I couldn't help it. A few things happened today that snapped me back to politics. I hope the stay is brief because I have been having so much fun with cosmology.
In order to be successful, conservation must be a function of the free market, not government mandates issued by people who intend to exempt themselves from those mandates. (Note the ideological paradox that it is the liberals who are claiming to be conservative with the environment, and you will have most of the answer right there.)
Conservation works when you decide that, due to the cost of printer ink and paper, you are going to become selective about what you print out - preferring to keep documents stored electronically and print them only at need. Conservation works when, in order to be more competitive, you make your farm so efficient that you feed twice as many people with half as much land.
It is not regulation that has turned around forestry in this country, it is industry. In the 1800s our country's forests reduced at tremendous rates. In the 1900s this trend slowed to a stop, despite population explosions, and since 1985 our country's forests have actually grown. This was not due to the government mandating that forests must grow, but to the fact that industries are using less wood to achieve the same goals. They had to - competition required it. The company that could reduce its overhead could lower its prices, increase its profits, and leap ahead.
Environmental movements face one major, underlying problem. They cannot get people to change their hearts and minds, and therefore their habits.
They discovered this at their conception, and began with attempts to argue with the individuals. This is, frankly, the only place where they can be ultimately successful, but when they were not, they did not face the fact that perhaps they were wrong, they chose the explanation that people were too ill-informed, outright stupid, or malicious to accept environmental "truths".
They left the attempt to change the hearts and minds of the masses on the back burner, and turned instead to institutions. Institutions affect many people, but are run by few. Target those few, and you can affect the many. Institutions such as governments and schools have a vast effect on the populace. This has had alarming success, despite the fact that environmentalists would still claim it is too little. What they have done, however, is create environmentalist-dependent careers, a whole industry of people whose very livelihood requires the environmental movement. With money behind them, they forge ahead. Still, however, they meet resistance. Not enough of the people's hearts and minds were changed, and as a result, there have been just enough politicians to retard (though not eliminate) their agenda.
The latest attack has been the logical outcome. Change of heart and mind did not occur when the appeal went to individuals. Change did not occur 'enough' when the appeal went to leaders, certainly not enough to keep up with the new dependence on this movement - now environmentalists have more mouths to feed, more offices to support, more jobs that require funding. Change of heart and mind is now being attempted through Celebrity.
The latest weapon in the arsenal of the environmentalist is to pick popular personalities, get them to spread the message, and hope that hearts and minds of the people will follow. This is having even more alarming effect than going through political leaders (though, in many cases, the celebrity is a political leader or tries to become one).
It can only be hoped, however, that the seeds of environmental-movement destruction are finally beginning to bear fruit. As each level of attack has been ramped up, more exposure to the fallacy of Enforced Environmentalism has been risked. I bear your attention to three high-profile examples:
1) It turns out that Al Gore's family, while he put on his biggest push for us to change our lives, used, consistently, more electricity in one month than the average American household used in one year. Under tremendous pressure, he is having solar panels installed at his mansion. We'll see how helpful that is, and if it has any affect whatsoever on his use of large, private jets, SUVs, and other carbon-emitting tools. When it was uncovered that he uses much more than his "carbon footprint" allows, he claimed to be purchasing carbon offsets from a brokerage firm that buys them from companies and individuals who use much less than their carbon footprint. Not only is this concept ludicrous (you conserve or you don't, and he wasn't - meaning no matter how well other people did, he was still going to have his big impact on the environment) it turns out he owned the carbon-offset brokerage firm.
2) John Edwards' mansion proves the concept of the Two Americas. The breezeway between his "house" and his "recreation center" has more square footage than the typical, large, suburban home. Two typical apartments could fit inside the breezeway. Why we call it a breezeway I'm not 100% sure. It is fully enclosed, heated, and air conditioned. Perhaps it's the breeze of the ventilation system that keeps out the fresh air that allows us to call it a breezeway? I would have called it a hallway or a corridor, but perhaps that sounds too industrial. I can't imagine the power consumption comparison between his family and mine.
3) Sheryl Crow came out in the last few hours and proclaimed that we should use only one square of toilet paper per visit to the bathroom. I have heard that she amended her statement to say we could use three squares for "pesky" visits to the bathroom. While I would love to say that this statement itself needs no comments, there are some I cannot keep myself from providing (though I bet any reader could outdo me on this one). First, when I was in college there was a joke sent around campus (we actually had "eco-heads" in many of the student houses) that one eco-head wrote up suggesting that we could do a lot to help the environment if we used only three squares of toilet paper per wipe. The flack this girl got was astounding, and it came from the very granola-heads that established the eco-head position in the first place. The fact that she had to explain it was a joke is just sad. But look what we have come to. Not three squares per wipe, but one square per visit. The other comment is, of course, that Sheryl Crow's own "rider" (the list of demands she has for her touring conditions) is on display on the internet. It hardly reads like someone who uses only one square of toilet paper per visit to the bathroom.
All the while, average people like you and me, and yes, our President, use less electricity and fewer resources to go about our business, whether that be to account for corporate taxes, make candy, deliver packages, or run the whole damned country than the self-appointed leaders of the environmentalist movement.
It can only be hoped, as I stated above, that the seeds of destruction for this movement have finally begun to flower and the full blossom will be revealed as we examine just who is leading this movement, how they behave in their own life compared to how they want everyone else to behave, and how they intend to exempt themselves from the very regulations they would like to impose upon us.
If not, I fear we are going to have a rather bloody revolution. And no offense, we have the guns.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Paradox of Compressing Expansion
I admit this came to me last night, after writing my last post. It is therefore a little raw, but it does not surprise me that more and more thoughts about this whole thing are coming to me.
The quick background is that the theory of the big bang, as mentioned, relies on a few things: the speed of light being constant (therefore red-shift can only be a Doppler Effect of the source moving away from us), and the discovery of background radiation in the universe (they were specifically trying to find it and when they did, they claimed it was exactly what they were looking for - kind of like assuming someone is a pessimist because they said "no" to your first question) are the two that seem to me the biggest claims.
