Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Harmonic oscillator repeating of history, not quite the same but predictable to a degree

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99

SOCIOLOGY

science structure of sociology
143 Thermodynamics framework derives all the laws/theories of
Sociology
144 Sociology theory: Sociological Mathematical Induction Analogy
plus Kant's Categorical Imperative =
History of the future
145 under construction

HISTORY because of Superdeterminism, history is physics
146 Course of human history is a unfolding science physics notebook
147 applying math to history of superpower nations
148 the analogy repeat of the set WW1+WW2

Thermodynamics framework derives all the
laws/theories of Sociology

by Archimedes Plutonium

this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Theory of Proximity in 'Political Science'
Date: 28 Mar 1998 22:52:12 GMT
Organization: Proximity principle in Sociology
Lines: 62
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fjuus$gme$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (jstEzDAJ...@rauko.demon.co.uk>
writer writes:

> Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >Britain would rather become another state of the
> >US than to become a state of the EU.
>
> Not this Briton; nor anyone he knows.

--- quoting THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL LAW, Feynman, 1965, p52-53 ---

There is another completely different way of stating this, different
in the philosophy and the qualitative ideas involved. If you do not
like action at a distance I have shown you can get away without it. Now
I want to show you a statement which is philosophically the exact
opposite. In this there is no discussion at all about how the thing
works its way from place to place; the whole is contained in an overall
statement, as follows. When you have a number of particles, and you
want to know how one moves from one place to another, you do it by
inventing a possible motion that gets from one place to the other in a
given amount of time (fig. 13). Say the particle wants to go from X to
Y in an hour, and you want to know by what route it can go. What you do
is to invent various curves, and calculate on each curve a certain
quantity. (I do not want to tell you what the quantity is, but for
those who have heard of these terms the quantity on each route is the
average of the difference between the kinetic and the potential
energy.) If you calculate this quantity for one route, and then for
another, you will get a different number for each route. There is one
route which gives the least possible number, however, and that is the
route that the particle in nature actually takes! We are now describing
the actual motion, the ellipse, by saying something about the whole
curve. We have lost the idea of causality, that the particle feels the
pull and moves in accordance with it. Instead of that, in some grand
fashion it smells all the curves, all the possibilities, and decides
which one to take (by choosing that for which our quantity is least).
This is an example of the wide range of beautiful ways of describing
nature. When people say that nature must have causality, you can use
Newton's law, or if they say that nature must be stated in terms of a
minimum principle, you talk about it this last way; or if they insist
that nature must have a local field - sure, you can do that. The
question is: which one is right? If these various alternatives are not
exactly equivalent mathematically, if for certain ones there will be
different consequences than for others, then all we have to do is to
experiment to find out which way nature actually chooses to do it.
--- end quoting THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL LAW, Feynman, 1965 ---

Thinking about which way Canada may go with regards to her resources of
uranium, whether towards an EU or a US. And which way Australia will
go.

And which way Britain will go, whether to be a EU member or a 51st
state of the US. These thoughts have brought me to a new sociology or
political science principle. It is not a theory or model but a
principle, or major factor or variable inside a theory. It is a
variable such as 'land mass' is a variable.

And the idea is basically this. That Britain, for all the faults she
finds with the EU will go with the EU rather than the US, because of
the factor of proximity. And Canada will go with the US due to
proximity. And Australia, no matter how hard EU or US tries to join
with Australia, its geography is linked by proximity to Asia and will
eventually go with Asia.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Theory of Proximity in 'Political Science'
Date: 29 Mar 1998 02:53:12 GMT
Organization: Proximity Variable
Lines: 47
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fkd2o$i92$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

It is not a principle or theory. It is a major component of a theory.
The theory of superpowerdom has variables. One important variable is
landmass. And if all other factors are equal, the nation with the
largest landmass becomes the superpower.

So what is this Proximity Variable? Stated in simple terms it is this:
if all other factors are equal, political action favors those nearby
than far-away.

Give some examples. Britain when given a choice of joining EU or as
51st state of the US would join EU regardless of how much animosity
still exists between Britain, France and Germany over past wars and
history. It is simply because Britain is closer in distance to France
and Germany that she will join them.

This proximity variable may appear to be a psychology rule where we
trust someone who we have had long experience with, even though it was
choppy, rather than trust a complete stranger.

In both sociology and psychology, there is an energy investment by
nations and by individuals. And it seems to be summed up in Feynman's
talk of least action pathway. That given a choice, a nation or
individual usually (not always) goes with the closer proximity. The
less energy spent in the longer distance.

Another example: The behavior of China during the Vietnam war. And
although China was Vietnam's traditional enemy, here in the case of
France and the US, China turned to help Vietnam.

So which way would Australia go if she had to decide between Europe,
US, or Asia? Well her proximity is Asia and so eventually she will side
with Asia.

Proximity variable is important in political science for it is the
mechanism of alliances, allies, entangling alliances. Proximity is in
sociology and psychology but it is an energy analysis that I view this
variable. It is not as clearly defined as is the 'landmass variable' in
political science.

One form of measurement of the Proximity variable is the amount of
economic trade two nations have between themselves.

----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Theory of Proximity in 'Political Science'
Date: 30 Mar 1998 09:06:46 GMT
Organization: Thermodynamics analogy to sociology
Lines: 143
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fnnb6$jh9$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6fkd2o$i92$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>
> One form of measurement of the Proximity variable is the amount of
> economic trade two nations have between themselves.

Now the Direction I am headed for in this sociology science and
political science before I move on to another science and then come
back.

I find it best in science to not spend too much time on one. Go with
the flow of my interests and come back. This is best because it is
intensity which makes for new discovery. If I stay too long with one
science, it stagnates. I follow my interests and my interests here are
waning. I did find a new theory for sociology, and this is sociology's
first science theory ever. So I am proud of that achievement. But let
me outline what I have in mind and if I can push them further I will
stay on sociology, if not I will move along.

Fusion Barrier Law has captured most of my interest for the past
years of 1997-1998.

Direction of my Sociology, Political Science musings.

I want to give Sociology and Political Science theories for which
these two sciences can partake science experimentation as the other
hard core sciences are able to do.

I have the idea, a good idea that the Laws of Thermodynamics can be
rewritten for the science of sociology and political science which is a
subset of sociology.

Thus, taking the 4 laws of thermodynamics

1) quantity temperature exists
2) conservation of energy
3) dispersal of energy (entropy)
4) absolute zero temperature cannot be reached

And the science of thermodynamics to a degree is a complete and
consistent science.

And what I had shot for a few months ago was to derive the analogous
sociology theories and principles using Thermodynamics as the guide.

It is obvious that the human body is a thermodynamic unit and that
many bodies is a more complex thermodynamics and all humans another
more complex thermodynamics but that we can boil-down the science of
sociology and its subset political science within a Thermodynamics
framework.

I have made more progress than I expected to make. For I have
discovered the analog of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for sociology.
It is my Superdeterminism-History-Analogy theory, but I am going to
hate to call it the 2nd law of Sociology.

The 2nd law in physics is a dispersal concept or a direction concept,
for it tells the direction of time or events.

My Superdeterminism History is also a theory that tells of a
direction of events.

But I have not made much progress with the other Thermodynamics laws
for Sociology. And I do not know if I will come back later or try to
make progress now. I go with interests.

For the First Law that temperature exists, I have not yet found the
satisfactory "quantity" or quantization. I have toyed with the idea
that for sociology it is DNA genetics and its relationship to the
internal parts of Light waves or photons.

Keep in mind that living systems sciences are very much more complex
and difficult than is the physical sciences. And due to this enormously
more complexity is the reason thermodynamics had been well established
last century but sociology has made little progress.

For the Second Law above of Conservation of Energy. That is an easier
one to tackle. But it is so long and (boring). One can use the
Schrodinger equation and calculate things about a thorium atom but the
long calculations makes it a onerous project.

For Sociology one can write a long equation of

energy required to keep 1 human alive multiplied by all the humans
alive
factor in what nationality each of those humans belongs, add all terms
of economic statistics of each of those nations, add terms of birth
rate, death rate, migration rates, work hours of nation, productivity,
etc etc.

Of course the analogous Sociology law for Conservation is not a
conservation equation where one side equals another side. And thus, I
am thinking of making progress on this

The Third Law that of the 2nd law of thermodynamics the entropy
principle is my new theory which I am proud of.

The Fourth Law that of Absolute Zero temperature exists and cannot be
reached. Does it truly exist if it is impossible to reach? Well yes,
like in mathematics the empty set exists even though it is empty. And
no universe at all would be 0 Kelvin.
To make progress on this law I will have to connect the First law for
they are related. So I have to intertwine the First with this Fourth to
make progress. I have only run some thoughts through my head on this.
Cannot say much progress. But I do not know when I will return to this
subject. The thoughts I have run go along the lines that if DNA is the
quantity of First, then for the Fourth it would have something to do
with life's distant future. Something on the lines of the nature
nurture issue, a biology barrier where physics takes over. That society
has a upper limit to organization and anything less than this upper
limit is not as good. Sort of like the optimal strategy of chess or
tic-tac-toe. If you play less than the optimal strategy, you stand the
chance of losing.

As you can see, the analogous Sociology Laws are not a direct
replacement of the physical thermodynamics laws. But the framework is
what I use. And it is consistency plus its predictive powers that will
tell me if I am on the correct path.

And the Variable of Proximity must include the energy of languages,
racial cultures, war, hatred, racism, trade, etc. The Variable
Landmass has embodied within it that of energy of resources and land
for food and other energy quantities. The Variable Proximity must
include within itself the energy of psychology of language,
foreign-ness, culture, etc. For example, to say we like someone is to
say that they provide us with positive energy or save us energy. To say
that we hate someone is to say that they subtract energy from us or
require us to lose energy to deal with them.

So in the example of Britain joining EU or the US as the 51st state.
Britain will lose energy in the foreign languages other than English
but if she joined the US there is no loss of language energy. But the
economic trade energy for EU is to Britains favor for the centuries of
trade. That trade energy is greater in a quantity of energy than the
energy lost to foreign language. And one can analyze the past
animosities etc.

The Variable of Proximity is simply stated as that a person or nation
will tend to act in the direction for which the least amount of energy
is lost or spent by that person or nation. And it is found in both
psychology as well as sociology in which you can say it is the
collective psychology of the nation.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: The complete laws of sociology, using thermodynamics
Date: 31 Mar 1998 09:56:04 GMT
Organization: Thermodynamics laws as the framework for all
Sociology laws
Lines: 92
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fqejk$9m5$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6fnnb6$jh9$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> Thus, taking the 4 laws of thermodynamics
>
> 1) quantity temperature exists
> 2) conservation of energy
> 3) dispersal of energy (entropy)
> 4) absolute zero temperature cannot be reached
>
> And the science of thermodynamics to a degree is a complete and
> consistent science.
>
> And what I had shot for a few months ago was to derive the analogous
> sociology theories and principles using Thermodynamics as the guide.

Framework is a better word than guide.

I did make a-lot of progress. I believe my
Superdeterminism-History-Analogy theory is the sociology equivalent to
the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law).

I am having trouble finding the proper parameter for temperature of
the 1st law and the 4th law of the above four laws of thermodynamics.

I could say that for sociology, it is DNA that is the temperature for
that science. But then I need perfect DNA as zero Kelvin is perfect
temperature in a vacuos case. Zero Kelvin, by the way is a complete
vacuum of the universe. No atoms at all and hence no temperature.

So what is perfect DNA? It is light wave or photons. The inside of a
photon if examined is DNA in motion and when it comes to rest is
actualized DNA and if the photon has a-lot of energy, this extra energy
could put meat on the bones of DNA and a spontaneous lifeform is
created. Cosmic rays of energies of 10^20 MeV when come to rest could
transform into an entire blue green algae or even an insect.

Trouble with making DNA the temperature of thermodynamics is that it
will be many centuries before science starts to explore this.

I need something here and now.

So today , I have the idea of making something sociological as the
sociology parameter of temperature of thermodynamics.

And I am not concerned over the details of the huge number of
sociology factors. You cannot make much progress that way.

So what I am taking as the temperature parameter of sociology is
nucleosynthesis.

We have a rather accurate history of the making of isotopes.

In superdeterminism, all things have a purpose. And if God can
achieve its future goal by having Nonsocial life rather than social
life. God would have not bothered with social life. So what does Social
life have over nonsocial behavior life? Well, to build things larger
than the individual or just two or a small number is impossible. To
build large things requires social behavior.

In an Atom Totality the making of new atoms would be high on the list
of God's future goals since god is an atom.

Thus, instead of microsociology analysis (like in economics,
microeconomics of why a tiny minutae of economics causes this or
affects that), by making Nucleosynthesis as the temperature I can
bypass all the micro-sociology and aim for the big parts of sociology.

Make Nucleosynthesis as the main feature of sociology and the reason
for all social actions and events. Thus we can say that tomorrow all
human events, all human actions are either directly or indirectly for
the purpose of making say 40 atoms of element 97, 60 isotopes of
element 98 etc.

Then tabulate in history the making of superheavy elements and look
for patterns.

By making Nucleosynthesis as the temperature of sociology, I bypass
all the minutae transactions of human history, but look for the
connections of history as it relates to what history is all about. What
we see as nations created, wars, peace, etc, God sees this as only the
stirring around for the creation of newer superheavy elements in an
exact spot and time. The Second World War had to be in order that Fermi
and a lot of physicists would end up in the US in order that superheavy
elements would be created new at certain sites in the US at a
particular time.

Trouble with making Nucleosynthesis as the temperature is that the
past history is so short on this parameter but it can help in future
predictive power. The best thing about Nucleosynthesis as the
temperature parameter is that it can bypass and overlook all the
minutae, but the minutae is factored in.

----------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The complete laws of sociology, using thermodynamics
Date: 31 Mar 1998 21:06:42 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 108
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6frlt2$e34$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

Sociology as a science proper, has to have psychology and economics as
a subset.

So, what parameter I chose for the First and Fourth laws of
thermodynamics is all very important. Temperature is the parameter of
thermodynamics.

And of all the science theories, Thermodynamics is the best choice
because it is a well-defined and consistent set of axioms. And
Thermodynamics is macro quantum physics.

Quantum Physics is the supreme state of knowledge and wisdom of the
entire world. It contains the heart and soul of all knowledge. It
contains the first science theory that is still true to this day. The
Democritus Atomic theory.

I could have taken the axioms of Quantum Mechanics and used that as
the Framework for Sociology theories. But QM deals with micro as well
as macro. Therrmodynamics is better suited for the *Framework* to
discover all the laws of Sociology.

Economics as a science is a subset of Sociology. And so also is
Psychology.

I do not know how much more time I will devote to this thread. As I
say, science ought be attacked with intensity and when the intensity
wanes, go on or back to another science of interest. This makes sense
in my psychology theory of Brain Locuses theory that all thoughts are
shot from the Nucleus protons and other electrons of 231Pu, thus those
photons into our antennae telescopes of a mind or brain physiology
jumps around and seldom stays fixed upon on subject.

Thus, it is best for the creative mind to attack something intensely
and move on to something else and come back to that later.

And my interests in Sociology is waning.

