This is something I have been working on for a long time, my analysis! Sounds has effects on people. Even dogs like music, so you can see the light come on when you think about it. Pseudoscience? No innovation! I see pseudoscience as deprivation. Like Occam's razor you just end up depriving yourself of needed information. On that point is the science of sound. I always wondered about ancient sites as in the Nazca lines. I always thought it as seen in the air by the ancients as a astral projection (OBE) Also points to the ancient sites as markers to where you left your body. Relating to a science behind fear in the past. As in Anthropogeny looking into the fears ancients would of had. "Q. Can you get lost and forget how to get back to your body?" https://www.erinpavlina.com/blog/2006/12/the-dangers-of-astral-projection How to have a astral projection in that time? By focusing meditation at ancient sites, with sounds at 110 HZ being the effects it has on the human brain. http://humansarefree.com/2011/04/ancient-temples-were-designed-for-110.html http://unmistaken1.com/ancient-temples-110hz What about the Mariana Trench and collective consciousness? Scientist have found some strange sounds coming from the trench. And for me I see it as relating I was thinking of those sounds would be at a level in that all sea life that has been in the ocean and shares some primal parts of all life from a past time into today's time. The sounds could be a way to tap into a collective consciousness being it would be primal relating to all fish sounds from the past still today! http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/04/469213580/unique-audio-recordings-find-a-noisy-mariana-trench-and-surprise-scientists *Note my past life as a Cambrian Period fish story! I was a Pikaia! As a fish I had a collective consciousness within the same species as I was being chased by bigger fish. Interesting! http://walmartramen.blogspot.com/2013/11/my-past-life-memory-really.html So a good question would be how that would relate to humans. What is our primal collective consciousness? 110 HZ? How would that relate? Would a astral projection, or psychic ability, tagged soul mates, be deemed as going into the collective consciousness. In what part or what levels? Something to think about!
Well just because I burn catnip and am lovesick over a married lady I swear
I have a quantum entanglement with all pointing to something like Schrodinger’s
cat being dead and alive at the same time does not mean love is not tangible! You just make agreements! Because it's lonely being an individual qubit wondering
in the streets dressed up like a Gypsy! Stop searching in the streets and
cue "that" conversation!
Well making agreements in looking at Schrodinger’s cat points to interesting things! And as I see it a good point to make agreements "through blurry glasses!"
Well yes and I hope I reach on the fact that agreements changes lives. It's just that
everyone needs hit the bar before hand! And so Schrodinger’s Cat is Alive!
Yes or no! Go right or left "The cat is, somehow, both
dead and alive until the
box is opened." Until then, dead and alive at the same time!
~~~~~Quantum Measurements Leave Schrodinger’s Cat Alive
Schrödinger’s cat, the enduring icon of quantum mechanics, has been
defied. By making constant but weak measurements of a quantum system,
physicists have managed to probe a delicate quantum state without
destroying it – the equivalent of taking a peek at Schrodinger’s
metaphorical cat without killing it. The result should make it easier to
handle systems such as quantum computers that exploit the exotic properties of the quantum world.
Quantum objects have the bizarre but useful property of being able to
exist in multiple states at once, a phenomenon called superposition.
Physicist Erwin Schrödinger illustrated the strange implications of
superposition by imagining a cat in a box whose fate depends on a radioactive atom.
Because the atom’s decay is governed by quantum mechanics – and so only
takes a definite value when it is measured – the cat is, somehow, both
dead and alive until the box is opened.
Superposition could, in theory, let quantum computers run
calculations in parallel by holding information in quantum bits. Unlike
ordinary bits, these qubits don’t take a value of 1 or 0, but instead
exist as a mixture of the two, only settling on a definite value of 1 or
0 when measured.
But this ability to destroy superpositions simply by peeking at them
makes systems that depend on this property fragile. That has been a
stumbling block for would-be quantum computer scientists, who need
quantum states to keep it together long enough to do calculations.
Gentle measurement
Researchers had suggested it should be possible, in principle, to make measurements that are “gentle” enough not to destroy the superposition.
The idea was to measure something less direct than whether the bit is a
1 or a 0 – the equivalent of looking at Schrödinger’s cat through
blurry glasses. This wouldn’t allow you to gain a “strong” piece of
information – whether the cat was alive or dead – but you might be able
to detect other properties.
Now, R. Vijay
of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues have managed
to create a working equivalent of those blurry glasses. “We only
partially open the box,” says Vijay.
The team started with a tiny superconducting circuit commonly used as
a qubit in quantum computers, and put it in a superposition by cycling
its state between 0 and 1 so that it repeatedly hit all the possible
mixtures of states.
