What Cosmology Missed

Let me explain my cosmology theory from another angle. The theory is detailed in the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", July 2017. The posting that I use to briefly introduce it is "In Cosmology Everything Just Fell Right Into Place", May 2019.

There was just so much that is mysterious about the universe.

First, what exactly is time? It is something that is so basic to us, literally what life is made of. Yet I could find no real explanation of what time exactly is.

Second is the speed of light. In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity everything revolves around the speed of light. The speed is always constant but time, mass and length are variable. We can measure the speed of light with precision but there is no explanation of why it is that speed, rather than some other speed.

Then there is quantum physics. In relativity everything revolves around the speed of light, and nothing can ever move faster than it. But in quantum physics, or quantum mechanics, the speed of light is not a factor at all. It can be shown that information moves instantaneously between two entangled photons, without being bound by the speed of light at all. But yet relativitists can also prove that their view of the speed of light is correct.

Then there is cosmic rays. Einstein introduced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. It is considered as virtually sacrosanct by the scientific community. A primary tenet of the theory is that the mass of an object increases with it's velocity, with the object having infinite mass at the speed of light. But this was before it was found that cosmic rays are actually particles moving at, or near, the speed of light. 

If a cosmic ray particle had infinite mass then it should also have infinite gravity, since gravity is proportional to mass, and should be able to wrap the entire earth around itself by it's gravity, but clearly that doesn't happen.

String Theory has been around since 1968. It maintains that the particles which we perceive as composing matter, such as electrons, are actually strings in more dimensions of space than we can see. There are myriad versions of string theory and I decided that it had too much going for it to not contain some truth. My cosmology theory is my version of string theory.

I noticed something that cosmology seemed to miss altogether. The thing that is missing is ourselves. A basic presumption of science has always been that we have an unbiased view of the universe, that our observations are 100% reliable as data.

But what if we don't have an unbiased view of the universe? My cosmology theory is that we DO NOT have an unbiased view of the universe. We are part of the universe and see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

I had not seen this in any other cosmology theory. It was always presumed that we have an unbiased view of the universe. For other branches of science, chemistry, ordinary physics, geology, etc. this does not make a difference. But in cosmology, the very nature of the universe, it does make a difference.

Time is so fundamental. But I could find no information about what time actually was, other than that it acted as a dimension so that space and time, in Einstein's theories, was referred to as "space-time".

What if the matter of the universe that we inhabit was scattered over four dimensions of space so that what we perceive as the fundamental particles of matter, such as electrons, were actually strings? This is my version of string theory. It doesn't mean that there isn't more than four dimensions of space, only that our familiar matter is scattered over four.

We can see, and move at will, in only three dimensions of space. The fourth dimension we perceive as time. If we are alive all of our lives, but only in one moment in sequence, that explains what time is.

That is why we can find no explanation in physics of what time is. We were looking in the wrong place. Time is actually within us. It is the movement of our consciousness, which only experiences one moment at a time, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. We do not have an unbiased view of the universe because we experience this fourth spatial dimension as time.

That brings us to the speed of light. We can measure the speed of light with precision but, as with time, we have no explanation as to why the speed of light is as fast as it is. Yet, like time, it is so fundamental. In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, mass, time and, length are relative, hence the name of the theory, but the speed of light is sacrosanct.

What is happening, of course, is that, like time, the speed of light is within us. It is the rate of the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.

This is why we can find no explanation in physics of either what time is or why the speed of light is the speed that it is. Because both are actually within us.

But if the speed of light is within us, the velocity of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, then how can it be so sacrosanct to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, when time, length and, mass are relative?

There is only one possible answer. The bizarre phenomena seen in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is not the way that the inanimate universe "really" is. Rather, it is the way the universe appears to us. The reason that there is a difference is, once again, we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but because of what we are.

In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity the speed of light always remains constant. But as an object accelerates to extremely high speeds, strange things begin to take place. The mass of the object increases until the mass is infinite when the object reaches the speed of light, making any further acceleration impossible so that nothing can ever move faster than the speed of light. Time slows down as acceleration increases, until it stops altogether when the object reaches the speed of light. The length of the object decreases, until it is at zero when the object reaches the speed of light.

All of this has been proven experimentally many times. But yet there is a problem with it. The Special Theory of Relativity is from 1905, before it was known that the cosmic rays that bombard the earth from space are actually particles. The "rays" were originally thought to be radiation, hence the name. Cosmic rays are electrons, protons, alpha particles, and various other subatomic particles, moving at or near the speed of light.

This presents a complication for the relativity theory because if a subatomic particle is moving at the speed of light then it should have infinite mass. If even one subatomic particle is moving at, or near, the speed of light then it should be able to wrap the entire earth around itself with it's gravity, since gravity is directly proportional to mass, yet clearly this doesn't happen.