But why would God (231Pu) create intelligent life as a social animal?
Here the answer would have to have some Least Action such as what
Feynman talked about, that of all the paths Nature can pick from, she
picks the Least Energy path.

And here thermodynamics comes in again and my Revision of the 2nd Law
of thermodynamics. See my website for details. Basically my Revision of
the 2nd Law is like Maxwell's revision of Ampere where Maxwell added an
extra term. The 2nd law is missing a term.

Imagine a pure block of uranium of one and only one isotope of
uranium. The block can have 10^19 atoms of this one and only one type
of uranium isotope. After a give time call it T_1 this block of pure
isotope will have some lead atoms but also it will have a few , a tiny
few amount of plutonium atoms found within that former pure block. This
few number of plutonium atoms is the new term that needs be added to
the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy increases for the most part, but
there exists a tiny bit of growth in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So, my desire to make the parameter of Sociology that of
Nucleosynthesis (as the temperature parameter) is a good idea. One can
consider that the Nucleosynthesis of new atoms in the universe that was
not there before is the purpose of life itself.

So why would God make intelligent life as a social animal and not a
Non-social animal? The answer would have to be along the lines that for
every future step of progress there needs be a-lot of regress. Progress
can not be a straight line upwards. It needs resistance and backslide
and stagnation. Most of radioactivity is decay, most uranium goes into
lead, but a few of it goes into plutonium in radioactive-growth.

Thus, the majority of human minds are decay and backward slide with a
few minds of inspiration. Most actions are indirectly connected to the
making of a new nucleosynthesized atom whereas and only a few go to
making the new atom. Thus, all the economics, all the psychology and
all of this is sociology that goes on in the world each and every day
is for the pinnacle endresult of creating a new atom that never existed
in the world before, and all the other stuff that goes on is the base
of that mountain for the ceation of that new atom.

For the layman to understand me, we eat cheeseburgers and do manual
physical labor, we get payed and go home and raise a family and go
through life, all of which God has us do, forces us to do, all not for
the fact of doing these things, but for the fact of its end result that
this is all infrastructure and base for the scientists to make new
atoms.

Most of my writings are above and beyond the heads of my generation.
I write for future readers who will see what I am saying clearly.
No-one but me, can take the science of Thermodynamics and derive out of
it the entire science of Sociology, Economics, Psychology.

No-one but me can understand that you can take the science of
thermodynamics and use that Framework, to build all of Sociology for
sociology is a subset of the science of thermodynamics. And no-one but
myself can see that the parameter of temperature is replaceable with a
parameter such as DNA or Nucleosynthesis.

I may be able to start making some predictions about the future of
humanity. If not this round on this thread, then perhaps by the next
round on this subject.

----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The complete laws of sociology, using thermodynamics
Date: 31 Mar 1998 21:12:51 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 18
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6frm8k$e34$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6frlt2$e34$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> So why would God make intelligent life as a social animal and not a
> Non-social animal?

God (231Pu) has to make the new elements within a time constraint. God
cannot make Element 114 today and 115 tomorrow. Time has to be
parcelled out by God such that time is the making of new atoms and the
decay of other atoms.

Thus, God made intelligent life a social being because the factor of
time can be appropriately parcelled out. The concept perfect is here.
So that God could parcel out time perfectly.

Thus, social wars, hatred, fighting , benevolence, love, creativity,
genius, all of these social things are a tug of war back and forth so
that God can have time and the creation of new atoms -- done perfectly.

--------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The complete laws of sociology, using thermodynamics
Date: 2 Apr 1998 07:07:27 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 83
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fvdff$3ia$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (01bd5dab$2e171f60$023863c3@default>
"Voxol" writes:

> If so, I would say Friction is a better anology to Temperature. When People
> have a lot of friction they expand, progress, and move to places with
> friction deficiency.

The question I posed was why Sociology at all. If God were creating
the universe and intelligent life, why not create intelligent life that
is Non-social. We see the bees, ants and other insects as social
creatures as well as humans.

The answer I come up with is that Sociology is like Thermodynamics,
based upon a large number of particles for its parameters. The kinetic
energy of a large number of atoms/molecules is temperature.

So why not have intelligent life Non-social creatures. And if we had
a roll-call of all the intelligent life in the universe, could we
predict at this time whether any Non-social intelligent life exists? Is
there any intelligent life more advanced than humans that is
Non-social?

And we can give an answer to that question and make a prediction with
the theories I have given. The answer is no, it is impossible for
intelligent life to be less than a social creature.

The Brain Locuses theory that all thoughts come from the nucleus of
231Pu, plus the Superdeterminism theory that we are headed in the
future to some heaven-endpoint.

You could say that the Descartes philosophy of Descartes closet,
where you go into a closet and sit there and think and come out with
the answers to the universe. That is impossible.

Science is a social product. And the reason that science has to be
this social product is because the body of knowledge that is science is
tantamount to time itself.

Picture a solitary intelligent life form that is say Beetle life (for
lack of a name) on planet X. These Beetle lifes are Nonsocial
creatures. So the Nucleus of 231Pu shoots Quantum Mechanics into the
head of Beetle life person 2001. How to shoot it into the next
generations?

You see, sociology offers a continuity of energy. And sociology
offers this continuity by being able to go forwards and backwards. Same
as radioactivity can decay from uranium down to lead but it can also
grow from uranium by double beta decay into plutonium. Both forwards
and backwards.

Hence the above is a energy picture proof of the fact that all
intelligent life forms of the universe must be organized as a social
creature. Intelligence is time itself and it is not a straigh upwards
but it is 2 steps forward and 1 step backwards.

What you call friction, I call radioactive decay, but there always
exists that radioactive growth.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics , like Amperes Law has a missing term.
It misses radioactive growth. Entropy is the radioactive decay.

When I return to this subject, I must try to link the Brain Locuses
theory to that of sociology. And link it with a science that is given
little attention now but is vastly important. It is the idea of a radio
antennae interference. How crystal clear can one make a dish antennae?
And if we had a factory that was purely automated what would be the
smallest average of antennae defects-- this number may agree with
mental illness in human population.

And I should be able to take the entire History of Physics and assign
some *measure of progress*, and get a mathematical curve. And match
that curve precisely with a mathematical curve of *measure of progress*
with the nucleosynthesis of new elements from 1940 to 1980. No-one had
espoused this idea until I appeared in 1990. So make the study from
1940 to 1980 or you could go up to the year 1990 if you chose to.
Accurate enough records of new atom creation has been kept by the
scientists of this field.

What I am proposing above, and looking for more examples, is that I
am matching physical science with history and sociology. God's view of
the universe, sees only atoms in motion. We, who are far far less than
god sees these things such as people, emotions, desires, feelings etc
of the whole sociological gamut

--------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The complete laws of sociology, using thermodynamics
Date: 3 Apr 1998 23:50:08 GMT
Organization: Thermodynamics as the framework of Sociology
Lines: 60
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6g3sjg$989$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (3524B0...@egypt.net>
writer writes:

> As a product of the civilization that has been built, there is a
> selective application of various functions within it, a division of
> labor and activities in order to increase the efficiency among its
> members of various things that it does. The division of labor may
> conversely be said to be the product of the capabilities that are
> produced by civilization.

You do not understand the direction I am going. But it is not your
fault that you are not a scientist. I mean a real scientist, one who
has already contributed to "real science" as compared to those that are
educated in science-- the many professors of science.

My direction is to overlay the science of sociology with a hard core
science and the best overlay to provide a framework is thermodynamics.

And I started this thread with Feynman's Least Action Principle. Now
I do not expect any sociologist or professor of any of the soft
sciences to understand physics, Least Action, Thermodynamics or even
science well enough. Like in the case of the writer above who does not
understand real science nor my direction that I am going into.

I wrote earlier that the trouble with making Nucleosynthesis the
temperature of thermodynamics is that we have only a short history on
nucleosynthesis, in fact we have only the 20th century.

But, that Nucleosynthesis parameter replacing temperature is a very
good gauge, or measuring rod for it is accurate. I can find out when
the first Element 104 was made by humanity.

Now, here is an important question. Will Advanced Civilization ever
be replaced by thinking machines such as computers? Will Terminator
movies ever be a reality?

I believe I can answer that using the above Nucleosynthesis
parameter, and my Superdeterminism-History-Analogy theory, plus energy
laws such as Feynman's Least Action Principle.

To be able to answer whether brains will ever be replaced by
computers, requires a comparison of the energy determinants for social
animals compared to nonsocial animals and of course, computers are not
social

Thus, I have to analyze Sociology with energy flows

I believe I can predict by science whether the advanced civilization
of the future will ever be replaced by machines. And putting together
those ideas above, my instinct tells me at this time that it is
impossible for machines to replace biological intelligence. So far that
is only instinct and not the better understanding of that of Intuition.

Before I can be more assured that bio brains can never be surpassed
with machine type intelligence, I must have the foundations of
Sociology clear. That is why I have to start with first steps and ask
why is advanced life sociological. Is there a Nonsociological advanced
life? What is the energy differences between nonsocial lifeforms such
as beetles compared to the social lifeforms of bees?
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.history
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics as the framework for sociology and biology
Date: 24 Apr 1998 22:21:36 GMT
Organization: Thermodynamics as the framework of sociology and biology
Lines: 72
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6hr39g$6ca$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

--- quote old post ---
Here's a reply from the country you're trying to woo. Ok, so I'm Welsh
and you didn't mention Wales, but I won't hold it against you.

On 12 Apr 1998 05:33:00 GMT, Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

> Why does a country seek to be the superpower? The answer is as basic
>as human nature. We strive to be the best.

Alternatively the most secure position is to be on top...
--- end quote old post ---

Science study of sociology would have to elaborate on why in Nature
that superpowerdom in history amoung nations occurs and is required. I
did not mention this useful analogy method while discussing
superpowerdom. Oh, well, better late than never.

In the scientific defining of superpowerdom and in the mechanism
itself of superpowerdom (as a science) it is instructive to use an
idealization. Here I am guided by chemistry in that the idealization
method helps to understand the gas laws. We idealize particles in
physics and gases in chemistry. We idealize molecules with models,
knowing that it is only a gross first approximation of the real
molecule. We idealize and combine that with the art of generalizing.
This practice is useful in helping to discover the underlying science.

For the concept of Superpowerdom, to try to better define it and to
understand it, that by using a generalized-idealization of
superpowerdom, we can make progress.

Here I am thinking that if we take superpowerdom and
idealize-generalize it into one person. Thus, looking at the globe of
nations of the world and representing each nation as a single person.
Even the superpower nation. This idealization-generalization upwards is
useful in that it can go a long ways in analysis.

So, a superpowerdom as one strongest person among many other persons.
Why does Nature need one stronger person over the other persons? Is
there some efficiency factor in the laws of thermodynamics and the
physics of energy flows that says that one has to be larger , or
superior, or stronger, (concept of greater than) in a collection or
things? I suppose the laws of thermodynamics yields this in the form of
this--

Our present universe could not exist if it were only hydrogen atoms.
That is, if all atoms were the same and of one type. It is expressed
within the laws of thermodynamics that if our present day universe were
all of one type of atom, then the universe would not presently exist
for you could not have our present day laws of thermodynamics.

Reapplying that to sociology of nations, it is impossible to have the
world nations be the same and that this further goes on to imply that
one of the nations most be more powerful than any other individual
nation, ie, one superpowerdom nation exists at any one time of
civilized history.

Further using that idealization generalization of a nation being a
person. A person has a conscious and a nation has a collective
conscience. A person has a future momentum and direction and so too
does a nation. So, this idealization-generalization art is a valuable
tool in analyzing the concept of superpowerdom. Sometime in the future
when I come back to this study I may elaborate more but I wanted to
post this to keep it filed for memory and future use.

In science, it is often useful to make idealization-generalizations
to make progress in that science

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.physics
Subject: Generalizing-up in Sociology; Re: Statehood vying geo-politics
Date: 22 May 1998 04:47:08 GMT
Organization: Thermodynamics is the framework of sociology
Lines: 46
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <6k300c$33o$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: <6jlj3e$s0n$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<6jredf$uuu$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<6ju27n$931$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<6k0p0m$qrc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiewit-pub-bp-25.dartmouth.edu
X-Newsreader: InterNews 2....@kiewit-pub-bp-25.dartmouth.edu[U]
XDisclaimer: User not authenticated
Xref: dartvax.dartmouth.edu soc.history:103585 sci.physics:323158

### IN BEGIN BODY ###
In article <6k0p0m$qrc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> Love -- the joining of two separate pieces into one in order for a
> future event to happen for which the separate pieces alone could not
> accomplish.
>
> Hate -- the separation into pieces of a larger piece.

I have made up my mind on which files to storage this-- in the
sociology files. The reason I started this science defining of "love"
and "hate" is because I need some experimental verification that the
next geo-politics will be statehood vying. I need a concept that can be
observed, of which quantifiable data can be got, that would support or
deny the claim that statehood vying is the next major geo-politics.
Some past geopolitics were capitalism, colonialism, feudalism (Middle
Ages), mercantilism (Roman empire), city-statehoods (Greek empire).

I need some quantifiable measurable concept that would lend support
to the claim that Statehood Vying is the next major world geopolitics
and that which will clarify and put into perspective the *past human
history geopolitics*. So, I am exploring two concepts.

(1) Generalizing-Up in Sociology

(2) Geopolitics Mechanism of Progression with "love" as a subcategory

Generalizing-up in Sociology is easy to explain. Sociology is a
difficult subject because it involves so many people with varying
diverse activities. Thus, one generalizes-up by saying that an entire
nation is but one person with a single overall mood, habit,
subconscious, conscious etc. In the hard sciences of chemistry, or
thermodynamics, the tool of generalizing up is commonly employed. For
example, pressure, or temperature of a container is the overall motion
of its individual particles. Generalizing-up in sociology is the tool
of taking an entire nation as one person. This Generalizing-up is
allowed in Atom Totality theory because, well, the entire observable
universe is merely a small part of the last six electrons-- the 5f6.
And possibly in every uranium atom held in one's hand there exists life
inside of its last electrons. Today in 1998, most humans have trouble
in accepting the fact that Mars had ancient life and probably still has
life today, let alone the acknowledgement or acceptance that every atom
of uranium and plutonium has some lifeforms inside of it. So in an Atom
Totality, generalizing-up and generalizing-down are common practice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Statehood Vying is the 21st century geopolitics
Date: 22 May 1998 05:26:17 GMT
Organization: History is physics
Lines: 111
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6k329p$12n$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6k0p0m$qrc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

So let me quote some science definitions of catalysts. What I am going
to contend is that a nation such as the US and the future EU can be
treated as one person each. This is the science tool of
Generalizing-Up.

And I am going to define love and hate in terms of science. I am
doing this in order to get a handle on some measurements and
quantifiables for sociology.