Next, the team measured the frequency of this oscillation. This is
inherently a weaker measurement than determining whether the bit took on
the value of 1 or 0 at any point, so the thought was that it might be
possible to do this without forcing the qubit to choose between a 1 or a
0. However, it also introduced a complication.
Quantum pacemaker
Even though the measurement was gentle enough not to destroy the
quantum superposition, the measurement did randomly change the
oscillation rate. This couldn’t be predicted, but the team was able to
make the measurement very quickly, allowing the researchers to inject an
equal but opposite change into the system that returned the qubit’s
frequency to the value it would have had if it had not been measured at
all.
This feedback is similar to what happens in a pacemaker: if the
system drifts too far from the desired state, whether that’s a steady
heartbeat or a superposition of ones and zeros, you can nudge it back
towards where it should be.
Vijay’s team was not the first to come up with this idea of using
feedback to probe a quantum system, but the limiting factor in the past
had been that measurements weak enough to preserve the system gave
signals too small to detect and correct, while bigger measurements
introduced noise into the system that was too big to control.
Error correction
Vijay and colleagues used a new kind of amplifier that let them turn
up the signal without contaminating it. They found that their qubit
stayed in its oscillating state for the entire run of the experiment.
That was only about a hundredth of a second – but, crucially, it meant
that the qubit had survived the measuring process.
“This demonstration shows we are almost there, in terms of being able
to implement quantum error controls,” Vijay says. Such controls could
be used to prolong the superpositions of qubits in quantum computing, he
says, by automatically nudging qubits that were about to collapse.
The result is not perfect, points out Howard Wiseman
of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, in an article
accompanying the team’s paper. “But compared with the no-feedback result
of complete unpredictability within several microseconds, the observed
stabilization of the qubit’s cycling is a big step forward in the
feedback control of an individual qubit.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22336-quantum-measurements-leave-schrodingers-cat-alive
Pushing consumer based pricing at $8 after taxes pay because
they can't afford the high dollar stuff is the power of the poor.
Who said you need it anyway?
The poor works hard for what they get so why call them lazy?
Even panhandlers work for what they get. Out there in the heat or
cold getting something of value for some kind of happiness. What do you work for? Many people working 40 hour weeks drink beer on the weekend.
Many poor live on only 20+ percent of their income.
And that is 20 percent sales for the town. So small towns are small because they make nothing. The town cant grow because the people are not able to grow,
they are not paid to grow.
The poor works hard for the low wages then spends low but low is low a bad life a cost to others. ~~~~~Here's a breakdown of some of the most common myths about poverty in America, and why they're wrong: Myth: The U.S. offers unparalleled opportunity to escape poverty. Reality: America has far less social mobility than most comparable nations, including France, Germany, Denmark and Canada. Inequality in access to education, health care and home ownership has hardened class disparities. A 2006 study found that 42% of American men who grew up in the bottom quintile of incomes remained there are adults — a rate that's much lower in other developed countries. According to a 2013 Hamilton Project report, "a child born to parents with income in the lowest quintile is more than 10 times more likely to end up in the lowest quintile than the highest as an adult." Myth: Education is the silver bullet for solving poverty. Reality: A paper at the 2014 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference revealed that class is a far better predictor than education level of where someone ends up. In the study, rich people who dropped out of high school maintained their wealth as often as poor people who acquired college degrees remained frozen at the bottom of the income ladder. In fact, a college degree does not even guarantee a middle class life: According to Mother Jones' analysis of census data, in 2012, more than 1 million people with bachelor degrees made less than $25,000 a year while working full-time. Myth: Welfare makes the poor lazy. Reality: People across the income ladder strongly prefer working to being unemployed, and the data show that this is very much the case for poor people receiving support from the government, especially after having time to recover from emergency. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households [households receiving food stamps] with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80% work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60% work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90% work in the prior or subsequent year." Not only is there an absence of evidence that government aid causes rampant laziness, but there's also research suggesting that it promotes entrepreneurialism by mitigating the risk of launching businesses — many people are more ambitious with a safety net. Gareth Olds at the Harvard Business School has shown that access to government aid in the form of food stamps or health care corresponds directly with business ownership. Myth: We should test all welfare recipients for drug use because they're all addicts. Reality: A recent analysis by ThinkProgress found that in seven states requiring welfare applicants to be screened for illicit drug use, they exhibited rates of drug use lower than the general population. A 1996 study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found no significant difference in drug use between the welfare-receiving population and the