Electron Dependency

How about some outside the box thinking about a perplexing scientific issue?

Quark Theory has been around since the mid-1960s and is widely accepted. According to the theory there are six quarks, plus the corresponding antiquarks of antimatter. But only two quarks are really important to us, the up and the down quarks. It is sometimes said that, if all quarks except the up and down quarks disappeared tomorrow, only particle physicists would notice.

Quarks are theorized to combine together to form subatomic particles called hadrons. Atomic nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons, both of which are hadrons composed of quarks. The third component particle of atoms are electrons. But electrons are a different class of particles, known as leptons, which are not composed of quarks.

Quarks may seem to be an arcane topic to you but they really aren't. Your body is made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and, electrons. A proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron and a neutron 1,837 times the mass. An atom, except hydrogen, contains at least twice as many protons and neutrons together as electrons. This means that virtually all of the mass of your body, except maybe one part in three thousand, is composed of quarks, all of which are combined together to form protons and neutrons.

The component particles of the atom have integral electric charges. An electron has a charge of -1. A proton has a charge of +1. A neutron has a charge of zero.

Quarks have fractional, rather than integral, electric charges. An up quark has a charge of +2/3 while a down quark has a charge of -1/3. Two up quarks combined with one down quark produces a proton with a net electric charge of +1. Two down quarks with one up quark produces a neutron with a net electric charge of zero.

In the postwar period so many new particles were discovered that it was referred to as the "Particle Zoo". It was felt by many that there couldn't really be this many fundamental particles. As it turned out, there wasn't. According to Quark Theory many of these particles were actually composed of the even more fundamental quarks.

Quark Theory has been very widely accepted. The only complication seems to be that an individual quark has never been observed. Quarks are only seen when combined together to form protons and neutrons.

Not long after Quark Theory emerged, quark stars were theorized to exist. A star is an equilibrium between the inward pull of the gravity of the star's mass and the outward push from the energy released by fusion in the star's center. A star forms when enough matter comes together by gravity to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms so that smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The new larger atom contains less internal energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and that is why stars shine.

But a star eventually reaches the point where it requires more force to break atoms apart than is released by their fusion. That point is iron and it is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes. Without the outward force of the energy released by fusion the star may collapse so that the structures of the atoms themselves are crushed.

What happens at this point is that the electrons of the atoms are crunched into the protons to form neutrons, which is what happens in ordinary fusion. This forms what is known as a neutron star, although it is no longer technically a star because fusion is not taking place.

Since the structure of an atom is mostly empty space, and since the structures of it's atoms have collapsed, a neutron star is composed of extremely dense material. A spoonful of material from a neutron star is believed to weigh billions of tons.

The collapse of the star's atoms brings it's matter into extremely close quarters. This increases the force of gravity still further and brings about further collapse. The result is that the structures of the neutrons collapse into the unimaginably dense mass of a black hole. The material of a black hole is about two hundred times as dense as a neutron star.

The theory is that, since neutrons are composed of quarks, there should be a stage in the progressive collapse of matter, between neutron stars and black holes, that had the star composed of quarks and would be known as a quark star.

But like individual quarks themselves no quark stars have ever been found. Plenty of neutron stars and plenty of black holes have been found, but no quark stars.

There is, of course, the possibility that Quark Theory is wrong and there is no such thing as quarks. But the theory explains so much and is so widely accepted.

I have another explanation of why no quarks or quark stars have ever been found and cannot see that this explanation has ever been offered. The explanation was not difficult to arrive at, it just involved some thinking outside the box.

What if the reason we have never detected quarks or quark stars is not that they are not there, but that we can't detect them? Once again it comes back to the basic presumption in science that we have an unbiased view of the universe. What if we don't have an unbiased view of the universe? In other sciences, like geology and chemistry and everyday physics, it may not make a difference. But in cosmology it does make a difference. My cosmology theory is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe, we see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

We rely on electromagnetic radiation, which includes visible light, for our information about the universe. As the name implies electromagnetic radiation is based on electric charges. In my cosmology theory empty space consists of a perfectly alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. The basic rules of electric charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. The charged particles of matter, such as electrons, consist of like charges held together against their mutual repulsion by energy. This energy shows up as the intrinsic energy in matter known as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is why Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, has mass being convertible into energy.

In contrast to matter electromagnetic waves, including light, consist of disturbances, caused by energy, in the checkerboard of alternating electric charges comprising empty space. In my cosmology theory energy always goes to overcome the basic rules of the electric charges. Matter forms when the mutual repulsion of like charges is overcome by energy, to produce charged particles such as electrons. Electromagnetic radiation is formed when energy overcomes the attraction between opposite charges in space.

When electromagnetic waves encounter matter they "bounce off", or are reflected, by the electric charge of the electrons on the outside of atoms. This is why matter reflects light and we can see things. It doesn't matter if the outside of the atom has a positive or negative electric charge, it would be reflected off antimatter in the same way as ordinary matter.

Has anyone ever thought that the reason we cannot detect quarks and quark stars is not that they are not there but due to the nature of the electromagnetic radiation upon which we depend for information?

What if the production and reflection of electromagnetic radiation as we know it depends on integral electric charges? By "integral" I mean integers or whole numbers. A proton has an electric charge of +1, an electron of -1, and a neutron of 0.

Remember that quarks, in contrast, have fractional electric charges. An up quark has a charge of +2/3 and a down quark of -1/3. What if electromagnetic radiation, as we know it, only works with integral electric charges and not with fractional charges?

Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of integral electric charges. The only way that we can see or detect electromagnetic is for it's energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals in atoms, this produces an electric current in our eyes or detection equipment.

Why is it that we can see or detect the electromagnetic radiation from matter as long as it is composed of integral electric charges, but it seems to "vanish" and we can detect it only by it's gravity when it breaks down into fractional electric charges? Doesn't that make it seem clear that the "invisibility" of the fractional electric charges is due more to the nature of electromagnetic radiation than to the matter itself?

Electromagnetic radiation, including light, is produced by the movement of integral electric charges, which are almost always electrons with a charge of -1. They are reflected by integral electric charges which are, again, almost always electrons. The only way that we can receive electromagnetic radiation is for it's energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals, in our eyes or detection equipment.

It appears that electromagnetic radiation, as we know it, is based on integral electric charges. When the radiation encounters something that is not composed of integral electric charges, which simply means the charge on an electron or a proton whether it be negative or positive, it is as if the matter is speaking a different "language" that our familiar electromagnetic radiation doesn't "understand".

The way we see it is that the gravity of the black hole is so great that it doesn't allow even light to escape. But what that amounts to, once again, is the basic presumption in science that we have an unbiased view of the universe and that our observations and measurements are completely reliable in our gaining understanding of how the universe works. But the fact is that we are dependent on electromagnetic radiation to convey information to us and one of the things that we must take into account is the nature of that radiation.

This adds a new dimension to electromagnetic radiation. Not only is there the wavelength, from long radio waves to short gamma rays, but there is also the electric charges that produce, reflect and, receive the waves, from the integral charges on electrons and protons to the fractional charges, in thirds, on quarks.

Since we are dependent on the electromagnetic radiation involving electrons for our information let's call it "Electron Dependency". It is the reason that we cannot detect individual quarks or quark stars or black holes.

One obvious conclusion that some might come to is that this explains "Dark Matter". Matter that is gravitationally active but cannot be seen because it is not composed of integral electric charges.

Here is a link to another line of thinking, my hypothesis that black holes actually are the missing quark stars:

https://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-missing-quark-stars.html?m=0

We can discern nothing about the structure of electrons themselves. They seem to us to be nothing more than point particles. But, once again, that is a matter of our perspective and that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We have seen that we cannot see electrons as anything other than mere points simply because it is electrons that we depend upon to convey information. Here is a link to that posting:

https://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-inaccessible-structure-of-electrons.html?m=0 

The Meaning Of Freedom

 There are two special birthdays this week. Canada's birthday is July 1 and America's is July 4. As a celebration of these two countries that have represented freedom to the world I have collected past postings about freedom on this blog into a compound posting. I periodically put postings about similar subject matter into a compound posting.

