WATCH: Six simple words that could change your life

“Here and now, breathe and relax.”

Those six words are what Dan Millman, author of Way of the Peaceful Warrior: A Book That Changes, and he would know. After all, this is the man that Glenn credits with helping him turn his life around.

“When I first read this book, I was an absolute wreck. An alcoholic that was just trying to find some truth someplace,” Glenn told the audience in Dallas. “This book empowered me. It was one of the first steps in empowering me as an individual.”

But why does Millman suggest taking a breath and being in the “here and now”?

During the show, he asked the audience to stand, stretch, then sit back down. Then he asked if any of them took a breath when they stood – noting that most people during the day people hold their breath or breathe shallow without realizing it. Millman said by breathing more consciously, they will “plug a leak of energy” that people experience during the day.

“By coming back to the body we get grounded again…it’s a way of regrouping,” Millman said. “There’s no lack of God, spirit, beauty around us. We’re not paying attention because we’re preoccupied.”

Millman encouraged people to get sleep, balanced nutrition, and rest in order to have balance.

“Here and now, breathe and relax,” Millman said. “We’ve all heard it’s good to live in the present moment, but this is the other way to get a grip on your life.”

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV
Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV
  • Liberty For All

    Glenn…great show. One thing that caught my attention is your quick comment that you’re reading Einstein–particularly you’re trying to understand the Theory of Relativity (sometimes I think we are in parallel universes). I’ll try to keep this short…

    You are on the right path, as there is wisdom to be found in this direction, and that wisdom will clarify and differentiate the words “truth” and “belief” for you. Two words you intermingle quite often — but are quite different.

    The part that few if any pay attention to in this theory, that I have found to be more valuable than the data, is the meta-data, or the “relativity” part — in that there is a “relative” relationship between time, space and energy–that is fixed and cannot be thwarted.

    This relative relationship literally defines physical reality, and every move energy makes, in space and over time–and so, you’ll find it defines the “economics” of absolutely everything, and is actually, “economics”.

    What is an example of “relativity”? It takes an X amount of energy to “move” X amount energy, inside a space, and over specific amount of time. For instance, you can’t pick up 10lbs of something, with less than 10.+ lbs of energy force. Or can you?

    When you first lifted the 10lbs, it was hanging from a rope, and so when you lifted your hand 1 foot (distance in space), the 10 lbs moved 1 foot up as well, taking 10.+ lbs of force (energy), that we’ll say measured a 5 second period to time, to make that 1 foot move.

    Now put a pulley system into place on that rope, that changes the ratio of distance in space that 10 lbs will move, to 50% of the distance of what it did before, while your lifting hand still moves the same 1 foot distance it did before. Without changing the time factor, now how much energy does it take to lift that same 10 lbs now? 50% less energy? But the trade off is you only moved it 6 inches. This is the relativity of energy, space and time?

    Time? How much energy will it take to move that same 10lbs, that very same 1 foot distance, in only 1 second of time? Whatever the amount of energy it is…it’s not important. What’s important, is all these relationships, of energy, space and time, are FIXED. This is what’s meant by “relativity”. This relativity is literally manifesting “reality” as we know it. It is why our planet sits where it does and the universe is as it is.

    The FIRST take-away is not the numbers, but the wisdom, when considering the “absolute relative relationship” of energy, space and time. Then, with more contemplation, you might consider it’s “absolute perfection” as it manifests itself in everything, moment, to moment, to moment.

    And the SECOND thing to then realize, is that every moment in the physical world, is absolutely “true”. Cause and effect of energy, space and time is not “sloppy” or “close” or different this time then the next. And so, it always expresses itself “perfectly”, at every moment in time. And so, consider the insight, when you realize cause and effect, is always “true”.

    What does all this have to do with everyday life?

    When you understand the absolute perfection of cause and effect, that is happening incalculable times at every moment in time, and then understand ultimately, that something cannot come from nothing, it seems pretty clear to starting asking oneself for instance: how you can walk into a bank, and “borrow” money, that they don’t have, to then go “buy” a physical asset such as a house—and more—to then have to “pay back”, what they didn’t have in the first place—and pay it back with interest—-which totals close to 3 times the amount you “borrowed”….????

    This is where arguments in favor of universal “truth” are clearly defined from arguments over personal “beliefs”, as they are two very different things, and consider, if there is only belief, than all arguments are equal.

    My suggestion Glenn, is don’t get lost in the science. You do not have to be a scientist to recognize the wisdom that is being made self evident at every moment. I hope you make the connections you are seeking. There is wisdom in the Theory of Relativity.

