(V): The president didn't need to pamper to "conspiracy theory" because he initiated it. After that he could sit back and let straw men factory owners spin it for him. Not as subtle as you might imagine, but don't let that stop you from imagining.

(V): I didn't dodge the message posted 2. May 2011, 18:41:15

(V): My special ops forces found your straw man factory last night. We have captured many of your minions and are holding them hostage. They will be well cared for if you agree not to harm the remaining straw men at your factory. Logic clearly eludes you (2. May 2011, 18:41:15) so maybe you can be persuaded into releasing the remaining straw men in exchange for the ones we captured.

(V): "..release and confirmation of Obama's long birth cert." 25% still don't believe what about his long birth cert? How long does it take for any bona fide U.S. citizen to provide a birth record? How long do you suppose it took for him to provide proof of identity and birth when getting his drivers license? Try getting one of those for only a song and a dance.

(V): According to Jay Leno, the Queen felt that 65,000,000 was too much to shell out for a wedding in these uncertain economic times. If security came to about 40,000,000, then does this mean the wedding only cost the families 25,000,000? A mere pittance! I think Bernice was telling me how much tax payers pay every year to keep the royal family in business.. that was the figure I was trying to catch. As to you explaining in your own words the logic of Obamas lack of transparency.. "it don't matter" to whom?

Bernice: I was 97% certain there is no literal goose laying golden eggs inside the palace walls. I would have been 100% certain, but was so busy chasing (V) down the rabbit hole I almost got lost. So, not even close to a billion dollars then? A mere pittance!

(V): "The only bill the tax payer payed for was security." Right.The taxpayer is only tapped to pay for security at royal weddings. Thanks for clearing that up. Other than for security at weddings, our tax payers are not required to pony up money to support our royal family either. Well, except for that time Obama took Oprah for a ride on Air Force One, but that was a justifiable expense.

(V): ".. Is that so?" Yes, that is so. If it is not so, then in your own words please, explain how Obama honoring request for proof of citizenship would have triggered an investigation into proof of citizenship? Showing requested papers would not have put speculation to rest, because there would be no speculation to put to rest. He didn't just control the story, he inspired it. So in your own words please, explain the logic behind Obamas reluctance to not appear to be hiding anything?

(V): I didn't claim he isn't a U.S. citizen. My question is why does he act as though he has something to hide? What happens if you are asked to provide proof of who you are when applying for a drivers licence, and you say no? He obviously has something to show or he couldn't have gone from weed toking scholar to community activist and then into politics. So why all the fuss? What is so important to him that he is willing to let some lame conspiracy theory go unchecked. All he had to do was show papers that any presidential hopeful is asked to show. He could still do it. Could have done it at any time. As for anyone else profiting from Obamas apparent lack of transparency, so what? Obama was in control of the story. If it is wrong for anyone other than Obama to profit from that story, then all Obama had to do was .. wait for it .. hold on to your chair .. this could be a paradigm shifting revelation .. chamber pot and paper bag ready? .. all Obama had to do was practice what he preaches.

(V): I don't believe pre-election Obama was playing a game of hounds and foxes. I don't believe he is that clever. He doesn't have to be, he has clever fellows like you to defend him. I think he genuinely feels that it is beneath his dignity to be treated as any other American president, and whatever his qualifications may be are none of our business. You don't tell your Queen what to do or say, so why should he listen to us? I will say that he is adept at learning from past democrat presidents. ~ Clinton write book make lots of money, I write book make lots of money. ~ Clinton good looking guy, me good looking guy.. no, better looking. ~ Clinton no care what future generations will have to deal with, me don't even know what that means.. what has that to do with me? Doesn't matter, I don't care about that either. ~ Past presidents go on speaking tours, make lots more money regardless of how good they were, me go on lecture circuit too.. hope the economy recovers enough for those fools to pay me what they payed Clinton.

(V): When I said most Americans are savy, does this not imply that some are not savy? The one most to gain from questioning Obamas legitimacy was Obama. This is why you continue bringing it up, is it not? When I asked you who is paying for the royal wedding, your answer was the families. You then said "Constitutional Monarchy", and credited them for being a tourist attraction. I understand they also fill a diplomatic role, do they not? As to how the wedding was payed for, you answered my question without really answering it. That's okay, I aready knew the answer.

