The topic issues seemed repetitive with little of interest, yet what Nova [April 2012] recently showed about typical carbon footprint of one family finally made sense (about the climate). Nova used one backhoe with its bucket full with carbon debris as the comparison for the average family car. The show further dumped each bucket full for each magnitude of the comparison over time. They did that for the comprehension of the numerical value in the metric tons of carbon compounds that have been taken out of the ground and exhausted into the air.
Enter “The Dark Side,” where historic evidence has shown where this planet has been within its dark cloudy (carbon) age before. Researchers, like those on Nova, demonstrated how plant life flourished under such conditions, yet us scientists mean flourished as in the wide spread growth of plant “strains” instead of the more climate sensitive “varieties” we know now. Under such dark (humid) clouds, simulations originated the source of some coals in the mountains to strains of now tropical varieties.
As we simulate the Earth's climate (past, present, and future), it is obvious, from above, we cannot ignore the difference in plant life. Why do we ignore the differences in human life, and how that effects the climate? We know from historic artifacts and monuments that civilizations have been here on Earth for quite awhile. If we map human life back to the age of the dark cloud, we could hypothesize that “we been here before.” We could hypothesize that our current technology that creates smoggy skies is what caused the same event in the past for the dark cloud. We could hypothesize that we are the post-apocalyptic civilization to the human pre-apocalyptic civilization that existed before. Our simulations, from iClouds to supercomputers, reveal that kind of “been here before” loop if we remove the strict Theory of Evolution nailed down by epic events and dinosaurs, yet it's just like any theory... “theo”-logy.
We haven't studied much outside the Theory of Evolution because of law and religion. Law kept schools on the strict agenda. Religions, not pagan based, had no scientific substance beyond faith. If we simulate the climatic loop of Earth, over the years, as one grand cycle, then the hypothesis, above, gains scientific weight with the presence of humans. What both theologians, both Theorists of Evolution and non-pagan religions, wanted is some sense of where we began on Earth, so there was “Creation vs. Evolution” debates. Pagans were left out of that debate, however.
Pagans carried many ideals that seemed non-religious and non-science because of their metaphysical subjects and pre-Christian traditions. Non-pagan faiths began with Judea-Christianity, as demonstrated by the history Israelites or origins of Hebrew. Judea-Christians rewrote any derivative of pagan systems into their own language devoid of any previous origin, and the effort greatly impacted the comprehension of monotheism. Judea-Christianity, however, did not (or could not) hide the facts of previous civilizations under Phoenicians (original Latin) and Pharisees (Cyrillic, Hieroglyphic, iconic Arabic). Due to those historic paths, Judea-Christianity appeared much the same as atheism until the establishment of the Church of God, especially if we narrow the facts to language alone.
Modern Judea-Christians now shared the same “universe” sense with the Church of God. In the history of the U.S., many people, still today, haven't shown much difference between traditions of Judea-Christians and Christianity derived from Church of God. Of course, laws inhibited such union of Church and State within the U.S., so the followers of Judea-Christianity (which include “Jehovah” based) considered themselves in Diaspora of the “universal origins” instead of within acceptance of the politics of the metaverse.
Enter “Mormons,” the Church of Jesus Christ (of LDS) separated itself from any Diaspora tradition of Judea-Christianity. The Mormons accepted the metaversal sense of “we been here before,” so there is that disagreement on “universal origins,” especially apropos Israelites. Romney looks good due to that separation alone, especially if you are one of the fundamentalists that accept polygamy. Romney has roots in polygamy, yet many States are devoutly against polygamy. I think the debate over such “Children of Israel” (whose families are in Diaspora) now includes polygamist (whose families left the U.S.), as the mass-media denoted the “Children of God” as something different, despite national inhibition.
