You Better Keep Your Head- - - Or Else!!!

I think I’ve seen enough of those Republican jokers. Santaurum has the most dangerous quote of the night. He said “we are not primarily at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam. And these people will wait us out in their desire [to conquer the world] and Obama is playing a dangerous game if we leave Afghanistan. Huntsman and Paul want us to scale back or leave Afghanistan altogether. But Santaurum is unique among the candidates into wanting to make this all about some Christian crusade. Others like Gingrich talk about somebody with a nuclear bomb that he intends t detonate in downtown Los Angeles in fifteen minutes and should he be read his meranda rights? Well the police have what are called “exigent circumstances” where rights are suspended in times of immediate crisis. But you know darn well the Average American arrested and questioned under the Patriot act is not building a nuclear bomb. Newt has been watching too many “24” episode where Jack Bower is trying to beat the needed answer out of a suspect. In terms of Santaurum, I believe, he said that raising taxes is bad because it kills the source of income to the nation off and will raise the deficit. Just for a reality check here. Did Reagan tax cuts raise or lower the deficit? Did the Bush tax cuts raise or lower the deficit? Did the Clinton tax HIKE raise or lower the deficit? Santaurum knows better than to engage in this line of crap he’s trying to pawn off on the American public. I’m not even going to watch the rest of the debate. It’s too silly. I will say that I agree with Bachman and Perry on the subject of Pakistan- - and more with Perry than with Bachman. Even Gingrich is not exactly wrong in his suggestion that we envoke the doctrine of hot pursuit to clean out sanctuaries in Pakistan. But I’m thinking this is kind of a “back door” approach that would be better effected by just cutting aid to them.

Here are some facts a lot of people are ignorant of. This first "argument" helps Republicans. People are basically ignorant about the classic supply and demand curve. Most people think when the price drops the supply goes up and visa versa. That's false in the classic model. The obvious examples are trying to get oil when the supply is short. If you show you are willing to pay more "something" will turn up someplace. Rent control also illustrates this principle with apartments suddenly becoming scarce.

I have accused God of having an "inelastic supply curve". The term "elastic" refers to fluctuations in price as apposed to ammount of either supply or demand. Usually people speak of an inelastic demand curve, which applies to things like spices or salt, that people really will pay anything for.

If the value of the US currency drops 20% will this help or hurt our international trade balance? The answer is that it will help because in the classic Adam Smith model it will balance things out.

Assuming both Ronald Reagan and President Obama raise the national debt equally at a figure of two and a half times, which President will have done the most damage to this economy. There is no time factor in this question. It's immiterial whether Obama serves one or two terms. The answer is that Ronald Reagan's spending will have damaged the economy more because interest rates were twelve percent or something and now they are like one percent. Republicans never mention this.

If a country pegs gold and silver at set ammounts and mints both coins for circulation, the question is if the price of silver goes from ten to twenty per ounce and Gold rises from 200 to 300 per ounce, at the end of the period which coinage will be the more in circulation? The answer is that Gold will be because the gold is not relatively cheaper than the silver, when measured in dollar ammounts of circulation.

I have a Marcus Arelius "square building blocks" model of store pricing verses profit margins but the same principle can be used from taxes. This theory states that a constant perimiter represents your monetery options and the squareness enclosed within it represent relative prive and sales figures. Thus you have your answer. What general geometric model is invoked here? Also what can you deduce about the ideal price for a star to charge to maximize their profits revenue?

If Romney guys ten shares of Tea Party stock at a dollar per share and Obama buys Mainstream Liberal Media stock - - ten shares of it, and the tea party stock goes from one dollar to ten and the media stock goes from 100 to 110, who will have made the most money? Time interval is not a factor as long as it is equal. The answer is Romney will have made ninety dollars, but Obama will have made one hundred dollars.

If you "short against the box" to avoid capital gains tax and market risk, will you realize your goal of having avoided this dreaded tax and will you suffer? The answer is you will have avoided the tax and otherwise your monitary position will be identical.

Which person will do better. Someone who over a given period gets seven percent on their money at 4.9% inflation or someone who gets 2.5% on their money at .5% inflation rate. The answer is the second guy will fare much better because "inflation is a tax". This is what people like Rick Perry forget when they say the Fed should "jack up interest rates to stabelize the economy". Inflation is a tax and anyone who lived through the recession of 1982 would well know this.