Artful Dodger: I wasn't sure what he was trying to do. If he wants to play with straw dolls I have no objection. I don't know what he thinks he is accomplishing, except for giving us a platform to dispute the real (not imagined) nonsense going on in American politics today. God has a purpose for everyone, and if his is to play the fool then God bless his pointy little head.

(V): lol You have the advantage over me.. I don't know what the voices in your head are telling you, I only know what you and I have been saying.

Artful Dodger: Well how about that! A guy in a cowboy hat, sitting in a park and sippin' on a cup of joe (tea?) who is able to cite court rulings based on constitutional principles.. were these rulings only in favor of a left leaning demonstrators right to free speech? I would like to see gas bags wearing three piece suits try telling me how those rulings don't apply to anyone else.. are there any of those on youtube?

(V): "The kangaroo court that some Republican/tea party members set up.." It was Democrat/ crack party members who started that trend. it's been that way a long time now, long before the tea party ever showed up. The information you google might be getting rerouted through intermultidimensional trans-atlantic rifts, can't aways rely on what comes back from dimensions where everyones heads and hands are way too big for their bodies. In some dimensions the concept of hypocrisy is as foreign as knowing which side of the bread should be buttered. Due to translation difficulties it is not out the ordinary for research to come back somewhat demented or incomprehensible.

(V): "Comply to whom?" .. The people who will be voting for either candidate, that's 'whom'. It is not a mandate, but something people have come to expect from either party. We have been lectured by the left to demand transparency, bipartisanship, and yes, even U.S citizenship status. The left insists the people have a right to know anything they want to know.. about any republican candidate. They don't need to tell us if the same standards of transparency and decency apply to them. The are above reproach, and above approach. We don't deserve them.. I mean really, we really don't.

If it came down to a race between Trump and Obama I would vote for Trump. If Obama is put forward as the same and next "credible" candidate, I would vote for any republican candidate that party puts on the ticket. I think some former (disenchanted) Obama voters would either sit it out or vote for Trump as well. I would like to see Trump say "You're fired" to the Obama appointed czars. They then could have their own TV special, Dancing with the Czars, hosted by the the former king of czars.

(V): I said that "I think most Americans are savy.."Also, in a previous message I said it doesn't matter if he is a natural born citizen or not because he is now the president, and so we are stuck with him until the next election. When called upon to provide proof of medical health or anything else relevant (like, U.S. citizenship) Obama steadfastly refused to comply. He seemed to welcome questions about his citizenship, without acknowledging those questions, so I believe he wanted us to focus on that instead of other issues surrounding him. Whenever democrats talk about something they "believe" in, something like transparency, it doesn't necessarily mean they are talking about themselves.

(V): Most Americans understand the political motivations behind elections here. Only some fall for the hype that filters through into foreign markets. Whether they speak up or not, I think most Americans are savy to what their own free press does with that freedom.

(V): The families you say? Are their apparent fanancial/investment instincts genetic?

Horse walks into a bar. The bartender looks up and says "Why the long face?" Horse says "My human care giver continues calling me an old nag, even after leading academics have condemned such insulting stereotypes. He continues to promote the ever widening rift between humans and members of the aminal kingdom." Bartender looks nervously around, sees John Kerry coming in and says "Norm!!"

(V): I don't watch reality TV shows, so I don't know if the royal wedding has started yet or not. Will they be serving Coca Cola? Will Coca Cola be sponsoring the event? if not, then who is paying for it?

(V): lol I don't know. Would they?

if past elections are any indication we might see 6 years of lame duck presidency instead of only 2. After the photogenic Clinton won his second term I gave up making predictions. Who knows what may happen this time? Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me.

"credible" is the opperative word.

It was not a rhetorical question. I would really like to know.

(V): .. mmmm slight problem with crack party/democrat election plans... who is their credible candidate?

Übergeek 바둑이: All righty then, Honor Diverse Uniformity will be my new bumper sticker. It's fun being cheeky when I'm talking physics, but when talking politics it just seems like the right thing to do.

