Consider the experiment of the atomic clock in orbit, where it slowed down over time, while it is traveling in orbit at high speed.

This has been generally regarded as 1 proof of general relativity, where it was suggested that the time frame of an object traveling at some fraction of the speed of light will slow down compared to objects not in motion.

But that is also counter to logic, since all motions are relative, then it is just as relatively in framework that the satellite is not in motion, but rather the earth is in orbit around the satellite. Then how can the satellite clock slow down compared to Earth?

Perhaps, time is related to some factor of Gravity, or perhaps this experiment was wrong?

In relation to the Theory of Everything, it is said that general relativity only accounts for Gravity and EM.

Now, if we only think about these 2 forces in quantum scale, it can be conjectured that all atomic and subatomic structures would collapse into singularities, if only these 2 forces are available.

So, some other forces must be available to counteract these 2 forces.

But perhaps, the other forces are the same as Gravity and EM, but only on the smaller scales.

Perhaps, they are merely the result of Chaos factors, interacting with Gravity and EM?

We came back from 3 days in Vegas. We ate too many times at buffets, very expensive, but very good.

My wife did a lot of shopping, 3 days worth, but not so much in dollars. We tried to control our impulses to gamble, saving only the 3rd day for my gambling.

1st and 2nd day, we lost about $27 on slot machines, so we decided that our chances are best with me playing blackjack tables.

Gambling is a game of chance, that much everyone knows, but it is the self-control or lack of that ultimately determines the outcome.

She went shopping on the 3rd day around 1PM, and left me to start playing blackjack.

I found the only remaining $5 blackjack table in a good Vegas Casino hotel. I put in $100, and spent 2 hours on that table.

People still lost a lot of money there, but I managed to break even.

1 Cola later, and I had to leave the table. I took my $100, and was immediately replaced at the table by another sucker.

After my natural break, I was frustrated by the $5 table, 5 of them there losing their spare money to the dealers, Tony and Fred.

I watched behind the guys I left behind. One of their wives was smoking and making idle chats with me. I didn't have the heart to ask them how much he had lost, if this was their honeymoon, or this was her shopping money. But she didn't seem to mind so much that he was losing.

After a few minutes, I spotted an open seat on the $10 blackjack table next to me, so I sat down with the faster losers.

This table rotated around dealers, Tony and a lady from Kabul Afghanistan. A group of 30 something friends were on that table. They seem to be on vacation together.

The blonde girl next to me was very serious, not talking much. But she seemed to be not losing so much as the others.

As Tony and the lady dealer rotated every 30 minutes, most of the people came and went, losing their money.

An old man with a wallet of player's club membership cards. A 40 something business guy. A 20 something skinny kid. It made no difference whose chips dropped on the table, the cards were mostly unfriendly.

Now, my strategy going in this time was different from my previous times. I decided that my previous casino failures were due to my scheme of covering my bets, or hedging. Hedging only works if you have a lot of money, but no body has the kind of the money to bet against the casino bank. Each time you "hedge", you have to double your bets after each loss, so after 10 consecutive losses, you have to bet 1024 times the original, with a minimal bet of $10, that's $10,240 on the bet, and there is still no guarantees of winning on the 11th hand.

It doesn't work when you only have $200 on you.

So a change of strategy, I decided to try to work on the minimal bet and use strategies to win over on the dealer, ie. make the dealer bust.

It didn't work so well on the $5 minimum table, but I was going to try again on the $10 table.

It seemed the Kabul lady gave me some luck, or it could be the blonde next to me.

I started with $200 in chips, and then after an hour, I had more than $400.

Up and down my chips went, in and out people went. The blonde was about as persistent as me. She sat next to me the whole time.

By the time my wife came back to the hotel around 5pm, I had over $550 in chips.

Then my ultimate flaw, I lost my patience, I started to bet foolishly, and I went back down to $400 in chips.

That was when I decided to quit, taking my $200 winning with me, so my wife was happy.

At least the winning covered all of our food expenses and some in the 3 days.

If I have time, I must write more about blackjack strategies.

My thoughts on the physical universe turned toward philosophy and my sci-fi novel, and it brought a new insight that I did not consider before.

What if the dimension of distance and length is not as fundamental as we thought?

All physics have assumed that distance in the 3D universe is fundamental and absolute.

Yet, what if it is not? What if distance is as much of an illusion as many other things? What if distance is an illusion created by some other physical properties, such as time and energy?

For certain, we perceive distance, that much is established, but our perception of distance is dictated by other things which also depend on distance.

Consider, that the General Relativity on speed of light, that it remains constant regardless of the physical time frame which the observer travels in.

