Do you know the difference between philosophy and science? Philosophy starts from know fact and science starts from guesses. You don't want to believe that but it is true. Can you truly be sure of the distance between stars or is it an estimate? Explain to me why mass has more gravity than all of our math and science believes it should. Explain to me the difference between observation and experience, it is why time is not relative, only observationally so.
Let us play a game. If I observe a sun explode today and know that it took the light a billion years to reach me (my observation) then the star exploded billion years ago. Time (observational) here and there proceeded at the same speed as always, it just appeared to be at different times based on where the observer was. Time does not actually speed up or slow down anymore than light does, it is just observed at a different time. Time, by common usage, is an observational experience. This discussion is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy grapples with what we can prove to ourselves and science is based on observations of things that we cannot prove. Science is based upon the belief that you cannot KNOW a thing. Philosophy is based upon the fact that I can know I am. When you start denying that you exist, you can make up any lie that you feel comfortable with.
Now to the absolute best science seminar I have ever seen. I like science, I just think it has a problem with consciousness and that is foolishness.
YouTube - Professor Brian Cox Lecture on the universe.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Lights and Lies
Earlier today I watched a report on how for this week planes going into LAX after midnight would have to enter from the east over communities rather than from the west over the ocean. The claim was that the military would be conducting tests over the ocean; but, the reason was not given. Fair enough, strange and unusual; but, okay. The military would not say what the purpose of the tests were. People living in the cities where the planes would be diverted seemed to accept it well enough.
Here is where it gets a little strange. Tonight a blue light was seen moving across the sky from Mexico to San Francisco and could even be seen from parts of Nevada. Here are some videos of it.
NBC Los Angeles - Bright Light in Sky: UFOs or Gov. Cover-Up; Twitter Users Speculate.
YouTube - Strange lights over los angeles UFO.
The military has claimed that the lights seen over the sky was a test of a trident missile that was launched from a submarine. Why? If the missile was submarine based, why not launch it from further out at sea, why do it in an area that forces planes to be rerouted from LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world. Here is the next question, why force the planes to reroute for a whole week? Will they continue launching missiles all week? Also, why reroute the planes after midnight when the test was done around 7:00 in the evening? Finally, why the secrecy? Why didn't the military say they would be launching missiles to test them? It's not as if they were going to go unnoticed especially after they notified LAX and residents that they would be rerouting air traffic. I guess we will have to see what is in the sky all of next week.
UPDATE:
This was NOT a UFO and I do not understand why the media reported it as such or claimed that people were freaked out, they were not. It was a missile and immediately reported as such. The real question has to do with why they rerouted air traffic for the whole week and why the military didn't just say they were going to be testing rockets in the area or better yet, why they tested it in the area in the first place.
Here is where it gets a little strange. Tonight a blue light was seen moving across the sky from Mexico to San Francisco and could even be seen from parts of Nevada. Here are some videos of it.
NBC Los Angeles - Bright Light in Sky: UFOs or Gov. Cover-Up; Twitter Users Speculate.
YouTube - Strange lights over los angeles UFO.
The military has claimed that the lights seen over the sky was a test of a trident missile that was launched from a submarine. Why? If the missile was submarine based, why not launch it from further out at sea, why do it in an area that forces planes to be rerouted from LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world. Here is the next question, why force the planes to reroute for a whole week? Will they continue launching missiles all week? Also, why reroute the planes after midnight when the test was done around 7:00 in the evening? Finally, why the secrecy? Why didn't the military say they would be launching missiles to test them? It's not as if they were going to go unnoticed especially after they notified LAX and residents that they would be rerouting air traffic. I guess we will have to see what is in the sky all of next week.
UPDATE:
This was NOT a UFO and I do not understand why the media reported it as such or claimed that people were freaked out, they were not. It was a missile and immediately reported as such. The real question has to do with why they rerouted air traffic for the whole week and why the military didn't just say they were going to be testing rockets in the area or better yet, why they tested it in the area in the first place.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Funny Songs For You
YouTube - Cows With Guns
YouTube - Frank Gallop - The Ballad Of Irving (1966)
YouTube - The Frantics - Boot to the Head - 16. Ti Kwan Leep.
YouTube - Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive).
YouTube - Kinko the Clown- Ogden Edsel - On the Dr. Demento show.
YouTube - Cheech and Chong: Earache my Eye.
YouTube - "ROCK ME JERRY LEWIS" - Mike Elliot and Bud LaTour.
YouTube - Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face (1981).
