Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
On Government
A human government should never be allowed to exist in any form other than that in which it is intended. If one reads the declaration of independence, it is ingeniously written, and shines light on the fact that the political bonds that bind us together are voluntary. It is a statement therein that both god's nature, and nature's god, have made men equal. It is a choice to be tied together into groups such as nations.
Such being said, why do we choose to be bound under any government if it uses our money for our hurt? It is a lively realization, that a government should be no more than what one would see it to be among friends, or roomates. A government should by no way ever be anything more than a group of people pooling together Thier resources in order to accomplish communal goals.
If we want safe streets, let's have a police force, good roads: taxes to maintain them, safe borders: tax for reasonable and discussed national defense. But where did we sign to blindly have our money taken out from us before we recieve it in hand? Where did we sign away the right to choose to what it goes? It was for these reasons of taxation without representation that the declaration of independence was written.
Laws and government have become titans that rule over men as sheep. But what are laws more than ink on paper? Can ink take away men's god given rights? Apparently it can, when dressed with badges and bearing guns. But why? If we have chosen to be bound together, then who has taken our safety strings and contorted them into puppeting nets?
Perhaps the time is coming again to dissolve those bands we choose to yoke ourselves with, and to re align our means of community. Perhaps a democracy should be written more carefully, with a constitution not so easily outwritten in burying heaps of legislature.
I propose these as a constitution.
One: all laws must be voted in by majority.
This vote should be done as real as possible. Given internet, why have electoral votes?
Two: all laws will have attatched to them the reason they are made.
Three: all laws will be reviewed every 3 years, or sooner if majority agrees to review it. Upon review, a law will be renewed, anulled, or amended. If amended or anulled, a reason will be added, along with the date. Upon each review, the entire history of the law's creation, and amendments, and annulments, will be read, and discussed in public, before being voted on. This way a law will never be used for any purpose other than its intended use, and the people can see the intent of the law, and have understanding about it, before choosing its fate. All anulled laws will also be reviewed, once every 6 years, or sooner if so desired by the people.
Everything will be subject to these three rules of democracy.
A congress, or president, will exist only if chosen by the people, and only for as long as they wish.
Once a law is created, a budget, tax, and means of accomplishing it will be discussed, and attatched to the law.
This is the constituency of government.
-----
Recommended laws:
I suggest these laws for consideration:
The law of educated majority:
What: A test will be made to test the intelligence and capability of a person to make decisions pertaining to the welfare and government of the people. It will include resource management, technology, history, sociology, and current events. Any person who passes this test gets a double vote.
This ensures that the people choose to educate themselves on the matters important to understand to vote responsibly. If there are electoral, or state votes, then each state's or electoral's vote would be doubled if the majority passed the exam of mental fitness to vote.
Why: Because democracy only works if the majority of the people are well educated.
Law of freedom of education.
What: In a day such as our own, when internet and digital media exist, there is no reason to not have educational ciriculum free online. A national standard should be made, and courses designed to educate and train people in all careers. These training courses should be made available for free on the internet. If an individual completes a course, and successfully passes an exam at the end of it, then they will obtain a permit for examination in that subject.
Upon recieving the permit, an individual may go to the local education house, of which one will be appointed in each state. This will be an educational center funded by the people. Testing will be done here. If the individual can pass the examination standard for the subject of Thier permit, they are awarded a degree for that course and career.
If the states desire to have schools to teach these materials hands on, they have the right to vote on that issue, and to supply the taxes necesary to run such educational programs, or to allow private colleges to exist, but the people as a nation will pay taxes to supply one educational center for testing and diplomas per state, and all education will be standardized across the nation.
Why: This will help to ensure a proper standard of education across the nation, and provide an equal opportunity to all individuals to make of themselves as much as they wish. It will also assure that we have people properly trained in the careers necesary to improve our county's health.
Wealth tax
What: Individuals with incredible wealth will pay a wealth tax. This tax will be a percentage of Thier wealth above whatever amount is considered fair by majority vote. The tax percentage will also be voted on.
