The Biden Admin is doing everything it can to prevent Israel from accomplishing its task to wipe out Hamas. All in the name of protecting “innocent” Palestinian citizens. Well are those citizens really so innocent, since they freely elected Hamas to be their government?

One might argue that not all Palestinians voted for Hamas.
QUESTION: DID ANY OF THEM DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT HAMAS FROM MURDERING JEWS? It seems not. So it can be said they are complicit in the murder of jews, even though they had no part in it. Even Biden has said, “Silence is complicity”.

There are those who claim that by retaliating, Israel is a war criminal. That will not be determined until it is over. And if any such judgment of that is to occur, it must be within the same context as WWII in which Winston ChurchHill destroyed the French Navy after it had been acquired by Nazi Germany, killing hundreds of “innocent” French sailors. Is ChurchHill to be rendered a war criminal? I think not.

Certainly, those protesting and demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians DO BEAR RESPONSIBILTY FOR THE MURDER OF JEWS AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AS SUCH. But what about the silent Palestinian? Are they to be considered the same?

Unfortunately in war, it becomes a numbers game and the non-involved do become the victims of war. How many lives of non-combatants do you spare vs how many of your own do you spare. This becomes the over riding answer in war. Its called “colateral damage”, ie, unintended consequences.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves
“WHAT IS THE PRICE OF OUR NON INVOLVEMENT?” Do we want to become the unspoken victims of war, as in the movie SHENANDOAH, or a combatant?

What ever the answer, we should be sure there is in fact a war going on before making a choice. And to answer that question, all we need do is ask ourselves, “Am I safe walking down the street alone at night in my country?”


For those who do become involved, the overriding objective should be winning the peace, not just the war itself. There is no glory in war. But winning the peace does not mean you surrender your principles. Nor does it mean surrendering or betraying your country as Biden has done.




   We humans see ourselves in terms of position: vertical upright,
   horizontal on back, & horizontal on side.  These being our most
   common positions relative to Earth, they become the  3  basic
   dimensions that are seen as  3 linear axes orthogonal (at right
   angles) to each other. Furthermore, we think of measurable
   increments along each axis as being in the positive or negative
   direction depending upon their position relative to a zero point
   on the axis.   Such a concept gives us a 3-dimensional reference
   system that we see as absolute, albeit not necessarily so.    

   In mathematics unfortunately the plus and minus signs have two
   different meanings, depending upon the position relative to an
   operand. When touching an operand, it means the value of the
   operand is in the positive or negative direction along a linear axis.
   But it can also mean to add or subtract the operand in the absence
   of an explicit operator between two numbers.  And in the absence
   of a touching sign, the default is in the positive direction. When
   not touching an operand, it means addition or subtraction
   between two operands, ie,  it becomes an operator. So in an
   expression, there can be both directional signs and operational

   As a side note & not relevant to this discussion, a minus sign in
   front of an exponent means to raise the reciprocal of the base to
   the power indicated by the exponent.



   The imaginary number, i, is said to be the square root of -1 which
   is impossible, because according to current convention, there is no
   number multiplied by itself one time that yields a negative number.
   Lacking the ability to determine a numeric value, the square root
   of -1 is assigned the variable, “i” & complex numbers are
   mathematical expressions containing  “i”. A complex number is of
   the form (+or-)a +  (+or-)b * i, where “a” is the numerical offset,
   “b” is the numerical multiplicand, & “i” is the Multiplier. It is rare
   to see i * b, where “i”, as the Multiplier, precedes “b”, as the
   multiplicand. But that is going to change in this writing, as we
   shall soon see.



   The aforementioned indeterminate problem of not being able to
   evaluate “i” arises from the fact that mathematicians established
   NUMBER SHOULD BE POSITIVE.  Furthermore, they
   conclusions arose due to the distributive law of mathematics.
   Let me state here my belief that when it comes to groupings
   via ( ..), the order of operations should dictate that expressions
   within a group should be evaluated first. But I will not quibble
   over the distributive law.