The reason for this discrepancy, in a theory that has been experimentally proven beyond doubt, is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

This discrepancy is because the Special Theory of Relativity does not describe the universe as it really is but rather the way it appears to us, and there is a difference.

The matter of our universe consists of strings aligned mostly in one dimension of four dimensions of space. The dimension in which the strings are mostly aligned is the dimension of space that we perceive as time, as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Since we perceive that dimension as time, we perceive the strings of matter as particles such as electrons.

If a string, or bundle of strings, is not quite parallel to our bundle of strings then we will see it as a moving object as our consciousness proceeds along the bundle of strings comprising our body and brain at what we perceive as the speed of light.

Velocity is thus an angle in stationary strings of matter in space, which is why my cosmology theory is called "The Theory Of Stationary Space". The speed of light is simply strings bent at a right angle. The speed of light is the maximum possible speed because a right angle is the maximum possible angle. Electromagnetic radiation always seems to move at the speed of light because it radiates outward into space at right angles to the bundles of strings.

To understand why Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes the universe as we see it but not the way it actually is, because we do not have an unbiased view of the universe, imagine our consciousness moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.

As our consciousness passes by we see a bundle of strings being bent toward a right angle. Since the strings comprising matter are extremely long, when the bundle is at a right angle we see it's mass as all concentrated at one point. That is why an object apparently moving at the speed of light appears to us to have infinite mass. It's apparent length would also seem to be contracting to us, due to simple trigonometry, which is why length contraction apparently takes place when an object nears the speed of light.

From the object's perspective time, which is the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, would seem to be concentrated at only one point, relative to our process of time, when the object reaches "the speed of light". That is why, according to the Special Theory of Relativity, time slows down at extremely high velocities, until it stops at the speed of light.

But the movement of our consciousness, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, is unaffected by all of this, which is why the speed of light is the one absolute constant in the Special Theory of Relativity.

The next major complication for the Special Theory of Relativity is when quantum physics, or quantum mechanics, came along. But my cosmology theory has a neat explanation for that too.

The dividing point between the Special Theory of Relativity and quantum physics is the speed of light. In relativity the speed of light remains absolutely constant and mass, time and the length of an object revolve around it. Nothing can ever move faster than the speed of light. But in quantum physics the speed of light is not even a factor at all. It can be shown that information moves instantaneously between two entangled photons, without being bound at all by the speed of light.

Both relativity and quantum physics can be proven experimentally, but yet the two are clearly contradictory with regard to the speed of light. There is a way to resolve this discrepancy but not with the basic scientific presumption that we have an unbiased view of the universe. The only way to resolve it is to remember that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

We saw above how the Special Theory of Relativity does not actually describe the universe as it "really" is but as how it appears to us. The two are not the same because we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. Exactly the same applies to quantum physics.

Electromagnetic waves are two-dimensional sine waves that are disturbances in the multi-dimensional alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges that comprise space. The sensors in our eyes are based on the energy in light waves knocking electrons out of their orbitals in atoms to create an electric current. This is the only way that light can be detected.

According to my cosmology theory electrons are actually strings in four-dimensional space that we perceive as particles because we can only see in three of the four dimensions. Since electrons are one-dimensional strings they capture one of the two dimensions of a light wave.

This leaves one of the two dimensions of the wave. Since, in my cosmology theory, particles are one-dimensional this encounter with our eyes or measuring devices leaves a one-dimensional "particle" of light that we refer to as a "photon". 

This is why light is said to have both a wave and a particle nature. If any science students have tried to understand quantum physics but have been baffled by how light could have both a wave and a particle nature, this neatly explains it.

A photon of light can be split in two by a crystal that acts as a prism. The two photons are said to be "entangled". Information passes instantaneously between the two, no matter how far apart they are, without being bound at all by the speed of light. 

This is extremely useful. If we can keep one of the two entangled photons close by, whatever happens to the other one will be instantly reflected in the one close by. Since no one can intercept or interfere with electromagnetic waves without absorbing one of it's dimensions, this opens the possibility of instantaneous and absolutely tamper-proof communication. If the remote photon is tampered with, or even received by anyone, it will immediately be mirrored in the close by photon.

But the apparent discrepancy between the Special Theory of Relativity and quantum physics, involving the speed of light, is explained by my cosmology theory that, unlike "conventional" physics, both relativity and quantum physics are based on our perspective on the universe, that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are, but in two different ways.

There really is no speed of light, it seems to us that there is and everything revolves around it because it is the speed of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. This is why the information passing between two entangled photons, which must remain mirror images of each other, moves instantaneously without being bound at all by the speed of light.

Light is really a wave. It seems to have both a particle and a wave nature because the only way our eyes, and measuring instruments, can detect it is to absorb the energy of one of it's dimensions. This leaves behind a one-dimensional "particle" of light we refer to as a photon.

So many things just fall into place, that are otherwise unexplainable, if we accept that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see it as we do not only because it is but also because of what we are. What is apparently so bizarre about things like relativity and quantum physics is not the way the universe "really" is but the way it appears to us.

