And so it goes. A lot of the reader responses I get around here are from folks convinced that I am either an idiot, a crank, or both, to which I reply, "Thanks for clicking!"
One reader sent a rather passionate note asking how I could support Marco Rubio in my "Random Thoughts On Politics." I went back and reread the post and could not find a supporting comment anywhere. I did, however, find a bit where I stated I thought he would win the nomination as a "dark horse" compromise candidate despite any success of the Trump campaign. Hardly offering my support.
My statement was based simply on my project to track major world events as possible outcomes foreseen in Eastern and Western astrology, and outlined in my post called, "Get Your Yang Red Fire Monkey On!" Perhaps the connection is not immediately obvious, leading the reader to misinterpret my hypothesis.
The connections are rather subtle, so follow along if you dare.
The name 'Marco' derives from the Latin name 'Marcus,' which itself derives from 'Mars,' the Roman god of war and the name of our fourth planet, which happens to be reddish. The name 'Rubio' is quite simply the Latin word for "red." This makes the name translate as "red Mars" (in Romance languages the adjective follows the noun). Thus, "red," "war" (chaos/fire), and politicians being often characterized as "trained monkeys."
See the connections? But wait...it gets better.
Mars opposition this year (month of May) will bring the Earth and Mars extremely close and Mars will be very prominent in the night sky for a month or so. In Western astrology, this would imply a strong influence by Mars in Earthly events, bringing war and chaos in its wake. It would, to follow this line of thought, imply also that someone named Marco Rubio (red Mars) could be heavily influenced by this alignment (for the better one assumes).
Thus, Marco Rubio seems fated by both Eastern and Western astrology to have a rather stunning rise in the next couple of months, since red, fire, war, chaos, and Mars all figure quite heavily in the stars. I do not claim to believe any of this, nor do I endorse Rubio or predict his success. I am simply watching events unfold with an eye to testing astrology.
By the way, Mars will be at very close oppositions with Earth until 2027, so we likely haven't seen the last of Rubio in any event, if there is any veracity in astrology, East or West.
The next set of comments came from several readers who couldn't wait to lambast me for attacking St. Albert in "Einstein Is STILL An Idiot." Everything from mild chiding to outright hostility lit up the mailbox, which I love. It means something I said stirred folks up, which is really the whole point of this exercise. I like it when folks' weltanschauungs are challenged. It may not change the entrenched and calcified minds, but it may just open others to new ideas and critical thinking.
At any rate, most of the mail and comments about the article were to remind me of what an idiot I am, and I don't deny it. However, I can still see when someone mixes Wheaties with my Cheerios and tries to pass it off as Sugar Pops.
The point was this: there are four Big Bang Theories and three Black Hole Theories. They are all mutually exclusive in that a Big Bang Universe cannot contain Black Holes, and vice versa. Sorry if that pops your bubble, but it's true.
Therefore, to say that gravity waves caused by the merging of two Black Holes proves Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is probably the most idiotic, contradictory and numbnut/buckethead claim ever made. In Black Hole theories, there can be no other mass in the Universe, much less two Black Holes, and thus, there can be no objective point from which to observe gravity waves, nor even additional space into which they can propagate.
One comment said that the photo of Einstein and the formula showed clearly the question mark at the end of the equation. See? Even Einstein was smart enough to know that a Black Hole negated the Big Bang, gravity waves, gravity lensing, and just about everything else you can think of, especially all the stuff his theory predicted.
I find it to be a cheap and dirty trick on the part of the "scientists" (whoever they are) to presume upon the ignorance of the average lay person by claiming that an obvious contradiction proves a hypothetical mathematical construct. It is the height of contempt on the part of these "scientists" for the lay person to pull this sort of crap while claiming they need more of our tax money to continue finding more proof of a contradiction.
And we haven't even gotten to the part about space-time being a nonsensical thing and most certainly not a medium by which to propagate waves. Posh and piffle, you say? Fine, please point in the direction of "time." I'll wait. And while you are at it, please tell me why clocks "measure" time, yet I can have two of them together with different times displayed and both can be wrong? After all, I can use two tape measures to discern the exact dimensions of the 2-by-4 about to hit you upside the head, and both will agree.
OK, so enough fun for now. Thanks for reading and writing, regardless of why or what. We enjoy stirring up a little shit once in a while. Keeps life interesting.