The assumption, therefore, is that the universe itself is expanding. The reasoning behind this is that if the galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the further galaxies are from each other, the faster they are moving away, there can be no "center point" from which they are moving - every point in the universe would appear to be the center from its own perspective. The illustration (which evolved into another "interesting" assumption) is that what we perceived as three-dimensional space was like the surface of a balloon. A picture (the galaxies) is painted on the balloon. You blow the balloon up, and the picture expands. Not from some central point, but (basically) at all points somewhat evenly. The claim is that space is therefore curved like the surface of that balloon and expanding just like that balloon does. Some creature that lived exclusively on the surface of the balloon and had no knowledge of the inside or the outside - only the surface - would think that space was simply expanding and would not be able to explain where it all came from.
The only way this makes sense (and therefore that I don't contradict much more accepted theories and brains than my own) is if the universe is actually four-dimensional. Just like the creature on the balloon, who thought the universe was two-dimensional and expanding, the expansion was actually due to a third-dimension - the "inside" of the balloon being exchanged for some of the outside of the balloon. Three dimensional space did not change or expand, it simply moved from the outside to the inside, pushing the surface of the balloon out.
This is why I thought the universe must be four-dimensional, something that I am beginning to argue myself out of (though I am a stubborn hold out simply because I like the concept).
However, in order for this to be supportable, everything inside the three-dimensional universe must be contracting or collapsing at exactly the rate of expansion of space itself. Why is this? What did I just say? Huh? Can he stop typing now and let your dumbfounded head implode? Guess that was a bad choice of words considering what I'm saying... let's return to the balloon illustration.
The picture on the balloon expands at the same rate at all points. It appears to get bigger, right along with all the empty surface of the balloon. This does not happen in our universe. The galaxies move further apart from each other, but the individual parts of the galaxies - stars, solar systems, planets, mountains, houses, people, atoms - are not growing larger. Remember, the analogy of the balloon will break down because I chose a material object to be expanding. The claim in relativity and Big Bang is that space itself is expanding. This would mean the space between planets, the stars, and even between electrons and protons would be expanding. The suggestion that local forces hold local pieces together seems a lame afterthought. They would all have to be balanced perfectly against the force of expansion - all atoms, all planets, all solar systems, all galaxies all acting identically against this force of expansion - or some of them would shrink and some of them would expand as one force or another proved the stronger. Either that or the expansion of the universe would have to be uneven, miraculously choosing only (and evenly) the space between the galaxies.
Oh, and by the way, that bit about all galaxies moving away from each other based on how far apart they are? We have pictures from the Hubble (ironically) telescope that show galaxies colliding. And, I believe, there is some talk that our own galaxy is headed for a collision (or at least near miss) with Andromeda. So much for all of them moving away from each other. Again, what seems to me a lame, quiet afterthought, we are told there are exceptions to this "Hubble's Law" (Is it therefore really a law of nature? Sounds more like a law of politics!) and that sometimes local forces (just how local is Andromeda??) overcome this "law".
The contradictions between these theories come from observed and observable phenomenon. The problem is not with the observation, it is with the assumptions. As near as I can tell (again, rank amateur that I am) if you remove one assumption from the pile, that the speed of light is constant, the contradictory theories must be discarded and something resembling logic returns to the galaxy.
Wouldn't it be ironic if after all this study we found out "You know what? The universe just sorta makes common sense." How many times has that happened? A simple concept is totally messed up by people who want (because they make a handy living doing it) to make it more complex only to find out that no, it really is a simple concept and easy enough to understand.
Perhaps, as Einstein theorized, if you travel far enough in a straight line, you'll eventually go through the entire universe and come back to exactly where you started.
The quick background is that the theory of the big bang, as mentioned, relies on a few things: the speed of light being constant (therefore red-shift can only be a Doppler Effect of the source moving away from us), and the discovery of background radiation in the universe (they were specifically trying to find it and when they did, they claimed it was exactly what they were looking for - kind of like assuming someone is a pessimist because they said "no" to your first question) are the two that seem to me the biggest claims.
The assumption, therefore, is that the universe itself is expanding. The reasoning behind this is that if the galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the further galaxies are from each other, the faster they are moving away, there can be no "center point" from which they are moving - every point in the universe would appear to be the center from its own perspective. The illustration (which evolved into another "interesting" assumption) is that what we perceived as three-dimensional space was like the surface of a balloon. A picture (the galaxies) is painted on the balloon. You blow the balloon up, and the picture expands. Not from some central point, but (basically) at all points somewhat evenly. The claim is that space is therefore curved like the surface of that balloon and expanding just like that balloon does. Some creature that lived exclusively on the surface of the balloon and had no knowledge of the inside or the outside - only the surface - would think that space was simply expanding and would not be able to explain where it all came from.
The only way this makes sense (and therefore that I don't contradict much more accepted theories and brains than my own) is if the universe is actually four-dimensional. Just like the creature on the balloon, who thought the universe was two-dimensional and expanding, the expansion was actually due to a third-dimension - the "inside" of the balloon being exchanged for some of the outside of the balloon. Three dimensional space did not change or expand, it simply moved from the outside to the inside, pushing the surface of the balloon out.
This is why I thought the universe must be four-dimensional, something that I am beginning to argue myself out of (though I am a stubborn hold out simply because I like the concept).
However, in order for this to be supportable, everything inside the three-dimensional universe must be contracting or collapsing at exactly the rate of expansion of space itself. Why is this? What did I just say? Huh? Can he stop typing now and let your dumbfounded head implode? Guess that was a bad choice of words considering what I'm saying... let's return to the balloon illustration.
The picture on the balloon expands at the same rate at all points. It appears to get bigger, right along with all the empty surface of the balloon. This does not happen in our universe. The galaxies move further apart from each other, but the individual parts of the galaxies - stars, solar systems, planets, mountains, houses, people, atoms - are not growing larger. Remember, the analogy of the balloon will break down because I chose a material object to be expanding. The claim in relativity and Big Bang is that space itself is expanding. This would mean the space between planets, the stars, and even between electrons and protons would be expanding. The suggestion that local forces hold local pieces together seems a lame afterthought. They would all have to be balanced perfectly against the force of expansion - all atoms, all planets, all solar systems, all galaxies all acting identically against this force of expansion - or some of them would shrink and some of them would expand as one force or another proved the stronger. Either that or the expansion of the universe would have to be uneven, miraculously choosing only (and evenly) the space between the galaxies.
Oh, and by the way, that bit about all galaxies moving away from each other based on how far apart they are? We have pictures from the Hubble (ironically) telescope that show galaxies colliding. And, I believe, there is some talk that our own galaxy is headed for a collision (or at least near miss) with Andromeda. So much for all of them moving away from each other. Again, what seems to me a lame, quiet afterthought, we are told there are exceptions to this "Hubble's Law" (Is it therefore really a law of nature? Sounds more like a law of politics!) and that sometimes local forces (just how local is Andromeda??) overcome this "law".
