New Zealand

New Zealand is a country consisting of two main islands, the North Island and the South Island. We know that it is a highly-rated place to live, except that it is just so far away from everything. There are three large cities, and most of the rest of the country consists of mountains and farms and sheep. In the country as a whole, sheep far outnumber people. In New Zealand, the aboriginal people who were there before Europeans are known as Maori.

Did you know that nuclear physics was really begun, and protons discovered, by a New Zealander named Ernest Rutherford? Much of his early work was done at McGill University, that we saw in our visit to "Montreal". Rutherford was the first to notice that there is a nucleus at the center of an atom, and to differentiate between alpha and beta radioactivity. It was also under his direction at Oxford that neutrons were discovered and the first controlled splitting of an atom took place.

(Radioactivity had been discovered by Marie Curie. It was Rutherford, working at Montreal's McGill University, who first differentiated between alpha and beta radioactivity. Montreal really should remember this by having two streets, named Rue Alpha and Rue Beta).

But the most important discovery made by Ernest Rutherford was the proton. The elements may have varying numbers of electrons in their atoms, forming ions, and varying numbers of neutrons, forming isotopes, but the very definition of an element is how many protons it has in the nucleus.

Many people associate Australia and New Zealand together, with the two referred to as the "Anzacs", but there is actually quite a distance between the two countries. The distance from Sydney to Auckland is well over 2,000 km. It is about the distance between New York City and Dallas, or Toronto and Saskatoon, or between London and Bucharest.

This is Ernest Rutherford's birthplace, near the northern tip of the South Island. The first of the following two images, from Google Street View, is the road that is named for Ernest Rutherford.

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/@-41.3761655,173.111321,3a,75y,136h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1B-taZA_uRlup6cduylHwg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1B-taZA_uRlup6cduylHwg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D136.04524%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Auckland, in the far north of the North Island, is New Zealand's largest city and economic center. The South Island is the larger in area of the two, but the North Island is by far the most populous. The following scenes begin in the middle of downtown Auckland, next to Aotea Square. The first two images of Aotea Square are from Google Earth.

If you see Christmas decorations in the summer, remember that this is the southern hemisphere. In the scenes from the top of the tower you can see that, just as Sydney has the Sydney Harbor Bridge, Auckland has the Auckland Harbor Bridge.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.852322,174.7639864,3a,75y,219.95h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sY0mxNwPyeMp3zvlicrciyw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DY0mxNwPyeMp3zvlicrciyw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D213.83101%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

These scenes of downtown Auckland begin on Queen Street, next to Queen Elizabeth Square. The first image, from Google Earth, is of downtown Auckland.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.8439975,174.7669866,3a,75y,136.21h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqSNwO7xYjsb0xYaMM6CwXw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DqSNwO7xYjsb0xYaMM6CwXw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D142.5091%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Wellington is the capital of New Zealand, like Auckland it is on the North Island but at the very southern tip of the North Island. The following scenes begin outside New Zealand's parliament. The cylindrical building is known as "The Bee Hive". This image of the Parliament is from Google Earth.

This is the entertainment district of Wellington.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-41.2929728,174.7799274,3a,75y,133.61h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGKqxcFaJMun2k4k_VxC3JQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGKqxcFaJMun2k4k_VxC3JQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D141.74117%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Christchurch is the main city of New Zealand's South Island. The cathedral was damaged in an earthquake a few years ago. The first image of Christchurch is from Google Earth.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-43.5306909,172.6374671,3a,75y,108.25h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sr3LdSKJ5SR5_FPr1h5RuHA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dr3LdSKJ5SR5_FPr1h5RuHA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D114.452095%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Those are the cities of New Zealand. Most of the rest of the country looks like this. The first three images are from Google Street View.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-46.1002167,168.8533238,3a,75y,77h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7XDzNqCcNGtC3b6N7XjQzg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7XDzNqCcNGtC3b6N7XjQzg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D77.04559%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The Symbolism Of Kursk

I didn't see that any of the news outlets picked up on the great symbolism of Ukraine's military offensive into Russia's Kursk region. Kursk is where the largest military battle in history took place, as defined by Wikipedia. The Second World War battle involved a vast number of tanks on both sides and is remembered as a great victory for the Soviet Union. The Battle of Stalingrad, a few months before, was probably the single deadliest battle ever because it took place during a frigid winter and a lot of the deaths were due to freezing.

Since this battle is so important to Russian history the sending of Ukrainian tanks into Kursk is extremely symbolic in that it represents a reversal of Russia's great victory. The real target is the morale of the Russian population. Regardless of what this offensive achieves in military terms it's real goal is to convince the West that Ukraine is worth supporting and the Russian people that this war isn't going well and isn't worth it. 

Does anyone remember the Tet Offensive, in early 1968 during America's Vietnam War? The VC, the Communist guerilla force in South Vietnam, suddenly struck at targets all over South Vietnam. In military terms the offensive was not much of a success and the Communists suffered heavy casualties. But that wasn't what ultimately counted. The American public was taken aback that, after several years of war, the Communists could just strike at will all over the country like this. The offensive did a lot to turn the American public even more against the war.

The Historical Roots Of England's Uprising

This is being reposted from last week because more has been added to it.

The murder of the three girls in Southport triggered riots across England. But if these murders had not happened the riots would have eventually happened anyway. Something else would have triggered it. Here is why I claim that. Just remember that history is a very powerful force.

There are three things that characterize the four episodes of rioting in England in recent decades. 

1) Race and ethnicity were a factor, in some way, in all four episodes, such as alleged police mistreatment of minorities. 

2) British politics bounces between left and right, Labour and Conservative, about every 15 years or so. All four episodes of major rioting occurred not long after, relatively speaking, a change in power. 

3) Relative to population, northern England is disproportionately involved in the uprisings. This is interesting because northern England is known for being friendlier and more communal than the south. It is often said that "In England the further north you go the friendlier the people get".

Margaret Thatcher led the Conservatives to power in 1979. The worst of the four episodes of rioting in recent decades was the anti-Thatcher uprising of 1981. People on the east coast of Ireland could see the glow in the sky at night from fire across the sea in Liverpool. This is the only one of the four episodes that had a clear connection to the political order, other than the timing described in point 2).

Tony Blair led Labour back to power in 1997. This was followed by riots in several northern cities in 2001. This was the least serious of the four episodes. 

David Cameron returned the Conservatives to power in 2010. This was followed by the uprising of 2011. It began in London but quickly spread to northern England. 

Keir Starmer brought Labour back with a landslide victory in 2024. It was followed almost immediately by the recent uprising. The present uprising began in northern England and is concentrated there. 

To understand what is happening we have to go back more than four hundred years. Never forget how important history is. We tend to repeat history, sometimes intentionally but often without realizing it. 

The victor in the War of the Roses, between the two cadet branches of the royal House of Plantagenet, was Henry Tudor. This began the House of Tudor, or Tudor Dynasty, with Henry taking the throne as Henry VII in 1485. His son and successor was the famed Henry VIII (The Eighth). The major event of the reign of Henry VIII was to join the Protestant Reformation that was already going on in Europe. Henry VIII began the process of closing Catholic monasteries across England. 

Edward was the son and successor of Henry VIII. Edward was a devout Protestant but was in poor health and named his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, as his successor. But she was outmaneuvered by Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, who was a committed Catholic and had earlier been removed from the line of succession. 

