The following axioms were originally

presented in November of 2009

but now they are re-stated

with additional expository commentary

Circles are posessive things; violate them at your Peril
- - - - -Apparently we're going to stay in purple. Circles both trap things and limit things but also exclude things outside of it. Circles go on forever but are still finite. Einstein sees the Universe as a giant sphere that can never be transversed. In my model of the universe I see absolutely no problem. However in my own model what you do is to "back out" of the circle, however you still get out. But with Einstein, were one to substitute "God" for the speed of light, not only is god unreachable by anybody, but a person with a thousand times the "achievement of good deeds" is no better than one who hasn't. The speed of light is still JUST as IMPOSSIBLE to reach for a guy whose 99.99% already there as it is for you or me.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they appear to Be - even First Impressions
- - - -We have this one in another place, but it's true. Sometimes there is "love at first sight" and it works. Sometimes you immediately know you "don't like something" or "feel uncomfortable" and are not sure why, so you try to rationalize and talk your way out of it, only to discover that your first impression was the correct one. The biggest lie James Dobson ever tells is NOT to listen to your own feelings. But he's OK with my listening to HIS feelings. Logically however if we are both flawed human beings I shouldn't trust either his or mine. But at least with my OWN feelings there are more personal facts I know to be true to justify them.

When all else fails, look at the computer program text
- - - - -This could mean "look at the instruction manual" but it's deeper. It's more the Ross Perot sense of "looking under the hood to see what is going on". The trouble is if you search to examine the relation between you and God it necessarily means Both of you are Examined, and God doesn't like to be examined. Some might say that to examine God is to destroy him.

You have a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon, you're talking about Real Money!
- - - - -People will expend a fantastic ammount of time, heart, and substance into a venture they hope will pay off if they can just "prime the success pump" or something. Where did Blackwater get it's authority to supersede military regulations, and why what authority were they granted their "carte blanch" with seemingly "off budget" funding?

In the long run scheme of things - Adam Smith must be satisfied
----Free market forces are an anazing thing, and arguably, more valid at allocating resources than a massive computer program. The trouble with God is that he never read Adam Smith. He doesn't believe in emotional receprocity. God is a supply side flat-liner and assumes you are the same way. This means whatever you get by way of "supply" from God is limited- - - at any price. It's like salt or gasoline. You'll pay any price for it - - as long as you get it but the trouble is you don't. God assumes we have a flat supply curve too. But we don't. Something a minimal effort on his part, and I'm tempted to use the husband and wife analogy, then there will be a fantastic improvement in the response. But since God doesn't believe this about humans in a self fulfilling prophecy it never happens. Since as we said nobody can attain to God's "speed" it would be logical for either everyone to be saved or nobody to be saved. But God won't have that. So God jerks around his own supply curve for different people violating the scripture "God is no respecter of persons" when in reality whether you get saved at all is completely up the laws of chance. I said I don't believe in chance, but when God shoots dice, it calls it predeterminate wisdom or something- - when in actuality it's as morally valid as rolling dice.

An entity too big to fail is too big to exist. This also holds for true for Religion, as well as Corporations.
God is too big to fail. The Catholic Church is too big to fail. Even Fredich Nietche said that "God may be dead but some still need religion". Failure would cause too much "disruption in society" and thus that which is no longer fruitful has its own Government enforsed Insurance policy against failure.

A God with the power to give you everything you need, has the power to take from you everything you have.
-----This is usually said about Government and people readily accept the premise. But they see no danger in trusting their souls to a "God" whom in my oppinion has proven time and time again he can't be trusted, but will in time only deplete the resources you do have in a fruitless effort to keep Him from "failing".

Experience is the enemy of Ignorance, Superstition, and even Bigotry
-----Experiance is not the friend of religion. We derive most of knowledge itself from learning experiances. But if you listen pastors such as Chuck Smith will decry "experiances". People with experiances are less ignorant, they have the resources now to overcome both their own superstitions and personal bigotries.

