Formulas for Harmonic Unity

Where Have I Been

In November of 2008 I moved from Leesburg, Virginia to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The financial crisis of 2008 hit Loudoun County where Leesburg is, much sooner than it hit elsewhere and I couldn't get a job. I moved elsewhere to get away from Loudoun's problems only to find that they were a minature version of a coming storm. This transition was huge for me and I never looked at the blog till now - August 2010.

Yet when I read it over I am struck by how unchanged I am by changes. I am still working on Pi/Phi; still working out "unified formulas" (which I now like to call harmonic unification); still working on eugenics (but now I understand what biodemography is and what the transition means); still trying to understand the Galton family (who I now consider not "Quakers" or "gunmakers" or even "slavetraders" but financiers - solely into making money); still trying to show that relativity is based on an idealist epistemology (which allows the basic distortion of forcing light into the mechanistic hypothesis whereas in itself light is not affected by gravity); still a prolifer; still a Republican (though of the Teaparty type); still revolted by current "literature" which I am still convinced is a totally inaccurate description of American life, even less real than Currier and Ives or Norman Rockwell (it's all a preening falsity that became acceptable, nay required, in the Sixties); still the curmudgeon.

Yet something is different.

I thought of renaming this blog Final-Blue Horizon because that seemed to sum up better my current state. But actually my interests haven't changed. What has? What I'll do is add the poem, Final-Blue Horizon, I wrote about coming here:

When I grew old

And the financial crisis began

I came to live in Wisconsin

By Lake Michigan.

And I keep looking over there

Where color on color rules a line

(Especially when

An intense blue sky meets

An immense blue lake)

As if all the lines of print I ever read

Had been resolved

Into one last meaning,

One final blue horizon line.

What is Pi?

In nature the square root of Phi equals one quarter of Pi because in nature there is always a slight vertical lift in any circle.

Plane geometry is a pressed flower of nature meaning that flattening the natural helices of nature creates the circle we know.

The proportional form of nature is based on the relationships created by the unification of Pi and Phi.

This happens when we see the significance of the fact that the square root of 2 times the square root of 2 -times-Phi is very close to Pi divided by 4

Consider this:

Divide flat Pi (3.141592654 by the square root of two. Divide the result by two. You get 1.110720735. This is close to the square root of Phi -times -2. (Phi times 2 =1.236067978; square root = 1.111785941). is just like the square root of 2. Because another way to get 1.110720735 to use the Pythagorean formula just as with the square root of 2. But in the case of 1.110720735 the formula is applied to .785398163, which is pi divided by 4.

Barack The-Clinton-Slayer

There's a children's story called Jack the Giant Killer and the current adventures on the 2008 presidential campaign trail remind me of that story. For, improbably, Senator Barack Obama seems to have slain the Clinton beast. For instance, today in the Washington Post there was a mocking story by Dana Milbank depicting the Clinton campaign leaders lashing out at the Washington press corps for favoring Obama while simultaneously trying to sell it on the idea that the Hildebeast was ahead while also affecting a sort of goofy innocence about the latest attempt to smear Obama. (The Somali/Moslem clothes picture) This kind of story would not circulate if the Clintons were going to get back in power as they would be certain to get back at anyone who was other than either loyal or silent. And there are lots of other indications such as being ahead in the polls and in fundraising.

So just as Jack, who was a very improbable but very tenacious hero, did the slay the giant so Senator Obama has became Barack The-Clinton-Slayer.

They say he has no record and only spouts rhetoric but successfully fighting the Clintons for the Democratic nomination suggests to me that he is quite a formidable politician. After all, he had no stolen FBI files, no millions in the bank accrued by lobbying and no spouse who was a former president. And he also had to fight past all the reasons an African-American might have for not trying and then fight past all the prejudices ("he'll never make it") and he did all this while not using the race card and while not using "walking around" money.

I find this very impressive.