non-welfare-receiving population, and a 2002 government survey found that welfare recipients clocked in at less than half a percentage point higher than non-welfare recipients for drug use. If it were an actual problem, then public health groups wouldn't adamantly oppose drug testing welfare recipients. Myth: Poor people get by on benefits while the rest of us have to work for everything. Reality: People from every stratum of society are beneficiaries of government benefits. According to political scientists Suzanne Mettler and John Sides, 96% of Americans have received government assistance, and most of it is has nothing to do with easing poverty. Student loans, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security benefits are all forms of government aid. Some benefits are "submerged," or camouflaged because they work through the tax code or private organizations. An example of a submerged benefit is the home mortgage interest deduction, the kind of benefit for homeowners that in fact favors the rich over the poor. Myth: Food stamps are used to buy junk food and other unnecessary items. Reality: A 2015 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that people who receive SNAP benefits don't consume sugary drinks at higher rates than others in their demographic who don't receive them. Welfare experts like Washington University professor Mark Rank say SNAP beneficiaries use them very carefully. "There are some isolated cases of abuse, sure," Rank told the Washington Post. "But they are hardly representative of what the people struggling to get by on SNAP are actually buying... These people are spending their money extremely frugally." Myth: Single parenthood is causing poverty. Reality: Two-parent households are generally going to make more money than single-parent homes, but the reason that single parents end up in poverty isn't pure recklessness or a cultural aversion to marriage. A number of studies suggest just the opposite: Economic insecurity actually discourages people from getting married. Despite the fact that low-income people generally possess traditional values about getting married, they view marriage as a risky investment of resources in an environment of economic and social instability, and opt for more tentative arrangements (moving in together) instead. Similarly, conservatives often point to absent fathers as a sign that poor men, stereotypically black, have shunned norms of child-rearing. But these critics pay little attention to the role that chronic scarcity and instability of jobs for low-income workers and mass incarceration plays in displacing fathers from households. https://mic.com/articles/115054/7-myths-we-need-to-stop-telling-about-poverty ~~~~~Why do we think poor people are poor because of their own bad choices? Maia Szalavitz Cecilia Mo thought she knew all about growing up poor when she began teaching at Thomas Jefferson senior high school in south Los Angeles. As a child, she remembered standing in line, holding a free lunch ticket. But it turned out that Mo could still be shocked by poverty and violence – especially after a 13-year-old student called her in obvious panic. He had just seen his cousin get shot in his front yard. For Mo, hard work and a good education took her to Harvard and Stanford. But when she saw just how much chaos and violence her LA students faced, she recognized how lucky she had been growing up with educated parents and a safe, if financially stretched, home. Now, as an assistant professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University, Mo studies how to get upper-class Americans to recognize the advantages they have. She is among a group of scholars trying to understand how rich and poor alike justify inequality. What these academics are finding is that the American dream is being used to rationalize a national nightmare. It all starts with the psychology concept known as the “fundamental attribution error”. This is a natural tendency to see the behavior of others as being determined by their character – while excusing our own behavior based on circumstances. For example, if an unexpected medical emergency bankrupts you, you view yourself as a victim of bad fortune – while seeing other bankruptcy court clients as spendthrifts who carelessly had too many lattes. Or, if you’re unemployed, you recognize the hard effort you put into seeking work – but view others in the same situation as useless slackers. Their history and circumstances are invisible from your perspective. Here’s what has gone wrong: hard work and a good education used to be a sure bet for upward mobility in the US – at least among some groups of people. Americans born in the 1940s had a 90% chance of doing better economically than their parents did – but those born in the 1980s have only 50/50 odds of doing so. As the dream has faded, however, its effects have not. Several elements of normal psychology combine to keep many across the economic spectrum convinced that the rich and the poor deserve what they get – with exceptions made, of course, mainly for oneself. This error “lays the groundwork for beliefs that would tend to justify [systemic] inequality,” says Arnold Ho, principal investigator for the psychology of inequality lab at the University of Michigan. A great example of what the fundamental attribution error looks like in real life can be found in the bestseller Hillbilly Elegy. JD Vance writes of seething with resentment as he worked as a teen cashier, watching people commit fraud with food stamps and talking on cellphones that he could only “dream about” being able to afford. From his perspective, the food-stamp recipients were lazy and enjoyed selling food to support addictions rather than working honestly. But he had little idea how they saw it from within – whether they were using illicitly purchased alcohol to soothe grief, pain and trauma; whether they were buying something special to celebrate a child’s birthday; whether the hard life that he had been able to manage had just gotten the better of others who were born wired differently or who