Defining Cardinal Directions Beyond Earth

This is something that is simple yet revolutionary. I have never seen it pointed out and it is about time that it was. It involves expressing direction while traveling in space.

How do we express directions in space? On earth we expect direction with the cardinal directions of north, south, east and, west. To some extent we can extend this system into space. Since the moon is tidally locked to earth, meaning that the same side of the moon always faces earth and the moon doesn't rotate other than it's revolution around the earth, the moon's poles match those of earth and so it is clear which is the north, and which is the south, lunar pole.

Since all of the planets in our Solar System orbit the sun in roughly the same plane we can also apply this to most of the other planets. The north pole of the planet is the one closest to earth's north pole. 

The magnetic poles of planets tend to be fairly close to the geographic poles, because the magnetism results from the spin of the planet. So we can also define the north and south poles of the planet by magnetism. But this is complicated in the case of Uranus because the planet has apparently been knocked on it's side by an impact and it's south magnetic pole is actually closer in geographic direction to earth's north pole.

But what about outside the Solar System? Many "exoplanets" have been discovered in orbit around other stars although, at this point, we cannot tell much about them. How can we express directions on those planets, since their orbital planes may be nowhere near the same as in our Solar System?

I have a simple solution that would enable us to express directions on any planet or star in the universe. Virtually everything in the universe rotates, planets, moons, asteroids, stars and, galaxies. The earth rotates eastward. Why don't we just define east as the direction of rotation? Then, when we are facing east, west is behind us, north is to our left and south is to our right.

This means, of course, that the cardinal directions of north, south, east and, west will be relative. Since the rotation of Venus is opposite to that of the earth it's north and south poles must be the reverse of earth's. But this would be a simple yet revolutionary way to be able to express what we could call "local direction" on any astronomical body.

When dealing with planets or stars we only have to deal with directions in two dimensions, since direction on the surface of a sphere can be expressed in two dimensions. That is why the cardinal directions of north, south, east and, west are sufficient, two opposite directions for each of the two dimensions.

But what about directions within our galaxy? We live in a barred spiral galaxy that is rotating. But we have no real easy way to express directions in the galaxy. How would you describe which direction one star is from another in our galaxy? There is no easy way to do it. We cannot use the orbital plane of our Solar System as an effective reference point because it is not the same as the rotational plane of our galaxy, there is a difference of about 60 degrees.

But if we use this principle of definition of direction by rotation it becomes simple, except that we need two additional directions because we are now dealing with three dimensions, rather than two. Let's call the two additional directions "top" and "bottom".

Our barred spiral galaxy is rotating, that gives us a starting point. Suppose we are looking at our galaxy from outside, from the same plane in space as the galaxy is aligned, as if we were looking down at earth's equator. Consider the galaxy as rotating "eastward" but instead of calling what would be north on earth, let's call it the "top" of the galaxy with the "bottom" being in the opposite direction.

So if we were looking at our galaxy from outside, along the rotational plane of the galaxy which is congruent to looking down at earth from above the equator, and the galaxy was rotating from our left to our right, what would be north on earth will be defined as the "top" of the galaxy and what would be south on earth will be defined as the "bottom" of the galaxy.

But to define direction within the galaxy we still need another reference point. We could just define east within the galaxy as the galaxy's direction of rotation, as we would on planets and stars. The trouble with that within the galaxy is that, if we are near the center of the galaxy, east will be one direction on one side of the center and the opposite direction on the other side of the center. So doing it that way probably wouldn't work very well.

So to express directions within the galaxy we need some kind of reference point outside it.

It seems that every galaxy is part of some larger galactic group. The group that our galaxy is in is known as the Local Group. Our galaxy is not the largest galaxy in the Local Group. The Andromeda Galaxy has a double nucleus, making it seem as if it is actually two galaxies that merged together.

Every galactic group has a common gravitational center. Within the galaxy why don't we define "north" as the closest line to the line between the center of the galaxy and the common gravitational center of the galactic group? North may not be the same line because remember that we defined east as the direction of the galaxy's rotation and the line between the center of the galaxy and the gravitational center of the galactic group may not be in the same geometric plane.

Remember that, within a galaxy, "north" is not the same as "top" and "south" is not the same as "bottom". We are dealing with a three-dimensional space, unlike the two-dimensional surface of the earth, so we need six cardinal directions, rather than four.

So when we have "north" within the galaxy defined as the direction along the axis of rotation that is closest to the line between the center of the galaxy and the gravitational center of the local galactic group. Again the reason the two lines may not be the same is that the line between the center of the galaxy and the gravitational center of the local galactic group may not coincide with the rotational plane of the galaxy.