The result was the five year reign of Mary I, and her attempt to bring England back to Catholicism by force. The attempt was ultimately unsuccessful but she did get a mixed drink named for her, the "Bloody Mary". My information is that Mary was willing to let the overthrown teenage Lady Jane Grey live, but the devoutly Protestant Jane wouldn't be quiet in criticism of Mary's faith and it cost her life. 

The death of Mary was followed by the reign of her half-sister, another daughter of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I. The long reign of Elizabeth I brought the golden age, known as the Elizabethan Era. Elizabeth was a Protestant who founded the Anglican Church. Today the Anglican Communion is the largest single Protestant denomination. But Mary's attempt to bring the country back to Catholicism had failed and the Protestant order was here to stay. 

The Anglican Church kept much of the Catholic liturgy that people were familiar with. Protestant church leaders are usually called "ministers", but Anglican leaders are still called "priests". The Anglican Church had a structure similar to the Catholic Church, with archbishops in York and Canterbury. The difference from Catholicism is that the Anglican Church was led by the English monarch, instead of the pope, and people were free to read the Bible for themselves and to set up other churches. 

Elizabeth's new church didn't please everyone. Some chose to remain Catholic, which they were free to do. Others wanted nothing to do with anything resembling Catholicism, even a church that retained the Catholic liturgy. These would be called Puritans and there would be civil war between the Anglicans and Puritans. Some of the Puritans would ultimately leave England altogether and this is where America's Pilgrims and Puritans came from.

The northern part of England remained the most Catholic. After the reign of Elizabeth began it became clear that England was definitely going to be majority Protestant, although there was freedom of religion. A short-lived uprising began in northern England in an attempt to oust the new Protestant order and restore Catholicism. This uprising became known as the "Rising of the North". 

This is what these periodic uprisings in England are. The repetition of history is a very powerful force. A while after a new government comes to power, whether Labour or Conservative, there is a brief uprising, just as there was when a new Protestant queen took the throne. This is a reenactment of England's history, except that today it is secularized around politics and race or ethnicity, instead of around monarchy and religion and tends to be focused, relative to population, on northern England.

ISLAM AND THE UPRISING IN ENGLAND 

Many have questioned why the recent uprising in England was directed against mosques and Islam, as well as new arrivals to the countrywhen the murders in Southport, which triggered the uprising, was committed by someone who was born in Britain and was not a Moslem. 

The answer is simple but it involves the power of history. In the Sixteenth Century England had been Catholic for a thousand years, from long before it was a united country. Henry VIII (The Eighth) broke with the Catholic Church and supported the Protestant Reformation, which was already going on in continental Europe. But his daughter Mary, who had been removed from the line of succession because she insisted on Catholicism, eventually managed to gain the throne and tried, unsuccessfully, to bring the country back to Catholicism by force. But she did get a mixed drink named after her, the Bloody Mary. 

When Mary died her half-sister, another daughter of Henry VIII named Elizabeth, took the throne. She made it clear that the new Protestant order was here to stay, although she did start the Anglican Church as an attempt at compromise and today the Anglican Communion is the largest single Protestant denomination.

But there were still a considerable number of Catholics, concentrated in northern England, and they wanted the old order back with the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne. They began a short-lived rebellion, the "Rising of the North".

The recent uprising in England, centered around the northern part of the country, was a reenactment of the Rising of the North". Just as the original uprising followed the change from a Catholic to a Protestant queen, these periodic brief uprisings in England come after a change in power between Labour and Conservative, which happens on average about every 15 years or so. The original uprising was about religion so this reenactment had to focus on the new Islamic order, just as the original uprising focused on the new Protestant order. 

Why did the rioters try to torch a hotel where new arrivals to Britain were staying? Remember the posting "The Far-Reaching Story Of Guy Fawkes", April 2022. The attempt to destroy the Parliament building with gunpowder later followed the Rising of the North, and they were just reenacting that.

THE REVERSE MARTIN LUTHER KING

One thing that I have never seen written about the modern era of periodic xenophobia in Britain is it's connection to Martin Luther King. In 1967 Martin Luther King came to Britain to receive an award and made a speech at Newcastle University. He was especially known for his earlier "I Have A Dream" speech. It was a time of racial turmoil in the U.S.

A few months later a British politician, apparently looking to make a name for himself, copied Martin Luther King, but in reverse. His name was Enoch Powell and he made his notorious "Rivers Of Blood" speech, warning against migration to Britain.

The news following the speech focused on a white girl who was supposedly the only white student in her class at school. She didn't get much help from the teacher because the teacher was too busy trying to teach the other students how to speak English. But the school wasn't named. It is now widely believed that this was "fake news", and the school wasn't named because it didn't exist.

THE MODERN ERA OF NATIONALISM

One thing that we rarely stop to think about is that the modern concept of the nation-state is a relatively recent development. Even early in the Twentieth Century there were quite a few people in remote areas who weren't sure which nation they belonged to. It wasn't really that important because the tribe or religion was what counted.

When people went to war in the Middle Ages it wasn't their country that they were fighting for, it was their god. A country was just a collection of people with something in common. The idea of giving one's life just for one's country was somewhat absurd. 

In the late Nineteenth Century secularism increased. But people are designed to believe in something and if they lose faith or don't believe in God they will just replace Him with something else. That "something else" is often nationalism, political-economic ideologies or, racism. How many people have you known whose "religion" is their country or their political-economic ideology? The thing that is especially attractive about racism is that it not only gives people something to believe in but, unlike traditional Christianity where one has to admit their sinfulness, everything is the fault of the other group. 

Can you believe that, around the beginning of the Twentieth Century, there were people saying that, because most wars are about religion the coming century should be very peaceful. Yet the Twentieth Century was the century of nationalism and political-economic ideologies and was the deadliest century yet.

THE LEGEND OF KING ARTHUR

With people arriving in Britain by boat being such an issue nowadays why don't we review the Legend of King Arthur. 

King Arthur is the probably legendary English king who defended the island against Anglo Saxons. Fortunately he was less than successful and Brits today are sometimes referred to as "Anglo Saxons".

The Anglo Saxons are one of the several groups that mixed to form England. The others being the original Britons, Vikings, Danes and, Normans. The original Britons are from when the island was linked to Europe, before the last ice age as we saw in the posting "Natural History" May 2022, the others arrived in Britain by boat.

The arrival of the Vikings and Normans, who were descendants of Vikings, was more like organized raiding and invasion but the most important group of all, the Anglo Saxons, were arrivals of migrants by boat. The migration of Anglo Saxons was probably driven mostly by Feudalism. Property was inherited by the oldest son, leaving the others to consider seeking their fortune on the island out in the sea.

The arrival of the Anglo Saxons was ironically just like that of the people in boats today. History is repeating itself, as it so often does. The boat arrivals that are so scorned today are the modern incarnation of the Anglo Saxons that are so central to British history.

This is just like a play about King Arthur. The British Prime Minister is in the role of King Arthur, trying to defend the island against the arrivals by boat. The government ministers are playing the Knights of the Round Table. Those trying to get into Britain by boats don't know it but they are playing the role of the Anglo Saxons. 

Shakespeare never wrote a play about King Arthur, or about reenacting the Rising of the North, but I'm sure he would be absolutely delighted with this, the entire nation staging a play.