1) THE NATURE OF FREEDOM

2) DEMOCRACY AND DICTATORSHIP

3) THE DANGER OF FAKE NEWS

4) THE FATE OF DEMOCRACY

1) THE NATURE OF FREEDOM

This might be a good time for a discussion of freedom. This word is everywhere, as a goal to strive for, but how often do we stop to think about what it actually means?

Everyone is free. Everyone who has ever lived has been free. We exchange our freedom for the things that we need, because we can't live on freedom alone.

We exchange our freedom for a shift in a workplace in return for a paycheck. We surrender our freedom to date in return for a marriage partner surrendering their freedom to date. If someone commits a crime, it is paid for with their freedom.

But there is a spectrum of freedom. Each person and society has their own view of what freedom is, and sees the other shades of freedom as not being free.

At one end of the spectrum is what we could call "freedom to", at the other end is "freedom from".

Two simple examples involve smoking and guns. Should people have "freedom to" smoke, or should they have "freedom from" second-hand smoke? Should they have "freedom to" own guns, or should they have "freedom from" having people around them with guns?

The spectrum of freedom is matched by a spectrum of politics. Extreme "Laissez-Faire" capitalism is "freedom to". Far-left communism represents "freedom from". Communism represents "freedom from" want in guaranteeing everyone the basic necessities of life.

As we might expect, capitalists don't think that communists are free, and vice-versa. Capitalist see "freedom to" make money. Communists see "freedom from" being exploited by people trying to make money.

A parable that might apply to the transition from communism to capitalism is that of "The Zoo And The Jungle".

The animals in the zoo see the animals in the jungle outside running free and long for their freedom too. One day, the zoo disintegrates and it's animals are set free.

At first the former zoo animals are elated to have their newfound freedom. But after a while they see that, while the jungle is free, it is also harsh and competitive. Unlike in the zoo, there is no guarantees of the necessities of life. They eventually decide that maybe the zoo wasn't so bad after all.

The jungle represents "freedom to" while the zoo, with it's guarantee of basic necessities, represents "freedom from".

Everyone has their own perception of where on the spectrum of freedom is the ideal place to be.

Extreme "freedom to" allows anyone to do as they wish, but it also allows the strong to oppress the weak. Extreme "freedom from" doesn't allow for much individual freedom but does have some appeal as people join cults, and various communal organizations, which guarantees the necessities of life and provides "freedom from" the need to think for oneself.

The majority of people would consider extreme "freedom to" as the "law of the jungle" and extreme "freedom from" as a dictatorship.

When times are good, and there is no immediate threat, the tendency is toward "freedom to". But insecurity or disaster prompts the exchange of that for "freedom from". 

The 1920s, the "Roaring Twenties" were a time of "freedom to". But, after the economy crashed in 1929, the 1930s were a time of "freedom from" want as governments extensively intervened in their economies to ensure that basic needs were met.

It is not unheard of for a group to manufacture a crisis in order to seize power, moving away from "freedom to". The first example that comes to mind is the Nazis torching the Reichstag themselves, and then using it to promise "freedom from" Communist subversion.

The entire idea of freedom is still a work in progress, since each of us has our own idea of what it is. 

"Freedom to" is generally preferred but requires more mature and capable people than "freedom from", since it means doing more thinking for ourselves rather than giving someone else the power to think for us.

"Freedom to" means having to make decisions for ourselves because the only other alternative is to give someone the power to make life's necessary decisions for us.

"Freedom to" means being subject to "fake news" because the only way around that is to give someone the power to decide for us what is, and isn't, "fake news", which would mean that we are no longer free.

When shopping, "freedom to" means having to decide for ourselves which products are worthwhile, and which one is best. Because "freedom to" means freedom to sell and the only alternative to freedom to choose is to give someone the freedom to choose for us.

"Freedom to" means having people around us who do not agree with us, and do not think the same way that we do. This is the way that it has to be because if we are free, because we live in a free society, that means that the people around us are also free. The only alternative is to give someone the power to tell everyone what to think, so that they will all think the same, but then we would not be free. This is what many people find so difficult about freedom.

"Freedom to" requires people to be well-informed because in a free society it is the people themselves who must make the decisions about that society. They cannot effectively make those decisions without being well-informed. The only other way is to give someone the power to make those decisions for us but then, of course, we would no longer be free.

Can you see why the idea of dictatorship has never gone away? Living in a "freedom to" society, while generally preferred, is complex and difficult. Even if we like "freedom to", it is so much simpler just to let someone make our decisions for us, to give us "freedom from" having to think for ourselves.

We are sometimes willing to give up "freedom to" in exchange for "freedom from" calamities like subversion, crime, immorality, shortages, terrorism and now, the Coronavirus.

For "freedom from" crime and terrorism we are already willing to tolerate cameras everywhere, many of which have facial recognition capabilities or recognize us by the way that we walk. We sacrifice "freedom to" have privacy so that vehicles, both police and private, can be mounted with cameras that automatically photograph and record car license plates. In the interest of "freedom from" crime and terrorism we tolerate police forces having devices that trick our phones into communicating with them as if they were cell towers.

The Coronavirus is moving us further away from "freedom to" have privacy, in the interest of "freedom from" the virus. Contact tracing, by apps on phones, is becoming widespread. The requirement to be tested for the virus, or to show proof of vaccination, is being implemented across the world.

One thing that is certain is that the more authoritarian societies, where the government has more power to tell people what to do, have handled this virus crisis much better than the liberal democracies.

Now can you see what I mean?

2) DEMOCRACY AND DICTATORSHIP

We usually define a "free" society, meaning what we perceive as a non-dictatorship, by it's method of government. The people of a free society, a democracy, govern themselves through representatives whom they have elected. Such a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic", because it is run by those who have been chosen to represent the public.

By the way, America's two major political parties are the Republicans and the Democrats. But if we look up the two words in the dictionary, we find that they mean essentially the same thing. A republican believes in representative democracy, and a democrat is a believer in democracy. In a similar way, America's Civil War was fought between the Union and the Confederacy, but those two words also mean the same thing.

The underlying principle of a democracy is that, if everyone has the right to their own opinion, we must expect that people will not agree with each other. The emphasis then is not on agreeing, but on agreeing to disagree. The political system will allow the formation of political parties with different viewpoints. The government will have checks and balances built in, typically an executive and a balancing legislative branch, so that no one can ever gain too much power. This is how dictatorship is prevented.

There are two slants on freedom, what we could call "freedom to" and "freedom from". A simple example is smoking. Should people have "freedom to" smoke or should they have "freedom from" second-hand smoke. The same principle applies to gun ownership and, at the time of the Coronavirus, the wearing of masks.

We may tend to see societies that reflect our own position on the slant of freedom as being free, and those that do not as not being free. If we go too far toward "freedom to", we get the "Law of the Jungle". If we go too far toward "freedom from", we get a dictatorship.

The most desirable slant on freedom is not constant, it tends to change with the times. In times of crisis and insecurity, people may seek strong leadership that at other times would be perceived as near-dictatorship.

Democracy is necessarily complex and the one advantage that dictatorship always has is that of simplicity. Another advantage is historical momentum, the vast majority of societies down through human history have been monarchies, autocracies or, dictatorships. Democracy has been very much the exception, rather than the rule.

