Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Here's one I wrote some time ago, but I still think it has meaning. I like the focus of this because stock markets govern our economy right now, and stock markets are faith based organizations. Their faith is based on success... read below about success, and how you can start to mention success each time you meet someone, which measures at every step, the temperature of your market...

Buzz words: Socialism : Democracy, these two systems and their typical forms of economy are always at odds, but they are similar in that, like any system that result in a community, that community is left to judge and measure themselves and their success or failure.

The question always comes back to how to do you measure success? In answering that, a community becomes more socialist or more democratic.

Lately health care has become more of a concern for Americans because of the blooming retirement age population. Those folks are more in need of health care, generally speaking, than younger folks.

This points out another axiom of communities. They need to define who they are composed of. And they especially need to define who they are when they attempt to measure how well “they” are doing… that’s what put’s the “they” into perspective to allow that answer to be found.

Another problem is the organization of larger numbers. The bigger a population gets in a community the more voices there are. How does this group communicate enmasse to be able to do the work of “measuring success”?

There are tools to communicate. There is a healthy backbone of rule and law and morality built into our nation to give us all the big picture of our success. That just leaves the daily living to contend with.

Daily living is all about the economy. How well do you fair, fair citizen, at getting a job? At getting paid? How do you during your commute to work, how do you get your groceries? How do you get the groceries home? How how how, medicine, kids, vacation, sports, study, how how how? These are all the economy.

Throw in the science and religion, and you’re going to have a hefty project in trying to get everyone to be able to “measure success” together.

When we decide what Truths we hold to be self-evident, I think it is high time that we hold the above truths to be self-evident. There needs to be an fundamental understanding that there are things that all people in this system want to be a part of. Chiefly, all want to be a factor in the process of “measuring success”, so much so, that this process is in fact what voting is. It is the right of the people to have their understanding of the “success measurement” be represented for them to other people within the system. Beyond this, people want to operate with the understanding that there are self-evident principles. Namely, people need food, people need water, housing, medicine, joy, family, peace and tranquility. Take away any one of these from a large number of people and the result is a voice of dissent in the “success measurement”.

Now the question becomes how to we succeed in providing all of these self-evident necessities and still condition our system to fall neatly into a Democratic or Socialistic system. The problem with trying to force the community into one stream or the other, is that, really and truly the economy can never be made to govern the collective, the economy simply is one of the results of there being a collective. Therefore, any attempt to force any single, specific monetary configuration over the entire scope causes a collapse in the fundamental understandings.

The problem usually is that power follows money. Money is capable of buying and securing power. And people tend to use that to an advantage. In mapping a process toward measuring success, when an economy is being forced by overly powerful people because of their monetary prowess, to succumb to a specific type of economy, the system will not succeed in accurately measuring success, and can therefore not see what repair may be needed by some, and can therefore not react and repair itself.

The only course of action is to remove the power from those who would use it incorrectly by choosing a different type of community. This is how democracy swings toward socialism, and vice versa.

A solution toward “measuring success” more successfully would be to create a common language of discussion so the efficiency of discussing what is needed flows more freely. For instance, rather than say “How do you do?” upon meeting someone, a common language of saying “How is your success?” would give the discussion a more free flowing rate. The reply of “I am lacking self-evident societal need one – a house” when heard, even once, should elicit a passing along of this information to everyone. “How is your success? Fine, how is your success? Fine but I hear someone is lacking housing”

This dedication to success is the key. How is your success?

Friday, August 21, 2009

E equals m c squared minus (Fg) Fisscle state times gravity)

This does seem to fly in the face of Newton's law of conservation of energy that says no new energy is ever created. In arguing that, I say that new energy is created in the form of gravitation, based on whether a thing exists or not. To exist something expends energy we could say, and therefore, by that, it creates that energy it needs for that act. This would be the only energy then that is ever created, and it comes in the form of gravity, and rather than a Big Bang to create it, it actively is always ready to create itself.