Our Complicated Solar System

We know that the sun and planets formed when a large star exploded in a supernova and some of the matter fell back together by gravity. The sun must be such a second generation star because it contains heavier elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. But the Solar System that we see is too complicated for this simple scenario.

Since this explosion and falling back together of matter is simple, the Solar System should be just as simple but it isn't. The matter near the center of the cloud of debris from the supernova should have fallen back together to form the sun and the matter further out, in orbit around the proto-sun, should have collected in masses at periodic distances to form the planets. 

But the Solar System that we have is much more complicated than this, so there must have been more information from somewhere. 

Why should there be moons in the Solar System? This is a higher information state relative to the simple explosion of a supernova. There really shouldn't be moons, there should just be planets at periodic distances from the sun. 

The four outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune, are much greater in scale than the four inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and, Mars. Jupiter is actually more massive than all of the other planets combined, and Saturn is about a third the mass of Jupiter. This is also a higher information state and requires special explanation.

To make the Solar System even more complicated one of the periodic collections of matter that would have formed into a planet didn't form into a planet. This collection of objects remain today as the Asteroid Belt. It was prevented from forming into a planet by the powerful gravity of Jupiter. Two large groups of asteroids are in the same orbital path as Jupiter, at it's Lagrangian Points L4 and L5.

As if all of this isn't complicated enough the outer planets have ring systems around them. By far the most visible, and best-known, is that of Saturn. But why is the Solar System so much more complicated than it appears it should be given the basic simplicity of a supernova explosion? 

Then there are the comets. These have very eccentric orbits, meaning very elliptical, and may be in nowhere near the same orbital plane around the sun as the planets. A comet is typically composed mostly of light molecules, such as water, and the water on earth is generally believed to have come from comets. Salt is also a light molecule and it seems certain that water and salt arrived on earth together.

One thing that is striking is the distribution of moons in the Solar System. There are a vast number of moons in orbit around the outer planets, and every space mission finds more. But around the inner planets there is only earth's moon and the two small moons around Mars, which are almost certainly asteroids that were captured by Mars' gravity. 

There is one scenario that can explain what happened. The supernova must have been more complicated. One thing that would make that possible would be if there had been one or more nova before the supernova. A star forms when enough matter comes together by it's mutual gravity to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms and fuse lighter atoms together into heavier ones. The new heavier atoms contain less internal energy than the lighter atoms that were fused together and this excess energy is released as radiation, which is why stars shine. 

But, as time goes on, increasingly heavy atoms are fused together so that the energy released per time increases. This upsets the equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy released. The star may swell and the sun is expected to eventually turn into a "red giant". 

The largest stars may completely explode in a supernova. But before that the outer layers may be blasted off by one or more nova, in an effort by the star to restore equilibrium. These nova are far less powerful than the pending supernova, which is the star exploding from the center. The nova blast off the outer layers of the star, which contain lighter atoms. 

A supernova releases so much energy that it fuses atoms together, creating elements that ordinarily wouldn't exist. The usual fusion process only goes as far as iron and all elements heavier than iron are created only during the brief time that the supernova is actually taking place, which is why elements like gold and silver are exponentially less common than iron and lighter elements.

The far less powerful nova doesn't fuse atoms together but it does fuse the light atoms in the outer layers of the star into molecules. This is how the light molecules that are abundant in the outer Solar System formed, such as ammonia, methane and, water. 

So this explains why the Solar System is so much more complicated than it appears it should be. As powerful as a supernova is it is a relatively simple event. There must have been at least one nova before the star finally exploded in a supernova. I believe that there were, most likely, three nova.

This also explains comets, composed primarily of water ice. The first nova formed the distant comets, the Oort Cloud. The second nova formed the nearer comets, the Kuiper Belt. The third nova formed the methane, ammonia and, water that makes up much of the mass of the outer planets. The water on earth arrived by way of comets. 

So when the supernova explosion threw out a great volume of heavy rocky and metallic matter, the bulk of it was thrown far enough to mix with the light molecules produced by the third nova. When the heavy matter from the supernova coalesced into planets, the vast cloud of lighter molecules was drawn in too. This made the outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune much more massive, although of less average density, than they would have been otherwise. 

This is what caused so many moons to form. The mass of heavy rocky and metallic debris that is thrown far enough outward to intersect with the light molecules that were thrown outward by the last nova thus becomes part of a more massive planet than it would be if there had been just a supernova explosion. Once the planet forms, other rocky and metallic debris is pulled in by gravity to join the planet. 

But a complication arises in that the added mass of the planet from the light molecules would cause the new pulled in mass to have greater acceleration due to gravity while falling into the planet and would cause the mass to impact the planet with more energy. But this would be creating energy out of nothing, and so it simply can't be done. So what the new mass does is falls into orbit around the planet, where it coagulates by gravity to form a moon. This is why there are so many moons around the outer planets but not the inner planets. 

Rock is so common because it is basically a compound of silicon and oxygen, which are both very common. Limestone is usually calcium carbonate, formed from the bodies of microorganisms.

The earth's moon is widely believed to have formed when a Mars-sized object, named Theia, collided with earth and it's mass was hurtled back into space where it coagulated by gravity into the moon. My cosmology theory has some of the mass remaining on the surface of the earth to form the continents. But this fits ideally with our scenario here. The asteroids actually did start to form a planet but it was destabilized by Jupiter's gravity, losing orbital energy, and it fell inward toward the sun until it collided with the earth. This accounts for earth's moon and, with the two small moons of Mars being captured asteroids, all of the other moons are around the outer planets. 

The reason that the Moon has no appreciable atmosphere is that the water and elements in the air come from comets landing on earth and the moon has not been impacted with as many comets, since it formed later than the earth. At least one comet must have struck the moon because there is water ice in some areas of permanent shadow. But the moon has only one-sixth of the gravity of the earth and this might not be strong enough to retain water vapor and gases like oxygen and nitrogen. It also seems that Mars once had water but doesn't now. 

The most obvious way to explain our complicated Solar System is that there were, likely, three nova, a blasting off of the outer layers of the previous star before the star finally exploded from the center in a supernova.

Canberra And The Outback

Australia's capital city is neither of it's two largest cities, Sydney or Melbourne. Because of rivalry between those two cities, a capital city was specially built. That city is Canberra, and it became the capital of the country in the 1920s. Canberra is an entirely planned city, built exactly halfway between Melbourne and Sydney.

In order to build the capital exactly halfway between Melbourne and Sydney, it was built where a city would not usually be found. Canberra is about 100 km inland, while all of the country's other major cities are on the coast. Unlike any other major Australian city, Canberra has an Aboriginal name because recognizing the original people was part of representing the country.

It is by no means unusual for a country to specially build a capital city, rather than using an existing city. In the Bible, King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel because of it's central location among the country's tribes. Washington D.C. and Ottawa were especially built as capital cities because of central location. Washington was between the north and the south of what was then the U.S. Ottawa was built between English-speaking "Upper Canada" and French-speaking "Lower Canada". We saw in the posting "St. Petersburg And The Romanovs" how Peter the Great had built the city as his capital.

Australian cities have massive stone war memorials. There is a memorial to Kemal Ataturk in Canberra. He was the Ottoman military commander at Gallipoli, in the First World War where quite a few Australians died. This image of the Ataturk Memorial is from Google Street View.