--- quoting in parts CHEMISTRY: The Central Science, 1985, Brown &
LeMay ---

A catalyst is a substance that acts to change the speed of a chemical
reaction without itself undergoing a permanent chemical change in the
process. Nearly all catalysts increase reaction rates. Catalysts are
very common; most reactions occurring in the human body, the
atmosphere, the oceans, or in industrial chemical processes are
affected by catalysts.
...
The oxidation of sugar in the biochemical system has been greatly
speeded up by the presence of one or more catalysts. These biochemical
catalysts are enzymes, protein molecules that act to catalyze specific
biochemical reactions.
...
As a general rule, a catalyst lowers the overall activation energy
for chemical reaction.
--- end quoting in parts CHEMISTRY: The Central Science, 1985 ---

--- quoting in parts CHEMISTRY: Science of Change, 1990, Oxtoby &
Nachtrieb & Freeman ---

A catalyst is a substance that takes part in a chemical reaction,
speeds it up, but itself undergoes no permanent chemical change.
Catalysts therefore do not appear in overall balanced chemical
equations, but their presence very much affects rate expressions,
modifying and speeding existing pathways or, more commonly, providing
completely new paths by which a reaction can occur. Catalysts exert
significant effects on reaction rates even when they are present in
very small amounts.
--- end quoting in parts CHEMISTRY: Science of Change, 1990 ---

Now, it is obvious that humans are entities but it seems as though
'love' or 'hate' are not entities but rather qualities. Not quantities.
But, in chemistry, a catalyst is an entity that is readily observable
and quantifiable.

Can I get 'love' and 'hate' as an entity? I think I can in the Atom
Totality theory, and here is where I need the Generalizing-Up and the
psychology theory of Atom Totality-- the Brain Locuses theory that all
thoughts were ordered up from the Nucleus of 231Pu and a brain is
merely a radio receiver of these nuclei-photon-messages shot into our
atom-brain-loci.

Love would then be the entity of harmonious photons. Photons would be
the catalysts. Constructive photon waves would be the love entities.
Destructive wave interference of photons would be the hate catalysts.

At any particular time period on Earth, human history has future
goals that need to be done. In order to do some of these goals, nations
need to 'join' in love. Britain needed to join with Scotland and
Ireland in order to become the superpowerdom in bygone centuries. Roman
empire needed to join with surrounding territories to trade its gift of
engineering for mercantilism.

At the eve of the 21st century what is at the threshold for humanity
to do in the immediate future? The answer is to move into outer space--
Solar System and to harvest the uranium and to colonize the other
planets with humans. That work schedule requires larger nations than
present. Thus, the US needs to grow and EU needs to grow. This requires
in the least form of energy-- Statehood Vying. A US that has Japan and
Canada and Australia as one nation can well afford to harvest the solar
system. The US at present size is too small.

So, 'love' is merely a physical catalyst that joins two pieces
together and permits a future action or materialization. In this case,
Solar System exploration in the 21st century. Now, if the US does not
grow then the EU will until it is capable of doing this Solar System
harvesting. If the US falls asleep for the next 100 years, then the EU
will encompass most of Europe plus Canada plus Australia and perhaps
even Japan and the big plus-- Russia. Most of the civilized modern
industrial world will be embodied in one entity EU and it will be so
large that it will explore and colonize Space.

Now, how to measure and quantify the photons of a nation? Not easy,
but there are harbingers of photon measurement. Here I mean things such
as "trends", "pacesetters", and "signs". The Eurodollar is such a set
action of love, of joining nations of Europe into one. But better yet,
is a indicator, or gauge. And that gauge relies on the future
accomplishment that is wanted. In this case it is the exploration and
harvesting and colonizing of Space. Can a US at present do such a
thing? I suspect one can give a rough calculation of the economics
involved, then once that is guess-estimated, one can then calculate the
US economics- GNP and see if it can tolerate such a future expense
outlay? If not, one can calculate what other countries need be added to
the US in order to meet these future demands.

Humanity before the Atom Totality theory thought that history is open
and that it is to be made and that it has a 360 degree choices. With
the Atom Totality, history is fated and is science and like a ball
rolling down an inclined plane its future movement is predictable,
measurable, and obeys physics law. History is physics.

Sociology theory: Sociological Mathematical
Induction Analogy plus Kant's Categorical
Imperative = History of the future

by Archimedes Plutonium

this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,soc.history.science,soc.history,sci.math
Subject: Sociology theory: Sociological Mathematical Induction Analogy
== History at End of Time
Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:01:36 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College: sociology new idea-theory
Lines: 181
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6crdtg$bbh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6cnlea$ua7$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> I use the sharp tool of *analogy* often and a-lot in my thinking and
> research. I believe analogy is very important in politics. I believe
> that the single most important influence that caused the USA to get
> into Vietnam was the Korean War.

Well, this may well be my masterpiece for sociology.

Shame that sci hierarchy does not have sci.sociology, nor
sci.political.science for it surely needs them.

Unlike my other posts I am going to directly go to the heart, lunge
terribly fast to the heart of this post.

Mathematical Induction, stated crudely is that given true for case 1,
say case 2 , then assume true for the generalized far future case of N,
then if you can show true for case N+1, you have in fact shown your
proposition to be true for all the Finite Integers (leaving aside that
I say Finite Integers are just an algorithm such as Newtonian Mechanics
is an algorithm compared to Quantum Mechanics)

Now I have to bring in Superdeterminism and the Atom Totality and
that this in a way implies that the distant future will go from our
present Plutonium Atom Totality to the next Atom Totality of probably
element 96. This is like a little-big-bang way way far in the future,
perhaps 5 billion years from now. But just before it happens what will
all the civilizations that are present, all the intelligent life living
what will those beings be like and think and do?

Probably everyone reading this will be disturbed, nay shocked, or
silly putty headed about this. This is a new idea. And perhaps the most
important theory of sociology and the soft sciences such as psychology,
history, archeology, etc.

When the world goes into the next Atom Totality of Element 96, is a
break in the world. This breakpoint or juncture can be viewed as the
last day of reckoning. Judgement Day for whatever life exists then.
Heaven so to speak for that life that exists when the next Atom
Totality is ushered in.

But that judgement day will have made a paradise, Heaven of whatever
life is there at judgement day.

History, sociology follows laws just as planets follow Celestial
Mechanics.

Mathematical Induction is not true for Natural Numbers of mathematics
(but it is true for a subclass of the Real Numbers, the Whole Reals)
just as Newtonian Mechanics is not true for physics. But Mathematical
Induction is a good algorithm for Sociology and History.

Darwin Evolution is also a fake theory and merely an algorithm for
biology. Superdeterminism of Bell Inequality of Quantum Mechanics is
the true theory for biology.

Now, let me try to show what this Sociological Mathematical Induction
is.

Suppose we were God and can see human history both forwards and
backwards. We will see the entire human history in the time of a
breathe. We will see the end of humanity should it end at the next
little-big-bang. And we will see all the past history of humanity, all
of its wars, its human actions, all of it.
In physics we do this supposing with what is called a Maxwell Demon
instead of God.

With a god-view of history we would see human history like a view of
physics particles such as the atoms or molecules of earth. That is a
God-view of human history.

Now let us take all of human history to date. Are there patterns,
patterns in human history such as patterns in physics or chemistry or
geology or biology?

The answer is yes. Using Superdeterminism, using Atom Totality

and now using Mathematical Induction

I can input for the first time a theory for Sociology and the subject
History.

This new theory is not really a law of science or real theory of
science.

It is an Algorithm but an algorithm as good as Darwin Evolution is an
algorithm for biology.

I can not picture or imagine what this Judgement Day is like. Just as I
cannot imagine very far out with numbers say the numbers before you
reach p-adic integer of say ......1111111111111111

I will call this Judgement Day -- the day the Plutonium Atom Totality
big-bangs into Element 96 Atom Totality --- I will call this day Heaven
since I cannot imagine or envision this Heaven day.

But I can make remarks about Heaven Day. It will be a time in which
all intelligent life will have made the world a paradise, no wars no
fighting no hate no theivery, no cheating no liars, no rascism, no
killing no hunger

Let me give some examples of past history that may make it clearer
what I am on about.

As we go back in history further and further we find more base and
banality and evil. As we go forward in human history we find humanity
more and more civilized.

In mathematical induction is a progressive step same as the
progressively better is human civilization.

Now let me give a specific example. If the Korean War had never
happened, would the Vietnam War for the USA have ever happened?
Probably not. You see, North Korea was seen as communists invading
South Korea and Vietnam was seen as North Vietnam communists taking
over (supposedly democratic) South Vietnam.

What I am saying is that the "scientific movement of human history"
of the Korean War then the Vietnam War is a window into the science of
sociology.

Spectral Lines of Balmer, Rydberg etc was a window into quantum
physics.

The step in human history of Korean War to the Vietnam War is a
window into the science of sociology and it is like a step of N to N+1
of Mathematical Induction.

The US Civil War of the 1860s taught USA and all the world that
slavery is a past evil and banality that improves the future history of
human history. To be sure, slavery and rascism still exists on Earth
but each of these conflicts is a further step but to a better future.

You can think of the number N such as say 487667632849324854 and if
you add 1 to that number it is a number larger. For math it is larger,
but for human history time it is a better place on Earth. Past history
makes future human existence a better place to live. History is the
eventual arrival of Heaven of Judgement Day of the universe we live in.

Now then, this is not a theory but an algorithm but still it should
be predictive if it has any truth or pragmatic value to it. Can this
new Sociology theory and I call it

Sociological-Mathematical-Induction-Analogy predict anything? I feel
it can and when this new idea of mine is further exploited and added
onto it could be the most important and central idea or thesis of
political science courses and sociology courses and even history.

The reference quoted above directly lead me to this new idea
(theory). And in that previous post I had asked where in past history
was there an empire such as the Roman Empire of Ancient times or the
British Empire or the French Empire or Russian Empire or Chinese Empire
or Japanese Empire.

Where in all of human history is there a close (or closest) analogy
to the present situation of the USA and other countries considering of
going into Iraq after Saddam Hussein?

If this idea of mine of Sociological Mathematical Induction Analogy
has any predictive force to it would point out a analogous situation
(contain elements of similarity) in past history that will offer a good
answer as to the proper course of action to be taken in the case of
Iraq.

Is there some similar situation in the past history of where a
superpower had a sort of Iraq pestering? And what action they took back
then?

If there is, we should use that as the cookie cutter or die is cast
for our future action but add the element of benign goodness for future
human history must be not banal, evil as the past history has been.

By using this idea, we should fish out in the past history "analogous
human events" and use that as a help in judgement of our future course
of action.

More on this idea-theory later.
----------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,soc.history.science,soc.history,sci.math
Subject: Re: Sociology theory: Sociological Mathematical Induction
Analogy == History at End of Time
Date: 23 Feb 1998 21:04:12 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College: Sociology theory
Lines: 40
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6cso8c$gui$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (34f2be00....@news.teleport.com>
a writer writes:

> I can scarcely believe you consider this a theory. Obviously people
> use the past as a guide -- experience and beliefs up to this moment
> are what you have to go on, plus an intuitive sense anchored more
> securely in the eternal now. So what choice have we, but to react
> out of past conditioning, tempering our response with what little
> mindfulness we're able to bring to a situation?
>
> Kirby

In an open ended world of free-will there is the past to guide the
future.

In Superdeterminism the endpoint is a sort of heaven. When the
endpoint is fixed then the rule of Infinite Descent, ie, Fermat's
Method of Infinite Descent which is equivalent to Mathematical
Induction rules.

Thus, using Kant's Categorical Imperative -- act in such a way as you
would want the entire world to act. Your action defines the universal
morality of humanity.

So, our past is more than a guide to the future because in
Superdeterminism it was arranged so, and our past is a natural step of
our future. We should use our past events to make better our future
actions we so chose to improve.

Thus, there will be a second USA Civil War somewhere in the world, not
exactly but in an analogous spirit and it is the first USA Civil War
that we must learn the lessons and make better the second USA Civil
War.

Was the Vietnam War good for the Vietnamese? I say no. I say that if
the Vietnamese had known of my idea-theory here, they would have opted
to not fight the USA but to have aggrandized behind the USA and taken
over the North thus today Vietnam would be free market capitalism an
ally of USA and opposed to China as its natural enemy all along and
Vietnam would be so much better for its people.

----------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes.Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,soc.history.science,sci.bio.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: Sociology theory: Sociological Mathematical
Induction Analogy == History at End of Time
Date: 24 Feb 1998 09:01:12 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 177
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6cu28o$7kl$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (34f2be00....@news.teleport.com>
writer writes:

> I can scarcely believe you consider this a theory. Obviously people
> use the past as a guide

Yes,as of this moment it is now a theory.

I did not think it was a theory until today.

The reason I did not think it a theory is because Natural Numbers =
p-adic integers. Thus, Mathematical Induction is a fake axiom for the
Natural Numbers. Thus, and *physics law* based on mathematical
induction would not be universal, only a rule of thumb and thus a
algorithm.

The world has plenty of algorithms, to name a few:

(1) Newtonian Mechanics
(2) Darwin Evolution
(3) Uniformitarianism of geology

But, Mathematical Induction is true for the Whole Reals of this subset
of Reals
{ 1.000.... , 2.0000.... , etc }

And since every electron space requires 3-dimensional and only 3
dimensional Euclidean space then the 3-D Euclidean space with Whole
Reals is alright.

So, then this Sociology idea is in fact a theory and the first theory
to ever come to sociology.

I will be the father of sociology and the father of psychology with
the brain-locus theory. But this is trite because I am the king of all
science anyway.

Biology thought it had 2 theories. All of biology had only 2 theories
until I disproved Darwin Evolution. Before 1990, biology had the 2
theories of (1) cell theory and (2) Darwin Evolution.

In the 1990s with the Atom Totality theory, biology has 2 theories.
It has the Cell theory and now it has Superdeterminism-Progression
theory that replaces Darwin Evolution algorithm.

Sociology never had any theory at all. Nor did psychology. Both of
these soft sciences did have some excellent experiments and lab work.
But with the 1990s and the Atom Totality theory, I have provided
psychology with its first full scale theory of psychology science. It
is the Brain Locuses theory. Briefly described it says that the brain
is only a few atoms that do all the "thinking" and these few atoms
(locuses) receive their thoughts from the "nucleus" of 231Pu. So the
brain is merely a radio dish telescope with a focal point-- the locus
or locuses. Most of the brain material function is to carry out the
message of the locus. And the proof of the Brain Locuses theory is the
Bell Inequality with Aspect Experiments. In order for the world to obey
the Bell Inequality this condition as described by John Bell himself
requires every thought to be ordered up

--- Bell stated ---
[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in the
universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the
world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate
nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with
our behavior, including our belief that we are free to
choose to do one experiment rather than another,
absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by
the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements
rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There
is no need for a faster than light signal to tell
particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle
A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its
outcome, will be.
--- end of Bell statement ---

Now, for this Sociology theory, the world's first full fledged
science law of sociology. It is Mathematical Induction set upon past
history. Analogies are repeated, but not fully repeated.

The American Revolutionary War of 1770s is repeated in the Vietnam
Wars of 1960s

I am calling this Sociology Theory this name but may prune it down
later. Or alter it.

Sociological Mathematical Induction Analogy.

It is true because in an Atom Totality there exists a future date in
which the universe big bangs into the next Atom Totality of the next
higher atomic number. That date will usher in a new universe. We can
consider it metaphorically as heaven to whomever is around when it
happens.

Our present Plutonium Atom Totality came from a Uranium Atom
Totality. I suspect that there was no life in the Uranium Atom
Totality. Although I could be wrong on that statement. I believe that
the heaven of the Uranium Atom Totality was the beginning of life.
Perhaps blue green algae or something like that.