    I hope to meet you someday. Thanks to everyone there for what you all do over there.

    • Christen Lawson


      ◆◆◆ ◆䷚◆◆ ◆◆◆ ◆◆�◆ ◆◆◆It was one of the first steps in empowering me as an individual.

    • Mike Nelson

      I think that it’s also important to remember that the Theory of Relativity is also relative theory, and by nature incomplete in both scope and conclusion for lack of endorsement of a belief in something that without Faith is not quantifiable.

      When (If?) we ever get down to the smallest particles of matter/energy (and how many times have we thought we have done so already? atoms, molecules, quarks), what will we find? I reckon something even smaller… or, perhaps bigger – or maybe nothing at all. How do you describe to a thinking human the realization of death as portrayed by Johnny5 in the movie Short Circuit?

      We can’t even teach kids to hold good posture based on showing them what pain is suffered by the denizens of nursing homes and hospice.

      I believe that everything – EVERYTHING – is either a fractal, or a construct of a fractal. Not to be obtuse or mystical, but we’ve done this before, either as individuals, or as an entity of individuals, and the knowledge and practice of dissonance, especially on a societal level, is a fractal of regression, but also of learning. As a pursuit of understanding, science necessarily engages in both advancements, as well as understanding of new practices and information through reverse engineering, and this is a natural pursuit of an inquisitive and active organism, but at some point you reach the level of either disbelief, or endeavor to live simply, in the Now, the crux of which experience is embodied in “impossible” feats as performed by such groups as Shaolin Monks. But they DO it, in utter contravention of conventional wisdom.

      What we call science, isn’t necessarily so; it’s just a way of explaining what IS, and is fraught with opportunities to miscommunicate and misunderstand, let alone the Alinsky-like practices of intentional misleading of those otherwise lacking in self awareness and the ripple of their own behavior in the lives of others. The words we use to describe these things are essentially meaningless, unless we learn from the experience of the interactions we share, cause, or ignore, because the lessons we intend to teach are not necessarily the lessons that are learned by the target audience (take parenting and schooling, for example). That is why politics – and all things of a politically correct nature, as opposed to simple statements of blunt, if painful, truth – are so dangerous to the things that make us what we are: because they affect our development into what we can be, will be, and must eventually admit being.

      I cannot possibly be the only person in the world who has had epiphany so powerful that I recognize memories of things I could never possibly have done. There IS such a thing as collective memory, and the “Hundredth Monkey” theory is, in my opinion, of greater value to the development of the species, than the ToR itself, because it deals specifically with the proliferation of actual communication, rather than a mere theory of someone’s understanding and the words used to document that person’s observations.

      …and this is by far the strangest discussion I have had on these forums :)

      • Liberty For All

        Ha yes Mike, it’s definitely not a subject normally discussed in this area, and why I found Glenn’s comment very interesting. I know there are demonstrable, self evident truths where he is going. I hope he does not get lost in the numbers.

        I’ve found 2 things don’t touch in today’s consciousness: physics, economics and philosophy….unfortunately, because one helps validate the other.

        A discussion in this area is like a rabbit hole, and if not careful, can branch off into many areas, to the point where nothing and everything seems “real”. It’s then ends with “it’s just what you believe”. This is exactly where progressives want you to be. Confused, and where there is no “truth”, and where all arguments are equal.

        Glenn mentioned in this show, where all religions intersect, there is self evident “truth” at that intersection, by everyone looking at the same thing, seeing it somewhat differently, except the point where it’s not seen differently.

        I can only suggest to anyone who is looking for ‘truth”, and is making good use of their critical thinking capabilities, that the secret to finding it, is by finding the lowest common denominator, or the intersecting points Glenn mentions, in all things.

        Look for two things: the parts, and the glue that holds the parts together.

        That intersecting points Glenn mentions, is the glue. Mankind has a habit of focusing and analyzing the parts, and so we find more parts, and smaller parts…of the “big machine” to no end, be we overlook as unimportant, the common relationship the parts have between themselves, that make them behave as they do when they interact. This is the glue if you will.

        You’ll find that glue, best expressed in the Theory of Relativity, and while it may still be called a theory, there are more choices then it being 100% right, or 100% wrong. It could be 95% right, meaning, the exact equation (measurement) may need tweaking (E=MC2), but there is absolutely a fixed “relative” relationship between energy, space and time…that can be demonstrated with the simplest of physical examples, and I would suggest to you and Glenn, there is “truth” to be found there, as everything is managed by this relationship, and there is no escaping this relationship. It is the Law of Nature.

