---

quote:

Think about it: WE empower coercion! Don't empower it and be free, then you are empowered by the truth.

---

---

quote:

The plan, as it was first proposed last week, would broadly help relieve finance firms of their "toxic" bad debt in the form of complex financial instruments backed by sub-prime mortgages that many holders can no longer pay off.

---

---

quote:

The extreme measures are extended government guarantees and the formation of an RTC-like holding company housed within the Treasury. Critics call this a bailout of Wall Street; in fact, it is anything but. I estimate the average price of distressed mortgages that pass from "troubled financial institutions" to the Treasury at auction will be 65 cents on the dollar, representing a loss of one-third of the original purchase price to the seller, and a prospective yield of 10 to 15 percent to the Treasury. Financed at 3 to 4 percent via the sale of Treasury bonds, the Treasury will therefore be in a position to earn a positive carry or yield spread of at least 7 to 8 percent. Calls for appropriate oversight of this auction process are more than justified.

---

---

quote:

An efficient market system does not have to be an arena of many participants in perfect competition. That is a myth. On the contrary, it takes only two to agree on a price; a market is in fact most competitive where there are the least number of participants. Then, the trading environment is not crowded by competitors because there is no benefit from their being there; the prevailing price of exchange is optimum and cannot be improved upon; there is no advantage to be gained from it. A discrepancy in price creates its own competition; it does not have to be artificially maintained as a guard against market inefficiency; it needs only the freedom to be allowed to work as a system of mutual agreements.
...
So, for markets to be efficient, they do not have to be composed of many participants, but they do have to be free from coercion. A market in which exchange is restricted, because entry is prohibited or because the costs of exchange are too great, is a market in which will not be reflected the greatest price efficiency. When free from this coercion, whether or not the price then reflected is optimum will be determined by whether or not the conditions of exchange are then optimum. If there is undue risk, such as from theft or currency instability or from confiscatory measures, then the price will also reflect the concern for this risk; the price mark up will be higher as insurance compensating for this risk. Then, if the price so arrived at appears to be less than optimum, it is only a reflection of conditions as they then are; the market cannot be improved upon if the conditions of exchange are negative. Exchange by agreement, when free from coercion, only reflects the state of things as they are between individuals. It is the property of free markets that, when allowed to work efficiently, they always reflect things as they are; if these conditions are constructive and unrestrictive, then they reflect efficiently our human effort and productivity; if they are negative and coercive, plagued by undue risk and by disregard for the rights of the individual, then they reflect human inefficiency as forced from coerced labor. If we are not pleased with our results, the blame does not rest with the exchange mechanism; a free market reflects only human agreements.

---

---

quote:

Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 02:54 pm:
This is one of the best sites I have ever found. Thanks!!! Very nice and informal. I enjoy being here.,

Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 02:54 pm:   
I glad too see this interest site, I tell my friends about it! They like sites like that: site,...etc...

---

---

quote:

The implications of this are actually immense. First of all, the fact that Newton's gravity as modified by Einstein's General Relativity should NOT be a universal constant is already damaging to much of current astrophysical theory, both in deep space and for our solar system. Second, the fact that the Pioneer Anomaly approximates the Hubble constant is telling us something more fundamental about how we figured out cosmic light redshift using GR as a model for Doppler space expansion. Einstein's GR may have skewed our thinking that 'space-time' is curved to create a gravitational effect.

---

---

quote:

Generally, the mass of a black hole was observed to be about 1,000th that of the mass of the surrounding galactic bulge.
This constant ratio indicated an "interactive relationship" between the black hole and the bulge, say the researchers. But it was not clear whether one grew before the other, or whether they grew together.
...
"We finally have been able to measure black-hole and bulge masses in several galaxies seen as they were in the first billion years after the Big Bang," said co-author Fabian Walter of the Max-Planck Institute for Radioastronomy (MPIfR) in Bonn, Germany.
"The evidence suggests that the constant ratio seen [in nearby galaxies] may not hold in the early Universe."

---

---

quote:

By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 01:14 am:
JASZZ SPIN, phase 6: ZPH and Spin Ratios, the Final Element: 

Let us recap what had been done thus far, though we had not reached a conclusion. In advance, I think a conclusive ratio for spin based on planetary black-body heat and orbital Energy is doable. So this is the final phase where we will seek that element that will complete the relationships we are seeking. 