However, the energy of the light does change in reference to the time frame. Stars moving away produces light shifted toward Red, whereas stars moving toward you shifts toward blue.

This cannot easily explained, though General Relativity gives mathematical acceptable explanation.

Consider that light quanta is inversely proportional to the square of the Wavelength, a measure in length. And changes in time frame, causes changes in the wavelength of the light, a change in distance.

Perhaps, somehow, Time, energy and distance are related in a different way, that Distance is an illusion.

Existence and Identity are defined by Separation by Distance and Time.

I am me, because I am separate from the rest of the Universe by distance, no matter how small that distance may be.

Similarly, all matter, all particles of existence are separated from each other by distance.

Distance is also dimension, and yet Dimension is also separation and substance.

Solids are different from liquid and gas, because of the nature of separation between particles.

So lies the nature of our spirit, our drive to need and want.

For a plant or simple cell organisms, "eating" is nothing more than soaking oneself in nutrient. There is no instinct.

Yet for animal life, consumption is an act of one organism making another organism into a part of itself. It is often a violent forceful act, involving dissolving the "food", or subjugating the "food".

But this "force" is not so violent in itself. A plant or a fish may rot away in the open, or it may dissolve in our stomach.

The eco-system of our Earth is a giant rotting environment, where everything rots slowly away.

We live in that giant's belly. We are the bacteria in the intestinal tracks of a termite called earth.

The act of our "eating" is no more violent than the periodic earth quakes and storms of this planet.

Consumption is a cycle in which, we each seek to become greater and closer to the rest of the universe.

Our distance makes that impossible in the end, for we can never consume enough, know enough to be truly connected to the Universe.

So we are always alone, seeking connection by possessions and togetherness with our friends.

Wealth and friends do not connect us to the Universe, but they make us feel a little better in our Existence and Identity.

That I, am more than just a fragile piece of rotting corpse in the belly of the beast.

That I, have possessions of Things, hoping that those Things will out last my life.

That I, have friends and lovers and children, hoping that they will out last my life.

But these are merely psychological compensations, limited to my life time.

Someone asked me once, what is happiness.

I said to him, your mother, when she gave birth to you.

Her smile of that moment, was unquestionably the most happy in the world.

Happy be a mother who labored to raise her children.

Happy be any one who burdened for others, as if they were his or her children.

These happiness are most deserved, most honored, most shared.


Someone else asked me, how they can obtain such happiness if they cannot give birth like women.

I said, by not picking and choosing the daily burdens of life.

Each burden comes with its own rewards.

And the greatest happiness may come from the smallest of sacrifices.

10 Commandments: Religion or History?

Today, the US Supreme Court wages not 1, but 2 separate cases on the issue of the 10 Commandments, and whether the Government and other public facilities can display any symbols or monuments of the 10 Commandments. And the country watches, divided once again on 2 extreme sides.

The Constitution forbids, in general terms, the Government of USfrom making any laws that establishes any national religion. However, to some, the Supreme Court has began to become extremely anti-religious in many of its past interpretations on this issue.

Even the Judicial phrase of "separation of Church and State" is in controversy, a phrase first written by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But the argument now comes down to, is the 10 Commandments a symbol of Religion, or as some argued, merely a symbol of "history".

I have a rather simple answer, perhaps a bit too simplistic.

(1) the Difference between "history", and "religion", is that "history" can be challenged, whereas "religion" cannot. "History" is common to all the people, we can all argue over it, challenge its assertions, its meanings, its truthfulness, its different points of views. "Religion" is personal. What one person believes is SACRED to him, and difficult to dispute for others.

(2) then the question becomes, are the 10 Commandments disputable in the Public eye?

The Proponent of the 10 Commandments monuments clearly do not think they are disputable. Indeed, many have characterized them as the "original laws", or the UNDISPUTABLE laws from God. Yet, we know from our civil stand point of view, that at least a few of the 10 Commandments are no longer applicable in our present legal system.

#1, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", is clearly not TRUE any more in our legal system, where a multi-religious culture prospers.

(3) Do the Proponents of the 10 Commandments Monuments believe that the 10 Commandments should be challenged?

When we cite the origin/history of our legal system, we find documents like the Magna Carta, which can be challenged on legal basis, historical basis, and even its basic integrity. When lawyers go through school, they study cases, some of which were based upon the Magna Carta. There are no legal cases disputing interpretations of the 10Commandments. Yet, the 10 Commandments are sacred to many people, Jews and Christians in this country. I do not think they want the 10 Commandments challenged.

And yet, by making the 10 Commandments into a "historical symbol", it WILL be open to be challenged, as a historical symbol that's largely IRRELEVANT to today's legal codes. Then, this Monument will only serve to divide the country along theline of the "correctness" of the 10 Commandments.

