The link I am providing is to a segment that was on Jon Stewarts show. He is interviewing a man named Jim Cramer. Mr. Cramer ran a hedge fund and now has a show called "Mad Money" on which he gives stock market advice.
In the interview, Mr. Stewart questions the use of market manipulation and options trading. What is really being discussed is that many people knew the market was being manipulated since 1999 and that it was going to crash; but, the financial experts did not expose it.
The Jon Stewart interview of Jim Cramer
Now, I have been saying for about four years that the housing bubble and the stock crash were engineered and intentional. When I was saying it four years ago, most people thought I had lost my mind. Instead they listened to Bernake, Paulson, Greenspan and people like Mr. Cramer. I want you to watch this video made around that time.
Schiff versus Stein
More financial experts lying
And the false solutions
And now comes the sad part. The solution was planned at the same time the problem was created. The solution is less, less for everyone in the United States. There are people who think they are taking part in a "tea party revolution", it is a manufactured outlet for their rage, it is not real.
Regardless of what side people were on in these "arguments", the solution they are promoting is to stop options trading that eliminates your retirement funds from having insurance against wild swings in the market. The large movements in the market allowed everyone to make money off of your retirement except you.
The games that were being played are all being exposed and that is good; but, the solution will fundamentally change the market when it does not need to. By going back to the rules that were in place during the late 90s we can substantially fix the problem. We do not need to create a situation where the market lies flat.
With congress passing 2,000 pages of financial reform and they are claiming they don't even know what effect the changes will have, we are continuing to be lied to. Those who understand the changes will make money and those who do not will continue to lose.
Average people are now paying more attention to the economy. They are outraged by what is happening in America, this is all good. They are also being sold a bill of goods about the solutions. The solutions will result in a weaker United States and more of a reliance on globalization.
I am personally in favor of limiting options trading and forcing stock valuations to be meaningful, to be based on the underlying value of the companies. I am in favor of CEOs only getting bonuses if the company makes a profit rather than if the stock goes up. The current method makes companies do things that are bad for the long term life of the company; but, are good for the short term value of the stock. Warren Buffet is correct about such things.
Where I disagree is in regards to having insurance on your company. All companies have risk. Risk is an innate part of life and that is why we have insurance. Insurance is like a savings account, we all contribute and if one of us fails the insurance is there to protect us. AIG was the largest insurance company of financial institutions in the world. They stopped acting as an insurance company and began acting as a financial risk taker.
Since 1999 everyone became a risk taker. People took out second mortgages on their primary residences to play in the stock market. Companies bought risky stocks and derivatives and paid less attention to their businesses. Pension funds invested in crazy schemes to avoid having to have people put more money in their pensions and having the corruption of the managers exposed. We became a economy of gambling rather than an economy of stability.
The solution being proposed is that we have less and pay off the debt that was created by "Wall Street" and NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN (that is the same as was said after the great depression. I fully believe we will nationalize the federal reserve, heck, we have nationalized the banks. Our wages will go down, we will have an international reserve currency or the value of currencies will be tied to one another (same thing) and our standard of living will be tied to productivity.
If we do not accept these results, the economy will be allowed to completely fail. That has always been the real intent behind what was begun in 1999 and became apparent in 2007-2008. But, listen to the videos, this was not an accident and was apparent to those who were in charge.
We are being taken down a path of monitoring each other. It is not "too big to fail" it is instead "to weak to influence change". The western governments are all implementing "austerity measures". State governments are choosing between prisons and schools. It is nationwide and international not limited to local. That is so that we will look at things more globally.
The Chinese workers will begin to be paid better and the west will begin to be paid less. Our national greed led to this. Too many people wanted a free lunch and gambled to get it. The party is over, the house is a mess and now comes the time to clean the house. No matter how bad the hangover or how great the party, it is time to get back to work. You and I will get back to work; but, the damage cannot be undone, the lamp is broken, the couch has vomit on it, the dishes are broke.
Some of us chose not to be at the party, still we live in the house also and have to help clean it up. You might say that this is unfair, fair has nothing to do with it. It is no more fair than a Chinese laborer having to work 14 hour days to pay for our debt. Selling our debt to the Chinese and Russians and Japanese in order to buy Escalades and chrome wheels was also unfair.