In a very encouraging example as to how enemies can become friends, Ataturk praised the Allied soldiers as well as the Turkish who were buried at Gallipoli, "They are buried in what is now a friendly country and are now our sons as well". It was Ataturk, of course, who was the founder of modern Turkey after the end of the Ottoman Empire. It was certainly his ultimate victory at Gallipoli that promoted him to this position, which brought such a change to the world.

The following scenes begin inside the War Memorial Museum in Canberra. The wide boulevard, aligned like something out of Paris with the Old and New Parliament Houses on the other side of Lake Burley Griffin, is the ANZAC Parade. The often seen acronym "Anzac" means "Australia and New Zealand". Although separate countries they have always been allies, with the exception of sports rivalries. The lake is a decorative feature of Canberra, that was created by an artificial dam. 

These two images of the Anzac Parade are from Google Street View. Remember that Australians drive on the left side of the road.

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/@-35.2806338,149.1493537,2a,75y,108h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s5xnEJ9sTazrticFOr-TUdQ!2e0!3e2!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5xnEJ9sTazrticFOr-TUdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D111.698296%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The following scenes begin between the old and new Parliament Houses, on the opposite side of Lake Burley Griffin from the War Memorial. The first image, from Google Earth, shows the Old Parliament in the foreground and the New Parliament in the background. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@-35.3061558,149.1263384,3a,75y,240.99h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTrmS4mx5iVnuAf5I3xfYtg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DTrmS4mx5iVnuAf5I3xfYtg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D235.80765%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

This is the new residential area of Dunlop, in Canberra. Canberra is in the Australian Capital Territory, which was set aside so that the capital city of the country is not in any of the states, in the same way that Washington, D.C. is in the District of Columbia, which is not part of any state. The states of Australia are Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory, South Australia and, Western Australia. The first image of Dunlop is from Google Earth.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-35.1931268,149.0240361,3a,75y,269h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spSNdH9KDhqSsEVz-S0epyw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DpSNdH9KDhqSsEVz-S0epyw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D269.84436%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

There is a connection between the city of Buffalo, NY and Canberra that we rarely hear of. It was actually an American architect who designed Canberra as a capital city. Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra is named for Walter Burley Griffin.

There was once an architectural masterpiece that Buffalo greatly regrets tearing down. It was the Larkin Administration Building, which had been designed by the famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright. But Wright was away in Japan during most of the time that it was being built. The construction of the building was supervised by a member of his office, Walter Burley Griffin, who would later design the Australian capital city of Canberra. 

Lake Burley Griffin is the decorative artificial lake in Canberra that was named for Walter Burley Griffin. Image from Google Earth.

This was what the Larkin Administration Building in Buffalo looked like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larkin_Administration_Building#/media/File:LarkinAdministrationBuilding1906.jpg

This brick wall, on Swan Street in Buffalo, is all that remains of the Larkin Administration Building. Image from Google Street View. 

Australia is a vast country. Very far from what we have seen of Australia so far is the town of Alice Springs. It is in the vast Australian Outback, and is just about in the geographical center of the country. It is about 2,000 km from Canberra.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-23.7050678,133.8706045,3a,75y,85h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWbcEO-zQ2On6hafJhckXAA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWbcEO-zQ2On6hafJhckXAA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D85.5%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The best-known site in the Australian Outback is Ayers Rock, which in Aboriginal is known as Uluru. It is the largest single rock in the world. It looks like it might be volcanic in origin, but it isn't. This vast rock formation is made of sandstone. The three images of Ayers Rock are from Google Earth.

Ayers Rock

On the subject of Australia today, in the middle of Australia is what is believed to be the largest single rock in the world. It is known as Ayers Rock. It's local Aboriginal name is Uluru.

The great mystery is how it could have formed. At first glance it appears certain to be of volcanic origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru#/media/File:Uluru_(Helicopter_view)-crop.jpg

But it isn't. It is actually made of sandstone, not any kind of volcanic rock. It is not technically a mountain but a single rock. As the name implies, sandstone is a sedimentary rock that forms from grains of sand that have been compressed together. This could not possibly be of volcanic origin.

This massive rock stands alone, with no comparable features anywhere nearby. There is only one possible way I can see how Ayers Rock must have originated, and I cannot find any reference to it online.

We know that a large expanse of flat terrain is almost always the result of seafloor that has been forced upward by tectonic movement. As the pieces that now form the Australian continent moved tectonically closer together, the seafloor between them was forced upward to form the flat areas of Australia that we see today.

Sand is formed along coasts by the action of waves gradually breaking down rocks into grains. It takes a long time for waves to break down rocks into sand, the rocks are first broken down into pebbles, which are smoothed by the action of the waves, before being broken down further into sand.

Grains of sand tend to be oddly-shaped, so that the grains lock together and you can walk or drive on sand. When sand gets older, the edges gradually get worn down so that the grains are more spherical. Without the rough edges, the grains will "roll" when pressure is applied and someone standing on the sand will sink down in it. This type of sand is called "quicksand".

The only way to explain Ayers Rock is that a great meteorite formed an impact crater in a shallow sea, near the shore. It must have been like Meteor Crater, seen here in Arizona.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater#/media/File:Barringer-1001.jpg

The movement of the water caused the vast crater to fill with sand. The weight of the water, and the sand at the top, gradually compressed the sand into one gigantic rock. This is how all sandstone is formed.

Then, when the seafloor was later forced upward by tectonic movement, the pressure closed the meteorite impact crater and, being a single rock, the sandstone was forced upward above the level of the flat plain that was formed by the seafloor being forced upward.

This has to be what formed Ayers Rock, although the majority of the rock remains below ground level.

Some distance from Ayers Rock is a similar rock but, unlike Ayers Rock, this rock has multiple peaks. It is known as Mount Olga.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata_Tjuta#/media/File:Aerial_Kata_Tjuta_olgas4799.jpg

But the explanation for this is simple. Before impacting the earth, the large meteor broke into two pieces. One of the pieces then broke into multiple pieces before impacting the earth.

The piece that remained whole is the one that formed Ayers Rock. The other one formed Mount Olga, with each of the fragments that it broke into forming a different piece.

If these great rocks were formed by geological processes, we would expect to see at least a few other examples in the world, but we don't. These two gigantic sandstone rocks require some special explanation, and meteor impacts just off a sandy coast provides it.

The Information Theories

Earlier this year I remodeled the cosmology and geology theories with illustrations and images and provided an abbreviated version of each. We saw the abbreviated versions in "Cosmology Theory In Diagrams", January 2024, and "Geology Theory With Satellite Imagery And Maps", March 2024.

The major theories on this blog also include four information theories. I decided that these theories would not benefit from any images or abbreviated versions. But here is a description of, and links to, the information theories. 