        That relative relationship of energy, and the fact that energy always moves toward “conservation” — or the lesser energy force, is the animating force that moves the universe in the direction it does, including you, everyday whether you know it or not. In total, it moves mankind’s “economy” towards — you guessed it — “economy”, and is the glue that holds the universe together as it is (for reason’s i won’t get into here).

        Once understood, you accurately have insight into the minimum wage argument, Obamacare arguement, bank loans where there is no money to lend, etc, but most importantly, how “centralized control of anything” works against Natural Law, and why it always ends bad.

        In understanding the Theory of Relativity, you now understand the “economics” of the universe, that is one and the same, as the economics of mankind’s economy, your city’s economy, your neighborhood’s economy, your household’s economy…

        But as Glenn says, don’t take my word for it…you can go prove it for yourself. Look to find the lowest common denominator in the relationship all things, and you’ll find self evident “truth” there.

        Warning! Progressives will not like it, as no amount of money in any political campaign can undermine your wisdom, and understanding of Natural Law — and of how the universe works…and the only way it can work, despite proposed good intentions of any politicians. You’ll be able to see through them like glass.

        This understanding of the universe will lead you toward the argument for individual liberty, individual responsibility and freedom, not because it’s just another choice, equal to say communism, or because you just “believe” it, but because you know it to be “true” by nature’s own demonstration, and more — that it’s essential in order for nature to “recreate”, or in mankind speak: “essential for the health and productivity of every individual and our economy”.

        • Pat

          Interesting, but not short. I’m going to just breathe and

        • Mike Nelson

          Thanks for the well considered response (and for keeping it shorter than mine!).

          The one thing that I suppose you may assume, but that I am compelled to finger directly, is that you cite the natural conservation of energy in regards to the movement of all things in the universe. This point imo is ambiguous in at least one regard which in this context could be described as the basis for my original post: we already know that the universe is already moving. I sincerely doubt that the Big Bang theory is any more satisfying to you, than it is to me.

          Things have to begin somewhere, and I just don’t know how to go back quite far enough in terms of human ability to document or even understand, if it could be documented, to explain this single aspect of anomaly. I concede that at this point I’m more or less beyond my competence to challenge this notion any further.

          If you have any further insight on that particular factor, I’d be interested to hear more, despite this somewhat cumbersome medium.

          • Liberty For All

            Thank you guys for your positive comments. Sometimes I think that I’m not making sense as I’m trying to keep my explanation as short as possible.

            Mike, I didn’t think anyone would catch my short comment regarding nature’s intention to conserve energy. On it’s own it’s interesting, but how it works in relationship to E=MC2, things become pretty clear, and one can make a pretty educated guess as to why.

            Regarding trying to make hay out of the big bang theory, I can only recommend you start by understanding the very simple physical demonstrations in nature first, because nature is manifesting the very same law of nature, at every scale, and so its easier to recognize “truth” if you will, if you keep it simple, and can control the variables in your observations. You’ll also find, that the manifestations in nature, such as the big bang (or no bang theory), become less important, when you come to know the underlying “why” that manifest all things.

            To get back to understanding the conservation of energy, or more importantly, the potential that manifests when energy is conserved, you need to first start with the Theory of Relativity. And I would like to remind you or anyone reading this (Glenn), that the reason I am describing this here, is because once you understand the relationship of energy, time and space, you understand the self-evident “economic” conditions needed in nature for re-creation and economic abundance.

            This will provide insight and wisdom of what is first “true” in the universe, and as well, the realization that there is absolutely no way to cheat nature, and so you come to fully understand again, the social structures and economic conditions needed in human nature, to replicate those very same conditions found in the rest of nature, in order to achieve “economy” or “efficient re-creation” resulting in economic abundance.

            Again, this will lead you to understand the importance of individual liberty and freedom, but not from a moral perspective, but rather a scientific, demonstrable, self-evident perspective, meaning, the absolute necessity of energy, to always be free to seek and conserve itself, to find it’s most efficient use, which it intends and needs to do, by its own nature, or nature will decline, as mankind’s economy will decline, as the “economy” of energy declines.

            But to understand the importance of the conservation of energy, and the freedom required to allow energy find its way, one must first find the wisdom in the constraint of “relativity”, best expressed mathematically by Einstein, as E=MC2.

            It begins with an understanding that there is a fixed amount of energy (E) in the universe. How much energy is that? We can only quantify it a 100%. The important thing to know, is that the total amount of energy stays at 100%, there is never more energy, or less energy.