...
SR / (P orbital days / 365) ÷ P spin = ZPH planet

Planetary spin is divided by Earth's 365 in order to bring it in line with Earth's spin of 1 day, so that all planets's spins will be as a multiple, or fraction, of Earth days.

In this manner, all the planets are now aligned both in terms of Venus, which has an essentially "zero" spin (though this will be adjust for the 245 days of spin versus 244 days of orbit), and then further adjusted for Earth's 365 orbital period, so that all planetary spin is established in Earth days. The complication for this equation started with relating Kelvin temperatures to Watts per meter squared, and now further complicated by taking Venus and Earth's relationship, thus the equation looks the way it does. Now, taking SR values from table below, let us compute Spin Ratio in terms of Venus into actual Earth spin days, which yields ZPH:
MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ 244 = 0.006 ZPH
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS: 3.69 / 1.81 ÷ 1.03 = 1.973 ZPH

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:
JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH

PLUTO: ~75.66 / 248 ÷ 6.3 = ~0.0484 ZPH

Notice how 'hot' the gas giants are, especially Jupiter and Saturn, where they more approximate the internal heat ratio to orbital relative solar irradiance of Earth and Mars, and hence have fairly high spins. Pluto's internal temperature may be higher than estimated, since it has a higher relative spin, so that the resulting SR is off. The gas giants's Kelvin temperatures may be understimated as well, since their relative spins are greater than the SR results above.

---

---

quote:

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:57 pm:
SPIN RATIOS CURVE SOLVED: 

Though calculations for planetary Spin Ratios vs. Kelvin heat and Energy are rough, there was a pattern that occurred with fair consistency which seems to put calculated SR and actual SR' (see chart below) within some sort of curve. This lead to 'shelve' it for a long time, until now. I think I solved what this curve represents.
...
In the original, August 7, 2004, I had theorized in words:

"Planetary Kelvin heat divided by planetary orbital Energy (to establish raw ratio between the two); divided by the ratio of Venus Kelvin to Venus orbital Energy (to establish Venus as a base with "zero" spin); which was multiplied by the Planetary Kelvin over Venus Kelvin (to establish a common measure of black-body temperatures in relation to zero-spin); which yields the Spin Ratio (SR as per 'phase 5' above)."

In equation form, the above looks like this, where P = planet, E = orbital Energy, for either the planet 'p' or Venus 'v', and K = Kelvin:

(Kp / Ep) ÷ (Kv / Ev) x (Kp / Kv) = SR

Note, this is the same as above: (PK^2/ VK^2) * (VE/ PE) = ZPH SR

This is the same as above, except I also divided the result by the square-root of planet distance AU from the Sun; this was to compensate for the theorized change in orbital region's G, where it grows at rate of 1G per 1 AU, though this may need revision (if the Equivalence Principle applies to a variable G). The equation used is still incomplete, where I then had said:

"Spin Ratio divided by the ratio of planet's full orbital days divided by Earth's orbital days (365); this value is divided by the planetary spin (expressed in Earth days); which yields a ZPH factor.

However, this came under criticism for having the "planetary spin" inside the equation seeking a planetary spin ratio, so is not valid. In retrospect, I agree with this criticism, so aim to find a way to express planetary spin ratio without using relative spin to Earth's 1 day; though I should adjust the above ZPZ SR for orbital periods, which means to adjust each value for planet's orbital period vs. Earth's 365 days, spin ratio adjusted (times orbital Newton's G to align for inertial mass Equivalence, per Axiomatic):

Mercury: 1.667 SR ÷ 0.24 orbital period = 6.95 SRa times the "squared value of G" at orbital region (x 0.152 = 1.056)
Venus: 1.178 ÷ 0.615 = 1.92 (x 0.518 = 0.995)
Earth: 2.32 ÷ 1 = 2.32 (x 1 = 2.32)
Mars*: 3.178 ÷ 1.881 = 1.69 (x 2.25 = 3.80)
Jupiter: 5.71 ÷ 11.86 = 0.48 (x 27 = 12.98)
Saturn: 6.865 ÷ 29.66 = 0.23 (x 90.25 = 20.76)
Uranus: 10.37 ÷ 84.23 = 0.12 (x 368.6 = 44.24)
Neptune: 12.65 ÷ 164.79 = 0.077 (x 900 = 69.3)

