Roaring Lovely's Posts (186)

Sort by

Mars Mission Is Ridiculous

Over and over you hear people trying to convince us that though they cannot build a village in Antarctica, they can build a city on mars! If you cannot build a village at distace 3000 kilometers away from the sun, how can you buld a city over 50 million kilometres away from the sun? Others even say they have already colonized it. God forbid! After all they also say that there are some who joyfully dwell on venus! In summer, it is often almost unbearable in the northern hemisphere  and yet the earth is merely tilted towards the sun. Just tilting towards the sun makes the earth extreemly hot. This means that we must question the landing on moon during the waxing crescent phase. You can only manage the hostile sun, or the similarly hostile freeze if you move othorgonally from the sun, and even so, you must not move too far!

We  cannot allways tell when the phrase 'never say never' is an healthy motive to help us persue, with determinance, an achievable goal, from when it turns into an hubris.  Often someone will say something like 'they were once saying that moving faster than the sound is impossible..'. But we must note that a previous successes can mislead us. We must also have in mind that there are examples of such 'never' that stood! People may have been guided by insisting 'never say no one can climb to the apex of Mount Everest ' . That is why the mountain has become the highest cemetery never allocated! There are other examples also. Someone want to break record by eating a dry loaf of bread at the shortest time possible, only to be strangled to death by the loaf! Someone says he wants to kiss a cobra, only to be bitten! Yes, Americans said that they wanted to transform Afghanistan and completely defeat Taliban, only stampede out of that country in an embarrassing manner! So yes, not everything we can aim at is achievable. The fact that people once said 'such was impossible but now it is possible' does not mean that everything is achievable. Donnot be misled by this common fallacy!

Obviously we cannot go everywhere with a rocket. What will 'the next Elon Musk' do if all the 'Musks' launch succesfull missions to all the planets? Will he try 'mission to the sun'? Clearly we must stop this lunacy somewhere, and perhaps the best place to stop it is right here on earth, right now! If we postpone it to tomorrow, the 'tomorrow' will never come.One thing that we realy don't like to see is to eagerly wait (for a centuary) for 'the first man on mars' only for corpses to be such 'first men on mars'. Furthermore, having to wait for yet another centuary for another 'first man to reach mars alife'. Again remember that there are over 300 corpses along Mount Everest. So watch out! If we insist too much on 'mission to mars', it is very likely that many will die in such a persuit, forever staining the 'space travel'. Indeed mount Everest should teach us a lesson. Trying to climb a merely 8 km up can be fatal. How about going 50 million km away?

Imagine placing only seven or so human beings in a tight cabin-like space, wearing 100 kg suits,10kg helmet, hiding behind 6 inches thick glass for 2 years in a never done journey!  Being a must to wear such suits, You cannot take a bath for two years, of course. But you must 'go to toilet', of course! You must be able to somehow do that without removing the suits! You will be in a terrible, unnatural environment for over two years! You will be constantly worrying, knowing that you can die any minute! If  you  get sick, almost no one will nurse you. I might have to vomit somehow without removing the helmet and the glass! You will have to eat unnatural, processed food daily for two years! Something then rings a bell! Soldiers? Over years, humans have had the habit of 'programing' some of us to become like dogs so they may serve our egos! Likewise, the space-travellers are pawns in the game. They are the ones to risk their lifes but the ones to rip all the bennefits are the egotistic tycoons sitting comfortably somewhere, such as Musk et al, cheered by chauvinistic masses from those respective countries!

There are non more misguided than those 'programed' by NASA that such purely showy pursuits as 'going to mass' are somehow 'important'. To be sure, everything is important.  A marathon runner finishing in less that 2 hours (a fleat widely thought to be impossible) is 'important to humanity'. Climbing Mt Everest is 'important to humanity'. Kissing a snake is 'important to humanity'. Eating a full loaf of bread in one second is 'important to humanity'.We can see importance in anything we do, if we try hard enough. However, not everything is urgent enough! That is the trick! Who would die tommorow if Kipchoge did not run the Marathon in less than two hours? Similarly, who will not be able to have a lunch because tycoons have failed to land man on mars? Tied to such, of course, is priorities. Is it more urgent to build a floating city in orbit, which only tycoons can afford, or urgent to build houses on earth?Think about this having in mind that even in America, there are still surprisingly many homeless people. The strangely don't find it prestigious to build beautiful houses in California but will say that 'they want to buld floating Cities for the benefit of mankind'. Suddenly, these highly individualists turn and now become 'the champions of mankind' when they want to smash your taxes in persuits that merely serve the egos of tycoons!! I mean they always say 'each individual should make their choices and should work for his own good'. Why are they not saying this in this 'mars mission' and other 'space programs'? Why are the dragging the whole 'humanity' into it, instead of leaving the issue of space adventure to individual choises?

