We have been calling it jobsworthium here Bill. Governmentium is what we have been working on to contain anti-matter - at least that's what I've been telling them, along with the ideal gamma state they need to achieve to convert to Administratium.
On 10 Dec, 06:11, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science: (Gv) > > Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element > yet > known to science. > > The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant > neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, > giving > it an atomic mass of 312. > > These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which > are > surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. > > Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be > detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into > contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that > would > normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to > complete. > > Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 - 6 years. It does not > decay, > but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the > assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. > > In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since > each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, > forming > isodopes. > > This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to > believe > that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical > concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical > morass. > > When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an > element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it > has > half as many peons but twice as many morons. > > On Dec 9, 6:08 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, the glory of war, that strikes me as more the love of war than > > the hate of it, the wanting of war and the never ending examination of > > politics that create the necessity of war with all its > > justifications. Much has been gained through violence in material > > terms and huge land grabs sometimes continental. I imagine that once > > we successfully navigate outer space there will be planetary land > > grabs. Earth will become a useless wasteland by then ie; once we have > > established suitable living conditions elsewhere. This place will > > most likely become a dump for toxic waste and the rancid deep fryer > > oil from all the McDonald's burger joints on planets x y z. Good luck > > with your Einstein book! > > > On Dec 9, 1:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well put and concise Slip. Beyond this god stuff, our society is > > > littered with violent images and the glory of war. Much as I like > > > Dirty Harry, I think we need some form of 'Dirty Harry by peaceful > > > means'. Politeness is a good thing as are manners, yet they also > > > prevent much that needs to be said and argued out. Religion seems to > > > have a major role in this. I'm currently trying to write a book on > > > Einstein and even in an area like this passions run high. Even in an > > > area like this one finds entrenched views (including, hopefully one's > > > own) and interest groups that want only material that confirms their > > > positions. When it comes to religion it seems impossible to try > > > anything without hearing the noises of instruments of torture being > > > honed. Einstein (or rather scientific development based around his > > > work) interests me in that he produced something new that becomes > > > essentially revolutionary through a mastery of classical tradition and > > > re-articulation of it. I see some connection between this and what we > > > need socially. > > > Einstein (IMV) took a very empirical step in assuming experimental > > > results were right (if approximate) and hence radical changes in > > > theory were needed. I think we can see something equivalent in > > > politics-religion-society, or at least could if we could base our > > > thinking on facts from reliable history. Tyke may well be onto one > > > with the religion as faith in violence assertion. We need some new > > > ability to 'get empirical' in the social arena. I see this as far > > > more difficult than the fantastic voyage Einstein and others launched > > > us on. My rather crass current thinking is that Einstein has facts to > > > work with. When we try this in the social arena we only have > > > bullshit. > > > > On 8 Dec, 19:56, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I do not like war and it would be nice if terroist and other unlikely > > > > charcters exist-which cause such things. It is not just Faith and > > > > religion > > > > causes this (no doubt it exist also in great amounts)and to torture in > > > > war > > > > most of us agree it is unhuman..I find that science existed also in the > > > > early days. There has been alot of so called conquerers over time..Such > > > > as > > > > Roman and Alexander and many more to conquerer and claim and rule. In > > > > another light as we know we have talked about this before. Outside of > > > > God > > > > or claiming God there has been wars of all kinds and some was to be > > > > able to > > > > hold their kind. I we convert over to totally sceince and as they say > > > > no > > > > Gods, no masters would it be less violence? And would some die out and > > > > those > > > > realms would totally not exist or their people? > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Welcome tyke. Faith and Violence do exist as bedfellows and they have > > > > > for thousands of years. We might note the absence of science in early > > > > > religious days and how biblical reference to violence may in fact > > > > > contribute largely to the concept that through violent acts victory > > > > > will be achieved and favor will be found with God. I'm sure the church > > > > > thought they were doing the right thing to Galileo. The controversy > > > > > is that while God is presented as loving and as having omniscient > > > > > characteristics there are numerous accounts where violence is either > > > > > committed or ordered by God. "The belief in a cruel God makes a cruel > > > > > man", Thomas Paine. God's violence is the basis for many of the > > > > > teachings in the bible and therefore his followers would also find > > > > > justification in the torment and killing of an enemy. God commits war > > > > > time atrocities, the annihilation of entire cities, men, women, > > > > > children and animals. God ordered the torturous death of his own > > > > > son. God further issues dictates of pestilence, famine, fire and > > > > > brimstone to name a few. This is all in the past of course but what > > > > > about the future. The bible says that when Jesus returns he is going > > > > > to send us sinners into the abyss of fiery damnation to be eternally > > > > > tormented. See you in hell, friends, lol. So I guess God's violent > > > > > tendencies are not yet over. Considering that God's solutions to > > > > > humanities problems are of a violence nature it is easily perceived > > > > > that humanity's solution to problems has always been through the use > > > > > of violence and it still is. George Bush claimed that God wanted him > > > > > to become President and then ordered the bombing of Iraq, resulting in > > > > > the deaths of thousands of innocents. I find, generally speaking, > > > > > that religious people are perceived to be kind gentle souls living in > > > > > the light and love of the Lord, but just don't piss them off or you > > > > > might find yourself under the knife. Truth is that many wars and > > > > > atrocities have a underlying religious theme, someone say Jihad?, the > > > > > permissible killing of people under the Muslim faith. Well the list > > > > > goes on and the examples are too numerous to cite, but we get the gist > > > > > of what is going on with violence in the world. I think the bibles > > > > > are not any word of God but simply a convenient manual for humanity to > > > > > justify its warped sense of getting along. Personally I don't buy > > > > > into any of it and strive towards a melioristic approach to a peaceful > > > > > environment. Violence is simply a byproduct of judgment which many > > > > > times is related to religious retribution. > > > > > > On Dec 8, 1:09 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > We have pondered a lot on this in here Tyke. Not sure I should be > > > > > > in > > > > > > so much agreement with someone with a handle suggesting Yorkshire, > > > > > > having commitments this side of the Pennines myself! But I agree > > > > > > entirely, not least because we seem to need more than 'rationalism' > > > > > > to > > > > > > solve basic problems of getting along. Our increasing connectedness > > > > > > takes many forms, involving floods because trees have been hacked > > > > > > down > > > > > > (a theme in terms of water rights of many old Westerns) and buying > > > > > > products from sweat-shops (etc.). In other terms, despite so far > > > > > > the > > > > > > Internet, we remain divided and ruled. > > > > > > There is much violence and violent competition in nature and also > > > > > > much > > > > > > cooperation in it. Religion appears easy to use to motivate > > > > > > violence > > > > > > and this scares me, along with seemingly inevitable problems with > > > > > > faith being so irrational and incapable of accepting facts at the > > > > > > expense of retaining dogmas. One thing I believe bolsters this is > > > > > > the > > > > > > insistence of science as a rational activity and worse politics as > > > > > > one. I working on a chapter about Einstein working on relativity at > > > > > > the moment. The relativity principle was already 'old hat' as he > > > > > > came > > > > > > to it rather than something he dreamed up, and there's a key point > > > > > > at > > > > > > which he realises a need to re-invent the underlying kinematics of > > > > > > physics to incorporate the relativity principle and consolidate it > > > > > > in > > > > > > electromagnetics. You use a great phrase above 'as it appears is > > > > > > the > > > > > > problem of a whole social structure or social sin which is outwardly > > > > > > ordered and > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