            E=MC2 is telling us, with the total sum of energy (E) being constant, that the sum total of physical manifestations of energy (MC2), cannot be greater or lesser than the total sum of energy (E). Without getting deep into the math of “how” these manifestations are created, we’ll simply recognize the fact that the right side of that equation, 1) represents the physical world we all experience and live in, which includes time and space, and 2) over the course of time and in this space, energy (matter) may change form (wood burns and converts to gas, heat, ash…), but the energy transformed, will maintain a “relative” amount of total energy in its new form(s). Hence, the relative relationship that energy has as it comes in contact with other energy, and is either transferred (seen when throwing a rock in a pond), or when it is transforming to other stores of energy (wood burning into…).

            In either case, nature makes self-evident its own operating paradigm, which is confined by E. It’s here you come to understand that more re-creation, on the MC2 side is not possible — except by producing “greater efficiency” during the exchange of energy, over time and in space and why it’s important that nature continuously conserve its energy, or nature itself would decline.

            Nature conserves energy by simply moving greater forces in the direction of lesser forces (it takes no energy to move a greater force in the direction of a lesser force), making self-evident, that energy just doesn’t “move” randomly, but rather it has a specific direction, and some might say intent. One can speculate why, but by nature guaranteeing it will continually seek efficiency, when it does find it, it leaves nature (which includes you) with a net balance of “extra” energy, time or space, that previously it had consumed before, and so the economic realities of efficiency realized, with E being constant, allow nature to re-create more, and you to produce more.

            With some consideration, you will come to understand, that relativity is not just confined to universal energy, it’s everywhere, and is also at play on your personal time. While the universe may be timeless, your personal lifetime is limited, and so is each day in which you “spend” that time, “exchanging” your limited amount of personal energy, with other energy in the universe, striving to produce more and re-create more, using less time and less energy, thereby making available, more time and more energy. Please keep this in mind when considering the following:

            We can apply E=MC2 to Henry Ford’s “assembly line”. He was originally producing something like 1 car a day. He then re-configured the SAME amount of workers into an assembly line, with individuals specializing, and so becoming more knowledgeable and skilled, and so each more efficient at one thing (saving future time and energy in each thing), invested (exchanged) some of his physical energy in current time, to build more efficient “tools” to standardize and automate labor (saving future time and energy), compounding future time and energy savings, each day forward in time. And so with the SAME amount of workers, and so the SAME amount of initial energy, he was now producing 7 cars a day, and not 1.

            I’d better stop here…and ask if any of this is making sense? And if so, if energy always moves toward conservation or “economy”, does anyone care to take a stab at what happens with “other” energy in the universe, when 7 cars a day are now produced using the same amount of energy that it took to build 1? Thx

          • Mike Nelson

            Specialization I understand, as well as the changing states of matter. What you said that I don’t understand is that “it takes no energy to move a greater force in the direction of a lesser force”. I assume you mean to say “mass” rather than “force” in this statement, so why does gravity not factor in this discussion? How can the very nature of gravity not be the single factor that causes the Theory of Relativity as relates to humans – since that is the crux of this discussion – be a determinant factor in the calculation of its application to our endeavors?

            I realize that this is now waaay out in the far field because revelations of space as we have assumed we understand it have changed from a gravitational slowing, to a faster expansion, which only adds to my confusion/position that we do not know what we think we know.

            The difference between kinetic and potential energy, versus the latent exertion of a passive force, such as gravity, is directly at issue here, is it not? The force of mass interaction (which I’ll call gravity from here on) is a display of some force of energy, even though it is not an expenditure thereof, per se; potential, but somehow still active, still effective, and still documentable. Further, the gravitational mass of a planet the size of, say, Jupiter has a direct effect on the function of all of the other planets in the solar system, does it not? This is the basis for varying theories regarding ‘Planet X’ as it has been called, the thus-far undiscovered body lying somewhere impossibly far out from the orbits of Pluto and Neptune, but supposedly still slaved to Sol.

            Given that the universe is expanding (as we are currently told – or propagandized – to “understand”), this would appear to violate the basic rule of E=MC2, which leaves me still at odds; it seems to me to be doublethink, which is a principle for which I simply have no patience (and am not accusing you of, but merely observing in the context of this example).

            I can accept that my understanding is flawed, but assuming that you are simply correct, how can this be attributed as fact, given the juxtaposition of what we are taught, versus what we “know” to be happening? And at what point does gravity become a factor in the E=MC2 equation, considering any relationship of a physical nature is subject to the force, and most especially as humanity, or any given human, is concerned?