But still I'm not going to vote for him because I disagree with him on major issues. Hilary did not disagree with him on major issues and so in a way for Democrats it came down to a Clinton rerun (ugh!!) or someone more hopeful. The Democrats seem to have been so tired of the Clintons and so disgusted by the Democratic Congress that Senator Obama's ideas and convictions affected them like a revival. They were just about dead and suddenly - BAM BAM oBAMa - there was hope (oBAMa) and light at the end of the tunnel (oBAMa) and a chance to get rid of the Clintons while voting their own Democratic convictions BAM BAM o BAMa. No wonder they're emotional. And I like him too. However I'm not revolted by the Republican past and in a state to be born again. The question with me is the issues and the biggest issue is the war on terror.

We can't cut and run from the war on terror. We didn't declare it; Bin Laden declared war on us; we can't stop it by declaring peace. This war won't stop if we huddle in America or give up our weapons. Don't forget a jihadist assassinated Robert Kennedy and tried to kill John Paul II. Don't forget that in 9-11 they tried to kill the financial, political and military leadership of this country - and hoped to get 50,000 citizens too. If we leave Iraq we are merely going back to 9-10 and that will be followed by 9-11 The Sequel just as the first attack on the World Trade Center was followed by the second. And Barack Obama has no idea what to do about it all except meet with jihadi leaders. Well the Israelis are currently trying that "solution" and the jihadists are sending daily rockets into their towns while asking for economic/military handouts at the meetings.

There may be no military solution but that doesn't mean that there is a political solution. At least not today.

We have to stick it out just as the African-Americans stuck out the long night of slavery and segregation without ever succumbing to idea that they were cause of the "race problem". (See the speeches of Martin Luther King). Inequality among human beings enshrined in the legal system was the cause of the "race problem" and similarly the jihadist determination to spread human inequality by terror - women, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus being on the jihadi terrorists short list of those less equal - is the cause of the struggle now known as the war on terror.

It's called a war on terror as I see it because it isn't a war to stamp out Islam but a war to stamp out Islamic terrorism. If the Islamists began to say: "we have a better religion, come let us reason together", I don't think the West would say "NO, block Youtube, close the gates of thought and innovation" etc.

Senator Obama could lead since he is a natural leader but he seems to think he can talk away terror. He seems to want to lead us to cut and run. He doesn't seem to want to lead us in this fight. He seems to think we have been causing the fight and a few words from him will settle it.

If I were on one of these debates I'd ask this question: "Senator Obama, did you lead a fight against the Clintons? - or did you by talking to them persuade them that 'yes Senator Obama is the better candidate, yes we'll withdraw?' When they suggested that either YOU withdraw or be vice president, did you cut and run?" The point I'd be making would be that I and others think that this country has enemies who can't be talked out of their opposition. They have to be beaten, they have to renounce terror as the best means of spreading the Islamic faith. If Barack The-Clinton-Slayer would lead that struggle - great!

If not, I'm voting Republican.

And the Senator also supports abortion which .... but that as they say is another story for another day.

The Motion of Lightning and Thunder

The science of mechanics, the study of motion, was considered the basis of physics by the ancients of physics, whether the physics of Greece or Newton or the nineteenth century.

But, said Einstein, we are in motion as we study motion. Relativity is always true so the truth is, as it were, always false.

That's OK because we can say what we mean by false. We mean that if someone else is studying the same motion but is themselves in a different state of motion from ours then that person will get a set of results different from ours in standard, reconcilable ways.

But, said Einstein, when we study the motion of light we get results only reconcilable by assuming that lengths shorten in the direction of motion.

But is this the only way of reconciling the measurements?

Thunder and lightning are one event which we are aware of later as two motions - the motion of light and then the motion of sound.

We know that the motion of sound is carried along with the motion of the earth by gravity while the motion of light is not. That is why the speed of light does not change regardless of the speed of its physical source. Once in motion light is independent of that source in a way that sound is not.

Sound (or the air moved by sound) is carried by gravity just as is its physical source (for instance, a man on a train) so sound maintains its initial relationship to its physical source.

Sound waves move at the speed of sound plus the speed of the source because both waves and source are carried by gravity.

The source of light is carried by gravity but not the motion of light. Why then do we talk about the motion of light as if it had all the characteristics of the motion of sound with the weird proviso that light always has the same speed and length shortens as other motions approach the speed of light.