I think to quantify this, great use of pun by the way, you would end up with a simple formula E=mc2minus(Fg) where g is "novel energy created" in the form of gravity and F is the ratio of masses that share that gravity, trailing out to infinity of course.This simpl subtraction to the E=mc2 gives a new respect to the environment that we find E within.
It also 1) describes how "novel energy", that is energy that rises up from shared resources, acts toward other mass, and 2) creates a new universal constant F, a wholistic measuring of all physical characteristics of masses, divided by proximity, to other masses on same scale, which says we understand that mass spends energy to create gravity, by it's existence and proximity. Therefore my theory of New Energy is that energy is spent by mass in some way, and that way is mathematically written as a ratio that exists between two or more masses, with regard to proximity, whereby new levels of gravity are created, placing an energy demand on the masses in some way, and by sharing energy they reach a higher energy state.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Of what are you capable of being a part?

The question that our universe asks over and over and over, infinitely, via gravity. It's the interaction of mass in a field that always demands a response from every smallest piece of that mass... a question "what are you capable of being a party to?" Are you acting of your own, loose, ready to be moved by another mass via that mass's pull of gravity, or are you already part of a collective that itself has more pull than can move you? The exertion of the force continues whether you can move or remain unmoved but your answer is always given, "yes I can move, no I cannot, these are the reasons why". The 'reasons' are speed, density, composition, temperature, pressure, electric charge, and all of those things need to be measured by us humans and put into a consistent "wholistic table of physical measurements of elements" on a scale from no temperature and pressure and electric charge to maximum. And, we need to scale that table for interaction so that the state of attachment to each other element can be expressed as a "willingness" to be moved by another mass. What results when you create a periodic table of the elements that combines all physical features, is a way to measure an element's ability to respond to the question "of what are you capable of being a part?", that is, we can measure that element's ability to give and take energy in combined masses, which shows the amount of energy "shared" or energy "not generated by self", which is what is missing in E=mc2. That formula pretends that no energy is gained by relationships with others, but in fact, most interactions of elements create symbiosis that allows a gifted amount of energy, that changes the formula E=mc2, so the measurement of gravity can be looked as a measurement of just how much energy is supplied by "sharing". In a sense, we're weighing the universe on the stretchy fabric of space and saying, because this amount of shared energy exists, this amount of gravity is created. The universe simply asks what are you a part of, to get a read on how it applies gravity to you, and it measures that gravity by the amount of donated energy to the equation E=mc2 you possess at each moment. Very cool that that question keeps us all together in societies as well as our feet planted to the earth.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Stomach within a stomach

So, here’s a further theory to my personal “You are what your ancestors ate” principle of evolution.
Let’s say I’m a lizard who can eat a certain spider. My stomach takes in the DNA of that spider and begins the process of dissolving the DNA so I can get that spider’s amino acids into my bloodstream. This happens millions of times as generation after generation of spiders and lizards live side by side. The spider evolves to become more poisonous, and the lizard evolves to tolerate the poison. A hapless bird flies into the equation and eats the lizard, which has just eaten it’s favorite meal, the poisonous spider. The bird dies of course because it ingested the poisonous spider secondhand, and now we have a DNA pile of bird, lizard, spider. Let’s say this happens hourly for millions of years. What happens to the stem cells in this pile? Are they capable of awakening in this new DNA pile when put into a slurry together? Maybe not in the healthy individual, but what if the spider already had a cancer or was newly pregnant? If we imagine the entire food chain of the planet, every animal, as a slurry pile of one belly ingesting another, every minute of every day, don’t these mathematics create a stronger case for evolution than anything else? Stem cells in close contact with foreign DNA may be what gives rise to new species. Evolution then is pursued by every species on the planet with the same drive as hunger. If I eat, I contribute to the possibility of new life. Wouldn’t this in turn cause stem cells to show up in certain places within our bodies? The closer the stem cells are to the stomach for instance, or the gonadotrophic hormones, etc, the more likely that stem cell will be activated.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Holy ShNikes! It's August already. That's one month until skool kids! Unless you're a sasquatch kid, in which case you gotta go pick blackberries and store them up in yon cave, else yer pappy and moms Sas are gonna whip yer hairy butt for sacrilege. The brother Tone says he's got about fifteen more pages of the comedy screenplay writ, so I'm excited to read that. He is a comedic genius. There's lots of work to do today, so can't write much more now. Have an August. A good August. Here's some words you can make out of August... A Gutsu... UsTugA... SatTuGu. Shrimp gumbo... Thas about it.