            These are all aspects of my observation-criticism of the Theory of Relativity as a “relative theory” rather than my being able to accept the theory whole and unchallenged.

            Regarding the final aspect of your example, I disagree; it is not possible to create 7 cars from the same expenditure of energy as to create 1; only to increase the efficiency of the workers in their expenditure of energy, material, and time. Going back to the root (as compared to going back to the “Big Bang” (or not), this does not account for mining, transportation, and the increased demands of an assembly line bureaucracy that enables the more efficient production on which we DO agree. The materials to create 1 car simply don’t go far enough to create 7 from the same stock.

            This is almost splitting hairs, but it was the industrial revolution and the unlocking of greater potential to use, direct, and apply energy that allowed for the creation of assembly line manufacture, which is what allowed (and in our historical reality, necessitated) the training and specialization of a more productive workforce… but after a certain point, are they really more efficient? I supposed we would have to define efficiency.

            But I digress.

            One simple question that I fear does not have a simple answer is, “Is the universe expanding faster, or slower now, than it was in the past?”

            As I contend in my original response, I think that this is a function of a fractal nature, and could be compared to much the same way that the Earth, as an entity, “breathes.” The question becomes, while we begin only now (if indeed that is so!) to understand the nature of the cycles the Earth goes through, how is it even possible that we as a race could be alive for long enough to know what the universe is doing? And given that monumental undertaking of explanation, how can one contend that the Theory of Relativity is anything more than theory, when we lack the bases for constructing a control group, let alone documenting the results?

            In my opinion, it is fine to have a theory, but to some extent, you might as well be making an assumption, because the theory itself is by (and in) nature unprovable, although it has definitely proven useful… just as did the “knowledge” that the sun and moon revolved around the Earth.

            Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion, and I AM interested in where you are going with the final question regarding 7:1 energy efficiency in manufacture, but I do not see the question as an obviously relevant one as regards this discussion, because it would seem to imply that we could at some point produce more products than the matter the Earth has to offer, without going to another source. I know I’m missing something here, but I can’t see what.

          • Liberty For All

            Wow…that is a lot you are trying to understand. I would only mention again, that the answers you seek to understand, are evident in all things at all times, and so can easier be identified, in a simple physical example, rather in a larger one, as the larger one is manifesting the very same expression, MANY times over.

            The fractal expression of nature you are sensing, is this very thing that is being expressed just mentioned, but over the course of time, meaning moment to moment to moment. It will take more time to explain this, not because it is complicated, but because it is so absolutely elegant and simple, that it is easy to ignore or write-off as not being important, when it is the most important thing. But I want to explain one thing first, regarding how do we know what we see is “true”.

            This of course gets back to Glenn’s comment about intersections of different observations. I fully understand “perception” and how it is different for everyone, and wondering how one can be sure of what he thinks he sees/understands is “real”, in an effort to find and decide if something is “true”.

            First, there IS reality. There IS truth. How does anyone know? Because it’s self-evident there is order in the universe. Something is determining that order. That something is permanent. Making that something…true. But what is it? How do we find it and know it for sure…or as sure as we can know it?

            Example: If I am on top of a building, and there’s a man next to me. And you are on the building across the street. And there is a man down below on the sidewalk, and another, 1 block away — and then the man next to me jumps and we all observe it. All of us may see something different, and each of us explains what we saw, and it will all be different, except — where it is the same. This is the point of knowledge to be aware of and keep in mind.

            And then, when you take a totally unrelated experience of something that happens, in your neighborhood for instance, seen by different people, and analyze if from different perspectives, which will all be different — except where it is the same, you may come to be aware eventually, that what is the same in this last instance, is the same as what was the same in the first instance.

            After more observations of things in life (take human intervention out of your experiments to keep things simple), you begin to see what is the same in all things. I am not sure you can find and prove “truth” anymore than that. A metaphor for this is you are analyzing the interaction of the parts, which makes self-evident the common glue.

            Second, regarding the Henry Ford’s assembly line example, again being delicate in what you are observing, the same amount of mass (energy) for each car did not change. What changed was the “other” energy used during assembly, more specifically — better and more efficient “cooperation” of energy (labor/tools…etc), that it took to assemble each car’s mass over time, “saving” 4 days worth of time and so 4 days worth of labor energy. Again, this gets back to the relationship, or the interactions between energy, time and space — or the relative exchange of energy, in time and in space. Increased efficiency (better cooperation) of energy, has a relative effect on time.

