocity of 100km/hour (since first, like in a car, some fuel goes simply to stop friction...like why the accelerator needs to be held down even when we are maintaining a velocity of 70mph on the highway...because we are using fuel against friction, but not accelerating).
EX: Does the motion of mechanical clocks and other objects actually slow down when moving faster relative to the rest of the universe?
I view myself similar to that kind of dog that likes to be petted alot. While most other people seem to me to be like dogs who have been beat, are hostile, angry, or simply ambivalent (perhaps similar to being neutered or spade). I like consensual physical pleasure, probably more than the average person.
I honestly think there is way too much attention, money and praise put on people in acting (and sports too inparticular in the absence of science and human rights heros), but that being said. It's interesting that Brad Pitt said he is waiting until all people can wed before he wed's and that he has had a child out of wed-lock. Marriage to me seems like a piece of paper, as I have said, if two people truly love each other they shouldn't need any paperwork or trinkets to prove it.
Song people periodically have been recently playing in my head I could not remember earlier: .."I live among the creatures of the night...I haven't got the will to stop and fight...", it's lyrics like these that make me gain appreciation for my own censored and obscurified music. This is similar to the Phantom of the Opera, and at least one person compared me to this story, but it's not quite clear...I don't hide, I happily accepted an interview from the Infidel Guy, for example, I freely distribute videos, I'm not afraid of giving my opinions openly, and I have nothing to hide...it simply is that the establishment doesn't want to show me and the ideas I am discussing. The story of my life is more like the story of an honest smart person supressed by a corrupt evil establishment, not a smart person who hides from society, but a smart person who is hidden from society against their will, not by choice. And speaking of living in the creatures of the dark, what better way can a person describe those in the Pupin camera thought network? Laura Branigan sung this song, and it was drummed into our poor heads. I had ambivalent feelings about the song the first time I heard it, like the vast majority of the songs I hear and that are widely heard and radio stations are paid to play. I like songs with either a smart lyrical message, or a technically impressive riff, new sound samples, etc. Kind of a funny point, that I see Branigan does the "Cause I am your lady
And you are my man" song, and I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this song might be related to me saying "we never hear any gay country songs...[heckler, that Warren guy: and yih never will!] and so I've written what may be the first gay country song....Your my man, I like to hold yer hand...], and it was funny, and I am ofcourse 100% for gay,bi,lesbian full rights, but then I heard this "I'm yer lady, and you are my man" and I couldn't help but notice the similarity, and it is funny...I always think of that "yer my man" song when I hear that "im yer lady" song. ah anyway...
If I ever do get into the secret camera-thought network things I want to see: (maybe not entirely in this order) (*a)
1) the 5 minute videos that tell all the stories about:
a) Who did murders: 9/11, Bakely, Jam Jay, Simpson-Goldman, Ramsey, Marley, Lennon, RFK, MLK, JFK
2) females that want to have sex with me and then those that want to reproduce with me too between ages 18-40. Probably in order of most interested in me, smart, large breasts, round butt, pretty face.(*b)(*c)
3) People that are a threat to my physical safety, from most dangerous to least, also considering potential, and physical closeness
4) history of the 18 secret technologies, and all other important secret technologies
5) what people I know are included and excluded (maybe just 5 second vids [including text date] of them being included in order of those I have most memories of)
6) any important info I need or should know I can't think of or am not aware of the existence of.
7) big lies beside the secret technologies
8) best female on female love (not staged thank you), this will help our sex lives
9) Closest times I have almost been murdered or assaulted
10) Who are violent that live around me (so-called registry of violent offenders, including off-the-record/unreported assaults and murders)
11) just maybe 15 second video profiles of those people that watch me the most
12) 15 second to 1 minute video profiles of the most watched humans (if already known, then simply 1 second of vid is enough).
*a) It's amazing that most murders only require a very few seconds of video to tell the entire story. The video of the person murdering (if no disguise, most of the time that is all that is needed, just a 3 second video clip of them doing the murder. But if somebody else if involved a 3 second video of their involvement could be simply them paying for it, etc. these are more abstract and complex and probably may go into even a few minutes of video.) But the irony is that a murder trial may last for 5 years before a verdict is reached, and here if people were smart it could all be wrapped up with 3 seconds of video from the cam-thought net, of even maybe 10 seconds of street camera video even without the cam-thought net.