Not only does democracy run counter to thousands of years of history, it is also contrary to human nature. If I had to define democracy simply, I would say that it means no one is special. The ideal is for a meritocracy, no one should be considered as special just because of who they are. If anyone wants to be special they have to earn it, and they have to earn it as an individual. The trouble is, of course, that humans, by nature, want to be special.

Technology is an important factor in the freedom slant. As communication technology advances, starting with the printing press and proceeding to the internet, it becomes more and more difficult for an autocracy to control what the people read and think. On the other hand, the advance of surveillance technology makes it easier for a government to keep track of it's people.

Much of what keeps a society from becoming a dictatorship is, at first glance, contradictory. We tend to believe that having respect for authority is a good thing. But there is definitely such a thing as having too much respect for authority, which invites dictatorship. We have to remember that people in authority are still flawed human beings.

We may avoid people who complain too much. But what would it be like if no one ever complained about anything? We can be sure that a society where everyone just smiles and goes along with the established system is a society that is not going to be free for very long. Periodic complaining is part of the mechanism that keeps a society free. If no one ever complains it is probably because they are not allowed to complain.

The checks and balances that are built into the government of what most people would consider as a free society are reflected in it's culture. One thing that definitely supports democracy is for a country to have more than one top university, with some rivalry between them, as in Harvard-Yale or Oxford-Cambridge. Cafes, or other places where people can meet or talk, have long been recognized as essential to democracy, until such discussions moved online.

Autocracy or freedom is rooted deep in the culture of a country. If people are given freedom but are really not able to handle it, it will just result in an atmosphere of conformity and unofficial rules. If an autocracy overreaches in setting rules, such as fixing prices, it will just result in a "black market", where people can get what they want, but at "real" prices.

A prominent factor in many dictatorships is what is known as the "Resource Curse" or the "Paradox of Plenty". It would seem logical that people in lands that are rich in natural resources would be better off than people that weren't. But what sometimes happens is that an autocratic leader will use the nation's natural wealth to keep himself in power. The government of a nation that lacks natural wealth is more dependent on the will of the people to stay in power, and is thus more likely to be a democracy.

This does not mean at all that dictatorships are without support. We tend to think of a dictator as oppressing his people against their will. But the truth is that no leader can rule without support. 

Dictatorships may seize power. This is particularly true of military leaders who decide that it is necessary to intervene in the government. But many dictators come to power by the democratic process, before accumulating more power. A common route to autocratic government today is the "president for life" route, where a president manages to manipulate the constitution of an otherwise democratic country to keep himself in office. It is much more difficult for a prime minister, in a parliamentary democracy, to gain dictatorial powers because a prime minister can be more easily removed.

A dictator does not necessarily have to have the title of leader. A country may operate as a democracy but there may be some "inside circle", or even someone outside the official government, that effectively holds the real power.

A country may not yet be ready for democracy. When a country is put together from the remnants of an empire, it requires an extended period of rule by a strong leader before it is ready to be a democracy. It is what I call the "Strong Leader Binding Phase". If the strong leader is removed prematurely, it does not result in freedom. It results in chaos, and possibly fragmentation. Two recent examples are Iraq and Libya. I believe that the underlying reason for the U.S. Civil War of 1861-65 was that the necessary Strong Leader Binding Phase, under English kings, was prematurely terminated by the American Revolution.

The attacks of 9/11 were a test of democracy. On that morning the thought came to me that "They want us to throw our principles away". The attacks were very carefully planned. The hijackers were from countries that were generally considered as allies of the west. This was done purposely to alienate Americans from their allies in the Middle East, as well as to incite a severe backlash against those Moslems who would go and live in the west. It would make many people afraid to fly, and help to set back globalization. But, perhaps most importantly, it would make us react with our emotions, relentlessly prosecuting anyone who might be connected with the plot, or might be planning similar attacks, and throw our democratic principles away, where everyone is entitled to a fair trial and due process of the law.

I find it very interesting that the French Revolution, which opened the modern political era in the world, had freedom from monarchical rule as it's objective, but ended with the rule of Napoleon as the prototype of the modern dictator. The monarchy was restored after the time of Napoleon, France was ruled by Napoleon's nephew as emperor, before finally settling into being a presidential democracy. It should have told us that democracy was against the flow of history and wasn't going to come easily.

People are designed to believe in something. When they don't believe in God, they will just replace him with something else. In our modern secular era that something else has often been the personality cult of a strong leader. The first example that comes to mind is Hitler. The Nazis took people that, for the most part, no longer believed in God, and did a magnificent job of giving them something else to believe in.

Cults often have a principle or founding myth that is less-than-believable. "The moment our leader was born the sun rose, even though it was the middle of the night". This is done on purpose. They don't want people who think and question, they want people who are willing to just believe. The same principle applies to some dictatorships. Being continuously told things that are less-than-believable may make many people willing to just follow.

What might all great dictators have in common. One common thread that I noticed is that they tend to be from small towns.

What exactly is it that makes a dictatorship different from what most people would consider as a free society? One thing that really stands out is the laws. The laws in free societies tend to be clear and well-defined, while many of the laws in other societies are more subjective and open to interpretation. A society with a law against "threatening the social order" is just about certain to be a dictatorship because the government can interpret it against anyone that they decide is a threat to their authority.

Getting ahead in a dictatorship tends to be more about having the right connections, "who you know" rather than "what you know". This is a disadvantage for a dictatorship as a free society tends to move forward more qualified people, as opposed to people who have the right connections. The first line of control in a dictatorship is often the job, the threat of losing or being demoted in one's job.

Dictatorships often tend to favor the country's capital city over other cities.

Dictatorships often have what we could call a "Praetorian Guard". This is an armed force that is outside the ordinary military establishment and answers directly to the dictator. This provides considerable protection against coups, and rivalry is often purposely stoked between this guard force and the regular military. Hitler had the Waffen S.S., the Soviet leadership had the KGB and it's predecessors, the Iranian Revolution had the Revolutionary Guard, and Saddam Hussein had the Republican Guard.

We can think of civics, the running of society, in terms of the subjective. The subjective is simply someone's opinion. While it is not possible to eliminate the subjective completely, the goal is to keep it as far away as possible. We could say that a dictatorship moves closer to the subjective, the opinion of the dictator, while a democracy moves away from it, trying to keep it as far away as possible, although the subjective can never be completely eliminated.

3) THE DANGER OF FAKE NEWS

Here is a question to help you determine where you stand on things.

What, in your opinion, is the primary danger of "fake news"?

Of course, fake news can mislead people and give them wrong information. But my opinion is that the real danger of fake news is that news can be labeled as fake news.

There has always been fake news because people in the news industry are as prone to error as anyone else. Does anyone remember the newspaper headlines that Dewey had defeated Truman in the U.S. presidential election? On 9/11 there was the news of another hijacked plane heading for Chicago, that turned out not to be true.

Scientists sometimes make mistakes. Does anyone remember "Cold Fusion" from 1989?

The way I see it, fake news is one of the costs of being free. In a free society, where people are allowed to publish their opinions, some of those opinions will inevitably be wrong. To be completely free of fake news someone would have to have the power to determine what was and wasn't fake news, but then the society would no longer be free and governments with the power to decide what is and isn't fake news have a pervasive tendency to label any information that they don't like as "fake news".

There certainly have been societies where people are never given fake news because the government has the power to determine what is and isn't fake news.

While never receiving fake news makes life much simpler, societies where the government has such power are otherwise known as dictatorships and people, as a whole, have consistently shown a preference for freedom. Governments with the power to decide what is fake news usually end up using it to extend their power, and declaring any information that they find inconvenient or a threat to their power as "fake news".

I see fake news as the sign of a free society. One of the prices of freedom, which it does require some special people to handle, is to be discerning and well-informed. Because if anyone has the power to determine for us what is fake news then that person has effective control over us and we are no longer free.

