I think Sheldon Cooper said that what he liked most about theoretical physicists was they could go their entire career without having to prove a single thing. There's a lot of truth in that fiction, but does that it comes from fiction mean it's not true? :)

I can see where I lost some readers in my metaphor weeks ago, comparing theoretical physicists to science fiction authors. The word fiction has a literary sense, as in science fiction books, but it also has another sense, as in fact or fiction. The word theoretical also loosely means fictional, or more precisely, unproven. When I suggested that Hawkings was a science fiction author, it was a play on words meaning science that was unproven (fiction), not literally the literary "space opera" science fiction.

Science fiction authors predicted the cell phone, DNA, SCUBA gear, rockets, submarines, tanks, and the atom bomb decades before scientists proved any of it, but we don't call (literary) science fiction authors "scientists" (nor should we). One of the most unfair facts of life is literary fiction remains fiction even after its theories are proven, where theoretical science drops the word synonymous with fiction ("theoretical") and becomes science. And perhaps even more unjust, even if every theory a scientist has is proven wrong (thus being indistinguishable from fiction), they are still 'scientists'.

My point was that when you put the word theoretical next to anything else, it renders it fictional, as in not a fact, or unproven (not to be confused with the literary sense of fiction). More importantly, we should not let this fool us into giving their theories the weight of science, or power over our economy.

An expert at surgical theory is different than a surgeon. An expert in game theory is not necessarily the best poker player. An expert in bomb theory is not the guy to call instead of the bomb squad. And a theoretical physicist is... well, they can go their entire career without having to prove a single thing, which is why blindly taking their advice is as dangerous as, well, taking advice from a science fiction authors.

NFL's takingAKnee is Trump tweets

Bill Murray tells a fantastic joke that covers most of everything we are seeing today.

The joke, badly paraphrased from memory:

A man comes in to see a doctor and the doc starts him out on the standard inkblot test.

The man winces and says "a couple making love under a tree!"

The doc flips to the next, and the man says "a couple having sex on a table."

The doc flips through five more.

"sex sex sex sex sex"

The doc says "I think I know what the problem is, you're obsessed with sex."

The patient slams his hands against the table, outraged, "I'm obsessed with sex? You are the one with all the dirty pictures!"

...
What we have is an inkblot test with people seeing very different thinks. It really does NOT matter what the intent of the players is, their intent is the inkblot. Failing ratings proves millions of people are seeing something very offensive, and tuning out.

We can argue over what the inkblot (taking a knee) "really" means, but it's not going to be any more successful than telling the man that he, not the doctor, is obsessed with sex.

This is the same phenomenon we see with the inkblot called Trump. Millions see a Hitler (with a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren), while others see that 'Hitler stuff' as absurd. It's an inkblot. Both are inkblots that tell ONLY what THE VIEWER sees; and what the viewer sees has NOTHING to do with the truth of the inkblot and everything to do with what's going on in the mind of the VIEWER. Inkblots illuminate the illusions in our own minds, not reality.

An inkblot is just an inkblot, they are pictures of nothing.

Football means what the viewer THINKS it means. The NFL and the Players have as much control over what "taking a knee" means as the doctor has over what a patient sees in an inkblot. And Trump has no control over what people "think" he means by his tweet. Half of America "thinks" it means the opposite of what the other half "thinks" it means.

"Taking a knee" is, literally, the NFL's version of the Trump tweets everyone says he should stop doing.

The difference is that Trump does not need the people who think he's Hitler, he already got elected without them. He actually benefits from driving them insane, he benefits from having them screaming 'sex sex sex' at everything they see, it destroys their credibility. Where the NFL can't afford to have half their audience "think" the NFL hates the police, the military, and America.

It doesn't matter what the inkblot really is a picture of, to the NFL it matters what the audience THINKS the inkblot means, and right or wrong, too many "think" taking a knee means the NFL hates America.

Charlottesville and confederate statues

The reason why Auschwitz was built is entirely different than the reason why it should never be torn down.

"Never Again"

The reason why these confederate statues were put up is entirely different than the reason why they should never be torn down.

"Never again"

I'm a libertarian. I'm "one of those" that wastes their vote every year, so my political views are generally hated by BOTH sides.

Southern states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Not until Trump have more Democrats boycotted an inauguration than Lincoln's. This fact is unsettling to an outside observer, like me.

The democrat mayor of Charlottesville declared it "the capital of the resistance" before Trump's inauguration... just as Richmond, just a few miles down the road, was named the capital of the confederacy (resistance) before Lincoln was inaugurated.

Staged violence was used to start the civil war, too.