 

Read more…

How To Tell A Story From A True Report

It is sometimes said that bible is just a collection of novels. So some people don't find any use in such. But of course it is simplistic to say that bible is just a collection of stories. It is an important historical document. We can definitely learn some middle east history by reading the bible. We can learn that there was Assyrian Empire, Pilate, Herod, that Philistines came from caphtor, etc. On the other hand we have no reason to believe that there was once an old man who build an ark for mamoths, dynausers, elephants and the like. So it is good to have some criteria for telling obvious stories from facts, but without a question begging prejudice against possibility of miracles and divine interventions.

In mainstream history, they tend to trust archaeological evidence. So they say that we can tell a truth from a fiction if it is accompanied by archaeological evidence. But this is severely limited. What can rubbles and bones realy tell us that remortly march what texts can do? Archaeology fails to make use of what writing was meant to be used for.

When some people say, about what many people have come to believe, that 'this was not meant to be taken as real history', they insinuate that there is no difference between a story and a narration of an actual event. In reality there is a difference. In stories, the main aim of a story teller is to entertain and not to inform about some past events. But while how entertaining a story is do also depend on individuals, there are naratives that are generally boring to everyone. Nobody can accept that a one hour read of a list of companies in a country can be a 'story' meant to entertain some type of people! Story telling is just like music.While different people do enjoy different music, there is nevertheless a clear difference between music and noise. So there is a basic structure that all music fits into, or otherwise they become noises that cannot entertain anyone.

One characteristic of story is exclusion of details. If a story teller is saying that Paul went from town A to town B, he, of course will not include everything that happened on the way. He will not include boring encounters. So what is a 'boring encounter'? The 'boring one' is the one that does not contribute to the main theme of the story. If the teller says 'Paul saw a dog', there has to be a reason why he saw a dog and not say a cat. The readers will latter learn about it. So such mensions of details are only as good as 'creating suspense'. Otherwise they are 'boring'. So if there are such details that are latter 'explained', the narrative is likely to be a story. But this does not mean that the absence of such details means the the narative was not a story. The narrative is not a story only if 'the reason an event happened' is never explained latter. If we see no reason latter as to why 'he saw a dog' earlier, then perhaps the narrator is simply stating a fact that he himself doesn't know why it happened. The narrator of events that simply happened does not exhibit some 'omniscience'. If the narrator seems 'omniscient', it can only be because the 'history' he is writing about is his own invention and thus 'knows everything about it'.

In the bible there are many narratives that reads like stories, in the sense like I said above. But there are also many narratives that don't read like stories, even in the same book! When the 'judges' narrator says 'Samson killed a lion', then latter he comes and 'find honey on it' and latter he uses the honey to trap Philistines, it reads like a story. Every details mentioned have a more far reaching implications that are explained latter in the naration. Similarly, David is a shepherd, we are told. Latter, he kills Goliath, and we now learn that he got such courage by killing lions while protecting the sheep. Every detail seem to have a role in latter part of the story. When we are told that 'David married Saul's daughter', we latter learn the reason: The wife would report the farther's plans to assassinate him. We see a reason why Jonathan died alongside soul: to ensure that David had no rival in claiming the Kingdom! We see a reason why Joseph was sold by his brothers etc.

But some other parts don't read like stories. We don't see a reason why we are told this was the father of that etc. We don't see a reason why the ark of covenant is coated with gold. We don't see a reason why Baruch was Jeremiah's Secretary. We dont see a reason why Jonathan and David were friends. We don't see a reason (within the story) why King Josiah opted to fight Pharaoh Nico. You can go on to read the bible having this in mind. Find out what reason is there for a mension of some details and then try to see if you will find some answer elsewhere in the story. Also, a narrative meant for propaganda ( some parts of the bible possibly are), there seems to be a 'reason for everything' mentioned in the narrative, either in the story or outside the story.

So in conclusion, we reason that if an author mensions some details with no reason as to why he mentions it, neither in the story nor outside the story, it is likely that the narrator is saying it only because it happened. The narrator doesn't know why it happened. The narrator is not trying to explain anything. The narrator has no other agenda. The narrator is writing about something simply because that is what happened. The bible history is not always narrated this way.

Read more…

Is Israel's History A Josiah's Concoction?

Imagine if we wake up one day and we are told that a lost, inspired book written in 16th centuary has been found. Then the book foretells the present events with dead accuracy. What will it happen? Will we all now suddenly begine to believe in prophecy? Of course the answer is not even half complex. Many will simply question whether the book was actually written in 16th centuary. Possibly, no one knew of the book simply because there was no such a book. So the book was not 'lost'. It simply did not exist. The next question is: is this idea that people can write a book and then lie that it was written long time ago but got lost an idea like Riemannian Geometry, in that it was never conceived by people in BCs? Does the fact that they could not make computers back then means that they were stupid? This seems to be what modern scholars insinuates when they speculate on ancient history!