It appears that the deciding factor in whether a society is free or not comes down to simplicity. In centuries past, the simplest organization of society was to have a leader who can tell everyone what to do. But as technology increased, with the education of the masses, newspapers and, communication technology, it became far more difficult for an autocracy to maintain control, and the balance moved toward freedom.

But the idea of dictatorship never went away. It is always easier to have someone think for us than to have the burden of thinking for ourselves.

As technology advances still further, things start to change. It has become much easier to monitor and keep track of people. The phones and computers that we have gotten so dependent on can be monitored and tracked everywhere. There are vehicle-mounted cameras that automatically photograph all car licence plates and record it with the time and GPS coordinates. There are devices that can access your phone by pretending to be a cell tower.

There are not only security cameras everywhere but ones with facial recognition abilities and that can recognize you by the way that you walk. With this virus crisis there are infrared thermometers that take your temperature. The crisis is driving many more transactions to be done online which, of course, makes them easier to monitor.

Remember that the present world as we know it will conclude under the leadership of the greatest dictator that the world has ever known, referred to in the Bible as the Antichrist. We can be sure that the Antichrist will be able to decide what is and isn't fake news. A crisis like this virus provides an opening for someone to emerge with all of the answers to everything.

4) THE FATE OF DEMOCRACY

It has been over thirty years since 1989 and it is about time that we had a look at something, the fate of democracy in the world. The truth about democracy is that it is faltering.

Does anyone remember the momentous events of 1989? It looked like the triumph of democracy. An entire "New World Order", in the words of U.S. president George Bush Sr., was beginning. While it was indeed a new world order, we can see now that 1989 was the peak, rather than the permanent triumph, of democracy.

The personification of democracy today is Aung San Suu Kyi. Not so long ago she was the world's hero, standing against a dictatorship that had long imprisoned her because it perceived her as a threat to it's control. But when she was effectively in power, in her country of Myanmar, she went from the world's hero to the world's disappointment. The freedom and democracy that was hoped she would bring did not materialize. Her honorary Canadian citizenship, as well as a number of other awards that she had earlier been given, were revoked.

Now she has been overthrown in a military coup. That does not bode well for democracy in general. It is a symbol of the decline of democracy.

After 1989, nations across the world used to at least go through the motions of being democracies, now that is no longer the case. China has removed presidential term limits. Israel has defined itself as "The nation-state of the Jewish people", which subtly moves it away from being a democracy in terms of it's non-Jewish population.

Look at the Arab Spring, which was very much a reflection of the events in eastern Europe of 1989, but 20 years later. How many of the national revolutions, with the possible exception of Tunisia where it began, can be said to be anywhere near as successful as democracy advocates had hoped?

In Egypt the long-time military leader, Hosni Mubarak, was overthrown by popular revolution. Mohamed Morsi ended up as the newly-elected president. But he attempted to seize more power, which would have effectively made him into a dictator, and ended up being removed. Now, the country is back to another military leader.

Many hoped that the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi, the longtime leader of neighboring Libya, would bring about freedom and democracy there. But, as I wrote in the posting "A Few Words About Libya" on the world and economics blog, that has not happened. Libya is now divided between east and west and on the verge of civil war. It turns out that it needed a dictator like Moammar Gaddafi to hold the country together.

What happened to the end of the Cold War in 1989? Now we are into the "New Cold War", except that rival economic systems are no longer a factor.

The idea of democracy originated in ancient Greece. Democritus from whom it is named also came up with the idea of atoms. But I see the democracy in the world today as largely a Protestant creation. It presumes that people will think for themselves and put a high priority on being well-informed, which are typical Protestant values.

Protestants generally put the rights of the individual before the group, which is in contrast to most of the rest of the world. But democracy, in the modern sense, is intended for the individual well-informed voter to form his or her own opinions, and makes little sense if everyone is just going to follow the group.

There has been the establishment and the community ever since there has been civilization, but the average individual had little power. What democracy has done is to take some power away from the establishment and away from the community and given it to the individual. But that is Protestant thinking, typical to northern Europe and North America, but not so much to the world as a whole. 

Sometimes strong leaders are necessary. The democracies of today had to be bound into nations by strong leaders before they were ready to be democracies. America underwent it's strong leader binding phase under English kings before gaining independence. But nations like Iraq and Libya, put together by colonial powers, will not be ready to be democracies before completing a lengthy strong leader binding phase. Removing that leader, as we can see, will bring chaos rather than democracy.

Democracy is usually interpreted to mean freedom, with the idea that people are at their best when they are free. But there are the two slants on freedom, "Freedom To" and "Freedom From". Two obvious examples are smoking and guns. Should people have "Freedom To" smoke or to own guns, or should they have "Freedom From" secondhand smoke and having people with guns around them? Believers in democracy agree that freedom is better, but the exact slant of that freedom is open to question.

One thing that was absolutely essential for modern democracy is mass education and news publications. Ruling requires education and if only an elite few are educated then democracy as we know it is impossible. This required first the Renaissance, with it's branches and manifestations, and then the invention of the printing press.

The scientific branch of the Renaissance was the Enlightenment. The religious branch was the Reformation. The technical branch was the Industrial Revolution and the political branch was the French Revolution.

Democracy means continuous change. There is always an opening for political candidates with a better way to run society. There is no place or need for democracy if everything is always going to stay the same. Democracy has continuous improvement as it's objective.

People are designed to believe in something and, when they no longer believe in God, they just replace Him with something else. This does not make it any easier for democracy to work at it's best. Have you ever wondered why anyone running for office, even a minor local office, is given such extreme scrutiny nowadays, that doesn't seem to make sense? It is because, in our secularized society, political leaders have taken the traditional place of religious leaders.

We should not treat democracy like it is a religion. We presume that a society is better off being free and democratic, but that is still an open question and the optimum slant on freedom, "freedom to" or "freedom from", may be different for different cultures and societies.

More About Freedom

Here are links to previous postings with more about freedom.

The first is how freedom is what we could call the "Fundamental Currency".

https://markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/fundamental-currency.html?m=0

We saw that civics, the running of a society such as law and government, is based on the subjective, which is simply someone's opinion. Democracies try to keep the subjective as far away as possible, although it can never be entirely eliminated.

https://markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/civics-made-really-simple.html?m=0

This is a description of what I refer to as the "Strong Leader Binding Phase" that a nation must go through before it is ready to be a democracy.

https://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/strong-leader-binding-phase.html?m=0 

Northern Mexico

We have had three previous visits to Mexico, "Mexico City", "Guadalajara And Mexico's West Coast" and, "Southeastern Mexico". Today's visit is to Northern Mexico.

The major city of northern Mexico is Monterrey. It has been a city since the Sixteenth Century, and is today the location of the headquarters of many international corporations in Mexico. It is known as an industrial center, particularly the manufacture of steel. The following scenes of Monterrey begin at the altar of Monterrey Cathedral. The mountain with the two peaks close together is Saddle Mountain.

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.6656475,-100.3094315,3a,75y,122.63h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMUA74YFVygiMJENyYbh8CyoOkSJ50NJt2gEAoK!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMUA74YFVygiMJENyYbh8CyoOkSJ50NJt2gEAoK%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya21.421217-ro-0-fo100!7i6000!8i3000

Here are some more views of central Monterrey.