The contradictions between these theories come from observed and observable phenomenon. The problem is not with the observation, it is with the assumptions. As near as I can tell (again, rank amateur that I am) if you remove one assumption from the pile, that the speed of light is constant, the contradictory theories must be discarded and something resembling logic returns to the galaxy.
Wouldn't it be ironic if after all this study we found out "You know what? The universe just sorta makes common sense." How many times has that happened? A simple concept is totally messed up by people who want (because they make a handy living doing it) to make it more complex only to find out that no, it really is a simple concept and easy enough to understand.
Perhaps, as Einstein theorized, if you travel far enough in a straight line, you'll eventually go through the entire universe and come back to exactly where you started.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
A Light Bombshell...
I believe that current, widely accepted theories do not explain light to my satisfaction. Additionally, I do not believe light travels at a constant speed.
I remember when I was going through physics in high school and college, it was explained to me that we don't seem to know what light is. In certain experiments it acts like a wave, and in certain circumstances it appears to be comprised of particles. The problem is that it does not make logical sense that particles would travel in waves. It appears to have energy, it appears to travel in a ray from its source. It certainly moves quickly. It definitely acts like a wave.
It seems to me there are two possibilities (please feel free to point out I'm a dope and there are others). Either there is actually something in the so-called vacuum of space that can then move in wave patterns (such as the "dark" or "transparent" matter mentioned in other theories), or light itself is comprised of something capable of moving like both a particle and a wave.
In either case, and I do hope to talk about each more, I find it easier to believe that light changes speed (and in specific that it decelerates) than to believe that it remains at a constant speed. I will go into these things more, but the ramifications are immediate (and I will explain these too). First, Hubble's assumption that the universe is expanding was based on his assumption that galaxies are traveling further away from us due to the concept of red-shift (basically, the Doppler Effect of light). Because he believed light traveled at a constant speed (as was suggested by Einstein's Theory of Relativity) that could only mean that the source of that light was moving away from us. If, in fact, light does not travel at a constant speed (and that it decelerates over time/distance), it would also explain why the further away a galaxy appears to be, the more its light is red-shifted. This simple assumption of my own manages to contradict not only Einstein and (the conclusions of) Hubble, but Stephen Hawkings himself - because it removes the major support for the Big Bang theory. I am certainly entitled to my own theories (whether they make sense or not) but it is going to be hard to be taken seriously if you contradict, in one sentence, all three of those men (and how many others that support their theories).
There are several observable phenomenon that would be clearly and easily explained/reconciled, along with other "powerful" theories trashed by this one, simple assumption. One such is this:
The study of red-shift as applied by Hubble and others to determine the motion of galaxies suggests that galaxies would have all intersected approximately twelve to fourteen billion years ago (the Big Bang). Unfortunately, the underlying spectrography (the study of element fingerprints in light) also suggests that there are stars that have been burning for seventeen to nineteen billion years. (Yes, these two concepts are irreconcilable). For this and many other reasons (perhaps I will detail them in my next post) I cannot help but believe more in the age of stars than the Big Bang. As the irreconcilable discrepancies are all based on the constant speed of light, I choose to go with what is observed and re-think what is theoretical.
As for myself, at present I must admit it seems more logical that light is actually a wave, and not a specific thing unto itself that travels like a wave. I am certainly willing to be found wrong, but it seems to me much like making a noise, something generates this vibration, and it travels through its medium just like a wave of water or sound. It would seem to explain sight, and it would turn out to be very much like hearing. Our optical sensors would be "vibrated" by this wave, just like our eardrums, and translate that vibration into different frequencies and intensities, just like our ears. This would explain to me how this phenomenon is absorbed (as it is by our eyes or photoelectric cells or film, etc.), and also suggest (again) that light decelerates (in that absorption).
This would mean there is something out there that is being vibrated, even in what we think of as the vacuum of space. Many theories suggest there is "dark matter" or "dark energy" (some of them suggest a better word is transparent, not dark). Since even theories that have nothing to do with light believe that there are massive amounts of matter unaccounted for in observable space, again there is the very real possibility that there is some sort of transparent or dark matter between the sun, the stars, and the atmosphere of the earth. A heady concept, one that begs the question "why, then, does it not produce friction?" but there are many possible answers to that, including the possibility that it is so small, massless, or out of phase with non-dark matter that it does not collide with it, but as I am already disbelieving in major, accepted theories of the Big Bang and the constant speed of light, perhaps disbelieving in the traditional concept of the vacuum of space should be kept for another post.
I remember when I was going through physics in high school and college, it was explained to me that we don't seem to know what light is. In certain experiments it acts like a wave, and in certain circumstances it appears to be comprised of particles. The problem is that it does not make logical sense that particles would travel in waves. It appears to have energy, it appears to travel in a ray from its source. It certainly moves quickly. It definitely acts like a wave.
It seems to me there are two possibilities (please feel free to point out I'm a dope and there are others). Either there is actually something in the so-called vacuum of space that can then move in wave patterns (such as the "dark" or "transparent" matter mentioned in other theories), or light itself is comprised of something capable of moving like both a particle and a wave.
In either case, and I do hope to talk about each more, I find it easier to believe that light changes speed (and in specific that it decelerates) than to believe that it remains at a constant speed. I will go into these things more, but the ramifications are immediate (and I will explain these too). First, Hubble's assumption that the universe is expanding was based on his assumption that galaxies are traveling further away from us due to the concept of red-shift (basically, the Doppler Effect of light). Because he believed light traveled at a constant speed (as was suggested by Einstein's Theory of Relativity) that could only mean that the source of that light was moving away from us. If, in fact, light does not travel at a constant speed (and that it decelerates over time/distance), it would also explain why the further away a galaxy appears to be, the more its light is red-shifted. This simple assumption of my own manages to contradict not only Einstein and (the conclusions of) Hubble, but Stephen Hawkings himself - because it removes the major support for the Big Bang theory. I am certainly entitled to my own theories (whether they make sense or not) but it is going to be hard to be taken seriously if you contradict, in one sentence, all three of those men (and how many others that support their theories).