didn’t have any supportive family members, as he did with his beloved grandmother. Another instance can be seen in this quote found in an article in the Washington Post about immigrants from a retired factory worker in Pennsylvania: “They’re not paying taxes like Americans are. They’re getting stuff handed to them,” the retiree complained. “Free rent, and they’re driving better vehicles than I’m driving and everything else.” He may not have known – or didn’t care – that immigrants do pay taxes (and so do millions of undocumented immigrants) or that they don’t typically get free rent either. Indeed, this type of complaint – that undeserving people “cut the line”, as sociologist Arlie Hochschild puts it – is so common in coverage of Trump voters that it was recently caricatured by Katha Pollitt in the Nation: “‘I played by the rules,’ said retired rancher Tom Grady, 66, delving into the Daffodil Diner’s famous rhubarb pie. ‘Why should I pay for some deadbeat’s trip to Europe?’” Another aspect of this phenomenon is known as “actor-observer bias”. When we watch others, we tend to see them as being driven by intrinsic personality traits, while in our own case we know that, for example, we acted angrily because we’d just been fired, not because we’re naturally angry people. “We tend to see the world through our own experiences,” explains Stephen Pimpare, lecturer in American Politics at the University of New Hampshire and author of the forthcoming Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen. “We often think it is structure or circumstance that constrains our choices, but it’s the behavior of others that alters theirs.” In other words, other poor people are poor because they make bad choices – but if I’m poor, it’s because of an unfair system. As a result of this phenomenon, Pimpare says, poor people tend to be hardest on each other. He gives the example of a large literature in anthropology and sociology about women on welfare published since the 1980s. “It finds over and over again that some of nastiest things you ever hear about women on welfare come out of the mouths of women on welfare.” For instance, one woman will talk about how another down the hall is lazy and sits around, exploiting the system – even though her own behavior could be viewed from the outside as virtually identical. Some will even go so far as to deny that they even get welfare payments, he adds. Biases about the nature of inequality, of course, don’t only affect poor people. Among the wealthy, those biases allow society’s winners to believe that they got where they are by hard work alone and so they deserve what they have – while seeing those who didn’t make it as having failed due to lack of grit and merit. “The myth of meritocracy turns out to be deeply anti-meritocratic,” says Richard Reeves, author of Dream Hoarders, a new book that suggests that it’s not only the 1% who need to take a look in the mirror when complaining about inequality – more like the top 20%. “It’s something of vicious circle,” he says, describing how rising inequality increases physical and geographical segregation by class, which then reduces cross-class contact and decreases the ability to interact and empathize. Less empathy then fosters greater political polarization and justification of inequality, which in turn causes the cycle to repeat. Cecilia Mo’s experience of the effects of inequality on education came during a stretch with Teach For America, a selective program that allows top university students to spend two years teaching in poor communities. It inspired her to study that organization, to learn whether close contact with people across class can change attitudes. She figured that the elite students who wanted to join the program were already inclined to see structural disadvantages but found that, even for them, real experience deepened their commitment. Intimate contact – such as the experience if teaching in the inner city, mentoring, other types of services that allow people to connect despite class difference – builds empathy. The more you engage with with people unlike you and learn about their lives and stories, the harder it is to see them as stereotypes or to dismiss their challenges as trivial. While not everyone can participate in such intense service, the more we can recognize biases in ourselves, the less likely we will be to fall prey to them. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/us-inequality-poor-people-bad-choices-wealthy-bias
~~~~~The Love Of Speed Is Something You Just Can't Explain How do you explain the love of cars to people who don't understand? Maybe you can't. Maybe people either get it or they don't. In this beautifully-worded essay, Kinja user Kenkupchik says what we've all felt at one time or another: an indescribable love of cars and an inability to explain it to those who don't get it. You Wouldn't Understand I don't get upset when they say "it's just a car." You can't teach someone a new language in minutes. And technically it is just a car. But don't car lovers see something more? My family fled Soviet Russia in 1988 and spent a year in Vienna, waiting for a country to accept us and for someone to sponsor our VISA. I was five years old and my parents spent a stressful year trying to get us to America, literally refugees. What I remember from that year is walking at night with my father and stopping at the Ferrari dealership to press my face against the glass for a better look. I remember the Ferrari Testarossa in rosso corsa. By the end of the year I could name the make and model of every car I saw just by the headlights. Twenty five years later I still stop and stare at a Ferrari. When you're a car lover, that doesn't change, ever. Cars aren't the sum of my life but they're an element of my identity, and a part of every milestone. I walked to work at Dunkin Donuts for two years after school to save up for a Subaru Impreza while my friends played video games. On the morning of my 16th birthday I got my driver's license and never looked back. I was on my own and doing everything that lucky