An Explanation of Historical Greatness of Civilizations By Availability of Resources

Here's The PR;
. 0
.Others who have considerd it believe the general course of history can be explained by the Eurasian band of good weather, giving advantage with a broad band to build up science and culture, but this still wouldn't explain why for example the Chinese were not the main colonizers like the Europeans, or the Russians who were near the band of the good weather. To explain this about the Chinese and more about history on this post, I consider that the brilliance of a civilization if it can be measured, can be correlated with the access to resources, to better than 10 percent, with more causal link than a weather report.

To measure brilliance of civilizations I use five general measures like wealth, wars won, creativity, and so on, and to measure the resources that had influence, creativity is a good advantage to have... And to measure Excellence five more. Good weather no doubt as an influence on most of ancient and modern history. Other boosts like water transport (of major influence to ancient Greece and Rome to speed up ancient history!) or salt for example (no salt, essential to life inland without ways of reach in ancient and even up to our time) measure the main resources. This measure of resources I name Foundations of History, F.H that may have had influence on the brilliance of the civilization Brilliance Rating, or B.R. also named the Excellence in History or E.H. Rating, and they correlate to about 10% which is a high moderate correlation..

Because life and history is complex, and because I assume each of the five components of the F.H. and B.R., are so essential to the advantage in history, that all five of each rating can roughly be counted as one unit in the rating, and they would level out to one unit each, like most authors in 500 BC! Obviously if you look at an age in history like the chinese (Ming) dynasty of the 1600's or ancient greece they had both a high FH and BR, and other times in history like the US in the 1800's or ancient egypt that had most but not all of the F.H and got a high to middle E.H. rating. And no doubt, other times in history like in modern South America the resouces are poor and so is the E.R. You may say it's obvious poverty causes slower improvement of civilization and they've found that it's enough to make persons ill. This is only recently they've actually proven this. We may hear a lot about all this about how the poor people are just naturally that way, if the glory goes not so much to the greeks, in a real way it goes more to us all, glory is nearer than it seems.

So it's easier than it would seem to be brilliant, all of us are. In brain research they find we have the same neurons as other higher life, just more of the same neurons, if we wear a hat with a fan, all year round! Science proves creativity isn't a sudden blaze of light, rather creativity is after many labors then creating the boost. It was once believed creativity was rare and just the geniuses had a lot, they find it's more common and most of us have a lot of creativity. In this explanation Einstein is like the other 999 Einstein's who lived before him, he was just in a situation of more favor, the other Einsteins were wise too.

.

Here's The Olds!
.
Europe and Asia are the area in the world where the land is distributed east to west, with a band of good weather from China to Europe. This in the "plane explanation" is believed to be important in history because it was easier for commerce between all the businesses who lived on the band. The other areas of the world had a north south distribution like where the western hemisphere is now. This N S weather limit to travel with the heat would limit trade. Any contribution to the science was retained by all who lived in the Europe and Asian band of travel. There were more inventors on the band than in other regions because it was a large region and all their discoveries where available and retained by all the Eurasians involved. Progress was slower to reach other regions this built up the advantage of science that Europeans and Asians in other nations although of the same genes, were unable to have the advantage of. This belief was the explanation put forth in the magazine The Sciences. This explains the wealth of the first world and the third world as it now is. But of the first world, why did China just do somewhat well, while the ancient greeks were of elevated culture? Russia is near the wide band. Why are the Russians poor? Here I would elaborate the general idea of the article in The Sciences with addition to the general causology.

. What was it about the greeks that no other civilization seems to have in history? The greeks had the climate band, and something important the Russians and Africans didn't, good weather. Bad weather has been so much a burden that at any age in history the more north you go, the older the age like the bronze or iron age is. The sucessive ages like the later stone age or the bronze age generally arrive later the nearer the bad weather at the high or low altitudes you go. The iron age has no definite time, it has many times.

This was also because there were not as many people living more north. Carl Sagan said one of the reasons the greeks were the first to be good at so many things and to almost invent science and other creativity was that they were at one of the crossroads of civilizations rather than one of it's centers (if most of the roads are in the water!). This caused more of the advance of culture to be allowed and aided, much like how the web has added speed to science by faster travel of ideas. The greeks were where the boats would stay between far and near. The best sort of ancient transport in terms of war and commerce was via water, so travel was by ships. Even now boats carry far more to the world near more with far richer worth than any other form of transport. So the second "foundation of history" in ancient times and unchanged now was available shipping by boat, not shipping by semi!

Any form of transportation like train or van is of use so while ancient history was aided by the boats, today most regions of the world have this advantage. So although it may be of use to explain ancient history, it's not a cause of modern history about the general advantage the first world has had over the third world in modern ages.

Another important influence in history that aided the ancients may be about no overcrowding, just up to about the time the ancient BC ended and the Empire started; this may have been a major aid that other nations like the communist nations of today don't have to enrich it's people. For my explanation of overpopulation's influence by way of increased competition for reduced resources, CLICK HERE..

Another reason the Romans and Greeks may have done well was because they lived by the ocean. Inland, salt is tough to find and it's essential to life.

These are what I call the 5 Foundations of History (F H); . EGW; The Eurasian band of good weather G.W.; Good weather generally . W.T. Water Transport Available, Mostly Ancient History, But Up To Recent History, of Import . N.O.U. No Over or Undercrowding . S.E.L. Salt Essential to Life to be found, Just Near the Sea (till more recent ages) Each counts as one.

How we know how well each civilization did in history; Excellence in History (E H) may be also measured by 5 ideas; HR How Rich they are or were when rated; WW Wars Won; Fr Freedom; SI Science and Inventions; AC Art and Other Creativity.

Here I will also rate the Excellence in History (E H) of some civilizations on a 1-5 scale, also 1- 5 I'll list to compare the Excellence In History with the Foundations in History.

All this I use to explain most of what was named history mostly about the other available advantages via the augumentation of the idea of the weather's influence so this basic idea may be improved especially about the research where they find no distinction in the genes or chromosomes of all the world's people, when The Excellence and Fundamentals correlate well is proof that the poverty of the third world is about limits of resources, and if they have the same wealth all the world would achieve just as the greeks.

