Dimensions

Medley: Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The Flesh Failures)

Now let me tell you one thing (let the sunshine)
I want you to sing along with The 5th Dimension (let the sunshine in)
Hey, open up your heart (the sunshine in)
Come on! (let the sunshine)
And let it shine every day (let the sunshine in)

So how many dimensions are there?

The song above was a Grammy Record of the Year for the Fifth Dimension in 1970 .  Are there five dimensions? There are the three dimensions of space, x, y, z also known as length, width and depth. There is the dimension of time.  If we add the dimension of the imagination then there are five dimensions. If reality is defined as space and time and zero imagination, that zero is only the coefficient of the axis, dimension, of  imagination and there are thus five dimensions of reality.  So the name of the singing group is more than appropriate.  Let the Sunshine In!

Show Your Work

 

Show Me

Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme!
Don't waste my time, Show me!
Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall!
Don't talk at all! Show me!

Show your work!

The formulae shown in red in this post have been corrected.

When I was in college, I was famous for submitting tests with minus the correct answer or with some other simple mistake.  On numerous tests, I was saved by the fact that my instructors took pity on me and gave me credit for showing my work.  Ironically, I now find myself with what appears to be the correct answer for a hypotenuse on a hyperbolic surface, but because I did not save my work, I can not prove it.

On a flat surface the hypotenuse/radius of a triangle is r=√(a²+b²).  I would like to say that on a hyperbolic surface this is r=ln(0±2*cosh(√(a²+b²))), which I arrived as a solution and it seems to work, but I did not save my work.  Thus because I did not save my work, I am unable to prove that on a hyperbolic surface it is r=ln(0± 2*cosh(√(a²+b²))), instead of r=√(a²+b²). Being unable to show my work means that I am unable to prove this equation and unable to show that:

The Lorentz transform, which is typically given as√(1-(v/c)²), where in this case v is the velocity of an object and c is the speed of light, should instead be r=ln(0±2*cosh(√(1-(v/c)²))).

In a curved universe, gravity should be an apparent force and should NOT be combined with the three intrinsic (electric, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear) forces in a Unified Field Theory.

In a hyperbolic universe, there is a discontinuity at the Big Bang and our universe may be only one sheet of a asymmetrical two-sheeted  hyperboloid.

In a hyperbolic universe, there is only one absolute, and that absolute is both random AND deterministic.

If there is one absolute, then there is also only one choice: choosing that absolute, and not choosing that absolute, aka absolute zero. 

In a hyperbolic universe, regressions and statistics using least squares should be redone; the formula for what is called the standard deviation is in fact the formula for error; and the Bessel adjustment, n/(n-1), is not necessary.

In a hyperbolic universe, when there is no error, every moment about the mean should be 0, not just odd movements where the moment is expressed as powers of i; and even powers which are multiples of i² , are expressed as a real number, - 1.

The universe has a variance of .822,  and thus its standard deviation can never be 0.

So being unable to show my work, I can only assume that the above are true, but I can not prove that the above are true.

The Future

 

It’s About Time

It's about time we begin to turn the world around
It's about time we start to make it the dream we've always known
It's about time we start to live the family of man
It's about time, it's about changes and it's about time
It's about peace and it's about plenty and it's about time
It's about you and me together and it's about time.

That time is NOT only the present, it is the present AND the future.

Republicans are supposedly conservatives and Democrats are supposedly liberals.  Conservatives are supposed to seek the lowest total cost associated with an action.  However the lowest total cost at the moment, may not be the lowest total cost over the life of that action. Case in point, a story when I was an appointed government bureaucrat serving in a conservative Republican administration.  The manger, to whom I reported, had been upset by one of the mangers who reported to me.  She thought that the manager, who reported to me, had been insubordinate to her and as punishment wanted him fired.  That manager, who reported to me, had Civil Service status.

I pointed out to my manager that if I fired the manager who reported to me, that manager would revert to his Civil Service status and be transferred to another office in our department.  I also pointed out that his salary as a Civil Service employee was higher than the salary he was receiving as a manager who reported to me. Thus if I fired him, the long term result was that he would receive a pay raise.  Upon reflection my manager thought about this long term impact, reconsidered, and directed me to tell him that as punishment, she was directing that he NOT be fired.  Since I did not agree that the manager who reported to me had been insubordinate to my manager, I was more than happy to follow this direction.  When I explained the conversation to the manger who reported to me, he could not stop laughing. As punishment, he was not to be fired?