Once we have "north" defined within the galaxy, "south" is naturally in the opposite direction. When we are facing directly "north" "east" is to our right and "west" is to our left. Remember that "east" within the galaxy is not the same thing as the direction of rotation of the galaxy, as it is with the earth and planets and stars. The direction of rotation of the galaxy defines it's top and bottom but not the remaining four directions of "north", "south", "east" and, "west".

With modern astronomy and space exploration we definitely need an effective way to express directions in space. At present we usually try to impose the cardinal directions of our earth on other planets and it is not very efficient.

Here is another posting along these lines, about navigation on earth:

http://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-keypad-system-of-navigation.html?m=0

The Glorious Twenties

All right so this decade hasn't gotten off to a very good start. But let's give it a chance because it still has 8 1/2 years left. The decade may yet become known as the "Glorious Twenties".

The Next Scientific Frontier

In my opinion the next major scientific frontier should be robotic undersea archeology. 

The recent two hundredth anniversary of the death of Napoleon is a reminder that it was his conquests that brought the pyramids and ancient Egypt into the modern consciousness. Archeology in the Middle East has since focused on tombs with occasional entire ancient cities being rediscovered.

But what might the next step be? Ships have been sinking for thousands of years. There is sometimes underwater archeology of a shipwreck. Coastlines have also changed since ancient times and there is exploration of undersea ruins, particularly at Alexandria.

Compared with archeological sites on land exploration of sites on the seafloor would, of course, be very difficult. But what about the robotic technology used in space exploration? 

Exploring the ocean depths has a lot in common with exploring outer space, and can use the same type of technology. I am sure that we know quite a bit more about what is out in our Solar System than the sea depths of our own planet. 

The main focus of a detailed exploration of the seafloor would be shipwrecks. These shipwrecks become buried over time, just as do archeological sites on land, but the sites can be identified and excavated. But it will be much more difficult than on land and will require an effort that parallels the robotic exploration of space, and will use much of the same technology.

Archeological excavations on land tend to be undertaken by universities and museums. The fabulous uncovering of the entire ancient city of Ur was a joint project of the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania. But detailed undersea exploration and archeology will require an organization on the order of NASA.

Much of the technology used in space exploration could readily be adapted for undersea exploration. The oceans have been explored, but only on a large scale and not on the local scale required for undersea archeology. Underwater archeology is certainly not a new idea but is almost always limited to shallow waters or large and famous ships.

By adapting the technology used in space exploration to explore the seafloor we could not only move archeology to it's next level, but would solve all manner of other mysteries. It is time to begin the archeological move from tombs to ships.

The Assassination Of President Zia

A recent visit was to Pakistan. It reminds me of something that will not go away. It is a thought about the assassination of former president Zia.

This has been added to the compound posting on this blog, "Investigations" .

Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul Haq boarded a C-130 after witnessing a demonstration of a tank that his army was thinking of buying. The date was August 17, 1988. Shortly after takeoff contact was lost with the plane. It was seen flying erratically until it crashed into the ground, killing all on board. There was no sign of an explosion before the plane crashed.

Zia was Pakistan's president. The country has since switched to the parliamentary system and is led by a prime minister.

The C-130 was in service with the Pakistani Air Force but had been made in the U.S. The U.S. conclusion was that the crash had been caused by mechanical issues. This explanation is not widely believed because the plane was seen flying erratically for a period of time before crashing and this does not explain why radio contact was also lost.

Since there was no sign of a bomb or explosion, nor disintegration of the aircraft before striking the ground, the most widely-believed explanation for the crash is that a chemical agent disabled the crew. They could neither pilot the plane nor call for help.

Endless speculation has been written about who was behind the assassination. Pakistan was, at the time, a U.S. ally during the Soviet war in neighboring Afghanistan. But attacking aircraft in this manner was not a usual tactic in the Afghan war and assassinating Zia would not end Pakistani support of the Mujahedin in the war.

There is the story of a Pakistani general, who happened to become the next Chief of Staff, that was supposed to fly back to Islamabad on the same plane as Zia, but changed his plans at the last minute and flew on another plane.

The trouble with that, aside from being too obvious, is that top members of Pakistan's military had been killed on the plane as well. Sabotaging the plane would make plenty of enemies in the military for whoever was behind it.

Zia had been promoted to Army Chief of Staff by President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He then overthrew Bhutto and took his place as president. Bhutto was later executed. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, would later lead the country herself until she was assassinated following a return from exile.

Supposing that Bhutto supporters were behind Zia's assassination is problematic because first, many top military personnel of the country were also killed. Second, Bhutto had been a U.S. ally and the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan was also killed. Third, while Pakistan does have somewhat of a tumultuous political history, attacks on aircraft like this were not part of that history.

Two things are very clear. Whoever was behind this was very skilled in attacking aircraft, and they were fine with killing Americans. Pakistan's intelligence agency concluded that a "foreign power" was involved, but didn't give any names.

Here is what I would like to add. I do not have any kind of proof. I just want to add a direction to the assassination that I have never seen written about.