Iamon_lyme: Or do I replace both with one that says Honor Homogeneous Diversity?

Do I place my Honor Uniformity bumber sticker next to the one that says Honor Diversity, or over it?

Übergeek 바둑이: I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity. I assumed Brave New World was intended as a warning, not a road map for getting there. My assumptions are rarely correct. I can agree with much of what you say. except for your question why is uniformity a bad thing. And the fact that we are becoming increasingly dependant on foreign goods and services is as comforting to me as knowing that if my business fails because of goons demanding their protection money (seriously, what is the difference?) I can always come crawling back to those goons and ask for some of it back in the form of governmental goods and services. Yes, America will decline and get absorbed, because no nation has ever managed to avoid the event horizen of moral degradation after acheiving stability and wealth. History has proven this over and over. But it is interesting to me how those who don't believe in Biblical prophesy are the ones working their tails off to make it come true. Just because I don't like where we are heading to doesn't mean I don't believe we won't get there. As I said once before, I don't like unpleasant surprises.

Sorry for how my last message ended. politics annoys the hell out of me.

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry, I thought you knew what I meant. The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to. U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world. So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them). Then let's print lots and lots of money to dilute its value, which was getting lower anyway. Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore.. They could have applied for food stamps, like everyone else, so what's their problem? Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices. But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what? You see where I'm going with this? Do you really want someone like me to expand on this, after I left the door open for any fool to walk in? I didn't think so.

Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck with him until the next election. Clinton slipped in under the radar too, we didn't really know him until we had to deal with him. The left simply learned from that lesson and found another tool we didn't really know. We heard him give us hope in who knows what, and listened with rapt attention to him singing songs of praises to himself. U.S. will continue losing influence in the world, the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised, and tension in the Middle east will be resolved by the so called savior the world has always really wanted. Good luck with all that. I sincerely hope I am long gone before that day comes. I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car. See yall next Easter. Maybe.

(V): More important to who? More important to pagan idealists who feel compelled to exchange gifts because it's expected of you? There is more religious "tollerance" around Easter time than there is at Christmas. I can get away with talking about God up until Easter, without hearing all the hate talk I hear at Christmas time. The day after Easter, and you all get back to the business of saying what you really mean.

(V): "I thought the birth of Christ was more important"

Iamon_lyme: note to self. wait more than 5 minutes after waking up before posting message to a public board. it took at least that long for me to now figure out what I was talking about.

Übergeek 바둑이: it seems counter inuitive, possibilities bubbling up into probabilities until something 'reall appears. It sounds like order naturally evolving froming disorder, which we know doesn't happen at the highter tiers of macro reality. rather we see disorder, and call it entropy. There seems to be a balance between apparent disorder at the micro leading to a natural order at the macro, Maybe this is why, as living creatures composed of mass, there is the equalibrium we need to survive. We are able to exist because of that balance. Here's another strange idea: what if the constant processes at the micro leading eventually to the macro is a pattern resembling what we think happened after the big bang? Fractals deal with larger patterns being made up of similar smaller ones, or another way of saying it, all smaller patterns are foundational to any larger ones.

Übergeek 바둑이: lol Makes me wonder why we try squinting hard enough to 'see' it. But if at least some of our assumptions are right, then maybe we can infer something from them. Like maybe here (where we live and breath) in the macro. what appears to be stable is the result of a natural progression from unstable parts into 'stable' structures, appearing to hold themselves together. If gravity can be described as an illusion (real in effect, but illusory in nature) then maybe parts having no volume can clump to together to create the illusion of volume. When I say illusion I don't mean not real, I mean something appearing to be immutable and real in and of itself. I suggested the theory of large numbers because of how appearance of stability can be acheived through an increasing number of events. Our reality (on the macro level) appears stable to us because that is how we naturally percieve it.

Übergeek 바둑이: quantum mechanics and relativity theory don't "mix", but they have to be connected in some way, so the problem isn't that they don't mix. The problem is we don't know where the link is, or more to the point, what it is. This is just a shot in the dark, but has anyone tried incorporating the theory of large numbers into the mix? the (quantum) micro is supposed to be the functional building block of the bigger (relativity) macro, so we might find a connection if we start looking in the right places. If the link isn't where we think it should be, it must be somewhere else.