There are several observable phenomenon that would be clearly and easily explained/reconciled, along with other "powerful" theories trashed by this one, simple assumption. One such is this:
The study of red-shift as applied by Hubble and others to determine the motion of galaxies suggests that galaxies would have all intersected approximately twelve to fourteen billion years ago (the Big Bang). Unfortunately, the underlying spectrography (the study of element fingerprints in light) also suggests that there are stars that have been burning for seventeen to nineteen billion years. (Yes, these two concepts are irreconcilable). For this and many other reasons (perhaps I will detail them in my next post) I cannot help but believe more in the age of stars than the Big Bang. As the irreconcilable discrepancies are all based on the constant speed of light, I choose to go with what is observed and re-think what is theoretical.
As for myself, at present I must admit it seems more logical that light is actually a wave, and not a specific thing unto itself that travels like a wave. I am certainly willing to be found wrong, but it seems to me much like making a noise, something generates this vibration, and it travels through its medium just like a wave of water or sound. It would seem to explain sight, and it would turn out to be very much like hearing. Our optical sensors would be "vibrated" by this wave, just like our eardrums, and translate that vibration into different frequencies and intensities, just like our ears. This would explain to me how this phenomenon is absorbed (as it is by our eyes or photoelectric cells or film, etc.), and also suggest (again) that light decelerates (in that absorption).
This would mean there is something out there that is being vibrated, even in what we think of as the vacuum of space. Many theories suggest there is "dark matter" or "dark energy" (some of them suggest a better word is transparent, not dark). Since even theories that have nothing to do with light believe that there are massive amounts of matter unaccounted for in observable space, again there is the very real possibility that there is some sort of transparent or dark matter between the sun, the stars, and the atmosphere of the earth. A heady concept, one that begs the question "why, then, does it not produce friction?" but there are many possible answers to that, including the possibility that it is so small, massless, or out of phase with non-dark matter that it does not collide with it, but as I am already disbelieving in major, accepted theories of the Big Bang and the constant speed of light, perhaps disbelieving in the traditional concept of the vacuum of space should be kept for another post.
Experimentally Challenged
I know one of the largest faults with what I am posting here is that I have no observational evidence to support my theories - that is, I do not have sufficient mathematics, or access to physics or cosmology equipment, to perform experiments or produce formulas to "prove" or at least agree with my theories. On the other hand, nobody is required to read any of this stuff (and perhaps nobody does).
Furthermore, there is no immediate, practical application for this knowledge. However, I believe it is possible that a further understanding of the phenomenon of our universe may produce new technologies or discoveries that can change our lives. The devices we dream up in Science Fiction tend to require technologies that don't yet exist, but I suggest they are possible.
Consider electricity, or even before that, magnetism. These are used in our every-day life, but before people were producing magnets, imagine a primitive farmer or hunter-gatherer even imagining the possibilities or uses of magnets. Before electricity was in common use, who would have dreamed what it was or what could be done with it? What other amazing things are ready at hand which we will be able, eventually, to manipulate and utilize to do things currently impossible?
Illustratively: the average household (wherever the free market is in effect) can now produce color images on paper, watch movies on various screens, listen to recordings of music made years or seconds ago, freeze water into ice, illuminate the dark, cool the air in summer, be sixty (or more) miles away within an hour, and (thank God) brew coffee.
We can even write down our thoughts in an easy-to-read type and publish them in an internationally-public manner such that other average people throughout the world can read them seconds later. In fact, it is even possible to translate those thoughts instantly into other languages (though the translation is often amusing rather than useful).
With all that said, I now press on, experimentally challenged though I am, with my theories.
Furthermore, there is no immediate, practical application for this knowledge. However, I believe it is possible that a further understanding of the phenomenon of our universe may produce new technologies or discoveries that can change our lives. The devices we dream up in Science Fiction tend to require technologies that don't yet exist, but I suggest they are possible.
Consider electricity, or even before that, magnetism. These are used in our every-day life, but before people were producing magnets, imagine a primitive farmer or hunter-gatherer even imagining the possibilities or uses of magnets. Before electricity was in common use, who would have dreamed what it was or what could be done with it? What other amazing things are ready at hand which we will be able, eventually, to manipulate and utilize to do things currently impossible?
Illustratively: the average household (wherever the free market is in effect) can now produce color images on paper, watch movies on various screens, listen to recordings of music made years or seconds ago, freeze water into ice, illuminate the dark, cool the air in summer, be sixty (or more) miles away within an hour, and (thank God) brew coffee.
We can even write down our thoughts in an easy-to-read type and publish them in an internationally-public manner such that other average people throughout the world can read them seconds later. In fact, it is even possible to translate those thoughts instantly into other languages (though the translation is often amusing rather than useful).
With all that said, I now press on, experimentally challenged though I am, with my theories.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Cosmic Overview.
I have been fascinated, lately, with various theories of cosmology. I have been watching documentaries, reading books, and studying online to try to understand (as well as possible) theories such as the big bang, relativity, and quantum physics.
The general acceptance of our time is that the universe had a beginning - the theory of the big bang - and has been expanding ever since. Through the theories of relativity, we also get the explanation of space being bent by mass, which simulates gravity. Also, we have the idea that the speed of light is a constant, always observed the same no matter how fast you are traveling in relation to the object that produced the light.
Several of these concepts are mind boggling, and I admit that I do not understand how these conclusions are reached (only that the theories are explained as having reached these conclusions).
Just as it took tremendous amounts of work and thought to come up with these theories, I cannot sit here and tackle each one and propose my own theories in a single blog entry. Therefore I shall try to keep it to one or two concepts at a time, even though they all interrelate. After all, the concept is to try to come up with some formula or theory that encompasses everything - some explanation that does not require exceptions.
That is the beauty, but also seems to be one of the major flaws of how we are going about explaining the cosmos, and I'm really not going to be much different, so no help there. The problem is that we are trying to come up with the theory that has the least holes, and as we find each explanation, put forth by truly spectacular and hard working minds, we latch on to and accept it until a theory with fewer exceptions earns enough adherents.
The bottom line is that for practical purposes in the every-day life we don't really need to know these things, though for deeper satisfaction we always seem to turn to greater questions - be they physical or metaphysical (or, as so many claim, some mixture of them both).
I am going to give the punch line at the beginning of the joke, so to speak, because I must do this in a disjointed (and probably interrupted) fashion. I will continue posts on politics, begin posts on hockey, and will be posting regarding science as well.
