Our Infinite Universe

I heard on the news that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has passed another barrier, I do not remember now.  I think they said, because it is not fresh in my mind, but I think they said the only piece of the puzzle that still does not fit is the quantum part.  Small things just do not want to fit in with the whole Space Time, curvature of space, gravity, which Einstein’s theory, theorises.  Wow, that was a mouth full.

I always thought this was a simple thing to explain.  I must just not understand it properly, since I do not have a physics degree.  However, surely the simplest answer uses Einstein’s theory, the concept of relativity especially of light, which he used in his thought process.  Nevertheless, the reason quantum theory does not work with Einstein’s theory is because of the perspective we observe it through.  Yes, I have mentioned this before, but surely, it is that simple.  We are the centre of our universe and we see the world and observe it as is.  Then some clever boffin tries to theorise it mathematically.  Now I wonder if we were the size of the atoms and quarks in question would Einstein’s theory work and how would we perceive the world above.  Would it be as we see our world above?

Perhaps there is no way to connect the large with the small.  Imagine the universe is a slide rule; see the ruler there with the slide set at a specific part of the ruler or in our case the universe.  It has set parameters, they never change, but as we look at the slide rule, we know we can move the slide up and down the ruler.  The parameters of the ruler or universe never change, it is only how we perceive them that changes. 

If we use the slide rule effect with Einstein’s theory, we can theoretically move the slide or our perspective up and down the ruler or the universe.  It seems relatively obvious, if you change where you observe the universe, and I mean the whole perspective the slide rule changes also. 

I was not even going to write about that it just popped in my head.  I was going to write about time, but that has now popped out of my head.  I think I was going to talk about personal time, you must have a time clock, that seems obvious, then there is space-time, and I wondered how they affect each other, is it the same thing because in my view the brain is making all time.  The brain creates our reality through the input from our senses. 

Oh another thought…

Why do atoms make us?  There you go that is a left field question.  Are they slaves, with no other purpose than to bind together in complex ways, to make things like us.

What is the purpose?  I know there is the random effect from evolution, but evolution has been going on since whatever it is we exist in, our wonderful universe, did what it did.  Whether you could call it a beginning, I am not sure.  I do not think the universe began; something we are unaware of did it.  What else unknown to us, through the randomness of evolution, what else is out there beyond what we can observe.  Beyond the big bang, an infinite entity, continuously growing, changing, multiplying, diversifying, mutating, dying, creating, and way beyond our understanding or comprehension.  It is the mystifying blend of an incredible substance or entity.  You could say in all honesty that it is magical.

Waffle over.

The World is a Building of Human Catastrophe and Destruction

Perhaps it is just a western problem; perhaps it is not, the world works as an ever-decreasing circle of land, of wealth and opportunity, at least it does for the majority of its population.  Is it just from the perspective of living in Britain, but the western world works to devalue everything, at least everything of meaning, of substance.  I know this is probably obvious, I am sure it is now I think about it; we would not have demonstrations about the one percenters would we.  Which in a way makes it all the worse; we know our fate and still blindly follow.

Why am I writing this I do not know, and I am sure my brain is working overtime on a problem that is impossible to solve.  It must be obvious to everyone that the mechanism will fail eventually.  When everything with meaning is valueless, worth nothing, and I do not mean land prices or superficial nonsense people class as worth, I mean humanity.  I mean when all things worth a true significance are lost, when people have only trash level stimulation as entertainment, without the ability to use their brains effectively.  I mean when they are all slaves to debt and to a worthless job, which gives no gratification, no joy, and no true purpose. 

We are close to the point of no return.

Fear can only contain the masses for so long.  

When the hypnotic lure of worthless, meaningless, crap that people call their lives finally breaks, what will happen then?  In the past the elites, always had plenty to take from the rest of the world.  It has been going on since the dawn of civilisation, but we have reached a point where there will be nothing left to take. 

What happens when they have it all?  When the chosen few have taken everything, stripped the carcass and left only the bare bones, when they have even sucked the marrow leaving only a hollow shell.  The masses will have no choice but to fight back or die, and the less they have, the more they have to gain from biting the master.  That is right we are nothing more than pets, working dogs, told what to do and when to do it.