For consider what this means in the case of thunder and lightening. Suppose we sped up thunder until it was almost as fast as lightning. Why should any length change? Usually, the light from the single event reaches us without shortening any distances as we know from counting seconds till the thunder arrives. Why should gradually speeding up the thunder shorten that same distance? It would change measurements, not distances.

For Einstein, the idealist, if the measurement changes, then the distances changes. But this is a metaphysical presupposition, not a physical conclusion.

Why not say that motions carried by gravity maintain their relationship to their physical source while light does not maintain its relationship to its physical source but instead maintains its relationship to the position in absolute space of the physical source at the moment the light was emitted. This is the initiating point.

The motion of the earth in space moves the physical source away from this initiating point in absolute space at once but light does not "forget where it came from." Light moves so fast that it illuminates everything around its physical source even as its initiating point and its physical source move apart at one third the speed of light due to the motion of the earth around the sun.

It seemed to Einstein that no physical motion or entity corresponded to the idea of absolute space propounded by Newton, once the idea of the aether was given up. However he could have said that that the initiating point of a light wave was a point in absolute space.

I think that the

Super Tuesday

I've been sick the last four or five days so I spent a lot of time following commentary on Super Tuesday, the lead-up, the aftermath. It's really striking how far off the MSM seems to me to be.

First, their polls are useless though polls used to be quite accurate.

Second, their comments are almost uninformed. For instance today there's talk about offering Obama, the VP in Hilary's administration - as if that were some kind of prize. "Ok, boy, you run quite a little race there so here's this valuable (!?) prize." As if Obama were some kind of idiot and would value the VP position. Anyhow we all know what happens to people around the Clinton's. But what's really amazing is that Obama is ahead in delegates chosen by the people - so the DEM party leaders and the MSM thinks HE should accept the VP position!

I think his strategy is pretty plain. He intends to go to the convention ahead in numbers of delegates won in regular elections. And he says: "I won", simple as that.

And if the super delegates say "we can and will put Hilary in anyhow" then the party has taken the nomination from him. He has caused great numbers of people to sign up as Democrats - the Dems now have no future without him so the Dems won't want to take the nomination from him. (After all he won in the South without giving out walking around money - how can the Dems give up all those excited voters?) So the Dems are now trying to offer him something to keep him happy, ie you can be president after being VP under the Clintons (like Al Gore). He won't take up that ridiculous offer. Really they have nothing to offer him - he wants to be president.

I can't say how it will work out but maybe Hilary or Bill could be his VP. Or the Dems might have a floor fight with delegates breaking away. If the vote came after Obama spoke, then I think he would win. If he didn't win he would soon find out what Bilary did, who they bought and how, and he would not let it pass, so that takes the Dems back to the party being seen as taking the nomination from him. So what will they do? Tune in next August for the wildest convention of our lifetime.

I would never support a cut-and-run pro-abortion candidate but I feel the tug Barack Obama exerts. He and Hilary are exactly the same in positions. But he would like to unite the country while she would like to destroy it. (Moving about, madly biting Republicans, demanding donations, Bill raping young interns) I think, because the Senator was raised in Hawaii he was raised in a society that has gone beyond race divisions as they are known in other parts of the country. And he wants to move back there (to Hawaii) with all the rest of us. And his vision is very real because it exists in Hawaii right now and consequently when he speaks he makes "hope for unity" very real which is very appealing to the rest of us.

But I'm not sure either will win. Both want to raise taxes but people are paying staggering amounts for gas. It's like a tax increase already. Then both want to mandate insurance premiums. Lots of people can't afford this together with the gas increase but the they are going to "mandate" it. (Close your eyes and say to yourself - I mandate myself to have more money in my wallet and I want the government to have it. The government can have all my "mandate" money.)