The his-story of Israel is said to be the story of King Josiah! Those days Israel was a far cry away from the majestic neighbours, of tge type os Assyria. In fact their kings were mere puppets of these other real kings. Israel and Judah's kings were far more like mere village chiefs rulling over microscopic regions. But then king Josiah saw an opportunity to make Judah a great empire. The Assyrian Empire was in decline. The Assyrians were rulling over the northern 'Israel' Kingdom. The southern, Judah kingdom was a mere puppet of Assyria. As Assyria declined, Josiah, so it is thought, wanted to fill the gap and create a united kingdom of Israel. He wanted to rule both Judah and Israel, much like how Assyrian ruled both Syria and Israel. Amongst his plans, so it is said, was to literally create the old Testament bible!

So the whole story of Israel in Egypt, Deuteronomy, Judges, samwell, Kings etc were a concoction by Josiah to serve his own petty political ambitions! Particularly interesting is the story of Kings David and Solomon. These kings, depicted in splendour in the bible, were infact mere village chiefs, if they even existed in the first place. At no time in Israel history was Israel and Judah united! The 12 tribes never realy saw each other as 'close cousins', especially as opposed to the rest of cannanites. Or in short, the main story of Israel as depicted in the bible is blatant fiction created by, and meant to serve only a single king!

This modern view, shared by many scholars, is, of course nonsensical. First of all what could Josiah realy be aiming to achieve by creating a fictitious his-story? Can some story of Germany being once united with Britain, worshipping the same god, having some common ancestor, etc help someone like 'Hitler' rule both Germany and Britain? Why can't North Korea easily rejoin South Korea given that they, of course, believe it was once a united country. Same applies to north and south Sudan, Austria and Hungary, Germany and Poland, Russia and Ukraine etc. If unquestionable historical facts cannot unite two countries, how can a fabricated his-story do that?

What would happen, should Josiah try to fabricate history is easy to understand. The people of the north would resoundly reject such a story! They, of course, had their own narratives, written or orally passed. They could not easily relinquish them and buy into a fiction from the south, a fiction meant to make them believe that they, in the north, have no right to rule themselves but must submit to the rulers from the south! So if Josiah created the history of Israel, with the intentions mentioned, we expect that Judaism will be least popular in the northern kingdom. However, both Samaria and Galilee, in the north, embraced Judaism! Specifically no idea was ever put forward complaining about Josiah fabricating history until in 20th century when it became fashionable to try to contradict ancient beliefs! How could someone slip in thaosands of pages of fake history and get away with it without anyone even noticing anything odd?

Second, why create such a long, many times boring stories of someone killing a lion with bare hands, goliaths, someone, going to heaven on some fiery vehicle, seemingly endless geneologies, detailed descriptions of temples, names of places etc, only to try to convince people to beleive that the two kingdoms should be ruled by a single king from Jerusalem? Wasn't a short book, direct to the point summarize this teaching in a convincing way?

Next, Josiah never said that there should be only one kingdom, nor that there should be only one place of worship in Jerusalem, as the scholars assumes. These are not part of Josiah's reforms. Josiah only did away with idolatry in Israel and Judah. For the modern scholar's view to make sense, we must believe that Josiah was the founder of Jewish monotheism itself! That is to say the person who said 'though shall not worship other gods besides me' will be Josiah, not 'Moses'! Make sense?

Who Wrote Deutoronomy, Judges, Samwell and Kings?

Modern scholar cannot discern, thanks to his bias, especially against prophecy! These books were written by Israel/Judah's prophets and/or their close associates.They are the same type if people who wrote Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc. They were neither propagandists, historian nor written for/by kings. They were written by genuine believers in Yahweh. The book of kings, for instance (written most likely by Baruch, Jeremiah's Secretary), was written to depict kings as mostly evil and disobedient to Yahweh. It was written to depict prophets, rather than kings as true heroes of Israel. It was not history book in the sense of merely satisfying curiosity about what happened in the past. The writers were only interest in the aspect of king's lifes that was relevant to man's relationship with Yahweh. Entirely secular things, if ever mensioned, were dismissed in few sentences. Therefore the most towering figures ends up being people like Elijah etc. No one knows Josiah! It is a big lie to say that the book of kings is centered around Josiah, or that this figure is the most praised one in the book!

The book of kings was not written during Josiah's time. It was written a generation or so afterwards. The writter did not fear to paint the kings after Josiah as 'evil'. We have no readon to think that he was under fear that compelled him to only praise Josiah. Furthermore, Josiah's own father and grandfather is depicted horribly, in away that is not likely for Josiah to concoct! If 'kings' were the work of kings to serve their propaganda, they would tend to praise Judah's kings in general, for they were all from the same 'house of David'. They would try to create 'faith in kings' by focussing much attention on their positive sides, much like the way modern scientists depicts the past scientists like Newton, Einstein etc.

Read more…

Memory In Metastable Vacuum

We have seen in several blog posts that an hologram of the body can easily be formed in the viciniy of the body and that this holographic body can take the consciousness, making it equivalent to a 'soul'! However, in order for the natural hologram of the body to actually form a body independent of the usual body, the seemingly empty space must be able to retain the memory of the hologram. One way in which a seemingly empty space can retain memory is through what they call it 'vacuum metastability'.  We will closely exermine what this fancy term rifers to.