"Never again"

Not one of the southern states had a republican governor, they were all ruled (super majorities) by democrats. The KKK was formed by a delegate to the DNC named Forrest (like in Forrest Gump). Not one democrat signed the first ANTI-KKK law, in fact, a democrat president vetoed it, but was overridden by Republicans.

The amendments to the constitution freeing the slaves, making them citizens, and giving them the vote were all done entirely by Republicans without a single Democrat senator's vote.

Auschwitz.

The Germans were not all Nazis. The average soldier believed they were fighting for their country, not to exterminate Jews. They were largely duped by their politicians.

The average confederate soldier believed they were fighting against northern aggression. They believed they were fighting for the states' rights to self-govern. Less than one percent owned slaves. Put another way, getting millions of poor southerners to fight for a plantation owners' rights to own slaves would be as hard a sell as getting the poor today to fight for the rights of millionaires to own yachts.

The average German soldier was not suited to the task of exterminating Jews. It sickened them so much that Hitler was forced into building death camps. Running rail cars, building camps, using ovens is far more expensive than firing a single bullet and letting the body rot where it falls. But the average German soldier wouldn't slaughter civilians without ruining themselves (PTSD), so the camps had to be built.

The death camps, in a way, are a testament to the reluctance to kill civilians of the average soldier. It took a special kind of evil to work at one of the camps that the average German didn't have.

Confederate soldiers were duped into fighting for a temper tantrum that the democrat party threw over the first republican president.

But they threw it for a reason.

Slavery.

The first constitution written entirely by democrats during the confederacy was the only pro-slavery constitution in history. Not one republican pen ever touched it.

3/5ths.

Anti-slavery republicans didn't want to count slaves at all. Slave-holding democrats wanted to count them as whole, even though slaves could never vote.

There was a twisted reason for this. By counting slaves as people, slave-states got extra seats in The House. Since slaves could not vote, this effectively let slave owners vote for their slaves. Sanctuary cities, all Democrat strongholds today, still use this strategy to inflate their power in House Seats.

The revolt and the Democrats' revulsion over Lincoln was largely over this issue (loss of house seats due to slavery), but this wasn't what was sold to the people.

The Democrats today Hate Trump because if he is successful in deporting illegals and building a wall, sanctuary cities lose house seats that let democrats vote on behalf of those illegals. They stand to lose as much illegitimate power as Lincoln took from them.

"Never again"

Those statues honor what confederates fought for, states' rights, and what they were duped into fighting for, slavery. It says "never again" very loudly, in a way mere words can not.

Robert E Lee.

Robert E Lee was an anti-slavery general that Turned Down Lincoln's request to fight on the side of the union. Lee bought into the 'states' rights' argument and fought out of loyalty to his state, over his country. This is an honorable thing. The first thing Lee did after the war was visit a Black Church and pray for forgiveness. His life after the war was dedicated to unification.

I lived near Monument in Va. These statues fit the area. They fit the architecture. As art, they are magnificently sculpted and a testament to the talent of the artists. They are museum quality art for everyone to see.

They may have been installed to intimidate republicans and to oppress blacks, but today they mean something very different.

Auschwitz means something different today too.

Both are testaments to people falling for the lies of politicians. Both are testaments to the fallen. Both are warnings to future generations that say "never again" in a way only they can.

As a libertarian, I fully expect both sides to hate all of what I just said, just as the duped soldiers of those two wars would.

But I hope, very soon, some will find themselves quietly praying for forgiveness, like Lee did, and work on the unification that is badly needed.

Global warming confusion

One of the main problems with environmental science, global warming, and public figures like AlGore is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between applied and theoretical physics.

Put simply, theoretical physics -- the underpinning of global warming -- is best thought of as Dick Tracy, where applied physics is the iPhone.

Sure, Tracy may have been eventually proven right by Steve Jobs, but it was purely fictional until the first iPhone.

It was not fact.

When something is not a fact, it can be a theory based on fact, but that is still a fancy way of saying fiction.

The cold, hard truth is theoretical physicists are science fiction authors with PHDs. They don't like hearing that, and I don't like saying it, and AlGore refuses to believe it, but it is what it is. More theories will be proven wrong than proven right. String theory included. This is not to diminish their brilliance or their achievements, but merely to put it back into perspective. Because a theoretical physicist says it, that does not make it a fact any more than if it came out of a comic book.

Today, there are at least 4 different theories on quantum physics taught. People spend a fortune learning them, being tested on them, being graded on them... when the only fact we know for sure is that at least 3 of them are wrong. At least 3 out of 4 might as well be learning Hogwarts. Fiction. But because they pay money and take tests, it gives them the illusion delusion that what they are learning has value equal to the effort and price paid... when common sense says most will learn fiction, not fact.