My ex-wife got half my pension and to keep our BMW, she also gets paid by me monthly for doing nothing. I am not alone in this situation it happens all the time in divorce. We took vows (a contract, a promise), she broke them and I pay for the privilege. It is no different than what we have done as a nation, no different than what Greece has done. The Germans didn't do it; but, they were forced to pay for Greece's default on their promises. My point is that we have to look at our promises in the same light that we look at what we have done as a nation to understand what is going on.
The problems in the economy were known for a long time. We have been trained to believe that we should take as much as we can while we are alive and die with as much debt as possible. That is considered winning by many. As long as we think that way, we will not deserve what we get and are leaving our children with our debt.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
More on Patriotism and God
I want to talk about three things, country, soldiers and religion.
Country, it is merely land with imaginary borders. The borders of countries are not fixed, look at history. We are indoctrinated with a concept of us versus them, of division. It is an illusion. More than anything else, countries are separations of political forms and economic interests. For the past two hundred years our border with Canada has barely existed. It was the longest unguarded border in the world and it was not a problem.
I am against globalism as it is preached, I am also against believing that the mere fact that someone was born in another country makes them less deserving. If you are working for minimum wage digging trenches are you that different from someone doing the same job in Mexico? Wars are not fought between countries, they tell us they are; but, they really are not. Wars are fought by average citizens for the benefit of those who control us in our own country.
We are in Iraq because of oil, which the people here have to pay more for to pay for the war. If you want to find out about Vietnam, start by reading about the Gulf of Tonkin. Most wars are for the wrong reasons and the populace is lied to. They accept the lie to sooth their guilt. Few of the soldiers in Iraq think we should be there.
Young men and women join the service for many reasons. Some were drafted, some join to become "men", some join for an education, some to have a job and some because they are patriotic. Just because someone was a soldier does not mean they are patriotic. We credit all of them with that; but, it is not the truth.
The single most impactful thing that a government does is go to war; but, the government doesn't go to war, poor people do. What is even more horrifying is the average age of soldiers worldwide. Children as young as 10 are soldiers around the world. Many couldn't spell the word patriotic.
My original post was NOT directed at American soldiers, it was directed soldiers and church, I will explain better when I get to the part about religion. War is not to be praised, we can appreciate the courage and good intentions of those who fought under the belief that they were being patriotic and I do; however, that does not mean that I must agree with war, any war. I have come to believe that Gandhi's was the best.
In college I had a friend, he had been forced into the military at 14 and sent to Mozambique. He watched pregnant women be bayoneted, he witnessed it. He was in the Portuguese army. He deserted because he couldn't participate in it any more, was he unpatriotic? We glorify war way too much. We talk about war in terms of the soldier who jumped on the hand grenade and ignore the atrocities done on every side.
The issue is not someone's uncle, brother, cousin or even themselves. It is about war. It is about putting a bullet in someone's head and watching it split, their brains spill out and their life end so that Exxon can make more money. I have known way to many soldiers who 40 and 50 years later still could not bring themselves to discuss what they had seen or done. Too many come away from war knowing that we should not have been there.
As for God, he said that he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. That doesn't sound like we should make it a way of life. Our appreciation for individuals who believe they are protecting their family should not be used to justify the politicians and industrial companies getting our families to do the fighting for the benefit of the politicians and companies.
A simple question, if the citizens or soldiers got to vote on when to go to war, would we have more wars or fewer? The war we are in right now is so wrong that the government is fearful of ex-soldiers becoming terrorists after returning to the United States. That is contained in a pamphlet distributed by the FBI to local authorities. The government is afraid of the soldiers who are patriotic, what does that say about the war?
How many sons and daughters of your congressional members are fighting in Iraq, last I heard was one. How patriotic is your congress?
I read too many posts across the net from fools calling for us to "bomb into nonexistence" whatever country annoys them. I have read Muslims and Americans say kill them all. They do not even stop to think, "them all", includes children who just want to grow up. Knee jerk morons who risk nothing. They incite rather than solve. Then comes justification afterwards, we say "we thought he had weapons of mass destruction" or "he would have had them eventually" or whatever garbage takes the guilt away.