A FAILURE TO MEET THE THRESHHOLD

People say that it's insane to do the same things over and over and expect a different result. But if you saw last night's Simpson's episode you noted that Lisa had the idea to try the coat hanger in the bathroom lock to try and rescue Maggie locked in the bathroom, and this time it worked. People ignore threshholds. For instance the thing Republicans say about a balanced budget is that it will drive down interest rates because of vastly reduced government borrowing, thus freeing up more funds for business borrowing at a lower rate. The trouble is if you look at the interest rates business pays now, they are practically giving money away already. A little leftward shift on the intrest curve line will make no difference. However there comes a time when interest is a significant factor and therefore it's advisable not to push the debt too high. We spoke of a human being's inherent inability to EVER satisfy "God" as defined by our Puritan friends on the religious right. The thresshold in this case is a point mankind is incapable of reaching. Now sometimes if you reach the thresshold you get decisive action, like the point at which you get a breeder nuclear chain reaction that keeps on going. Investors get freaked out by events (like a sudden government default on due loans) and since, like the Atomic Bomb once upon a time, it's never happened before we can't say for certain how violent the business chain reaction could be. Businesses reach a thresshold point of success. Some would say that this is unfair that you don't make diddley for five years and in the sixth year your business ignites and takes off, and you get socked by high taxes. But what these people should have been able to do is to agrigate their anual incomes so that they can average in a good year with four bad years and drive tax rates way down as they miss the thresshold of higher brackets. In photography colored slides that are underexposed have richer color because of the color threshhold of the film is reached first by the cominent color (or tint bias) in the image and therefore that color triggers off before the other can. You also have a maximum thresshold where a dominent bright color is washed out by all the surrounding colors that have by now also reached maximum thresshold and the film can't tell the difference. If you start a business it's all "new capital investment" because your old capital was "zero" because you had no business. You may deduct the cost of a room or a car or what have you for the business as an expense, which is deducted against income. If you never show the income on the balance sheet it's never taxed. Oil companies can often depreciate old inventory even if the equity in said product had doubled due to a sharp increase in the market price. I have always marvled at this "no inflation" fiction in accounting practices. Also many oil companies use LIFO instead of the more honist FIFO, for first in - first out. If an oil company compares this quarter's purchassing with last quarter - - - they can say "I paid a higher price" for last quarter's goods, than in fact you did, so should you sell said oil or inventory, the capital gains will be lower because you rigged the accounting. This last in first out slight of hand is what I refer to as the "failure to rotate your stock" method of accounting.

Let’s talk about the theory behind cloaked matter a little more. Some would say that the “static ether” theory of mine interferes with my idea about one approaching space vanishing in the sight of another. They would site me my own “motorboat” example later in this posting. They would say that if one boat travels at half the speed that the water is able to carry the waves away from it, and also with the other boat, that the waves from each ship would still meet ahead of the ships, thus invalidating my theory. However of we go back to the circerama theater at Disneyland analogy (also referred to later on) that suppose if you are in the very center of the theater for the best view. For the benefit of some I need to clarify that the direction you look represents object's light speeds with respect to yours, more than they do direction per se. Also I need to note that your apparent location is counter intuitive and that your "viewing space" actually moves the opposite direction from that in which your vector is pointing. You appear to approach that which is behind you and in fact appear to "be traveling backwards". More details are in previous postings. Your “event horizon” would be the entire theater. The event horizon being the relative speeds matter and light are traveling that are within your visual view. Now to break down the analogy just a little, and say that as you go off center the circular screen changes to an elipse like the shape of an egg, and the images on the screen are distributed spacially in accordence with Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. This means the small point of the egg has even more space allocated to it than you would think with "big orbital segment" allocations, and the far side shrinks away even more. Suppose your location shifts to a point 51% closer to one side of the theater, and the fellow who was standing right next to you moves to 51% closer to the opposite screen. So he sees your end of the theater the way you see his end. Both of you see the same skewed view even though arguably the theater is still a circle. Capish? So it could be argued that your event horizon has now shifted, so that you now see only to 49% twords the opposite wall the other side of center, and his view does likewise. The thing is now the other fellow is at 51% and so is two percent out of range of your circle, as you are in his. This is my justification for cloaked objects. Now the thing is with cloaking matter I likened it to being micro-waved. As you know EHF microwaves agitate molecules and speed them up so that they ocelate faster with E M radiation. Normally longer E M radiation waves pass harmlessly through bodies. The task before us is to somehow “trick” those longer waves into interacting with matter like the shorter waves. You have this in science all the time where substances trick other substances or cell D N A or whatever - - into thinking they are something else. This is something nobody presently knows how to do. It could be that in the whole world with our modern internet someone may come up with part of the idea and half way around the world someone else may come up with another part of the solution, and so forth, so that discovery is made faster. I have ideas but I can’t think of everything.