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.6724777,-100.3092041,3a,75y,337.2h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipP9VTQpoGBAwSEaJKys3nSXBCpOupEXUZF5CkNE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP9VTQpoGBAwSEaJKys3nSXBCpOupEXUZF5CkNE%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya339.2492-ro-0-fo100!7i3584!8i1792

The city of Tampico is on the Gulf of Mexico coast of northern Mexico. Tampico is sometimes thought of as Mexico's version of New Orleans, with canals through the city and similar architecture. In the early days of cars, there was an oil boom in this area. The following scenes begin in the Cathedral of Tampico. We see the familiar pattern in Mexico of the main church in a town facing the main square. There may be government buildings on the square as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@22.2161683,-97.8575652,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAb0QtfstmnZFt2Mtfp_XrQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAb0QtfstmnZFt2Mtfp_XrQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.76455%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Nuevo Laredo is the Mexican city across the Rio Grande River from the Texas city of Laredo. It is a central hub of goods that are manufactured in Mexico being shipped across the border. You may notice variations in the Spanish language from one place to another. In our visit to Colombia a stop sign was "PARE", but in Mexico a stop sign is "ALTO".

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4911343,-99.5026582,3a,75y,46.5h,93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBEpw4EgyiAzKzzNbZopjCA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DBEpw4EgyiAzKzzNbZopjCA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D46.500008%26pitch%3D-3%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Further west, we come to the city of Torreon. The following views of Torreon begin under the Plaza Mayor, the main square of the city.

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.5412997,-103.4531338,3a,75y,236.95h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slLwvCLnJucVSGXyODAZWgQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DlLwvCLnJucVSGXyODAZWgQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D234.20222%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Here is the city of Chihuahua beginning in the Plaza Mayor. Notice that Chihuahua is an Aztec, and not a Spanish, name. Indian languages have had a great influence on the names and the language of Mexico. Millions of people, particularly away from urban areas, still speak Indian languages as their daily language. Colombia, in contrast, speaks almost purely European Spanish. Of the three great native Indian civilizations before the arrival of European two were in Mexico, the Aztec and the Maya. The third is the Inca. In case you have never been told, the Indians in the western hemisphere are so-called because Christopher Columbus mistakenly believed that he had landed in India.

The government buildings in major cities, which usually face the main square, resemble the National Palace, in Mexico City, that we saw on our visit there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.640045,-106.073416,3a,75y,91.86h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNN0Y156sX6Z8whEKW-ewup-rj9AjH9bLKaANE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNN0Y156sX6Z8whEKW-ewup-rj9AjH9bLKaANE%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya92.11651-ro-0-fo100!7i5660!8i2830

The westernmost city in northern Mexico is Tijuana. Here is the area of Tijuana that is immediately across the border from San Diego. This is where Tijuana's metal arch is located. The following scenes begin at the same point as this photo was taken, on Avenida Revolucion. The arch was not there in 1996.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5492/3756/1600/dc_250998.jpg


https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5343921,-117.0369251,3a,75y,26.5h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snK3hTrt4ER82V2qJ0JtFcQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnK3hTrt4ER82V2qJ0JtFcQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D22.798174%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

We have already seen the area of Tijuana that is just across the border in the photo blog of North America. Each of the following photos can be expanded by clicking on it.

http://markmeektravel.blogspot.com/2006/09/tijuana-mexico.html

This is Tijuana's central area, known as Zona Rio. There is a spherical theater that is shaped like a planet, just as we saw in our visit to "Upstate New York" that there is a theater in Albany that is shaped like an egg.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.529536,-117.0240889,3a,75y,75.02h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfW0kjVLYz9-ZuKWcprzj_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DfW0kjVLYz9-ZuKWcprzj_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D72.39427%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Here is the part of Tijuana that is along the Pacific Coast.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5251095,-117.1230976,3a,75y,270.62h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbJl0qMvJ2SHbnRiPl8XAMg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbJl0qMvJ2SHbnRiPl8XAMg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.6245%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Can you believe that one of the conquistadors, Francisco Coronado, led a Sixteenth-Century expedition all across what is now northern Mexico and the southwestern U.S. looking for rumored "cities of gold"? But no gold was to be found. What it did accomplish was European exploration of the area.

Could they have imagined that there was a vast amount of gold below the ground. In what is now southern Mexico, the Aztecs and the Maya had tons of gold. But the Indians where Coronado was searching, such as the Apache and Navajo, were semi-nomadic and had nowhere near the level of advanced civilization as the Aztec and Maya. The gold had never been found, and wouldn't be found until the gold rushes of the Nineteenth Century.

Southeastern Mexico

This is our third visit to Mexico. Previous visits have been "Mexico City" and "Guadalajara And Mexico's West Coast".

Let's start our look at the southeastern part of Mexico in the town of Dolores Hidalgo. This is where the call for Mexican independence from Spain was first made, in 1810, by the priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. The following scenes start inside the church in the central square. The statue of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla can be seen in the square.

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.1582086,-100.9341568,3a,75y,56.65h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-7HNWkRqz0vo%2FV9xjKYTjVSI%2FAAAAAAAAOT0%2Fpe8cxZ3omCg8pAMNYjQIbDg1HfILloiGwCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-7HNWkRqz0vo%2FV9xjKYTjVSI%2FAAAAAAAAOT0%2Fpe8cxZ3omCg8pAMNYjQIbDg1HfILloiGwCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya33.78547-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120

Puebla is a colonial era city, began in 1531. It is between Mexico City and the Gulf of Mexico port of Veracruz. Puebla was an important battle site in the French Intervention in Mexico, and has been a center of European and Lebanese immigration. You may remember that Carlos Slim, once the richest man in the world, is of Lebanese ancestry in Mexico. The following scenes begin in the Cathedral of Puebla, adjacent to the Zocalo, the main square. Notice how the building of the Palacio Municipal, the city hall, resembles the National Palace in Mexico City.

https://www.google.com/maps/@19.0429841,-98.198272,3a,75y,71.68h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-FcWucyLcHzU%2FU84ikcPogmI%2FAAAAAAAACPw%2FGWctOz1GIywA-b0fjLhJimwXeG8nowbbwCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F-FcWucyLcHzU%2FU84ikcPogmI%2FAAAAAAAACPw%2FGWctOz1GIywA-b0fjLhJimwXeG8nowbbwCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya70.7006-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i4096!8i2048

The city of Leon was an active battle site in Mexico's war of independence, the Reform War between Liberals and Conservatives and, the French Intervention. Here are some scenes of Leon starting in the Plaza Principal. The arch with the lion on the top, to celebrate the heroes from the city, can be thought of as Leon's version of the Arc de Triomphe, or the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel.

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.121926,-101.6824669,3a,75y,104.01h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-L7C0T9I0FCE%2FVx5NlIPyk1I%2FAAAAAAAAREI%2F3SxpYLh7aAsu3BMLBUDI96kJQ5tMjN6GwCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2F-L7C0T9I0FCE%2FVx5NlIPyk1I%2FAAAAAAAAREI%2F3SxpYLh7aAsu3BMLBUDI96kJQ5tMjN6GwCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya95.97123-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120

This is the Expiatorio Temple in Leon.

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.1201735,-101.6748544,3a,75y,46.49h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-GhCHoW5vFsg%2FVHIJFUsUWqI%2FAAAAAAAAyFA%2FCOyKFm_Mj6MghHOKEwoonUcT8Af-wW-YgCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2F-GhCHoW5vFsg%2FVHIJFUsUWqI%2FAAAAAAAAyFA%2FCOyKFm_Mj6MghHOKEwoonUcT8Af-wW-YgCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya32.499718-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i9728!8i4864

Did you know that the Mexican city of San Luis Potosi is named for a French king, Louis IX, that was so kindly and saintly that he became known as St. Louis? The United States also has a major city named for him. San Luis means St. Louis.

There was a Nineteenth Century war in Mexico, the Reform War between Liberals and Conservatives, and I see the way Conservatives supported the later French Intervention, while Liberals opposed it and ultimately triumphed, as a reflection of how America's Republicans (Conservatives) were the descendants of the French Bourbon Dynasty, as described in the posting on this blog, "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris".