What is heaven for the Plutonium Atom Totality when it big bangs into
the Element 96 Atom Totality?

I do not know, but the important thing for this theory is that there
is a special day for this to happen. Thus, all the days up to that
special day are predetermined. Things have to happen such that they all
led up and become that special day.

Just like the numbers, given 1 then 2 and given say a big number N,
then all the numbers in between have to be made and precisely given.
Like a gigantic stairway to heaven, every step must be made so that
heaven is reached.

Every future social action has an appropriate analogy with past
history. The Vietnam War for the Vietnamese was the analogy of the
American Revolution. Attainment of freedom from colonialism.

WW1 was the analogy for WW2.

Every social event of the future has some "appropriate and fitting
analogy" with a past social event. These are not identical but
analogous. And we must add on "enrichments or betterments to those past
events". And here we use the Kant's Categorical Imperative, crudely
stated by me, -- act in such a way as you would wish that all of
humanity acted as such. If I see a poor old man starving and I have
extra, I give the man my food. Act in such a way as you would want to
define humanity.

So, taking current events, of the Iraq contemplated invasion and
disposing of its leader. According to my theory there exists perhaps
many past history events analogous to the Saddam versus US war
thumping. Pick the most analogous past history event and to add on to
that spice of humanity. Thus, these major world wide events define
humanity better and better into the future.

Another example, Caligula married his sister and committed an
abortion on her. And with those thousands of years, humanity has
improved markedly for Kennedy only committed adultery in office and
just 30 years later Clinton has toned it down to oral sex. And you can
be sure that the future USA presidents will not even have oral sex,
perhaps a wink of the eye to a handsome women.

You see, an Atom Totality means that there is an endpoint which we
are all driven to. A heaven date. And all social events of the future
are better than the past. But we can use all the past events and turn
them into making a better future of which will all lead to that heaven
day. In math induction prove true for 1 , assume true for N and if you
can prove true for N+1 you have all the numbers, which means *all
numbers*.

IN this Sociology theory, you will have all the steps in between of
the past and the future Heaven day.

So how to use this new theory? Good question.

It is easy to use. For example in the case of Pres. Clinton and Saddam
Hussein. Have an expert of history find the analogy of past human
history that best fits the present day problem. A superpower fighting
with a leader of a country that is rich in resource and is military. I
am no expert on history. But this theory of Sociology would say there
is a very apt analogy in past history. Once this analogy is found and
declared, then go and use Kant's Categorical Imperative and improve
upon what course of action taken.

Is Saddam another Archiduke Ferdinand of history?

This theory would have scholars look for a similar analogy in past
history, and it can go as far back as recorded history. Find the most
apt and similar analogy. Once found improve upon it and then use that
knowledge as the guidepost of action taken.

Not many people are mathematically sharp. But there is another form of
Mathematical Induction and it is called Fermat's proof by Infinite
Descent. If we view our present day affairs and search back into
history for a apt analogy, in effect this is Fermat's Descent method on
a practical level.

----------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.bio.misc,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: Sociology theory: Sociological Mathematical
Induction Analogy == History at End of Time
Date: 28 Feb 1998 02:07:50 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 82
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6d7rhm$a7u$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6ct9a6$b...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
writer writes:

> So thought the best minds of the early Victorian period (say Comte and
> Marx). But we know that, if true on the model of physics, it has
> never been verified by the methods of physics. The practical question
> is whether we ought to try again a method that has wholly failed, or
> rethink the theory that history follows laws like physics.

You are completely wrong. You probably do not have a good enough mind
to ever read or understand what John Bell the engineer-physicist with
his Bell Inequality and Aspect experimental proof accomplished. You
probably would never understand the Bell Inequality and Quantum
Mechanics.

> An algorithm is a computational method, arithmetic or algebraic.
> Whatever Darwinian evolution is, it is not a method of anything, and
> not arithmetic and not algebraic, therefore not an algorithm.

And you do not understand what an algorithm is. An algorithm is lower
than a law of science. An algorithm is a rule of thumb

> > The US Civil War of the 1860s taught USA and all the world that
> > slavery is a past evil and banality that improves the future history
> > of human history. . . .
>
> This shows the difficulties of not knowing the field well enough.
> Slavery was banned in all Europe and all comparable countries long
> before the US Civil War, even in Britain's plantation colonies. If
> the poster wishes to sustain this thesis (that American experience
> taught the rest of the world something in the 1860s) he has to explain
> why non-Americans abolished slavery earlier.

You misunderstand my theory.
My theory says that everything that happens in the past is a stepping
stone of the future. In an Atom Totality, there are future endpoints.
We are driven towards that endpoint-- the next big bang into the next
Atom Totality. This endpoint is already determined. Human history will
just fill in the remaining steps to this endpoint.

We can surmise what those future steps are from the past history.

How do we do this?

We have the tool of analogy plus Kant's Categorical Imperative.

All future political important questions can be fetched a past
analogy that fits the present quandary nicely. For example the recent
issue of Saddam Hussien. We can search back into history and find the
appropriate fitting analogy and then add spice to that analogy by using
Kant's Imperative. We add benevolence to that past analogy. And that is
the course of political action we ought to take to solve that crisis
problem.

For example, in the case of JFK, if he had known of my Sociology
theory. He would have his expert historians search back and give him
the fitting analogy. One historian may have given JFK the Koreas
analogy, and another historian give him the American Revolution of
1770s analogy. If JFK picked the American Revolution, bingo, and if JFK
applied Kant's Imperative he would have complied with the Geneva
Convention and then he may have gone further and asked how US could
help Vietnam in the transitioning to their uniting as one country and
independence from colonialism.

As you can see, you have to pick the best past analogy

----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.geo.geology,soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The next superpower will control uranium
Date: 26 Mar 1998 05:26:00 GMT
Organization: Superdeterminism-Sociology-Analogy theory
Lines: 88
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fcot8$g8e$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6fcmil$a2u$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> That means, EU, has to progress smoothly and if she does so, then EU
> is equivalent to US but not surpassing the US. Thus, the 3 important
> variables are Canada, Australia and Russia. If EU snares Russia,
> Australia and Canada into EU, then the EU will eclipse the US as
> superpower.

When Adam Smith wrote the "hidden hand of capitalism" moves history.
He was partially correct, what he should have said to be accurate is
that the hand of god -- 231Pu moves history superdeterministically. We
already see it in the
pre-formation of EU.

UK is shy about EU and slow moving to agree with other members such
as Germany. Why is this so? Well historians with their silly and
parochial analysis based on no science whatsoever but what they read in
newspaper clippings and their own opinion put forth their dumb reasons.

According to the Superdeterminism-Sociology-Analogy theory there were
fine examples in the past superpowers that gives fitting analogies as
to the real reason UK is behaving this way towards the EU, hesitant
behaviour. The UK, subconsciously knows that the US is the superpower.
UK is caught in the middle of going with continental Europe and the
superpower of the US. Britain would rather become another state of the
US than to become a state of the EU. She is holding out because she has
a choice and unless Germany and the other EU members can seduce Britain
over, and pay her high price of becoming EU member, UK will behave this
way. But if Britain wants to be the 51st state of US, they would have
to bite their pride that they are really not much better than is the
state of California, and they will not get any premium for joining the
US. But Britain will get a premium by holding out, and acting hard to
get for EU and Germany. Thus, the premium the EU will pay is some
discount price for Britain's monetary debts.

And here a play for time is critical. The longer UK holds out and is
not consolidated within EU, the better chance that UK will join with
the US and become a 51st state of the Union. The US has no outward
announcements or expressed desires of making UK the 51st state. Like I
say, the hand of god-- 231Pu moves silently and covert and only after
it is over with then everyone will claim "oh yes, that was the
undercurrent of history that moved us to that act". If the US has any
intentions overtly of making UK the 51st state it is kept top secret.
At least I have never seen anyone saying such. But what forces of
Superdeterminism would make UK the 51st state of US a likely reality.
Here is a scenerio that may come to pass.

UK is not integrated into EU. Fusion electricity is found to be
impossible in that ITER proves that breakeven is impossible, perhaps
that is why EU has postponed ITER for if fusion-electricity is
impossible to reach breakeven would have the most grave future outlook
in terms of energy. So going with the scenerio, suppose by 2013 it is
found that fusion electricity is impossible and UK is not integrated in
EU. Then looking at the map of resources, the US gets nervous about
Canada and Australia with their large uranium resources. So in order to
ensure Canada and Australia means that the US needs UK as the
friendly-go-between although French speaking Canada will go with EU
since France. And Germany and the rest of EU will go with Russia to
secure their uranium. And it is the fact that Canada is sort of a
bi-culture nation of English to French, will mean that the US will have
to tread carefully as to not lose the English part to the French part.
The worst for the US will be if Canada becomes a EU member and later
closes its uranium doors to the US.

As it stands here in 1998, the US is the worlds superpower, but the
most wealthiest and precious nation on Earth is Canada, with perhaps
Australia and Russia. The key to the future is bundled up in one word
-- uranium. And although that may not be apparent to most people of
1998 it will be obvious in the next 100 years.

And the US is in the best position to woe Canada by such subtle
things as sports, and good neighbor laws, and much of what she is doing
now of tangling economics etc. Tangling economics is important for the
US with Canada and Australia, for if for any reason Canada or Australia
get adverserial to the US, it is the underlying uranium resources that
the US will act upon a contentious Canada or Australia and by military
force take over their country. You see, it is uranium that is making
the moves of history and we humans just play out the history already
pre-determined.

Now are there any Analogies of the Greek, Roman or British superpowers
to this Canada, Australia, UK, EU, Russia relationship with uranium as
the focal point? Well, I am no expert on past histories and would need
to research metal mining, waterwheels, aqueducts for waterwheels, coal
reserves and coal in shipbuilding. To find some nations relative to the
Greek, Roman, and British superpowers that is a fitting analogy.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.geo.geology,soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The next superpower will control uranium
Date: 26 Mar 1998 07:43:15 GMT
Organization: superpowerdom and the dominant energy form
Lines: 101
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6fd0uj$oc9$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6fcot8$g8e$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> Tangling economics is important for the
> US with Canada and Australia, for if for any reason Canada or Australia
> get adverserial to the US,

Usenet needs two newsgroups in the sci hierarchy where these theories
are better placed. I need the newsgroup sci.sociology, and not the soc
hierarchy, and then I need a sci newsgroup to reflect the science of
"political science" call it sci.politics. But lacking those two
newsgroups I make the best of existing ones.

Now it is interesting how the Hand of God moves history and how we
tend to notice and act only upon the overt in view or the mass view of
history, rarely seeing the underlying stronger currents of the swept of
God in history making. And it is hoped by me to set a new direction in
political science study and in sociology. Already I have given
sociology its first science theory which has politics as a
subdepartment.

Thinking some more about the underlying current of history of
following the "sources and flow of energy" as the major course of human
history and the main ingredient of the superpower nation on Earth.

Let me talk a little about this "unseen , covert hand of God in
politics and sociology".

We would think that the neighborly and friendly relations of US with
Canada is because of acts of goodness and being neighborly and friendly
and nice. That is naive. What is going on with the US and Canada, one
has to look at the unseen stronger currents than the superficial
outward appearances.

Ever since the US discovered the A-bomb and H-bomb it was realized
subconsciously. And this is where sociology, politics and psychology
sort of flow together in one. That Canada holds the worlds supply of
uranium.

So what does the US do. The subconscious actions are all aimed and
geared at that uranium resource. But outwardly and overtly and by all
appearances the US is super friendly to Canada. And even wanting Canada
to have the same sports games getting the Canadians closer to US so to
speak. But most important in a "reality fact" that Canada has the
worlds uranium is that the US progressively entangles the businesses of
Canada with the US. Why? Easy answer is that if Canada is so entangled
in business with the US, then if for any reason that Canada wants to
close the uranium window or door, the US will take Canada by force.

This relationship with Canada has been going on now ever since the
uranium bomb was invented by the US. And the pecular situation of
Canada of its bi-cultures of English to French, the US will always side
with the side that its uranium interests are maximized. What I mean by
this, if the US can swallow Canadian uranium reserves by a French
separatism, then the US will push for a French separatism.

Much of politics is analogous to individual people with their
motivations. Consider a below average looking female (Canadian weather)
but with much money (Canada's uranium). This female will have many
suitors, who calculate their romances and words and poetry that they
mutter, not so much for the wedding bed but for that uranium in the
bank. And the female is not dumb, she knows that all the sweet nothings
spoken and poetry by her many male suitors is that they see the uranium
and she knows that it is the uranium that is the beauty behind all the
skin and facade and time wasting romance. Who knows, the US may stoop
so low as to give Canada world series wins or hockey wins just to get
closer to the uranium.

Now what about Australia? Here the US will run a entangling business
alliance. US mix with Australian corporations. Entangle food export
companies, entangle telecom companies, entangle just about any
corporation such that they are part Australian and part US. By
entangling business, if Australia ever wants to close its uranium
window for the US, the US will go into Australia with force.

Entangling business is analogous to psychology of male female who
invest so much time in romance and courtship that their investment is
expected to lead to marriage. In the case of the US and Canada and
Australia, what is in the subconscious eye and mind of the US is that
uranium resource, and the US will get closer and closer to both Canada
and Australia. And never mind what the front pages say about these
issues, the underlying unseen movement of history is in this direction.

What I propose in recognition of these facts is as the EU is going
forward that the US needs to have some foreign policy issues. Clinton
has not done anything in two terms both foreign and domestic. I propose
that Washington draft a special favorite nation status bill and make
Canada and Australia the most favorite two nations, and bugger the rest
of the nations. Propose to link the currency of Canada and Australia to
the US dollar and give them other perks such as giving them more
senators and congress than the other 50 states of the Union. Such that
if Saskatchewan becomes the 51st state let them have 5 senators instead
of the normal 2 senators. Uranium is more important than the job of
senator of the US. Even move the capital of the US up to Winnipeg. And
Canadians have a better sense of humor than the US, note that SCTV is a
far better product than any US attempt at humor, and if this global
warming gets worse, I too will have to move up to Canada for my genius
mind needs a coolant to run at peak efficiency.

Does Canada have more uranium than Russia? Does the US have the
worlds largest supply of thorium?

History is an unfolding physics notebook,
because of superdeterminism, the subject of
history is science and obeys the laws of
physics

by Archimedes Plutonium

this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics
Subject: Human history; subject of history is physics; Superdeterminism
Date: 10 Apr 1998 22:45:45 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6gm7ep$4cf$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In a world where Superdeterminism is true, then history is the
unfolding of a large physics experiment. Superdeterminism comes from
Atom Totality and is proven by the Bell Inequality and Aspect
experimental results.

In the Big-Bang theory or Steady-State theory, history is governed by
chance and probability moved by a force of free-will. Both probability
and free-will do not exist in Superdeterminism.

Human History is an unfolding science notebook and obeys laws of
science just as a ball rolling down an inclined plane, a pendulum or
the motion of a clock and other "motions" that obey laws of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Human history; subject of history is physics;
Superdeterminism
Date: 11 Apr 1998 00:11:56 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6gmcgc$602$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (6gm7ep$4cf$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In the Big-Bang theory or Steady-State theory, history is governed by
> chance and probability moved by a force of free-will.