5 is highest and the lowest score for an individual rating such as Overcrowding or Science is 1 or less

Excellence IN HISTORY; EH

ANCIENT GREEKS Overall E. H. 4.7 (before overcrowding);

HR How Rich The Greeks were certainly not poor; by the standard of half the world today, they were rich +1

WW Won Wars +1

FR Freedom While the greeks were the first in history who were slaves they also started democracy, even slavery may be of less import than the great greeks, so it's E.H. is +.7 for freedom

SI Science and Inventions The greeks were great at tech and came close enough to discovery of science that I give them a +1 in Science

AC Arts and Other Creativity No doubt +1

ANCIENT ROME REPUBLIC (B.C) E.H 4.2

HR +1

WW Wars Won +1

Fr Freedom +1

SI Science and Inventions +.5

AC Art and Other Creativity since copied from greeks but of high caliber +.7

ANCIENT ROME, EMPIRE E.H. Excellence Rating + 2.7 (AD 1 and later)

HR How Rich they are or were when rated +1

WW Wars Won 0

Fr Freedom +.7

SI Science and Inventions Invention of the arch and concrete (1st century), medical science much advanced (20,000 herbs then known to medicine) and so on, so not as low a score in science as you might think +.5

AC Art and Other Creativity high moving to low, the low has more import since high can't achieve well without solid foundation, and the high was also of excellent level so later Rome AC is +.5 0verall

AMERICA IN 1800's E.H. Excellence In History 4

HR How rich they are or were when rated +1

WW Wars Won +1

Fr Freedom +1

SI Science and Inventions +1

AC Art and Other Creativity 0

CHINA, 1600's "rennaisaince china" Excellence in History EH 4.2

HR How Rich they are or were when rated +.5 (imperial so lots of peasants)

WW Wars Won military campaigns agains the mongols +1

Fr Freedom There was some "superficial" oppression by the government of top officials but the people were't ill (freedom comes from within so peace breaks out) +.7

SI Science and Inventions +1

AC Art and Other Creativity +1

RENNAISSANCE EUROPE EH EXCELLENCE IN HISTORY 3.5

HR How Rich they are or were when rated many peasants +.5

WW Wars Won (for who?) +.5

Fr Freedom +.5

SI Science and Invention with Galileo's invention of science +1

AC Art and Other Creativity +1

ANCIENT EGYPT EH 3

HR How Rich they are or were when rated +.5.

WW Wars Won +1

Fr Freedom under rule of royals +.5

SI Science and Inventions +.3

AC Art and Other Creativity +.7

MODERN RUSSIA EH 1.7

HR How Rich they are or were when rated 0

WW Wars Won +.7

Fr Freedom -0

SI Science and Inventions +1

AC Art and Other Creativity 0

AFRICA, Contemperary EH 1.4

HR How Rich they are or were when rated .5

WW Wars Won .2

Fr Freedom 0

SI Science and Inventions .2

AC Art and Other Creativity .5

SOUTH AMERICA EH 1.2 (Although some wealth and freedom in some SA countries)

HR How Rich they are or were when rated .3

WW Wars Won (not usually with totaliarian governments for freedom) .5

Fr Freedom .2

SI Science and Inventions .2

AC Art and Other Creativity 1

EUROPE; MIDDLE AGES E. H +.7

HR How Rich they are or were when rated 0

WW Wars Won (mostly fuedal) 0

Fr Freedom 0

SI Science and Inventions +.2 (some activity, they weren't dumb, activity led to renaissance)

AC Art and Other Creativity +.5

AUSTRALIA 1700'S 1800'S EH +.7

HR How Rich they are or were when rated 0

WW Wars Won 0

Fr Freedom .5

SI Science and Inventions .1

AC Art and Other Creativity .1

AUSTRALIA CONTEMPORARY EH 3

HR How Rich +1

WW Wars Won +1 Fr

Freedom +1

SI Science and Inventions 0

AC Art and Other Creativity 0

___________________________

These numbers are based on the wealth, good deeds, science and other creativity, and freedom of the people of the time in history of the rating. Each Excellence in History counts as one point. Here's how the Foundations of History compare to these scores.

FOUNDATIONS OF HISTORY FH

ANCIENT GREEKS FH All 5,

EGW; The Eurasian band of good weather +1

G.W.; Good weather generally +1

W.T. Water Transport Available, Mostly Ancient History, But Up To Recent History, of Import +1

N.O.U. No Over or Undercrowding +1

S.E.L. Salt Essential to Life to be found, Just Near the Sea (till more recent ages) +1

Each Foundation of History (F.H.) counts as one point. Invasion by Rome not overcrowding caused the end of ancient greek history, so what we call ancient greece was not overpopulated so they are higher up the scale than Rome, by the one extra building block of what we call ancient greece not associated with overpopulation by definition.

ROME ANCIENT B.C. (before overcrowding) F.H. +4.3;

EGW; The Eurasian band of good weather not 1 because land transport was so slow and cumbersome in those ages +.3

G.W. Good weather generally +1

W.T. Water Transport Available +1

N.O.U. No Over or Undercrowding +1

S.E.L. Salt Essential to Life to be found +1

ANCIENT ROMAN EMPIRE (A.D.) AFTER OVERCROWDING F.H. +3.7

EGW; The Eurasian band of good weather but so early in history just +.7

G.W.; Good weather generally +1

W.T. Water Transport Available, +1

N.O.U. No Over or Undercrowding 0

S.E.L. Salt Essential to Life to be found +1

AMERICA 1800's F.H. +3.3

E.G.W. America had no EW Eurasian belt of good weather but a transfer of science from the old world, but this link was neither strong or weak so it got .5

G.W. Weather good +1

W.T.The US in the time of the old west had poor water transport, although later they had the trains, and better ships from the old world, so because of ties with european science, +1

N.O.U. Population was low so this is .3

S.E.L. Salt was to be found inland with better boats and travel, so this gets a .5

CHINA; 1600's "Rennaisaince China" F. H. 3.5

EGW European Good weather +1

GW Good Weather Generally +1

WT They had all but poor water transport (just along the coast) 0

N.O.U. low overpopulation (the Plague started here) +1

S.E.L. With poor water transport, not as easy to get salt inland .5 This gives renaissance china, 3.5 which is almost as good as America in the 1800's.

EUROPE 14-1600's Europe F.H. 3.5

E.G.W. Obviously with trade opening up in Europe with asia, they had the Eurasian Belt of weather and transport of ideas by it as they had in ancient times, reawakened. 1

G.W. Europe of the 1500's had poor weather north of the alps, bad weather south, and so on just +.5

W.T. Poor water transport for much of europe when it was of historic import; Because of the poor land transport, and the preceding lack of connection with Asia in the Middle Ages just as with the arctic and the stone age this slowed transfer of science and inventions from the Eurasian belt, at least in N Europe, +.5

N.O.U. No Over or Underpopulation Low overpopulation after the plague +1

S.E.L. Salt .5

Renaissance Europe, 3 comparable to the brilliant civilizations of the US or rennaissance china.