San Luis Potosi was a very early and important colonial city. The following scenes begin inside the Metropolitan Cathedral of San Luis Potosi.

https://www.google.com/maps/@22.1514288,-100.9760394,3a,75y,63.47h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-zsf8TEVR2wc%2FV92kn2PeaQI%2FAAAAAAAACIE%2FhKfhyeFKhpYjrhkgpFyzzMdg6Ad-kezmgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2F-zsf8TEVR2wc%2FV92kn2PeaQI%2FAAAAAAAACIE%2FhKfhyeFKhpYjrhkgpFyzzMdg6Ad-kezmgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya61.67216-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i5376!8i2688

The city of Veracruz is Mexico's most important port, and is on the Gulf of Mexico. It was founded by Hernan Cortes in 1519, and the name of the city means "The True Cross". It was perhaps the most important city of colonial-era Mexico for some time, and was heavily fortified against raids.

This city was a focal point of conflict between the U.S. and Mexico. During the Mexican Revolution of 1910, to overthrow President Porfirio Diaz and redistribute land, the U.S. Government became concerned about the investments that Americans had in Mexico's oil fields, and decided to send a force to watch the situation and evacuate Americans, if necessary.

During the operation, the U.S. Navy arranged to buy some fuel from a vendor in Veracruz. A group of U.S. sailors were sent in a boat to pick up the fuel, in drums. The sailors were in uniform, and none could speak Spanish. Some Mexican soldiers saw the sailors, and asked that they were doing. Since none of the sailors spoke Spanish, they could not answer. The soldiers arrested the sailors, and took them for questioning.

The sailors were released as soon as they had been questioned in English, but the admiral that was in charge of the U.S. Navy operation was outraged. He demanded a 21-gun salute to an American flag as a token of apology, which the Mexicans naturally refused. This led to U.S. forces landing, and occupying Veracruz for about six months. This is known as the Tampico Affair.

(This may remind readers of our visit to Algiers where the Dey, the Ottoman leader of Algeria, struck the French consul with a flyswatter during a dispute over debts owed to Algerians. The French took it as an act of war, landed and occupied the country, and the destinies of France and Algeria have been entwined ever since).

I have written before about how this 1910 Mexican Revolution, with it's redistribution of land to the common people and America's hostility to it, was a predecessor of the October Revolution that would come seven years later.

While the Tampico Affair was going on, the First World War was raging but America was not yet involved. The German High Command became concerned that America might enter the war on the Allied side. Following the Tampico Affair, they sent a coded telegram to the Mexican Government advising that if Mexico would join the Central Powers against the United States, it would regain the vast land area that it had previously lost to the United States that included Arizona and California.

The British spy service, known as Room 40, intercepted and decoded the telegram. The British Government debated over whether to warn America, because that risked giving away that they had broken the Germans' code. The decision was made to warn America, since it would likely bring a new ally into the war, and indeed this week is the 100th anniversary of America's entry into the First World War.

The following scenes begin in Fort San Juan De Ulua, in Veracruz. In an event that would later be mirrored in Fort Sumter and the Confederate States of America, after Mexico had gained independence Spanish forces remained in the fort, and refused to recognize the independence of Mexico.

https://www.google.com/maps/@19.2095642,-96.1313629,3a,75y,249.45h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-gDJtjc2JBEY%2FVDmQyhlqnkI%2FAAAAAAAAAEU%2FoZ2sQnmuELc5cCMrIozJK6cYqa-Sh6R8gCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2F-gDJtjc2JBEY%2FVDmQyhlqnkI%2FAAAAAAAAAEU%2FoZ2sQnmuELc5cCMrIozJK6cYqa-Sh6R8gCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya45.35117-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120

Campeche was originally a Maya city. The Maya were the other great Indian civilization of Mexico, along with the Aztecs who founded the predecessor to Mexico City. It became an important Spanish colonial city, founded in 1540, with old Spanish fortresses and walls, along with Mayan structures.

The following scenes begin outside Campeche's Cathedral.

https://www.google.com/maps/@19.8462457,-90.5362309,3a,75y,73.25h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-WU8JsYEp8MY%2FWFdYxg4vQ-I%2FAAAAAAAAAPg%2F4CqdOjaH2Gg0bHjG5xa2I2QDyrSzDGH3QCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2F-WU8JsYEp8MY%2FWFdYxg4vQ-I%2FAAAAAAAAAPg%2F4CqdOjaH2Gg0bHjG5xa2I2QDyrSzDGH3QCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya195.26086-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i8704!8i4352

Merida is another very old city that was first Maya, and then Spanish, and then a vital city of independent Mexico. Unlike the U.S. and Canada, where no native languages are spoken as daily languages, the language of the Maya is still widely spoken here just as Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, is spoken in the central part of the country. The following scenes begin in the Cathedral of Merida.

https://www.google.com/maps/@20.9671419,-89.6224173,3a,75y,265.87h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn8M4MbKmAsBQTtAAEhA1Ag!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dn8M4MbKmAsBQTtAAEhA1Ag%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D265.57947%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The development of Cancun as a resort began only in the early 1970s, but today it is one of the best-known beach resorts in the world.

https://www.google.com/maps/@21.1503277,-86.8254089,3a,75y,316h,88t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-kG28V39a4wI%2FVFld6b61Q6I%2FAAAAAAAABuw%2FxJVHFmFQQiQuIOJTk1HdPnp24cnfR3ppQCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-kG28V39a4wI%2FVFld6b61Q6I%2FAAAAAAAABuw%2FxJVHFmFQQiQuIOJTk1HdPnp24cnfR3ppQCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-2.9999962-ya353.5-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i8704!8i4352

Dazzle For Fashion

After the development of submarines, but before the development of radar, British ships were painted in bizarre patterns known as Dazzle.

It is very difficult to hide a ship at sea. But the confusing and deceptive camouflage patterns of Dazzle could deceive anyone looking at the ship through a periscope as to the ship's direction and what type of ship it was. Dazzle might cause the observer to think a ship moving east-west was really moving north-south. It could confuse as to the number of ships in a convoy. In choppy seas and poor visibility it could even conceal a ship, since the Dazzle patterns look like waves.

You can do a search to see some examples of Dazzle patterns.

Now I think it is time for a peaceful use of Dazzle, as fashion. Wouldn't it be cool to have a jacket with Dazzle patterns? How about having your car painted in Dazzle?

If a business had vehicles they could have their own particular style of Dazzle. Wouldn't a town or city seem progressive if it's vehicles were painted in Dazzle? Dazzle would get attention in advertising. It would be ideal for signs and walls in buildings. Wouldn't going to school be more fun if the hallways were painted in Dazzle?

I believe that seeing things that are painted in one solid color prompts us to fit in and think like everybody else while seeing different designs and patterns makes us both be creative and to think for ourselves. If we could only see in black and white we would be more conformist than we are seeing in color.

On the subject of Britain I am pleased to see that my native Forest of Dean is one of the areas that has been least-afflicted by the virus. Maybe because it is somewhat geographically isolated.

Structural Batteries

Ever since I was a teenager there have been people saying that the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered. Now, depending on the progress of electric vehicles, it appears that the end for the internal combustion engine might be on the horizon.

The great roadblock to electric vehicles is the necessity of carrying a battery. Battery technology has not kept pace with either electric car or electronic communications technology. The two drawbacks of batteries are that they are heavy and they take time to charge.

Engineers are working on getting batteries to charge more quickly. But what if we could eliminate the weight of the battery entirely? Maybe it only requires some thinking outside the box.

Small drones fly on batteries. What if passenger jets could fly on battery power? The reason that they can't, of course, is the weight of the battery that would be necessary. The battery would be so heavy that the plane would be unable to fly. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could somehow eliminate the weight of the battery altogether?

Every battery that I have ever seen has been compact in form. It has been either cylindrical, as in flashlight batteries, or rectangular, as in lantern or automotive batteries. But the compact form is only for ease of placement and handling. There is no rule that a battery has to be of any certain form or shape.