Pakistani military forces have been stationed in the Middle East, although have never been in combat with Israel. In the 1979 siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Pakistani special forces were engaged in the recapture of the mosque.

After the 1967 Six-Day War, during which Israel captured the West Bank and the original city of Jerusalem, many Palestinians moved eastward into Jordan. The Palestinians outnumbered the native Jordanians.

The Palestinians launched attacks against Israel without consulting with the Jordanian Government. In 1970 this led to what is known as the Dawson Field Hijackings. Four planes were hijacked and brought to Jordan. The passengers were released and the global press invited. Then, with the attention of the world's press, the four planes were destroyed by explosives.

We saw the Dawson Field Hijackings in the section of the compound posting on this blog, "Investigations" December 2018, 8) INSIGHT INTO 9 / 11.

Following this the Government of Jordan, led by the well-known King Hussein, felt that it had no choice but to take back control of the country. This was especially because some of the Palestinians were openly calling for the overthrown of King Hussein.

The Jordanian Royal Family was recently in the news due to internal turmoil. We visited it in the visit on this blog, "Jordan And The Hashemites" January 2021.

This September 1970 conflict is referred to as the Jordanian Civil War or as "Black September". As it turns out Muhammad Zia ul-Haq was a general in Pakistan's Army who was stationed in Jordan at the time. Zia was instrumental in helping King Hussein to defeat the Palestinians, and take back control of the country.

After the conflict the organisation called "Black September" was formed to get revenge on the Jordanian Government. It assassinated the Prime Minister of Jordan. There had been earlier assassination attempts on King Hussein.

Black September also turned to attacking Israel and is best-known for the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

So my reasoning is that if an organization like Black September was formed to strike back at members of the Jordanian Government in retaliation for the war that it launched against them, and if the military leadership of Zia was so important to the conduct of that war, then isn't it logical to presume that Zia would be a target as well?

Attacking aircraft was a hallmark of organizations like Black September. There was the Dawson Field Hijackings, and any number of other attacks on aircraft. Yet I have never seen this avenue explored in the assassination of President Zia.

Remembering Britain's "Loser" Songs

During my youth, in the rock music era, British bands produced a number of what could be called "loser" songs. These were songs about generally being a loser, but with life in general and usually not having to do with romance.

Now I see the wisdom of these songs. There are a few examples that come to mind.

"Telephone Line", from 1977 by Electric Light Orchestra, is like the national anthem of loneliness and depression. It does involve romance but I classify it as a "loser" song because the singer is trying to telephone a girl and sinks deep into a gloomy mood. "I'm living in twilight", "I'll just sit tight with the shadows of the night", all because some girl isn't answering the phone.

There was "Superman" by the Kinks. This song involved the times, it was from the time of Britain's notorious strike-inflation spiral of late 1978. The winter of 1978-79 became known as Britain's "Winter of Discontent". The song is about a physically weak guy who wishes that he could be like Superman, "I want to fly but I can't even swim".

Another song was "I Wish I Could Be Like David Watts". It was about a less-than-stellar boy who wants to be like the star boy at school, whose name was David Watts. The Kinks did this song but, visiting Britain in the summer of 1978, I became familiar with the version by The Jam.

There is the song by The Kinks, "State of Confusion". This song seems to be about someone who is generally unable to cope with life. This makes it different from the earlier "Gimme Shelter", by the Rolling Stones, which is not a "loser" song because it is about the disintegration of society.

Gloomiest of all is the New Wave song "Are Friends Electric"? by Gary Numan. It is a futuristic song, supposedly taking place in future London. A guy's girlfriend is an electric robot but now she is broken. So he calls another robot girl to come over. I used to be fascinated by how the instrumentals convey a stark feeling of gloom.

But now I see what might be the point of songs like this. This life will be over before we know it. When the "winners" die they will be just as dead as the "losers".

Shouldn't we be more concerned with what comes after? Would you rather drift through life, but then go to Heaven for eternity, or be a real winner with everything that life has to offer, but then not go to Heaven?

Are we making too big of a deal about being "winners"? What difference will it make a hundred years from now? With very few exceptions you will be completely gone and forgotten a century from now. Of all the people who were alive in the 1920s how many can you name today?

Have you ever went to a job interview and were given a test to take while in the waiting room? Isn't this life really just taking a test in the waiting room? What really counts is what comes next. Maybe there is such a thing as taking this brief life too seriously.

What about the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? We do not know exactly when it is going to happen and we are not to stop living because it is pending. But remember that this is like living on the Titanic. It would be wonderful to be a winner on the Titanic, but the ship is still going to sink anyway.

The values of the world define who is a winner and who is a loser. But if the world's values are in the right place then why is it heading toward the Apocalypse? Remember that Jesus said "The last will be first and the first will be last". This means that the world's values are upside-down and could be interpreted to mean that winners will be losers, and vice versa. When you face God all of your worldly status, which country you were part of, how popular and attractive you were, and how much money you had, will all mean absolutely nothing.