*b) Sex+Repro: I am thinking that ideally I want to have oral and vaginal sex with a different female at least once a week, reproducing up to 10 humans with 10 different females. But if there is a limitation then having sex with a different female only every 1 year, 2 year, etc. up to 10 years depending on the quality of females that will agree to that. I can see there being one (and perhaps more) female that lives with me and reproduces with me, and then regularly having sex (w/o pregnancy) with different people (as her and my interest indicates), and even simply one female for life with no sex with other people if things are desparate and the highest quality females are in this catagory (let's hope not). For any child I create half of, I am willing, as I have stated before, to pay for half of all living expenses for the child until age 18, and that includes an open invitation to live with me for free, half free food (my half will be of my and the child's chosing), half clothes, half day-care. I think ideally I want to make 3 to 10 children, each with a different mother, but potentially 3 per mother. I want to highly schedule my last 20,000 ejaculations. They should be carefully placed, and not to simply to go up into the air, but onto a face, or breasts, a back, and of course into a vagina or rectum. It's a tiny pleasure of life taking up only at 10 minutes a day, but still very much an important part of life. I may find that I have to alternate days, and then I can only schedule up to 10,000 ejaculations...a pittence! 9/21/06 For repro, wealth, job skills, occupation may influence my decision, because I don't want to be burdered with paying the full amount for a child I only make half of, but I am willing to if the best choice(s) are without any occupation, skills, income, or wealth (up to at least the point of paying for themselves and a child we both make). And I think expenses for a child need to be accurately estimated.
*c) Nonsexual Friends: Beyond those females I want to have sex and reproduce with (since I have been denied this for 37 and counting years), I want to find the smartest people, simply people like me that agree with the views I have. I want to know who are the most watched on our side, and then on the other sides.
9/21/06
I think I need to put together my first search, and that is forming into at least two major ideas in my mind:
1) female for single event of sex no chance of pregnancy
a) might be oral
b) might be vagina
c) could be both
d) includes consensual and nonpainful fondling and touching of all accessible body parts.
2) female for at least one birth
a) time period of being in same building (living together)
1) until death
2) at least 20 years
3) at least 15 years
4) at least 10 years
5) at least 5 years (until school)
6) at least 1-5 years
7) 1 year
8) until birth
9) 3 months
10) until pregnant
11) until sex is done
b) monogomous or no
c) place child lives in event of separation
d) sleep in same bed?
e) live with me in same house
a) for free
b) pay part of loan (complex)
c) rent
d) trade for services/employment
3) could be threeway 2f+me, or fourway 3f+me
My own choice for 2) depends on the quality of females available and interested. Perhaps most females will not know (other than 2a1) what they want either (and are in a similar decision/selection process). Hypothetically, if there are acceptible quality females of equal kinds for all options, I think I am leaning toward: options 2a11,2a8,2a7,2a6,2a5 maybe 2a4,2a3,2a2 depending on: quality, the system other people are using (if any other than 2a1),
My goal is to maximize and distribute the amount of love, and not just keep it for one special person. In addition, to pursue a more natural course of sexuality. I am interested in variety (mainly as relates to appearance) in terms of sex. I think possibly I might like to try to reproduce with one person of each race:
perhaps
pregnancy (just as rough guideline)
1: caucasian (black, brown, yellow hair), native, asian
2: native, asian, arab, african
3: asian, arab, african, caucasian 2
4: arab, african, caucasian 2
5: african, caucasian 2
6: caucasian 2
7: native 2
8: asian 2
10: african 2
(I ofcourse, cannot rule out people of mixed race and other races...it really depends on the person, but I have to obviously chose one person to be first, and that is an important choice). Among caucasian there are: US, Canadian, English, French, German, Italian, Jewish, Greek, Russian, Australian.
This is simply a rough order based on my initial preferences for sex and reproduction. It may be useless depending on what females are available and interested. But this helps to give me an idea about planning my future.
Because caucasian is such a large group I may increase the number of different caucasian females.
>From a female perspective it may be undesirable to be weighed down with a child in particular from a father that is in a different location (although the child may live with me, and ofcourse I expect a female to be paying for half of the expenses of the child in an open information arrangement). And in fact a female already with a child is not a huge deal, depending on the circumstances, I don't want to have to pay for a child that is not half-made from me. So I can see this is probably a fear for many females, but if there is a half-half arrangement for the child it will help. Because I have not alot of money, and a very small condo, I think I am going to be limited. A female that has a child, but the child lives with the father might be more acceptable. First a female, ofcourse, with no children is probably the most acceptable, although an older child might provide a form of day care, perhaps from the 3-5p, it's something to think about. It's true that any person female or male is probably going to lose vallue once they reproduce, in particular a female that is breast feeding for a few years. Maybe I should move towards a harem for life arrangement.
In addition, putting a limit of, for example 5 years, may not mean that me and the female will separate after 5 years.
I think it very unlikely that I will live in somebody else's house, but I can't rule that out. In any event, I will always be keeping a house of my own.