"The Theory Of Complexity" is all about how information works. How energy and information is really the same thing. The many ways that information is manifested in our universe. How we can express complexity in numerical terms, as the denominator of a ratio. How we are at a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings and this is why we have senses and free will. It is also why we can be wrong about things, because there is not enough potential complexity in our inanimate surroundings for everything that we can conceive of to exist. Our higher level of complexity is why we must work to survive because the surrounding environment is always trying to pull us down to it's level. This is why we need multiple plants for a balanced diet, because plants are of equal complexity but greater intricacy, than the inanimate surroundings. This is why plants are alive but do not need senses or free will. It is also why we need multiple plants for a balanced diet. Here is a link to "The Theory Of Complexity":

www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-theory-of-complexity.html?m=0

"The Fundamental Patterns In Everything" is about how everything that can exist or can happen falls into certain patterns. This was my first theory, I thought of this before the cosmology theory. This is not cosmology. It is actually a branch of mathematics more fundamental than the counting numbers. There are four tiers of patterns, the ones of each level is based on those below. The First Tier, which I originally called "The Theory Of Primes", is the most basic and would apply to anything that can exist or can happen, even if there was a universe that was completely different than ours. The Second Tier is manifested by the inanimate matter of our universe but would not necessarily be by a universe where the rules were different. The Third Tier applies to the structure and biology of living things. The Fourth Tier is manifested by the lives of living things, specifically ourselves. Here is a link to "The Fundamental Patterns In Everything": 

www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-fundamental-patterns-in-everything.html?m=0

"The Lowest Information Point" is based on the other information theories and the cosmology theory. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state and we know that energy and information is really the same thing. This means that the universe must also seek "The Lowest Information Point". The implications of this are very far-reaching and explain all of the scales of the structures of matter in the universe. The universe achieves the Lowest Information Point by reusing information. What I mean by this can be shown by related ratios. These are equal ratios where the numerator of one is the denominator of the other. A / B = B / C contains less information than A / B = C / D because the first equation only contains three pieces of information while the second contains four. This is how the universe works and it reveals why the scales of matter, from atoms to galaxies, are what they are. Here is a link to "The Lowest Information Point": 

www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-lowest-information-point.html?m=0

There are actually only three information theories, because I now consider "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe" to be part of "The Lowest Information Point", but it is still displayed as a separate theory. This is about the many ways that the universe reuses information, and how this achieves The Lowest Information Point. This theory is specifically about the larger scales of matter being built on the information in their component scales. An example that I often use is how the Solar System is composed of atoms and the orbits of the planets are built on the orbitals of electrons in atoms. Here is a link to "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe": 

www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-flow-of-information-through-universe_30.html?m=0

Tornado In Buffalo

I have noticed what causes the occasional tornadoes in the Buffalo area.

I live within sight of a tall smokestack. I rarely look at the weather report because it is easy to tell what the weather will be by this smokestack. Obviously if the wind is from the north it will get colder and warmer if the wind is from the south, although probably without a major change in weather. Where I live the prevailing wind is from the west. A west wind may well bring a change in weather, although probably not a great change in temperature. 

What is interesting is when the prevailing wind is reversed, so that the wind is from the east. This happens rarely and only when there is some major storm system in the eastern U.S., although it may be calm here. The remnants of hurricanes along the east coast can reverse the prevailing wind.

I have written about this occasional reversal of the prevailing wind here before. It is this reversal, between the two wind directions, that produces the local tornadoes. Hurricane Debby, in the southeastern U.S., caused a temporary reversal of the prevailing wind. 

We saw in "The Inverse Topological Rule", July 2024, the cosmology of tornadoes. When some entity in the universe induces another entity, the induced entity will have a topology that is opposite to that of the original entity. The earth is spherical and it's spin is what induces tornadoes. This is why a tornado, or the whirlpool that forms when you drain a sink full of water, has the topological form of half a pseudosphere, which is the opposite of a sphere.

The French Revolution Again

The French Revolution of 1789 was like the Big Bang of the modern political era. There have been two major reenactments of the French Revolution, and many minor ones. In the French Revolution the king and queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, were overthrown and guillotined. The chaos of the revolution eventually ended in the rule of Napoleon, although he had nothing to do with initiating the revolution or executing the king and queen. The revolutionaries were obsessed with the number ten, and the measurement system that they developed is what we refer to today as the Metric System. 

The first major reenactment of the French Revolution was the October Revolution of 1917. Tsar Nicholas was overthrown and the family ultimately executed. Every reenactment of the revolution has it's own version of the Storming of the Bastille, which was the signature event of the French Revolution. In 1917 it was the Storming of the Winter Palace. The conquests of Napoleon had earlier spread the ideals of the revolution, the modern secular republic. While his invasion of Russia was ultimately unsuccessful could Napoleon have imagined that, just over a century later, the tsars would be overthrown by a reenactment of the revolution that had brought him to power?

The second major reenactment of the French Revolution was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The revolutionaries, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, were in exile in France not far from Versailles, which was the home of the French monarchy that was overthrown. Khomeini returned home, after the royal family had fled into exile, on an Air France jet which has the revolutionary tricolor painted on it. The Iranian version of the Storming of the Bastille was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy, which resulted in the Hostage Crisis. The reenactments are not exactly the same as the original French Revolution, each rearranges the pieces in it's own way. The Iranian Revolution, in contrast to the French and October Revolutions, was a move back toward religion. The Eiffel Tower was a monument of the centennial of the French Revolution but the Iranian version of the tower, the Azadi Tower, was a monument of the 2500 year anniversary of the monarchy that would be overthrown by the reenactment of the French Revolution. 

This week we saw yet another reenactment of the French Revolution. It was the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. The founder of Bangladesh is considered to be Mujibar Rahman. Bangladesh used to be half of Pakistan, and called East Pakistan. But the capital city, and all of the presidents since independence in 1947, had been from West Pakistan. Rahman supposedly won a presidential election but was not allowed to take office. This resulted in East Pakistan declaring independence as Bangladesh, with Rahman as it's first president. Sheikh Hasina was his daughter. The family was assassinated in 1975 but Sheikh Hasina and her sister survived because they were abroad. The elements of the French Revolution that were seen are the Storming of the Bastille being replaced by the storming, by a crowd of people, the residence of Sheikh Hasina. The anti-monarchical destructiveness of the French Revolution were seen in attempts to destroy statues of her father. Just as Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette attempted to flee in a carriage, Sheikh Hasina fled in a helicopter. 

Does anyone remember another reenactment of the French Revolution, the overthrow of Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania in 1989? He and his wife also reenacted the attempt to flee, by helicopter, but, unlike Hasina, their attempt was unsuccessful. The revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 were on the bicentennial year of the French Revolution, and Romania has it's own version of Napoleon's Arc De Triomphe, so everything was ready for a reenactment of the French Revolution.

Remembering The Haft e Tir Bombing

The recent assassination of the Hamas leader in Iran reminded me of a major event in the region that has been mostly forgotten in the west. It is the Haft e Tir Bombing in Iran. 

The Iranian Revolution had begun three years before. The hostage crisis, where the staff of the U.S. Embassy had been held captive for 444 days had ended six months before. Iran had been at war with neighboring Iraq for nearly a year. The Iranian Revolution was still working itself out. President Abolhassan Bani Sadr, one of the founders of the revolution, had been removed and gone off into exile.

On June 1981 a meeting took place with most of the top members of Iran's revolutionary government. A massive bomb exploded, killing more than 70 people including most of the government. Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, was not there. 

According to what I have read in the news a sound engineer, who set up the microphone and speakers, had brought the bomb in. One account was that it was hidden in a cart that was used to move speakers around. Another account was that it was hidden in a trash can.

It has never been established with certainty who was responsible for the bombing. The socialist Mujahedeen e Khalq had been against the former government of the Shah, who had been overthrown by the revolution. But by this point the Mujahedeen had turned against the new revolutionary government of Khomeini. It is they who are most widely believed to be behind the bombing.