We are heading down a road to oblivion, it may seem pessimistic to say this but we are.  We are in a terrible mess, locked in a derelict building ready for destruction and at this time, there is no way out.  Fire is burning all around us, red-hot flames scorch the walls, and the heat is rising faster than hell itself.  We are all horded in like animals ready for slaughter, packed in tight, so close we are unable to move, unable to breathe.  It is pitch black, no one can see, yet everyone fears the red glow of the fire.  Most stand there waiting there fate, some struggle to break free, but it is nearly impossible, and it only increases their anxiety, as the heat of flames starts to lightly burn the skin.  Outside we can hear them laughing, the elites, they are all laughing at us, because they think we are stupid.  We are foolish, how could they dupe us so easily.  Without anyone knowing, they have herded everyone, and I mean the whole world, they have pushed everyone into this great building and told us to stay there forever.  Be happy with nothing, and be grateful you are not dead; you owe us your lives and we will take them all, including your soul.  It has taken a long time to get everyone through the doors.  It will take no time for them to close and then for the building to collapse and obliterate everyone.

Yes, it is all doom and gloom again; well what else could one say.  It is a metaphorical paragraph of the world and most of its people, of you and me, of your friends and family.  How long can we stand to be in there?  Will we eventually work as one to smash through the heavy doors, and get out of the catastrophe that is about to befall our world.

A Sign

I saw a sign, a sign today,

It said please just go away,

For if you keep walking towards me,

Then in the end, you’ll lose your sanity,

The sign was large but only I could see it,

Flashing bright lights like a Broadway hit,

I tried to walk around but the route was long,

I tried to shout out but I lost my tongue,

I could not go forwards or to the side,

I could not go over or try to hide,

The only thing left was to go back to the start,

So with a big sigh and a weight in my heart,

I worked my way backwards to the beginning,

In the hope that the next path will end with me winning.

Robot Wars

I saw on the Sky news a couple of days ago, a discussion regarding whether it should be acceptable or even allowed, for countries to create robot, killing machines.  I do not mean the present type of human controlled drones; they were discussing the Terminator type robot.  The man discussing this wanted an outright ban on ever trying to create Terminator type, robot, killing machines, and I have to agree with him.  The female Sky presenter was trying in vain to put forward the argument that there should at least be a discussion and that since at present we were not close to creating such a machine, what harm could it do.  She tried to argue that perhaps it would save lives and stop needless deaths of soldiers.  What a load of bollocks.

“Listen, and understand.  That terminator is out there.  It can't be bargained with.  It can't be reasoned with.  It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.  And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.” – Kyle Reese

This is what might happen should one of the big weapons manufactures produce a viable Terminator.  Firstly, at present if the power situation was the same as today, an American company would probably be the first to produce a viable working Terminator, so the US armed forces would want it immediately.  In fact, I bet they are at present spending mega bucks trying to solve this problem before anyone else.  As with their drones, the US armed forces would be the main purchasers of the US version of the Terminator.  Obviously, America’s main allies would want some too, so Britain, of course we would need them, and whoever else the Americans deem worthy.  Perhaps countries with a less than savoury government might end up with some, I can think of a few of them.  The US would use them in the field against whomever they are pissed off with at the time, and then the whole world would see the effectiveness of Terminator US.

Immediately, the Chinese, Russians, and any other major force at the time would strive to create their versions.  The Germans, Japanese, perhaps even Britain would create a version of the robot, or even parts of a robot, and so initially, we would see a small arms race involving Terminator robots.  Every major power would want to create a quicker, stronger, more powerful, more intelligent Terminator Robot.  They might prove too expensive for one country so the allies might group together to create one and you can guess the rest.

Despots, dictators, and military juntas would use them against their own populations as crowd control.  Fewer soldiers may die once these metal beasts were unleashed on the world, but it would likely decimate civilian populations.

The less scrupulous nations might become a little cocky, and see an incursion against another country as viable, since no soldiers would be lost.  The Russians might take back countries like Chechnya, the Chinese might move on the Siamese peninsula.  North Korea attacks South Korea, war is now like a game of Risk.  Initially it all seems like a success, until someone gets greedy.