Why: Realizing that money is influence and power, it is best to avoid allowing wealth to be accumulated in few hands to vast degrees, in order to protect democracy.
And of course, realizing this would be a democracy, such recommendations, along with the recommendation for maintenance on a highway system, a military for self defense, and an assigment of one "ambassador to the states" from each state to meet and discuss national matters in an abrevieted and timely way, are simply suggestions.
I suggest this as a model for government. It preserves democracy, while making it difficult to turn it into a fuedalistic corporately ran control scheme, like is currently happening in USA.
For your consideration, and discussion.
Sincerely, Robert Janos.
Please, amend and add to it.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
I am laughing with the crows
I laugh with the crows in the morning, as the cool mist veils us like a blanket. The moon, collective and calm, adopts the light of its older brother, with the fragrant kiss of the shared breath of men and trees lending it a mild orange hue. As the siblings brilliantly smile at the cozy time they share, acoustic melodies and recorded silence fuzz the air, and we listen to the hearts of men played out on the strings of guitars and cracking of tattered roads. Our father tells the best jokes. We laugh the whole way round. Little bodies dancing circles in the warm black air of space. Our father tells the most lively stories. Their laughter is stronger than that of the jokes of men. I am laughing with the crows.
Sometimes I write things in the internet
Sometimes I think we keep people on leashes cause we're all afraid of being alone. But I'm not afraid, I am alone. Sometimes I think we don't love like god loves because we want to own, but I love to flirt like him, and security is always a lie. If we are mortals, then isn't everyone insecure? The brutish man is then ignorant in his boldness, or else the monk wise in hiding his riches. Maybe the way that city lights steal away our stars is as self inflicted a wound as the unsatisfied drug addicts addiction, just a way to forget that we want so much more, and It's right infront of us. The best people seem to have the worst problems, until they stop trying to act like lesser men, and the transcended know to feed the apes they haunt every once in a while. How do we stoop so high, and dream so low? How do we let hormones amnesia our brains like wheat were more than an expression of the ground? If life were a constant than c would never have thought to have been squared. The veil of science is the error of evidence. The evident is never caught more than the wind is. Jar me up some wind and I'll show you the quantum makeup of a soul. But those who are born again are as the wind: you can hear the sound of us, but you can't tell where we come from or where we go, so it is with every one that is born of the spirit. If eternity is no lie, or balance must be had, then certain things will always lie. Black holes and quantum static... Maybe for god and the devil to agree atoms had to have 3 sides, and the rotation is evened out in the lower frequencies. Humans don't see Uv for a reason, and wolves can smell your fear. If the virus was discovered it would have been destroyed. One can assume then that the all seeing eye sees us as more than a pestilence. Maybe rainbows aren't supposed to look pretty to us, that's just a coincidence of being made in his image. Maybe we aren't as bipolar as we thought, and "let there be light" was the start of something lovely, the thought of god having compassion on himself.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Everything is the same size, everywhere at once.
Perhaps the best way to put it is that I have found a new way to look at the universe. To start, let’s deal with one expression.
“Everything is the same size, everywhere at once.”
This might seem odd to you, but consider it, and it won’t be anymore.
We tend to consider a thing as an object. We perceive borders and limits to it based on it’s influences. We see the edges, and feel it’s shape. These are only two facets of an object though. They aren’t even exactly the same. They are just very close, from our perspective of things.
If you consider it, the appearance of a thing is really just the light that reflects off of it and comes back towards you and actually reaches into your eyes. Yes, you can scale that as a certain size, but is it the only one? If you consider the size it has in your hands, you are considering another one of the boundaries it has as an atomic structure, measuring the pressure of its electron shell against yours.
But if you look at some of the other considerations of an object’s boundaries, you might find them slightly less limiting.
For example: heat. If you look at a person under infrared, they have different density in different spots, just how in an x-ray photograph, people are mostly transparent. Barely solid at all... except for bones.