There is a reason that the popular sayings are "Look before you leap", "Marry in haste and repent at leisure",  "A stitch in time saves nine", "For want of  a nail..", etc. It might be conservative to seek the action that has the lowest cost.  But it is the TOTAL cost associated with that action, now and in the future, not merely the cost at the present.

Love and War

 

War

It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) It's got one friend that's The Undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young man's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can't give life
It can only take it away, oh

Is it true that “All’s fair in love and war”?

War seems like a simple matter of two parties: the American Colonists v. the British Empire, the North v. the South, the Allies v. the Axis, etc. But it is not just two parties if there are rules and a party to enforce the rules. A third party has stated the rules, e.g. the Geneva Convention, and a third party also ensures that war crimes have not been committed by either of the two combatants, e.g. the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

The same is true of the opposite of War: “Make Love, not War.”  This saying shows that while War and Love are not the same, they are the same in that they are both contests with three players. Again, one of the players is not often recognized but it is always there …society. If love is “You and Me against the World” then there are admittedly three parties.  If society will either bless or condemn your love, then there is always a third party.

Rather than the popular wisdom, there is no diffence between love, war, and any other contest.  It should be “Even in love and war, you should always play fair.”

Prosperity Gospel

 

Money (That’s What I Want)

Money don't get everything, it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money, (That's what I want)
That's what I want

Is the love of money good for you?

“My kingdom is not of this world”. John 18:36

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.”  Matthew 19:24

So how can these words be reconciled with the Prosperity Gospel, which is the fast-growing theologically conservative movement frequently associated with evangelicalism and charismatic Christianity. It emphasizes believers' abilities to become rich in this world through devotion and positive confession.  Does Jesus wish to punish those believers in the Prosperity Gospel, by making them rich in this world, or did those believers have a “Come to Satan” moment?

Continuing Resolutions

 

I Think It’s Gonna Rain Today

Lonely, lonely
Tin can at my feet
Think I'll kick it down the street
That's the way to treat a friend
Bright before me the signs implore me
To help the needy and show them the way
Human kindness is overflowing
And I think it's going to rain today

Continuing Resolutions are Congress’s way of kicking the can down the street.

MAGA Mike Johnson’s innovation in Continuing Resolutions is a laddered approach, which was making two Continuing Resolutions, which each fund approximately half of the Government and expire respectively on January 19, 2024 and February 2, 2024.  Uh, as Steve Colbert observed in his Late Night monologue, isn’t this merely dividing the can in half and kicking both halves down the street.

The old joke goes

“A man had offended the king and was sentenced to death. He fell to his knees before the king and implored, "Oh your majesty! Spare me but for one year, and I will teach your horse to talk!" The king was amazed and granted his wish.

The man's close friend and brother upbraided him, saying, "Why did you make such an absurd promise?"

The man shrugged and replied, "In a year, the king may die. In a year, I may die. In a year, the horse may talk!"

I've got some facts for MAGA Mike.  This horse is NEVER going to talk. Tomorrow may be another day and you might not want to think of unpleasant facts until tomorrow, but “Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.”  Kicking the can down the street only moves the can, it does not make the can go away.  Running out the clock, hoping that you or the king may die, is the coward's way.  Deal with the can.  THAT is the way to treat a friend.

Children

 

Fortunate Son

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, Lord?
But when the taxman come to the door
Lord, the house lookin' like a rummage sale, yeah

It ain't me, it ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son, no, no
It ain't me, it ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one, no

 I am my father’s son, but I am NOT my father.

The Hunter Biden controversy, Biden impeachment, and the Trump New York civil fraud trial are examples of competing world views.  Are children and their property, the property of their parents? OR are parents wards/stewards of their children, and their property, until they become adults? If you believe that children are NOT property, then whatever Hunter Biden may, or may not, have done as an adult has no relevance to President Biden.  If you believe that children are property, then their net worth is your net worth, and one of the admissions that Ivanaka Trump made at the Trump civil fraud trial is that former President Trump guaranteed loans with the net worth of property that was his children’s.

So these issues expose competing world views.  Are children property of their parents?  Or are children merely wards of their parents until they attain adulthood?  The Jewish faith has an answer to this in the Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony where the child proclaims, “Today I am a Man ( gender neutral)”.  The Roman Catholic and many Christian faiths have an analogue in the Confirmation ceremony.  You can NOT be a Man ( even if you "smoke the same cigarettes as me. I can’t get no satisfaction”)  if you are the property of another, including your parent’s.