March 8th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Prof. Florence Wambugu, a renowned agricultural biotechnologist and the founder of Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International, is currently entangled in a row with the South African government over her plan to set up a multimillion dollar research laboratory and greenhouses to develop genetically modified sorghum.
Prof. Wambugu has received a huge grant - US$415 million - from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to develop genetically modified crops, which have proved essential in alleviating food insecurity. Her choice of South Africa stems from the fact that it’s the only African country with Biosafety laws.
South Africa’s early enactment of biosafety laws has made it the preferred destination for biotechnology investors. To now hear a country that’s gained international reputation for its friendly policies towards biotechnology is attempting to block an African scientist from advancing a biotechnology cause is appalling.
In justifying its decision to suspend Prof. Wambugu’s project, South Africa’s agricultural regulatory agencies have claimed that the genetically modified sorghum can contaminate varieties native to Africa. This looks like a pedestrian argument and it’s tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.
For the record, Prof. Wambugu has not yet shipped genetically modified sorghum to Africa. All what she wants to do is to set up a laboratory to conduct research on the same. All what Prof. Wambugu currently wants is to build the infrastructure for genetically modified sorghum research. Such can in no way interfere with the so called indigenous African sorghum varieties.
Prof. Wambugu will, at one stage, conduct field trials of her genetically modified sorghum. Then is the right time for the South African government to be worried about “contamination.”
It should not be lost on anyone that South Africa has well-entrenched genetically modified organisms (Gmos) regulatory laws. So, it’s unlikely that the new genetically modified sorghum will be developed outside such laws.
Genetically modified crops are not alien to South Africa. It’s not the first time a new genetically modified crop is being introduced into South Africa. The laws that governed the introduction of genetically modified corn and cotton, currently being commercially grown in South Africa must be applied to Prof. Wambugu’s genetically modified sorghum.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, by investing in agricultural biotechnology research, is sending a stark message to African countries that it’s committed to finding a permanent solution to Africa’s chronic food problems. The best way to reciprocate this generous gesture is for African governments to allow scientists like Prof. Wambugu to do their work unimpeded.
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) was founded in 1895. It is a voluntary, nongovernmental agency with more than 13,000 accredited colleges, universities, secondary, middle and elementary schools. The Council on Accreditation and School Improvements (CASI) is a division of SACS and accredits pre-kindergarten, K-12 and vocational schools in 11 southern states, as well as several other countries.
In the spring of 2006, the Virginia schools signed an agreement with SACS CASI. Under this agreement, Virginia schools divisions will be encouraged to pursue accreditation with the Council. The agreement complements Virginia schools already rigorous accreditation standards and will build strong foundations for continued growth in learning and achievement within each school and each school division.
Only Virginia schools divisions may be accredited by SACS CASI. To quality, all schools within a division also must be fully accredited under the Commonwealth’s Standards of Learning accountability program. This encourages and rewards the use of best practices at all levels of the school division.
Additionally, a joint steering committee will coordinate the:
• Division accrediting process,
• Training and technical support,
• Recognition for achieving accreditation, and
• Will encourage all Virginia schools divisions to participate in the program.
Though the program is voluntary for the school divisions, the Virginia schools views the agreement as an incentive for its schools to accelerate their current efforts to improve instruction and increase scholastic achievement.
The SACS CASI accreditation process compares the Virginia schools’ policies, practices and conditions with SACS CASI’s standards. They look at several different best practice areas, such as governance, instruction, accountability, management, planning and sustained improvement.
Accredited Virginia schools demonstrate their commitment to best practices, quality instruction, and increased academic achievement. It is a way to implement a systematic approach to these goals at all levels within the school divisions.
An added benefit is to the state and local Virginia schools leaders, who share these promising best practices with other accredited schools across the nation.
At the time of this writing, both Hanover and Roanoke County school divisions have been accredited by SACS CASI. Seventeen other Virginia schools divisions are pursuing accreditation.
With encouragement from both SACS CASI and the Virginia schools, we should see many other school divisions with accreditation from the Council within the next few years.
Many people look to hydrogen fuel cells as the answer to our energy issues. The only problem, of course, is creating usable hydrogen. Chocolate production may be the answer.
Chocolate &ndash The Answer To Hydrogen Fuel Supplies?