The Disneyland circerama theater analogy

The reverse translucent screen analogy

The comet orbit analogy

The egg shape analogy

The sliced cone analogy

The “light chasing” analogy (illusion of reversed time)

The Mercury – total eclipse analogy (if light never varies in speed

Than Time has to slow down to accommodate that reality)

The mental patient analogy (refuting aspects of special relativity)

The static ether proposition

The stretchable ether (soap bubble) analogy

The limited infinity axiom (railroad tracks tword horizon)

The geometry of endless straight lines in a limited space

(another byproduct of the soap bubble analogy

The golf course analogy (Einstein and many others)

The No Gravity Zone (Gravity can’t travel in hyperspace)

The “What you see is what you get” reality (gravity and light)

The elevator analogy (Einstein) but also supporting an idea of mine

The bendable ether analogy (the Jell-O analogy)

The motorboat analogy (basically the static ether theory)

The racecar tail wind analogy (event horizon priority)

The portable space analogy (tailwind analogy again)

The “lost space” or matter cloaking proposition

The time and space “event horizon” proposition”

(folded space may be different by reason of sheer distance)

The en-gram “splatter” analogy (a way humans can know the remote past

And also future events never having experienced them personally

The electron analogy (Employing

special relativity beliefs to illustrate the same point)

The Ontological Argument (morality is it’s own justification)

Ditto “ “ “ (morality is not subject to being put up for a vote)

The trigonometric analogy (space that isn’t space can have dimensions)

The billiard ball arrangement dimension diagram (the top ball is divided

Into six smaller balls of “higher dimensions”)

The cause and effect analogy (fifth dimensionality may exist but we can

never get there because it would violate God’s physical and moral laws)

Everything that Can happen – Has or Will happen in some dimension

The linear logic analogy or “Why isn’t my dollar worth a dollar any more”

The shirt circuit logic or “crossing logic paths” analogy

The Cosmological Argument (all computer values have to be backed up

by something even if you have to play God to do it)

The “red shift means Retarded” axiom (an argument for liberalism)

The “idle electrons still have energy and hence mass” axion

(we have ionization, batteries, and static electricity, for example)

The one dimensional psychic signal analogy

(TV’s just use a one dimensional medium to transmit images and sound)

The two dimensional psychic warfare proposition

The “Six is the highest number” axiom (there is a geometric argument for this

(And also the notion that along with Time we have seven dimensions in Heaven)

Ontological argument II (is Time an abstraction or a physical phenomenon?)

Teological Argument (Evolution can’t work because there isn’t enough time to

Perfect it before the natural forces of chaos again rule the day)

Moral Argument (what you mete out to others will come back on you)

The Space Argument (the sort of space surrounds an object

is determined by the structure of the material that fills that space)

Cosmological Argument II (God is not allowed to make mistakes without dire

consequences since he had no higher authority to appeal or to beg mercy from)

Nothing Happens by Accident (Basic Forth dimensional deterministic therum