Then Barack/Hilary want health care to be the issue - but isn't transportation the issue? I mean, to me all the extra gas-tax money ought to be going into transportation systems. Instead somehow Virginia can't afford a light rail extension to my area. What are we supposed to do - move back to the city to anthill apartments crowded around subway exits? This kind of thing, which they are not dealing with, will catch up with Barack/Hilary

And then, if we cut and run from Iraq and it destabilizes, gas prices will go higher. What will people think when they realise that? If the Dems try to opt out of the war on terror, gas prices will go up yet again. Then what? And, whichever the candidate, the Dems will try to say that we're rich and can pay more taxes, just as everyone is struggling. I feel the Dems won't win in November because they haven't really caught up on what the gas price increases mean to the average person. I think smaller, leaner government - government focused on governmental issues like defence, not nanny statism - will be getting more and more popular as the year goes on.

But one of them might win. Obviously a Barack Obama interested in unity would deal with the situation better than Hilary should one of them get to the White House. It won't put gas in anyone's tank to have BDS syndrome then.

Here are some latest ideas - just ideas.

A Stone in the Pool of the Absolute
First, doesn't the fact that light does not accelerate when its source accelerates mean that the point of initiation of a light beam does not move when the physical source moves? The accelerating physical source must attached to at least one of these - an object moving relative to the earth, the rotating earth, the revolving earth, the solar system revolving with the galaxy, the galaxy moving with the local cluster. So if light is accelerated by none of these then is not its point of initiation located in absolute space? If light moves in absolute space wouldn't this explain why it is independent of the speed of its emitter and its receiver.
It's like a stone thrown in a pool - the rings spread out from the point of origin. But if light is not accelerated by any of the above motions, but its physical source is accelerated by them then must not the physical source and the point of origin of light part company almost at once? The physical source moves with all the motions it is part of - away from the point of origin of the light.

The light moves outward with the speed of light from the point of origin which is not part of any motion - The point of origin is at rest in absolute space. The center of the sphere of light is not the moving physical source, in this idea, the center is the point in absolute space at which the physical source was when the light sphere began. This non-moving point shows that we must consider absolute space for we have a physical phenomenon - the light sphere which is in absolute space.

And because the point of origin parts company with the physical source - then this explains why the "clocks", which are only considering relative motions, give different times. If the point of origin "moves back" from the physical source - toward an approaching wall and "away" from a receding wall - then the actual distance covered in the time at the constant speed of light on both sides of the physical source needs to be calculated differently.

Flower Power
I've been taking flower pictures so as to have my own gallery of plant morphology. It's pretty evident that plants grow in spirals.

Darwinism has no clothes
Darwin proposed a gradualist theory of evolution - a gradualist theory not supported by the facts embedded in sedimentary rock formations. Darwin's theory was upgraded by Sewell Wright, Julian Huxley, Von Verschuer (Mengele's mentor) and others in the early Forties. They maintained the gradualist orientation. In the early Fifties, Professor Irene Manton of Leeds proposed a theory of evolution which was not gradualist. This theory has now prevailed in scientific work but The Darwinists continue to peddle Dogmatic Gradualism. You will fail in biology if you advocate evolution in jumps even though you will fail in a career in biology if you work on any other theory.

Professor Manton said that changes in chromosome number were the leading cause of evolution and her students, including a hardy band of New Zealand academics, showed how to apply the theory. In particular they showed that block changes inside chromosomes usually were the cause of evolution in those plant species which had the same chromosome number as a closely allied species. The Darwinists resisted - forcing two generations of students to imbibe their theory which said that gene mutations added together by natural selection were the cause of evolution.
The consequence was the eugenics. a theory which rests on evolutionary gradualism, was intellectually respectable till the year 2000. At that date the Human Genome Project showed that there were not enough genes to account for evolution in a gradualistic mode. Instead combinations of genes, not mutations of genes, must explain species diversity or in other words, evolution. Ever since then hundreds of scientific articles have charted the evolution of species by counting and comparing chromosomes. The idea of mutating genes as the cause of evolution has sunk like the Titanic.

Unlike the Titanic, however, the shipwreck of Darwinism is not a story. IT ISN'T COVERED. So now a new school year starts. Anyone, anywhere who advocates the Manton theory will fail or be ridiculed - any student, that is. In science the position is the opposite. When will the story be told? When the NYT and MSM are honest? I hope it won't take that long before we see the headline in student newspapers

DARWINISM HAS NO CLOTHES!