What if we could make a jump in outside the box thinking that would effectively eliminate the weight and bulk of the battery? Most of a car is made of steel and most of a plane of aluminum. Why couldn't the elements of the battery actually be built into the structure of the car or plane so that parts of the battery would also be structural parts of the vehicle? Some parts of the vehicle would be made of battery materials.

This would effectively eliminate most or all of the weight of the battery. What could be more revolutionary than this step, which really only requires some thinking outside the box.

Of course there will be people who say that this is impossible and cannot be done. Just as there were people saying that if we were meant to fly we would have been born with wings. Just as there were people saying that electric lighting was impossible, ships could never be made out of steel, there would never be radios in cars, flying to the moon was absolutely impossible, there would never be phones that we can practically carry around, buildings higher than a few stories would collapse under their own weight, and so on...

Remember that cell phones also have room for improvement:

https://markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/2009/06/cell-phone-projection.html?m=0 

My solution for global warming is simple, although that doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy, and involves the humble lawnmower:

https://markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/2009/06/solving-global-warming.html?m=0

Guadalajara And Mexico's West Coast

 Guadalajara is the largest city in Mexico, after Mexico City which we have previously visited. It was named for the city of the same name in Spain. The city has been involved in extensive conflict. It was a focal point of the War of Independence, against Spain, the Reform War, the French Intervention and, the uprising against the government during the time of Santa Anna.

Today, Guadalajara is known as Mexico's IT center. It is the major city near Mexico's west coast. In Mexico, the name of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla is often seen. This was the Catholic priest who initiated the uprising in Mexico that led to independence. The bell that he rang is at the National Palace in Mexico City. It is for him that Guadalajara's airport is named, and there is a statue of him in the city.

Let's start our look at Guadalajara inside the city's cathedral, in the old section of the city. Notice how Palacio Municipal, the city hall, bears a resemblance to the National Palace.

https://www.google.com/maps/@20.6768147,-103.3473433,3a,75y,87h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-mrKHARxj5SM%2FVWNe11ziaAI%2FAAAAAAAAOoQ%2F4vSwwWCFBQAsMvooWbTyBQ5ZT3aBmJ3UQCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2F-mrKHARxj5SM%2FVWNe11ziaAI%2FAAAAAAAAOoQ%2F4vSwwWCFBQAsMvooWbTyBQ5ZT3aBmJ3UQCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya340.29248-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120

Not far from the cathedral is a really magnificent building, although nowhere near as old as the cathedral. The following scenes begin inside the Expiatorio Temple of the Blessed Sacrament. This follows the Mexican pattern of a cathedral or large church facing the main square of a city.

https://www.google.com/maps/@20.673563,-103.3587516,3a,75y,189h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s--P-rdSGiot8%2FWAZoJnV3VAI%2FAAAAAAAAALc%2FwN62Yf7COiQkwZpGTeXIhT2mqwzPuUhLACLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F--P-rdSGiot8%2FWAZoJnV3VAI%2FAAAAAAAAALc%2FwN62Yf7COiQkwZpGTeXIhT2mqwzPuUhLACLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya240.04652-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i6144!8i3072

This is a new development in Guadalajara, known as Puerta Hierro.

https://www.google.com/maps/@20.7190511,-103.418629,3a,75y,128h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-8DMhhAgrBsc%2FVKrdfFnIT4I%2FAAAAAAAADWA%2FBPS5H4VGLwUThktmDhxmueq-rVh6PNMuACJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-8DMhhAgrBsc%2FVKrdfFnIT4I%2FAAAAAAAADWA%2FBPS5H4VGLwUThktmDhxmueq-rVh6PNMuACJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya319.07336-ro0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120

This is an upscale residential area, in the western part of Guadalajara.

https://www.google.com/maps/@20.6670851,-103.4293591,3a,75y,347.66h,89.2t,0.59r/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpPX7ppxh-djh2-LlAKy3g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpPX7ppxh-djh2-LlAKy3g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D217.34372%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Along the west coast, in the general area of Guadalajara, are the "beach cities" that draw so many visitors. The northernmost of these beach cities is Mazatlan.

https://www.google.com/maps/@23.2007365,-106.4218444,3a,75y,68.9h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-OBwYfaCu-es%2FV56yggWIfzI%2FAAAAAAAABx0%2FmAmdLTrQd8Yy4MF98iAI6jlAJ08Q_BF0QCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-OBwYfaCu-es%2FV56yggWIfzI%2FAAAAAAAABx0%2FmAmdLTrQd8Yy4MF98iAI6jlAJ08Q_BF0QCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya67.22296-ro0-fo100%2F!7i11000!8i5500

Moving southward, the next of Mexico's west coast "beach cities", and the one closest to Guadalajara, is Puerto Vallarta. Notice the crown on the steeple of the church, reminiscent of St. Giles Cathedral on our visit to Edinburgh.

https://www.google.com/maps/@20.608244,-105.2347922,3a,75y,337.35h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sRCJ4ECdlhazSgp6PvoQeoQ!2e0!3e2!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRCJ4ECdlhazSgp6PvoQeoQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D356.29742%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Furthest south, the best-known of Mexico's west coast beach resorts is Acapulco.

https://www.google.com/maps/@16.8594051,-99.8726984,3a,75y,136.95h,89.76t,0.61r/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZf8iUZk0f6OE_SV9wtV-uA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZf8iUZk0f6OE_SV9wtV-uA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D214.5%26pitch%3D-3%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Finally, we come to Mexico's glamour city of Cuernavaca. It is not on the coast and is much closer to Mexico City than to Guadalajara. A lot of wealthy Mexicans own homes here, and it is a favorite destination for ex-pat Americans. The following scenes of Cuernavaca begin in the Cortes Palace.

https://www.google.com/maps/@18.9210681,-99.2333439,3a,75y,9.23h,90.21t,-0.18r/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svDq7t0nS1gQvHs_gpFPkxw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvDq7t0nS1gQvHs_gpFPkxw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D113.65605%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Here is a neighborhood in Cuernavaca.

https://www.google.com/maps/@18.8709009,-99.2077252,3a,75y,86.41h,90.9t,1.45r/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4A5tdn6JOWZEXwYr4CCGrQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4A5tdn6JOWZEXwYr4CCGrQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D175.56566%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Mixed Feelings About Urban Renewal

It is about fifty years since construction of the Spadina Expressway was halted in Toronto. This was considered as a major victory for preservationists everywhere.

The Spadina Expressway was to be a quick route between north of Toronto and downtown. The northern part was built but was halted before it got to downtown. It only ended up going as far as Eglinton Avenue. The part of the expressway that was completed is now known as Allen Road.

I get the impression that there is at least some mixed feelings about the expressway not being completed, or at least not extending further south, at least while waiting in rush-hour traffic.

We cannot have it both ways. Most cities were built before cars came along. On the one hand we want to preserve historic neighborhoods. On the other hand we don't want to spend a half hour stuck in traffic and then another half hour looking for a place to park. Something has got to give.

The Cross-Bronx Expressway has been blamed for just about everything. But what would the Bronx be like today without it?

Building a highway through a city is a perilous thing to do in that it can change the whole economic dynamic of the city. One of the most controversial urban renewal projects anywhere is the Kensington Expressway across the East Side of Buffalo. I am also sure that construction of the Interstate 190 across Niagara Falls, NY has resulted in major economic changes to that city, boosting the business district to the east of the highway at the expense of downtown Niagara Falls.