If you want to see it from the perspective of a business executive from a large weapons manufacturer – hey it’s now big business making Terminators, the more countries that have them the more profit they make.  Small wars become larger wars there are still few casualties and it might end in a peaceful settlement.  Everyone thinks this is the way to settle differences in the future, machine against machine. 

Unfortunately, nothing was lost or gained, and the whole point of war is either to gain something or not to lose something else.  It might be land, resources, power, influence, whatever it is, robots fighting robots is always likely to end in stalemate, unless one side has more robots than the other.  If one side has more, then the losing side is still going to have to use soldiers to continue the fight.  Perhaps robots, with the latest microchips would beat older models, and that is the deciding factor.  Eventually it would all lead to human deaths, and they would escalate.  Deaths to civilians would intensify, Terminators would only kill, they would have no empathy towards the human lives lost.  If a country sends in its legions of killing machines, I am sure their programming would not distinguish between human and killing machine.

Eventually the war would escalate as more and more of these Terminators are used, attacks on the countries supplying the machines would be next - the makers of body parts, the microchips, where would it all end.  Legions of metal killing machines start to parachute from the skies all across the world - no country is safe.  Terminator planes would destroy cities.  The only way to stop the madness is to turn to nuclear weapons, small yield tactical warheads powerful enough to take out the cities creating the Terminator machines.  Then all hell really breaks loose.

Yeah it’s a doom and gloom scenario, and perhaps we would see sense long before it got that bad and we would have to go through some kind of Terminator armistice.  However, why make them in the first place; it can only lead to one possible outcome – death.

Beginnings

I wish I had a better camera, but this will have to do.  I call this beginnings because it, well I don't really know, its an explosion of colour, it is beginning.

The One World

Ah to be set free to dream,

Free from the shackles of doom and misery,

Free to gaze upon a new horizon,

At the dawn of a glorious sun,

See all that is open to you in this world,

Hope it will set you on the right path,

Move towards it and want it to be perfect,

Imagine the splendour it will create,

You are part of the awakening, part of the joy,

We are all beholding to its strength, as well as wisdom,

Perhaps one day it will illuminate the whole world,

Then cast away the shadows of grief,

Banish all hatred and pain,

If you believe it to be so,

Can you ever want for anything less,

When we face the greatest peril,

Then we will all rise up and stand tall,

And by the end it will be a triumphant celebration,

When we are one, together, for the whole world to love. 

How to change the world - read it all, it could happen if we wanted it to.

It is still freezing cold in Britain and depending on which side of the climate change fence you sit on depends on what it all means.  On one side, we have the man-made global warming believer (it is wrong to think of them as climate change believers because everyone apart from a stupid idiot, believes the climate changes).  They think that because of man-made global warming (because that is what they believe) the ice is melting around the Arctic and this is causing the Jet Stream to change, making our winters longer and causing this month to be third coldest March on record.  I might add that we do not have long records on this fact, only since 1910.  1962 was the coldest I believe.  In their argument, Britain is the unluckiest country in the whole world, the only country to get colder because the world is getting warmer.  Well that seems plausible, I remember reading that as the temperatures started to rise, the Gulf Stream would fail and Northern Europe’s temperatures would drop significantly.  I gather the Gulf Stream or the flow of warm water coming up from the Equator, keeps Europe much warmer than it should be.  However, it is not the Gulf Stream this time; it is the Jet Stream moving southwards that is causing the bad weather.  I remember on an insightful documentary about the orbit of the Earth, they described how the Jet Stream is constantly moving, sometimes northwards, sometimes southwards, which causes Britain’s highly unpredictable weather. 

I read a comment saying this has to be because of global warming, and another said what about the two colder March’s, what were they down too.