YouTube - Larry Groce - Junk Food Junkie (1976)
YouTube - Rose and the Arrangement - The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati.
YouTube - Pico & Sepulveda.
YouTube - Get A Load Of This.
YouTube - Friendly Neighborhood Narco Agent - Jeff Jaisun.
Enjoy the silliness.
YouTube - Frank Gallop - The Ballad Of Irving (1966)
YouTube - The Frantics - Boot to the Head - 16. Ti Kwan Leep.
YouTube - Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive).
YouTube - Kinko the Clown- Ogden Edsel - On the Dr. Demento show.
YouTube - Cheech and Chong: Earache my Eye.
YouTube - "ROCK ME JERRY LEWIS" - Mike Elliot and Bud LaTour.
YouTube - Joe Dolce - Shaddap You Face (1981).
YouTube - Larry Groce - Junk Food Junkie (1976)
YouTube - Rose and the Arrangement - The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati.
YouTube - Pico & Sepulveda.
YouTube - Get A Load Of This.
YouTube - Friendly Neighborhood Narco Agent - Jeff Jaisun.
Enjoy the silliness.
Are Kings Better Than Dictators?
I was watching a series of videos about the Spanish Civil War and found it interesting that the Spanish dictator that came out of that war was originally a monarchist. That got me thinking about how the western nations refer to bad people as dictators. A dictator is someone who took control of a country by force and doesn't let people decide on who is in charge. I then thought how hypocritical it is of politicians in Great Britain to speak about dictators in a negative while accepting a monarchy.
Why can't we vote for a king for four years and then vote again? Why can't the English vote on who their monarch should be? How can a king or queen call someone else a dictator? As bad as Hitler was, the people of Germany actually had a say in his getting the job. England doesn't even vote on who gets to be in the House of Lords.
I am sorry; but, the fact that someone's great, great, great, great, great grandfather killed all the competition does not entitle the queen to own anything. Monarchies are just institutionalized slavery and that is the same issue we have with dictators. How is the queen of England any different than Kim Jong Un of North Korea, both inherited leadership of their countries. Should anyone have the right to inherit a nation of people or even a city of people or even one person?
If you are a conservative then my question is simple. Do you believe in dictatorships and monarchies? If you do not then my next question is, how much should someone be allowed to inherit? See if you don't believe in monarchies or dictatorships then you do believe there are limits to what one can acquire through inheritance. You know in England the people get wildly excited when one of the royals is pregnant because they want to know who their next dictator might be. Perhaps you think my calling the queen a dictator gives her more power than she deserves. Well, look back a couple of years ago when the queen of England locked the Canadian parliament out of their parliament. Yep, and she did that without any vote in England or Canada giving her that authority, it already existed and she had her representative in Canada to do it. Our forefathers came here to get away from that, not recreate it.
Most of my readers are conservative and I know that. It is for that reason that I ask the questions that I do because I am conservative too; but, not foolish or dogmatic. I believe in what is best for this country, not what is best for me. This nation is supposed to be for the majority, not the few or the one. So what is in the best interest of the majority of us? Aristotle did not separate governments into what they did; but, instead into how they decided what they did. He saw three types of governments, ones controlled by one person, ones controlled by a few people and ones controlled by the majority and ones controlled by the majority he called democracies. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic structures, not types of governments. Did you know that most Polynesian groups were communistic and had monarchies? One person ruled the country; but, everyone shared as needed.
My political science professors wanted me to teach about Polynesia, there weren't a lot of experts on the politics of Polynesia and there still aren't. Many Polynesian cultures were meritocracies, you earned your right to lead. At the same time, you were expected not to show off. The Polynesians did not accept outliers, they shunned them. They believed in harmony. The are probably the best example of what Plato thought the perfect government would be.
If you do not know who Plato or Aristotle are then I can only say that they are the basis for modern democracies and philosophical thought. In fact, all the great philosophers believed in either meritocracies or democracy. None believed in a world based on inherited authority or wealth. If you are a Christian then answer this question, does the bible say that the trust fund babies shall inherit the earth? Clearly I am being sarcastic as it does not say that.
I hope something I said made someone at least ask themselves something new. I think if I am going to write, I should at least get you to think. Be well.
Why can't we vote for a king for four years and then vote again? Why can't the English vote on who their monarch should be? How can a king or queen call someone else a dictator? As bad as Hitler was, the people of Germany actually had a say in his getting the job. England doesn't even vote on who gets to be in the House of Lords.