And so is the theory of Darwin Evolution moved by chance and
probability and free-will.

However, in Superdeterminism and the Bell Inequality with the Aspect
experimental confirmations such things as chance, probability and
free-will cannot exist and are incompatible.

Superdeterminism is only compatible with Atom Totality.

Superdeterminism disproves Big Bang theory, Steady State theory, and
Darwin Evolution theory.

Superdeterminism makes the subject of human history as an unfolding
physics notebook, where human events are no different in quality, but
quantity, from Galileo studying that of balls rolling from inclined
planes and later physicists studying harmonic oscillators.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Did the bow and arrow come into existence from the
firebox??
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/04/25
Message-ID: (6htg6c$82n$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,soc.history,sci.engr

In article (6hrece$ddd$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> Yes, I can accept that as a progression history of the drill bit. First
> as the matchstick of the board with a wood stick that is rotated by a
> string bow (a sophisticated device for prehistory and perhaps the most
> sophisticated machine of prehistory) as seen in the movie QUEST FOR
> FIRE only without the bow. This match stick for getting fire could be
> called the ancestor of the modern drill bit. Then the next advance was
> the awl as the writer above says is found in Archaeology Egyptian art.
> Then, somewhere in the history the awl was fluted or as one poster
> suggested that a flat ribbon of metal when spiraled can make a drill
> bit.
>
> A careful research of the history of the drill bit from the ancients
> to present would be a excellent science project and would lend insight
> to both history of technology and science. I would be keen on this
> research because it or some like it may help to prove that the history
> of humanity, biology, and technology is superdeterministic and not that
> of Darwin Evolution. Too many coincidences imply superdeterminism, such
> as the history of wheat and humanity.

Thinking last night, by analogy, one can see in the mind's eye that
if you are at a prehistoric campfire having just started the fire with
your bow and stick firebox. BTW, I am going to call a bow, stick,
tinderwood for starting fires as a firebox. That one can see some
prehistoric individual perhaps holding up the bow and then with the
stick in hand as a gesture act or playing around act at the campfire,
that this may have been the first creation moment for what was to
become the Bow and Arrow technology. The birth of the bow and arrow may
have sprung from the firebox bow and rubbing stick to start fires.

I am unfamilar with the history of the Bow and Arrow or the firebox.
I presume that the firebox dates far beyond recorded history. But when
is the first known proof of the existance of the Bow and Arrow weapon??
Anyone have information on this.

And, I would like to recommend as a research project that of the
firebox technology compared to the wheel technology. I wonder if the
firebox technology was more complex than the history of the wheel
technology and the dating of each. Would the history of the appearance
of the first wheel and its accompanying technology of axle predate the
first appearance of the firebox. I suspect not. I suspect that the
firebox is the earliest and most complex technology of human history.
And the reason I suspect this is because the need or demand for fire
comes first before that of the wheel. And that the club is probably the
very first technology but the club is not a complex technology and so I
would guess that the firebox is humanities first complex technology.

Can someone elaborate on what is known of the Bow and Arrow and how
it relates to the firebox?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/04/29
Message-ID: (6i6r28$dlo$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,soc.history,sci.engr

--- quoting THE ASCENT OF MAN, Bronowski, 1973 ---

page 41

-Homo erectus. He spreads far beyond Africa. The classical find of Homo
erectus was in fact made in China. He is Peking man, about four hundred
thousand years old, and he is the first creature that certainly used
fire.

page 45

For example, the Magdalenian hunters of southern Europe fifteen
thousand years ago invented the harpoon.

page 46

Fossils that recount the cultural evolution of man in an orderly
progression. Magdalenian reindeer horn harpoon. The barbs on the
harpoon changed from a simple single row to the double rows during the
last Ice Age.
Perforated staff from Santander, Spain, decorated with heads of hinds.
Rock painting of a reindeer hunt, Los Caballos Shelter, Valtorta Gorge,
Castellon, Eastern Spain.
The invention of the bow and arrow came at the end of the last Ice Age.
--- end quoting THE ASCENT OF MAN, Bronowski, 1973 ---

Let me try a tentative superdeterminism progression:

weapon technology
(1) clubs, whether bone or tree wood
(2) sharpening tools, rocks, flints
(3) spears of sharpened wood end
(4) knifes, arrowheads
(5) bow and arrow

fire technology
(1) natural fires, lighting
(2) flint fires
(3) stick rubbing firebox
(4) stick string bow-firebox

I suspect that the invention of the bow and arrow was a direct result
of the string bow stick firebox. That playing around at the campfire
with the firebox bow and stick gave some clever Homo the idea to
horseplay at the campfire and the stick shot from the string. Cat gut
was probably used for string as it is easier to obtain than cut leather
strips.

Or, the bow and arrow had been discovered before the firebox and then
the bow was used to make the bow-firebox. But I doubt this was the
progression. Or about simultaneously and independent of one another,
the bow-firebox and the Bow & Arrow were discovered but I doubt this
also. I think the bow-firebox created the discovery of the Bow and
Arrow.

And it would lead to the question of the invention of the string.
Well, string is cut pieces of animal hide, such as leather. Or there is
cat-gut. Anyone know whether cat-gut makes a excellent string for bow
and arrow tension? Or whether leather is better? With the leather you
need a rather good knife and of a technology that would suggest that
arrowheads were highly advanced. And cat gut would be something around
the campfire. Perhaps cat-gut was Homo's first string.

I need information on the bow-firebox. I highly suspect that the
invention of the bow-&-arrow were a direct result of the bow-firebox,
of a horseplaying around at the campsite fire by Homo and one of them
uses the bow with the pointed fire stick in the looped string and in
playful gesture aims it at his companion and lo and behold draws it and
lets go, and, the stick becomes a projectile and there is the discovery
in history of the Bow and Arrow. Soon to be fitted with a stone
arrowhead.

If this surmise of mine is true would mean that the discovery of the
Bow and Arrow was approx a short time after the bow-firebox was widely
in use. And that the two technologies were rather contemporaneous in
historical time. So when we find arrowheads for bow and arrow
technology then the bow firebox had been discovered long before that
earliest of arrowheads.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/04/29
Message-ID: (6i8530$84h$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology

> (1) natural fires, lighting

That should have been lightning for it is reasonable to ascribe the
first human contact with fire as that of a lightning strike of a tree
with a tree fire or lightning caused forest fire.

Now, how would the bow string firebox or the more primitive hands
working a stick firebox been discovered? Today, more for entertainment
than for science work I am reviewing QUEST FOR FIRE, 1981, directed
Jean-Jacques Annaud. I do not know how scientifically accurate Annaud
tried to be with his film. It certainly is entertaining. I suspect he
exaggerated the "sense of smell" in prehistoric man as if you can smell
your enemy that far away. But the concept of the first fires of humans
is beautifully done in this movie.

And, I must note a sense of pleasure on my part in digging into this
science of archaeology seeing that I am gifted in logic and that this
latest quest by me of peering into archaeology fits my extreme logical
mind. That I see it as a fun detective story that I can piece together
the most likely progression of technology by applying logic and the
231Pu theories. And that the picture I conclude with, or piece
together, can be supported or denied by the technology-fossil record.

Now, how in the world did prehistoric homo get the idea of rubbing a
stick in wood to spark a fire? That is rather easy to answer. All we
have to note is that on a cold day, by rubbing our hands we get the
sensation of warmth, due to friction of course.

It would be interesting to find out if sharpening stones and creating
a spark or by rubbing hands and then rubbing rocks or stick discovered
the first firebox. In such a ambiguous hypothesizing we take both cases
as independently discovered. Which came first would be hard to
pinpoint. Did the rock-flint come first? Did the rubbing of a stick in
wood, ie firebox come first? Perhaps we can somehow prove that flint is
older than the oldest firebox (ie most primitive firebox).

Much of the above I hope to explore in this thread. And using the
fake-theory-of-Darwin-Evolution and the true theory of
Superdeterminism-Progression.

Darwin Evolution would only permit simple technology going into
creating more complex technology. Darwin Evolution will allow
independent simultaneous more complex technologies being discovered.

Superdeterminism-Progression would allow one feature that is
impossible for Darwin Evolution, that is, you can have the case where
the more complex comes earlier than the simple. And the case where a
complex technology appears from what most people would say
out-of-nowhere. To give an example of what I mean. In Darwin Evolution
it would be impossible for Homo Erectus to one day sit at the campfire
eating a cat for its cat-gut string and placing the string taut between
the ends of a stick thereby creating a bow for the first time in
history and in that same hour get another stick attach an arrowhead to
the end of it with another cat-gut string , notch the other end and
have the world's first bow & arrow. Such a historic one hour discovery
would not be possible in Darwin Evolution but possible, although highly
improbable by Superdeterminism. What Evolution objects to in that
sequence of events is that it must go from the simple to the more
complex. The heart as a pump does not come into existence from a vacuum
but most come from a progression of simple to complex leading up to the
human heart. The genetic code of humans is a progression from the
simple first life of 5 billion years ago that has designed this complex
code of human DNA.

In Superdeterminism there is the chance that some highly intelligent
Homo just in one hour discovered (invented) the bow & arrow in the
absence of the bow-firebox. But it is unlikely.

I need someone to tell me if cat-gut is the world's finest string,
absence a good knife to cut deer hide or hoofed animal hide? I need to
know what was Homo's likely first string material? Here it may be some
plant or vegetative material but none that I know of would make a
suitable bow string.

Is Peking a cold climate at times? IE, would the firebox be
discovered in China first or rather in a colder climate such as
northern Europe with the Ice Ages.

How much easier is it to start a fire with a bow-firebox compared to
a rubbing hands stick firebox compared to a flint started fire? I need
to have someone research the relative ease of these three fire starting
technologies. This is an excellent research project for not only
archaeologists but for any of the sciences and the answers would have
impact on most sciences.

Is the cat, our domestic cat the historical product of not our
fondness of a pet or a animal that cleared away rodents from the
campfire. But rather that the cat was the most prized and treasured
animal of ancient history because of its gut used for string? Is cat
gut superior to dog gut for string? And that the result of our housepet
of a cat is an offshoot of history not because the cat is so
domestic-amenable to humans but because the early humans sought out the
cat as one of the most treasured resources-- the best string. If any of
this surmises is true, there would be a nice research project of
correlating the number of cat bone fossils associated with early man.

If rubbing our hands and feeling the warm sensition akin to fire was
the propelling simple machine idea that created the discovery or
propelled or facilitated the discovery of the rubbing of the stick into
another wood to create fire. Then it is easy to see that the next
progression of rubbing hands would be -- at Homo campfire the string of
cat gut and a tug of war between Homo individuals that they would
realize that the rubbing of hands of a back and forth motion is the tug
of war of a string back and forth motion. Thus the simple to the more
complex. Thus, the tug of war of a string and another Homo rubbing a
stick in a wood block to start a fire. That one could imagine the
probability of these two separate simplier technologies coming together
at some fateful Homo campfire where the tug-of-war on cat string Homos
get their cat gut string looped onto the Homo trying to start a fire
with his stick hand rubbing and that the "opportunity of fate knocked"
that the tug of war cat-gut string moved the stick that the firestarter
Homo was trying to work, faster, so much faster than his primitive hand
working rubbing. The the tug of war cat gut group , in their playful
act moved the firestarter stick much faster. And at that instant of
Homo history, the string-propelled-firebox was discovered. Soon the
string propelled would be fitted with a bow.

And as the string propelled firebox was discovered by perhaps a
horseplay of tug of war, the Bow and Arrow may have in been discovered
by another horseplay where the bow-firebox Homo on a fateful night
lifts up his bow and accidently pulls the stick and it is propelled
projectile and at that instant in Homo history the Bow and Arrow had
been discovered.

The above is a reasonable route of discovery of humanities early and
perhaps some of its most important and vital technology. Any of the
above conjectures can be researched and either confirmed or denied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/04/30
Message-ID: (6i9ahc$u5m$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,sci.anthropology,sci.engr

> Now, how would the bow string firebox or the more primitive hands
> working a stick firebox been discovered? Today, more for entertainment
> than for science work I am reviewing QUEST FOR FIRE, 1981, directed
> Jean-Jacques Annaud.

PAF owns a copy of that movie and reviewed it again today. My guess is
that making fire from a firebox with just rubbing the stick, I would
guess is a hard chore. Not easy.

Here are some excellent Anthropology and Archaeology science
experiments that can be taught in those subjects in University. Yes,
these sciences do have experiments and these are great laboratory
experiments.

Materials: Get flint that primitive homo would have used. Get sticks
and wood boards and the other materials of the primitive firebox that
Homo would have had. Get a string that Homo would have had and with a
stick build a bow that Homo would have constructed to make the more
advanced bow-firebox.

Student Research Experiment: Find out how long a skilled fireworker
would take to get a fire started from these three firestarting
machines. Is the flint faster than the other two? How much faster is
the bow-firebox from the hand rubbing firebox?

Questions:
(1) Where is flint plentiful in geography? Did Peking man have flint
and firebox?
(2) Which discovery came first, the club or the string? I would guess
the string or would guess that both were discovered at about the same
time because a string is simply the gut of a small animal such as cat
gut. And so a Homo may have tied a gut around his waist just as he
wrapped a hide around to keep warm.
(3) What would have been the first strings? Cat gut or small animal
gut? And although vines and other grass like plants may form a string
they were not stretchable and durable.
(4) Where does the first cat fossil appear alongside Homo fossils or
remains? And was the cat not domesticated for its rodent cleaning, but
instead was a prized food for its gut to be used as string and rope?
(4) Where is the earliest recorded arrowhead of a bow and arrow?

Research question:
It would be fruitful to find out what material in Homo history would
have made the best string material. Is it cat-gut. Such a question is
easy enough to research for one is looking for what natural material
that Homo erectus would have found to make a Bow of a bow and arrow.
What is the best natural material for the string of a bow & arrow?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/01
Message-ID: (6iblk5$a8f$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,sci.anthropology,sci.engr

Let me try a tentative superdeterminism progression:

weapon technology
(1) clubs: bone or tree wood
(2) sharpening tools: rocks, flints
(3) spears of sharpened wood end
(4) knifes; arrowheads
(5) bow and arrow

fire technology
(1) natural fires, lightning
(2) flint fires
(3) dowel-stick rubbing firebox
(4) dowel-stick string bow-firebox

I would guess that the club was Homo's first tool. Second tool was
clothing.

There is nothing to force history to follow the path of greatest
logic. But there is a probability that the actual course of history
followed the path of greatest logic. Let me give some examples of
History-following-the-path-of
-greatest-logic.

The dowel-stick rubbing firebox was discovered by Homo, recognizing
that rubbing his hands together vigorously, warms them, warms them like
a fire warms hands. And since wood is what burns, rubbing wood together
vigorously will make them burn. And so the dowel-stick rubbing was
discovered from hand rubbing.