On the other side of the climate fence, we have the sceptics, the ones who do not believe in global warming, or should I say man-made global warming.  I suppose they fall into many brackets and I bet that is why the global warming believers call them deniers, and categorise them as the same as holocaust deniers, and creationists.  It is always easier to demonise your opponent if you can attach them to an obviously stupid concept or theory.  You see, umm now I think about it I have lost my train of thought, and now I am wondering about another thing entirely.  There are different types of believers and sceptics, and the problem with the whole climate change argument is we only ever hear from the extremists on both sides.  I would imagine this is because they are the most likely to want to put their argument across.  They have the most to win and lose.  Personally, I believe the world is warming slowly and perhaps a small part of it is because of the pollution caused by man, but I do not believe in the tactics employed or the reasons for the warming.  Obviously, man has changed the climate; from agriculture to building cities, we are always changing the climate.  Does that mean we should go back to being hunter-gatherers?  We started to change the climate the day we went from hunter-gatherers to agricultural farmers, but we continued to progress.  I believe governments and large corporations, and the power brokers of the world are using it as a new form of control.  They have taken the loony tree huggers, sorry extreme environmentalist’s ideology and moulded it to their own agendas.  It is another way to force you and me to their will, to make us more subservient, and less likely to spoil their global sized game of Monopoly/Risk.

Thinking further, I wonder what would make the world right and what would right be.

If the world was right and right was 100%, right would mean we do not use fossil fuels for anything apart from none polluting means.  Right would mean we drive hydrogen-powered cars that only require a few gallons of water to run efficiently.  Of course, this would see the end of the dominance of the oil companies, their monopoly on the world would disappear.  Saudi Arabia would lose its political and religious power over the Middle East, and a multitude of tensions would decrease immediately across the world.  Yes, we are deceived into thinking that Iran and North Korea are the main stick pokers, but they are really just the distraction, part of the illusion. 

Right would mean we have fusion reactors giving us free energy, meaning we do not have high-energy costs for the consumer.  Imagine how horrifying it would sound for oil companies and energy companies if they heard the words, fusion works.  Right would mean the whole world had this free energy and everyone had clean water, electricity, as well as food to live.  This would begin the end of sweatshops and cheap labour.  Right would mean we have an infrastructure allowing the population of the world to enjoy descent living conditions, as well as specific human rights for all, in all countries across the world.  This would end poverty and destroy the slave labour now seen in the undeveloped, subjugated, or poorer parts of the world.  Imagine how happy a child would be if they did not have to work in a sweatshop making designer clothes for pennies.  Imagine how unhappy the large corporation would be.

Right would mean that conservation of the environment and the creation of human free zones, to allow nature to take its own course.  Human free zones would mean the environment was untouched or spoilt by humanity; this does not mean humanity could not explore and learn in these areas.  There are parts of the world we know are necessary for our survival that should stay unspoilt.  We know this, everyone knows the areas in question, but because of an insane concept of ownership of land, we do nothing about it.  National ownership of land is such a divisive concept nowadays; it is a medieval and primitive ideology, deeply engrained in us.  We allow this insanity and many others in our world because we feel it is more important to respect the rights of a nation, or a corporation, than the rights of a human or even the rights of the land itself.  This is not just for the animal’s sake but for ours as well. 

Right would see the end of popular party politics and the creation of a government not as a means to wield power and influence, but for the betterment of its region and the rest of the world.  When a government needs to win votes and collect large sums of money to gain those votes, then it is unlikely the outcome will lead to a descent society.  Right would mean we do not have war anywhere.  War is insane, war is now illogical, war causes misery and pain, and the only winners in war are the makers of war weapons.  Right would mean the end of forced control and subjugation of any human anywhere, no matter their race, creed, nationality or religion.  We have to learn how to trust our fellow man, it is not easy, we are hard wired not to trust, but a time will come when we will have to.  Right would mean all religions work in harmony for the benefit of humanity not the benefit of themselves.  Obviously, anyone who wants to be part of that religion will be able to practice their religious beliefs, as long as each religion does not try to force its ideas and doctrine onto others, especially the young.  Just because your parents are religious does not mean their children should be also.  They should have a non-religious upbringing, and if later, they decide to embrace religion then so be it, otherwise they should be able to live a normal life without fear of reprisal.  It is another insanity that we have religions that believe it is fine to kill someone if they leave that religion, or they banish you, so you never see your family again.  Or they force you to marry someone you hardly know.  Some even put the fear of god (pardon the pun) into you if you even think about leaving.  The problem with this from a religious point of view is that religion is designed to scare the living hell out of kids so they continue the religion.  Religion would disappear in a matter of generations if children were brought up without it.