A part of being a "loser" is certainly willful. Whenever a society puts a lot of pressure on young people there is a rebellion against it. In China today there is the "Sang", or "Slacker" movement. In Japan there has long been the "Hikikomori". In the U.S. during the 1960s the catchphrase was "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out".

Maybe it's healthier not to take life too seriously, and certainly some of society's values don't make sense. Where I live having a lot of friends is highly valued. Being surrounded by people is wonderful while being alone is terrible, which I consider as bizarre. It's more about control and "keeping an eye" on each other than about friendship. 

The "loser" songs are really a compliment to my native Britain. Only in a wealthy country that was confident of it's place in the world would people support music about their own people being losers. 

The "loser" songs, as well as the "state of the world" songs, are a reflection of the traditional Protestant dim view of both the world and human nature. But when we have too much respect for the way things have always been done we are less likely to notice better ways of doing things and when we see the world around us as having room for improvement it helps us to notice better ways of doing things, which is why traditionally Protestant societies have been so progressive.

With so many mass shootings today have you ever thought that if we would make losers feel a little bit more welcome they might be less likely to pick up a gun? There are movies about losers, but which usually have them committing violence. Songs like this make being a loser, at least as defined by the world, seem not so bad.

General Memories

I was born in 1960 and have collected a few memories.

I had a world atlas when I was a boy that showed Egypt and Syria as the United Arab Republic. The union didn't last because so many Syrians felt that they were effectively being ruled by more populous Egypt. Egypt continued to call itself the United Arab Republic, I had a later atlas showing that. The name was later dropped altogether. The same atlas showed a country in the Himalayas, called Sikkim, which later voted to join India.

We landed in Canada in 1965, just before I turned five years old. We settled in Niagara Falls. It is mostly forgotten today but not long afterward there was a massive electrical blackout that started in Niagara Falls and shut down Toronto and New York City.

Around the same time Canada chose it's current flag, the red and white maple leaf. I remember that there were a significant number of Canadians who didn't like the new flag, "Why does everybody else's flag have three colors but our's only has two? Is the government just trying to save money on ink"?

Canada had a great celebration of it's centennial in Expo 67, held in Montreal. There were advertisements for it everywhere.

In the late-mid 1960s there was a boat stuck in the river just above the American Falls at Niagara. It had been there for years. They finally got it out.

There was a museum just at the Canadian end of the Rainbow Bridge. It was known simply as the Niagara Falls Museum. There was a mummy from Egypt that spent over a century in Niagara Falls. The actual identity of the mummy wasn't known. It was later found to be that of Pharaoh Ramesses I, who had begun a new dynasty in Egypt. His grandson, Ramesses II, is one of the best-known pharaohs. The mummy was later returned to Egypt.

Just before we moved from Canada, in October 1968, a politician emerged who would soon become prime minister. It was Pierre Trudeau, the father of the present prime minister. Canada is usually a little bit more low-key than the U.S. about politics. But there has rarely been such enthusiasm for a politician. It was called "Trudeaumania".

The first major event after our landing in the U.S. in October 1968 was the election of Richard Nixon as president. He was running against Hubert Humphrey and Wallace. Most people around seemed to prefer Humphrey, who was the current Vice President, but Nixon won.

The other major news around the time were, of course, the Apollo missions to the moon. Apollo 8 went into orbit around the moon, but didn't land, around Christmas of 1968. The following July Apollo 11 actually landed astronauts on the moon. A few months later Apollo 12 landed on the moon again.

With the moon landings space shows were on television all the time, with people traveling in and colonizing space. There was Star Trek, Lost in Space and, the Jetsons. Later there would be Star Wars. Computer technology was primitive at the time. What would happen is that computer and communication technology would advance much faster than space travel. Instead of sending humans far into space robots and computers would make the journey and instead of people exploring space they would be exploring cyberspace.

The word "ain't" was very commonly used in the late 1960s and early 70s. Teachers used to scold us that "ain't" isn't a real word and isn't in the dictionary. The interesting thing is that now the word is in the dictionary it is hardly used any more. As for other words, "cool" has taken over the world but "groovy" has been left in the Sixties. I actually used to think that being cool was good but being groovy was even better.

In early 1969 came the news that a man had hijacked a plane and ordered the crew to take him to Cuba. It turned out to be the unfortunate Anthony Bryant. Instead of finding paradise he would be thrown in jail and finally released in the Mariel Boatlift of 1980. Back in the U.S., having lost his sympathy for Communism, became a conservative talk show host.

The summer of 1969 was filled with news. Not long after the landing of astronauts on the moon came the famous concert at Woodstock. Four hundred thousand young people, mostly from the New York City area, got together for four days of music.

If anyone remembers the rock music of the summer of 1969, and is keeping track, we have come nearly 10% of the way to the year 2525.