ANCIENT EGYPT F. of H. +2

E.G.W. European Good Band of weather Egypt had No Eurasian Band much near like Russia also 0

G.W. Bad Weather 0

W.T. Water transport Small area so no major commerce, so no real advantage of water transport so it's +.5

N.O.U. No overpopulation +1

S.E.L. The same for salt inland other than just for basic use, (no land!) -.5

RUSSIA MODERN F. of H. + 2.5

G.W. Good Weather 0

E.G.W Eurasian Good Weather Band Russia may be too far North to be much aided by it or to aid perhaps +.5

W.T. Water Transport of reduced import in modern history because it was superceded by other transportation motifs. Actually a +1

N.O.U. Over or Underpopulation European so overcrowded in modern times 0

S.E.L. Salt essential to life In modern times due to relatively good transport this was not a problem +1

AFRICA, SOUTH AMERICA 1 F. of H. 1 each (Although some wealth and freedom in some SA countries)

EGW European Good weather Band 0

G.W. Good Weather 0

W.T. Water Transport 0 except around coasts in older times

N.O.U.Underpopulation Or Overpopulation Overpopulation was just bad recently so before this +1

S.E.L.Salt 0

EUROPE IN DARK AGES F. of H. 1.6

EGW; The Eurasian band of good weather. Due to reduced transportation, the advantage of the good weather band was out of reach till the late middle ages -0

G.W.; Good weather generally, N Europe bad (above the alps winter was more like Russia with air from Russia moving S, South of the alps they were a limit to the cool weather, so Europe at the age had a BB rating about weather of just +.5

W.T. Water Transport Available, Mostly Ancient History, But Up To Recent History, of Import Slow land and water transport +.5

N.O.U. OverPopulation before The Plague 0

S.E.L. Salt Essential to Life to be found, Just Near the Sea, Even with slow land transport due to reduced economic activities not that far to go to transport salt +.6

AUSTRALIA Foundation of Older History had F. of H. of just (+.5) so there were few great Australians in the older history but this may soon change since the F of H rating has moved up to 3.5

EGW Eurasian Good Weather Band Not present in most of older Aussy History So in old times (0) With improved transport, Australia is in touch more much (+1)

G.W. Good weather not so good both (.5) now and (.5) then

W.T. Water Transport formerly unestablished (0) Now improved by other transport so in recent times W.T. is (+1)

N.O.U. No Over or Under Population till now before Under (0) Now over (0)

S.E.L. Salt Essential to Life Before (0) now (+1)

--

Here are the E. H. compared to the F. H.

Ancient greeks Overall E.H. 4.7 Ancient greeks Building Blocks All 5, Difference .3 (about 5.8% of 5)

Ancient Roma BC (Republic) BR 4.2 (before overcrowding) F.H 4.3 Difference .1 (2% of 5)

Ancient Roma AD B.R 2.7 (after overcrowding) F.H +3.7 Difference 1 (20% of 5)

America in 1800's E.H 4; F.H. 3.3 difference .7 (about 14% 0f 5)

China in 1600's "rennaisaince china" Excellence In History E.H 4.2 F.H. Foundations of History 3.5 Difference .7 (about 14% of 5)

Rennaiscance Europe E.H. 3.5 Rennaissance Europe F.H 3.5 Difference 0 (0% 0f 5)

Ancient Egypt BR 3 Ancient Egypt F. H. 2 Difference 1 (20% of 5)

Modern Russia F.H. 1.7 Modern Russia F.H (Foundations) + 2.5 Difference .8 (about 16% of 5)

Africa, Contemperary F.H 1 Africa E.H 1.4 Difference .4 (about 8% of 5)

South America F.H. +1. South America E.H +1.2 Difference .8 (16% of 5)

Europe In Dark Ages F.H 1.6 EUROPE IN DARK AGES .5 Difference 1.1 (25% of 5)

Australia BB older just (+.5) F.H and (+.7) Difference .2 (4% of 5)

Australia modern F.H. (3.5); EH (3) Difference .5 (10 % 0f 5)

.

All The differences between the FH and E.H. add up to 154% 13 times and places are 1300% and the difference is about 10% overall. This is a high to moderately high (signifigant) correlation. A correlation of just 2% in health science of improvement is considered to be a major improvement e.g. in medicine influencing millions of lives.

-

If most of history is because of these five Foundations and correlates well this a not a fatalistic view of history because the genes of the world's people, the geneticists say are almost exactly the same. If as some think "genes create the enviroment" in one explanation, this would seem to say that genes just make the best use of what environment they recieve. This may seem to trivialize history but all the civilizations before history began would rate a low F.H. because none of the physical posessions of higher civilizations were present. To compare civilizations to each other is not the same as comparing them to civilization in prehistoric times. Of course the life of the inner spirit of the prehistoric person was much like ours. They were just as true and they had almost all the social components that would be laws and customs later on in higher civilizations, as good as any. We owe all our life to them, our life, our world. (What's the "definition of natural" in life? Here's an explanation of HEALTH AS EVOLUTION with recent evidence in favor of this vision of our future as it relates to our evolution). So the high rating of the greeks was not because the other civilizations were so much bad, just mostly the greeks lucked out. A theory of historic motifs like the above that explains history mostly by available advantages may seem to trivialize history. I would say it's cosmic actually, life is simple, and good. It's easy to be a citizen of the cosmos, it doesn't take much to be exalted! Should it?

Because of the link of the advantages with the excellence, I believe my extension of idea that history was influenced by weather is true, and those of the third world have tried as much as we have to be good people and should be praised for all that's good about us all.

________________________

A real business woman is a woman who can win at 21 while she's with her boss!

How to Draw Real Good is a book so authored by Betsy W. I think she's a real art marm and I know how, on the outside is a self portrait-painted by her mother! .
.

We have a local police woman whose favorite show was Andy Griffith, she'd watch it in her jeep on TV, her favorite show this month is Star Search!

..
disclaimer

-..

WAS EINSTEIN'S BELIEF ABOUT ELECTROGRAVITY TRUE IN A DEEPER SENSE?

-

Einstein thought they were connected. If they are linked as in the following page, it would explain these four (otherwise unexplained) motifs;

..