Mention hydrogen as a fuel source and politicians, scientists and techies get that glassed over look in their eyes. Simply put, hydrogen is a perfect fuel. It can be combined with oxygen to produce electricity. Hydrogen is the most comment element on our planet. When used as an energy source, it produces no greenhouse gases or other pollutants. Sounds great, right?
There is just one problem with the idea of using hydrogen as the solution to all of our energy problems. While hydrogen is the most common element on our planet, it is rarely found in a usable form. Instead, hydrogen tends to cling to other elements such as oxygen, which gives us H2O &ndash water. The power required to separate hydrogen from these other elements is shockingly large.
In the United States, Honda has a number of hydrogen vehicles it is testing on the road via some families. The cars work well. Powering them, however, is the problem. The families must take the cars to a specific station at a Honda facility. There, they will find a few hundred feet of solar panels and a hydrogen tank. It takes the system roughly two to three weeks to create enough usable hydrogen for one full tank for the car. Given the fact there are millions of cars on the road, you can see the problem. Yes, there are more efficient methods for conversion than solar power, but nothing remotely efficient enough to create enough usable hydrogen.
In a humorous turn, scientists in the UK have discovered that hydrogen can be produced from the wastes of creating confectionaries such as chocolate. The waste is treated with e coli bacteria. Yes, that e coli. The bacteria then process the food material and produces gas. Guess what kind of gas is produced? Yes, hydrogen.
Could it be that chocolate will play a fundamental role in a hydrogen fuel future? Could we really be that lucky?
Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects
(A Scandal in the “relativistic” family)
Ravil Kalmykov
The requirement of Einstein’s second postulate regarding constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames is a singular deviation from the canons of classical mechanics. It creates a basic distortion in the habitual representation of space and time. Persons beginning their study of special relativity, should be ready to experience a surprising metamorphosis.
However one of problems of science consists in the exceptional number of these novel theoretical representations. It is no secret that physicists-theorists are at times ready to bring down a huge cloud of new and absolutely mad hypotheses on heads of unsuspecting people. The problem facing the general scientific community in maintaining a healthy world outlook consists, whenever possible, in limiting the revolutionary aspirations of some of the excessively zealous authors with their novel and singular concepts, to a pragmatic and necessary minimum.
In opinion of the author of this article, not all is right with special relativity. They have obviously overdone the scale of novelty and have run counter to the requirements of the principle of necessity. One should try to find a more simple theoretical explanation, which is less bulky and less burdensome for the human mind.
Historically, the first idea that came to the minds of physicists was that in a condition of relative movement of inertial systems with near-light speeds, a transformation of space is inevitable. So the formulas of Lorentz’s transformations were born. However people have the right to question why it was decided to begin with spatial distortions and not with time? Apparently, the human mind is arranged to begin with something small, close and clear. Probably, changes in space are perceived to be easier than changes in time.
However, it turned out that transformations in space were not sufficient, and it was necessary to subject time to distortions as well. But what else distorts? According to the Lorentz transformations, a double change in time takes place: time intervals are reduced, and there is the phenomenon of “the relativity of simultaneity”. Thus, the initial “cautious” idea of transformation of space to which physicists have so amicably clung has generated a whole bouquet of shocking effects. We have a right to ask: what would be the result if we started with the other end? The author tries to prove below, that another theory leads to a result that is simple, has a minimum of novelty, and is more sparing of human credulity.
In stating the contents of special relativity one usually finds the relativity of simultaneity right at the beginning. But it has for some unknown reason only a qualitative character. The existence of this strange effect is only mentioned. The quantitative formula is deduced much later, after calculations of the reductions of space lengths and timepieces according to Lorentz’s transformations. As a result, it is given a “third-rate” dependency. After all of that, it is forgotten.
The author sees a basic mistake in this fact. He considers that value of this phenomenon is wrongly underestimated. Actually, it is the main thing (and as it will be shown below &ndash the only thing). Therefore it should be investigated first, and deeply. As to the concrete formula describing the phenomenon, it will be found in the thought experiment of Einstein’s train.
Direct derivation of the scale of infringement of simultaneity
This well-known experiment has a train, which we will consider as having a relativistic speed. There are two observers. One is in the middle of the train, the other &ndash at the station. All is organized in such a manner that during that moment when the observers are opposite each other, they simultaneously receive two light signals, emitting earlier from the two ends of the train. Each draws a conclusion about the ratio of the moments of emission of these signals.