   These current-day conventions affecting a change in value
   resulting from multiplication can be expressed as follows:

            M = multiplier/operator

             m = multiplicand/operand

              “*” means times,
              (not to be confused with “**” which means exponent of)

             R = resulting product



      Accumulation Of Positives:
         Plus times Plus = Plus
             +M * +m  =  +R
                     Add +m  to the current value  M times.
                  OR GRAPHICALLY,
                     Relative to the current point,
                     go right M times in increments of |m|.  
                   +3 * +2 =  +2 + 2 + 2 = 6

      Accumulation Of Negatives:
         Plus times Minus = Minus
            +M * -m  =  -R   
                   Add -m  to current value M times.
                OR GRAPHICALLY,
                   Relative to the current point,
                    go left M times in increments of |m|.  
                +3  *  -2  =   0  + ( –  2  – 2  – 2)
                                =  0 + – ( 2 + 2   + 2)   =   -6



      Decumulation Of Positives:
         Minus times Plus = Minus  
            -M * +m   =  -R
                Subtract +m  from the current value  M  times..
             OR GRAPHICALLY,
                Relative to the current point,
                go left M times in increments of |m|.  
                 -3 * +2  =   0  +   -( 2 + 2 + 2)   =    – 6

      Decumulation Of Negatives:
          Minus times Minus = Plus
             -M * -m  =  +R
                  Subtract -m  from current value  M  times.
               OR GRAPHICALLY,
                  Relative to the current point,
                  go right M times in increments of |m|.
               -3 * -2  = – ( -2) – (-2) – (-2 ) 
                           =  + 2 + 2 +2 = +6 

   Observe that I have identified two different types of multiplication,
   “accumulative” and “decumulative”. I make this distinction
   because accumulative  multiplication requires repetitive addition,
   where decumulative multiplication requires repetitive subtraction.

   Also, we note that the sign of the product resulting from the
   repetitive multiplication of a negative multiplicand  alternates
   between + on even repetitions & – on odd repetitions.  In other
   words, a successive number of subtractions of a negative number
   from itself ALTERNATES BETWEEN + & -.  This alternation
   does not appear anywhere else.  So this behavior is seen as



   By insisting that the Multiplier always occurs in front of the
   multiplicand, we can clearly see that, among other things, a
   negative Multiplier means decumulation, whereas a positive
   Multiplier means accumulation. Aside from this fact, we might
   speculate that there could be other meanings in addition. What
   those could be, we are about to find out. 

   Moving on, we might assert that the Multiplier,M, reside on an
   M-axis different from the multiplicand,m, on a separate m-axis,
   with the two axes intersecting each other orthogonally at right
   angles. So the visual graphic of the Multiplier in relation to the
   multiplicand becomes a 2-dimensional planar picture with each
   axis having its own set of + & – directions, rather than just a
   simple 1-dimensional linear graphic.

             THIS                                  NOT JUST THIS

                  |  +                                                                              
       – ——0——- + M-axis        –  ———0———+ M & m
                  | –                              (We are not just talking candy here)

   Given this distinction, we can now begin to think in terms of:

               X-MULTIPLICATION) ,


          (aka, DOT-MULTIPLICATION
                 SCALAR-MULTIPLICATION) .

   The difference is as follows.

   Vector dot multiplication results in a simple 1-dimensional product
   (called the dot-product) that resides on the same axis as the
   Multiplier & multiplicand. Up to now, current conventional
   multiplication has always been equivalent to vector dot
   multiplication for both accumulative and decumulative
   multiplication. But that is about to change, as we are about to
   change decumulative multiplication from vector dot to vector
   cross multiplication. The mathematical expression for computing
   the vector cross product is given as:

    R = M * m

   Vector cross multiplication results in a  product (called the
   cross-product) that is uniquely identified with a direction which
   is orthogonal to directions identified by the M-axis & the m-axis.,
   & whose numerical value is the simple product of the two
   numerical values further multiplied by the sine of the smallest
   angle, @, between the two vectors, M and m.  The mathematical
   expression for computing the vector cross product is given as:

   R = M X m = M * m*  sine(@) .

   So we now have two methods of multiplication, with
   cross-multiplication giving us a clearer 3-dimensional/directional
   picture shown as follows.