My belief is that the universe is actually four-dimensional, and I do not consider time a dimension. I mean there are four spatial dimensions. Most of us are familiar with the three dimensional terms length, breadth, depth. We can picture three dimensional objects, even render them in two-dimensional drawings. The question of where the fourth dimension goes, or the direction of the fourth axis, is somewhat more difficult to imagine. It can be imagined through extrapolation, which will be one of my next posts (if not the very next.
The difficulty in establishing this theory of mine is a lack of understanding about four-dimensional physics. Perhaps my hope is that through some of these posts, some of the physics can be figured out. Unfortunately, our experience appears to be largely limited to three dimensions, often simulating two or even one, but rarely (outside of Science Fiction) approaching four.
I believe, however, that even with some very basic and acceptable assumptions about four-dimensional physics, extrapolated from the growth from one-dimensional to two-dimensional, and from two-dimensional to three-dimensional physics, will allow us to produce very logical and simple explanations for how our own universe works - and make some interesting predictions about what we may find "out there".
I must also (laughingly) admit that I may, through these very posts, convince myself I am completely wrong. After all, Einstein convinced himself he was wrong even when he wasn't.
The general acceptance of our time is that the universe had a beginning - the theory of the big bang - and has been expanding ever since. Through the theories of relativity, we also get the explanation of space being bent by mass, which simulates gravity. Also, we have the idea that the speed of light is a constant, always observed the same no matter how fast you are traveling in relation to the object that produced the light.
Several of these concepts are mind boggling, and I admit that I do not understand how these conclusions are reached (only that the theories are explained as having reached these conclusions).
Just as it took tremendous amounts of work and thought to come up with these theories, I cannot sit here and tackle each one and propose my own theories in a single blog entry. Therefore I shall try to keep it to one or two concepts at a time, even though they all interrelate. After all, the concept is to try to come up with some formula or theory that encompasses everything - some explanation that does not require exceptions.
That is the beauty, but also seems to be one of the major flaws of how we are going about explaining the cosmos, and I'm really not going to be much different, so no help there. The problem is that we are trying to come up with the theory that has the least holes, and as we find each explanation, put forth by truly spectacular and hard working minds, we latch on to and accept it until a theory with fewer exceptions earns enough adherents.
The bottom line is that for practical purposes in the every-day life we don't really need to know these things, though for deeper satisfaction we always seem to turn to greater questions - be they physical or metaphysical (or, as so many claim, some mixture of them both).
I am going to give the punch line at the beginning of the joke, so to speak, because I must do this in a disjointed (and probably interrupted) fashion. I will continue posts on politics, begin posts on hockey, and will be posting regarding science as well.
My belief is that the universe is actually four-dimensional, and I do not consider time a dimension. I mean there are four spatial dimensions. Most of us are familiar with the three dimensional terms length, breadth, depth. We can picture three dimensional objects, even render them in two-dimensional drawings. The question of where the fourth dimension goes, or the direction of the fourth axis, is somewhat more difficult to imagine. It can be imagined through extrapolation, which will be one of my next posts (if not the very next.
The difficulty in establishing this theory of mine is a lack of understanding about four-dimensional physics. Perhaps my hope is that through some of these posts, some of the physics can be figured out. Unfortunately, our experience appears to be largely limited to three dimensions, often simulating two or even one, but rarely (outside of Science Fiction) approaching four.
I believe, however, that even with some very basic and acceptable assumptions about four-dimensional physics, extrapolated from the growth from one-dimensional to two-dimensional, and from two-dimensional to three-dimensional physics, will allow us to produce very logical and simple explanations for how our own universe works - and make some interesting predictions about what we may find "out there".
I must also (laughingly) admit that I may, through these very posts, convince myself I am completely wrong. After all, Einstein convinced himself he was wrong even when he wasn't.
Blog's Cosmic Shift
Grab something heavy, or strap yourself into a stable chair.
This post is not about politics.
Other than to say it is not about politics, and to explain why.
I have told many people (including, I believe, this blog) that politics is my spectator sport. What I had not told too many people, though most of my closer acquaintances already knew this, was that politics became my spectator sport because I lost my other two sports right about the time I got really interested in how politics, from local to global, worked.
Well, I'm not exactly burned out on politics, as my blog will prove, but through a totally unrelated cosmic accident I rediscovered one of my other sports: Ice Hockey.
While I cannot claim to be a native born Texan, I have been naturalized by the authority of several native born Texans (based largely on the fact that I owned a pickup truck longer than most of them, have been in this state for a long time, and can out BBQ - the real kind, not grilling - most of them). I have also been given naturalization papers from several members of the Texas State Judiciary for services rendered to the State (it was tongue-in-cheek, but all the more precious to me because of it - I did some computer work for the state and we all had a blast).
Why is this important? Because I moved to South Texas, where there is very little in the way of NHL hockey. I have watched (and enjoyed) some of the local teams, but the players (if they're lucky) change rapidly and I couldn't get into the team as a whole, not to mention NHL hockey is the best of its kind. Just recently, and largely by complete random chance, my family and I tuned into a Dallas Stars game and got re-hooked on hockey. With only three games to go in the regular season, alas. We are doing well, but I doubt we will get very far through the playoffs. I want us to badly, but no doubt my positive energy is balanced out by other teams' fans who want their teams to advance just as badly.
Okay. Massive digression, but important, as you will see. Hockey is fantastic, but it takes a lot of time in the evenings (mostly) and due to the nature of the sport, you don't win every game (nor, with the exception of whoever wins the Stanley Cup, do you win all the playoff series). While this is good, and part of what makes the sport exciting, it means that while you are in the playoffs (which we now are) your team is likely to lose some very important games, leaving you feeling all grumpy and down.
So, rather than go to bed feeling disgusted with everything because some boob on the other team got a lucky bounce or break and scored a goal after a hard-fought overtime, proving that you've got the better skill but they've got the more frustrating luck, I decided to haul out some of my more interesting documentaries.
I downloaded some documentaries from the internet one year, burning them to DvDs as presents for friends and families (this was not the year I worked for the State of Texas - I could actually afford more expensive presents that year). I didn't get to watch them all, other than a quick scan through to check for quality and content, but they looked interesting.
While this post is now pretty much too long (it is all digression, to some degree, how bad is that?) I plan to post a little bit of my random, amateur thoughts about The Cosmos (I can't say that word without hearing James Wood's voice as Hades in the Disney version of Hercules). I have actually read several works about Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and about various parts of quantum physics. I have a decent mathematic and physics background. However, everything I am going to say is amateur.