teenagers get to do in America. Through high school I had the Subaru, a Volkswagen Corrado G60 and a Toyota Celica all of which I still remember like old friends. They were with me through my moments of triumph when the girl wanted me in the same way I wanted her and my defeats when I felt humiliated the way only someone in high school could understand. They stayed parked on wooded suburban streets, patiently waiting for me in line with the cars of other kids while we partied in someone's house whose parents were gone for the weekend. They were my escape, when I could put on a CD and just drive by myself, a world of opportunity still in front of me. I wish I still had every single one of them, but friends come and go. I don't live in a big city because I refuse to leave the open road. I want to get in and chart my own course with 3 pedals, not a MetroCard. I want to feel the possibility of something more. I want to be every guy that ever looked at his car and been grateful that such a magnificent machine ended up in his hands, in that one moment of pure bliss. I want to be back in 1977 in a Trans Am with Sally Field showing off her legs on the dashboard. I want my heart to beat faster when Daniel Craig downshifts his DBS in the opening seconds of Quantum of Solace. But you wouldn't understand. You wouldn't understand why I'm still talking to you about your Audi. You like it and think it's cool but it's just a car and you'd rather talk about sports. You wouldn't understand why when a Gallardo passes me on the highway I turn my neck any way I can to catch a better glimpse. It's just a car. And you wouldn't understand why I'd take a pay cut and rearrange my life and switch industries just to be closer to car culture, because to you it's just a car. I can't explain it to you either and the only people who understand are other car lovers. But I can tell you that the sense of awe I got from seeing that Testarossa hasn't faded one bit in a quarter of a century, and as a 5 year old, that permission to wonder at a car wasn't for the sake of anyone else. Because it isn't just a car to some of us. http://kenkupchik.kinja.com/you-wouldnt-understand-1503969100/1505979684
~~~~~BMW's Paul Rosche must go down as one of the most influential engine designers this century. He's been with BMW around 40 years, and I think it's fitting that he should be remembered on his retirement. He's up there with Alfa's Vittono Jano and Ferrari's Gioacchini Colombo; he just happened to work in a more modern era. There's an important thing that's dying alongside Paul retiring, too: the big company guru. Paul was a guru, an example to the young engineers. He could do virtually anything he liked within BMW. He built Fl engines on the OT, and he could experiment, because BMW Motorsport didn't operate like a large company. He was one of the old-school engineers: hands-on, with fantastic ideas and theoretical knowledge and, above all, real depth of experience. I've known him for 25 years. We had an incredibly successful time together with no arguments, few misunderstandings and very few mistakes through all the Formula One years, and during the McLaren Fl engine programme, which was fraught from a timescale point of view. By the time Paul said we could do the Fl engine, it was a year behind. But his guys had a runner 13 months after the first discussion. I remember back in 1983, when McLaren won the Fl championship. During practice at the old Kyalami circuit, we had this engine upside down in the grass the night before the race, with the crank out because ofa problem. Paul took the cylinder head off and found that it was something to do with the mixture control, and fixed it. And that was the weekend we won the championship. He had a fantastic relationship with Nelson Piquet, too. He took the practical jokes Nelson used to play on him tremendously well for a man in his position. Paul usually took a nap after lunch; he used to curl up in his 7-series for 15 minutes. One day, Nelson tank-taped up all the doors so Paul couldn't get out and left a window slightly open. Then he found me in the pits and asked: 'What do I need to make smoke?' I told him an oily rag that's not quite on fire. So he got a rag, dipped it in oil and chucked it in the car, and of course Paul woke up and couldn't get out. That sort of thing used to happen alongside the hard work. There was a camaraderie that you don't find among senior people. A character like that is 'Rosche wouldn't always do things in a measured, scientific way. It the engine blew up, it blew up' someone who can be pleasant but powerful and knowledgeable and still enjoy a bit of fun. And he would always do things in a measured, scientific, Germanic way. He'd take the wastegate off, or give the engine more advance, or spray some water on it. If it blew up, it blew up. The 318 block we used to use was absolutely standard up to 1lOObhp. But if we took the wastegate off, that was really hanging the engine out. If it made a lap, it made 1300 horsepower. But we often broke an engine in half lengthways. Paul looked at the cross-section between the main bearing ribs (this web stops the head pulling off the block), and there wasn't enough strength there. We could make a new pattern for a block mid-season, so he did a quick mod when the block was cast, using a bit of wood to scratch away the sandcast to make a thicker web. For me, he is the father of modern BMW engines. He did the classic six-cylinder engine and the four-valve versions of the bigger six. He developed reliable, high specific output engines, and nobody had done that in the early days of BMW. He could build long-stroke engines that revved without flying to pieces and still deliver great chunks of torque. He started telemetry with Bosch, too. Back in 1981-82, it was a biscuit tin you could put your grandmother in (and which just relayed engine revs and temperatures), but he became very influential in engine mapping. When we were specifying the Fl road car engine, for instance, I wanted the pick-up to be as instantaneous as possible, which was why I used a carbon clutch - three kilos instead of 10. Then we thought about having no flywheel, and one of his chief engineers said: 'We can't build an engine without one.' Paul turned to him and said: 'Have you ever designed an engine without a flywheel before?' The guy said no, and Paul replied: 'Well, don’t say that until you have.' Nobody's going to build an engine like the Fl's 6.0-litre V12 again - an engine that revs like that and drives like that, with instantaneous response, meets Californian emissions and wins Le Mans first time out. For me, it's the ultimate road car engine. I'm sure Paul is going to go on and design more, but this is the end of his BMW business. That's how I'd like to remember his career with BMW. http://www.angelfire.com/me4/dugbugwap/mcf1.htm