With the observer who is in the middle of a train, all is simple: both signals have in his opinion, traveled identical distances (half the length of the train), and were received simultaneously. This means that he considers they were emitted simultaneously as well.
A more difficult situation exists with the observer at the station. First, he understands that during the moments of release of the signals, the middle of a train was some distance away from him. Thus, the head of the train was closer to him, than the tail. As a result, the light signal from the tail covered a greater distance and required a greater time interval. Hence, it should have been emitted earlier than from a head.
It is accepted that a qualitative conclusion of this situation that two simultaneous events in one reference system (train) are not at all simultaneous in another (station). That due to the fact that there was a mistiming of clocks in the two systems. But for some reason, this is not quantified. This is obviously the place to deduce a concrete quantitative ratio of the scale of infringement of simultaneity or the change in time rather than later, in the Lorentz’s transformations. Here, in our opinion, is an obvious deviation, from proper experiment. For a meticulous observer at the station, it would be natural to “take the bull by the horns” at once, and to try to deduce the required quantitative ratio.
A little about the nature of the relativity of simultaneity. Actually, it is a question of relative displacement (shift) of events of some interval of a time scale in the transition from one system to another. The size of this displacement depends on the position in space (along an axis of mutual motion of the systems). This displacement (we shall name it a discrepancy of events in time) leads to an interesting quantitative phenomenon.
The observer at the station wishes to calculate the size of the discrepancy using elementary improvised means, without the use of the Lorentz transformation formulas, but being guided by Einstein’s postulates. At the same time, our observer is so enamored with space that he does not wish to transform its characteristics without due cause. Station inspectors, as a rule, have plenty of time so time is no problem for them.
Let’s represent a situation at the moment of emission of a signal from the tail of the train in fig.1:
Fig. 1. Einstein’s train
Here O - position of the middle of a train; O?- position of the observer at station;
A - position of the head of the train; B &ndash position of the tail;
AB = l &ndash length of the train; BO = OA = ; V &ndash speed of the train.
The Signal from the tail should reach the observer at the station in the following time interval
= = = From here =
The time necessary for the arrival of the signal from the head of the train is calculated in a similar fashion.
(The moment of emission of the signal will be different, but the situation will be similar, therefore it is possible to use the same fig.1)
= = = It is received =
The difference between the two intervals is calculated easily
?t = &ndash = - = (1)
So, for the observer at the station that received the simultaneous arrival of the signals, the signal from the head should have been emitted before the signal from the tail of the size, ?t (1). From here, without resorting to a transformation of space, he reaches an elementary conclusion about mistiming of clocks (discrepancy of events) in two systems in any two points, A and B on the axis of their mutual motion. From formula (1) it is obvious that the size is proportional to the speed of relative motion of systems and the distance between the investigated points on the axis of motion, l.
Where is the mistake?
As we see, the observer’s result does not coincide with what ensues from Lorentz’s transformations. It is easier, and is not concerned with the deformation of space and time scales. Who is right?
Let’s remind ourselves that the transformation formulas were derived from an interpretation of Michelson’s experiment which showed that rays moving in different directions in a frame of reference were received simultaneously regardless of motion of the source.
Let’s recap this situation, remembering the relativity of simultaneity. In the system attached to the interferometer, the ray of light, having run over the course of the interferometer and having reflected back from a mirror, comes back to the initial point, the starting point.
In stationary system in which the interferometer is displaced, the event &ndash the light beam does not return to the starting point, but to another, because during the time of travel ?t of this beam, the interferometer itself was displaced in space by l = V t. An important result is found here. According to the relativity of simultaneity, in this other point the displacement (shift) of events takes place in the time scale. That is, the event at this point occurs earlier on the clocks of one system than on the clocks in another. In particular, when the process of movement in one system is already finished, it still continues in the other!
There is a very puzzling methodological problem: given these conditions, to broadcast events from one system to another. How can we carry out direct comparisons of space and time? There is a suspicion that physicists have given insufficient thought to this question. Really: except for one initial moment all events in two moving systems do not synchronize, and the size of the discrepancy is not constant, continuously progressing with the increase in relative displacement of the systems in space.
The serious analysis of this problem leads to a sad fact: it is impossible to reach a situation when the beginning and the end of any physical process is synchronized in both systems. One moment, only the beginning or the end ofa process can coincide. In Michelson’s experiment, only the beginning coincides. In Einstein’s train experiment, only the end coincides.