Stability 

A stable state of an entity is  a state that the entity returns to whenever external forces tries to dislodge it off that state. If you try to topple a stable object by pushing it, the object can tilt but will return to upright possition immediately you cease pushing it. An unstable object will keep on moving in the direction of the push even after you cease pushing. So in an unstable state, a slight, dislodging force is amplified leading the entity at that state into an entirely different state. But a stable state leads to a return to the original state. So we can say that in general, a stable state develops a force in the opposite direction of the force that tries to remove it off the stable state. A spring is a good example. If you pull a spring, it shrinks back to its original size. If you try to compress it, it expands back again to its original size. Such is the nature of every stable entity. Work has to be done in dislodging the system off the state, in whichever direction you try to dislodge it into. So the stable state is the state with the lowest energy, at least amongst the neighbourhood states. Since a 'vacuum state' , in Quantum Field Theory is normally seen as 'the state with lowest energy,' it is normally presumed to be a stable state. But there is another concept: metastability.

If you were careful, you will realize that a spring realy does not have only a single stable state. Yes, if you pull a spring, it returns back to its stable state. However, if you keep pulling it, then at some point it will attain a new stable state. The spring will not return to its original state any more but will behave like a longer spring, returning to a new lenght when you try to change it. We say that the spring is metastable, not just 'stable'. This metastability is general in all materials but is more manifest in metals. If you try to bend any metal, you find that it springs back to original shape, provided that the force is small enough. But if you force it more, it permanently bend and begin to be once again stable but in a new position. This is how all 'memory' works. Pushing an entity into a new stable state is making it to 'remember the push' in some way. So you can, for instance, inscribe some writings/drawings in a solid but not easily do so in a fluid. The latter almost immediately returns to the original state with no writtings rather than attaining a new stable state with writtings on it.

The concept: 'vacuum metastability' , as used in QFT (Quantum Field Theory ) is a misnomer because what is metastable is realy 'something in vacuum', not the 'vacuum' itself, unless maybe we are talking of quantum gravity where the 'field' in question is the 'space-time' itself. You can understand it this way: Usually we think of 'space time' as 'stable' with the 'flat spacetime' being the stable state. When a gavitating object comes to the region, it 'bends' the 'spacetime', but the 'spacetime' returns to its original state immediately once the gravitating object gets off the region. But in QFT, the 'field' in question is often the 'higgs field'. One can model the higgs field's vacuum state as a stable state or as a metastable state. 

In QFT, we model particles (the waves) as an ensemble of quantum harmonic oscillators (QHO). A QHO is a quantized classical oscillator. The classic oscillator is just a spring. A spring oscillates around its stable state. Thinking of oscillation in terms of energy, we say  that it keeps changing energy from kinetic then to potential then back to potential and so forth. The kinetic energy is at its maximum where the potential energy is at its minimum, and you can see that this happens at the spring's stable state. So you see that the stable state is a state with the least, local, potential energy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329750275/figure/fig1/AS:705200490831876@1545144307878/Illustration-of-vacuum-decay-for-a-potential-with-a-metastable-vacuum-at-the-origin.png

You will encounter the above diagram if you search more on 'vacuum metastability'. You can understand it this way: Think of the horizontal axis as to represent the length of a spring. Then the vertical axis represents the potential energy of the spring. When you pull a spring, you increase its potential energy. The potential energy similarly increases when you compress it. So the 'valley' depicts the spring's natural resting place, which is the stable atate. Moving to the left is like 'compresing the spring'. So it is like 'climbing up hill' towards the left, of which you will roll backwards all to way to the stable position, i.e. the valley. Climbing up the hill increases the gravitational potential energy. 

So you can get a clue on how the mathematics of quantum field theory is modelled in the analogy of a spring, or elastic materials in general. They are like saying that the quantum waves are waves in some 'elastic medium' that pervades everywhere. But then note that they tended only to model the spring as though it has only a single stable state. So their 'energy' equations for the quantum fields often have only a single 'valley' (gotten from quadratic equation). In most cases where we are concerned with waves in an elastic medium, we can ignore the other stable states of the medium, provided that the forces that creats the waves donnot sufficiently stretch the medium. So you will find the 'energy' equations of a spring failing to show the obvioud fact that the spring is metastable, not stable. They inherited this oversimplifications of classic oscillator when they were making the analogy in modelling the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator. When we realize that all the classic, waving mediums are actually meta-stable, we will begine to realize that perhaps the most accurate modelling of quantum fields are as the meta-stable ones. Hence we realize that the quantum fiels can as much 'store memory' as any other classic medium!

Read more…

Teleological Explanation For 'Time' Dillation

A teleological explanation is an explanation of natural phenomena using the purpose it serves. Upon the experimental failure of the Supersymmetry  (SUSY) theory in LHC, physicists should, once again, consider teleological explanations. The SUSY theory was inspired by the rejection of teleology in the fundamental universe, not by any compulsion from any data ever observed! It was 100% concoction based on what some humans think the universe must work! So its unprecedented collapse when it met the real world should not be too surprising! An alternative to SUSY is to simply accept that some natural phenomena are so because of the purpose they serve! If otherwise than how some phenomenon works would result in a non-functioning universe, we don't need to try to figure out how the universe attained such ability through some cosmic accident or some 'law'. I will illustrate this using 'time' dillation.