(V): Treating an iidea as though it means nothing more than a fanciful thought doesn't make it nothing more than a fanciful thought. Just because there are so many things that exist only in the imagination doesn't mean everything we consider is only imagined. Someone imagined worlds beyond our own before any were seen, and there is an object lesson we can learn from such examples in our 3 coordinates of space and 1 of time if we choose to be open to it. I saw you speak of Paranormal and Supernatural as though the two are interchangable words. I sometimes talk to an old friend who insists he believes in the supernatural, but then tells me it is impossible for supernatural events in the Bible to have happened. I think what he really means is that he believes in the paranormal, but for some reason he thinks supernatural means the same thing. He is very intelligent, by the way, so I'm always puzzled as to why he doesn't know the difference.

Maybe this is just the aspergers talking, but a while back someone said "religon is little more than man made comfort for the soul" When I was an atheist I heard simillar comments, but could not for the life of me understand how anyone who beclieved in good and bad consequences after death could find that comforting. I took more comfort in and was a firm believer of the idea of an eternal no uncertain risk/reward ratio, especially in contrast to the possibility of eternal suffering. I'm a huge fan of comfort, especiallly my own. If someone was absolutely sure they had no soul to risk, how could that not be comforting compared to the possibity of eternal discomfort? The worse thing you could feel is a little sad that it will all come to an end, and when the end comes then no more sadness. Some religions are comforting, especially the ones that are able to parse away anything personally objectionable, but in my experience real life doesn't naturally follow a path leading to personal happiness or comfort. In fact,I was much happier when I didn't bother to think about it. But if there is a door I'll be passing through after death, I would rather find out about now, while I have time to prepare for it. I don't like unpleasant surprises. They can be very uncomfortable.

GT: beep beep! na~ na~ na~ na~ Whoosh!!

Iamon_lyme: I can feel my intelligence leaking out of me and into another dimension. Where did it go? Who did it go to? How can I be certain this is happening? We call them dimensions over here, what do they say they are?Dementians? Dalmation-loins? How can I know? And why for the love of ginger snaps am I replying to my own message? Am I pondering what you are pondering? Narf?

So, from one genius to another, what the @#%*& are you guys talking about? I know space isn't a perfect vacuum, so give me a break. Maybe there's a lot of stuff between, let's say, the earth and an oncoming meteor, but is there really enough dust and dark matter and energy rays etc. to significantly slow it down or even deflect it by much? When I say vacuum within a vacuum, I'm describing something that can't be visualised, but if it could it might appear to be areas of space that have dialated or contracted because of the effect of time. Anyway, if the kid gets through puberty before the "hype" screws with his head, he will probably be ok. Consider what happens to many child TV and movie actors when they make the transition to adulthood. I hope the kid has a solid down to earth family as he grows up, otherwise he will be like a sheep among wolves before he is ready to face the wolves. Uber, you apparently know, just as I too found out, how flattery and ego building can be a set up for disappointment. Hero worship can do much more harm to the "hero" than criticism. I say give the kid his 15 minutes of fame and then let him disappear back into his world. Ego building is a trap and fame is a killer. Anyway don't mind me, I always start off moody when I get up. I'm ready for Spring to pop in, anytime Spring is ready to show itself. ahem, I said, I'm ready for Spring to show up. awww come on, Spring, that was your cue! Am i the only one who is on top of things today??

(V): A twelve year old boy who is naturally able to suspend disbelief long enough to wonder about what he has learned is no big surprise. Just means he thinks like any other 12 year old boy. He is playing with ideas and saying to himself, I wonder what this means, or what would happen (in an equation) if this is also true. His ablilities do seem to be limited to seeing the world almost exclusively through math, but he is also apparently very good with language as well, and is good at expaining his ideas. He has aspergers. I can relate to that, as I have a very mild form of it, virtually undetectable. At least undetectable when I was young, I don't know how my life would have been different if I was 50 younger, and growing up in a much different world than I remember. At least now I have a retroactive excuse for my weird behavior, so I guess it's not a total loss. Kids who had it worse than me might have been labeled weird or retarded or incorrigible, or whatever. I believe I may have just barely slipped in under the radar.