Let’s recollect that the analysis of Michelson’s experiment resulting in the Lorentz’s transformations were calculated from a simple right angled triangle. On the hypotenuse of this triangle, the transverse light beam in the system of the stationary observer moved (see fig.2,) in a continuous line). However the presence of a displacement (shift) of events on the time scale considerably complicates this situation. The return of a light beam in the moving system arrives earlier (point A). At this moment in the stationary system, the beam continues to run cheerfully on the hypotenuse (to point A’). At what moment should the stationary observer determine the length that has been traversed by a ray of light, and the time interval expended for it (at point O’ or point A ‘)?
Our poor stationary observer will certainly as himself this question: if the beginning of motion in both systems is synchronous, and the end is not, how dos this look to the moving observer? The stationary observer will want to try to diagram his version of the process in his own system, taking into account the displacement (see fig.2, a dotted line).
Fig. 2. Motion of the transverse beam in Michelson’s experiment
He will certainly not be enthused by the comparison of the two diagrams. In his opinion, the braking process in the direction of motion in moving system are obviously observed. And also acceleration takes place in the opposite direction, considering a change of sign V in the formula (1). In particular, in the mutual displacement of the two systems V ‘ there is a slowing down from the starting point. To the fixed observer, it is clear why it occurs:
, And in view of the discrepancy t ‘ = t + ?t, then
- From here is given the illusion of the delay of motion.
And with movement in the opposite direction, V changes to minus and the size ?t becomes a negative value (see the formula (1)), that generates the illusion of acceleration.
An uncomfortable conclusion inevitably follows from this situation. If it is impossible to determine the beginning and end of any process, the spatial positioning and timing of all its intermediate stages and all local events occurring in the framework of the two systems moving with near-light speed becom highly problematic. In this connection, that charming simplicity which authors of special relativity attribute to the Lorentz transformations is difficult to understand. Obviously, these transformations should be reconsidered. It is necessary to subject special relativity to serious modification. What will the occur to its well-known effects and paradoxes?
Problem of direct comparisons in details
Let’s try to consider a simple example from the very beginning, given theexistence of the relativity of simultaneity. In a classical example with a moving rod, we shall try to compare the results of measurement of its length by two researchers. In the system of the first researcher moving with the rod, the process of measurement is very simple: it is possible use a ruler and to note on it position at the ends of the rod. In system of the fixed researcher observing the rod moving at near-light speed, the situation is little bit more difficult. He must organize a special measuring experiment.
Experiment 1. The first researcher arranges flashes of light to occur simultaneously at two ends of therod. The second researcher must mark these flashes on a ruler, for example, by means of a photosensitive cover. For simplicity in the thought experiment, we shall assume that the rod travels very close to the ruler, therefore the delay between the moment of flash and the act of measurement can be neglected.
Fig.3. Experiment 1
The first researcher synchronizes time at the ends of the rod and creates simultaneous flashes. But the second researcher is indignant: in his system, the flashes were not simultaneous. That is, he registers a flash at one end of the rod, then after a pause, on the other. He quite reasonably considers result of experiment incorrect because during the pause the rod was essentially displaced in space. This ill-fated experiment shows a discrepancy of events at the ends of the spatially extended rod &ndash the result of the relativistic effect called by us, the - relativity of simultaneity.
So, experiment 1 is defective. Researchers agree to make it otherwise.
Experiment 2. Now the second researcher organizes a simultaneous flash of light along the in his system. For this purpose, he projects a large number of parallel rays of light from one source perpendicular to the motion of the rod. He needs only to mark the edges of the shadow of the moving rod on his ruler. Again, we consider that the rod moves vary close to the ruler of the second observer.
Fig.4. Experiment 2
The act of measurement is accomplished. But now the first researcher is indignant. He is disappointed that the rod in his system was not illuminated simultaneously along all its length. This is again the effect of the relativity of simultaneity: instead of simultaneous flashes it has turned into a kind ” moving flame”: first one end has been illuminated, and then the light beam has run speedily along the rod to other end. As a result, there was a time lag between the illumination of the two ends. If we consider that during this lag, the ruler of the second researcher was essentially displaced in space in relation to the rod. The result of the measurement, in the opinion of the first researcher, was incorrect. Again, the same discrepancy of events at the ends of the rod! It turns out, that a pause in the act of measurement as the result of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity is the cause.