                   + m-axis              + R-axis  = CROSS PRODUCT AXIS 
                            ^                        /\
                             |                      ‘ 
                             |                  ‘             
                             |            R1 = (M1 X m1) * sine(90) /
                           m1       ‘     
                              |    ‘
      -M————–0———— M1 ——–> + M-axis
                        ‘     |    @ = -90   
                    ‘         |
                ‘             |
            ‘                 |
      -R                  -m   

   We now proceed to examine the deeper meanings of the
   cross-multiplication method.  



   We’ve started out saying that M-axis was orthogonal to
   m-axis for the sake of simplicity. But the cross-product
   approach says that such is not always the case when it comes
   to vectors, because @ can take on any value between +90
   degrees and -90 degrees as the shortest path between the
   sides of the angle. And this has consequences for both the
   numerical value of the resultant, R, its dimension & its
   positive versus negative directions.        

   Before we go any further, we need to have a clear understanding 
   of how we view angles from a fixed observation point. Then we
   need to know what the sine of an angle is. And finally, we can
   discuss what role the of the angle between the Multiplier &
   multiplicand might be.     


       Envision the face of your clock where the M-axis is a straight
       line running from 12 to 6 in a negative direction & the m-axis
       is a straight line running from 9 to 3 in a positive direction.
       Progressing clockwise, we consider 12 o’clock to be +0
       degrees, & relative to it we recon 3 o’clock to be +90 degrees,
       6 o’clock to be +180 degrees, & 9 o’clock to be  +270 degrees.
       But progressing counter-clockwise from 12 o’clock, we
       consider +270 degrees to be -90 degrees & +180 degrees
       to be -0 degrees. So in this scenario, 12 o’clock is the reference
       side of any angle from it. And because we have aligned the 
       M-axis with 12 o’clock, the M-axis is also the reference side
       of any angle at which the m-axis intersects it.  Furthermore,
       should the M-axis be in a direction other than 12  o’clock,
       then the M-axis should remain the reference side of the 
       angle, @.  

       Therefore, the plus or minus direction of the angle,@,  between
       the M-axis and the m-axis depends upon whether or not we go
       clockwise or counterclockwise from the M-axis to the m-axis.
       And the shortest path from M to m will dictate whether we 
       proceed clockwise or counterclockwise from M.

       Now what about the sine of @? Without going into too much
      detail about what is meant by the sine of an angle, it is enough
       to say that the sine( +0  degrees) is +0, the sine(+90 degrees) is
      +1, the  sine(-0 degrees) is -0, & the sine(-90 degrees) is -1.
      So the sine of an angle acquires the same sign as the sign of the
      angle. If the angle is negative,  its sine is negative. If the angle is
      positive, its sine is positive.

       We now have to determine in what direction the product
       points, plus or minus, along  the resulting orthogonal axis. 

       Traditional vector math calls for the application of the RIGHT
       HAND THUMB RULE.  Finding this to be a little too
       nebulous to explain, I will only mention that the index
       finger should be the multiplicand. I leave it there.

       As an option, I would suggest discounting the sign of the
       Multiplier and applying the sign arising from the sine(@) 
       to the sign of the multiplicand to determine the sign of the



   Having identified two different, but similar forms of
   multiplication, we now ask,”Are we using the correct form
   of multiplication for each?”. After all, we see some unexplainable
   differences between decumulative & accumulative operations.
   So let’s try applying vector cross-computation to multiplication
   instead of dot-computation. 

   We can now see that cross-multiplication not only results
   in a product pointing in an orthogonal direction away from 
   the directions of the Multiplier & multiplicand, but can
   yield an absolute value entirely different from today’s
   conventional multiplication, especially if the sine(@) is
    other than +1 or -1. Therefore, we ask “Which value(s)
   +1 or -1  would yield the same results as todays

   The answer(s) are clear. For accumulative
   multiplication, we need a sine(@) = +1, ie, @ = +90.
   For decumulative multiplication we need sine(@) = -1,
   ie. @ = -90. With this understanding,  we now modify the
   current conventions by simply replacing  the * operator with
   the X operator and adding the (sine @),   making @ = +90
   for  accumulative  & @ = -90 for decunulative

            M = multiplier/operator

            m = multiplicand/operand

            “*” means times,
            (not to be confused with “**” which means exponent of)

            “X” means vector cross multiplication,
            (not to be confused with  variable “x” )

            “@” is the smallest angle between the M-axis & m-axis.
                    It is plus (+) if the shortest distance
                    from the M-axis to the m-axis is clockwise.
                    It is minus (-) if counterclockwise.   