            Regarding gravity, I have come to understand gravity, like kinetic energy, as what I’ve read being called fundamental energy, meaning, it is not consumed. An example: throw a stone in space (no gravity) and inertia will keep going–forever, and not slow down until there is a force of residence against it, and yes for sure, both have an effect on mass.

            Since you keep referencing planets and gravity and space, I will post a simple demonstration using gravity and kinetic energy on a mass in space. What manifests when these three things come in contact, I hope will reveal to you the very same thing I see, that is effecting all things, that is so delicate, but so important, and I hope will reveal the relativity of all energy (mass, gravity, kinetic) in time and space.

            The reason I am writing about this, is because I cannot find these observations written anywhere, but they are self-evident everywhere, but more importantly, they again lead to reasons for specific human social structure that lead to productivity, that lead to prosperity.

            I’ll dig it up that old post and repost soon. I would like to get your observation on it. Out of time now!! Thx

          • Mike Nelson

            I will need a while to reread from the start, and digest all of this, to ensure I’m not going way out of the area I intend to query; like I said, I’m pretty out of my depth here, as a mere HS dropout.

            Thank you for your time and patience.

          • Mike Nelson

            OK, several re-reads and a weeks’ worth of reflection brings me back to a single point of order, and a single question, because I think we disagree on what the “is” of science, is.

            1.) Gravity by its nature, I cannot not see as a kinetic force, but in its vastness is certainly capable of imparting kinetic energy to other objects small enough to be subject to the effects of massive bodies, without functionally affecting those massive bodies in return. In most (all?) of the examples of energy conservation that you have given, you have simplified down to an assumption of providership that disproves the point you wish to make, 7:1 production efficiency being the most obvious example (for the assumption of resources without the work to obtain them), but the citation of gravity being a kinetic actor being the most disturbing, and in my view, demonstrably false. Yet gravity cannot be merely a potential force, either, since it is constantly in complex interaction with literally everything, assuming our perceptions of so-called black holes is even close to realistic.

            This leads me to believe that you understand E=MC2 as science rather than theory, which is the point that I contend against most strongly. I have yet to understand anything you have written as conclusively refuting that basic assertion, right down to the expansion of the universe, which is in clear juxtaposition to the theory of energy conservation, barring An Event that started the expansion – but even this ignores the acceleration of this expansion – as we currently accept and “understand” the Nature of Things.

            2.) You seem to be dancing around the endorsement of God (or Deity, by any name) as the explanation itself. In this, I find great irony, since it takes so much less effort – one might say a conservation of energy 😉 – to make the case otherwise. This leads me to the basic question: do you believe in a Higher Consciousness/Power/Deity/God? If so, why the dancing around that point? If not, why, as a person in pursuit of explanation, are you not looking for answers in every possible arena?

            Perhaps you’re simply more astute than I, or more comprehensive in your knowledge, but it is difficult for me not to see your position as one of “education” rather than information.

            Thus, I conclude that while you appear to accept as science and attempt to explain that which I consider to be only theory – and as theory, useful only as far as it is a stepping stone to the next Great Realization – that your view of science is in need of exposition on an introspective level.

            I am not challenging science in my position or assertions, but as a scientist who is a scientist, one is always looking for answers, rather than attempting to exemplify theory as anything more than… theory. Past that point, one becomes an activist, or an advocate.

            I have tried to make this as impersonal a comment as possible, and apologize if you find offense in my conclusions.

            For me, the answer is God. No matter the subject at hand, no matter the discussion, no matter the Question or Debate, God is Bigger. Whatever the reasons behind it, all we mere humans can do is accept what is, and try to know more about ourselves… which brings me back to fractals.

          • Liberty For All

            Good morning Mike, thanks for taking the time for a well thought out reply. By reiterating back to me what you think I mean to say is very helpful in me trying to choose and organize my words more carefully with every reply.

            A few quick misunderstandings:

            1. I did not intend to suggest that gravity is kinetic energy…two different fundamental energies (meaning both are not consumable and are infinite). Yes, they are two different things.

            2. Henry Ford 7:1 and production efficiency — it was produced by more efficient assembly. The car itself contains the same amount of mass/energy, but the energy it took to assemble that energy into a car, became more efficient, by more efficient use of space (factory assembly line), specialization of work, and improved tooling (improving the manipulation of mass to more efficiently manipulate other mass), all together, shortening the “time” it took for each car to be assembled.

            The “relative” relationship between time, energy, and space becoming self evident, realizing, that there are less efficient uses of time, energy and space to reach an end, and more efficient uses of time, energy, space to reach an end. One has to stop and ask, why we choose to move to take the more efficient route…?