The moon and earth and all other masses have exact conservation of linear and angular momentum. Since gravity is always found to be attractive in general, it's an acceleration, and can't be linear. So there must be a linear component, this I identify with inertia, straight line motion. This I name the same and would have the same origin as special relativity with its linear motion of higher speed motion of a mass like the moon than the earth with more gravity. The central number of special relativity is the speed of light, the speed of light is electromagnetic. From this it would follow that the transfer of linear and angular moments between masses at long distance would involve both gravity and electromagnetism. This is evidence that gravity and electromagnetism have a definite connection. There is no other long range force between the earth and moon than gravity and electromagnetism, and gravity alone is not enough.

.

Another union of gravity with Visa charge that powers most up at Reno may be a roulette wheel like a centrifuge, you have a force the same as the 32 ft/sec just by spinning around, no gravity is in the rotation, and the force is much the same, drop two masses in the centrifuge and the earth's field, Einstein thought well of the union of inertial and gravity's mass. If no gravity is in the wheel, why is it like gravity? I agree with Einstein who thought it's because they are electrogravity.

And if gravity is so weak in intrinsic strength, how can it interact strongly enough to always find the particles it unifies? If it didn't have some sharp way of resolution, gravity wouldn't connect up to the higher power levels of electromagnetic and other strong fields via a reliable link, so all the motion of the cosmos wouldn't be conserved. Momentum of all types are always conserved, whether of gravity or other so there would be some reliable link between them. When you increase any kind of mass, gravitational mass also increases.
.
..
..The fourth conundrum the electrogravity would explain is about electromagnetism, a dense field. If you have usual waves in the ocean and no outside power source of a wind or sail is around, the waves stop and the ocean is calm. This is because of the friction of the water.. Electromagnetism is a wave of density often as strong as the strongest steel (giving iron and almost all the compounds around us the power they have, the strength of all alloys are derived from the electric field of atoms). If electromagnetism is a wave of this sort of high density if it were like the ocean it would be without flow. What makes it flow? Why doesn't it stop?
..
..
...LLLike Einstein and other physicists like Chin I believe gravity may combine well with electromagnetism. Even so electrogravity is neither electricity or gravity, it's too strong to be gravity and it's not electric in the strict sense because the electric charge of the Earth and most other large masses like stars is almost zero because of electric charge conservation, even so these masses have large inertia and gravitational mass. To explain this I use a Higgs type low energy subcomponent of the electromagnetic field that is low energy as Einstein believed was possible in his hidden variable explanation of a way to get around the Uncertainty Principle, while at first Einstein seemed to be wrong about this, recent "low energy quantum experiments" seem to uphold Einstein. The low energy particle doesn't much change the measured particle and, like usual experience where a light ray is so small it doesn't much change a cushion or the moon to measure it, since there is no guarantee here that the light ray to measure is not much lower energy than what's measured, if this is common in usual room physics, why not in the subatomic realm? Or as Einstein said, "we believe the moon is not there when we don't look up to see it". This allows the possibility of a smaller mass subcomponent of the electric field (if it were of huge mass like "the Higgs'" it would upset all experiments ever done) that would behave somewhat like electromagnetism and even so is not exactly like it or gravity. The basic unit of electromagnetism is the electric charge. If gravity is well connected with electricity by way of this "Higgs'" type field this is where electrogravity would start. While the low power gravity can't find the electron at gravity's low density (gravity is just 10x10-37 the strength) in my causology it perhaps would if it were carried along and blended in with the flow of the electric field of the electron or other charge. If this were so the electric field would implode in the much lower energy gravitational fluid outside and this would flow in either the pole of the electric charge or the implosion of the opposite charge at it's zonal belt. So the implosion of the electric field would make it so the gravitation would interact well with the mass of the electric charges by compressing the lower power field and imploding it. For the electric waves stopping the flow gravity has no shielding in usual experience like with eclipses or the Torsion Balance machines or with changes in atomic clocks so if it were interwound with the field it would be a sort of fluid that would make the electric field not wear out or stop flowing. Another boost that would keep the electric waves flowing would be that gravity would not just smooth the field, it accelerates, and would flex the field continuously, so it both would be a power source and render the field more fluid.
. A
..
Another reason....

In my theory the component gravitons that would make up the electrogravity field would be more massive as they were flowing into the mass of the +or - charge like electrons or other charges, they would get mass from the electric field's contraction and be more unified and compacted than usual. And the photons that would make up the electron's electric field would also be powered up by the gravitons. I assume the power of the gravitons at this level is near the electron's energy level also or as I say it would be without real combination (an antenna resonates much better when it's the same wavelength as the wave.). It may be generally in the same power level but if it were the same there would be no gravity, both would be the same force. While they are nearer the same power level but not exactly, the gravitons that would boost the electric fields would still be of enough power to have influence. So they would be a fluid of weight made of particles, the familiar matter waves of subatomic physics. The lighter mass gravitons flow between the more dense virtual photons that make the electromagnetic component of the electron's or other positive charges field.
..
.... Why wouldn't you have the field flowing out causing antigravity? In a strict sense you may, because the repulsion of like charges from the earth up to our feet holds us up against the gravity of the world, but the electron would explode of it's own charge if the attraction wasn't stronger than the implosion, so implosion wins out here. It would be of great value in this theory if the + and minus charges were somehow rewired so there was more explosion than implosion of the field, it would even perhaps be actual antigravity, although I think of the usual lift we have from the electromagnetic fields of the particles below us as small fountains of field, so the pressure of the fountains is antigravity in this sense. However the forces are not in their rest frame just as a boat on a river with a rope well tied to a solid moor or pressed against a water fence will have a force in it's rest frame of pull by the flow, but when the boat flows with the stream it has no flow of the field around it and has no gravity. This balance of the field would be true antigravity if it was achieved at rest, it would be a reduction of the pressure of the field, not a fountain or a barrier. "N. Lee the world famous scientist built the an antigravity machine around 2000 with NASA funding used a superconducting spinning disc to reduce a weight above the disc". If this fountain theory of gravity and antigravity is true since the flow of field is perhaps altered by electrogravity, above the field flowing up the fountain would have the same motif that is usual for us in the earth's field, lifted more in more flow and reduced in weight on a scale but still with more pressure balancing the weight, not true antigravity like going with the flow of gravity or a river downstream, or having it balanced on all sides in a low power field far from gravitational masses.

..