             R = resulting product


       For accumulative multiplication, +90 degrees is appropriate.
       In order for the resultant product, R, to become the same
       value as determined by vector dot multiplication, the value
       of sine(@) must equal +1, which means the angle, @, between
       the +M-axis and +m-axis must be  +90  degrees.
        @ = +90,   sine(+90) = +1 

      Accumulation Of Positives: 
         Plus times Plus = Plus 
         R =  +M X (+m)
              = |+M| * (+m) * sine(@) 
              = |+M| * (+m) * sine (+90) 
              = |+M| * (+m) * (+1)
              =  |+M| * (+m)
              = + (M * m)

      Accumulation Of Negatives:
         Plus times Minus = Minus 
         R =  +M X (-m)
              = |+M| * (-m) * sine(@) 
              = |+M| * (-m) * sine (+90) 
              = |+M| * (-m) * (+1)
              = |+M| * (-m)
              = – (M * m) 

      For decumulative multiplication, -90 degrees works.
      In order for the resultant product, R, to become the same
      value as determined by vector dot multiplication, the value
      of sine(@) must equal -1, which means the angle, @, between
      the +M-axis and +m-axis must be  -90. 
      @ = -90,   sine(-90) = -1

      Decumulation Of Positives: 
         Minus times Plus = Minus 
         R =  -M X (+m)
              = |-M| * (+m) * sine(@) 
              = |-M| * (+m) * sine (-90) 
              = |-M| * (+m) * (-1)
              =  |-M| * (-m)
              = – (M * m)

      Decumulation Of Negatives:
         Minus times Minlus = Plus 
         R =  -M X (-m)
              = |-M| * (-m) * sine(@) 
              = |-M| * (-m) * sine (-90) 
              = |-M| * (-m) * (-1)
              = |-M| * (+m)
              = + (M * m)


   Note that I did not recognize or apply the sign of the Multiplier. It
   was unnecessary when the sine(@) was included. Of course, I
   could have made @ = +90 for the decumulative operation. But
   then there still needed to be some explanation for the differences
   from accumulative cross-multiplication.



       The fact that the resultant product of M1 X m1, R1, always
       resides in the direction orthogonal to the plane of the M-axis/
       m-axis, only one possible direction is left in which  R may
       reside, that direction being identified as the R-axis. And if that
       resultant  product, R1, now becomes the multiplicand, m2, of
       a 2nd such computation involving a new M2, then the direction
       of the new resultant  product, R2, must be on the same  axis as
       the previous multiplicand, m1. And  if that product, R2,
       becomes the next multiplicand  m3, on a 3rd such computation,
       then the direction of the new resultant product, R3, must be in
       the same direction as R1.  In other words, given a succession
       of repetitive vector cross-multiplications & where the
       resulting product becomes the next multiplicand, the R-axis
       switches positions with the m-axis & reverses its negative &
       positive directions.          


       The placement of the product appears as a positive on the 
       R-axis & as a negative on the m-axis  in alternating order
       due to the right-hand thumb rule flip-flopping with each
       iteration of computing the cross-product.

       This explains why a repetitious negative times a negative 
       equals a positive R1 on the R-axis, followed by a negative
       R2  on the m-axis,  followed by a positive R3  back on the 
       R-axis. It gives the appearance of a pulsating R-axis
       acting as a binary switch between + & -. 


       If we conduct a succession of decumulative-cross 
       multiplications of -i , assuming @ = 90 degrees, we get:

        (Cycle begins)

       (-i)**2 = -i  X -i   =  +i**2  =  -1   ( R1 to the R-axis)
       (-i)**3 = -i X -1  =  -1 X -i  = +i     (R2 to the m-axis)
        (-i)**4 = -i X +i  =                   +1   (R3 to the R-axis?)
        (-i)**5 = -i X +1  =                    -i   ( R4 to the m-axis?)
        (Cycle starts over)                       |               
        (-i)**6 = -i X  -i   =                    -1  (R5 to the R-axis?)                                                             

        Powers of (-i) confirmed by internet.