War is not a video game, it is not an adventure movie and it is not glorious. The sooner we stop looking at it in that manner and the more likely we are to be more cautious before engaging in it.
As far as my church goes. Non-active ex-military people should not be in uniform in the church. The church should not support war. If the church wishes to support SOLDIERS, then it should go to the Veterans Hospital and support them or raise money for them and their families, not glorify the idea of being a soldier, not promote war.
When the Iraq war began, there were many reservists who said they didn't think they would be asked to go to war, they were just trying to make some money on the weekends. Anytime you train to use a gun to KILL people you better figure you may be asked to.
I was one of those brainwashed, patriotic kids. I was Navy ROTC, wrote on "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" in Law School and was offered a commission in the military. Hey, I was all set to be a professional soldier. What changed my mind over the years was talking to people in the military. The story from all of them was pretty much the same, war is a bad idea and usually done for the wrong reasons. Many remained patriotic but disgusted with how the wars were conducted.
Country, it is merely land with imaginary borders. The borders of countries are not fixed, look at history. We are indoctrinated with a concept of us versus them, of division. It is an illusion. More than anything else, countries are separations of political forms and economic interests. For the past two hundred years our border with Canada has barely existed. It was the longest unguarded border in the world and it was not a problem.
I am against globalism as it is preached, I am also against believing that the mere fact that someone was born in another country makes them less deserving. If you are working for minimum wage digging trenches are you that different from someone doing the same job in Mexico? Wars are not fought between countries, they tell us they are; but, they really are not. Wars are fought by average citizens for the benefit of those who control us in our own country.
We are in Iraq because of oil, which the people here have to pay more for to pay for the war. If you want to find out about Vietnam, start by reading about the Gulf of Tonkin. Most wars are for the wrong reasons and the populace is lied to. They accept the lie to sooth their guilt. Few of the soldiers in Iraq think we should be there.
Young men and women join the service for many reasons. Some were drafted, some join to become "men", some join for an education, some to have a job and some because they are patriotic. Just because someone was a soldier does not mean they are patriotic. We credit all of them with that; but, it is not the truth.
The single most impactful thing that a government does is go to war; but, the government doesn't go to war, poor people do. What is even more horrifying is the average age of soldiers worldwide. Children as young as 10 are soldiers around the world. Many couldn't spell the word patriotic.
My original post was NOT directed at American soldiers, it was directed soldiers and church, I will explain better when I get to the part about religion. War is not to be praised, we can appreciate the courage and good intentions of those who fought under the belief that they were being patriotic and I do; however, that does not mean that I must agree with war, any war. I have come to believe that Gandhi's was the best.
In college I had a friend, he had been forced into the military at 14 and sent to Mozambique. He watched pregnant women be bayoneted, he witnessed it. He was in the Portuguese army. He deserted because he couldn't participate in it any more, was he unpatriotic? We glorify war way too much. We talk about war in terms of the soldier who jumped on the hand grenade and ignore the atrocities done on every side.
The issue is not someone's uncle, brother, cousin or even themselves. It is about war. It is about putting a bullet in someone's head and watching it split, their brains spill out and their life end so that Exxon can make more money. I have known way to many soldiers who 40 and 50 years later still could not bring themselves to discuss what they had seen or done. Too many come away from war knowing that we should not have been there.
As for God, he said that he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. That doesn't sound like we should make it a way of life. Our appreciation for individuals who believe they are protecting their family should not be used to justify the politicians and industrial companies getting our families to do the fighting for the benefit of the politicians and companies.
A simple question, if the citizens or soldiers got to vote on when to go to war, would we have more wars or fewer? The war we are in right now is so wrong that the government is fearful of ex-soldiers becoming terrorists after returning to the United States. That is contained in a pamphlet distributed by the FBI to local authorities. The government is afraid of the soldiers who are patriotic, what does that say about the war?
How many sons and daughters of your congressional members are fighting in Iraq, last I heard was one. How patriotic is your congress?
I read too many posts across the net from fools calling for us to "bomb into nonexistence" whatever country annoys them. I have read Muslims and Americans say kill them all. They do not even stop to think, "them all", includes children who just want to grow up. Knee jerk morons who risk nothing. They incite rather than solve. Then comes justification afterwards, we say "we thought he had weapons of mass destruction" or "he would have had them eventually" or whatever garbage takes the guilt away.