Strictly speaking, it is not 'time' that slows but clocks. So it is a physical phenomenon that involves atomic interactions.  There is no such a thing as time. So why do things slow when they travel? To summarize it, the atoms slows down to prevent objects from exploding. Without this slowing down, objects would be too unstable so that every object would be worse than uranium, exploding as an atomic bomb upon even slight motion! So 'time dillation' stabalizes atoms. In different words, the universe is 'fine tuned' and part of the parameters such tuned is the speed of light. This is inscribed in the so called 'fine structure constant'.

If a charged particle moves, it creats a magnetic field that surrounds it. Remember that electric current is due to movement of charges. A conductor with electric current through it has some magnetic forces that curls around the conductor. Also, when a charged particle moves in a magnetic field, it is deflected in a direction perpendicular to the field. So if the field is pointing nothwards and a positive charge is moving eastwards, the charge will be deflected upwards. The negative charge on the other hand will be deflected downwards. The vice versa is the case if the charges were moving westwards or the magnetic field was pointing southwards.The force that does this is called 'Lorentz's Force'. Now, if a positive charge is moving eastwards, it creats a magnetic field that curls around it so that it points to the north beneath the charge and points to the south on its top. So if there is yet another similar charge below it, moving synchronously with it, it will be deflected upwards by the magnetic field of the charge at the top, and the charge at the top will be deflected downwards by the magnetic field of the charge bellow. So the two charges will be drawn closer together. This phenomenon, when it happens in plasma, is called 'z-pinch'. When current flows through the plasma, it 'pinches' the plasma together. If, on the other hand, opposite charges moves synchronously, they will deflected away from each other by the Lorentz's Force.

Now lets come back to atoms. Atoms contain a positive charge at the center and is surrounded by negative charge. The negative charge on the periphery is prevented from crashing into the nuclear by the centrifugal force created by its ever motion around the nuclear. (You can ignore quantum mechanics for a moment, because it is not important in this case. You can just think of the 'planetary model' of an atom). But what does it happen when the atom begins to move? The answer is that the electrons and the protons will begine to be pulled apart by the Lorentz's Force, like we saw above. So we can see that the atom is potentially unstable due to lorentz's force. To prevent this, the electrons will have to reduce its centrifugal force, hence slow down in what we will measure it as 'time dillation' of the atomic clock. The reduction of the centrifugal force will serve to ensure that the electrostatic attraction between the electron and the nuclear cancels the Lorentz's Force that is trying to take the two charges apart. We will calculate to check that this is indeed the case .

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://googleweblight.com/sp%3Fu%3Dhttps://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/22-10-magnetic-force-between-two-parallel-conductors/%26grqid%3DFOoiRrII%26s%3D1%26hl%3Den-KE&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjWmsSJzo_0AhWuxYUKHcs7CowQFXoECAEQBA&usg=AOvVaw19aN2sc987m9s7GFNpz2bd

 

As seen from the above link, the force between two parallel, current-carrying conductors is given by:

 

F/L=(uI1*I2)/ (2*pi*r)

 

where:

f=force

u=permeability 

I1=current in one conductor

I2=current in the other conductor.

r=distance between the conductors

 

In our case, we have I1=I2=dq/dt, where

dq=change in charge

dt=change in time.

So electric current should be understood as 'change in charge/change in time'. It is 'charge velocity'. Picture a given point along the conductor. As current moves, the charges are crossing this region , like the way water crosses a pipe. After some short time, call it 'dt', a certain amount of charge has passed through the point, resulting in the charge extending for a small distance, dx, away from the point. so we can write:

dq=q*dx/dtdx=qv/dx

where v is the charge velocity. With these notes, we now rewrite the force between two conductors as:

F/L=(q^2)v^2/(2*pi*r)dx^2

For this to ballance with both the electrostatic force and the centrifugal force, we need to consider Cuolomb's Law:

Fc =q^2/epi*r^2

where:

e=permitivity

then Fc-F=the centrifugal foce(C). So we have:

C=q^2/(2*pi*r^2)-(u*q^2)*v^2/(2*pi*r)*dx^2

Divide through by Fc, and asume that l=r=dx (since they are all 'small'), and we get:

C/Fc=1-euv^2

 

from Maxwell's theiry, we know that ue=1/c^2, where c=speed of light.

so C/Fc=1-(v/c)^2

Now, when the charge is not moving, the centrifugal force, C must ballance the electrostatic force. So Fc=the centrifugal force when the atom is not moving, and C=the centrifugal force then the atom is moving. But the centrifugal corce is given by:

C=mu^2/r

where:

m=mass of the charged particle 

u=the rotational speed of the particle.

This means that:

Fc=mu'^2/r,

where u'=the rotational speed of the particle when the atom is not moving. So we have:

u/u'=sqrt (1-(v/c)^2)

This is the formular for 'time dillation'. And so we see that indead for the centrifugal force to balance the Lorentz's Force, the movement of the electron must reduce by the same amount as 'time dillation'!