Cats were eaten routinely by Homo for their prized cat gut of string,
perhaps the best natural string in the world at that time. The string
of cat gut pulling the firestarters dowel perchance occurred. Often the
string interferred with the firestarter, but once, a string on the
dowel and some Homo got the idea that if the firestarter held the dowel
in place and two Homos pulled on the string end that the rotary motion
of the dowel is faster than the firestarters hand rubbing motion. From
that, it is a short time away before the bow is discovered to replace
the two person string pullers. This would be a logical path for the
invention discovery of the bow. And the bow for the firebox would lead
to the bow & arrow.
The bow firebox is probably the most complex machine of its time
until the bow & arrow was discovered.
The bow & arrow was discovered via this path of logic from the bow
firebox of a firestarter holding up his dowel which was kind of sharp
and it being projectiled from his bow of the firebox. The projectile
may have hit someone and hurt or done some damage. From that moment
onwards you can say that the bow & arrow had been invented-discovered.
It only needed refinement.

In Darwin Evolution, genetic history and cultural history follows a
path of simplier design to more complex design. The tree of life is
simple to complex. Culture does not have genetic code but culture is a
product of genetic code. So the path of greatest logic in technology
development would follow Darwin Evolution.

Superdeterminism progression would say that the path of greatest
logic is in probability the most often one. However, this theory allows
for more occurrances of nonlogical paths, and for complex coming into
existence before a more simple design, and for spontaneous creation out
of nowhere (seeming nowhere but it really came from the nucleus of
231Pu such as cosmic rays of 10^19 MeV).

We must go through the history and outline the most logical path for
each major invention-discovery.

And here in modern times is a case of where the true history of
cultural physics history follows the greatest logic path and not as
what is falsely reported in history of physics books. I am talking of
the theory of Special Relativity, that it was born in the mind of
Poincare following the invariance to Maxwell equations, and not the
Michelson aether experiment with the Lorentz mathematics. But I stray
too much here.

Doing this logical path for the history of technology may help to
prove that Darwin Evolution is a fake theory and that the
Superdeterminism-Progression is the true theory of biology and history.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/01
Message-ID: (6ibrkp$daq$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,sci.anthropology,sci.engr

I remembered that I wanted to say that the invention-discovery of the
string (in Superdeterminism, there are no inventions as we think of
invention-- creating something that never existed). If Darwin Evolution
is correct then the concept of invention exists. But if
Superdeterminism is the truth would imply that all things exist in a
sort of all ready made backdrop of the universe. And that history, like
the cogs of a machine have not yet discovered them, cogs come into
contact and move the machine forwards. In superdeterminism, fate is
already made, and thus the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was already
made to happen way back in World War I, and the discovery of the H-bomb
was fated to happen when it did happen.

The primitive idea that an invention is something that is created in
a background of a vacuum, as if the world has a choice of creating
something or not, and , as if the "new thing" was not known by the
Universe, and had no factor of discovery in it.
The H-bomb already existed; we did not invent it new; we discovered
it. The concept of "inventing" in a superdeterministic universe is
incorrect. It is more correct to say "discovered" becuase the universe
is already created and layed-out awaiting for us to discover things.
Again I stray from the topic in my mind.

I wanted to say that the discovery of the 'string' in history by means
of path-of greatest-logic that Homo noticed the intestine of cats or
small animals. And with the parallel discovery of 'clothes' that a
string is like a garment, an animal hide. Much of Africa is fairly warm
where clothing may not be needed and even a detriment to mobility. But
as Homo moved north into colder climates then clothing was essential.
And so the logic of a skin hide as clothes, that Homo would have tried
to wear many things of animals instead of its hide. Logically, Homo may
have tried to wear the guts of animals and noticed its string
capabilities of holding-the-hide in place as a fastener. And then
noticed also that by pulling on the string brought motion to whatever
was connected to the string. This logical path eventually leads up to
the string for a bow for firebox and then the bow & arrow.

I still have not gotten answers as to what natural material in all
the world makes the best string for bow & arrow. Is it cut strips of
leather or is it the intestine gut of some animals?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/02
Message-ID: (6ig4rl$mff$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,sci.anthropology,
sci.engr,sci.bio.technology,rec.sport.archery

> I still have not gotten answers as to what natural material in all
> the world makes the best string for bow & arrow. Is it cut strips of
> leather or is it the intestine gut of some animals?

I am due to file patent on Carbon Fiber Human Skeletal System. The
materials in competition so far is spider silk..

And thinking of what material is the "natural" and the best string for
the ultimate bow and arrow. I wonder if spider silk is that material?

Would prehistoric man or Homo have had the wits and the time to wind
together many spider silk threads to make a string for his bow? One
thing that we can all be sure of, Homo was surrounded by spiders
throughout his long history. But perhaps spider silk is not conducive
to string making and perhaps its great quality of elasticity is lost in
its forming of a bow string.

Since no-one has answered as to what are the world's best 'natural'
materials for strings for bow & arrow, will see if r.s.a people can
help.

I am looking for the world's finest natural materials to make bow
strings. I wonder if cat-gut is the best, ie, little time, durable and
functional.

And looking in the literature I find this.

--- quoting Encyc. Britannica, 1992 ---

ARCHERY
...
.. Made traditionally of a single piece of yew

BOW AND ARROW
Prehistoric missile system, one of the oldest weapons on earth, whose
origins are lost in Paleolithic times.
...
The earliest arrowheads were of flint.
The bow served as a primary military weapon from Egyptian times...
... wood and bone backed by sinew..
The string, too, may be made of a variety of materials, the requisite
being toughness. Bowstrings have exhibited an enormous range of
variation in materials. The English longbow of the Middle Ages usually
had a string of linen or hemp, but Turkish and Arab bows were strung
with silk and mohair. Rattan, bamboo, vegetable fibre, and animal sinew
or hide have served in many parts of the world.
--- end quoting Encyc. Britannica, 1992 ---

I wonder if some scientists, some archaeologists, anthropologists, or
any science would perform this experiment. Find out what materials make
the best 'natural' bow strings.

Is spider silk the very best bow string? Include all of the above
materials mentioned as bow string but expand the research experiment to
include many other natural things such as spider silk.

And find out of all the materials what is the toughest yet least time
consuming. I would guess it to be cat gut and these material probably
was the first Homo string. Research other types of guts for string
making.

And that the ancient Egyptian worship of the cat was a reflection of
cat-gut for string. Did the pyramid mummies have cat gut string remains
or would they have decayed away?

And I suspect that cats were prized by Homo mostly for their guts for
string making and not for pets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Drill bit; firebox; Bow & Arrow
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/03
Message-ID: (6iih2s$3en$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,sci.anthropology,sci.engr

> In Darwin Evolution, genetic history and cultural history follows a
> path of simplier design to more complex design. The tree of life is
> simple to complex. Culture does not have genetic code but culture is a
> product of genetic code. So the path of greatest logic in technology
> development would follow Darwin Evolution.
>
> Superdeterminism progression would say that the path of greatest
> logic is in probability the most often one. However, this theory allows
> for more occurrances of nonlogical paths, and for complex coming into
> existence before a more simple design, and for spontaneous creation out
> of nowhere (seeming nowhere but it really came from the nucleus of
> 231Pu such as cosmic rays of 10^19 MeV).

In my posts recently I have discussed drill-bits, fireboxes and Bow &
Arrow.
And I brought up the concept of the
path-of-most-logical-technology-progression.

Let me apply that concept of logical progression to the three distinct
technologies of drill-bit, firebox, and Bow & Arrow.

I did see a post where someone disputed me that the Bow & Arrow did
not arrive as a consequence of the bow-firebox. And remarked that the
drill was a consequence of the rub-hand-firebox and bow-firebox. That
the application of pressure on the top of the stick or dowel of the
firebox was the invention of the drill-bit.

Logical Progression Analysis would ask you whether piercing a hole is
the same as drilling a hole. And obviously, Homo of the first fireboxes
did not have metals and metal fabrication to make metal drill bits of
the awl type. So, are we going to call a sharp stick that can pierce
holes in say a hide, call that a drill-bit? And are we going to call a
blunt stick or dowel with rotary hand motion that makes a hole in a
material, call that the first drill-bit in history?

And it is an easy observation that drilling causes heat and that the
firebox can be seen as a friction drill heat machine.
It would have been quite natural for Homo to have one day put a hide
on top of his hole of the firebox, either by accident or by desire, and
tried to start his fire with the rubbing hands on the dowel into the
hide and instead of starting a fire, made a hole in the hide. Are we
going to call this event as the first drill-bit in history?
And, are we going to call this stick-dowel the first drill-bit?

I would recommend yes. Even though it is unclear as to piercing hole
technology and that of true actual drilling hole. The Logical
Technology Progression concept implies that the appearance of a
technology for the first time in history, regardless of whether Homo
consciously recognized it as such, dates from between the predeccessor
more primitive technology (here the firebox being predecessor of the
wood drill bit) until the time that the new technology (drill bit) has
evidence it was widely in use.

And here I must add a very important corollary to my concept of
Logical Progression. The corollary of importance, of priority. I do not
want to call Logical Progression Path a theory. Instead it is a Method,
a methodology of unraveling the true history. What this corollary says
is that fire would have been more important to a Homo than drilling a
hole. That corollary of importance or priority of invention-discovery
would dictate that the firebox needed to be discovered before making
holes in things. So, firestarting was discovered long before drilling
holes, and the firestarting was so important that the firebox was
discovered, and only after the firebox came into existence would the
drilling of holes by the wood dowel be later discovered. These wood
dowel drill bits would much later be transformed into awls with a
sharpened end and much later still would come the metal awl. Have there
ever been dug from a archaeology site or anthropology site a wood stick
that is of a harder wood than most and that has evidence of a sharpened
or worked end such as a awl.

So, the invention-discovery of the drill-bit, as a wood dowel, and
the Homos would have found the hardest wood for their drill bit; dates
back in history from the time between fireboxes and the common
appearance of drilled holes and not punctured holes.

Did the recent discovery of a frozen man in the Swiss mountains who
had a knife and other implements and a leather case, dated (if my
memory serves) carbon dating of 4,000 BC. What type of strings did he
have? And were his holes made from puncturing or from a drilling
operation?

A scientist ought be able to research this ancient Swiss man and
enlighten us on questions of technology. Was there a bow and arrow
found with him? And did he possess any firestarting technology?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Drill bit; firebox; Bow & Arrow
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/04
Message-ID: (6il4tl$iru$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history.science,sci.anthropology,sci.engr

> And here I must add a very important corollary to my concept of
> Logical Progression. The corollary of importance, of priority.

And to be able to start fires quickly and efficiently. "Need is the
mother of invention" as the saying goes.

And it probably was not far after the invention of the firebox, or
even during the flint firestarters. Here I cannot tell whether flint
came first or the firebox. I would have to guess flint because it is
easier and because stone working is more primitive of a technology than
is 'making a firebox'.

Here I am thinking of the use of resins as firestarting material.
That the prescence of pine-needles or pine-sticks or dowels must have
come into contact with Homo firestarters. And I do not know the early
Homo geographic distribution of pine species that are conducive to
resin quick firestarting. Quick firestarting would be a tremendous food
gatherer also in that you can herd-up or round-up many animals by
starting grass fires quickly.

So, whether by accident that dry pine needles came near a flint
firestarter or to the firebox firestarter. Anyway we can be reasonably
assured that the contact of resin quick firestarting aided and
facilitated early Homo in firestarting.

RESEARCH: research how much faster is a flint started fire using
resinous pine material and also for the firebox. It could well have
been that the firebox surpassed the speed of a flint firestarter
because a dowel pine stick and pineneedles as tinder are faster to
start than the flint. I do not know I am just guessing here. But a full
research needs be made of these conjecturing.

In the future, as this science of the history of technology is
furthered, it will be like a genetic tree of life. And just as a likely
true course of history of all of life on Earth is implied by this
genetic tree of life. So also, analogously, is this history of
technology imputed with truth. Why? Because history, no matter whether
you speak of the history of life or the history of people such as
history books or the history of technology, all histories are physics
because of superdeterminism.

I need to see how pine resin contributed to further advances in
technology as a result of its quick and easy starting of fires.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/06
Message-ID: (6ip60i$o0u$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.engr,sci.bio.technology,
sci.bio.misc

I wonder if you had a fiber of spider silk, then to each web you saw,
rolled that fiber into the web making a string of many fibers. I wonder
how many spider webs would be needed to make one bow string. I kind of
think that not too many webs are required for one good bow string. Let
me just guess. I have these big wood spiders near the garage and one of
their webs alone when drawn into a string by just the rolling of one
fiber across one web, that about 20 of these would make a bow string.
Twenty such webs would not be difficult to find in one locale.

Then one must consider the 'intelligence' of early Homo. It is
guaranteed he would have come into contact with spiders and their webs.

Perhaps spider silk may have been humanities first thread or weave.
And the silk worm the second.

Then again the wool of sheep or other animals.

It would be interesting to logically figure out which is the
simpliest technology of 'string tying' and how string tying relates to
what was the first thread and first weave. Would the hair of animals
made the first thread and weave or the spider silk and then silk worm?

Would early Homo have eaten spiders? Sounds revulsive. But if spiders
are nourishing they are easy to capture. If they were food for early
Homo, then it is highly likely that humanities first string, first
thread, first weave were spider silk.

I have heard of island peoples who eat walking sticks and other large
insects. I have never heard of humans eating spiders. Anyone know if
any humans eat spiders regularly in their diet?

And while I am on this topic, I remember as a teenager feeding
spiders and it seems that spiders do not tackle 'wooly bear
caterpillars' nor ticks. Is this true in general that all spider
species do not accept wooly bears nor ticks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/07
Message-ID: (6isnt7$qnc$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.bio.technology,sci.bio.misc

In article (35509D...@fuse.net>
poster writes:

> First you catch a big spider,and put it on a stick. When you coax
> the spider to get off the stick, it begins to spin a web. After allowing
> the spider to almost reach the ground, one catches the free end and
> reverses the spider travel twisting the stick as the spider climbs.

The above would make an interesting research experiment. See how long
it would take to make a bow & arrow bow string from spider silk. A mix
of both collecting the webs and of using the spiders in the above
manner.

Yes, I am convinced that humanities first thread and first weave was a
result of spider silk. Not wool of sheep or animals. And spider silk
beat the silk-worm. The reason is that the commonplace of spiders in
almost all geographic areas and the ease with which one can work with
spider silk. Humans first weave would naturally be Nature's weaver--
the spider.
A long time ago in a patent application to the US Patent Office I
used the term "BioWorld". The patent examiner objected to that term. I
thought that unreasonable. Bioworld as opposed to the nonliving
inanimate world. I was referring to the fact that many
inventions-discoveries of physics or physical processes are first found
in the living world such as the battery from Galvani frog legs and from
Volta electric eel. And here I am compelled to use the term BioWorld
for physical act or manufacture of thread-making and for weaving. The
spider of the Bioworld is Natures first weaver and first thread-maker
(silk-worms?? perhaps the worms beat the spiders to it) and then we
copied them and learned weaving.

Which came first on this planet? Spiders or silk-worms or tent
weaving caterpillars? Who were the first weavers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Invention of the Bow and Arrow; information
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/05/08
Message-ID: (6j055s$ntl$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.bio.technology,sci.bio.misc,sci.chem

>
> The above would make an interesting research experiment. See how long
> it would take to make a bow & arrow bow string from spider silk. A mix
> of both collecting the webs and of using the spiders in the above
> manner.