What is intriguing is that the resulting SRa values are virtually the same as worked out on August 1, 2004 (Jaszz Spin phase 5), where these numbers climbed in the same proportion as shown here. The higher the ratio, the greater the spin expected, though this is not what happens, so these numbers are inconclusive. However, once those values were adjusted for relative spin by dividing those SRa values by ratios of planetary spin vs. Earth's one day spin, they immediately fell into place. I then wrote (Jaszz Spin phase 6):

In this manner, all the planets are now aligned both in terms of Venus, which has an essentially "zero" spin (though this will be adjust for the 245 days of spin versus 244 days of orbit), and then further adjusted for Earth's 365 orbital period, so that all planetary spin is established in Earth days. The complication for this equation started with relating Kelvin temperatures to Watts per meter squared, and now further complicated by taking Venus and Earth's relationship, thus the equation looks the way it does. Now, taking SR values from table below, let us compute Spin Ratio in terms of Venus into actual Earth spin days, which yields ZPH:

MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ (-)244 = -0.006 ZPH (edited for minus sign)
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS*: 3.69 / 1.88 ÷ 1.03 = 1.963 ZPH (edited arithmetic error)

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:

JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH

---

quote:

So we are back to where we started four years ago, but what does it mean? Back then, when I divided Earth's SRa by these ZPH values, the numbers fell into place for relative spin ratios (See Sept. 25, 2004), but not until March 2, 2005 was this issue "resolved":

So I've been thinking... Here is what happens when the ratio of actual SR' divided by calculated SR is compared. Notice how this then compares with the square root of AU, far right:

AU

Kelvin heat

Planet

spin Earth days

calculated SR

actual SR' ratio

SR'/SR

sqrt AU

0.39	442K	Mercury	58.8	0.0736	0.0394	0.535	0.624
0.72	231.7K	Venus	-245	-0.006	0.0059	0.983	0.85
1.0	254.3K	Earth	-1-	2.316	2.316	1.00	1.00
1.52	210.1K	Mars*	1.03	1.963	2.40	1.223	1.225
5.2	110K	Jupiter	0.415	2.371	5.541	2.38	2.28
9.5	81.1K	Saturn	0.445	1.68	5.204	3.10	3.08
19.2	58.1K	Uranus	0.718	0.732	3.226	4.40	4.38
30	46.6K	Neptune	0.673	0.633	3.441	5.44	5.48

And so we come full circle, where the square-root of AU (which is same as square-root of G at AU), drives the numbers to show planetary spin. (I cannot vouch for anything of real value here, because I may be double-counting?) What I wanted to show by this re-examination is that using a different approach, the same ratios for planetary spin come out only, and only when, the variable G is invoked, but I cannot claim I understand this.

To sum up, here is what happened: I took the original equation for ZPH SR and multiplied it by square-root of AU (G) and got a rising ratio SR, that when I multiplied by square G so got ratio SRa, which approximates the original steeply rising values; in effect, the square-root G and squared G both interact; but when ratios of planetary orbit and spin (adjusted for Earth's) were applied, the resulting ZPH ratios became a function of square-root AU (G) to give us an approximation of actual planetary spin ratios (vs. Earth's) in the final analysis.

So is there a significant relationship between planetary spin and orbital energy vs. Kelvin black-body heat? Only when a variable G is taken into effect. Otherwise, the answer would be "no", not without G per Equivalence.

---

These results of comparing ratio of actual to calculated planetary Spin match up fairly well, within 10-15% error (except Pluto), of the square root of AU distances from the Sun. The two curves match up pretty well. What can it mean?

A few days ago, Feb. 27, 2005, I posted Earth's kg. vs. planetary kg., and came up with a similar problem where the square root relationship of (G'/G)] was needed to bring the Earth's kilograms in line with local planetary kilograms, in order to adjust proton mass for local G conditions. This worked out fairly well, and it so happens that the square root of G differentials also approximates closely the square root of AU distances (where delta G is ~7E-11 per AU).