At a nearby department store, K-Mart, an old car was on display. The body of the car was full of holes. It was the first I heard of the 1930s outlaws Bonnie and Clyde. They had been killed in their car by machine gun fire. Their car was being taken around on display.

Probably the most dreaded word in the language was "cancer". It usually amounted to a death sentence. More than once I heard the dreaded news that someone had been diagnosed with cancer, meaning there was probably not much that could be done for them. Fortunately those days are gone.

Another area where dramatic progress has been made is in plane crashes, which used to be in the news all the time killing hundreds of people. Does anyone remember the crash of the plane that was landing at Toronto Airport in the summer of 1970? The plane suffered a tail strike and was going to circle around and attempt the landing again. But the plane came virtually straight down into a field, killing everyone on board. Fragments of human bone, as well as scraps of clothing and bits of luggage, were being found for a long time afterward.

In the beginning of 1970 a new passenger plane was introduced, the Boeing 747 which could carry many more passengers than the standard Boeing 707. The maiden flight of the 747 was made from New York to London, by Pan Am, and seemed to be getting the 1970s off to a very promising start. More than seven years later the crash took place that remains the worst aircraft accident not involving terrorism. Two aircraft collided in dense fog at Tenerife, in the Canary Islands. The Pan Am 747 in that crash was actually the same one that had made the maiden flight.

There was a lot of concern about pollution and the first earth day was in 1970. Today the issue is not with visible pollution but with global warming. But America, being a very visually-oriented culture, is less enthusiastic about battling global warming because it is more abstract and less visible.

In April 1970 America's Nixon administration widened the Vietnam War by sending soldiers into neighboring Cambodia. There had already been protests against the war for years. This widening of the unpopular war brought an explosion of protests on college campuses across the country, including nearby Buffalo State College. It resulted in four students being shot to death by the National Guard at Kent State University, in Ohio.

In music the so-called "British Invasion" was going on at the same time as America's Vietnam War. The two events usually didn't have much to do with each other but there was one great exception. The Moody Blues did a song in 1970 for American listeners who were dealing with the Vietnam War, and it produced some of the most memorable lyrics of the rock music era. The song was "Question" and the question was "Why do we never get an answer when we're knocking at the door with a thousand million questions about hate and death and war"?

In September 1971 there was the Attica State Prison uprising, over prison conditions. A group of prisoners took over the prison, holding prison guards as hostages, and presented a list of demands. Negotiations did not resolve the crisis. I was near my 11th birthday. I came out of school and a number of parents were waiting for their children. One parent was listening to the news on the radio and I heard him say to another that they had stormed the prison.

A monumental event was U.S. President Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972. It was on television every day. Before that, the U.S. and China didn't even have diplomatic relations. This visit changed everything, creating the global economy that we have today, with Chinese-made goods to be found everywhere.

Christians had their own version of the Woodstock Concert in 1972, Explo 72 in Dallas.

Let's have some respect for mice. They are the only creatures, other than humans, to have been on the moon. 

Does anyone remember going to school in the dark, in the autumn of 1973, because the countries that had fought against Israel in the Yom Kippur War cut off the supply of oil to the countries that supported it? But the crisis didn't last long.

I was watching television when U.S. President Richard Nixon was about to address the nation. It was not known what the address was going to be about. What a shock it was when the president announced his resignation over the ongoing Watergate Crisis. Nothing like this had ever happened in U.S. history before and there was a great deal of uncertainty about what to expect.

The so-called Manson Family committed two sets of horrible murders in Los Angeles in the summer of 1969. The reason was to make it look as if black militants had done it. This would then set off a race war which, in the twisted mind of Charles Manson, would be the beginning of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible. The end result would be Manson reigning over the world as Christ. There was a member of the Manson Family who had not been involved in the killing, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme. Almost as shocking as the original murders, six years before, was her sudden emergence and attempt to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford, in 1975.

If you listened to short wave radio during the Cold War jammers could be heard, which was basically just noise generated on the same wavelength as western broadcasts by the Communist countries that they were trying to broadcast to. 

During the 1970s music was listened to, aside from directly on the radio, on vinyl records that were played on turntables, cassette tapes and eight-track tapes. Eight tracks were used to create a stereo effect by recording from different angles on eight separate tracks. Eight track tapes have long since fallen into ancient history. Cassette tapes were instrumental in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as Ayatollah Khomeini, while in exile, extensively recorded sermons on cassettes, which were then smuggled into Iran and became very popular.

I had an early pocket calculator almost as soon as they became popular. They were the size of a small book. But electronic calculators supplanted the slide rules which had long been necessary for complex calculations.

I was living in Canada for it's centennial in 1967 and in the U.S. for it's bicentennial in 1976.