Read more…

'Time' Is An Helix In 3D

Strictly speaking, thinking of time as a line of any sort is misconception. Along a 'line' exists objects and never events. So we, for instance, have a series of posts along a road. Objects are fundamentally different from events in that the latter don't have a standalone existence. You cannot, for instance, find an event sitted like a stone  along a road. On the contrary, events requires objects for them to happen. So it is misleading to say that time is a 'dimension' like that one for space. This, nevertheless, does not mean that there is no such a 'dimension', travelling along which, generate events just like displaying a series of static objects in a movie creats the event of movement that we see it as a 'motion picture'. It is such a 'memory of events' that I loosely call it 'time' and am suggesting that it is a collection of helixes in 3d  (not 4 d). DNA is just but one example of something more general in all objects.

String Theorists talks of '12 dimensions', claiming that the eight of them are curled up into so tiny spaces as Planck's length. But is it necessary for the universe, which loves parsimony so much, to creat a whole (infinite) dimension merely to pack a Planck's length long (non)entity? Imagine building a whole new ware house to store  a grain of salt! Physicists suggests these ridiculous claims despite the fact that it is known that objects are 99.999999% empty!! Can't the universe simple squeeze those 'curled up manifolds' inside these empty spaces quite comfortably? The idea of time as an helix in 3d is to squeeze what mathematically 'looks' like a 'fourth dimension' into a 3rd dimension. If we are truely trying to understand, we should be reducing fundamental parameters, not increasing them. Nothing is more misguided than introducing another inconceivable 'dimension' while trying to 'unify' known things. Nothing is more misguided than trying to understand 'time'  (movements) as an unimaginable 'fourth dimension' before we exhaust all possible ways of understanding movement and changes using only 3 easily imaginable 'dimensions'.  This is to make the too generous assumption that such notions as 'forth dimension' have any meaning even in the first place!

How did physicists 'observed' that 'time is  a fourth dimension' without being able to even imagine this other extra dimension, let alone see one? Think about this having in mind that physics is supposed to be a science, whose claims are justified by observations and not by faith, like in religion. We cannot say 'the fourth dimension creats observable wonders in 3d and we can thus indirectly infere another 'dimension' from these things. This is because that is precisely how we argue for God! We cannot see or even imagine God as he is. However, 'the heavens speaks of his glory'. Did physics, at some point, turn into a religion? Yes it did! It is a religion of the nerds! We cannot rely on inference simply because we can infere myriads of things from a given observation, nor can we, for the same reasons, rely on an equation that seems to relate some four parameters in some strange, four 'dimensional' Pythagorean relationship.

The physicist begun the journey by a gawk at an extreemly simple, moving train. If light travels to the roof of the train at a speed c, then it goes a distace ct, where 't'  is the 'time taken'. meanwhile the train, moving at velocity v, during the same time, t, have moved horizontally over a distance vt. So the light has to move diagonally upwards as it chase the train. But the same light as seen within the train only seems to move vertically upwards (a passenger is ignorant of his own, horizontal movement). So there are two ways we can calculate the height of the train. One is using the phythagorean relationship, it h^2=(ct)^2-(vt)^2. The other is to assume that the speed of light is still c as seen from inside the train so that h=ct'. So (ct')^2=(ct)^2-(vt)^2. Then he reasons that (t'/t)^2=1-(v/c)^2.

From this simple calculation, one can, if not careful, immediately begin to make erroneous conclusions (like physicists did). By cancelling c out in ct'/ct to have t'/t, we now seem to have 'time' sitting together with 'distances' as if to relate to them in a Pythagorean relationship. By the time a physicist has massaged too many more sophisticated equations, he will have forgotten that this phythagorean relationship originated from distances relationships and not time relationship with distances. We, for instance, could easily understand  a 'negative distance' as -ct, letting the negative sine to actually sit behind 'c' rather than 't'. but lose this vital information having cancel out c and the equation now reads like a possibility of 'moving backwards in time' when it actually was a mere light moving in bacward direction! again this is distance moved and not time taken and of course we can easily move backwards in space. Then again this is all 100% in 3d, nothing like '4d' is seen or is necessary to understand this simple train!

Now according to relativity, the height of the train stays the same when the train begines to move. So when the train moves over distance x eastwards, y northwards and z verically, the light would have moved over an extra h distance so that h^2=(ct)^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. So the fact that h doesn't change means that this must be in built into the So called 'lorentz transforms'. So physicist need not have been surprised by massaging lorentz's transforms and fou nd out that the so called 'spacetime interval' given by s^2=ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. They should have recognized that this invariance alludes to the unchanging 'height of the train' and not some unimaginable 'distance' in '4th dimension' caused by unfathomable blend between 'time' and 'space'. Every time you see 'time' in such equations, it must actually be understood as 'distance moved', and it must be a distance in 3d, never 4d!