So this is but another function of adjustment planetary Spin must undergo, if G is variable, to fit the curve of how it calculates in Kelvin heat vs. Energy for each orbit. Though this was a complicated process, it could no doubt be simplified further into an equation, which then yields the Spin Ratios for the planets in terms of their interior black-body Kelvin heat and their orbit's total solar Energy. For Earth, it is always a ratio of 1, with E = 9E+16 Joules. Of course, it is a different E for each planet, with different Spin Ratios, which dove tails nicely into the variable Newton's G 'proportional' hypothesis.

Now, to figure a more simplified equation to explain Spin Ratios. Also, I suspect that the Axiomatic Equation can be used to explain planetary acceleration in orbit at the perihelion, and deceleration at the aphelion, but haven't done the work yet. Would need to calculate these using Newton's orbital: GM = Rv^2. The same principle applies for distant inertial mass as a function of either (G'/G)F = ma, where kg. must be adjusted for different G. Or perhaps the square root will be what actually is needed, still don't know...

---

---

quote:

But is any of this real, or is it false reasoning? The appeal of an energy-engine driving planetary spin is appealing, if it were true!

---

---

quote:

Kashlinsky and his team collected a catalogue of close to 800 clusters, using telescopes that captured the X-rays emitted by the ionised gas within them. They then looked at the CMB at those locations, using images snapped by NASA's WMAP satellite. What they found shocked them. Galaxy clusters are expected to wander randomly through their particular region of space, because matter is distributed in uneven clumps, creating local gravitational fields that tug on them. Over large scales, however, matter is assumed to be spread evenly, so on these scales the clusters should coast along with space as it expands. What's more, everything in the standard model of cosmology suggests that the universe should look pretty much the same in all directions.

---

---

quote:

Predictions of the motion of galaxy clusters based on the conventional model assume matter is evenly distributed throughout space on very large scales. Pietronero and Sylos Labini claim analysis of the distributions of galaxies and galaxy clusters throughout the sky shows that this is not true, and that at large scales matter is like a fractal. If that is the case, the gravitational field throughout the universe would also be irregular and could lead to the effects Kashlinsky observed.

---

• Zeus is Big-Bang
• Hera is Space-Expansion
• Apollo is Light-c
• Athena is Inflation
• Aphrodite is Universal-Gravity G
• Hermes is Light-Redshift
• Poseidon is Energy-Conservation
• Einstein-relativity is Heracles
• Feynman is Dionysus, etc.

---

quote:

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

---

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

---

quote:

Even more troubling is Obama's seeming cluelessness about US-Muslim history.

"The same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago - there's no reason why we can't restore that," he said on Al-Arabiya.

Well, let's see. Twenty years ago, American hostages were being tortured by their Hezbollah captors in Beirut and hundreds of grief-stricken families were in mourning for their loved ones, murdered by Libyan terrorists as they flew home for Christmas on Pan Am Flight 103. Thirty years ago, the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, proclaimed America "the Great Satan," and inspired his acolytes to storm the US embassy and hold scores of Americans hostage. That same year Islamist mobs destroyed the US embassies in Pakistan and Libya, and staged anti-American riots in other countries.

---

"Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30 [actually 9:29], which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect."

---

quote:

Probably the most common misconceptions surround the expansion of the Universe at distances beyond which Hubble’s law (vrec = H D: recession velocity = Hubble’s constant × distance) predicts recession velocities faster than the speed of light [Appendix B: 1–8],...

---

• interrelationship is the language of infinity
• identity is the language of mind
• infinity of mind is Who I Am

---

quote:

Who am I?

---

---

quote:

"Notwithstanding the importance of algebra, mass literacy in algebra is lacking. Marya D [3] gives the following explanation.

When industrialization was taking place, universal literacy became important for progress. What “literacy” meant for math, back then, was basic arithmetic. Now it looks like the civilization needs, among other things, mass algebraic literacy to progress and to solve its problems. Governments have been working toward that goal, by their usual means (influencing school curricula). Despite this mass algebra instruction, we don’t see mass algebraic literacy.

I think one of the reasons why we don’t see mass algebraic literacy is that algebra isn’t viewed as something you MESS with. Kids doodle or compose texts for their myspace, but they don’t MAKE (construct, create, build) any algebra entities, ever."

---