That disclaimer aside, I feel compelled to point out that several major breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe have come from people who were considered amateurs at the time they had their breakthroughs, and even "established minds" were considered completely off their rocker when claiming new theories about How Things Work.
I expect to find myself contradicting some of the greatest scientific minds of our time. I am not asking anyone to think that I am smarter than they, because I do not think I am smarter than they. But like the simpleton who solves the complex problem because it needed a fresh perspective, I do have some thoughts to share on these Cosmic Concepts.
Advice:
- Concepts covered can be confusing. Skip if they bore you, return to the comments section if you ask a question (I often reply to comments on this blog - I recommend returning to comments any time you leave one).
- I recommend lots of coffee while reading these posts.
- Not to be mixed with narcotics.
This post is not about politics.
Other than to say it is not about politics, and to explain why.
I have told many people (including, I believe, this blog) that politics is my spectator sport. What I had not told too many people, though most of my closer acquaintances already knew this, was that politics became my spectator sport because I lost my other two sports right about the time I got really interested in how politics, from local to global, worked.
Well, I'm not exactly burned out on politics, as my blog will prove, but through a totally unrelated cosmic accident I rediscovered one of my other sports: Ice Hockey.
While I cannot claim to be a native born Texan, I have been naturalized by the authority of several native born Texans (based largely on the fact that I owned a pickup truck longer than most of them, have been in this state for a long time, and can out BBQ - the real kind, not grilling - most of them). I have also been given naturalization papers from several members of the Texas State Judiciary for services rendered to the State (it was tongue-in-cheek, but all the more precious to me because of it - I did some computer work for the state and we all had a blast).
Why is this important? Because I moved to South Texas, where there is very little in the way of NHL hockey. I have watched (and enjoyed) some of the local teams, but the players (if they're lucky) change rapidly and I couldn't get into the team as a whole, not to mention NHL hockey is the best of its kind. Just recently, and largely by complete random chance, my family and I tuned into a Dallas Stars game and got re-hooked on hockey. With only three games to go in the regular season, alas. We are doing well, but I doubt we will get very far through the playoffs. I want us to badly, but no doubt my positive energy is balanced out by other teams' fans who want their teams to advance just as badly.
Okay. Massive digression, but important, as you will see. Hockey is fantastic, but it takes a lot of time in the evenings (mostly) and due to the nature of the sport, you don't win every game (nor, with the exception of whoever wins the Stanley Cup, do you win all the playoff series). While this is good, and part of what makes the sport exciting, it means that while you are in the playoffs (which we now are) your team is likely to lose some very important games, leaving you feeling all grumpy and down.
So, rather than go to bed feeling disgusted with everything because some boob on the other team got a lucky bounce or break and scored a goal after a hard-fought overtime, proving that you've got the better skill but they've got the more frustrating luck, I decided to haul out some of my more interesting documentaries.
I downloaded some documentaries from the internet one year, burning them to DvDs as presents for friends and families (this was not the year I worked for the State of Texas - I could actually afford more expensive presents that year). I didn't get to watch them all, other than a quick scan through to check for quality and content, but they looked interesting.
While this post is now pretty much too long (it is all digression, to some degree, how bad is that?) I plan to post a little bit of my random, amateur thoughts about The Cosmos (I can't say that word without hearing James Wood's voice as Hades in the Disney version of Hercules). I have actually read several works about Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and about various parts of quantum physics. I have a decent mathematic and physics background. However, everything I am going to say is amateur.
That disclaimer aside, I feel compelled to point out that several major breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe have come from people who were considered amateurs at the time they had their breakthroughs, and even "established minds" were considered completely off their rocker when claiming new theories about How Things Work.
I expect to find myself contradicting some of the greatest scientific minds of our time. I am not asking anyone to think that I am smarter than they, because I do not think I am smarter than they. But like the simpleton who solves the complex problem because it needed a fresh perspective, I do have some thoughts to share on these Cosmic Concepts.
Advice:
- Concepts covered can be confusing. Skip if they bore you, return to the comments section if you ask a question (I often reply to comments on this blog - I recommend returning to comments any time you leave one).
- I recommend lots of coffee while reading these posts.
- Not to be mixed with narcotics.
Friday, April 13, 2007
How Gasoline Burns my Cookies
(and I don't even eat cookies)
The Liberal double-whammy is going to be a new phrase of mine. Here is an example (as brief as I can keep myself).
Today's gas prices. They're up another 11 cents even here in the Great State of Texas in just one week alone. Why? Because there is more and more demand in this country, and no more supply. Let's look at both sides of the equation, because liberals are screwing us both in supply and in demand.
The supply side is easy to see. First of all, liberals hate supply. Supply gets goods to the poor, the downtrodden, the very voters they depend upon. If people are supplied with what they need, they don't require government hand-outs.
How are they screwing us over gasoline supply? By the incredibly frustrating stance regarding our own oil. This country has tremendous oil reserves, and the ability to get that oil efficiently and with little to no damage to the environment. Despite this, we take as little advantage of our own natural resources as Mexico. For the same basic reason: corrupt government with a vested interest in keeping the poor in their poverty. Again and again liberals use "well meaning" cover stories such as protecting the environment (and they have to misrepresent both the environment and the damage in order for those stories to fly) to deny us our own oil. The net result? Poorer people can't afford gasoline. Poorer people like ME. My family falls into the Largest Tax Bracket (not paying any because we don't make enough money). Tell you what. Make me pay flat taxes, but let us drill for our own oil. I may even end up behind - but I will be blissfully paying my taxes as I sail through the gas station where it's once again below a dollar a gallon for 87 octane unleaded.
How are they screwing us over gasoline demand? Oh, you really shouldn't get me started on this one, but while they love to lambaste oil companies for record profits, they ignore the way those profits are made. Stay with me here:
Al Gore Style "Diet Coke" Illustration
I will try to make this as simple an illustration as possible. Let's say you make a fantastic drink. Let's say it has a snappy name that rhymes with Frapple. It's delicious, and it's expensive. Like, $2.50 a bottle (one serving). People everywhere are buying it. You crank up production, making more Frapple. People would rather drink it than Poke, Repsi, or even water. You have a fantastic quarter, selling one Frapple to every American, or 300 million Frapples. Congratulations, you just made $750million in gross receipts. Let's say you make $1 profit on each bottle (simplified for number purposes, make it as small as you want). You made a record-breaking 300 million dollars. Next year, the population has grown to 305 million people. You didn't change anything, except now you made $305 million dollars. Record breaking. Obscene? No. The result of greater demand.