In the idea of 'time' as an helix, we make use of the same relativistic equations but interprate h, ie the 'spacetime interval' as an ordiary distance. It is the 'circumference of the helix'. Every particle spins as it moves. The direction of spinning is perpendicular to the direction of motion (actually in physcs, we say 'the spin, or rather angular momentum', is along the direction of motion). So the edges of the paticles traces helical trajectories.It does so in such a way that the total speed of the edges is the speed of light. So a stationary particle spins so that its surface moves at the speed of light. (ignore quantum mechanics for a moment because it is not important here). When the particle begins to move, it begins to spin slowlier so that the combine motion and spinning still leads to a surface that is moving at c. So when it moves at the speed of light, it stops spinning completely. Infact the 'spinning' follows the formula for 'time dillation' exactly, as if such spinning is 'the passage of time'. In such a picture, it is easily seen that the circumference of the particle is the 'space-time' interfal. Or we should say that the total 'spacetime' taken is the total distance covered by the spinning alone, with the translation motion ignored.

This trajectory, however, will be more than a path. For it to be 'time' as we know, it must leave some trail behind! This is to say 'time' here will be understood as 'memory'. As object spins, they record their states by 'polarizing the vacuum'. That is to say being fundamentally charged, they partly separate space into pairs of matter and antimatter, a seperation which persist  (mutasis mutandis) even after the particle moves away! So 'past' here will be 'cosmic memory', and future is 'cosmic plans'!

Read more…

Solid 'Prana'

That there is a fluid that pervades the whole space is not hard to accept. Just Think of prana, ki,ruach etc for instance. It is so also in physics. The whole of space is thought of to contain some strange gas due to the so called Unruh Effect. A all pervading solid, however, is trikier. We tend to think of solid as to be an impenetrable object, a sot of a single brick. Such an object filling the whole of space, of course will not allow movement of other objects through such filled space. But this notion of solid, as we will see, is erroneous.

A solid is an object whose parts don't move relative to each other. Solidity is a behaviour. What restrict the inter-atomic movements is forces. If you press your hand against the wall, then the wall will begin to develop a powerful, repulsive force tha repel your hand off the wall. This powerful repulsion is what prevents your hand from further penetrating into the wall. So there is no much 'solid' in the wall than there is in the vicinity of a powerful magnet. Objects easily pass through the solid space much like the way a non-magnetic object easily passes through the magnetic field. That is the object's particles simply don't interact with the forces within the solid in space.

Existance And Proof

As you might see from above, proof of existence of an object a part from inferance from what it does to its surrounding is a bit meaningless. If we deny that there is an object in the vicinity of a magnet just because we can't see one, then we are actually defining existence using an interaction with photons. Specifically, we are saying that if a region in space can repel photons, then there is an object there occupying that region( the repelled photons are the reflected ones that allows us to see objects). But if a region repel electrons, we still need a 'proof' if an object is there! But of course such a criteria is thin. If our eyes could detect electrons rather than photons, our picture of 'what exists' or 'what doesn't exist' would have been dramatically different!

Likewise there is no other 'proof' of auras that surrounds objects apart from the so called Delbruck Scattering. You see that is our thinking is wrong, we can't even make the right observations! We must spend a lot of time theorizing Before we make observations as this orients the mind to the right 'direction'.

Advantage Of Solid 'Prana'

There are several advantages of having solids rather than only fluids in mind when we think of 'spirit'. First of all notice that we reluctantly insinuate solids in ghosts etc. Since people perceives solids as the impenetrables, they opt to say that spirit can pass through a wall because it is 'the immaterial'. But as we have briefly seen, even matter enjoy this property! People didn't understand how. So they suppose that the 'immaterial' does it in ways no man can understand.

Thats it! Solid helps us understand things that are otherwise 'beyond understanding'. If spirit is a fluid, how does it store memory as in 'akashic records'? Guess what, 'it is beyond understanding'! All questions are 'answered' by waving the same joker card! But a solid stores information by 'vacuum polarization' and 'vacuum' plasticity. It is not beyond understanding

Read more…

Natural Holographic Body

Light comming out from object have all the information pertaining to that object.  This is the feature exploited in holography, and even photography. When light diverging from an object is, for instance, reconverged by a lense, it recreates the shape of the object. But as I have briefly explained somewhere else, this 'information pertaining to shape' can be generalized to other information, eg charge, mass, consciousness etc! This will create more than 'image', but a real 'light body'. In case of a living thing, this will be another body capable of taking the consciousness of an individual. Yes, even capable of immortality!

There are two ways a living 'holograhic body' can be made. One is what I may call it 'homeomorphic body'. The other is the usual body, that is a perfect copy of the body. Like we have seen, in 'photography', a copy of a body is created whenever light from the body is converged. But this is the case if the light had diverged. However, it is never the case that the whole of light emanating from the body diverges. some tiny intensity, often unseen by the naked eye, remains collimated. Since it is not diverged, this portion of light does not need any lense in order to recreate the image of the body. As this light comes out of the body, it creates countless copies of the body. These copies are more than images.They are perfect replicas of the body and can therefore take the consciousness of the body. I have explained how this can come about in a previous blog post. 