What is the result? If we consider the situation correctly and take into account the relativity of simultaneity it is necessary to say that it is impossibe to simultaneous fix the ends of a rod in two systems at once. In systems moving relative each other it is impossible to directly compare lengths of the segments located along the line of motion.
Similar reasoning leads to the same conclusion with respect to time intervals. the discrepancy of events at makes it impossible to simultaneously determint the beginning and the end of a time interval in the two systems.
It would be reasonable to consider that nothing unusual occurs in the scale of space and a time in general. There is only the of displacement of events on the time scale. Thus, the basic impossibility of direct comparison of lengths of segments and time intervals forces us to radically change the attitude towards the Lorentz’s transformations equations and the well-known consequences of special relativity. Due consideration of the effect of the relativity of simultaneity leads us through necessity, not only to reconsider all former calculations, but also to cancel all other “relativistic” effects. For all these imaginary “reductions”, the paradox of “twins” and other amusing things it is sadly necessary to throw them out of the basket of history. In case of the “twins” all that happens is simply another is displacement on the time scale. When returning, the sign on the speed becomes negative, and displacement occurs in the opposite direction. As a result, there will be no difference in age when they meet.
So, the special theory of relativity reduces to only one phenomenon &ndash spatially caused displacement of events on the time scale.
It is the only new element to be brought into classical mechanics. Thus, the minimum requirement is reached. It is necessary to alter transformations for coordinates and time. There is a reason to avail oneself of the formula of the discrepancy of events, determined by us in the example of Einstein’s train. As the result of the new transformations, one system will determine:
x’ = x - t
Where = dx/dt ;
For the other system ,:
x = x’ - ‘t’
Where ‘ = dx’/dt’ Thus it is important to note, that = - ‘ only in the combined origin of coordinates of the two systems at the moment of intersection. Generally they are not equal.
In view of the change of direction of vector ‘ to the opposite in the second case, it is possible to write a scalar,
x = x’ + ‘t’
From the formulas in particular, it follows, that in the system moving in the other direction on axis X, events advance relatively, and in an opposite direction, they are delayed. And it is the sole effect which has a place in reality.
This situation may surprise some; some will be certainly upset or annoyed. The author perceives all this with a large degree of condescension because he considers this annoying misunderstanding only as one of the many problems in the methodology of physics in the XX century, mentioned earlier.
The new transformations open the gate for other methodologies and philosophies in physical research. Actually it is a question of refusing the current domination of neo-positivism in favour of materialism.
It is interesting to see how physicists will look to science fiction writers.
Before we begin, know that our goal is to give you as much useful information as we can fit on our page.
The compounds that make Pueraria mirifica so special and different from other phytoestrogen plants are Miroestrol and Deoxymiroestrol. These two compositions posses highest estrogenic activity among the known phytoestrogens, due to structural similarity to estradiol of the main human estrogen in women’s body.
Pueraria mirifica also contains other chemicals that belong to Isoflavones, e.g. Genistein, Daidzein, Daidzin, Genistin and Coumestrol that are usualy found in soybeans. However, the estrogenic activity of Miroestrol is greatly more strong than that of soy isoflavones.
The fallout from researchers shows that sallow Kwao Kreu promote estrogenic and mammogenic property to assorted tissues and organs such as uterus, ovary and skin and breast.
Soya, the main oriental food and Alfalfa, the western health food products contains lower quantity of phytoestrogens especially there is no miroestrol and its derivatives. Their benefit to the body is far fewer than that of Pueraria mirifica.
No matter what you though about the first part of this article, the second part is bound to blow you away.
Researches validate that these chemicals thwart breast cancer, prostate hyperplasia, colon cancer, osteoporosis and also cardiovascular disease via the strong reduction of blood cholesterol and also anti-menopausal syndrome.
Isoflavones enriched in Pueraria mirifica also ropes cardiovascular system, enhances breasts and skin appearance, ropes well prostate function and well bone structure.
We hope that you have found this article interesting and eye catching to say the least. Its objective is to entertain and inform.
Pueraria Mirifica Pills KWAOTIP THAI FDA. G. 187/42
Kwaotip is a premuim grade Thai traditional herbal formula derived mainly from White Kwaotip Krua (Pueraria Mirifica). After many years of research from Dr. Wichai Cherdshewasart, the studies indicated that this herb shows estrogenic and rejuvenate effects to the female body especially at the breast, hip, facial skin, body skin, hair and vaginal epithelium. Thus elevate the appearance of the female secondary sexual characteristics and also the skin beauty.