We can now exit the racial issues over those kind of differences in intelligence of whose children are whose. I had that much of history included for this kind of justice over the cards played. I wanted the simple statement that explains the “Burning Bush” and its spirit (in Ag-Biotech nature), yet such justice is beyond our comprehension when devoid of any pagan beliefs and Mormon comparisons. We know this by fact because of the profound mission of Mormons that attempts Christian education to the (American) Indians. Mormons that have no pagan influence or knowledge of American Indians roots probably haven't realized how absurd that mission becomes until they stumble upon “reality” (and “reservation”). I think of it as one bucket full of carbon compounds compared to the magnitude of many buckets of such; it's more of the matter of how quickly do you reach that wall. You can realize the truth by the facts of one bucket full poured out, or you can (absurdly) wait until you find some way to stop the next bucket, or the next. On Nova, they showed one painted white wall behind the black pile of carbon debris. The race-case here is how high does that pile get until “exodus” of any such comprehension.
Without that difference of that wall being there, what do you have for measurement of how high that pile is now? Without that cross upon the establishment of the Church of God, how do you know how far we have gone? How do you know we haven't been here before? Plants filter-in carbon, which was the trusted scientific method for dates of historic events beyond biblical testimony. That means, under the law of gravity, there is no certainty of the age of the planet based on carbon-date principles, especially when that carbon footprint recycles by the plants themselves, like impressions in the sand washed away by tidal waves.
One property management system, I made, I called Dreamsand. Unlike another business called Dreamland, mine was about particles instead of surfaces and grains instead of units. I imagined simulators that worked by principles beyond atoms, yet there is no comprehension of any “meta-atom” because the central idea of an atom is nothing. Because we invented language that expresses difference in the area that surrounds one “nothing” to another “nothing,” we invented that multi-verse. Such atomic language of many multiverses of nothing created that something we called the metaverse. Instead of the patent nonsense of such “multiverses,” we identified “properties” of those differences.
“In the scheme of things...”
Beyond theory, we know instances where people “believed something was there” where we know “there is nothing” (by atomic definition) except “states” of properties, so we have factual evolution. Those people talked like they knew what they meant, so those people evolved something from nothing. That kind of comprehension is where people that follow Judea-Christianity (or literal “Jehovah”) get stuck, as that kind of evolution defies the “single creator” faith. If it remains unreasonable to them, then they remain in such loop until they transcend that faith. “Belief” is not theory (or theology), and the Theory of Evolution is, scientifically, not evolution we believe.
Remember that science based itself on the knowledge of change, and the expression of that change is physics. Any transcendence appears metaphysical, “beyond change.” With that, we can limit the definition of the “universe” by finite boundaries. The “law of conservation” further limits the universe such that it only changes itself. If we find change within the universe that doesn't agree with that law, then the change is said metaphysical. People that have not accepted any metaversal concept of change have expressed their own concept of change: “God did it.” Science tolerates God (and any translation), yet conservatives have shown not to tolerate such science.
[See also my previous blog about science of execution.]
Obama recently “executed” change in U.S. law that allows businesses “to go dark” apropos S.E.C. Romney has avoided comment on such action despite all the other “republished dishonor” he said. Of course, my first reaction was the paranoid brainstorm of that change over historic tradition. A few days later, I felt Obama did something wise, especially by the number of people already (quietly) behind the action. Many people re-voted for Bush because they said, “let him finish the job.” If Bush couldn't complete it in four years, why does Romney think Obama is done in only four years? That's how I now felt about Obama, so let him finish the “JOBS.”
[Note: I'm surprised churches don't have free internet (and wi-fi) for “job”/career centers. Ugh.]
I think the Catholic Church measured the amount of interest in the God Particle, as they allowed research by their facilities. If that amount is less than “y2k” shareholders, they can “go dark” about their patent nonsense. Now consider other patents that do not expire like dinosaurs do.
Meteorology in mind: while it's good that we have various groups that act as the devil's advocate (even under good names), we apparently had too many godzillas. I should know, as my given name makes them look foolish. In the scheme of things, that is my (given) burden (by name), so I do know (by experience). When we considered space travel, I know that meant: “open the Satanic bible” instead of “the heavens.” Yes, at one point in history we considered flight as something not good. How stupid were we? Birds fly, so we kept that book closed. Instead of the prison without walls, we tethered our language down to Earth.
“As above, as below.”
It's obvious if something leaves our planet that our climate changes due to the law of conservation. Do we then wait until enough meteors enter our planet's atmosphere before we allow any emission? Let's not forget about the 75% of Earth (uninhabited by humans) before we demand outer-space travel (with exception for Mars). Let's not devolve.