The worst part for most of these graduates is not that they spent a fortune learning fiction (theory is fiction), but that along the way they lost critical thinking and common sense, something few ever get back.

The reality is that computer models are really video games with bad graphics, they are not facts and do not generate facts, nor should they be treated as such. They generate guesses. Nobody would turn an indie car over to the best driver of grand theft auto, nor should we give our economy over to a climate model. Sorry, that's just dumb.

Hawkings, as much as I respect the man and believe him to have a much higher than average odds of being right, he is still a fiction writer, no different than Hogwarts or Dick Tracy. It will take a Steve Jobs before his theories become facts.

Unfortunately, too many people like AlGore hear what they want to hear, and thus willfully confuse theory (fiction) with fact. It may be a fact that Hawkings said the world will end, but that doesn't mean the world will end. It just means he said it would.

Hawkings is by far the most famous science fiction author of our time, much as Einstein was in his. And like Einstein, much of what Hawkings predicts (theories/fiction) will likely be proven as facts... but until then, it is still fiction. And we, the people whose money they are spending, need to keep that fact in mind.

The only thing we really know as a fact is that theories are NOT facts, they are fiction. Theories. Nothing more. Computer models are not facts. They are guesses, as flawless and fallible as a Tesla autopilot that works perfectly until someone dies.

Applied physics is an iPhone, theoretical physics is Dick Tracy. Without a Steve Jobs, theoretical physicists are nothing more than science fiction authors with PHDs. We forget this reality at our peril, and the world is imperiled by theoretical physicists... that's a fact.

Are Environments Darwin deniers?

What's the difference between an environmentalist and a Darwin denier?

Less than you think.

Anti-humanists believe that humans are killing the planet and must be stopped to prevent the mass extinction of every living thing that will inevitably result if the temp goes up one degree.

This means, by default, that they reject Darwin.

The globe has gone up one degree already, from the end of the mini iceage (late 1800s), so we know the real world effects of what an increase looks like.

Humanity grew exponentially over this period of warming, most of this growth happened in parts of the world that saw the greatest impact of this increase. These places include Africa, China, and India. Cooler climates also saw increases in population but to lesser degrees and they were less impacted by the temp increase. There was no population explosion in Siberia or Alaska, for example.

But humans were not the only ones to benefit from this warming. Plants, animals, and insects all grew as well over this same warming period. Some, did not. This is how Darwin works. Those that fail to adapt, fall in population, where those that adapt well increase in population. Darwin is based on the real world where change always happens and nothing stays the same.

So, by focusing on the fate of each tree prevents anti-humanists from seeing the health of the forest. A thriving forest is not dependent on a specific plant thriving or failing, it just depends on biomass increasing instead of decreasing. So, if pine trees disappear from forests, that does not mean that the forest is sick, it just means something more fit has replaced pines.

And that is, in fact, what has happened throughout history. The overall biomass of the planet has increased with each degree of warming, while, at the same time, less 'fit' species faded away into nothingness. Darwin suggests that all species will become extinct at some point, replaced by something more fit, and there are almost no species that have survived unchanged throughout history, which validates that idea.

100,000yrs ago, Canada and Europe were covered under a mile of ice. Nothing at all grew or lived on all of that land. All that ice melted, slowly, over the years. This is warming. The globe has been warming for 100,000 years. That warming allowed life in all forms to populate Canada and Europe that couldn't otherwise exist because it was too cold to support them.

Darwin, in action, again. Those life forms most fit for a warming Canada, trees and grass, elk and bunnies, filled in the void that melted-ice left. The biomass -- the total weight of all living things on the entire planet -- went up, easily doubling in fact. This doubling of the amount of life happened ONLY because of the warming that melted the ice off of Canada. If the globe had cooled instead of warmed, no ice would have melted and nothing would be living on Canada.

Warming was always good for life. Darwin, 101.

The little ice age happened (depending who you read) between the 1300-1800. The Delaware and the Thames regularly froze over, something that never happens after the warming continues. During the little ice age, life struggled all over the planet. Biomass shrunk. Populations collapsed of all plants, insects, and animals. Hunting and farming were harder, this fact was recorded in books from those times.

But after the mini iceage ended, populations exploded again. The biomass of the planet continued to increase as the temperature continued to rise.

Now, specific creatures went extinct, Darwined out of existence, but the biomass (the weight of all living things on the entire planet) steadily increases with each degree of warming that is added into the system.

Not once, in the history of the planet, has warming decreased the biomass of the entire planet.