ALL Natural Dietary Supplement
Hight Phytoestrogen (especially isoflavonet):
*Increases sensitivity and vitality
*Promotes silky shiny hair ,keeps hair pattem bone calcium accumulation
*Enhances breast and skin appearance
*Serves as a anti-wrinkle agent
*Enhances physical and mental ability
*Serves as a fountain of youth
Ingredients: Pueraria Mirifica and other herbs (60 capsules per box)
Recommended Dosage: Take 2 capsules after breakfast and dinner.
Precautions: - Not for women under 20 years old.
- Women with developing cyst at the ovary, breast, and uterus.
- Pregnant women and breast feeking mother should avoid taking this product.
- Women who are taking birth control pill should not take this product.
.pueraria-mirifica.biz/
A hard working partner at a major law firm, John B., finds that he gets short with co-workers especially when under stress. He is not viewed as a “team player” by other members of the firm and the support staff avoid him. In spite of feedback and coaching from his colleagues, he has experienced little progress in modifying his behavior.
Judy S. struggles with balancing her personal and professional life, often finding herself overcommitted. As a VP of a large health care organization, she also serves on a number of community boards. She has difficulty saying “No” and feels guilty that she is not doing enough for her children. She has tried repeatedly to decrease her work time but seems to be busier each year.
Both of these successful people may find it difficult to change.
There is a “paradox of success,” according to the executive coach Marshall Goldsmith, reported in a Business Strategy Review article. This paradox makes it difficult for successful people to grow and improve. When things are going well, people have little motivation to change. Yet, successful people need to change before they have to change or they will plateau or even decline in effectiveness. Even the most successful leaders can increase their effectiveness by changing some elements of their behavior.
Goldsmith has worked with hundreds of executives in Fortune 100 companies and has found that successful people have four key beliefs that drive their success and, often, limit their growth. These beliefs are:
• I choose to succeed. Successful people believe that they are doing what they choose to do, because they choose to do it. They have a strong need for self-determination and do not like feeling controlled or manipulated. They believe that their behavior is a result of their choices and commitments. The “I choose to succeed” belief is highly correlated with achievement. The more we believe that our behavior is a result of our own choices and commitments, the less likely we are to want to change our behavior.
Successful people’s personal commitment can make it hard for them to change.
• I can succeed. Successful people believe that they have the internal capacity to make desirable things happen. They do not see themselves as victims of fate; rather they believe that their motivation and ability has driven their success.
Successful people often confuse correlation with causality. Because they get positive reinforcement for results, they may not have an accurate perception of what behaviors drove those results. This can result in “superstitious behavior” where the successful person repeats behavior that they believe was a factor in their success.
Successful people have difficulty realizing that they are successful “in spite” of certain behaviors, not “because of” them.
• I will succeed. A contagious sense of optimism is one of the most important characteristics of successful people. They not only believe that they can achieve, they believe that they will achieve. Because they are ambitious and goal oriented, they have difficulty saying “no” to desirable opportunities. They often equate “busyness” with success. Some successful people drown in a sea of opportunity and burn out their staff trying to complete what they have promised.
Successful people are very busy and face the danger of over commitment.
• I have succeeded. Successful people tend to have a positive interpretation of their past performance. They consistently over-rate their performance relative to their professional peers. When positive outcomes occur, they believe that their efforts were instrumental to the success. They see their history of what they have done as a validation of who they are and their personal attributes.
Successful people’s positive view of their performance can make it difficult to hear negative feedback from others.
Goldsmith has found that successful people have great difficulty in accepting input from others regarding their behavior. If the feedback does not agree with their perceptions of themselves they tend to deny the information for three reasons: 1) the input is from someone that they do see as their peer or equal in terms of success, therefore it “doesn’t count;” 2) they view input that is inconsistent with their self-image to be “incorrect” and the other person is “confused” or 3) they agree there is truth in the feedback but it could not be important since they are so successful. These are some of the reasons that feedback is not very effective with successful people.
As Denis Diderot once said, “we swallow with one gulp the lie that flatters us, and drink drop by drop the truth which is bitter to us.”
A no gym workout is ideal for those people who aren’t members of a gym, and don’t have any equipment of their own. There have been fascinating methods devised whereby people can use their own body weight as a tool to build muscles. Here we show you the secrets of the no gym workout.