I am sorry; but, the fact that someone's great, great, great, great, great grandfather killed all the competition does not entitle the queen to own anything. Monarchies are just institutionalized slavery and that is the same issue we have with dictators. How is the queen of England any different than Kim Jong Un of North Korea, both inherited leadership of their countries. Should anyone have the right to inherit a nation of people or even a city of people or even one person?
If you are a conservative then my question is simple. Do you believe in dictatorships and monarchies? If you do not then my next question is, how much should someone be allowed to inherit? See if you don't believe in monarchies or dictatorships then you do believe there are limits to what one can acquire through inheritance. You know in England the people get wildly excited when one of the royals is pregnant because they want to know who their next dictator might be. Perhaps you think my calling the queen a dictator gives her more power than she deserves. Well, look back a couple of years ago when the queen of England locked the Canadian parliament out of their parliament. Yep, and she did that without any vote in England or Canada giving her that authority, it already existed and she had her representative in Canada to do it. Our forefathers came here to get away from that, not recreate it.
Most of my readers are conservative and I know that. It is for that reason that I ask the questions that I do because I am conservative too; but, not foolish or dogmatic. I believe in what is best for this country, not what is best for me. This nation is supposed to be for the majority, not the few or the one. So what is in the best interest of the majority of us? Aristotle did not separate governments into what they did; but, instead into how they decided what they did. He saw three types of governments, ones controlled by one person, ones controlled by a few people and ones controlled by the majority and ones controlled by the majority he called democracies. Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are economic structures, not types of governments. Did you know that most Polynesian groups were communistic and had monarchies? One person ruled the country; but, everyone shared as needed.
My political science professors wanted me to teach about Polynesia, there weren't a lot of experts on the politics of Polynesia and there still aren't. Many Polynesian cultures were meritocracies, you earned your right to lead. At the same time, you were expected not to show off. The Polynesians did not accept outliers, they shunned them. They believed in harmony. The are probably the best example of what Plato thought the perfect government would be.
If you do not know who Plato or Aristotle are then I can only say that they are the basis for modern democracies and philosophical thought. In fact, all the great philosophers believed in either meritocracies or democracy. None believed in a world based on inherited authority or wealth. If you are a Christian then answer this question, does the bible say that the trust fund babies shall inherit the earth? Clearly I am being sarcastic as it does not say that.
I hope something I said made someone at least ask themselves something new. I think if I am going to write, I should at least get you to think. Be well.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Lies and World War I
I don't think most people understand what World War I was about; but, it is a history that should not be repeated. Prior to World War I the nations of Europe were competing over which of them would have the most influence in Africa, Asia and the Pacific (and to a lesser extent in South America). Basically the European countries were busy stealing land in Africa and Asia and the thing that prevented a continual war in all the countries was the alliances they made amongst themselves. It came down to if one of your treaty partners was attacked then you automatically fought with them.
Well, the king of Austria was killed by an anarchist from Serbia and all hell broke loose. One of the biggest factors for the war was Europe's wish to split up the Ottoman Empire. Little discussed now, it was a major force in Europe and Arabia for hundreds of years. After World War I it would cease to exist as would Russia which became the Soviet Union. After the king was killed, Austria attacked Serbia. Many believed that Austria was trying to make inroads against the Ottoman empire and that the killing of the king provided a convenient excuse; but, because of all the treaties the war pulled in the rest of Europe. World War I was not a religious war, it was simply a war to split up the spoils of older empires.
As for America, we had no reason to join in the fight and most people did not want to go to "Europe's War". The war began in 1914 and America did not join in until April 1917. Now most people think the United States joined the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania; but, that is not quite correct. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 almost two years before we entered the war. In fact, Wilson was re-elected in 1916 because he kept us out of the war. Just before we declared war on Germany it was discovered that Germany was offering to pay for Mexico to attack the United States to take back the land we had stolen from them (California, Texas and Arizona). I should point out that there is no evidence at all that Mexico had any plans on doing what Germany wanted.
As far as the Lusitania goes, it was not an American ship, it was a British ship during wartime which was most likely carrying arms from the United States. You see, even though we claimed to be uninvolved, we were selling weapons to more than one European country. We made a lot of money from that war. We also enslaved our own people by conducting a draft and forcing people in to the military. Wait, it gets better, it was made illegal to say that the draft or the war was wrong. It was a war we didn't want to join by a president who was elected on the promise not to get us into war and yet it was illegal to argue against it.
Most Americans think Germany started the war, they didn't. Most Americans think we went to war over the sinking of the Lusitania, we didn't. The President of the United States promised it would be the last war, it wasn't.