War is not a video game, it is not an adventure movie and it is not glorious. The sooner we stop looking at it in that manner and the more likely we are to be more cautious before engaging in it.
As far as my church goes. Non-active ex-military people should not be in uniform in the church. The church should not support war. If the church wishes to support SOLDIERS, then it should go to the Veterans Hospital and support them or raise money for them and their families, not glorify the idea of being a soldier, not promote war.
When the Iraq war began, there were many reservists who said they didn't think they would be asked to go to war, they were just trying to make some money on the weekends. Anytime you train to use a gun to KILL people you better figure you may be asked to.
I was one of those brainwashed, patriotic kids. I was Navy ROTC, wrote on "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" in Law School and was offered a commission in the military. Hey, I was all set to be a professional soldier. What changed my mind over the years was talking to people in the military. The story from all of them was pretty much the same, war is a bad idea and usually done for the wrong reasons. Many remained patriotic but disgusted with how the wars were conducted.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Arrogance
There is a online magazine called Skeptico. It's main purpose is to discredit anyone who disagrees with the "experts". To see the attitude of scientists please read the following short posting.
You are not an expert so shut up.
Basically he says that unless you are a acknowledged expert you should not question them. Do not think for yourself, you are not qualified. He says it is not you place to question scientists about global warming and presumably anything else. Well, he can kiss my little white rump. THINK FOR YOURSELF BUT RESEARCH. I am not impressed by scientists telling us to be sheep. That is not their place.
You are not an expert so shut up.
Basically he says that unless you are a acknowledged expert you should not question them. Do not think for yourself, you are not qualified. He says it is not you place to question scientists about global warming and presumably anything else. Well, he can kiss my little white rump. THINK FOR YOURSELF BUT RESEARCH. I am not impressed by scientists telling us to be sheep. That is not their place.
Something woke me up
I couldn't tell you what it was; but, I woke up at 3 o'clock. I decided to have a cigarette and check my e-mail. I scanned the London Times and found this.
Scientists and Abortion
The link will be gone in a day. The London Times, front page says that scientists have "authoritative" information proving that foetuses cannot feel pain. They say the information comes just in time as some people are trying to restrict abortions. How fortunate for those in favor of abortion. Those scientists sure know how to have timely information.
This is not about abortion, I am against killing living things. Science defines life as an organism that has certain properties, growth. If it grows it is alive. Growth for humans starts at conception, that is science. It has nothing to do with abortion, it is just science, real science. Some scientists support abortion, that is okay; but, to then twist science to achieve a goal is hypocrisy.
Scientists do not know when babies begin having sensation, they cannot even tell you what awareness is. Nobody knows what you feel we can only go by what you tell us and people lie. There are no "authoritative" sources.
Scientists and Abortion
The link will be gone in a day. The London Times, front page says that scientists have "authoritative" information proving that foetuses cannot feel pain. They say the information comes just in time as some people are trying to restrict abortions. How fortunate for those in favor of abortion. Those scientists sure know how to have timely information.
This is not about abortion, I am against killing living things. Science defines life as an organism that has certain properties, growth. If it grows it is alive. Growth for humans starts at conception, that is science. It has nothing to do with abortion, it is just science, real science. Some scientists support abortion, that is okay; but, to then twist science to achieve a goal is hypocrisy.
Scientists do not know when babies begin having sensation, they cannot even tell you what awareness is. Nobody knows what you feel we can only go by what you tell us and people lie. There are no "authoritative" sources.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Patriotism and God
Consider this a gripe post. I was reading something and it posed the following questions.
"Do you believe patriotism and belief in God are synonymous? If not, why not?
Do you believe the phrase “Under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
Does the phrase “Under God” make it appear that the USA only welcomes people who believe in God?
I wish to answer the questions. Patriotism and God are not synonymous. When asked about a tax, Jesus held up a coin and asked whose picture was on the coin. They answered that it was of Caesar. Jesus replied, give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and give unto God that which is Gods. That does not sound synonymous. Jesus told us to be good slaves, he did not tell us to love the state.