The "Correctness" of the Constitution and the Magna Carta rests withordinary men in politics and law. Men created these documents, men will argue over them, for many centuries to come. But the "Correctness" of the 10 Commandments will bring in Religious crusades, as it has done for many past centuries.

(4) the only other purpose of 10 Commandments monument is a "Religious" one, ie. to present it as a symbol of God's authorityover Government, a Judeo-Christian God over a theoretically "multi-ethnic multi-religious" civil Government.

Many in the religious community have argued this very same point inthe past, that ultimate source of authority of this US Government derives not from the Constitution or the HISTORY of laws, but from God's words, because they equate the "ultimate source" of all laws of this land to the Judeo-Christian God and his laws, ie. 10 Commandments.

If we erect a monument for that, we imply its correctness, andabsoluteness over the laws of the land. As I said before, the Constitution and the Magna Carter can be disputed, challenged, but the 10 Commandments, to many at least, is never wrong.Then, it DOES become an absolute Religion, to which, every other laws of the land will be compared against.

And that cannot be allowed.

Morality is not the sole domain of the Religions, but the domain of all people with conscience.

Thus, it does not require one to wear his God on his lips to show his righteous morality, but rather it requires that he wears his humanity and his conscience in all his actions.

The actions reflect his conscience and his morality.

A moral man is so, because of all of his past actions, but there is no guarantee that a moral man is guaranteed his morality for all his future actions.

Morality has been so long a war cry of the Religious to persecute merely those who are different in conscience.

Differences in moral opinions become Absence of conscience and humanity.

For this is not the way of any God's teachings.

God, in various forms, gave existence and life to human beings, it is not the right of any judges of morality to deny the value of those existence.

For God alone gives and takes away.

Consider the Taking of pains/burdens from another as Good, but one must also consider the worth of self-sacrifice.

It is unwise of a man to purchase every thing on sight, for he must consider the worth of the goods to himself and to those the goods must serve a purpose.

So it is with Good, that an equation of supply and demand must be considered, so that a man's doing of Good is applied where it is most needed, and where his is in most abundant of supplies.

It is pointless for a poor man to give money to a rich man, for the rich man neither needs it, nor will he cherish it.

Yet, the poor man will often have more of friendship and common wisdom, which the rich man will often crave.

For in that equation, the poor man and the rich man both have something that the other need, and something that they have abundance of.

In sharing, do they both not become better than when they were each alone?

This is not self-sacrifice, but rather follows the same laws of supply and demand as any commerce and trade.

But this is trade that does not place value in terms of money, and must come from mutual trust.

The rich man cannot BUY friendship with his money, but he can EARN it with his generosity and efforts.

When a man gives to those in need, he is naturally given the admiration and respect by others, somethings that money cannot buy.

And these give all men and women their self-worth, which is also not calculated in gold.

Without the individual, the collective has no strength.

Without the collective, the individual has no purpose.

Every achievement, every endeavor by the collective,is composed of the smallest efforts by the many individual.

Every efforts of the individual,Are measured and weighed by their impact to the needs of thecollective.

The Individual is the Energy of the Collective.

The Collective is the Market, the Synergy, and the Student of theIndividual.

Thus, when in a Collective forum, one should exert Individualism, togive vitality and growth to the Collective.

But when alone, one should exert Collectivism, to remind oneself theNEED to serve others.

Woe to the Man who cannot be an Individual in a Collective,For he is a mindless follower.

But also woe to the Man who cannot think of the Collective by himself,For he has no customers, nor followers, nor pupils.

What is Life, but we humans born from the pains of our mothers?

What are Good and Evil in Life, but the Taking and Giving of Pains?

When I was posed by these questions of Good and Evil of Life, I say to thee, they are simply these.

Good, is when one takes Pain or burdens from others.

Evil, is when one gives Pain or burdens to others.

Pain is not wrong, for a generous and kind man is marked by the scars of a life time of pains that he has born for the sake of others.

Yet, a life spent in avoidance of pain is merely wasted, un-valued, and without purpose. And that brings its own pain of emptiness.

For was it not God's own son who bore suffering for the sake of all mankind's sins?

For no man can avoid pain, no more than he can avoid Death.

But we can choose our manner of Pain and Death.

If we must suffer, let our suffering and our burden be filled with meaning, to lessen the burdens and pain of others.

If all human beings sought to take away each other's pains, then that is the creation of a joy filled world, where Life is cherished.

For that, is the reason why mothers bear the great pains of childbirth, so that we may all learn to cherish Life.