If the electrogravity field has mass and implodes, the earth would seem to gain mass, instead there is a small outflow of mass in the form of heat (like a planet like Jupiter so it's not just radioactive). For this reason there seems to need to be an outflow of the field to balance the inflow and the reradiation of the electrogravity needs to not cause antigravity. This reexpansion of the field to conserve energy might explain 15 or more otherwise unexplained motifs in astronomy e.g. the galaxies being massive may gain mass from the implosion of the field over time as they are observed to in their evolution, while conserving energy as well as other phenomena like the acceleration of the universe. To explain why we don't fall of the Earth with the reradiation of the field I use the possible explanation of scattering. Once the field implodes at one wavelength it may scatter so much it reradiates with a great reduction in outer pressure. Obviously the radiation of stars or the sun has gravitational implosion at one wavelength and reradiation at another wavelength of light and this violates no rule of physics. Though you may wonder if the reradiation of the field might be about extra power that could be easily disproven by conservation of energy, since this is part of the most basic cause of gravity this would be already built in to the strength and force of the gravity as it is.

.

When you fall near the earth it would have no force in it's rest frame moving with the field at is speed of flow just like the boat flowing down river without the motor fired up, it has no force in it's rest frame much because the pressure of the water or field is at rest and balanced on all sides. So to make masses have no weight on the surface of the earth, the flow of the field would be stopped. To stop the flow of a stream you would use a dam and a pool below the dam where the flow would be stopped. The field in the pool would be the same as a field of gravity and would provide buoyancy. The fountain of Lee's machine would be the same as the "antigravity" of the particles below us. There would have to be somewhere some of the flow was cancelled in some of the field or we would fall in the earth's field. So Lee's machine, like the usual masses of our bodies near the earth's surface would be a weightlifting fountain, perhaps without real antigravity here, other that like when you lift a usual van if you're superwoman! Like the dam and the pool the area below the machine however may be where to look for antigravity, if the darn is strong enough of a word, to stop the flow above the machine! (or by other motifs see MODULATION OF FIELD NEAR THE EARTH'S SURFACE) This is by booting up the power, and then introducing some of the field into the region below the machine. In orbit, you find a more level distribution of the weight of the field.

.

..
Possible Ways to Prove or Disprove This About Electrogravity

.

If gravity is multiplied by the electric field, and also the electric flow likewise smoothed and accelerated by gravity, and essentially the charged particle's gravitation is by the flow of gravitons of near photon power levels, we might expect changes in both or either. If the implosion of the gravity would be mostly by the electric implosion and would be reduced in power without the electric field, where the gravitational field is accelerated by the implosion it would be more substantial than otherwise. So if you have a heavy particle like a proton or a meson and move it around the outside of the field of another, with reduced flow of the gravitons without the aid of the implosion of the electric field at the poles or belt zone or other zones of spin, the gravity between the charge and the heavy particle would be reduced more than a usual causology of gravity would say in the low power areas of the electron's field between either the pole of implosion or other implosion zones. And, since the gravity and electricity would be the same this change in the matter wave might have a small change in the wavelength of the electrons field not predicted by standard quantum electrodynamics. If gravity had no need of operation by aid of implosion like electricity or the strong force and gravity was more unrelated, if it has no shielding the gravity of the heavy particle would be more evened out. While the field would have more attraction just by its usual density in the zones, if it were using the field more than this, it would have a more even field than a theory like mine or Einstein's would predict. While gravity may be tough to measure for a subatomic particle, one of the best ways we now have is by way of atomic clocks, so perhaps a small atomic clock could be devised with tip of the resonant probe that would measure the time and moved to a near radius of the meson or baryon, the gravity may be much stronger at near distance.

.

So the first proof would be, the field of mass of heavy particle like a proton would be more nonuniform than without electrogravity.
..
...The proton would be moved around the angle of field to find if the gravity is uniform or nonunuform. Another possibility is that motion of the measuring particle would be measured well by interferometry or more sharp interferometry when our machines are of higher resolution eventually.

...

(To make the timekeeping sharp enough a more accurate time keeper than an atomic clock may be needed. I propose that instead of using atoms like cesium that vibrate more slowly, the oscillation to measure the time might instead be just a proton which being 1/100 the volume of an atom may oscilate much faster. The proton would be held in two magnetic poles on each end and the fields would both stimulate the motion of the proton and collect the information about the rate of oscillation.)

..You may ask if a neutron has no electric charge, how would gravity be achieved if you use electricity to explain it's modus of optimus? The electric charges of particles are at close distance, just as an atom may have 0 charge at long distance with the charges separate at high resolution. While the motion of the gravitons would be being imploded in by the nearer field it would actually have reduced field inflow at longer distance and so it would, indeed have reduced gravitation than the gravitation (mass) of the constituent charges whose mass energy was used to energise up the fields... So Einstein may have said the electric charges from a mass like a heavy particle of 0 electric charge also would have somewhat more mass than the mass of the meson they made up. The mesons and baryons have a strong internal electric field, so it would implode almost as much as a usual electric charge. This is a prediction of this electrogravity idea, not that energy conservation would be disproven, the power of gravity like the electric charges of the earth cancelling out most of the electric force would be just sealed away a bit more than usual for hadrons than electric charges.

.

So the second proof would be that with the electric charges cancelled out mostly and with electrogravity, the weight would be reduced a bit more when the charges would be almost 0.
So..
So the Sseco..

Einstein thought electrons in the field of the earth would have the field flowing through them and reduce mass by work of the field, but if this is so the reason the electron would have no such mass reduction as found by experiment would be because the electron would have both an inflow and outflow of field so the overall mass of electrons would stay much the same (with no perfect efficiency of machines found in physics I think the mass may change a bit like Einstein believed except just as much as the internal pressure of the electron would resist the overall flow. This may not be nearly as much as Einstein might have believed because the inflow and outflow of the field would be much the same.). I read in Science News in the early 90's about the two Japanese physicists who made what Science News said was the startling discovery that a spinning gyroscope has reduced weight, the gyroscope weighs the same if spinning in one direction but has slightly reduced weight when it's opposite in rotation. If the particles of electrogravity were just small spinning wheels the field would have somewhat lower mass if the pole of the gyroscope or the spinning hadron was up, expanding the field between the earth and the particle on the "inside" where the field is between the earth and the pole of the wheel. This would also have the much larger flow of the earth's field around the particle. If the pole of the spin is downward, the earth's gravity would mostly win out, but a considerable reduction in weight would be achieved, implosion from above would overcome some of the earth's field of more import.