If we had x-ray vision, we would only seem to be walking, talking skeletons, with a slight mist around us. We might call it an aura, instead of flesh. Hmm...
If we look at fire in this way, where are it’s boundaries? There is a visual edge, the licking of the flames. But there is also a definite heat profile that extends beyond that. If my hand is even two feet from the fire, it starts to burn. A stick will even catch ablaze while still a few inches from the flames. I guess the fire is more than meets the eye, eh?
But where do we decide to impose the limit? Where is this outer heat boundary for example? Is it where I feel hot? Or just warm? Is it where I can even feel it at all from? Or, if I use a heavy metal as a standard, instead of my hand, maybe the fire isn’t solid at all, it’s just like a slight disturbance in the air. A mere breeze.
This same logic applies electrically. A magnet obviously has pull and presence beyond the boundaries that we can visually apply to it. It has a definite, stable field surrounding it. I suppose then that if we were magnetically based creatures, and looked at the world through electromagnetic fields, we would see magnets as larger than we do.
Consider this then. The Sun. Do we call its borders at the edge of the lake of fire? Where the hydrogen is rolling around in vapors? Or do we wade deep into the molten center? Or really, is it solid at all?
If we look at things as they are in the universe, they are percieved to have boundaries based on how far from their centers they have an present effect that exceeds the lower limit of perception, what we would call a zero point.
It is until it isn’t perceivable anymore.
The edge of an apple is where my skin feels it against me, the water ends where the air begins, and the sun is as big as I can see with my eyes.
The problem that arises from this is the problem that it is, namely, a limited scope of things.
If we look at the sun for what it is, namely a cluster of hydrogen gas that is combusting on a subatomic level, we can see it for what it is. These atoms of hydrogen are all made of protons and electrons. When they split apart are they no longer there? Not at all! If anything that’s when they exist more to us.
The seperation of the parts of the atom release the quarks and the other constituents of the atom into an explosion of smaller pieces. Some of these pieces we consider to be matter, and some of them we consider to be energy.
In quantum physics we understand that both are the same, they are manifestations of vibration, or density. Stuff, basically, in space. Light is as much a thing as a rock. It is just made up of relatively smaller pieces, that we specifically call photons. These photons are what we see. As they are flying millions of miles, some of them make it all the way to our eyes, right through that black pupil, and collide at light-speed with receptors in the back of your eye. When they do, they explode violently into a sub nuclear reaction in your atoms, and create a recognizable energy output. These collisions of light-speed miniature comets flying from space out of the sun and hitting you right in the eye happen frequently enough that we consider it a continual flow, and don’t even see it as what it is, a non-stop barrage of cosmic particles exploding on the surface of your body.
Some of them are absorbed by the core, and released as radiation, heat, and electricity. And some are “reflected” or even just explode or glare on the outer surface, like a shooting star passing through the earth’s atmosphere. (We will get into what "reflection" really is later.)
They are all tiny little space rocks though. Physical things.
So if we look at the sun again. Where are it's boundaries? Do they stop at the core (if it’s solid at all), or at the liquid edge? (if it even has one) Does it end where we perceive a significant drop in the density of the hydrogen cloud? Or does it extend to the boundaries of it’s smaller parts?
Well, do we consider the oceans and air as a part of the Earth? Certainly we do.
In that case the sun is much larger than most people think.
If we look at the heliosphere (the atmospheric bubble around the sun, caused by it’s "winds") the sun extends out billions of kilometers, and we are inside of it. Like a mitochondria in a cell, we are well within it’s boundaries, or comparative cell wall. At the end of that we have the heliosheath, and then once we finally get to that edge of the sun, as far as is perceived by the solar wind slowing down to a comparative pause with the interstellar winds, we also then have the bow shock.
In that stance, the sun is an organism, or system, much larger than most people ever imagine. We are, in fact, inside of it. But all we care to notice as the sun is its core (as relative to us). But then again, who can blame you for not seeing air, until you step outside of it.