(V): I've never tried visualizing being everywhere at the same time, but I did try to visualize what a space time curviature might look like. It was very disorienting. Couldn't look at it for more than a few seconds at a time. What I fiound interesting about the thought experiment was that I envisioned space contracting, instead of dialating, which at least one theory of gravity says is what actually happens. Try envisioning a vacuum within a vacuum and you will see (and feel) the problem of visualizing it. It felt like a carnival ride. The funny thing about it was that for the most part I got it right, but apparently everything I "saw" was opposite and in reverse order of what gravity (as time dialation) is supposed to be. Space is already a vacuum, so the only way you can acheive a vacuum within a vacuum is by jiggering time so that volumes and distances can change while still remaining to be the same volumes and distances. What I mean is, instead of using a yardstick to measure another yardstick, you can use time to measure a yardstick, If time speeds up the yardstick becomes shorter, slow time down it becomes longer, but in each scenario it still remains the same 36 inches. I watch a few videos of the 12 year old math juggernault, and his grasp of mathematical principles is impressive. I'm not much good at math, so now I know how my kids felt when I tried explaining their homework to them. That's how I felt watching Jacob Barnett explaining calculus and singularities and his thoughts on light speed etc. I was amused and intimidated, but overall I came away with a big smile on my face. I joked about how I hope he doesn't use crayons on the family room wall. He doesn't. He uses an erasable marker to scribble on windows. Close enough. :op

(V): I'm being half serious and half flippant about this, so both of those states exist at the same time. That too was a joke, by the way. But my original thought was simply how can everything we see now have existed in various stages of size? The enitre universe existed in an area the size of a basketball, and even when all matter and energy was nearly fully formed, it existed within an area you could in no way now fit the entire universe in. I understand how space itself was being defined during this time, and how on the quantum level the rules defining space can break down as well as other defining features we have come to see as immutable (on a larger nonquantum scale) We all see with the same limited senses. I am simply admitting to my inability to understand everything from the limited perspective of being a creature who cannot hope to "see" how it all works, but must by neccessity rely on my ability to understand it. Everyone relies on faith to some degree, "the evidence of things not seen". But even faith must be based on something other than what we are able to imagine. The mistake many scientists make is to poo poo faith as religious nonsense, while at the same time relying on faith to move their own nebulous theories forward. I am not against science, I am all for it. What I am against is wanton irrationality in the so called search for "truth" by some who are not as intellectually honest as they would like me to believe. Just because I believe in an intelligent designer doesn't mean I can be fooled by 'science-speak'. It is a m;istake to over estimate or underestimate someone based solely on what they believe about God.

Artful Dodger: I can't access the emoticons here, so you will have to settle for an old fashioned LOL. Hopefully he now uses paper and pen for scribbling his notes, and does not use crayons on the family room wall. My kids were geniuses when it came to knowing when we were paying attention or not. I don't know anything about this kid, but already I'm starting to like him. I payed a lot of attention to how much cereal was in the box, and where the prize could most likely be found. I solved that problem by dumping all of it into a large mixing bowl, and then putting it back into the box after getting the prize. What's his problem with the big bang theory? Is it the idea itself, or because of the exotic math found in string theory? We've infered from the math multiple extra dimansions, and then go from there to say that gravity is leaking into our dimension from one of the others. Something does seem to be leaky, but I don't think it's because of some crack leaking gravity from another dimension into ours. Most of this speculation does nothing more than satisfy the demands of an overly cumbersome mathematical structure, which by the way was originally derived from another equation put together for some other unrelated purpose. I can't imagine this kid saying he likes the steady state universe theory over the big bang theory when the evidence seems to point to some starting point. I'm guessing it's the math he has a problem with. Scientists should stop screwing around with fancy and imaginative theories, and go back to finding simple and common sense anwsers. Do it for the children, like little 12 year old Jimmy, or Tommy, or whatever the heck that kids name is. Doesn't matter, do it for the kids!! So,How am I doing, boss? You think there's a place for me in Democrat party politics?

It happened again. this always happens. I put everyone to sleep. (it's not you, it's me) :o)