Right would mean the creation of a new set of laws that we update constantly, that take into account the changes in understanding and rationale.  Old petty laws that have no bearing in reality at present would face abolishment.  Right would mean the right justice for criminal behaviour.  This is a difficult one, as I would suspect as society improves less crime would occur.  Most people do not want to be criminals, but as long as it is beneficial to be a criminal, we will have criminal behaviour.  When there is no benefit in becoming a criminal then why be one.  Obviously, some will not see the rationale behind this way of thinking; unfortunately, they will need controlling by humane means.  I hope that by the time we reach right, we will have thought of ways to change anti-social behaviour.  Psychopath’s spring to mind, but this is a mental illness, probably the worst kind for everyone including the psychopath.  How do we remove irrational anti-social behaviour without destroying what it is to be human, is a question that would need answering? 

Right would mean space travel to other planets, moons, asteroids, manned space stations, with everyone having the ability to travel into space if they want to.  Right would mean we would directly work towards creating ideas that benefit society without the need for useless consumerism.  Good ideas or theories have a chance to flourish even if there is no money.  The concept of, no there is not enough funding for a project would disappear. For this to work we would have to figure out how to create a society without the need for money, or find another type of work for reward policy.  Money worked as a concept for hundreds of years, but now it is making society worse instead of better.  Right would see humanity flourish, with billions of satisfied and predominately happy citizens, all working for the benefit of everyone.  This seems like a pipe dream, as we are not predisposed to be both satisfied and happy, but who knows, it may change when more of us are doing something we actually want to do.  Right would see a reduction in population, through natural means obviously.  I would suspect that once we create a descent society everywhere, populations would stabilise and probably drop marginally in some parts of the world.  It is a known fact; if our population continues to rise, we will have major food shortages, as well as other issues around the world. 

Right would not see a few greedy men owning all the wealth of the world.  At one time, a great man or woman shaped the world; he/she made it better.  Does this mean the ancestors who are nowhere near as great, should create a system where they get everything and everyone else gets nothing or very little.  They have too much everyone else has too little.  Right would see healthcare for all and no one should profit from ill health.  How evil and misguided are we that it is profitable to keep people sick and on medication.  Right would see the right treatment for the right reasons, including what we like to call alternative means.  Right would see the end of the concept of exponential growth as a means to determine the prosperity of the world.  We do not need to grow, to create more money to prosper, it is an illusion created by the way society works.  We know it is an illusion, yet we continue to follow it blindly.  Right would give every human the right to go anywhere and experience the beauty of our wonderful planet, if they so choose.  Even the human free zones, if everything was right we would have found a way to see the animals of the world, without spoiling their habitats and destroying their environment.  Right would see appropriate education for children, based on their abilities to learn.  Education would be fun and not designed around creating automatons that follow blindly, without thinking.  I would hope that over a few generations we would eventually figure a way out of the terrible insanities of the world.  Children have the ability to learn at such a fast rate, why we deliberately make it so unpleasant to learn new things. is illogical  Children as one song says are the future.  However, we destroy them before they reach puberty, and we finish them off by the time they reach automaton age, or should I say, work shitty job age.  That is if you live in the western world, it’s even worse if you are unfortunate enough to be born in a underdeveloped country or a one that has a despot as a leader, or a country that does not care for its citizens and just wants to bleed them dry.  We can only reach near to 100% when we change how children are educated, until this happens we are never going to change.  Until this happens, we will blindly continue to destroy our world, allowing insanity in all its manifestations across every part of society.  The way we teach children determines who we are and what we believe, it forms our structure and it is flawed.

If right was 100%, I suspect we are at 33%, roughly, we are two-thirds the way from right, perhaps.  Now I think about it we are probably at 25% of right.  We might never get to 100%, in fact it might not be good to reach that high, it might be better to get to 80%.  I suspect it is impossible for humanity to reach right, but would it not be great if we actually tried.

Well I went off track a bit there.  I was going to give another paragraph about climate sceptics, and blah de blah de blah.  What is the point, we are at 25%, and we have a long way to go.