        Of great interest here is the observation that the successive 
        multiplications oscillate between real rational numbers and
        imaginary irrational + & – i.  We must ask, ” is i the basic 
        unit of measure in the world of irrational numbers?”. 

        NOTE:  e**i*pi = -1     where e is Eulers irrational constant.



   1. We have identified two distinct forms of multiplication, ie,
       accumulative vs decumulative multiplication, the difference
       being the accumulative form is a series of additions whereas
       the decumulative form is a series of subtractions. 
       The sign of the Multiplier, M, identifies which form it is.

   2. We have identified two methods of multiplication, dot-product
        multiplication and cross-product multiplication, We have
        adopted  cross-product as the proper method to be used in both
        accumulative and decumulative multiplication. In doing so,
        we recognize the angle between  between the Multiplier &
        multiplicand to be +90 degrees for accumulative multiplication
        as opposed to -90 degrees for decumulative multiplication. 
        As a result, the sign of the Multiplier does not enter into the 
        computation of the product. 

    3. The angle, @, from the Multiplier to the multiplicand is
           normally +90 degrees in order to make the sine(@) = +1,
           thereby confirming that the M-axis is normally orthogonal
           to the m–axis, albeit not eliminating other possibilities for
           values of angle @, resulting in a wide variety of product
           values and plus or minus direction.

   4. The fact that both operands, M & m,  reside on a different axis
       as vectors means that the communitive law no longer applies,
       disproving the idea that a minus times a plus is the same as
       a plus times a ninus. It becomes like saying
       6 cats are the same as 6 dogs.

   Nothing has been done to change anything outside the realm of
   conventional arithmetic & mathematics.  Rather we have found
   old precepts to be applied in new ways to open the door to
   understanding some areas that left us perplexed. As a result, we
   have uncovered a new way of perceiving multiplication, resulting
   in the identification of decumulative multiplication as distinct
   from traditional accumulative multiplication. We have  uncovered
   some interesting details about how we can graphically interpret
   multiplication that involves what we call “direction” Finally, we
   have shed important new light on an entity that has kept its
   meaning hidden from us for so long,
   ie, the imaginary number,  “i”.    



Most people understand the meaning of “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. But what is meant by “equity”?

“Equity” is most commonly used in real estate to identify ownership or title to a real property. It is primarily a way to identify how much of a real property is owned by a borrower as opposed to his lender(s), But we are now seeing the idea of ownership being wrongfully applied to our nation with broad and unjust consequences.

How did this come to be? In all likelihood liberal social justice freaks have confused the term “iniquity” which means “injustice” with the term “inequity” which means “unequal ownership”. To construe inequity as meaning iniquity is fundamentally wrong, lazy and possibly devious.



A “sanctuary” is a protective enclosure. But for who and for what. Cesspools are not sanctuaries. Cities, states snd nations are by definition sanctuaries for citizens. And if you really think about it, a car lane is a sanctuary. Stay in your lane Bro. There is no need to qualify them as “sanctuaries”.





It is the right to rule. The question then becomes, “The right to rule what?”. The most obvious answer is “the right to rule over the land and those people within it”. Sovereignty deals with a physical area and those within it . It is the partitioning of a fixed area. It is implemented in the global realm by dividing the world up into nations with further division occurring based upon area. As a result, we see sovereignty being broken down into states, then counties, then houses, then rooms, then individual people. This is the top-down view. But is it correct?

In the beginning, sovereignty was seen as belonging solely to a ruler of all, ie, a dictator. But the fact is the very seed of sovereignty is the individual person, as evidenced by a collection of individuals overthrowing a corrupt ruler to claim for themselves sovereignty over their individual bodies, yet recognizing the need to relinquish some powers to a higher collection of individuals in the service of preserving the common culture in the neighboring resident area. So today we see sovereignty as issuing up from the individual to higher levels of organization.