            3. Regarding God – I have come to understand, that the universe is a self-running machine, of absolute perfection, and to the smallest degree, not because somebody or something made it that way, but because I understand it HAS to be perfect and absolute, or it could not function, and so the universe as we know it could not be, because the universe is what it is, at every moment, because of cause and effect, moment to moment.

            The universe may seem still and finished, but it’s not. It is remaking itself at every moment, and evolving toward something. I do not know what that is, but with some simple observations, I see it has direction. And that direction is always toward the conservation of energy, through the efficient use of energy, inside space, and over time, and the result of all its physical expressions we see in nature, as well as the ones that are extinct, for the very same reason.

            So I have come to understand, that the machine is working perfectly toward something, whether a God made the machine or the machine was always here, it makes no difference in the workings of the machine. So God to me is a mute point in this conversation, and worse, it introduces “belief”, and what I’m trying to point out for Glenn (or anyone) when I originally started this thread, is what’s true in the universe, by making it self evident in nature. Not because I say it is…but because it is self evident everywhere, in many different instances, and all instances.

            So, the rules of time, space and energy, are in place regardless of how it got here, and the workings of the machine cannot be altered, or the universe falls apart, and so, with that said, I trust that nature is going where it needs to go…which brings us back, to the point of this thread: the absolute need for individual freedom, not coercion and manipulation, because if anything, coercion and manipulation by force is inefficient. And inefficiency “wastes” energy, of which there is a finite amount of, and so inefficiency slows productivity, which leads to economic decline, just as inefficiency in nature slows re-creation in nature, and so economic decline is in effect, the death of nature, because in both instances, it’s a decline in the “economy” of energy, in space and over time. It’s all the very same thing, and inescapable.

            I see you are very focused on the Big Bang, and the “acceleration of expansion”, and one of the largest questions mankind has. I again would suggest exercises in very simple experiments of observation using a few samples of energy with as little interference from other energy as possible, such as using 3 things to start: a simple mass, kinetic energy and gravity, and then adding additional stores of energy later, one at a time, to the mix after observing each.

            For instance, take Earth (mass), flying through space virtually forever, in a perfectly straight line I might add, all by its lonesome self minding its own business, powered by its own kinetic energy. Then, it comes in contact with another energy force, the gravity from our Sun.

            Q1 — What happens with this mass, traveling a specific distance in space, over a specific period of time (together determining its speed–and in turn its kinetic energy), when these two fundamental energies begin to come in contact with one another?

            Q2 — And then, where does the mass come to rest, and why?

            Q3 — Once at rest, what happens when you change any one of the 3 energy forces just a tid bit?

            There is so much that is self evident in this example. I wondered if you’d be interested in analyzing this observation with me…? Not to put you (or anyone) on the spot, I’d be curious what you see. I might add, you don’t have to be a scientist to see what is self evident here, and it’s not complicated whatsoever, which is most likely why it’s brushed off as not important. I’m wondering if you can see not the parts, but what holds the parts together?

            FYI I am writing a book on this subject, and this helps me considerably in understanding the perspectives of others. Where we do connect, is on fractals, if I understand you correctly, and think you’ll find it in my explanation of the universe that is continually evolving, and hoping we can meet our minds at some that point on this — but have to start where we first agree on what we observe. Look forward to your thoughts (or anyones) on the above. Thanks!

          • Mike Nelson

            I understand that you do not have answers to the questions that I continue to ask about the universe, which is why I continue to ask those questions – and despite that obvious fact, you refuse to acknowledge ignorance on the topic, instead referring to self-evidential perfection… but citation of it (the universe) as being – effectively – in perfect harmony are absurd; for comparative purposes, the human body functions perfectly, and yet some of us are insane (but who can say whom?); some of us are fat, or diabetic, or suffer the maladies of flesh that are too innumerable to name; and some of us are so filled with hubris as to be incapable of acknowledging a lack of answers, and so rely upon the “proven high road” of complimenting those who would ask (as a scientist might) for evidence of assertions such as those expressed in the relative theory of E=MC2… and yet, from a perspective of accepting God as the answer all things are indeed as they are supposed to be, and in perfect harmony. This is not an attempt to bash you with doctrine or Faith, but an expression of frustration with the platitudes you have offered, which I have now spent weeks in contemplation of.