The Mujahedeen e Khalq were later supported by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Former president Abolhassan Bani Sadr is believed to have joined forces with the Mujahedeen. From exile in France, Bani Sadr was an outspoken critic of the revolution. Ironically he lived not far from where he had supported Khomeini during the four months that he spent in exile in Neauphle Le Chateau. I find it interesting that Bani Sadr seems to have commented about everything else regarding the revolution but I can't find that he had anything to say about this bombing, which took place not long after he was removed as president.

It is honestly a great credit to Iran's revolution that it survived this bombing. A lot of observers at the time didn't think it would.

There is a persistent story that Israel's Mossad was behind the bombing. However I don't think that it was.

Iran and Iraq were at war, but both were hostile toward Israel. I am sure that the Israeli leadership was more concerned about Iraq, simply because it was geographically closer. The Haft e Tir Bombing came three weeks after Israel had destroyed the Iraqi Osirak Nuclear Reactor in a surprise air raid.

In the compound posting "Investigations", December 2018, we saw in section 2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK, that while the bombing was to stop Saddam Hussein from getting a nuclear bomb, it was also a message to Iran, which had previously unsuccessfully bombed the reactor but had launched a brilliant air raid on the air base known as H3, on the far other side of Iraq.

In section 51) EXPLAINING THE VELA INCIDENT, in the same compound posting, we saw the test of a neutron bomb, just after Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979, as evidence that Israel was more concerned about Iraq than about Iran. If anything Iran was inadvertently helping Israel by keeping Iraq occupied and wearing down it's military.

If Israel wasn't behind the Haft e Tir Bombing there is another story that it at least supplied the bomb to the Mujahedeen e Khalq. It is interesting that the bombing happened three weeks after the Israeli air raid on the Iraqi reactor. But what if the bombing caused the collapse of the Iranian Government, it's revolution, and it's war with Iraq? Then the Iraqi military would be free to turn it's attention to Israel.

Isn't it more likely that Iraq supplied the bomb? After initial Iraqi gains, Iran was starting to gain the upper hand in the war. If the bombing caused the collapse of the Iranian Revolution that would be great. But if not it would look as if Israel was behind it and it would prompt Iranian military action against Israel, taking some pressure off Iraq.

Israel or it's Mossad has never denied being behind the bombing, although I don't think it was. The Mossad likes to show that it can conduct operations inside Iran. The message being "Don't forget the Haft e Tir Bombing because it could happen again".

The Paris Olympics As Another Exhibition

Paris was made by four elements, each of which added to the city.

1) Palaces 

2) Napoleon

3) The renovation

4) The exhibitions 

Paris started on the island in the Seine River. This is where the original palace was built, along with Notre Dame which is the city's cathedral. The royal family eventually moved to a new palace not far away on the north side of the river (Right Bank). Before long they moved to an even more magnificent palace to the southwest of Paris. Finally the royal family was overthrown and executed in the revolution of 1789.

All three palaces remain today as vital components of Paris. The first palace, on the island, is called the Conciergerie and is used mainly for judicial purposes. The second palace is today known as the Louvre and is a great art and artifacts museum. The Tuileries Palace, that was attached to the Louvre, was destroyed in the Communard uprising of 1871. The third palace is Versailles.

Napoleon arose out of the French Revolution. His conquests are what filled the Louvre with art and artifacts, and brought ancient Egypt into the world's consciousness. The obelisk in Place Concorde, which is the practical center of Paris, was later brought from Egypt. The two famous arches which form the Historical Axis of Paris, the Arc de Triomphe and Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, are monuments to Napoleon's victories. La Madeleine was built as a temple to the glory of Napoleon's army, but is now a church. The dome of his tomb is prominent on the Left (south) Bank.

Napoleon's nephew, known as Napoleon III or Louis Napoleon, was the first President of France. He was allowed one five year term. When that was over instead of stepping down he simply declared himself as emperor. I am sure that his uncle would have been proud of him and that he would have been great friends with Donald Trump. 

What followed was the massive renovation of Paris that made it into the city that it is today. The old medieval city was razed and the magnificent new Paris built, including the train stations and sewers. Broad boulevards connected the great monuments of the city.

The centerpiece of the renovation was the Opera House, the Palais Garnier. The building is stunning. When I was in Paris I didn't know about it and happened to walk past it. I was just taken aback that a building can be so beautiful.

The last of the four elements is the exhibitions to show the world the great city. 1889 was the centennial of the French Revolution and a great exhibition was planned. With Napoleon's two arches being such an important part of the city a wrought iron entrance arch was to be built that would be the tallest structure the world had ever seen. When the exhibition was over the towering structure was to be dismantled. What I think saved it was that radio had been developed and it was an ideal broadcast site. The structure remains today as the Eiffel Tower.

There was another major exhibition in 1900. Three major structures that were built for the exhibition remain today. On the Right Bank is the Grand Palais, now a general event center, and the Petit Palais, now an art museum. On the Left Bank the train station that was built for that exhibition is now the Orsay Art Museum.

The exhibition of 1937 was on the Right (north) Bank opposite the Eiffel Tower. It must have looked like the Eiffel Tower was part of the exhibition. The Trocadero remains today.

With that background we can see how the 2024 Olympics will add to Paris. It will be essentially another great exhibition and any new buildings for the Olympics will become a part of Paris when the games are over.

Developments In The Middle East

Aside from the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, by Israel attacking the Houthis in distant Yemen, bombing Beirut and killing a top leader of Hezbollah and, killing a top leader of Hamas while he was in Iran, there have been other developments in the Middle East. 

With regard to the apocalyptic prophecies, as described in the posting "The End Of The World As We Know It", June 2024, one complication of the invasion of Israel from the north, which will start the final series of wars of the world, is Turkiye (formerly spelled "Turkey"). The northern invader is widely believed to be Russia, and Moscow is due north of Israel. But this means the most direct invasion route is across Turkiye. This complication was, however, was apparently resolved this week when the President of Turkiye himself threatened to invade Israel. 

The Hamas leader, Haniyeh, who was killed in Iran was killed by a bomb that had earlier been planted in the building where he regularly stayed when visiting Iran. The bomb had been secretly smuggled into the building. I can't see that any of the news sources has picked up on it but there is a definite message from Israel here. In June 1981 the horrific Hafte Tir Bombing killed most of the top people in the Iranian Government, more than 70 people. It is a credit to the Iranian Revolution that it survived this bombing. A massive bomb had been smuggled into where the government was meeting. Israel never denied being behind this bombing, although I don't believe that it was. The unmistakable message of this week's assassination of the Hamas leader is "Don't forget Hafte Tir because it could happen again". 

For more about the Hafte Tir Bombing see "Remembering Abolhassan Bani-Sadr", October 2022. 

The air attack on distant Yemen is also an unspoken message from Israel to Iran. It evokes the air attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor that happened just before the Hafte Tir Bombing. We saw this in the compound posting "Investigations", December 2018, section 2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK.

Peace In The Middle East

China recently brokered a rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah, as it had earlier done between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Let's remember my plan for peace in the Middle East.

The way to peace in the Middle East is actually simple. We can look at resolving conflict in the Middle East as three successive challenges which began, of course, with the establishment of Israel in 1948.

The First Challenge was Arab nations at war with Israel, led by Egypt and Syria and sometimes including Jordan and Iraq. There were wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and, 1973. This challenge was concluded by Jimmy Carter bringing together Anwar Sadat, of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, of Israel, together to sign a peace treaty. Syria wasn't in on the peace treaty but it was considered that Egypt was the more powerful of the two.