"Diet Petrol"
When was the last time you used less gasoline? Honestly looking at it, how often have you driven less, used less electricity, heated your home less, etc? Not to mention: if you used fires to heat your home, aren't you belching more carbon into the air than a power plant would to provide you with heat? That digression aside, let's say there are 280 million people in the United States (as there were about two decades ago). Let's say the average person bought 10 gallons of gasoline a week. That's 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline a week. Let's assume there are 52 weeks even in a liberal's year. That's 145.6 billion gallons of gas a year. Let's divide that up into quarters, as "big oil" must report quarterly to the government. We're at about 36.4 billion gallons of gasoline per quarter. Over a decade ago. With fewer people. And no truckers. Just 10 gallons a week in your hybrid. Let's say (just for argument's sake) "big oil" makes about 20 cents per gallon (which is, I believe, a reasonably accurate estimate from what I remember reading from oil-antagonistic sites.) Set aside the fact that the government typically makes over a dollar per gallon, which is therefore five times what "big oil" makes on their own product (remember, the government doesn't do anything to earn that money, just taxes it) and let's say that was $7.2 billion for that quarter. What happens if Americans use the same amount of gas, "big oil" makes the same amount of profit per gallon, yes the F****N' government taxes the same amount per gallon, but we add Americans. Now there are 300 million of us instead of 280 million. The numbers run like this: 3 billion gallons a week, 156 billion gallons a year, 39 billion gallons a quarter, and $7.8 billion in profits. It sounds huge, and it certainly is a record, but it is because more people are buying the product, not because the amount per gallon has increased. I haven't even touched inflation, which points out we are paying half what we paid in 1979 (who was President then? was he a liberal?) if you adjust for inflation, so yes the numbers look huge, but due to inflation they should always go up!
See this chart for research:
Historical Oil Prices
How does this relate to liberals? Besides, of course, the pointed barbs I have used in the past couple paragraphs? They themselves estimate more than 20 million illegal immigrants are here in this country. Aside from the fact that they're using our schools, our social security, our medical systems, they are driving cars (whether they carpool or are driven by someone else) and using our resources. Yes, they may very well add to our economy, but they are also adding to the cost of goods because, just like us, they consume. They are people, not statistics, and they eat, drink, sleep, drive, etc. That increases demand.
I am not suggesting that you can simply remove 20 million people from our economy (though I do believe something must be done, even if it is not easy or politically correct) but if you did, demand would go down.
Liberals are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. They do damage at both ends of the problem, they are never the solution, and they would do more damage if they could.
The Liberal double-whammy is going to be a new phrase of mine. Here is an example (as brief as I can keep myself).
Today's gas prices. They're up another 11 cents even here in the Great State of Texas in just one week alone. Why? Because there is more and more demand in this country, and no more supply. Let's look at both sides of the equation, because liberals are screwing us both in supply and in demand.
The supply side is easy to see. First of all, liberals hate supply. Supply gets goods to the poor, the downtrodden, the very voters they depend upon. If people are supplied with what they need, they don't require government hand-outs.
How are they screwing us over gasoline supply? By the incredibly frustrating stance regarding our own oil. This country has tremendous oil reserves, and the ability to get that oil efficiently and with little to no damage to the environment. Despite this, we take as little advantage of our own natural resources as Mexico. For the same basic reason: corrupt government with a vested interest in keeping the poor in their poverty. Again and again liberals use "well meaning" cover stories such as protecting the environment (and they have to misrepresent both the environment and the damage in order for those stories to fly) to deny us our own oil. The net result? Poorer people can't afford gasoline. Poorer people like ME. My family falls into the Largest Tax Bracket (not paying any because we don't make enough money). Tell you what. Make me pay flat taxes, but let us drill for our own oil. I may even end up behind - but I will be blissfully paying my taxes as I sail through the gas station where it's once again below a dollar a gallon for 87 octane unleaded.
How are they screwing us over gasoline demand? Oh, you really shouldn't get me started on this one, but while they love to lambaste oil companies for record profits, they ignore the way those profits are made. Stay with me here:
Al Gore Style "Diet Coke" Illustration
I will try to make this as simple an illustration as possible. Let's say you make a fantastic drink. Let's say it has a snappy name that rhymes with Frapple. It's delicious, and it's expensive. Like, $2.50 a bottle (one serving). People everywhere are buying it. You crank up production, making more Frapple. People would rather drink it than Poke, Repsi, or even water. You have a fantastic quarter, selling one Frapple to every American, or 300 million Frapples. Congratulations, you just made $750million in gross receipts. Let's say you make $1 profit on each bottle (simplified for number purposes, make it as small as you want). You made a record-breaking 300 million dollars. Next year, the population has grown to 305 million people. You didn't change anything, except now you made $305 million dollars. Record breaking. Obscene? No. The result of greater demand.
"Diet Petrol"
When was the last time you used less gasoline? Honestly looking at it, how often have you driven less, used less electricity, heated your home less, etc? Not to mention: if you used fires to heat your home, aren't you belching more carbon into the air than a power plant would to provide you with heat? That digression aside, let's say there are 280 million people in the United States (as there were about two decades ago). Let's say the average person bought 10 gallons of gasoline a week. That's 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline a week. Let's assume there are 52 weeks even in a liberal's year. That's 145.6 billion gallons of gas a year. Let's divide that up into quarters, as "big oil" must report quarterly to the government. We're at about 36.4 billion gallons of gasoline per quarter. Over a decade ago. With fewer people. And no truckers. Just 10 gallons a week in your hybrid. Let's say (just for argument's sake) "big oil" makes about 20 cents per gallon (which is, I believe, a reasonably accurate estimate from what I remember reading from oil-antagonistic sites.) Set aside the fact that the government typically makes over a dollar per gallon, which is therefore five times what "big oil" makes on their own product (remember, the government doesn't do anything to earn that money, just taxes it) and let's say that was $7.2 billion for that quarter. What happens if Americans use the same amount of gas, "big oil" makes the same amount of profit per gallon, yes the F****N' government taxes the same amount per gallon, but we add Americans. Now there are 300 million of us instead of 280 million. The numbers run like this: 3 billion gallons a week, 156 billion gallons a year, 39 billion gallons a quarter, and $7.8 billion in profits. It sounds huge, and it certainly is a record, but it is because more people are buying the product, not because the amount per gallon has increased. I haven't even touched inflation, which points out we are paying half what we paid in 1979 (who was President then? was he a liberal?) if you adjust for inflation, so yes the numbers look huge, but due to inflation they should always go up!