If you haven't figured it out yet you might want to look around to see what Trump is really like. He is not our president he is voted in by many uneducated people in reality. ~~~~~In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980. For example, in 2012, there was hardly any difference between the two groups: College graduates backed Obama over Romney by 50%-48%, and those without a college degree also supported Obama 51%-47%. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education ~~~~~President Trump posted a short video to his Twitter account on Sunday in which he is portrayed wrestling and punching a figure whose head has been replaced by the logo for CNN." The video, about 28 seconds long, appears to be an edited clip from a years-old appearance by Mr. Trump in WrestleMania, an annual professional wrestling event. The clip ends with an onscreen restyling of the CNN logo as “FNN: Fraud News Network.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/business/media/trump-wrestling-video-cnn-twitter.html With Trump spending a lot of time on twitter acting like a child you need to ask does your boss at work act like Trump. Well if he did would you still be working for him if you boss acted like Trump? Just look at things in term of natural selection as Trump and supporters like the lemmings going off the cliff. Ask are you willing to go off the cliff with them? You need to ask why? I mean is it in reality? Like not want the wages to go up even though it hasn't gone up in 10 years. Make nothing you have nothing. Don't want the pay to go up they will raise the cost of the merchandise to pay for higher wages. They will cut your hours. When in reality consumer based pricing rules. They will just not buy the high dollar stuff doing without. Cutting the hours, is still impoverishing the consumer they won't make the pay so they spend what they earn being it's like $7 after taxes. Again you make nothing you have noting! How are businesses to grow if the consumer can't grow? It's not fair for businesses to lower their cost to match the poverty wages of the workers. You don't see middle class people working at Walmart. A impoverished labor force makes no sales and no businesses as there are no workers to hire. What would happen to Walmart if people stopped going there doing without pushing consumer based pricing. Walmart would lower the price of milk to $1 a gallon to bring back the consumers! Low pay is low sales! The wages has to go up! But with Trump and the Republicans they want to impoverish the consumers. So their polices fall in to natural selection forcing a fix. If they don't they go off a cliff still forcing a fix afterward. But you see what I am saying about Trump he is a brat running things crying over what people say about him while there are people needing things. Better pay, healthcare standing there watching Trump going off the cliff. That says a lot about Trump and his supporters now doesn't it!
Lovers in time, lovers in a past life, the red string of fate there is a connection more
than we all know. There is a reason for it. If it's a part of the laws of nature there
are connections in life, in that is for the better.
In my life from my past loves I know I effect them it's just how I am. If it's my mass I tend to effect. It's like in my Zodiac Cancer I
secure, respect and love my lovers. I know if it's something from
a past life and it is big then I know it's worth it. I always looked for long
term in relationships so I do the effort and foundation to make it work. http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/zodiac-signs/cancer.htm
So in that it's said "When you touch someone's heart they will
never be the same again. Part of your life will live in them always."
It's not a one way road. Love makes all a better person.
If ignored then you are just going to repeat the same issues over and over.
Something big is something big it might be small like a embedded screw in the floor
but it points. It might of been there long before anyone got there to one point in time
pointing the way. If in one point in time you meet your other then only to meet your other
at another point in time it's clear it's a destiny thing to me so I see something like that
as a light. Why not jump into it? If it makes you a better person then take it home!
You don't need to loose anything, you only gain. Because it's for the better of the good...
Love and support is better than being stuck in the mud!
Love does not mean you loose, love is to gain to a higher plane!
In esoteric cosmology, a plane other than the physical plane is conceived as a
subtle state of consciousness that transcends the known physical universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28esotericism%29
So to say I love you knowing that, makes it clear, lovers are timeless!
Love has no boundaries. Something that helps is worth bringing in!
Having that talk regardless is worth it. Something to talk about,
for the better of the good. Healing time, just make the effort!
What are your hopes and dreams? Talking is the first step to get there!
Lovers love giving best interest in mind offers security, a vent, support and
things that are better for a better life as a whole as we all are not islands!
~~~~~Past Life Lovers - Have you felt that instant connection ?