While hunting for physics articles I spyed an advertisement relevant to
this thread.

Dupont ad on page 2-3, June 1996 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN... single strand
of spider silk, thick as a pencil, could stop a 747 in flight. ...
dragline silk of the orb-weaving spider... Dupont scientists have
created synthetic spider silk...
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: History repeats in blocks with improvement;
Providence is a weaker Superdeterminism
Date: 10 Jan 1999 07:38:34 GMT
Organization: history is an unfolding physics experiment,
where it repeats in blocks only with improvements
in each successive block
Lines: 74
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <779ldr$fu3$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

I wrote the below quote in another post but need to comment on the
features of Providence in history and the mechanism of Superdeterminism
in physics of the Atom Totality theory. A providence view of history is
a weaker view of superdeterminism. Providence view is like the ancient
Greek god view that the gods play around with history in a
here-and-there fashion. Leaving much of human history to the free-will
of humans but interceding on occasions by the Gods to change the course
of history. In superdeterminism, everything that happens has been
ordered by the Gods and there is no free-will. In the Atom Totality
theory, humanity lives on a tiny piece of the last electron and the
observable universe of the night sky is merely the space and matter of
the last six electrons, the 5f6. Every thought and every action is
arranged for by the Protons in the Nucleus of 231Pu. You could say that
God is 231Pu and that the Protons, each are minor gods to the 231Pu
god.

History repeats in blocks only each new block has newer changes. For
example in this VCR lecture, Dr. Oden talks about how the United States
looked upon England as what Israel looked upon Egypt. Thus, George
Washington is a Moses and Queen Elizabeth is a Pharoah and the Atlantic
Ocean is the Red Sea. Similar analogies are like repeating blocks of
history only improvement changes occur in each newer block of history.

> --- quoting in parts from the VCR, Dr. Robert Oden, Headmaster The
> Hotchkiss School, Lecture 8: Bringing It All Back Home: Religion and
> the American Identity, VCR, 1991 ---
>
> .. Puritan foundation of the 'American-self'
> [85% of 1776 US is Puritanism]
> ..comes from Puritanism says Robert Bella, " religious dimension of
> American political life.. whose central tenet is that the nation is not
> an ultimate end in itself, but stands under transcendent judgment and
> has value only in so far it realizes a higher law." ... We don't exist
> for our own end. That America has a higher goal and elected for a
> higher purpose.
> .. What Bella notices.. three chief themes which he sees as
> constitutional, constituting American civil..(1) America's Providential
> history (2) notion of a Covenant (3) the fact, that the ultimate
> Sovereignty over this nation is essentially not the people's but God's
> (an anti Democratic element here, the argument runs)..
> ... It is in our souls [Puritanism] whether we be Jews, Christians,
> Unitarians or whatever..
>.. What Washington says on this aspect of America's providential history
> .. George Washington in his 2nd [inaugural]: "No people can be bound to
> acknowledge on a door the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of
> men more than those in the United States. Every step by which they have
> advanced to the character of the independent nation seems to have been
> distinguished by some tokens of providential agency.
> .. Whatever is happening in America, it is not happening by accident.
> It is part of God's plan.
>
> ... Covenant.. pact with God in founding this nation.. not just what
> Democracy can prove, but what 'correctly defined humanity' can mean for
> the globe.
> .. Good place to see this is in Lincoln who sees the Civil War in
> covenantial terms.
>
> --- end quoting in parts from the VCR, Dr. Robert Oden, Headmaster The
> Hotchkiss School, Lecture 8: Bringing It All Back Home: Religion and
> the American Identity, VCR, 1991 ---

I am happy that the United States politics uses spiritual or religious
order within its body politics. And that Democracy as a ruling
mechanism is not the _only and the highest_ level of US politics but
that US politics reaches for a spiritual and religious levels to assist
its governing. The case in point example is the recent impeachment of
president Clinton, even in the face of large democratic popularity, the
Congress of the US reached for a religious level to assist them in
their decision to impeach. It is as if, God came up to the US Congress
and dictated that impeachment would pass, against the background of
popular wishes. In past blocks of history, a similar type of Clinton
administration would have been ignored, but in this block of history,
the improvement is that humanity will not tolerate such a offence by
the leader.

applying math to history of superpower
nations

by Archimedes Plutonium

this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: applying math to history of superpower nations
Date: 18 Dec 1998 08:19:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <75d363$7ng$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

> Now looking at history and superpowerdoms, ie, blocks of history. The
> history followed this sequence:
>
> Greek superpowerdom
> Roman superpowerdom
> British superpowerdom
> US superpowerdom (it started in 1860s with battle of Monitor &
> Merrimack)
>
> One can see patterns of history connected with the sciences.

The above made me think that there is a mathematical model that
perhaps fits the history of humanity for the past 3,000 years. I would
need to define superpowerdom more precisely. But let me just start this
research into mathematically modeling the history of the past 3,000
years with respect to superpowerdom nation.
Of course, the reader and researchers must keep in mind that History
is physics. Instead of researching balls rolling down inclined planes
or billiard balls moving around on billiard tables, it is humans and
their actions and interactions. All of human history is a subset of
physics. With that in mind let me start to apply physics and math to
superpowerdom.

Previously in many other posts I sketched a definition of
superpowerdom status. It involved control over the best forms of energy
and technology of the time, and so the superpowerdoms looked like this:

Greek superpowerdom, the movable rowing, see Ancient Greek Rowing
sliding seat p82, MAY96, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Roman superpowerdom, waterwheel technology coupled with engineering of
aqueducts
British superpowerdom, coal energy and technology
US superpowerdom, electricity then nuclear energy

But the superpowerdoms also had control of the seas, or oceans during
their reign. Apparently controlling the oceans is essential in becoming
the superpower nation because you control commerce.

Greek superpowerdom, controlled the Meditterean Sea
Roman superpowerdom, controlled the Med. Sea
British superpowerdom, controlled the oceans
US superpowerdom, took control over the oceans after the Civil War
1860s

But now I need to look at the history of the superpowerdoms with
respect to the block of time. The US superpowerdom started after the
Civil War battle of the Monitor and Merrimack, for that was the signal
that the baton of superpowerdom had passed from England to that of the
United States. That was the 1860s and economists may want to fix a
year where the US surpassed England in population and
means-of-production. Perhaps early in the 1900s. But we have no end
dates for the US superpowerdom for it has not ended.
So we have to look back upon England to give us the best established
record of the life-span of a superpowerdom nation. When did England
take rule over Roman superpowerdom? By Roman I mean not only the Roman
Empire but the Holy Roman Empire. The end of the Roman Empire as
superpowerdom was not barbarian conquest of Rome, because the
civilization of Rome was so vast that it extended beyond the conquest,
invasion and battles of Rome. So I would have to find some year for
which the British superpowerdom started and the Roman had ended. Not
knowing enough history let me make a guess at this date year. I would
guess the year 1000 because I remember that coal was used in England by
the year 1000 and ships were used in England to transport this coal and
those ships were being modified and improved in the shipping of coal.
So the coal was forcing the British to making the best ships that would
force them to become the wayfaring ocean explorers and later colonists.
Then I would have to find a year which the Roman superpowerdom started
and the Greek superpowerdom ended. Perhaps that would be the battle for
Syracuse Sicily by the Romans, 212 BC. Now what is a date year that we
can affix to the start of the Greek superpowerdom? Ancient history does
not afford as accurate of dates. The start of the Greek superpowerdom
would have to be before it colonized many other Greek states outside of
Greece, such as Metapontum, Italy circa 530BC. The start of colonizing
began around 1400 BC. So let me put down some rough dates.

Greek superpowerdom, 1400BC - 212 BC for a duration of 1188 years
Roman superpowerdom, 212 BC - 1000 for a duration of 1212 years
[corrected]
British superpowerdom, 1000 - 1900 for a duration of 900 years
US superpowerdom, 1900 - present ongoing

So of the past 3 superpowerdoms, with a rough-average duration of
approx 900 years, the US superpowerdom should last to approx the year
2800.

But if my theory that history repeats in blocks wherein the factors
of energy&technology, and sea control, and population+productive
capacity would make those blocks of time even more precise.
Here is a rough outline of a mathematical model:

(the quantities of population+productive capacity + sea control +
energy&technology) multiplied by a variable == time duration as
superpowerdom

Using the past three superpowerdoms and the present US for the factual
data, a formula model can be established wherein the duration of time
somewhat equals the factors defining superpowerdom.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: applying math to history of superpower nations
Date: 19 Dec 1998 04:36:46 GMT
Organization: history is completed physics
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <75fagu$61j$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: <75d363$7ng$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <75d363$7ng$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

Okay, let us start the Greek superpowerdom with the Greek victory in
the Trogan War over the control of trade in the Dardanelles. That
occurred approx 1200BC.

Greek superpowerdom, 1200BC - 200 BC for a duration of 1000 years
Roman superpowerdom, 200 BC - 1000 for a duration of 1200 years
[corrected]
British superpowerdom, 1000 - 1900 for a duration of 900 years
US superpowerdom, 1900 - present ongoing

So the average lifespan of a superpowerdom nation is 900 years, almost
a millenium.

And although control over the seas, oceans was important in the three
past superpowerdoms and for the start of the 4th superpowerdom, the
control over space, the solar system will be important in the US
superpowerdom. And although the US has no challengers at the moment to
its superpowerdom status, that is rapidly changing in what may become a
United Europe or European Union with perhaps Russia joining. And the
Asian countries may form a United Asia. If that happens, then the US
would have 2 large contenders.

----------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history,soc.history.science,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: applying math to history of superpower nations
Date: 20 Dec 1998 03:03:31 GMT
Organization: history is a physics experiment already done
Lines: 98
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <75hpe3$tut$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

Greek superpowerdom, 1200BC - 200 BC for a duration of 1000 years;
starting with Trojan War controlling the trade in the Dardanelles and
ending with the dispersal of Alexander-the-Great empire

Roman superpowerdom, 200 BC - 1000 for a duration of 1200 years;
starting with Punic Wars

British superpowerdom, 1000 - 1900 for a duration of 900 years;
starting with coal commerce and technology

US superpowerdom, 1900 - present ongoing; starting with petrol and
electricity and nuclear energy

Summary:
Greek superpowerdom lasted 1000 years
Roman superpowerdom lasted 1200 years
British superpowerdom lasted 900 years
US superpowerdom ?

In article <75d363$7ng$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> mathematical model:
>
> (the quantities of population+productive capacity + sea control +
> energy&technology) multiplied by a variable == time duration as
> superpowerdom

Now in the math model, as I hone it more and more precise I should
get a relatively reasonable agreement with the actual history data. And
then it should go far beyond by predicting both the past and the
future. One past history prediction is the great importance of
*waterwheel technology* and the need for archaeologists to prove the
central importance of waterwheel power for Roman Empire.

About 300 BC with a population in Rome of 100,000. And in the peak of
the Roman Empire the city swelled to over a million people. I need hard
core data of populations and reasonable data of "productive capacity".
For example, a accurate date for the US becoming the superpowerdom
after Britain is where the US population plus productive capacity
surpassed Britain. That year was 1895. For ancient superpowerdoms such
data can only be guessed at.

The math model will include the important factor data of population and
productive capacity.

But a more important factor is Energy and Technology. This factor alone
is the single most important factor in history and all the other
factors put together are less important than just this one of Energy &
Technology. Modern civilization was given us mostly by petrol energy
with a contribution by atomic-energy. When we colonize outer space in
future centuries, it will be nuclear energy that is key in that
colonization.

So, by Energy & Technology factor call it E', and T', I should be
able to compute the variable call it V, or constant call it C to make
equal of these

Greek superpowerdom 1000 years = (slavepower + advanced ship
technology of retractable rowing) quantity X V add C.

Let me shorten that into symbols:

1000 years = (E' + T')*V + C

For the Roman superpowerdom the main engine of that rule was waterwheel
and aqueducts and roads. The Romans were the indisputable masters of
engineering of their time.

So for the Roman superpowerdom in short form:

1200 years = (E' + T')*V + C

For the British Superpowerdom the main engine was coal, for the country
was blessed with ample deposits of coal (later the US would be blessed
with ample petrol). And the coal caused the British ship technology to
become the most advanced in the world and coupled with the fact that
the country was surrounded by oceans caused Britain to win the
shipbuilding race and be well ahead of competitors in colonizing.
Colonization is a factor in the above equations, but colonization
like population and productive capacity is set by Energy and
Technology. The British superpowerdom was lifted near the end of its
long rule with the Industrial Revolution- a fallout of the coal energy
that started it all for Britain.

900 years = (E' + T')*V + C

Now, one can make various assumptions about E' and T' and V and C
and derive numbers for them such that the other side of the equation
yields 1000 then 1200 and then 900.

And once done with the quantitative model, we should be able to look
back at the history in a _qualitative way_ and say, ah yes, that slave
power in the eastern Med. Sea with the best ships can last 1000 years
and that a waterwheel+ aqueducts + roads + ships can last 1200 years
and that the next step in energy is coal powered and it can last for
900 years, and the model should make rough predictions on how long the
petrol + nuclear energy superpowerdom may last.

the analogy repeat of the set WW1+WW2

by Archimedes Plutonium

this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: When was the first (WW1 + WW2)??
And the second WW1 + WW2 was the end of king government
Date: 8 Feb 1999 08:48:19 GMT
Organization: history is physics, and history repeats in analogies
Lines: 55
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <79m8cj$8bk$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

When was the first (WW1 + WW2)?? And the second WW1 + WW2 was the end
of king government

That title may be confusing to most. I have several theories on
history and how history is related to physics. One of those theories
says that history repeats in large portions by analogy, and by
similarites to past blocks of history.

I decompose the history into four large blocks of superpowerdom of
Greek, Roman, British, US. The US superpowerdom is the most recent and
has durated only about 100 years. And I mark the transition from the
British superpowerdom to the US as an accurate date of 1864 with the
battle of Monitor & Merrimack. And in terms of energy that transition
could be taken as to the energy transition of the coal world to that of
oil and atomic at year 1900. So WW1 and WW2 were at the end of the
British superpowerdom and well within the US superpowerdom.

I watched the movie GUNS OF AUGUST recently and it was a great movie.
It clearly implied that the cause of WW1 was a disintegration of
king-royalty-rule. Most history books ascribe WW1 caused by Archduke
Ferdinand, or trade tariffs, or entangling alliances. I would say that
the primary cause was that the king-royalty form of government was no
longer viable and was a system that was going to be swept out of
history of the superpowerdoms.

So, applying my history repeats in analogy or similarity from other
past blocks of history would suggest that in the past other two blocks
of history, from the transition of Roman superpowerdom to that of the
British superpowerdom had a sort of WW1 & WW2 type of conflict and
associated with that conflict was a removal of a past form of
government that could no longer rule adequately and this inadequacy
directly or indirectly caused this huge conflict. The same for the
transition of the Greek superpowerdom to that of the Roman.