Should the phrase "under God" be removed from the pledge of allegiance? No, the pledge should be abolished. We are told not to swear to anything or by anything. I will not take an oath to this or any other nation. My allegiance is to God.
The question of whether or not having a pledge that includes the phrase "under God" and to whether or not it makes non-religious people feel unwelcome is silly. Plenty of them come her who are not spiritual or are of non-Christian religions. Muslims, Hindus, atheists and just about anyone else coming to America already knows it is primarily a Christian believing nation. Still I wouldn't make anyone take a pledge.
I attended a church that once a year would honor our soldiers. I stopped attending. I did not care for them having military uniformed people parade inside the church. This may sound strange coming from someone in a military family. I honor all of our military that go into it with the belief that they are protecting their country; but, Christ was against war. He said he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. I am not for using the church to promote militarism.
I believe it is the state's place, if it so chooses, to give military parades, not the churches. God let Israel be overtaken in war and put into subjugation more than once. I do not respect the statement during war that "God is on our side", we need to not blame him when we do what we want. He is not to blame for our choices.
"Do you believe patriotism and belief in God are synonymous? If not, why not?
Do you believe the phrase “Under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
Does the phrase “Under God” make it appear that the USA only welcomes people who believe in God?
I wish to answer the questions. Patriotism and God are not synonymous. When asked about a tax, Jesus held up a coin and asked whose picture was on the coin. They answered that it was of Caesar. Jesus replied, give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and give unto God that which is Gods. That does not sound synonymous. Jesus told us to be good slaves, he did not tell us to love the state.
Should the phrase "under God" be removed from the pledge of allegiance? No, the pledge should be abolished. We are told not to swear to anything or by anything. I will not take an oath to this or any other nation. My allegiance is to God.
The question of whether or not having a pledge that includes the phrase "under God" and to whether or not it makes non-religious people feel unwelcome is silly. Plenty of them come her who are not spiritual or are of non-Christian religions. Muslims, Hindus, atheists and just about anyone else coming to America already knows it is primarily a Christian believing nation. Still I wouldn't make anyone take a pledge.
I attended a church that once a year would honor our soldiers. I stopped attending. I did not care for them having military uniformed people parade inside the church. This may sound strange coming from someone in a military family. I honor all of our military that go into it with the belief that they are protecting their country; but, Christ was against war. He said he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. I am not for using the church to promote militarism.
I believe it is the state's place, if it so chooses, to give military parades, not the churches. God let Israel be overtaken in war and put into subjugation more than once. I do not respect the statement during war that "God is on our side", we need to not blame him when we do what we want. He is not to blame for our choices.
Not really picking on science
I may sound as if I am against science, I am not. I am against scientists being given credit for a truth they do not know. Whenever something unusual happens we turn to the experts and scientists to give us answers that will not force us to adjust our world view, we want it simple and satisfying. Life and truth are not simple and often not satisfying or comforting.
We are moving from a technological age into a new era. The internet creates a web of thoughts and beliefs. It is grandly expansive in its nature. A repository for all thought which is then organized into our shared awareness. This presents a fundamental change in the exchange of information and experience.
Today, a man walking in the Amazon forest, completely separated from other people can twitter about his experience. School children can participate in his experience, real time. In the next year of so that same man will be able to video his experience in real time 3D and you can be in a room where you have an identical 3D experience. That is something that could not be conceived of 50 years ago.
The internet explodes with ideas and thoughts and beliefs. Many are ill thought or simply wrong. Others are contrary; but, all have some truth even if only the truth of the writers. I am not saying they are correct, I am saying they have some truth, there is a difference.
I will use 9-11 as an example. 100 years ago if something happened in New York, it would be reported in the newspaper and people in the rest of the world would accept it as truth. Today, instead of having one source for the truth, we have millions of opinions and perspectives on the event. People then take sides and there is no limitation on the number of sides that can be taken.
The internet is creating a general unravelling of consensus. I think that is a good thing to a degree. The past generation or partial present if you prefer, is attempting to maintain control over "the truth". Scientists are being questioned and they do not like it. They seek to maintain their image of being the experts. The climategate documents showed that the scientists were hiding information that contradicted what they were saying about climate change. It showed that they did not have all the answers so they ignored the data they did not like. That is what scientists do with anomalies, ignore them.