Have you ever felt the instant attraction to someone you met..? or you
have ever
felt you have known them for forever within minutes of meeting
them..could it be
possible that you have loved and cared for each other
in a previous life."
In the early stages of the relationships these feelings do appear.
Two people quickly beginto know each others likes and dislikes, one
often
finishes others sentences, or know what others is going to say,
and they feel gut
level attraction for each other which often goes
beyond the physical.
However what if you feel like you’ve connected with a lover from a
past life?
How can we find out more about this relationship and know
whether we should
rekindle it in this lifetime? Have you ever met someone and instantly felt a connection
which goes
deep to your core? You’ve never met them before but there’s a mutual
recognition and attraction that is pulling your souls and bodies
together
but how on earth do you know this mysterious person? Could it be love at first sight,
or have you just met your soulmate
or a lover from a previous life?
The instant recognition and familiarity
suggests that this isn’t your first encounter,
as the gravitational
pull goes deeper than love or lust at first sight.
But how can you find
out more?
Unexplainable Connections
There are a number of unexplainable clues which may hint towards you and your
partner being together in a previous life. Besides that initial instant recognition, physically
you know each
others bodies like you know your own. When you make love,
even for the
first time, the connection your bodies feel goes beyond passion
there’s a rekindling of a much deeper connection, and in some instances,
your soul.
You may also share an affinity to a particular era in time or the
same dreams.
Is there a reason why you both feel an affiliation with
Africa, although neither of you
have ever been? This may seem
coincidental, or like fate is playing its part in your
splendid romance
again, although the same details you both recall of your connection
to
this place are unexplainable.
Another clue is if you and your partner share the same dream. If you
experience this,
before you begin comparing them write down the
details as this may reveal whether you
were together in a past life, and
the dynamics of your relationship.
If We Meet Again – Should We Reconnect?
When we meet past lovers in our present life this isn’t to say we
should have a relationship
with that person again. You may have shared a
destructive or volatile relationship in your
past life, therefore
rekindling may lead you both down the same troublesome path.
It’s important to understand that while there’s an undeniable pull
between you you may
not be soulmates. You partly complete each other’s
souls, however the destructive element
you share means there’ll always
be an unhealthy level of conflict. It’s sometimes difficult to
accept
that the person you’re pulled to like a magnet isn’t for you as why
else would there
be such a strong force pulling you together?
However, there’s many factors which make a relationship work and make
your soul happy.
Chemistry is just one part of that so it’s important
to look at having a healthy relationship
where you feel emotionally
secure, respected and loved.
Getting A Glimpse Into Our Past Life
To gain a greater insight to your past-life relationships, you should
seek professional
spiritual advice through a clairvoyant or a psychic
for a past-life reading or regression.
Through a past-life reading,
a psychic will be to see the relationships you had and
provide more
insight regarding the dynamics of the relationship, or whether you
should
rekindle it if you feel you’ve met that person again.
If you and your partner feel connected from a previous life – it is
good to get a reading
to understand more about that relationship, as
there may be issues you’re carrying
through to this life. For example,
if one of you abandoned the other, it’s possible you may
be carrying insecurities and issues around abandonment with you in your current
relationship.
Another way to gain a greater understanding of your past-life relationships, is through
past-life regression.
Past-life regression therapy is the use of hypnosis or meditation to
relive your memories from your past life. It can also be useful for
finding the main cause
of any emotional problems you’re experiencing in
your current life, or in your relationship
although this technique is
more controversial.
While some therapists believe in their ability to use hypnosis to
induce memories from
your past life, equally there is a fair amount of
skepticism due to charlatans with little
experience using this type of
therapy. However, when seeking any spiritual advice,
you should always search for a recommendation or follow your own intuition when
choosing
someone. Therefore, if you feel you have a strong connection with your lover
which cannot be explained, or perhaps you’ve just met someone who feels
incredibly
familiar to you, it may be that you were together in a
previous life.
Opening the door to this possibility can be an incredibly revealing and
awakening experience. http://www.finerminds.com/love-relationships/past-life-lovers
A vortex generator can work if the car is set up right.
To work the best you might have to make small changes to the intake of
car or have them on top of your car but they can work, Just do not expect
a lot from them. They are not the cure all!
A vortex generator does work with some cars but not as
you think in some cases. For mileage it can work, it depends on what your
cars ECU will do or your type of engine.
In some cases it will block the intake a bit and give the car less air so the
car sees there is a lot of gas that did not get burned to it will turn down the
fuel to keep from being too rich.
It can also increase the vacuum in the intake making a vacuum dispenser effect
to the air and fuel. All of this will give you MPG but is also bad in a way.