So, I have a question, considering that the transition of Roman to
British was around 1000 AD, and the transition from Greek to Roman was
about 200 BC. Question, were there any WW1 + WW2 conflicts around 1000
AD and 200 BC. From my limited familarity of history, I believe the
Romans had a (at their time) world conflict in fighting most all of the
Med. Sea communities. If so, was there a significant change in pattern
of government from the Greeks to the Romans at around 200 BC? And for
the British superpowerdom starting at 1000 AD, were the British
involved in a world type conflict similar to WW1+WW2 for their time?
And was there a change in pattern of government at around 1000 AD?

My theory says that a repeat analogy need not exist in every block of
history but that in at least one past time there is a analogous pattern
to the present history and the present history will have improved (have
a spice kicker thrown in) from the past analogous history.

So, can we say that there existed a type of WW1 plus WW2 pattern in
the past history? And if one existed that is analogous to some degree
to the real WW1 plus WW2 conflicts, then, can we notice a shift of
world government rule such as the shift of removal of king royalty rule
in Europe to that of a new rule of Democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: When was the first (WW1 + WW2)??
And the second WW1 + WW2 was the end of king government
Date: 11 Feb 1999 07:32:32 GMT
Organization: History is physics and has patterns
Lines: 85
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <79u12g$obm$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

--- quoting an old corrected post of mine ---
Subject: Re: applying math to history of superpower nations
Date: 19 Dec 1998 04:36:46 GMT
Organization: history is completed physics
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <75fagu$61j$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <75d363$7ng$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> writes:

Okay, let us start the Greek superpowerdom with the Greek victory in
the Trogan War over the control of trade in the Dardanelles. That
occurred approx 1200BC.

So the average lifespan of a superpowerdom nation is 900 years, almost
a millenium.
--- end quote ---

Look at the events of WW1 and WW2 can call that one event. And the
primary cause of WW1+WW2 was the superpowerdom change of political
power away from royalty-king system to that of popular vote system. And
note the time of WW1+WW2, in that it occurred early on in the
successive superpowerdom of the US, involving the old superpowerdom of
England. In fact, the political order that was to be removed had its
focal center in London England, the royalty-king system and intensified
by the king system of Germany, later the dictator system but that is
just another form of king system. One could say in the long view of
history that the WW1+WW2 complex was started by a little known king of
the archduke asassination, and was really the heralding of the end of
royalty-king rule in superpowerdom. And WW1+WW2 occurred 1914 - 1945
for approx. 30 years. And it occurred well within the US superpowerdom.

So let us look in past history for the previous analogous WW1+WW2
complex. Remember it is not identical patterns but it new analogy has a
improvement. And hard to imagine that WW1+WW2 was better, and had a
spice kicker in it over any war complex of the past.

So, since history repeats analogously in one of the past blocks of
history, where do we find another WW1+WW2 type complex.

Was the punic war the analogy of the WW1+WW2 type complex and if so,
what political rule was changed from the previous Greek superpowerdom?
If so, then what political system did the Romans have that was superior
to the Greeks? Obviously the Greeks political power was never able to
unite its city-states into one.

Was the Crusades or the Hundred Years' War the analogy of the WW1+WW2
type complex and if so, what political rule was changed from the
previous Roman superpowerdom? That is, what political power dynamics
did the English have that was superior over the Romans?
--- quoting Acad Amer Encyc ---
Topic: Punic Wars
The Punic Wars were three great confrontations between Rome and
the North African city-state of CARTHAGE. They stretched over more than
a century (264-146 BC), and, at their conclusion Rome was the greatest
power in the West and Carthage was totally destroyed. The conflicts
receive their name from the Latin punicus, meaning "Carthaginian."
Topic: Crusades
The Crusades were Christian military expeditions undertaken
between the 11th and the 14th century to recapture the Holy Land from
the Muslims. The word crusade, which is derived from the Latin crux
("cross"), is a reference to the biblical injunction that Christians
carry their cross (Matt.10:38). Crusaders wore a red cloth CROSS sewn
on their tunics to indicate that they had assumed the cross and were
soldiers of JESUS CHRIST.
Topic: Hundred Years' War
The Hundred Years' War is the name traditionally given to the
Anglo-French conflicts that occurred between 1337 and 1453, but a more
accurate set of dates would be the 150-year period from 1294 to 1444.
As members of the French ANGEVIN dynasty and rulers of the French duchy
of GUIENNE, the kings of England were French feudal lords who resented
royal encroachment on their jurisdiction. Within Britain, however, they
attempted to dominate the independent kingdom of Scotland. French
assistance to the Scots was countered by English measures to thwart
French penetration of Flanders.
--- end quote ---

In article <7a3nn9$4jd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> writes:

> I guess you miss the point: I don't think you can say so easily that the
> Brits ruled 1000-1900 which means most of the theory collapses.

Injection of real science into a subject where the blokes who run
around in the subject are not used to seeing science much less
understand anything, is sometimes even worse than introducing
revolutionary new ideas into physics or biology.

Obviously the above poster cannot realize or understand that one
nation has to be a superpowerdom at any one moment of past history.
Cannot understand a definition.

I suppose all the people in history have a weak logical background as
well as a weak science background.

One poster even denied Roman superpowerdom after about 400-500 AD
claiming that Rome had fallen and sacked. These guys, I think, must
imagine the Roman empire as having slide down into a black hole. These
guys are not even capable of understanding that Rome during the time of
Galileo was one of the finest thriving places on Earth.

They read in the books that Rome had lost some war, and to them they
cannot realize that the Roman superpowerdom system essentially carried
on for another 500 years, mostly due to the fact that the Roman
superpowerdom was so strong that it outlived "fallens and sackings".
Wars and battles are merely a one dimension of a superpowerdom. In the
case of Rome, all of economic trades and engineered roads and canals
and commerce and political bureaucracies were still in place after 500
AD. And most was in place to allow the Roman superpowerdom to remain
the worlds superpowerdom up to 1,000 AD when British overtook the Roman
superpowerdom.

I think all history majors should be required to take a college logic
and first year physics course, just so that they do make such fools of
themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: 2.2 Re: When was the first (WW1 + WW2)??
And the second WW1 + WW2 was the end of king government
Date: 17 Feb 1999 09:32:19 GMT
Organization: history is an unfolded physics experiment such as
balls rolling down inclined plane
Lines: 131
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <7ae2b3$r1i$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <36C9F96A...@boeing.com> writes:

> I like the big aspects of your thinking, but as you would admit, the
> details need work. Those "details" comprise whole epochs of human

Wrong, for you have not understood my theory. Analogy-repeat-theory
does not repeat in details, it repeats in _analogy and similarity_
where we extract the main thrust of history of former blocks of time
and use it to indicate how future may have some threads of similarity.

This is history in its _main thrusts_ not its many details. So, I
need a world conflict of the past, I need a world conflict somewhere
around 1000 AD, and I need a world conflict somewhere around 200 BC.
They may be several hundred years plus or minus from those dates.

We can say that WW2 was caused by WW1 in that WW1 had not settled the
issues. The issues that caused WW1 were many, but one issue stands out
above all the others in that it was an end in king or royalty rule in
the superpowerdom and the competitors of the superpowerdom nation of
Britain. The world conflict of WW1 and WW2 occurred in the waning
superpowerdom of Britain and Europe, not in the waxing new
superpowerdom of US. But that is details. For it may be that the past
world conflicts did not happen in Roman areas or in Greek areas as it
happened near the superpowerdom of England in the early 1900s long
after the US held the baton as the new superpowerdom.

The important question is that once I find these world conflicts,
were these world conflicts due mainly from a factor of a passing-on of
a new form of rule.
WW1 and WW2 were world conflicts focused near the waning superpowerdom
of England, and the main cause of all of this conflict was the waning
of king/royalty/dictator rule. And the new form of government would be
the two-party/democracies.

So, were the Crusades the analog of WW1+WW2 for the Roman Empire?
And, if so, what new form of rule was ushered in and what form of rule
had ended? What was the main form of rule by the Roman Empire? And was
there something by the time of the Crusades that was superior to the
Roman forms of rulership and which England possessed? What in rulership
did England possesses by 1000 AD that Roman empire lacked?

Or, was the Punic Wars the WW1+WW2 of 200 BC. And if so, what was
superior in the rulership of the Romans to that of the Greeks? It is
obvious that the Greeks could never integrate city-states, and perhaps
that was the key rulership element that would make Rome the next
superpowerdom. The Punic Wars with Carthage and then Sicily and Greek
mainland itself were similar to WW1+WW2 and the signal that Rome held
the baton of the next superpowerdom.

The important issue on my mind is that, once I find what world
conflicts are closest to matching WW1+WW2, then to analyze what
ruleship was superior from the previous ruleship.

>
> Definitely, the British did not take up the slack as soon as Rome fell.
> There is no way that British Superpowerdom stretched from 1000-1900 A.D.

Wrong, for by 1000 AD, the English had started with what would become
the key to energy for the next 900 years-- coal. And England had a rich
deposit of coal. The coal would spur Britain to become the number one
naval power. In analyzing history in such large blocks, energy is the
key factor. The signs that the US would be the next superpowerdom was
obvious in the harbingers of oil, and to compound oil, the US was first
in atomic energy. The superpowerdom controls Earth's major new
technologies of energy.
So, a historian-scientist (Maxwell Demon) were to land on Earth in
the year 1000 AD, and looking for what nation is Earth's superpowerdom.
He would look at factors such as population, commerce and trading, and
geography and other factors but the main factor he would look for is
coal for he would realize that Earth at this time was about to pass
into coal technology and that the superpowerdom nation would be that
nation that maximized coal technology.

> Britain didn't become dominant until closer to 1700. Although

Britain was already the superpowerdom by year 1000 AD because coal
would propel England. And like a very long race, those running it may
not be able to pick out the winner early on, but the momentum was there
all along. It was the coal in 1000 AD that fuelled England's rise in
prosperity, population and full blossom by 1600 and 1700.

> they had the #1 world empire due to their sea power, they were always
> just one of many players on the European continent.

Superpowerdom's always have competitors. The US has competitors, such
as Russia and Japan and now the EU. In fact, superpowerdoms, when they
become so strong as the US has become so strong, competitors join
together. We see this on a person to person psychological level as well
as on a sociology nation level. If a person is very strong, two others
naturally become friends because subconsciously or consciously they
anticipate future fighting and so they join together to even the odds.
And superpowerdoms can lose battles and even wars, and in the case of
Rome in 400s even the nation, but wars are only one factor, one
dimension of many dimensions of a superpowerdom. When Rome fell in
400s, it really did not fall, it just changed leaders, for the Roman
empire was the best infrastructure on Earth and would outlive whatever
wars were fought and won. And one need only imagine the splendor of
Rome around 1600 with Galileo to realize that the sacking of Rome in
the 400s meant little in the larger picture of historical-science.

> Although
> they had the #1 world empire due to their sea power, they were always
> just one of many players on the European continent. At the time that you
> would have the British taking over as #1 superpower (1000 A.D.), they
> were actually at the mercy of the Danes/Norwegians/Norsemen/Normans.
> These were Scandinavian coastal raiders ("North men") who eventually
> ruled coastal France, England, etc. They were a seaborne version of the
> earlier Franks, Goths, Saxons, etc. who overran the Roman Empire,
> including Britain, and turned Europe into a collection of Frankish,
> Gothic, Saxon, etc. kingdoms.

Wrong again. Superpowerdoms need a population base. And by 1000 AD,
England was attracting people from foreign lands. Superpowerdoms
attract people and thus build their population base. And the fact that
these people were sea-faring was a good sign for England in that they
would be sea-going people. So, from 1000 AD onwards, England would
rapidly build its superpowerdom status. But it was the coal energy that
was the dynamo.

What was the energy factor for the Romans in taking the superpowerdom
from the Greeks? The dynamo of the Romans was the waterwheel coupled
with aqueducts coupled with roads and bridges. The ancient Romans were
the Engineering superpowerdom of their time. The English would soon
arrest the title of the world's best engineering nation. And by 1900
the US would arrest that title.

The poster promised to give more exact dates? I do not see any dates.
When was the Punic wars with Carthage? Was there any world conflict in
the Med. Sea around 1000 AD plus or minus several centuries?

-----------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: 2.2 Re: When was the first (WW1 + WW2)??
And the second WW1 + WW2 was the end of king government
Date: 17 Feb 1999 09:51:49 GMT
Organization: History Analogy theory
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <7ae3fl$t2g$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <7ae2b3$r1i$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> writes:

> When Rome fell in
> 400s, it really did not fall, it just changed leaders, for the Roman
> empire was the best infrastructure on Earth

So many history books are flawed and they brainwash the minds of
future-to-be-historians. Sure, the barbarian hordes went into Rome and
sacked Rome around 400. But these books should not leave the impression
that Rome was just a pile of ashes, never to recover.

A better impression was that Rome had changed leadership by 400s, and
that Rome would continue its superpowerdom well until the year 1000 AD
when England would arrest superpowerdom from Rome.

Is there an analogy to the changing of leadership of Rome in the 400s
with the superpowerdom history of England? Or of the ancient Greeks
before them? If memory serves, Athens was sacked, and then recovered to
rule longer? Anyone know?

--------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: 2.2 Re: When was the first (WW1 + WW2)??
And the second WW1 + WW2 was the end of king government
Date: 18 Feb 1999 07:39:30 GMT
Organization: my definition of superpowerdom
Lines: 46
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <7agg3i$8oa$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <36C974F8...@gmx.net> writes:

> Islam superpowerdom, 632 (Muhammad's death; Arabia united) - 1492
> (860 years)
> Spanish superpowerdom, 1492 (Spain takes the last Muslim part of Iberia,
> Granada and sends Chris Columbus to America) - 1588
> (96 years)
>
> > British superpowerdom, 1000 - 1900 for a duration of 900 years
>
> English superpowerdom, 1588 (the battle in the canal) - 1783 (oh I
> forgot - what happened in that year?)
> (195 years)
> French superpowerdom, 1789-1815 (congress of Vienna)
> (21 years...)
> British superpowerdom, 1815-1917
>
> > US superpowerdom, 1900 - present ongoing
>
> US-superpowerdom, since 1917 (when they entered WWI) and still going
> strong...

The concept of superpowerdom is more than a one-dimensional factor,
it is multidimensional. The above poster looks at history mostly as who
fought in what battles and who won. Military strength is certainly one
dimension of superpowerdom, but not the most important. More important
dimensions of superpowerdom is 'leading-cutting-edge on technology and
energy'. When viewed in that perspective, Arabs and Spain never
surpassed the English, nor did Germany even in the world wars of 1900s.
I doubt that Germany of 1940 against the US alone would have won. I
think the US alone would have trounced Germany. Of course, the US never
needed to prepare for war since they were separated by an Ocean. If a
Germany of 1940 had fought singularly with a Japan of 1940, that would
have been an even match, and we know what a US did to Japan. I would
even entertain the thought that a US against a combined Germany and
Japan, that the US would have won, provided that the US were stuck
between Germany and Japan instead of Russia. The US is too vast and
rich for Germany and Japan. But I stray.

Your definition of superpowerdom is just a military flex of muscle
for a brief period of time. My definition of superpowerdom is a nation
that carries foremost, the baton of *energy and technology* plus
strengths in economics, in military, in stable government and many
other factors. My superpowerdom definition includes the center of
science and technology. Military strength is dependent upon technology.

0 new messages