Here is a link to the posting, on the world and economics blog, about the economic and social impact of highways that were built through the city in Buffalo and Niagara Falls:

http://markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-controversy-surrounding-urban.html?m=0

The Nature Of The Inanimate Universe

One way to define life is by what it is not, by pointing out the differences between living things and inanimate matter. Also I believe that the way to understand the inanimate universe is to be sure that we are seeing it the way it really is by separating out our own nature from what the inanimate universe is without us.

Color is the first thing which comes to mind that does not really exist in the inanimate universe. There is really no such thing as red or blue or green outside of ourselves. Color is just the way our eyes and brains interpret different wavelengths of the visible light that we can see. Have you ever seen anything that is color-coded, such as signs or wires? Well, the way we see it, everything is actually color-coded.

Optical illusions, of course, do not really exist. There is really no blue sky or rainbows or sun dogs. Optical illusions are even less real than colors.

Words do not exist at all outside of our vocabulary. Everything is really numbers being manifested. Numbers do exist but words don't. Words are just a high-level perspective view of ours. 

What I refer to as "Truth Pairs" do not exist outside of ourselves and other living things. There is no such thing as true or false, negative and positive, good and bad, or right and wrong. There are the electric charges that we refer to as positive and negative, but that is just a matter of our definition. True and false is just a matter of our perspective. We are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and so there is not enough information there for everything that we can conceive of to be true, so we perceive true and false. But, outside of living consciousness there is no such thing as false.

The peak, or optimum, factor is seen only in living things. It does not exist in the universe of inanimate matter. Living things have optimum conditions and amounts of such things as temperatures, food, physical activity and, sleep. This optimum tends to reach a peak, after which it declines. Processes in inanimate matter, such as flames and stars, just have a condition of the more matter, fuel or oxygen the better, which is an upward slope and not the peak pattern.

Quality and quantity is often referred to in human dealings. But in the universe of inanimate matter there is no such thing as quality, there is only quantity. Quality is just a perspective of living things.

Beauty is a form of quality that absolutely does not exist in the universe of inanimate matter. There is only numbers being manifested. There is no such thing as verbal description or quality or beauty.

In the universe of inanimate reality there is no such thing as a coincidence. This is just a random reduction in apparent complexity, as seen from our perspective. You see a person at the bus station on one side of town, and then just happen to run into them in the store on the other side of town. In the inanimate universe there is no such thing as a coincidence because it is only something that is perceived by beings of higher complexity than our surroundings, such as ourselves.

Sometimes we hear a saying like "It's an art not an exact science". This represents what I refer to as "realm sets". I define realm sets as either simple or complex. Simple and complex realm sets tend to exist in pairs. A simple realm is where a statement has to be either true or false. A complex realm is where two opposite statements can both be true. An obvious example of a simple realm is mathematics. An example of a complex realm is politics or economics, two opposite opinions can both have some validity, and the best position may be a compromise between the two. Mathematics is a simple realm not only because a mathematical statement must be either true or false but because we must completely understand something to describe it with numbers. Science is related to mathematics but we can use words, instead of numbers, to describe something that we do not completely understand. Art is a more complex realm than science because, unlike science or mathematics, art cannot really be "wrong" or incorrect. It is an expression of the effect that something has on the artist, rather than precise facts or measurements about it.

Entropy is often cited as a primary principle of how the universe operates. Entropy favors one direction over the opposite direction, the breaking down of the complex into the simple. An often-cited example of entropy is the placing of an open bottle of ink in an aquarium full of water. The ink will gradually disperse throughout the water. The principle of entropy is that it is a lot easier for the ink to disperse from the bottle throughout the water than it is for the ink to go back into the bottle. But every meaningful example of entropy that I have ever seen involves either living things, such as the complexity of a body being broken down after death, or things that have been made by living things, such as the bottle of ink and the aquarium. There is no meaningful examples of entropy in the universe of inanimate matter.

Negative numbers do not really exist. Our number system has a number line of positive numbers in one direction and negative numbers in the opposite direction. By convention two negative numbers multiplied produces a positive number, a positive and a negative number multiplied produces a negative number and two positive numbers multiplied produces a positive number. Adding a negative number to a positive number is the same as subtracting the number from the positive number. But my conclusion is that negative numbers do not exist in the universe of inanimate reality. Negative numbers have a starting point of zero and there cannot be less than nothing. Negative numbers exist only in things of human creation, such as debt. Temperature scales have below zero temperatures but these scales are of artificial human creation. A correct scale of temperature, in line with how the inanimate universe operates, begins at Absolute Zero so that there is no negative temperatures.

In the inanimate universe there is no such thing as top and bottom, front and back, or left and right. Planets and stars rotate, with a north and a south pole. But neither pole can really meaningfully be said to be the "top" or the "bottom" of the planet or star. It is only living things, or things made by living things such as houses, that have a definable top and bottom. The same can be said for front and back. No star or planet or galaxy has a meaningful front and back. But it is only living things with free will, including humans, that have a meaningful front and back. Plants have a definable top and bottom, but not a front and back. There is no such thing as the front and back of a tree. Left and right, of course, is meaningless in the universe of inanimate matter because defining it requires a front and back. I see the fact that people tend to be left- or right-handed as a matter of complexity. Left- or right-handedness is information and is a result of the brain being more complex than the body.

Alphabetization, as I refer to it, does not exist in the universe of inanimate matter. Alphabetization means something that doesn't make sense except as a subdomain of a larger whole. Consider a human foot, for example, a foot by itself doesn't make any sense, except as part of the human body. But that is not true at all of an inanimate object, such as a rock. A rock makes just as much sense whether it is within a planet, on the surface of the planet, or floating around in space.

Here is a link to a posting about the same subject, "The Universe With Us And Without Us":

http://markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-universe-with-us-and-without-us.html?m=0

The Paradox Of Knowledge

We generally consider having knowledge to be a good thing. But have you ever wondered if knowledge can be a disadvantage, if there can be such a thing as "knowing too much"?

It depends. If we just want to know what is then knowledge is a good thing. But if we are trying to create something new then it can be a disadvantage.

We have heard of a person being considered as not the best person for a particular job because they "know too much about the wrong way of doing things". The French Revolution is generally considered as initiating the modern political era. What was notable about it is that it was conducted mostly by young people lacking in political experience.

But that was what enabled them to create a new political order. If they would have been experienced they would have gone with what they knew and would never have been able to create a new order.

Albert Einstein once famously said that "imagination is more important than knowledge". When Einstein came up with his first theory of Relativity he was not a professional scientist. He was working as a patent clerk.

Maybe if he had been a professional scientist he never would have come up with his breakthrough new theory. His mind might have been too set in "things as they are".

In remember that when I came up with my cosmology theory, which is my version of string theory, I really didn't know much about string theory, which was first introduced in 1968. I had once read an article about the concept that what we perceive as particles, such as electrons, are actually strings and there are more spatial dimensions than the three that we can see.

I had picked up a book about string theory. It was a long book and I don't remember the name of it. I got about a third of the way through the book when I noticed that there is a relatively simple solution that makes so many unsolved mysteries of the universe just fall right into place.

I had been wondering what time exactly is but could find no answer anywhere. I noticed that a fundamental principle of science seemed to be the assumption that we have an unbiased view of the universe. But what if we don't? I concluded that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe, we see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. 

The reason there was no satisfactory explanation of what time is was because we were looking in the wrong place, in the realm of physics. Time was actually within us, the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, which also has no real explanation as to why it was that particular speed.

If I had a degree in cosmology, or if I had "known" all about it, the probability is that I would never have been able to take a "leap" outside the box, and to come up with a new way of looking at it. My mind would have been too locked into the existing ways of looking at it.

In the past many people who have made discoveries have been self-educated, or mostly self-educated. A university education is a wonderful thing but it inevitably means learning to think like everyone else. A self-educated person hasn't learned to think like everyone else, at least not to the same extent, and are therefore better suited to notice the things that no one else has noticed.