There are atleast two more currently conceivable boundaries that exist.
If you just researched the heliosphere, you credit that as legit. But we still have all those tiny space rocks called photons that create a giant sphere around the hydrogen core of the sun. If we remember that they are solid, then shouldn’t the sun be considered to be as large as all it’s parts? Well, at this point the sun then reaches out as far as its light can travel. It’s boundaries become an enormous interstellar sphere, with small holes carved out of it by planets and asteroids, that create little tear shaped holes in it, making it like a cosmic block of swiss cheese. We call those shadows darkness.
If we look into the night sky, hopefully with a view untainted by city lights, there are hundreds of stars visible to the naked eye, even more via telescope. In a sense then, are we inside of all those stars?
At a photon level, their boundaries do extend atleast to our skin, but what about x-rays, and gamma rays? They go even further, through us even, and in many ways we are then inside of those stars, not just floating lazily on their surface.
As if your mind isn’t completely blown yet, I’ll introduce one more layer, and then we can get into more discussions on physics, and I can aid in fixing the standard model.
Gravity. It doesn’t even comply with the standard model of particle physics. That is what got me into this study to start with: a desire to fix the current view of the universe and to unify the broken equations men hold onto so vigorously and religiously.
Let’s look at it though.
Gravity is the measured attraction of every thing to everything else. In it’s simplest sense, it is relative to the mass of one object, and the mass of the other, and is exponentially stronger the closer you get, and weaker as distances between the objects increase. (It is the actual definition of mass that is hard to define in physics, hence the hiccup.)
Simply put, bigger things, and closer things, are more attractive than smaller things and further away things. For this reason the moon orbits the Earth, not the sun. The sun may be much bigger, but it is also much much further away, and so, the Earth has a stronger gravitational pull on the moon than the sun.
Gravity can be visualized very easily. Imagine that same scenario. The moon will be white, the Earth will be blue, and the sun will be yellow. Picture each of those bodies as a ball of light. Let's have it be solid for as big as the object is (atomically), and then have it fade off in brilliancy as it extends in every direction. The closer to the object you get, the brighter the light. The further away you get, the less gravitational presence there is. Easy enough to visualize. Since the earth, in this visualization, is brighter to the moon than the sun is, the moon is more attracted to the Earth. There is just much more blue than there is yellow all around that little white dot.
In this scenario, the strength of gravity can be viewed as the combined brightness where the spheres of light overlap.
Now, here’s the issue that this brings up in our topic. Seeing that mathematically "F = Gm1m2/r^2" with the strength of gravity differing exponentially in relation to distance, where then is the edge if it fades on forever? Where do we draw the line?
There simply is none.
The presence of the sun grows and fades exponentially at an even rate. There is no distinct edge, anywhere. It is one flowing fade all the way from one infinity to another, but you will most likely never reach either end of that spectrum.
You see, nature isn’t like a computer. Values of light, or anything for that matter, aren’t based on a scale of "0-255" like in an imaging suite. When you drop below "1", there is still an infinite amount of values before you ever reach zero. It is not digital at all, it is very, very, analog.
So then, in all reality, the sun has a gravitational presence that extends to the very ends of the universe.
So does every atom.
So do you.
So.. If everything has no clear edges, but extends forever in every direction... Then I guess....
“Everything is the same size, everywhere at once.”
Every atom. Every piece.
Everything has a presence that extends forever in every direction.
Welcome to gravity. =)
I am everywhere, You are everywhere. And everything is connected.
Robert Janos July 13th, 2011
“Everything is the same size, everywhere at once.”
This might seem odd to you, but consider it, and it won’t be anymore.
We tend to consider a thing as an object. We perceive borders and limits to it based on it’s influences. We see the edges, and feel it’s shape. These are only two facets of an object though. They aren’t even exactly the same. They are just very close, from our perspective of things.