Well, the king of Austria was killed by an anarchist from Serbia and all hell broke loose. One of the biggest factors for the war was Europe's wish to split up the Ottoman Empire. Little discussed now, it was a major force in Europe and Arabia for hundreds of years. After World War I it would cease to exist as would Russia which became the Soviet Union. After the king was killed, Austria attacked Serbia. Many believed that Austria was trying to make inroads against the Ottoman empire and that the killing of the king provided a convenient excuse; but, because of all the treaties the war pulled in the rest of Europe. World War I was not a religious war, it was simply a war to split up the spoils of older empires.
As for America, we had no reason to join in the fight and most people did not want to go to "Europe's War". The war began in 1914 and America did not join in until April 1917. Now most people think the United States joined the war because of the sinking of the Lusitania; but, that is not quite correct. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 almost two years before we entered the war. In fact, Wilson was re-elected in 1916 because he kept us out of the war. Just before we declared war on Germany it was discovered that Germany was offering to pay for Mexico to attack the United States to take back the land we had stolen from them (California, Texas and Arizona). I should point out that there is no evidence at all that Mexico had any plans on doing what Germany wanted.
As far as the Lusitania goes, it was not an American ship, it was a British ship during wartime which was most likely carrying arms from the United States. You see, even though we claimed to be uninvolved, we were selling weapons to more than one European country. We made a lot of money from that war. We also enslaved our own people by conducting a draft and forcing people in to the military. Wait, it gets better, it was made illegal to say that the draft or the war was wrong. It was a war we didn't want to join by a president who was elected on the promise not to get us into war and yet it was illegal to argue against it.
Most Americans think Germany started the war, they didn't. Most Americans think we went to war over the sinking of the Lusitania, we didn't. The President of the United States promised it would be the last war, it wasn't.
J.P. Morgan and their IPO
I don't trust JP Morgan. I don't trust them because they have plead guilty to rigging just about every financial market there is to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in fines. This recent story makes me think they are about to sell average investors and little guys some major snake oil.
Yahoo - Why J.P. Morgan IPO Access is a Huge Deal for Regular Investors.
When a company decides to "go public" or sell stock on one of the exchanges (like the Dow Jones) they make what is called an IPO or Initial Public Offering. When an IPO is set, the price of the stock is also set. This initial rate may or may not be met; but, usually the stock will increase for the first 90 days or so. For quite awhile now certain large or institutional investors were allowed to buy the stock for the set rate the day before the actual public could buy the stock.
A simple example of this might be In and Out Burger deciding that they want to sell stock in their company. The company decides that they want to raise $100,000,000 and they are going to sell 1,000,000 shares at $100 per share. The day before the shares can be purchased on the stock exchange, certain large investors are allowed to buy the stock at the $100 per share. The next day, when the stock is actually publicly traded it will go up or down depending on demand. It is very common to see the stock raise in value in those first 90 days; but, in the past the average person could not buy the stock prior to the IPO. JP Morgan says that for a $250 investment anyone can now buy prior to the IPO so long as JP Morgan has underwritten the IPO.
Why would JP Morgan, a company that is based on fraud and market manipulation, suddenly let the small investor get in on their game and a game that they reserve for their friends. I don't trust them and you should not either.
Yahoo - Why J.P. Morgan IPO Access is a Huge Deal for Regular Investors.
When a company decides to "go public" or sell stock on one of the exchanges (like the Dow Jones) they make what is called an IPO or Initial Public Offering. When an IPO is set, the price of the stock is also set. This initial rate may or may not be met; but, usually the stock will increase for the first 90 days or so. For quite awhile now certain large or institutional investors were allowed to buy the stock for the set rate the day before the actual public could buy the stock.
A simple example of this might be In and Out Burger deciding that they want to sell stock in their company. The company decides that they want to raise $100,000,000 and they are going to sell 1,000,000 shares at $100 per share. The day before the shares can be purchased on the stock exchange, certain large investors are allowed to buy the stock at the $100 per share. The next day, when the stock is actually publicly traded it will go up or down depending on demand. It is very common to see the stock raise in value in those first 90 days; but, in the past the average person could not buy the stock prior to the IPO. JP Morgan says that for a $250 investment anyone can now buy prior to the IPO so long as JP Morgan has underwritten the IPO.
Why would JP Morgan, a company that is based on fraud and market manipulation, suddenly let the small investor get in on their game and a game that they reserve for their friends. I don't trust them and you should not either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)