I like the openess of 2a11, because then a person may choose to stay (with my consent), there is no obligation, if there is a pregnancy (and that is what is being planned), then our lives continue on, but I will have to start paying for half of the expense of: lost wages, health checkups relating to the pregnancy, the birth, and from there, clothes, daycare (which can be the mother, with me paying half the expense of lost wages), food (I expect, generally a female to pay for and prepare her own food, but I am flexible, vegetarian is best, but I will pay for at least half of the [vegetarian only] food for the baby until 18 and perhaps even beyond).
In the event that I do not have the money to afford my financial responsibilities in total, I expect that money dedicated to any children I make half of should represent a fair amount of my total income. Simply as an idea, should be no more than my income/(number of children I am supporting+me) for each child. In other words 9 childrens would be 1/10 of my total after taxes income dedicated each of their expenses (includes shelter...perhaps shelter should be like a child too).
All of these things should be agreed upon in writing, and perhaps video, and at least notarized.
Important features of female for sex and repro (later divide into sex and repro):
1) smart (all of these things are not required but may help)
a) evolution
b) interest in science
c) interest in technology
d) funny, sense of humor
e) many skills (food,music,tools,technology,etc)
f) not religious/skeptical of religion (see 7)
g) interest in history
h) interest in the future
i) has theory about the universe, understands what galaxies, etc are.
j) not antisexual, tolerant of consensual sexuality, nudity
k) for free info in some form, if not total free info
l) interest in idea of full democracy
m) anti-drug war, and/or anti-jailing drug users
n) concern for freeing nonviolent in jails and hospitals, perhaps with exceptions for theft, repeat nonviolent offenders, those in jail for threats or plans of violence and/or property destruction
2) breasts
3) round ass
4) pretty face
5) not too overweight
6) height can influence
7) religion, prefer none/anti-religion/agnostic, but some may be acceptible, in particular godder, or non practicing
8) vegetarian (although meat-eater is acceptible)
9) musical/movies tastes something I can live with
10) a job, job skills, college degree in actual science
11) enough money (and future employment prospects) to pay for themselves (their own food, shelter, clothes, half of child).
12) non-violent (this actually should go higher, and then violence in defense of physical attack is obviously acceptable, this is as pertains to first strike violence)
13) honest, no or very few secrets
14) age 18-40 (probably initially 20-30)
15) lives in same county (it helps but is not essential, but otherwise, money is going to be a factor for transportation...ultimately I prefer to live in the same city as any children, but I don't rule out other ideas), possibly opened up to CA coast.
16) no violent male boyfriends/ex-husbands/family members
17) not married (and is willing to have sex and pregnancy without marriage)
18) does not already have children, or has a child(s) but they are already completely financially taken care of, and none of my money will be needed to pay for anything of theirs (I am willing to provide shelter but there is currently very limited space).
19) not overly turned off by other females, perhaps willing to sleep and touch together with me and other females. Initially and perhaps permanently without other males.
Planning out how to raise the children I make half of:
1. Until school age
a) pay for in house care
1) can be mother
2) can be employee
a) prefer female but an flexible
b) pay for day care
c) should have video access to child at all times
d) kind of education/raising/duties age 0-5
1) potty train
2) feed
3) dress
4) play games with
5) educate via TPH lesson plan
a) learning sounds of language
b) learning words, nouns, verbs, adjectives
c) learning to read, write, type
d) history of universe, evolution, science, future, life
1) geography of universe, galaxy, star system, earth, vehicle transportation systems
2) biology including sex
e) education and warnings about religious, antisexuals, psychologers
f) learning laws, against first degree violence, (perhaps defending self), interacting with other people, theft, property, money, business (how people buy, sell, and trade), the typical course of a human life, making friends, avoiding enemies, finding dates, getting a mate to agree to physical pleasure (hugs, kisses, rubs) [always with the idea that every child is going to be starved of physical affection from those outside their family, with the goal of trying to minimize that neglect and suffering, but perhaps trying not to overcompensating with familial or pet touch, although I'm not sure there can be too much, but it should be obvious if there is, or it's too late]. punishments for violence: time locked in room? removal of privledges? hopefully there will be little need to punish for violence.
g) physical exercize (either as nonviolent sports, and/or small basic 10 minute exercize/stretch period, perhaps nature/zoo walking)
6) learning to walk
7) riding a bike
8) drive a car (may be robot by then)
2. at school age
a) public school
b) there and back on bus
c) after school
1) waits alone until 5:30p
2) a person is there until 5:30p
a) can be older child
b) can be mother
c) can be employee
9/21/06
One comment, it's amazing to me that people have built a society where uneducated idiots pay and are paid to constantly pester fine lawful people with secret hidden lasers (or whatever they are) every 5 seco