If you consider it, the appearance of a thing is really just the light that reflects off of it and comes back towards you and actually reaches into your eyes. Yes, you can scale that as a certain size, but is it the only one? If you consider the size it has in your hands, you are considering another one of the boundaries it has as an atomic structure, measuring the pressure of its electron shell against yours.
But if you look at some of the other considerations of an object’s boundaries, you might find them slightly less limiting.
For example: heat. If you look at a person under infrared, they have different density in different spots, just how in an x-ray photograph, people are mostly transparent. Barely solid at all... except for bones.
If we had x-ray vision, we would only seem to be walking, talking skeletons, with a slight mist around us. We might call it an aura, instead of flesh. Hmm...
If we look at fire in this way, where are it’s boundaries? There is a visual edge, the licking of the flames. But there is also a definite heat profile that extends beyond that. If my hand is even two feet from the fire, it starts to burn. A stick will even catch ablaze while still a few inches from the flames. I guess the fire is more than meets the eye, eh?
But where do we decide to impose the limit? Where is this outer heat boundary for example? Is it where I feel hot? Or just warm? Is it where I can even feel it at all from? Or, if I use a heavy metal as a standard, instead of my hand, maybe the fire isn’t solid at all, it’s just like a slight disturbance in the air. A mere breeze.
This same logic applies electrically. A magnet obviously has pull and presence beyond the boundaries that we can visually apply to it. It has a definite, stable field surrounding it. I suppose then that if we were magnetically based creatures, and looked at the world through electromagnetic fields, we would see magnets as larger than we do.
Consider this then. The Sun. Do we call its borders at the edge of the lake of fire? Where the hydrogen is rolling around in vapors? Or do we wade deep into the molten center? Or really, is it solid at all?
If we look at things as they are in the universe, they are percieved to have boundaries based on how far from their centers they have an present effect that exceeds the lower limit of perception, what we would call a zero point.
It is until it isn’t perceivable anymore.
The edge of an apple is where my skin feels it against me, the water ends where the air begins, and the sun is as big as I can see with my eyes.
The problem that arises from this is the problem that it is, namely, a limited scope of things.
If we look at the sun for what it is, namely a cluster of hydrogen gas that is combusting on a subatomic level, we can see it for what it is. These atoms of hydrogen are all made of protons and electrons. When they split apart are they no longer there? Not at all! If anything that’s when they exist more to us.
The seperation of the parts of the atom release the quarks and the other constituents of the atom into an explosion of smaller pieces. Some of these pieces we consider to be matter, and some of them we consider to be energy.
In quantum physics we understand that both are the same, they are manifestations of vibration, or density. Stuff, basically, in space. Light is as much a thing as a rock. It is just made up of relatively smaller pieces, that we specifically call photons. These photons are what we see. As they are flying millions of miles, some of them make it all the way to our eyes, right through that black pupil, and collide at light-speed with receptors in the back of your eye. When they do, they explode violently into a sub nuclear reaction in your atoms, and create a recognizable energy output. These collisions of light-speed miniature comets flying from space out of the sun and hitting you right in the eye happen frequently enough that we consider it a continual flow, and don’t even see it as what it is, a non-stop barrage of cosmic particles exploding on the surface of your body.
Some of them are absorbed by the core, and released as radiation, heat, and electricity. And some are “reflected” or even just explode or glare on the outer surface, like a shooting star passing through the earth’s atmosphere. (We will get into what "reflection" really is later.)
They are all tiny little space rocks though. Physical things.
So if we look at the sun again. Where are it's boundaries? Do they stop at the core (if it’s solid at all), or at the liquid edge? (if it even has one) Does it end where we perceive a significant drop in the density of the hydrogen cloud? Or does it extend to the boundaries of it’s smaller parts?
Well, do we consider the oceans and air as a part of the Earth? Certainly we do.
In that case the sun is much larger than most people think.