            The fact is that we do not have the answers… but we certainly do know that the Earth does indeed NOT travel through space on a straight line (and assuming that the Earth is part of the Milky Way galaxy, and that pictures from Hubble show other galaxies whose shape we can discern, and that our galaxy has a shape and is, itself, travelling and affected by gravity), even if the trajectory when viewed from a great enough distance would appear straight, but only in the same manner “as the crow flies” being related to the curvature of the Earth.

            In all fact, I find this discussion disturbing on the level that the assumptions you appear to make are so esoteric as to require far too much dialogue to be either practical, or desirable, and this leads me to a rather dim view of your purposes…

            I hope that in your book you are able to make a better case with concrete examples to support any assertions you may make, rather than act the pompous professor in citation only of self-evidence that is neither evident, nor provided, lest you contribute to the failure of our society’s reliance on feelings and the circumstantial propaganda that fuels them, rather than what could be an offering of genuine reflection on the why part of what we do not know, and the how part of why we have ended in a place where we are sold global warming, royal tomb-pyramids, and dark matter as settled science, rather than apparent mysteries, observed phenomena, useful concepts, political tools, or the otherwise reasonable theories that they are, if such they were considered.

            Einstein was a scientist, but even he said of his own works, both that:

            “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.”


            “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.”

            If these statements do not at once demonstrate that he was constantly in search of answers, rather than set in defense of his own theories, then I do not know what else can do so.

            Regarding fractals, I may suggest to you that this be a more fruitful pursuit and avenue than yet further attempts to indoctrinate others into the belief that ToR is itself science, rather than being theory expressed by scientific terms, since it more closely approximates and relates to chaos theory (in terms of solid documentation) than does ToR, and that it is therefore ripe for investigation and development.

            In any case, as I have said, I am a HS dropout, and while this has been a briefly entertaining foray into intellectual masturbation, I have come to a lack of further interest in the dialogue, largely resulting from your continued citation of self-evidence that you do not provide, and that I find to be evidentially lacking.

            I apologize for the judgmental tone of affront that this posting adopts (having re-read it and revised several times I cannot find a way to be both blunt and honest, without being brusque as well), but I haven’t anything left but honesty and questions, and if you cannot meet me at that junction, then we haven’t further business – but I thank you for your time and thoughts, as they have caused me to be both critical and reflective toward my own beliefs, and to do research that I otherwise would not have.

            Best fortune in all of your endeavors – unless your purpose be nefarious or deceitful – and God bless.

        • Anonymous

          I’ve been enjoying your comments tremendously. Your insight is both refreshing and invigorating! Finally, someone who understands that truth is subject to nature’s law. Which means that truth is a constant. Also all the other things you covered are just splendid.

          Thank you for polishing my knowledge on the matter. Now that I have it, it’ll be even easier to defend the truth!

    • Liberty For All

      Mike…seems our discussion has been removed…?? I cannot find it on here, but I see it on disqus….?? Anyone else see it?

      • Mike Nelson

        I still see it here, but I’ve noticed sometimes disqus is… somewhat biased in their allowance of certain threads. I have no idea why this one would be removed. If you’ve noticed the discussion not appearing in your personal feed, perhaps returning to this page directly will remedy the issue; I don’t understand at all how the order of events in the personal feed is tracked.

        BTW, I’d have responded again before now, but the last few days have been for clearing my mind in other ways and to re-read from the start, and find out how far afield I have gone. It may be that my curiosity is sated for this discussion, or that I conclude we simply disagree about some things (which I do think is true) and that further discussion is unnecessary from my perspective (which I haven’t yet decided).


  • Connor

    Well he lost all his friends.

  • The truth is that …

    Those who preach collectivism claim that private property is a source of discontent because they believe it empowers some against others.

  • Anonymous

    I have read the comments by Liberty For All and Mike Nelson. I think they are very good. There is a lot to digest. I too have set out on a journey to understand the consequences of Relativity, and more importantly the deeper realizations of “What the heck is going on” lol.

    I liked Dan’s comments concerning the “Now”. In a larger conceptual sense “Now” refers to this instance of our existence. In the absence of any consciousness ( human or otherwise ) time would be meaningless. It is through our awareness that we ascribe meaning to what was and what is to come. As we travel through our lives, instant by instant, we experience what we like to think of as reality. However because we have memory we can store the meaning of past reality. We can also predict the coming reality by extrapolating from these memory patterns.

    Knowing that we live only in this instant can help free us from the adverse memory patterns we have stored and allow us to focus on what we need to do now to improve the expected results for the future.

    I Thought Glenn conducted his interview exemplary by listening to Dan with respect. I love you Glenn and will remain in your debt for waking me up 5 years ago.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.