But the Second Challenge was already underway. This was non-state Arab organizations at war with Israel. This challenge was concluded by Bill Clinton bringing together Yasser Arafat, of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Yitzhak Rabin, of Israel, together to sign a peace treaty.

There were outside developments along the way. There was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This brings us to the Third Challenge, which is Iran's proxies at war with Israel. Iran has a lot of influence over Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the Houthis in Yemen.

Since the first two challenges were resolved this does mean that precedent is on the side of peace. History and precedent is a very powerful force in this part of the world. Not much happens without the precedent of what came before.

9/11, in which four aircraft were hijacked and used as missiles, had it's precedent in the earlier destruction of four aircraft. In fact it was on another September 11, of 1970. Four aircraft were hijacked, three to Dawson Field in Jordan, and a 747 to Cairo. News crews from around the world were invited. The passengers were released on September 11, and the planes destroyed by explosives the next day.

The most obvious precedent for the 2023 Hamas attack into southern Israel is the 1972 attack on the Munich Olympics. In both instances the attackers overcame a barrier and took hostages, and slaughtered others. Their demand was for the release of prisoners.

So that means that precedent is actually on the side of peace, because the first two Challenges have been met. The remaining Challenge is Iran and it's proxies.

Remember Jimmy Carter bringing Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin together.

Remember Bill Clinton bringing Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin together.

Now image someone bringing the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Iran together. You may say that it will never happen but people were saying the same thing about the first two. This doesn't mean that there will be unanimity. Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were both later killed for making peace.

What about China? It was Xi Jinping that got Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore relations, and more recently brokered the peace between Hamas and Fatah. China would be taking a major step forward as a world leader if it could resolve this conflict in the Middle East.

The history isn't as bad as it may seem. There were Jews living in Palestine long before the establishment of Israel and they got along fine with the Arabs. There are other non-Moslems in the area, the Druze and the Samaritans. The main division in Islam is Sunni and Shiite but there are so many sects. The Jews would be like just another sect.

Jews, Moslems and, Christians all go back to Abraham by theology. Christians split from Jews over Jesus being the awaited Messiah. Moslems claim that the original scripture was corrupted and mistranslated and Muhammad dictated the Qu'ran to restore it. The Qu'ran acknowledges Jews and Christians as the "People of the Book".

Jews have a long history of living amongst others in the Middle East. The Babylonians destroyed the First Temple and took the Jews to exile in Babylon, but not as slaves. When the Persians later conquered Babylon Cyrus permitted the Jews to return home, and rebuild the Temple. But probably the majority of the Jews were doing quite well there and chose to stay. These Babylonian, or Iraqi, Jews were to play an important role in Jewish history, especially after the Temple was destroyed again, this time by the Romans, and Israel forced into the diaspora.

Since it was Persia that liberated the Jews should we be surprised that Iran has a long history of a strong Jewish community, at least until the revolution of 1979?

Can you believe that what is now Yemen once adopted Judaism as it's religion, more than 1500 years ago? And that a community of Jews lived in Yemen, until brought to Israel in recent times. The Queen of Sheba, who made a famous journey to visit King Solomon, was from what is now Yemen.

The connection of the Jews to Morocco is well-known. Jews have lived there since ancient times and many more joined them when they were evicted from Spain, following the Reconquista. In recent times Moroccan Jews had a settlement alongside the Temple Mount, and Morocco was prominent among the Arab nations restoring relations with Israel.

Jews and Arabs are actually related. Opposition to Jews is referred to as "antisemitism", but did you know that Arabs are Semitic too? The Hebrew and Arabic languages are related, although they use different alphabets.

What I think happened is that the Jews who reestablished Israel in 1948 were almost all from Europe. They were Europeans. So it wasn't really Jew against Arab, it was seen as foreign Europeans seizing Arab territory.

What if Abraham appeared outside the Dome of the Rock? What would he think of this conflict? He would be very upset.

Even though I know about the Apocalypse in the Bible I still have to do what I can to promote peace.

THE LEBANON PLAN FOR PALESTINE

What happens then with the Jews and Palestinians as a permanent solution? 

The most discussed solution is the so-called "Two State Solution". But that has been in discussion since I was a teenager. How practical is a Two-State Solution? If Israel and Palestine were two separate countries then one would have to have non-contiguous territory, and both want the Old City of Jerusalem as their capital.

The way I see it there is only one solution that could work. It involves using neighboring Lebanon as a model.

Israel is a democracy, and this gets it the support of western democracies. But Jews are heavily outnumbered by Arabs in the Middle East. About 20% of the population of Israel is Arab as it is. If Israel incorporated all of the descendants of Palestinians that were displaced by it's formation in 1948 then the Jews would be at, or close, to being outnumbered in their own country. And the very purpose of Israel is as the homeland for the Jews.

But who says that Israel has to fit the western definition of democracy? Neighboring Lebanon is a multi-faith society. There are Christians, Sunni Moslems and, Shiite Moslems. The plan of government in Lebanon is that the president is a Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni and, the speaker of parliament is a Shiite. Seats in parliament are divided between Moslems and Christians.

Let's forget about this impractical "Two-State Solution". Israel should be one country, including Gaza, the West Bank and, the Golan Heights. Palestinians will have full and equal citizenship. But certain top positions will be reserved for Jews.

This idea has a lot of precedence in the region. The Temple Mount, which is sacred to Judaism, Islam and, Christianity, is part of Israel. But the Israeli Government, to keep the peace, allows a Jordanian organization to administer it. There have been Moslem societies, with Jewish or Christian minorities, where everyone has lived peacefully together but certain positions have been reserved for Moslems. The first example that comes to mind is the Ottoman Empire, which once ruled all of this region. Another example is Spain, when it was ruled by the Moors.

I think this is the only practical plan. If anyone thinks that this isn't satisfactory and wouldn't work, you can see that the present arrangement definitely isn't satisfactory and definitely isn't working.

Never forget how important history is. King Solomon built the first Temple, but then his son Rehoboam provoked the ten northern tribes to separate from the other two. For two hundred years the two kingdoms were usually hostile to each other, one often calling in nearby foreign powers as an ally against the other. This went on until the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom and took it's population into permanent exile. They became known as the "Ten Lost Tribes". The Assyrians settled other people in their place and, by the time of Jesus, their descendants were known as Samaritans.

History is so important because we tend to repeat it, often without realizing it. Doesn't it seem that those two hundred years are being repeated today, with the Jews and the Palestinians? 

THE INDIA FACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

I have always been interested in both science and history. We tend to repeat history, sometimes purposely but often without realizing it. It seems like a law of physics that history repeats itself. The human landscape is more complex than the inanimate universe with changing demographics, increasing population and advances in technology. But, other than that, it is almost like a law of physics that history repeats itself.

India and Palestine are far apart in geography but close in time. India became independent in 1947 and Israel in 1948. The founding of both countries resulted in displacements of people that have had long-term effects lasting to the present day.

With the independence of India the Subcontinent was partitioned into mostly-Hindu India and mostly-Moslem Pakistan. There were originally two halves to Pakistan, East and West. The two have since split into Pakistan and Bangladesh. Burma (Myanmar) was once part of India but had earlier been separated.

With the Independence of Israel the Arab, mostly-Moslem inhabitants of Palestine had to be removed to make way for the Jewish people. This is referred to by Palestinians as the "Nabka", or Catastrophe. The land did belong to Jews in ancient times but Arabs had long occupied it.