This may seem contrary to those who see GOD as the ultimate authority. But if we see GOD as granting each individual a free will, then it can be argued that the individual has been given sovereignty by GOD, & it is ultimately from GOD via the individual that higher organizations get their sovereignty.

And now comes the zinger. Sovereignty not only implies the right to rule, but it implies the duty to protect the ruled. And should that duty be neglected, then the sovereignty that was granted the ruler is revocable.

Now I hear some saying “What about violent gangs? Are they sovereign?” Such gangs are usually run by a dominant bully in the protection of their turf and violating the sovereignty of others. They are no different than a dictator who claims sovereignty over a nation, making threats & breeding injustice.



In other words, sovereignty should not exist for global government. Sovereignty should remain at the lower levels getting stronger at each lower geographic level. Currently within the US, there are 4 levels of government based upon inclusiveness: local, state, federal & global. It is far too easy for any one of these levels to become corrupt, and the higher the level the greater danger there is of wide spread tyranny.

Of course, this view must be augmented by the level of government in possession of the nuclear bomb. But as time passes, we see the proliferation of this threat down to lower levels. And when a level of government fails in its agreed to responsibilities, the next level down must pick up the slack.

If a federal government fails to protect and secure the borders it has agreed upon, then it is up to the individual sovereign states to do so. This implies a necessity for redundancy in military organizations between state and federal levels, each subordinate to their respective level of government. By the same token, if a state government fails in its agreed upon duties, then it is up to the counties to do so.



It is obvious that the more populated a geographic area, the greater the people’s power to influence their immediate geographic government. But to what extent should it have the power to influence a higher level of government that includes geography beyond its bounds & occupies a different culture? This is the reason for the Electoral College and why popular vote alone to select a governor at the higher levels is unacceptable. It assures diversity of both lands and cultures.

Based upon the two factors in determining electorate power, it seems evident that the measure of electorate power should be equal to the citizen population of an area multiplied by the size of the area.


Gestapo Google

As I examine each Google app, it is clear that they are trying to force every one to be connected to their web site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now just why would that be so?? Answer: MONEY VIA GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND FORCED USE OF THEIR PRODUCTS. As dangerous as any authortarian dictatorship can be.

You would think Google would learn from Microsoft’s failure with Windows when they tried to shove 24/7 internet connection down everyone’s throat via Automatic Updates, when what they were really trying to do is to monitor everyone’s activities. But oh no. The nosy neighbors in Google are back at it again, demanding a constant connection to their web site, using automatic updates as an excuse for snooping.

This being done in the name of “security” • The question becomes “Whose security”?



I used to like to think that PI was the rational ratio of 22/7. Then I recently found a proof that PI is irrational.

The basic irrational numbers are less than 1, have no end and cannot be represented as the ratio of two real numbers. They can attach themselves to real numbers causing the result to be irrational. They are numbers that do not have repeated sequences, like .3333… which is 1/3. Changing the base system does not make them rational. They are in a class all by themselves and include complex imaginary numbers expressed as a multiple of the square root of -1. They might be thought of as the trash bin of math.

What is even more disturbing is to realize that most of today’s physical equations include PI. Whether or not Newton solved the problem with differential calculus remains a question to me. But for now it would seem any equation containing PI or any equation containing a term derived from PI is flawed. Hopefully there are smart people today who have isolated the problem.

Speaking of Newton, Newton’s differential of time, dt lim>0, is an attempt to define an EXTREMELY SMALL increment of time, called “instantaneous”. In a similar fashion, Einstein was concerned with the “simultaneity” of two entities which must have considered the smallest increments of time.

  1. Problem:

Imagine the second hand of a clock traveling a full revolution around from one minute to the next.

Question: How far has the end tip of that second hand traveled after 1 minute? Math tells us 2R x PI, where R is the length of the second hand. But if PI is irrational, that distance traveled ,ie, the length of the circumference of the circle traversed by the tip of the second hand, is also irrational, because a real number times an irrational number is irrational. The same applies to any discrete point on the clock’s second hand.

So what is the explanation?