..

If this were like a usual field of physics of air or other energy, I think of this like ships on flowing water. The earths gravitational field through us downward is the general flow of the water, the particles of up and down spin are motors of the boats in the flow of the water. When the power of the boats is added to the flow of the water they weigh the usual amount, the explanation of gravity, both the field of the earth and the small power of the wheels combined. It would seem like with the boat if you add more power of the propeller it would go downstream faster than the flow and weigh more than otherwise, but the Japanese physicists found it weighs the same, so this must be explained. Perhaps it's because of all the power of usual mass generating the gravity is used in this endeavor with the boat pushing downstream the usual amount. The upstream boats being unlike the downstream force would not be used by the field so often or so well, so they would have more power to boost the weight lift. To add more mass you would add more weight pressing down, but each downstream particle boat would generate it's maximum boost. This speed limit for gravity and not the upward lift is what the the experiment seems to show, and an explanation of some sort seems in order. Even so I'm aware like my grandmother. My grandmother was so bright, she would just take out her hearing aid in church if the sermon was too loud!

Note that this description of how gravity might operate at the subatomic level to generate and react to the longer range field by way of the implosion and expansion of the field is based on the asumption of the compresion and expansion of the resiliant medium caused by this gyroscope like behaviour of each low energy particle much as I say that it seems like Maxwell was correct in assuming the existance of this resilient field to exactly predict the speed of light. When the small particle would have polar spin up it would weigh the same, even so this would cause a net expansion of the field like the earth's if each particle did the same. And if there were also particles with polar spin down that cause the familiar general downward force of the gravity at the earth's surface by implosion, it would seem that they would have weight reduced just this much to cause the general flow of the field with no net implosion of the field. If on the other hand the spin up gyroscope weighs the same (a lot) and the spin down gyroscope has its weight not reduced by the same amount there is a net implosion of the field. Even so the particles with spin up may get some of their weight mostly from both the downward implosion of the field but also from the upward expansion pressing against the field, this second component might cause a smaller increase of the weight than if we assume the medium is not resilient which seems improbable if it's enough like electricity to interact with it in the high resolution physics of Quantum Electrodynamics.

.

If the power of the boat is against the flow and the overall flow is faster than the power of the boats because the boat has a much smaller power source than the overall flow, the boat will go upstream but slower. So even with the gyroscope the Japanese physicists devised being of high rotation and spinning with the pole downward it would just weigh about the same or with a bit of reduced weight. The reason the lift effect they found if particles are much the same would be because the gravity is not uniform, it's more dense below us and flows down. If gravity uses electromagnetic fields (and the strong force by way of implosion through these fields to the hadrons) and both poles were the same to gravity, all would weigh the same. But if gravity was the same as inertia as Einstein thought and the same as centrifugal force, the radiation out of inertia to many small points like with entropy would be the same as gravity's contraction to the one. While the many and the one are not the same, in this respect Einstein's thought says they are. Einstein said no experiment in an accelerated inertia frame of reference can distinguish it from the same 32 ft/sec in such gravitational motion of the earth if the distant ship or elevator in the inertial frame is also moving at 32 ft/sec. If gravity would operate by the motifs above and centrifugal force is like the many and expands outward, and gravity is one and accelerates inward, the field would have a way to know which was which, so the ship and motor in flow of river theory above with the addition of the motif that by gravity the poles are not the same, would have one pole used more to power gravity and the other more about inertia.

.

The third proof or disprooof would be with gravity operation by distinction of poles and charges, and mass and inertia being opposite, in a centrifuge one pole or charge would be favored more and in a field like the earth's field the other would.

.

So Einstein's theory that inertia and gravity are exactly the same would be disproven by the experiments in the elevator (brought down nearer to earth in a centrifuge) compared to the same 32 ft/sec of gravitation. The centrifuge would use one pole of the charge more and the gravitation would use the other.

About this link between the gravity and the electric field and the problem of distinguishing the short range charges of a neutron or other 0 charged particle like a meson or light, this would be important to a theory of electrogravity because of the problem of particles of no charge having often large mass like a meson the earth or other massive bodies with overall electric charge being almost 0. To explain this the charges may actually have two fields, a "real" electric field, and a lower energy "virtual" field. The virtual field would be a combination of low energy electric and high energy gravitational fields, of necessity to explain the my first reason at above about how massive bodies send linear and angular momenta well by the combination of the gravitation and electric field. By the poles of gravity and inertia being unalike (my "spin" on the research about gyroscopes where the gyroscopes lose weight above) all that would be necessary to explain the long range connection so 0 charge particles would be distinguished at greater distance than atomic radii would be the virtual field of the low power electric and high power gravitational sort. That the field is lower energy is another reason to believe it's not the same as electromagnetism, even if the Higg's substitute components of the field have poles like electric charges. As Einstein himself predicted the faster than light matter waves of the EPR paradox and that has been well proven by Bell the physicist, the low energy field would be able to connect up with the outside field, because a fast field has higher resolution. This field would go faster than light and have higher resolution to know where the mass and motion was at any moment. A field that goes five times as fast has five times the resolution power of a field that goes just at a fifth the speed because it divides up the connections with 5 more waves in the same amount of hours or seconds. I also believe that faster than light speeds are more probable than just in Einstein's limited EPR causology. So even with 0 overall electric charge of a particle like a meson, the local way of flowing in by the funnelling in of the field would be upheld, because while atoms are often of 0 charge the lower power high speed virtual field would connect up the outside field with the inside realms of atoms or other 0 charge masses overall. The o charge problem may have been a problem Einstein was considering, and the solution actually may have been in his own theories, of faster than light motion of fields possible, but not the Equivalence of Mass and Inertia. If they were the same the poles would not be distinguished by the gravitational field of the earth, and I can think of no other explanation for the four problems like the momenta of the earth and moon, and the general (not exact in my theory like in Einstein's theory) connection between centrifugal force and gravity that would be explained by electrogravity.

The electric field would not be an exact match with the gravitational component or gravity and inertia would be the same as Einstein thought and you'd weigh the same N or S on the Earth's surface, if they were the same, even with a exact connection the mu meson with the same charge as the electron, would weigh the same. So the electric field would perhaps just be a guide where the other field would flow. For my explanation of how relativity is upheld for subatomic physics even with the EPR click here.The electric field fould o..