The God Particle (I really recommend you check out this website) is a required anomaly. If they prove it does not exist then all of modern physics is proven wrong. If they prove it exists than all of modern physics is wrong. Either way, it proves science does not hold all the answers and cannot explain the most fundamental things.
Scientists are attempting to come to grips with realities that do not conform to any of the rules. Things that cannot be explained physically or mechanically. They had attempted to answer the universe with what is known as the string theory. In essence it was an attempt to reconcile the fact that the rules change on a subatomic level. There are two sets of mechanical rules and they contradict each other. The string theory ended up with physicists claiming their were an unlimited number of alternate realities. ROFL. It became a spiritual argument.
On a spiritual level it is a question of how can we all be different and all be connected. As these theories spread, they mutated into the non physics world. Millions of people read books on these theories and it spread into how they interpreted real life events and awareness. In fact, if you read new age or mystery religion writings you will find an attempt to use the explanations of physics to prove a single united consciousness.
Many years ago I saw William Peter Blatty on television. He was talking about a sequel he had written to "The Exorcist". He proposed that we were all one, that there was just one God. He said God had made himself schizophrenic, that he had split himself into multiple personalities and that we were all part of him. He then proposed that life was about reassembling ourselves into God. Trying to become one again united, the same, one consciousness.
Within physics is quite a lot of discussion regarding duality of theories. This is the same discussion had by mystery schools regarding consciousness. The problem for both is that free will cannot exist for their beliefs to be true. That is why sentience is such an annoyance to them and is disregarded as illusion; but, even illusion requires sentience. It is as if they want to tell us that the physical is real and we are not, we are merely mechanical reactions to various stimuli.
The study of psychology and it's misuse are an attempt to prove that we merely react to events and that those reactions can be predicted and will follow a set of rules. Forgiveness and grace go against those rules. The rules say that we will chase cookies and avoid pain. The guy who jumps on a hand grenade to save his friend goes against the predictability model.
We are moving from a technological age into a new era. The internet creates a web of thoughts and beliefs. It is grandly expansive in its nature. A repository for all thought which is then organized into our shared awareness. This presents a fundamental change in the exchange of information and experience.
Today, a man walking in the Amazon forest, completely separated from other people can twitter about his experience. School children can participate in his experience, real time. In the next year of so that same man will be able to video his experience in real time 3D and you can be in a room where you have an identical 3D experience. That is something that could not be conceived of 50 years ago.
The internet explodes with ideas and thoughts and beliefs. Many are ill thought or simply wrong. Others are contrary; but, all have some truth even if only the truth of the writers. I am not saying they are correct, I am saying they have some truth, there is a difference.
I will use 9-11 as an example. 100 years ago if something happened in New York, it would be reported in the newspaper and people in the rest of the world would accept it as truth. Today, instead of having one source for the truth, we have millions of opinions and perspectives on the event. People then take sides and there is no limitation on the number of sides that can be taken.
The internet is creating a general unravelling of consensus. I think that is a good thing to a degree. The past generation or partial present if you prefer, is attempting to maintain control over "the truth". Scientists are being questioned and they do not like it. They seek to maintain their image of being the experts. The climategate documents showed that the scientists were hiding information that contradicted what they were saying about climate change. It showed that they did not have all the answers so they ignored the data they did not like. That is what scientists do with anomalies, ignore them.
The God Particle (I really recommend you check out this website) is a required anomaly. If they prove it does not exist then all of modern physics is proven wrong. If they prove it exists than all of modern physics is wrong. Either way, it proves science does not hold all the answers and cannot explain the most fundamental things.
Scientists are attempting to come to grips with realities that do not conform to any of the rules. Things that cannot be explained physically or mechanically. They had attempted to answer the universe with what is known as the string theory. In essence it was an attempt to reconcile the fact that the rules change on a subatomic level. There are two sets of mechanical rules and they contradict each other. The string theory ended up with physicists claiming their were an unlimited number of alternate realities. ROFL. It became a spiritual argument.
On a spiritual level it is a question of how can we all be different and all be connected. As these theories spread, they mutated into the non physics world. Millions of people read books on these theories and it spread into how they interpreted real life events and awareness. In fact, if you read new age or mystery religion writings you will find an attempt to use the explanations of physics to prove a single united consciousness.