Premise 1: In 1, 2 or 3 dimensions you cannot travel an irrational distance.

Premise 2: That the smallest length is the planck length, could it not be that this is the point at which 3 dimensions transition into an irrational time dimension, or zone, where no units of measure can exist? In other words, smaller units of distance break down to time itself, making it possible to express velocity as a multiple of time, albeit time can be any tiny irrational number.


As it was moving through the two dimensions of the clock face, the clock’s second hand was also moving through time. The impression that a connected circle has been enscribed by the clock’s second hand must be an illusion due to an overlap of the end point and start point, the irrationality occurring as a result of a small unmeasurable time gap between the two, thereby actually following a corkscrew traversal through the 2 dimensions of the clock face and time. Thus, time must give rise to the irrational zone where linearity breaks down and curvature begins.

2. More:

Now consider the matter of splitting the clock circle into equal parts. Yet this is no longer possible, because PI is irrational. This leads us to conclude that repeatability becomes a matter of randomness in the irrational zone.

3. On Time And Space:

The mathematical representation of spacial structures requires the use of a 3 dimensional reference system wherein discrete points are defined. This reference system is shown graphically as 3 intersecting lines orthogonal to each other and expressed mathematically as 3 coordinate points (x,y,z). But to continue defining this reference system, Einstein added time as a fourth dimension, represented as a fourth coordinate point, t, and expressed mathematically as (x, y, z, t). The only way of graphically showing this system is via the motion of 2 or 3 dimension images.

We must always remember that this reference system is man made and never construe it to be reality itself. We must always be cognizant of the fact that VIRTUAL REALITY is not REALITY.

Einstein’s Relativity Theory views space and time as a single entity. In the past, I have found it a little difficult to consider space and time as one entity, preferring to analyze the two separately. However, what I have presented here indicates the two are parts of the same entity, ie “distance”, one part being rational and linear with the other part being irrational. So the reality may be that we are in a one dimensional universe. I see no conflict with Einstein’s Theory.


Is time a manifestation of spacial structure?


Are spacial structures a manifestation of time?


Is there any relationship at all between time and structures?

The explosion of structured living things during the earth’s Cambrian Period would appear to hold some answers. But exactly what is unclear


What is the relationship between time and gravity?

This sounds like a redundant question, given Einstein addressed it in his General Theory Of Relativity. But I still have questions.

That gravity affects time pieces is a curiousity, coupled with the fact that gravity induces constant changes in veloclty of 3 dimensional objects toward each other based upon their respective masses. Einstein explaned this in terms of the fabric of space-time itself changing.



You will know evil when there is disparate process & punishment for two different parties accused of the same crime.

It is a very short distance from voluntary “conformity” to forced “compliance”.

Diversity in journalism is most desirable. But fabrication of stories, dismissal of facts, and outright lying is not.



can leave us confused with terminology if we are not careful. Binary thinking can be myopic and lead to the wrong actions.

Just as there are the 3 contrasting spacial directions of left vs right, up vs down, & forward vs backward, there are contrasting terms to describe political position. So here is a list that is far more than 3 dimensional.

communism vs capitalism
(gov vs
private ownership)

socialism vs individualism
(conformity vs

fascism vs libertarianism
(restrictive vs

liberal vs consevative
(disregard vs
careful thought)

tyranny vs democracy
(one vs
two party rule)

globalism vs nationalism

left vs right
(an aggregate
of the above)

So which would you rather be

(See the movie I DELORES on TUBI)


To be a “Democrat” means you believe in citizen election systems. It is derived from the Greek word, “democracy”. Democrats tend not to believe in a “republican” form of government. To be a “Republican” means you believe in a representative form of government. However, in a “republic” representatives can be appointed or elected. So it is critical to qualify what type of “Republican” one is. Current qualifiers include “left/liberal”, “centrist/moderate”, and “right/conservative”. And these same qualifiers apply to Democrats. However, this somewhat binary description can be misleading if we do not know the difference between “left” and “right”. So it is important to drill down as to the exact meaning, which is the reason for the preceding contrast of terms.