Most of the earth's charges cancel out, so the way the electrogravity would operate would be mostly by the low power field where the gravity was made strong by the electric field or strong force implosion, and no doubt a mass with more electric charges attached would have weight loss because energy is light and mass is heavy. This may show up in experiments with large amounts of extra overall charge if held in a box via pressure. Einstein believed a hot iron has more energy so more mass, so a hot iron would weigh more than a cool iron, but the orders of magnitude are above our experiment's reach, so this may be about the same about the order of magnitude about a charged mass having reduced weight. (My own belief is that since mass is heavy and energy is light, like a balloon the hot iron with hotter particles would have reduced weight.)

.While in usual mass of our life on our scale of events the poles of most of the atoms would level out to random, one pole or other pressure zone of flow would be stronger than the other it flowed to (or the flow would stop) so gravity would be stronger in the down flow than the up. This is also in accord with mass and energy being unalike. Like an airship with more energy compared to a box of other matter one falls more when the other rises. In my causology mass and energy are converted to Einstein's units of E=mc2 in atomic reactions because of slowing of the field outside baryons ormesons by the longer range electric field to just the speed of light on the outside lower energy field outside radius of the hadron. If they were all in accord with units of the speed of light, all particles would have the density of the field of electromagnetism because of relativity by Maxwell's use of the constant electric charges of 1 and-1 to predict the speed of light exactly because of the constant density. This, except for the always same charges is a classical way to find the speed of waves just according to the density of the field. So the speed of light is much about density, and more density of particles than electromagnetism would allow higher spin rates inside hadrons or other particles than the speed of light. So if mass is heavy and accelerates at another rate than energy the equivalence of mass and energy by Einstein would not be so. Although the outer motions of particles would be in usual units of spin, in order to have greater mass for hadrons than an electron, the internal field of would go faster than the speed of light inside the heavy particle. I hold that while all is motion, linear motion of energy is the opposite of the angular motion of mass, because one generates outward centrifugal force and the other inward force. Mass and energy are made of the same motion of energy conservation, but mass does work by its acceleration and in Einstein's belief in rest frames in constant motion, no work is done in any democratic realm where there are no bosses or others with devine right of royals. Gravity or other force like the strong force is "the boss", and the thermodynamic speed of light is about the employees who have good dreams. Without both where would we be, we can't live without luxury and cheer!

If the gravitational field flows to the strong force always by way of the electric field, strong gravity or centrifugal force may create more alignment of the poles than just the outside electromagnetic field of light.

This would be where the light weight of the gyroscope would be from, the usual spin converted more to polar and linear power (overall momentum is conserved. If you change your local moments it must change your motion through the outside flow of field.).

It would seem that a problem Einstein had with electrogravity would be about electric charge. If electric charges are all just 1 or -1 and mass is caused by electrogravity, why do the masses like protons and neutrons have so much more mass than the electron, in no unit of 1 or-1 or more? I think the mesons and other particles having no definite mass (many masses in no definite units) is the more general and the unified charges having just the same values is what needs explanation. Accelerations are continuous, like all the masses of the hadrons and leptons like most of the physics around us. The strong force is an acceleration because attractive forces like gravity and the strong force are, and this is where work is done. The acceleration of the field is the underlying assumption of Maxwell's triumph of prediction of the speed of light. Acceleration is real labor. If the charges are the same, the speed of light would be the same, actually it changes with acceleration which Einstein's theory ignores. To speed up, the light would speed up via flexing of the field just the amount the high speed observer speeds up, so the speed of light when the flex of the field is at higher speed is also just this much higher sped. So while the observer's speed of light is still the same the energy of light can be at any wavelength by the redshift within the general framework of the resilient field. So the mass or wavelength of masses can be any value even with the electric charges being in standard units. Lots of quantum numbers of the strong and other interaction are in subatomic physics, these by where the quantum numbers are conserved but the local mass and motion are changed is well known. Symmetries like this have proof in set theory and the foundations of math to be what all the world is made of. So the changes in mass and wavelength of light are much the same and the unity of electric charges is not disproof of electrogravity.

All the flows of the poles of the electric charges like motors of boats in moving field, going both with and against the field, don't cancel out in crystals like in usual mass where the spins are not aligned so much, so in crystals with the zones aligned with the earth's field, if the poles are flowing up to the earth's field they would perhaps weigh the same on one side and if they were flipped over, the mass would be reduced.

..

With a "Crystal Lite" the electric charges cancel out and the magnetic poles going through the height of the plate of atoms (which would be a plane not a block) would be north south north south, canceling out the motif also except for the outer poles and charges, so to possibly find the effect of electrogravity with more charges than just the EPR power mode of operation, the crystal would be of reduced depth, perhaps two atoms deep. The small change in weight of each atom would be multiplied up by the noninsubstantial number of atoms. If the atoms of the sheet were seperate enough (like face centered, e.g.) the charges and poles wouldn't cancel as much, so more of the poles would connect up the outside of the sheet with the earth's field, this would make the electrogravity motif pronounced compared to the usual force of weight.

This may be the fourth way to prove or disprove the possibility of electrogravity, a wide crystal may weigh a bit more when one side is up than the other.

.

.A True Story,

..

Jerry S.a railroad worker on a bridge in the Cascade Range WA. saw a runaway N Pacific train moving toward him at high speed. Perhaps because the bridges arch was under construction, the barreling train rose up on 2000 wheels and fell into the gulch below, He was saved by a railroad wreck! After a complete physical the nurse told him to aid two catastrophes a day and shout for her in the morning!

...

My Comic Causology II; Life's Labors Loved

**

My Explanation of Comedy in Life is Simple; good celebration! Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes named it "the roar of the victor ". In their formulation comedy is what the upper levels of society would use to assert their dominance. While dominance is not unusual, bosses are generally not so numerous as the rest of society, so I think what the upper levels of civilization would be about would not be as important. No problems, more solutions. The middle and lower classes are the ones who are the power of a healthy civilization like the Dutch in the 17th century or The US in the early 20th Century, the Older Reader's Digest says research shows why the the rich can't pay all the taxes, there just aren't enough of them. If all their money was divided up among the rest most would be poor. While I would say there is "good" comedy (like of employees) and "bad" humor (bosses, or humor used more at the expense of others) it would just be what was more of value to most that would be most of worth, good comics, not comedy of this type.

And the idea that humor is "The Roar Of the Victor" has a sort of limited worth because while it would be about the good side of life, "The Roar" is just mostly about the good side of the triumphant. This causology (which most of the ancients believed in up to more recent times, even when they weren't ancients, But hey! They were live in 208 BC!) doesn't explain many other types of humor including puns and incongruity.
.