Iceages, on the other hand, have decreased the biomass of the planet each and every time they happens. With each ice age, the biomass of the planet goes down drastically, typically by more than half.

CO2 increases are always followed by explosions in plant growth when accompanied by warming. This plant growth supports increases in animal and insect life. More warmth has always meant more biomass and more life, never less.


Darwin 101: if a species can adapt favorably, it's numbers tend to increase. If it can't, its numbers collapse, sometimes to zero. A species health is often judged by their population numbers. Thus, high population numbers are, by themselves, proof of favorable conditions. Put another way, population increases ONLY happen when conditions are favorable to that creature. Population collapses happen when conditions are unfavorable AND the creature can NOT adapt.

All human high pop numbers are in warm zones with moderate winters (Africa,china,India) all low pop zones are cold (Alaska, Siberia). This is generally true of all plants, animals, species, insects, bacteria, and life on this planet (and any other)

It has never been the case that life flourishes in the cold. Decreasing global temps are always bad.

Coffee plants tend to die if they get below 50, for example.

Now, some argument can be made about deserts 'proving' that life fails when it gets too hot.

Deserts are dry (actual dictionary def), and it's the lack of water that kills, not the heat. California and Vegas are good examples of deserts that flourish with irrigation. And irrigation is one of the ways humans have directly INCREASED the biomass of the planet. It's how we adapt to an ever changing planet (Darwin).

Ice ages kill, warming trends do not. No warming period has ever decreased the biomass of the planet. It simply has never happened. There is no historic proof that warming has been anything other than good for humans AND the planet. HOWEVER, every ice age or 'cold spell' has decreased the entire planet's biomass. Now, warming trends are ended with cold spells and cold spells do kill. But warming is always accompanied by increases in life. All life.

That's Darwin, 101.

Everything changes. Everything must adapt. Those that can adapt, thrive. Those that can't adapt, die.

The endangered species list is, largely, an attempt to break this law of nature. This 'law' of Darwin.

Some creatures should be let go.

Not everything that once lived should be saved.

Giant sloths, sabertooth tigers, and mammoths have no place in today's world, and we are better off without them. I love dino movies with raptors eating people, but that doesn't mean I want raptors walking the streets like squirrels. We are better off without most of the creatures that have gone extinct. This may sound cold, but it is true. I love my grandmother, but if grandmothers never died the planet would be mile high in grandmothers in short order. Everything and everyone has their time, and when their time is over, it's done.

That's Darwin. That is simply the way it is.

If you believe warming or 'any change' MUST be bad, then you are a Darwin denier. Because Darwin is based on change being a force of nature. A needed element for growth to ever come.

And warming has always been good for humanity. Not once in human history has warming cause us harm.

as a DOC

As a .doc

Word Macro for inserting Hyperlinks for/to every page break (chapter)

This Word Macro automates the inserting of hyperlinks (Table of Contents)

It first inserts 500 spaces wherever you currently are, then replaces one for each chapter (^m) it finds, and labels it whatever the first line is.

It's a little rough but it works.

Sub HypLinkCh()
'
' HypLinkCh Macro
' Macro recorded 1/1/2002 by R
'
aStartPoint = Selection.End 'Where the cursor is now
aa = Selection.Start 'Where the TOC is to be put

CH = inputbox("Enter or I To insert 500 spaces here" & Chr(13) & _
"It Eats one chr per chapter, S to skip", , "I")
If CH = "I" Or CH = "i" Then Selection.TypeText Text:=String(500, " ")


FindNext:
Selection.MoveDown Unit:=wdLine, Count:=1


Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
With Selection.Find
.Text = "^m"
.Replacement.Text = ""
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindAsk
.Format = False
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
Selection.MoveDown Unit:=wdLine, Count:=1
Selection.EndKey Unit:=wdLine
Selection.HomeKey Unit:=wdLine, Extend:=wdExtend
If Selection.End = Selection.Start Then
Selection.Start = Selection.Start - 2
End If
Selection.Copy
aLastPoint = Selection.End

' If bb = "1" Then
' bb = "2"
' CH = "s"
' Else
CH = inputbox("enter or A to add, S to skip, X to end", , "A")
' End If


If CH = "A" Then
Selection.Start = aa
Selection.End = aa
Selection.PasteSpecial Link:=True, DataType:=wdPasteHyperlink
aa = Selection.End + 1
aLastPoint = aLastPoint + Len(Selection.Text)
' Selection.EndOf

Selection.Start = aLastPoint + 100
Selection.End = aLastPoint + 100
' Selection.EndOf
bb = "1"
GoTo FindNext:
End If
If CH = "S" Or CH = "s" Then GoTo FindNext:
Selection.Start = aa