Many years ago I saw William Peter Blatty on television. He was talking about a sequel he had written to "The Exorcist". He proposed that we were all one, that there was just one God. He said God had made himself schizophrenic, that he had split himself into multiple personalities and that we were all part of him. He then proposed that life was about reassembling ourselves into God. Trying to become one again united, the same, one consciousness.
Within physics is quite a lot of discussion regarding duality of theories. This is the same discussion had by mystery schools regarding consciousness. The problem for both is that free will cannot exist for their beliefs to be true. That is why sentience is such an annoyance to them and is disregarded as illusion; but, even illusion requires sentience. It is as if they want to tell us that the physical is real and we are not, we are merely mechanical reactions to various stimuli.
The study of psychology and it's misuse are an attempt to prove that we merely react to events and that those reactions can be predicted and will follow a set of rules. Forgiveness and grace go against those rules. The rules say that we will chase cookies and avoid pain. The guy who jumps on a hand grenade to save his friend goes against the predictability model.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The God Particle
Awhile back I read about how scientists had created the Large Hadron Collider in hopes of creating the "God Particle". It is a particle that sort of proves nothing real exists. By that it mean, it explains why things that do not have mass, have mass. A famous scientist who wrote a book on the Higgs Boson or God Particle, has a line in his book, "Nothing exists except atoms and space, everything else is opinion". That is exactly what a scientist would say. I have said this before, to scientists we are the illusion.
Sentience does not make sense in a material world, to material world lovers and spiritual life haters. Self awareness eludes the physical world. They attempt to prove that the physical can exist and conceptually, it cannot. A "real" world is not a possibility for sentient beings. It is a joke, physical reality is the only illusion.
The Higgs Boson or God particle proves exists if they find it or not. The search for it logically proves nothing exists except spiritually, awareness wise. The scientists have said that they have already proved that mass should not exist. If mass should not exist than the physical world cannot exist except as a image in our mind. If they do create the particle, same problem. The particle proves that nothing physical can exist.
I apologize to the readers especially if they are not familiar with quantum physics. I am trying really hard to explain it as simply and directly as possible. The Big Bang only makes sense if you can explain how mass, matter came from nothing. The God Particle is the attempt at that explanation. That is why they call it the God Particle, it is the God that proves that a physical world can exist. If found it will only prove that the physical world cannot exist. It is a joke.
All of physics, as we know it, changes if the particle is found. It proves that reality cannot be physical. When they created the Large Hadron Collider to find the particle, everything that could go wrong did. Scientists working at the lab said it was as if God was coming from the future to stop us from finishing the collider.
The scientists have come to an end to the theories they have put forth and have no others. Quantum physics was a necessary farce. The problem that was encountered by scientists is that all of the most fundamental rules fail on a subatomic level. Quantum physics attempts to explain the reason for this. The God Particle is the end of the explanation.
Consider that the manner in which physical elements act on a subatomic level is different then the manner they interact on an atomic level and higher. As a consequence, we had to create a whole new field of science. Quantum physics. Now they have justify their existence and the God particle is the only way; however, once proven it violates all of regular physics no matter the answer.
The problem has always been gravity. It cannot be as weak as it is and have object react to it the way that they do. This has been known for a very long time. There is not enough mass, gravity, to justify planets, people or atoms from reacting to each other in the manner they do. Either everything should have stayed together (no big bang) or everything should be flying apart at a faster speed based on the amount of gravity exerted.
The scientist who wrote the book about it said they had wanted to call it that goddamn particle. There is a reason. Now let us consider the consequences. LOL.
What if tomorrow the world wakes up to the headline that science has proven that nothing physical can exist, heck it proved that bees could not fly. Given it's track record, science will probably prove that pigs could if they really want to. Descartes proved science silly, he said, "I think therefore I am". Logic is greater than all science. I am. The scientist says only matter is real. Having said that, no matter what anyone "proves" they cannot prove that I do not exist. Apparently the scientists can prove that reality does not. They will still be wrong.