See this chart for research:
Historical Oil Prices
How does this relate to liberals? Besides, of course, the pointed barbs I have used in the past couple paragraphs? They themselves estimate more than 20 million illegal immigrants are here in this country. Aside from the fact that they're using our schools, our social security, our medical systems, they are driving cars (whether they carpool or are driven by someone else) and using our resources. Yes, they may very well add to our economy, but they are also adding to the cost of goods because, just like us, they consume. They are people, not statistics, and they eat, drink, sleep, drive, etc. That increases demand.
I am not suggesting that you can simply remove 20 million people from our economy (though I do believe something must be done, even if it is not easy or politically correct) but if you did, demand would go down.
Liberals are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. They do damage at both ends of the problem, they are never the solution, and they would do more damage if they could.
Why Democrat Candidates Boycott Fox
It's the Clinton, stupid.
This article is a little more specific than most of my others, so I hope you don't get lost. Here is some quick setup:
In case you don't follow these things, Democrat candidates are refusing to show up on Fox News for debates. The debate is scheduled, Fox is chosen, time goes by, and when it's politically ripe, the candidate declares they will not show up for anything broadcast on Fox.
The first issue is what everyone focuses on: The fact that Fox is actually centrist, not conservative, and that the largest audience of Independent voters watches Fox News over all other news outlets. The candidates are therefore screwing themselves out of a chance to appear before the very swing voters they're going to need in order to secure the White House (a distant chance anyway, and growing fainter with every stunt).
The second issue, nobody seems able to answer. This stuns me because I believe I have the answer, and it is two-part.
The first part is obvious and disappointing. We're in the primaries. The candidates do not need the swing voters. They need only registered Democrats. Not only that, they need the insane, anger-addict Democrats that, like so many conservatives, want to see their candidates act boldly. They want to see them denounce President Bush, they want to see them canceling appearances on perceived conservative networks, they want to hear tough talk on the war or any other issue that takes their fancy. Independents (and this is why I will probably never be one) do not vote in primary elections. They do not belong to the party in question, so they can't vote for those candidates. After the primaries are over and we have a specific candidate (and my money is still on Hillary winning her nomination, though I would love to lose that bet) they will appear wherever a microphone and a camera are set up and running, regardless of whether or not there is a FOX placard on the side.
The second part is less obvious, and I could be wrong about this. However, we must dig back into the recent past and dredge up two names: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace. The fact is that Bill went on Fox, and he was not only asked the questions Independents and Republicans want asked (or at least a very few of the tamer ones) but he looked terrible in the eyes of regular Fox viewers.
Remember, Bill Clinton is the brightest star in the Democrat universe. He's not only the pinnacle of their dreams (frightening thought) but considered their slickest talker, their smoothest guy, and unassailable. Slick Willie. The Teflon Man. He was slick and smooth through everything. If he appeared on Fox and looked that bad, there isn't one Democrat candidate that can show up and do better.
The Democrat candidates are in a tough spot, and I don't pity them in the least (they have made their own bed, dug their own hole, etc.) They are going to need to reach the very audience that tunes into Fox. While it is true that some of us are going to watch presidential debates no matter what network they're on, if Fox does get that network, their own base is going to want them to boycott - even an actual presidential debate! But they won't be able to. They may refuse interviews, or not show up on Fox shows, but they're going to miss the swing voters. Unfortunately, they are right - if they do show up on Fox, there is a good chance they're going to have to answer the very questions we want asked.
Sucks to be them.
This article is a little more specific than most of my others, so I hope you don't get lost. Here is some quick setup:
In case you don't follow these things, Democrat candidates are refusing to show up on Fox News for debates. The debate is scheduled, Fox is chosen, time goes by, and when it's politically ripe, the candidate declares they will not show up for anything broadcast on Fox.
The first issue is what everyone focuses on: The fact that Fox is actually centrist, not conservative, and that the largest audience of Independent voters watches Fox News over all other news outlets. The candidates are therefore screwing themselves out of a chance to appear before the very swing voters they're going to need in order to secure the White House (a distant chance anyway, and growing fainter with every stunt).
The second issue, nobody seems able to answer. This stuns me because I believe I have the answer, and it is two-part.
The first part is obvious and disappointing. We're in the primaries. The candidates do not need the swing voters. They need only registered Democrats. Not only that, they need the insane, anger-addict Democrats that, like so many conservatives, want to see their candidates act boldly. They want to see them denounce President Bush, they want to see them canceling appearances on perceived conservative networks, they want to hear tough talk on the war or any other issue that takes their fancy. Independents (and this is why I will probably never be one) do not vote in primary elections. They do not belong to the party in question, so they can't vote for those candidates. After the primaries are over and we have a specific candidate (and my money is still on Hillary winning her nomination, though I would love to lose that bet) they will appear wherever a microphone and a camera are set up and running, regardless of whether or not there is a FOX placard on the side.
The second part is less obvious, and I could be wrong about this. However, we must dig back into the recent past and dredge up two names: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace. The fact is that Bill went on Fox, and he was not only asked the questions Independents and Republicans want asked (or at least a very few of the tamer ones) but he looked terrible in the eyes of regular Fox viewers.
Remember, Bill Clinton is the brightest star in the Democrat universe. He's not only the pinnacle of their dreams (frightening thought) but considered their slickest talker, their smoothest guy, and unassailable. Slick Willie. The Teflon Man. He was slick and smooth through everything. If he appeared on Fox and looked that bad, there isn't one Democrat candidate that can show up and do better.
The Democrat candidates are in a tough spot, and I don't pity them in the least (they have made their own bed, dug their own hole, etc.) They are going to need to reach the very audience that tunes into Fox. While it is true that some of us are going to watch presidential debates no matter what network they're on, if Fox does get that network, their own base is going to want them to boycott - even an actual presidential debate! But they won't be able to. They may refuse interviews, or not show up on Fox shows, but they're going to miss the swing voters. Unfortunately, they are right - if they do show up on Fox, there is a good chance they're going to have to answer the very questions we want asked.
Sucks to be them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)