If you get the car too lean the engine will get hotter.
Heat is really bad for an engine it can give you piston fatigue.
Or the spinning air can get through the throttle body and intake manifold better.
This will help in getting the air into the engine and will give you the driving faster
with less on the throttle effect.
All of the above. All of the actions is like the action of a hot air intake,
reflecting less pumping losses by having swirling air inter the throttle body.
"The car's ECU compensates by opening the throttle wider to admit more air.
This, in turn, decreases the resistance the engine must overcome to suck air in." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_air_intake
I would not put a Vortex generator on a Turbo car being the pressure and the
blow off valve function and etc. It might block the systems and functions too much!
The electricsupercharger I had on my Subaru was a good vortex generator it worked
and I noticed it worked. While on the other hand the other vortex generators did not work
with the car, so it is best to say some vortex generators work and some do not.
It is up to your car and how you have it set up.
The bore and stroke of the engine is also a factor of how vortex generators work.
The Subaru I had was a bore engine. The bore was bigger than the stroke.
So for the Subaru a vortex generator worked well. On the other hand my
old Mazda protege a stroke engine hated them. It stalled the engine and
one made the engine light come on. So it's about your engine type.
"Big bores promote better breathing. If you compare cylinder head airflow on a
small-bore test fixture and on a large-bore fixture, the bigger bore will almost
invariably improve airflow due to less valve shrouding.
If the goal is maximum performance, the larger bore diameter allows the
installation of larger valves, which further improve power." http://rehermorrison.com/tech-talk-53-big-bore-or-long-stroke-which-is-better
If you have a Natural gas Vehicle a vortex generator might help in getting more
mph out of it.
The best test to see if a vortex works the way you want it too is to take the vortex
OUT of the car and go 5000 rpm or so in 1st gear then do not give the car any gas and
let it coast in gear and notice the time it took to slow down.
Then put IN the vortex and go to 5000 rpm and cut the gas again. If your car
slowed down faster with the vortex than it did with out it, the vortex is too much
of an blockage. If the vortex generator does not work in your car, you could change
your air pipe size.
There are some after market air intakes that are bigger than stock.
This will solve the blockage problem and would make the vortex generator
work even better! A lot of the Vortex makers have a 30 day free trial, if it will not
work then send it back.
Plan ahead get a bigger after market air pipe and a vortex generator to fit it. It is worth it!
In my small Subaru engine, it seemed to work. I squeezed my Tornadoair vortex generator
I had from my old Nissan 240SX in my Subaru it was a bit bigger that the one that is for
the Subaru it but it fit. I found it made a lot of power low to mid, but the top end was
about the same. The top end was the same with or without the vortex generator.
So that told me that it had to do with the Subaru's intake manifold and engine.
The air coming in at the intake manifold at high RPM peaked and the way the car breaths
put a limit on the vortex generator behavior.
All vortex generators are not alike, you want one that looks like it will flow air the best.
It also depends on the car I used the tornadofuelsaver vortex in my Nissan 240sx
I noticed it worked a small bit in the but the top end did not do anything.
It seemed flat. That was with a stock setup. It was blocking the air a little.
Be aware that any vortex generator could slip down in the air pipe, or could slip
sideways blocking the air flow, in which the cylinder pulling in the air will get the air
by sucking in a gasket, and if you place it to close to the PCV valve it might block the
PCV valve, which it would get air by sucking in a gasket some where in the engine,
which also will be bad, so this is why you need to run the vortex generator for a
time then take out the air pipe and look at it. If it looks stable leave it there.
*Note although the "Tornado air" was originally started by
my dads coworker I am not pushing for the "Tornado air"
as a sales rep or showing favor. It's use depends on engine types and etc.
As for putting a vortex generator on a Mazda RX types, I would not
do it. Being how the rotary engine works and it's issues I would not
run it with a vortex. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCgl2uumlI
You would be better getting parts for more support for the car.
Bigger radiator to keep the engines heat away, a additive for the
radiator to cool it off, using a fuel additive to lubricate the engine.
Using 2-stroke oil in the fuel also helps. https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/gas-oil-premix-thread-99636
As in life it's about getting more support. A rotary engine has issues
when going into a long life. So to help it run support is needed.
Mazda Rotary engines pump oil from the engine into the combustion
chamber to lubricate the apex seals. So keeping an eye on the oil is needed!
Needing a good filtering oil filter is needed because of that.
Also a low ash oil is needed being the oil burning it does.
Also making it run better like bridge porting it will help.
Having a better flowing exhaust port will help to get the heat out.
And better air flow helps the engine to breath better making
less stress on the engine pulling in the air.
Also a over lapping port will help to get more fuel with the
lubrication in it more than stock.