Are the Republicans right? Will slashing or eliminating the capital gains tax increase "business investment"? The answer is emphatically NO. This cut would be a dis-investment incentive, in other words to pull their money out of business here and stash it in some foreign account. Also such a drop in capital gains would cause the stock market to crash.

Is Social Security a major contributer to the national deficet? Has all the money been used up as republicans proclaim? The answer is NO to both. The money is still all there. The fund would be balanced with just a minor adjustment in withholding rates. Social Security is NOT a major contributer to the national deficet.

How long have US Corporations had the status as "persons"? The answer is since a court ruling in 1886 during what we call the "guilded age". Corporations were creatures of government "permission to exist" before this and could be dissolved for a whole host of reasons.

Would a tax hike in bank savings taxes be bad for American business? The answer is no. According to Hartman it would actually be good. Because if savings rates were jacked up to 35% people would pull their money out of savings and invest it in the business- - and probably be able to use a lot of business loopholes to subsequently pay a much lower tax in subsequent accounting years.

If you don't ask questions, you'll never find out. -Marcus Arelius

KNOWN - - AND YET UNKNOWN -

- A Natural Science Journey Outside the Box

So am I inventing a whole new kind of physics? I’m calling it “Subjectivist Physics”. First let’s define this word to demonstrate how “outside the box” this kind of thinking is. People like Wayne Dyer and Michael Benner have long postulated that any quality in another person or thing is dependant in whole or in part to the state of the observer. And of the observer is in the wrong state or the right state- - the thing observed not only SEEMS to change, but Actually changes. (Selah) I have long resisted this idea with every fiber of my being. Not only to I say that reality lies in the Object being observed, but that ALL reality lies in the object, and that the state or even alive or deadness or the observer is Completely Immaterial. (Selah) For instance I have often said what Christians deny and that is that God is a thing or specimen that can be observed under laboratory conditions and if he is who he is- - then he will be that way no matter of the presence or absence of observers watching Him be how he is. (Selah) So what has changed my long held view? Albert Einstein’s theory, of course. Let’s go back to the classic Motorboat example where I explain the whole reason why we observe light at a constant speed regardless of the movement of observed objects. This theory works beautifully if you’re an observer on the shore of the lake watching the boat. Unfortunately for the people in the boat the theory falls apart completely. This besetting reality has always bothered me about my theory. It’s called the “No Ether Wind” problem. You see it, don’t you? For the people in the boat there is most definitely a current or “wind” of water all flowing in one direction and it affects the speed of anything propagated or projected from said boat. Things hurled up wind will travel more slowly than things hurled down wind. There are ways I’ve tried to rationalize around this. For instance I have argued for the “Strangled by the Infinity” definition. If infinity is in fact just another number (as I have proposed) then it can be easily reached and surpassed. A clear demonstration to try and make Einstein look stupid can be found in trigonometry. For instance it could just as validly be argued that it’s physically impossible for a tangent angle coordinate to be greater than- - well, infinity. Since there is no number greater than infinity no tangent coordinate can exist greater than infinity. Therefore using Einstinian logic we have proved that no arc-tangent can possibly exist greater than ninety degrees. Ain’t that nice. But we know that taint so. In like manner we could argue that seeing some object infinity away indeed means infinitely away. And when distances become infinetessable on the other end we can reason likewise that they can only get so small. And we can infer from Einstinian reasoning that- - since Infinity is “The End” then no “distance” can be greater than It is. However I refute this whole line of logic by saying that indeed trigonometric degrees do indeed go around in an entire circle and there is virtually no limit to the number of degrees you can have, and indeed rely on this principle for my BASIC programs of rotating objects. However we are still left with a basic problem. Einstein “solves” the whole varying speed of light propagation thing by saying that things stretch and shrink (sometimes simultaneously) at will and seemingly in violation of all other laws of energy and molecular physics. This idea to me has never made sense. My problem with Wayne Dyre and the whole “Look into yourself and find that spark of Divinity within you” thesis is that it violates my basic Theology, which I discussed in a recent posting and to save time I won’t repeat it here. I believe it’s easier to extract water from a rock than to find “God” in some object in this material universe. If you believe differently, this is a free country. Nevertheless we have a whole - - apparently tried and proved “reality” in physics which needs SOMETHING NEW to explain