. Another doxology of geolo"jests!" who dig the subconscious explanation of life somewhat too deep it would seem is about comedy being a way to release suppressed emotions; this subconscious explanation of life (except more superficial events like lips ink unlink softwear, this has been proven in some situations) seems in default because like a building and evolution, life is built from the foundation up. There are some errors and blind alleys in evolution, but there had to be more worth than not to stay in business for a living and to stay alive is good for you! I consider the idea of a subconscious like a sort of a gremlin hoping to put errors in the foundation or throw a wrench in the machinery of our life where otherwise would win. So the subconscious explanation would be against life and would reduce survival fitness with millions of years of evolution. (Evolution would have stopped this sort of motif with more proofreading and levelling of the foundation over millions of years.)

.

In visual myth generally it seems some good surrealist paintings are actually of worth, being aware is how I'm a painter also. (Click Here to see some of my own illustrations.) Too bad Picasso lost most of his skill when he was 14. It wasn't all bad though. With all of the millions per painting they paid and them praising him he may have been aware!

.

Another subconscious explanation of comedy is about its economy of means, so Freud believed we laugh at what is just well achieved because it's an easy way to win. If this were true, an invention if simple and unique would always be a Saturday Night Live and we would laugh at inventions and this is not always so. So too, wars have been often simple and straightforward but they aren't just for laughs, no tanks to the heat in the shade. There are many skilled aspects of life that are simple and brilliant like inventions that we don't laugh at and therefore I think Freud's Economy of Means is an uncomprehensive way to explain comedy well.

-

So these three explanations of comics, that they're the Roar of the Victor, or the Subconcious, or Economy of Means lack proof or evidence. I'd rather it was when it's so hot in June, I was in 20 swim fins-in the waves, coincidence? No!

-

..Another explanation for humor is about the unforeseen and the Professor R. C. Solomon (U. T.) has added what he hopes is a way out way out for the world of comedy via his causology, he says it's not so important what is agreed on, just that it's an unexpected find and a boost to the Mother In Laws chosen to be praised in perfume filled rooms by fathers who aren't out. Comic life in Solomon's view is just a way evolution made group cohesion strong. I believe the essence of what's good cheer is unexpected good. Jumping of a cliff is suprising, but it's usually not lots of laughs. It's a shock, but not a good shock. A good shock would be two teens about to jump off lover's leap, and he says, "Wait a minute Betsy Lu. Are those atom powered boosters you put in your flip flops?" Solomon believes it's not of most import what is agreed on just that it's unexpected that boosted group status in evolution. So in his explanation sinking in a ship and finding what's comic about the event would be just as good. An engineer and a Rock n Roll Diva were on a sinking ship and the diva says, "Help! I can't swim! and The software engineer says, Don't Worry! Just Dream of Exerci-sing!" Is comedy unexpected good and not just what's unexpected? This may be proven or dis proven by showing healthy persons clips with just suprises and not good surprises and comparing the results. (The volunteers would be healthy people who they've found live in the country or the suburbs most often, since comedy is what's most healthy and so the most healthy persons would be the most qualified to say what's most comic.). I think humor has a foundation in the simple idea of shocks of worth (good shocks). All there is in life has a good and bad side. If a suprise is a change by definition, I think it's more of value if it's good than bad, This is why I agree with what it sez in my Humor and Comic's audio market by Author's Digest (I read boom boxes more than most!). Those who know comics and comediennes well say they're naturally moral. If the humorists feel like a risk, it's good to win with the risk also!

-

with this -

The most comprehensive form of humor I've found is W -W or What's Non What, that is a surprise based on incongruity between two W's that have not much in common, and it also includes the unchanging, somewhat important type of comedy like with the efficiency expert saying, "Avoid redundancy! I repeat, Avoid redundancy!" or where the sage says "War is War, And Peace Is Peace, And Science Is Science." That we often find this "calm unchanging" form of humor ridiculous is more proof that W -W is a comic source of laughter because it's of the same form, comic here because of being more the same where it wasn't (as in W=W) so it's in motion even when stopped and this is evidence the incongruity is what's important even with the opposite of the W -W because either way it changes what wasn't changed otherwise, anything good and unusual if it's unusual enough is comic! When you zonk out is unusual sometimes even if it's restful, if you fall asleep in the bed showroom you'll wake up watching business infomercials on the Big Box for cinemas! This idea of W -W and W=W is not described as the Roar of The Victor so the "Roar" is Comic, but Comedy is not always the Roar of The Victor in many types of cheer.

.

..Studies have shown that your chance of being saved if in an unsafe situation is opposite in ratio vs the number of people with you (you're most likely to be saved if just you and one person are in the room). In my site, I discuss how the American Indians had no war before about 1000 AD, and this was about the time of the Maya decline, now thought by many of the ancient archaeologists to be because of overpopulation (Click Here for My Complete Causology.) with increased Competition for reduced Resources. It would seem large numbers are not how we evolved and bonding may not be what was common in evolution and not much beyond, and may be just conducive to survival at a definite level, no higher or lower.

.

There's a more earthy side of some comedy like the Roar of The Victor or Bosses and humor of this sort is a considerable percentage of the zoom. Because it's not of the most value, I believe the best comedy of most worth is neither humor at other's expense or that of the the subconscious causology, at least in situations where evolution wins and life without evolution seems too distant to believe as a way of life. I would say why let it be the option of the external add on of others in a group that may not be as high in moral value? "If It Is To Be It's Up To Me." If comedy or cheer was something added on by others from the outside of our own realm it would be not of as much value. If you go out to milk a cow, you wouldn't put your cushion in the field and wait for the cow to walk within your reach. The crowds who were unheeding of what they were being amazed and wild about in evolution may have been selected out of 1 million BC more than others. So I think humor is not just about cohesion, it's a way to earn triumph with skill. It's about how to be good and great that may be learned. It's more moral to laugh at life than lament it. I'm a comic, no, I just think of what Amy B. will spell when she wins the world championship!

-

What's the most cheap and fast way to salvage your heat pump? A flip of the fuse box saved mine this month!

.....

What does a dog do when he catches a bus? Where I live a dog Saves Saves Saves! Just two bits and he's on the sofa at the wheel!

-

This Causology is a extension and elaboration of MY COMEDY SOUND MACHINE Click Here.

~~~~~~~~~~~

MORE CULTURAL/COMEDY/IMAGE/ SOUND LINKS.

......