While the conflict over Palestine is the more obvious of the two situations there are several points of contention in India. 

One point of contention is over Kashmir. This is in the far north of both India and Pakistan. Kashmir was one of the Princely States that, upon independence, were given the choice to join either India or Pakistan. Those that were majority Hindu would obviously join India while those that were Moslem would join Pakistan. Kashmir was supposedly mostly Moslem but it's prince was Hindu and chose India.

Another point of contention in India is that the northern part of the country was once ruled by the Mughals, who were Moslems. Some Hindus claim that the Mughals demolished Hindu temples and built mosques in their places, and now Hindus have the right to reverse this.

A third point of contention in India, with regard to the Partition of 1947, is that the Sikhs, who live in the northern state of Punjab, should also have their own country. Although this seems to be more an issue with Sikhs in Canada than with those in India.

Not only did both countries undergo a mass relocation of people at independence but the geography of the two is amazingly similar. In the following illustration from the Wikipedia article "East Pakistan", Pakistan is shown at left in dark green, Bangladesh is at right in dark green, India is between them and, Kashmir is shown in light green.

In the following illustration, from the Wikipedia article "Israel", Israel is in dark green. The light green area to the left is Gaza. The light green area to the right is the West Bank. The light green area to the top right is the Golan Heights. Not only is the southern part of Israel shaped like a "V", just as is India, but the West Bank is congruent to Pakistan, Gaza is congruent to Bangladesh, and the Golan Heights is congruent to Kashmir. I find this to be really amazing.

In the following closer illustration, from the Wikipedia article "Palestinian Territories", we see how Palestine resembles Pakistan politically as well, although India is on a much larger scale. Just as Pakistan and Bangladesh split over politics so did Gaza and the West Bank. The West Bank is run by Fatah, which also ran Gaza although the two are not contiguous. But Hamas won election in Gaza, and then forcibly took control from Fatah. It was like a mirror image of Bangladesh separating from Pakistan.

The Partition of India took place nine months before the establishment of Israel, as described above. Since the two events were so strikingly similar, even though India involved far more people, I am sure that it must have had an effect on what happened in Israel. India had it's precedent too, the 1922 partition of Ireland.

What about the much-discussed but never implemented "Two-State Solution"? India was an ideal example of a Two-State Solution. Could it be that so many reflexively suggest this Two-State Solution just because this is what was done in India when maybe it wouldn't be appropriate for Palestine?

Does anyone remember Yasser Arafat International Airport? It was opened in 1998 and was to be a symbol of peace and progress. Bill Clinton attended it's opening. But the airport didn't last long and was closed because of combat. The runway is visible in the following image from Google Earth and we see that part of the airport is now being used for gardening plots. 

Can We Even Imagine Something That Is Completely Impossible?

Being of a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings means that we are capable of conceiving of things that do not exist. This, of course, means that we can be wrong about things because there is not enough potential complexity for everything that we can conceive of to exist. This capacity is very important because to make plans for anything we must conceive of it first, before it exists. 

You can certainly imagine yourself in situations that are not reality. You can probably imagine yourself as a billionaire with mansions in each of your half-dozen favorite cities. For most people that vision is improbable, although not completely impossible. 

Although we are of a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings we still live in those surroundings. We can imagine things that do not exist, and things that are very unlikely, but can we imagine anything that is completely impossible?

We have lived in this reality all of our lives and we have no experience outside of it. We can rearrange the pieces of reality into arrangements that do not presently exist, and sometimes these arrangements are beyond our capability to bring about, but can we imagine something that is completely impossible? 

Scientific discoveries are being made on a regular basis that, in the past, would have been considered as utterly beyond imagination. The same can be said of technology. Fifty years ago these smartphones, and all that they can do, would be practically unimaginable. 

Something being completely impossible is somewhat of an issue of definition, and time is a factor both toward the future and the past. Something that does not seem possible now may be possible with developments in the future. Again what we are discussing is not whether the scenario will come to be or whatever it will be remotely likely, just that it will not be completely impossible.

Then the issue of definition of whether something is completely impossible brings us into the past, and how far back we might want to go. If something is not possible now what if our country, or even the history of human civilization, started over and developed differently? 

What if the supernova that resulted in the sun and Solar System was done over again and turned out differently? The basic laws of physics would be the same but the proportion of elements might be different. Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element but that might be different. There might be more water, or less, or none at all.

We can even go back to the Big Bang. What if that had turned out differently? The basic laws of physics and the relationship of matter and space might be different. 

The question again to ponder is, since we have always lived in this reality, are we even capable of imagining or conceiving of something that is completely impossible? Not that it is very unlikely but that it is completely impossible. 

My conclusion is that we are not capable of imagining something that is completely impossible.

Perth, Adelaide And, Brisbane

On the far western side of Australia, a continent away from cities like Melbourne and Sydney, is the city of Perth. This city is really far away from everything. Like so many other cities, it grew as the result of a Nineteenth Century gold rush. Like Melbourne, it is built on a mostly-enclosed bay that forms a natural harbor. The city once turned on it's lights at night when U.S. astronaut John Glenn passed over as the first American in orbit.

When Australia was settled, it was not certain that one united country would form. Settlements in different parts of the vast continent originally saw little connection with one another, and no reason to form a single country. The state of Western Australia, where Perth is located, started out intending to be a separate country. 

These three images of downtown Perth are from Google Earth.

The following scenes of downtown Perth begin outside the Perth Arena.

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/@-31.949045,115.851796,3a,75y,176.07h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz0iOVkB0vHOELDkZW-8cfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dz0iOVkB0vHOELDkZW-8cfw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D176.66339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Outside of Perth, this is the area of Cardup. The first image is from Google Street View.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-32.2567728,115.9819606,3a,75y,358h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8PSBu2QTzGxlWQZTLFm0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8PSBu2QTzGxlWQZTLFm0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D358.60327%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Australia's two other largest cities are Adelaide and Brisbane. The following scenes begin in the center of Adelaide. There is a street in downtown Toronto with the same name. The first three images of Adelaide are from Google Earth and Street View.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.9302395,138.5970811,3a,75y,211.63h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbKWsYzGrCo6AD1q6uyvy1Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbKWsYzGrCo6AD1q6uyvy1Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D206.79149%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

This is Brisbane, from it's downtown. Brisbane is the northernmost of the major cities in Australia that we have seen. Remember that Australia is in the southern hemisphere so that moving northward is getting closer to the equator. The first three images of central Brisbane are from Google Earth and Street View.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.4680116,153.0270173,3a,75y,311h,69t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNUbRwmYM9QiEiqisOIESfCQzSJXYY3lHrS9XRO!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNUbRwmYM9QiEiqisOIESfCQzSJXYY3lHrS9XRO%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-21.052084-ya178.59375-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352

Global Computer Crisis

The global computer crisis this week is a glimpse of what we saw in the posting "The End Of The World As We Know It", June 2024. We have gotten to be utterly dependent on modern computer technology but that makes us lost if it shuts down. I am certain that a devastating shutdown will be part of the Tribulation Period. I believe that it could be brought about by a massive solar storm, as described in that posting. 

There hasn't been anything like a world war since the internet era began. It will be interesting what happens because we are very dependent on the internet and GPS but undersea cables can be cut and satellites shot down.