An epic local event was the Blizzard of 1977, in the Buffalo-Niagara area. The snow was not new snow. Lake Erie, which is the only one of the Great Lakes that freezes because it is shallow, froze over early in the cold winter. Then there was a continued snowfall and the snow piled up on the frozen lake. Next, very strong winds from the southwest picked up the snow and deposited it across the Buffalo-Niagara region. A lot of chemical waste had been buried in Niagara Falls NY decades before, and a neighborhood built over it. The volume of water from when the snow melted in the spring caused the chemicals to reemmerge to contaminate the neighborhood. The drainage of water into the Niagara River was blocked by a highway that had been built. The result was the disaster known as the Love Canal. Has there ever been a "perfect storm" where more factors have come together?

I first heard of personal computers that were meant to be used by the average person with the Commodore, in 1977. This wasn't the first personal computer but previous ones were built from kits, and were not really intended for the average person. But the screen was all text. A graphical user interface was still a long way off.

The two Voyager spacecraft, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, were launched in 1977. Voyager 2 was actually launched first. These two spacecraft have been a fantastic success, far exceeding expectations. I consider this as really the highlight of space exploration. One Voyager or the other have visited all of the outer planets. Today they, on different routes, have both left the Solar System and are still sending back data. They have time capsules for anyone who may ever find them.

In my opinion the best song of the rock music era is "Gimme Shelter". But I have changed my opinion before and might change it again. It is a 1969 song but I didn't pay attention to it until nine years later. Ironically it is a song about the apocalypse. Not necessarily the biblical Apocalypse but about the world falling apart into war and crime. The lyrics are difficult to understand but I think this was done intentionally so that a listener can enjoy the music, if they choose, without getting into the meaning of the song.

I visited my native Britain in the summer of 1978, after completing high school in the U.S. While I was flying over the first successful attempt to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a balloon, the Double Eagle 2, was also going on.

Does anyone remember New Wave music? I see it as a kind of British development. The three songs that stand out are "Teenage Kicks", by a band from Belfast called the Undertones, Kim Wilde seemed to be trying to make it more popular in America with "The Kids In America". "Are Friends Electric" is a gloomy futuristic song by Gary Numan about a guy whose girlfriend is an electric robot, but now she is broken.

The word "inflation" brings back youthful memories. The West rarely has serious inflation anymore. I know exactly why. Millions of people were working in well-paid unionized factory jobs. The trouble is that they were getting paid more than their labor was really worth and the economy was adjusting by way of inflation. It is no coincidence that inflation and the number of people working in manufacturing both peaked in 1979. In 1979 inflation in Britain reached a very dangerous 27%. Margaret Thatcher, followed later by Ronald Reagan in the U.S., purposely induced a nasty recession because that was the only way to stop inflation.

In 1979 I saw the Skylab space station go over not long before what hadn't disintegrated in the atmosphere landed in the Australian Outback. Satellites can be seen when it is dark where you are but the sun is still shining on the satellite. You cannot see a satellite in the middle of the night because the sun is blocked by the earth.

I flew from Toronto to London in the summer of 1980. I liked to read. A few seats away from me a man was absorbed in a book titled "The New Left". For the eight hour flight he was reading this book. That must be a really good book, I thought. Years later I saw him on the news. His name was Michael Ignatieff and he was running for prime minister of Canada. Sure enough he had been teaching at Oxford in 1980.

The highlight of the rock music era wasn't Woodstock. It was Live Aid in 1985. There was an apocalyptic famine in Ethiopia and two great concerts, in London and Philadelphia, were held to raise money to help.

I was watching the takeoff of the space shuttle Challenger live in 1986. There was one line of exhaust. Then suddenly there were two lines of exhaust. The space shuttle had come apart and the seven astronauts killed.

The first popular mobile phones appeared in the 1980s. They were like bricks.

The economic crash of 2008 is often related to the great crash of 1929. But there is one in between, in 1987, that tends to get forgotten.

Likely the most important thing that humans have ever done in space is the Hubble Space Telescope. It's achievements have far exceeded expectations. But the main mirror had been done incorrectly and it took a space mission to correct it.

Don't forget the former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. He led Canada to the world's highest rating in the Human Development Index for about eight years in a row.

On 9-11 I was watching live news of the fire high in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, just after 9 A.M. The announcers were saying that a plane had struck the tower. It sounded like the crash was presumed to be an accident. But then suddenly the other plane flew into the South Tower.

On April 27, 2013 I was outside. It was a warm clear night. I have always been interested in space and habitually look at the sky. I saw an orange light moving slowly in the sky. It turned out to be a satellite, called Graham, burning up in the atmosphere. It was definitely glowing orange, although there couldn't possibly be enough oxygen at orbital altitude to sustain a flame.

In June of 2015 the world followed the escape of two prisoners in New York State, one was eventually killed and the other shot and captured. After escaping through a steam pipe that emerged on a street they carried supplies in a guitar case. What happened to that guitar case? I have not read that it has ever been found. The case would be a significant artifact if it could be found.