Matter cannot be explained by science and the God Particle necessity to prove their scientific findings proves that. It proves that reality cannot be explained except on philosophical grounds. If they cannot explain why their rules contradict each other than they are left with the answer, "Because God made it that way". I don't think they like that answer, although, more quantum physicists are spiritual than non-quantum physicists. The physicists need to have a God Particle proves that we are spiritual beings having a perceived physical experience.
Now what happens when people discover they are spiritual beings and that this universe, this reality is not possible? How do we begin seeing ourselves? There will be a couple of main camps. One will say that we are all one, the same, split personalities. The other will say we are multiple, unique beings sharing an experience; but, still distinct.
Science has proudly proven that we cannot trust our sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. They constantly tell us how these senses can be fooled and then attempt to prove that by using these senses they can prove such things. On a subatomic level, everything is as God wants it to act, it follows his rules, not science and can be explained no other way.
Sentience does not make sense in a material world, to material world lovers and spiritual life haters. Self awareness eludes the physical world. They attempt to prove that the physical can exist and conceptually, it cannot. A "real" world is not a possibility for sentient beings. It is a joke, physical reality is the only illusion.
The Higgs Boson or God particle proves exists if they find it or not. The search for it logically proves nothing exists except spiritually, awareness wise. The scientists have said that they have already proved that mass should not exist. If mass should not exist than the physical world cannot exist except as a image in our mind. If they do create the particle, same problem. The particle proves that nothing physical can exist.
I apologize to the readers especially if they are not familiar with quantum physics. I am trying really hard to explain it as simply and directly as possible. The Big Bang only makes sense if you can explain how mass, matter came from nothing. The God Particle is the attempt at that explanation. That is why they call it the God Particle, it is the God that proves that a physical world can exist. If found it will only prove that the physical world cannot exist. It is a joke.
All of physics, as we know it, changes if the particle is found. It proves that reality cannot be physical. When they created the Large Hadron Collider to find the particle, everything that could go wrong did. Scientists working at the lab said it was as if God was coming from the future to stop us from finishing the collider.
The scientists have come to an end to the theories they have put forth and have no others. Quantum physics was a necessary farce. The problem that was encountered by scientists is that all of the most fundamental rules fail on a subatomic level. Quantum physics attempts to explain the reason for this. The God Particle is the end of the explanation.
Consider that the manner in which physical elements act on a subatomic level is different then the manner they interact on an atomic level and higher. As a consequence, we had to create a whole new field of science. Quantum physics. Now they have justify their existence and the God particle is the only way; however, once proven it violates all of regular physics no matter the answer.
The problem has always been gravity. It cannot be as weak as it is and have object react to it the way that they do. This has been known for a very long time. There is not enough mass, gravity, to justify planets, people or atoms from reacting to each other in the manner they do. Either everything should have stayed together (no big bang) or everything should be flying apart at a faster speed based on the amount of gravity exerted.
The scientist who wrote the book about it said they had wanted to call it that goddamn particle. There is a reason. Now let us consider the consequences. LOL.
What if tomorrow the world wakes up to the headline that science has proven that nothing physical can exist, heck it proved that bees could not fly. Given it's track record, science will probably prove that pigs could if they really want to. Descartes proved science silly, he said, "I think therefore I am". Logic is greater than all science. I am. The scientist says only matter is real. Having said that, no matter what anyone "proves" they cannot prove that I do not exist. Apparently the scientists can prove that reality does not. They will still be wrong.
Matter cannot be explained by science and the God Particle necessity to prove their scientific findings proves that. It proves that reality cannot be explained except on philosophical grounds. If they cannot explain why their rules contradict each other than they are left with the answer, "Because God made it that way". I don't think they like that answer, although, more quantum physicists are spiritual than non-quantum physicists. The physicists need to have a God Particle proves that we are spiritual beings having a perceived physical experience.
Now what happens when people discover they are spiritual beings and that this universe, this reality is not possible? How do we begin seeing ourselves? There will be a couple of main camps. One will say that we are all one, the same, split personalities. The other will say we are multiple, unique beings sharing an experience; but, still distinct.
Science has proudly proven that we cannot trust our sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. They constantly tell us how these senses can be fooled and then attempt to prove that by using these senses they can prove such things. On a subatomic level, everything is as God wants it to act, it follows his rules, not science and can be explained no other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)