If we look at the heliosphere (the atmospheric bubble around the sun, caused by it’s "winds") the sun extends out billions of kilometers, and we are inside of it. Like a mitochondria in a cell, we are well within it’s boundaries, or comparative cell wall. At the end of that we have the heliosheath, and then once we finally get to that edge of the sun, as far as is perceived by the solar wind slowing down to a comparative pause with the interstellar winds, we also then have the bow shock.
In that stance, the sun is an organism, or system, much larger than most people ever imagine. We are, in fact, inside of it. But all we care to notice as the sun is its core (as relative to us). But then again, who can blame you for not seeing air, until you step outside of it.
There are atleast two more currently conceivable boundaries that exist.
If you just researched the heliosphere, you credit that as legit. But we still have all those tiny space rocks called photons that create a giant sphere around the hydrogen core of the sun. If we remember that they are solid, then shouldn’t the sun be considered to be as large as all it’s parts? Well, at this point the sun then reaches out as far as its light can travel. It’s boundaries become an enormous interstellar sphere, with small holes carved out of it by planets and asteroids, that create little tear shaped holes in it, making it like a cosmic block of swiss cheese. We call those shadows darkness.
If we look into the night sky, hopefully with a view untainted by city lights, there are hundreds of stars visible to the naked eye, even more via telescope. In a sense then, are we inside of all those stars?
At a photon level, their boundaries do extend atleast to our skin, but what about x-rays, and gamma rays? They go even further, through us even, and in many ways we are then inside of those stars, not just floating lazily on their surface.
As if your mind isn’t completely blown yet, I’ll introduce one more layer, and then we can get into more discussions on physics, and I can aid in fixing the standard model.
Gravity. It doesn’t even comply with the standard model of particle physics. That is what got me into this study to start with: a desire to fix the current view of the universe and to unify the broken equations men hold onto so vigorously and religiously.
Let’s look at it though.
Gravity is the measured attraction of every thing to everything else. In it’s simplest sense, it is relative to the mass of one object, and the mass of the other, and is exponentially stronger the closer you get, and weaker as distances between the objects increase. (It is the actual definition of mass that is hard to define in physics, hence the hiccup.)
Simply put, bigger things, and closer things, are more attractive than smaller things and further away things. For this reason the moon orbits the Earth, not the sun. The sun may be much bigger, but it is also much much further away, and so, the Earth has a stronger gravitational pull on the moon than the sun.
Gravity can be visualized very easily. Imagine that same scenario. The moon will be white, the Earth will be blue, and the sun will be yellow. Picture each of those bodies as a ball of light. Let's have it be solid for as big as the object is (atomically), and then have it fade off in brilliancy as it extends in every direction. The closer to the object you get, the brighter the light. The further away you get, the less gravitational presence there is. Easy enough to visualize. Since the earth, in this visualization, is brighter to the moon than the sun is, the moon is more attracted to the Earth. There is just much more blue than there is yellow all around that little white dot.
In this scenario, the strength of gravity can be viewed as the combined brightness where the spheres of light overlap.
Now, here’s the issue that this brings up in our topic. Seeing that mathematically "F = Gm1m2/r^2" with the strength of gravity differing exponentially in relation to distance, where then is the edge if it fades on forever? Where do we draw the line?
There simply is none.
The presence of the sun grows and fades exponentially at an even rate. There is no distinct edge, anywhere. It is one flowing fade all the way from one infinity to another, but you will most likely never reach either end of that spectrum.
You see, nature isn’t like a computer. Values of light, or anything for that matter, aren’t based on a scale of "0-255" like in an imaging suite. When you drop below "1", there is still an infinite amount of values before you ever reach zero. It is not digital at all, it is very, very, analog.
So then, in all reality, the sun has a gravitational presence that extends to the very ends of the universe.
So does every atom.
So do you.
So.. If everything has no clear edges, but extends forever in every direction... Then I guess....
“Everything is the same size, everywhere at once.”
Every atom. Every piece.
Everything has a presence that extends forever in every direction.
Welcome to gravity. =)
I am everywhere, You are everywhere. And everything is connected.
Robert Janos July 13th, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)