It really matters not whether one is a democrat or republican. What does matter is the specific type of democrat or republican one is. And this is where “socialism” comes in. Socialism stands in contrast to individualism, which means collective conforming demands as opposed to individual independency. The danger exists of demands for conformity turning into demands for compliance, which can turn into tyranny. Socialism can and does often become the pathway the injustice “fascism” or “communism”, and hence, tyranny.


A key question to ask ourselves is: Under what circumstances is independence vs unity justified? Commonality is definitely a factor in support of unity. But geographical distance, language and cultural differences are factors supporting independence.

Certainly, a one world government is far from desirable. But neither is a chaotic unruly free for all world.

Moderation in all aspects of life is the best optimization in governing life.

Before the current democrats came along, we had that. But now Biden is crushing it.


More than likely, the Biden admin sees today’s US nationalists as the equivalent of the violent Irish Republican Army. This is what we call “STEREO TYPING”. And it is completely wrong.

Irish Nationalists want(ed) complete separation and independence from England. US nationalists don’t want separation, BUT MERELY WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO ITS JOB PROTECTING THE BORDERS. So the Biden admin has done an immense disservice to US nationalists.

This little history of Irish Republicanism may be where we are in the US.

Further reading of political history reveals that “radicalism” is unique to the left as opposed to “social conservatism”

Today’s Biden admin has all the ear marks of radicalism.

Until seeing the documentary I DELORES, it had always bothered me that the IRA called themselves “Republican”. But that movie showed they considered themselves “SOCIALIST” Republicans as opposed to “TRADITIONAL” Republicans who they hated.

So once again we have socialists waging war and violence. Nothing new.

In 1921 Britain gave independence to Ireland. But six Northern counties wanted to remain in in the UK. This was not good enough for the. greedy IRA. So they began a war of crime and violence, just like all “socialists”.

Socialists call themselves “republican”. But that is a lie, because they only represent themselves. Socialists call themselves “democratic”. But that is a lie, because they do not honor a two party system. Socialists claim to support human rights. But that is a lie, because they cancel freedom of speech and imprison political adversaries.

Socialist politicians exploit minority malcontent to cause violence for the purpose of attaining power over police and military to use in over throwing our form of government. Their ruse has nothing to do with “human rights”. CS LEWIS.
“You might think that your love for humanity is sufficient to justify any other action. BUT THE MINUTE YOU MAKE ONE CAUSE YOUR ENTIRE PURPOSE, YOU FIND YOURSELF FALSIFYING EVIDENCE AND BECOMING A TREACHEROUS PERSON.”


One word… JUSTICE.

Before Obama was elected in 2008, the border crisis was already under way, with California already in the control of left wing nut jobs calling everyone opposed to opened borders a “racist”. And then, Jamiel Shaw, a young black kid just out of high school with a promising football career was shot and murdered by an illegal right in front of his home, while his mother was serving in Iraq. We watched the pain and suffering of this family as they sought justice from the so called “virtuous” democrats in LA who denied this family from being heard and comforted in their loss, thereby exposing once and for all the Democrats absolute lies and hypocrisy.

When Donald Trump was running for POTUS in 2016, his first thing was to give air to Mr Shaw, Jamiel’s father.
Donald Trump is the REAL THING. If you truly want truth and justice, then put him back in charge.



Having spent years trying out solar generated electricity, I would say IT WILL NEVER COME CLOSE TO REPLACING FOSSIL FUEL. And even the addition of wind generated electricity will not help. That is not to say that each has not its place.

Here is a good comparison of space station solar panel size to occupant capacity.

Max occupants = 7

8 panels each = 112 x 39 ft

That is almost 5000 sq ft per person.

How would you like a house of 5000 sq ft for just one person?

So how much does a wind turbine really produce?

Average wind speed is about 6.5 m/s, giving an average power output of 900W (from power curve). Average energy per day is 900W x 24h = 21,600 Wh or 21.6 kWh.

In my 800 sq ft home, I can use up to 600 KW-HRS in 30 days, or 20 KW-HRS per day.

Therefore, one wind turbine would barely power my house, despite the turbine having the ability to generate more power.
Looks like we need more global warming to produce stronger wind.

Maybe Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, et al should be giving their speeches in front of a wind turbine.