Step 1
We are going right back to basics here, so if you already know this, bear with us. The first part of a workout should involve cardio as a warm up, to get the blood pumping. A no gym workout needs to abide by this as well. There are many different ways of achieving a solid warm up, so pick the one which suits you. Jogging, running, cycling, any of these will do to get you into the prepared state. One possible routine which will definitely warm you up is to alternate a couple of minutes of jogging with a minute of sit ups. This will certainly warm you up!
Step 2
The arms are so often the main feature of a bodybuilding workout, whether in the gym, or at home. There is plenty you can do for the arms as part of a no gym workout. You will need some kind of weight, and obviously professional measured weights are the best. If you don’t have these, you can always improvise. Bags can contain just about anything, and you can do bicep curls with them. If you use something like tins of food or books, you can always alter the weight ass necessary. Press ups are good for the rest of the arms.
Step 3
The chest is much more difficult to work at home, because the most effective exercises normally involve professional training equipment. A weight bench is ideal if you have one, but if you don’t there are still exercises you can perform. In a no gym workout, you will need to do some tough press ups (one handers or declined). You can also dip yourself if you can find the right facility, maybe in the garage or the kitchen. Work surfaces have been successfully used by some people.
Step 4
Legs are another area where it is often difficult to find the right circumstances to exercise with your no gym workout, but there are ways of getting round most of the problems. Squats are your first port of call, as these put a lot of pressure on the legs. You can do these without any weights, and still get good results, or else you can improvise some weights as we did for the arms. Calves can be built up by performing heel raises on a step, or similar structure. They can also be a side beneficiary of your cardio, especially if that involves skipping.
Now you know how to perform a full no gym workout. Keep at it, apply consistency, and you should see results.
Secret information? Okay, probably not much remains truly hidden or forbidden anymore, but there are little secrets about how things work. Salesmen, politicians, and others learn and use subtle techniques to influence you. “Lucky people” use little-known tricks to get that way. Here are some examples.
Controling Through Words
There is a classic joke, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It is difficult to answer without incriminating yourself. This technique of the implicit premise is used by politicians for more than jokes. Get everyone to argue about how to do something, for example, like win the the “war” on drugs, and nobody questions if it should even be done. Implicit premises are a powerful method of control. Get in the habit of recognizing the premises hidden in political debate.
Another way to influence people is to control language. Since social security payments don’t come from actual investments, unless you call the government lending itself money “investing”, social security isn’t a “retirement fund.” Calling it that, however, makes it seem safer and more acceptable than what it is: welfare. You can see how the words used control the debate.
Our words matter greatly. Could it be difficult politically to spend millions on “human shredder” bombs? Maybe that’s why they are called “daisy cutters.” Start paying attention, and you’ll see how words are being used to influence you.
Hypnotic Sales Techniques
Read the following sales pitch:
“Does speaking before a crowd make you nervous? What if it was easy? Imagine standing there in front of a crowd, knowing exactly what to say to make them love you. Wouldn’t that feel wonderful? Just apply our simple methods, and you will have that power. Use the form below to ORDER RIGHT NOW.”
It starts by getting you to say yes, which is habit forming. It hints at the possibility of a solution. The word “Imagine,” in line three, gets you doing just that. Line four suggests positive emotion and gets another yes. “And” in line five infers cause and effect, that you’ll have the power BECAUSE you used their product. The last line directs you with “Use the form below.” The “order right now” is called an “embedded command,” because putting it in capitals influences you without you noticing consciously.
When I learned dozens of these techniques, I used them to re-write the sign-up page for one of my newsletters, and I started to get four times as many subscribers from the same traffic. Secret information or not, it is powerful stuff.
More Secret Information
“Lucky people” create the right conditions for “luck,” by being in the right place, and around people who can help. Good salesmen use techniques like “mirroring,” and “leading,” to persuade you. Research from the new science of behavioral economics is applied by smart marketers to create methods of getting you to buy.
Secret information isn’t all about influencing others. Most industries and human activities have little-known “tricks of the trade.” Wise real estate agents sell expensive homes, for example, because they know it takes the same work as selling a mobile home, but the commission can be five times as much. Those who don’t use this “secret” struggle to make a living.
Certainly, subliminal techniques and other “forbidden knowledge” can be used for good or bad, so are they dangerous? Yes, especially if you’re not in on the secret. Why not start to gather some of your own secret information?