it that scientists have not come up with yet. Allow this fool to step up to the plate and take a swing at it. It all comes down to Einstein’s pesky little “addition of velocities” formula that I was trying so hard to deny in all my writings two years ago about this time of year. It’s one little “detail” with a major Devil behind it that needs dealing with and Will not be Ignored. So the question is- - coming back full circle now- - - what if the Receiver has ONE reality and the Sender has ANOTHER, much as Wayne Dyre would suggest? Is there room in physics for multiple realities? People like John Lennon apparently have no problem with it. He says all you have to do to dispose of Heaven and Hell is to pretend that neither exists, so therefore they won’t. But you don’t have to “Imagine” there is no ether wind, as my theory suggests there must be for almost everything and every locality in the universe. But in this case he who “Imagines there is no Ether Wind” has won out over me with a clear and present reality that no scientist has dared even question for nearly a hundred years. So how can it be? Well, we all know that various things have different physical structures. When scientists happen upon something they’ve never encountered before they all gather around to explore this new thing.; (Selah) Suppose our physical being generates our own Ether field and each of us exists in his own Ether field. If the Sender of a light beam had one Ether field and the receiver had Another- - then light could objectively (for those who still cling to that word) we could objectively “observe” that light either sped up or slowed down relative to the senders and receiver’s ether field. It would not be necessary for either Sender or Receiver to stretch or shrink in size and all that other stuff. For a practical example of that we know that a driver hears his own race car engine at a constant speed- - as you know from all those car cams they broadcast from. Some things are realities that people don’t think about. For instance if you are approaching a star and another is receding from a star both perceive the light differently. Yet the light waves propagated from the star are absolutely identical to both. It’s only because movement generates size and time distortion that differences lie and this is all in perfect accord with ordinary Newtonian laws. Hence These differences conform to objectivism. However what I propose does not. For instance- - we know if there were a speed boat racing ahead of the first one in question, each would hear the other’s engine at normal un-shifted frequencies. Herein lies a hint. The problem occurs when we measure the speed of the sound waves reaching each hearer and we fast observe that the sound from the lead boat arrives much sooner to the other captain’s ears, as opposed to visa versa. But with light and ether- - since there is No Wind- because each person or enttie’s Ether is sovereign- - therefore there would exist no “lag problem” for the boat traveling in front hearing from the other one. HE has no wind. The other has no wind. There is no Doppler effect. So as Einstein has often said, it’s as though both boats were stationary sitting in placid waters. So in essence what I am saying that if light is reaching your eyes too slowly, it’s because you aren’t moving in the same vector and speed as the sender because if you were you would view everything as he views it. So how does the light “Know” the state of the receiver? Well- - how does God “Know” us? How do certain people seem to be charmed and others jinxed, and often opinions of them are made before they even open their mouth? Either you can believe in some fortune teller’s spell or incantation- - or you can believe as Michael Benner and Wayne Dyre that there exists a certain “reality” of one receiver that differs from another and that very Reality alters the nature of the Sender’s reaction and interaction. As such the transmission of light and some say thoughts- - is not sending alone, as an Objectivist would presume, but it’s more of a thing like magnetism or something, where there is a relationship between the sender and the receiver. (Selah) As such Einstein's "moving starting point" is preserved. If you dare to throw out the addition of volocities formula- - - it should only be done on personally observing that the formula is false. This can, should be, and probably has been scientifically tested. If I am right- - - objects are capable of vanishing from "OUR" space and other objects will gradually become visible in OUR space. But it will still be space but space with a reference point that could exceed what we used to think was the speed of light. But since those objects have now vanished from our present world, the light from them is also not relivent. Hence - - - If I am right in this one area- - infinity can be crossed optically - - and faster than light speeds will become a reality. But we will still be in material space. What will never be a reality is hyper space. You won't be able to call it that because it isn't "beyond" anything under Einstein's "moving zero" axiom. (Selah) The goal of reaching that by any material means appears impossible. Only by the assuming of some Deity or entity capable of creating some "Soul" or essence that transcends (and bridges) the two worlds of hyper space and sub hyper space, can one ever hope to experiance this- but it won't be in any material form as we know it. (Selah)