In the 'homeormorphic body', the analogy of the cup and the torus is used. We say that a torus is 'the same thing as a cup' in the sense that one can mould one into the other without cutting the material. It better words, the changes that happen when you change a toroidal object into a cup-like one does not change how different portions of the object are interconnected with each othe. If you had made a flexible mother board on the surface of a torus, your computer would still function if you mold the mother board into a cup, simply because as an electronic device, all what is needed is to preserve interconnections, not the shape. likewise, when we think of 'light body' that is capable of taking consciousness we should stop at thinking of how the portions remains as connected as the usual body. This is to say a perfectly similar clone is not necessary. A perfectly similar  connections is. This is simply because our brains etc are electric in nature.

All this means that it is easier for the body to, naturally, form a 'replica' body made of light by emitting photons. Infact this may be what happens in what we call 'bio-photons'. Two photons emanating from the same place, may maintain their interconnectedness through 'quantum entanglement'. So the maintain, to some extend, the notion that 'they are light from the same point', without any need for a lense (or an hologram' to converge them to a single point. It is communication not nearness that matters in retaining consciousness, just like in electronic, it doesn't matter how far a component is located on the motherboard, provided that it is connected to the other.

Read more…

The mainstream science and modern philosophy , both inspired by atheism, have an incoherent view of what consciousness is. They think that a series of gears cogs etc can bring about  consciousne provided that it is 'complex enough'. With such a (mis)understanding, it is not a surprise that they are already at the second floor, wondering whether they can transfer the consciousness into acomputer. But here I will highlight that we have not yet built the basement, can a machine made of an array of mindless events be conscious? I don't think so!

What causes the lack of understanding of this otherwise simple property of 'consciousness' is caused by the fact that modern scientist is realy not interested with understanding such. What he want to do is to create a platform where they can argue that 'there is no evidence of the reality of anything related to ancient religions'. Defining 'science' in contrast to 'religion' has long out-leaved it purpose. It was good in those days when the 'pope' was on the pedestal,  tumbling any view that is outside the orthodox church. At then, science was humble, religion was not. But now it is the scientist that sits squarely on the pedestal, dictating dogmas. So the insistence that 'this is religion' as a way to 'humiliate' is no longer that usefull and is even now counter-productive!

In order to remove all manner of 'God' from explanations of natural phenomena( so that they can have a point when they come back and insist: 'there is no scientific evidence of God'), a scientist is forced into an incoherent view! We must explain the world mechanically, so we may not ask 'what is this consciousness at work in the universe?' But then a daunting question arises when we now want to understand where our consciousness comes from! If we are nothing but an ensemble of the 'simple natural things' behaving in their 'simple', mechanical, unconscious way, how comes we are conscious at all? why cant the array of events  and components  remain as unconscious as the individual components? What does an addition of an extra cog into the system  (to make it one cog more complex) has to do with consciousness, if the cog itself is not conscious?

So obviously our modern science 's approach is ridiculous and has no hope of ever leaving the ground! Infact the scientist is demanding that we approach consciousness in a way totally different in how we approach all other phenomena! Then they wonder why, unlike these other phenomena, consciousness is hopelessly difficult to understand! Usually, there is no way of understanding phenomenon B in terms of a combination of phenomena type A in such a way that phenomenon B does not throw any light in the understanding of phenomena A. The understanding of a complex phenomenon goes in both directions: 'top down' and 'bottom up'. Thus we can understand engine rotation as 'a directed explosive force in the burning fuel' or understand the explosion of fuel as 'the undirected motion'. This way, the engine is perfectly understandable because in every addition of necessary component, we can see what this component has to do with rotation.We can see what cylinder does to direct motion linearly and why a crank does to direct it rotationally. This is because we are not trying to deny 'motion' in each individual components' and then insist that only the entire engine can move but non of its components can!

Similarly, in order to understand 'consciousness', we must think of natural phenomena as to have a type of consciousness and that the complexity of the brain is there to merely diversify ciousiousness. Complexity does not produce consciousness. Indead complexity never 'produces' anything from thin air. It always just diversify something that is already in the components. Adding a car-burator to the engine never creats motion. It just makes the engine move in a particular way, different from how it moves in the engine without a carburator.

The next misunderstanding comes in inappropriately linking 'intelligence' with 'consciousness'. Combining this with the equaly perverted view that 'intelligence' is about 'auto-reprograming' It temps people to think that a computer is more approaching 'consciousness' than any other machine, eg a spanner does. It akso helps our uninspired scientist to 'see no evidence' of conciousness in natural phenomena. It is nothing of the sort! What a scientist looks for as 'evidence of consciousness' is actually the 'evidence' of what he calls it 'intelligence'. This is because to him, intelligence equals consciousness! But this is not the case. Consciousness comes about as a way of guiding an entity to 'do it the right way'. So yes, consciousness has something to do with intelligence but it does more than impart intelligence. It imparts the 'rightness' of all manner and is associated with intelligence only when the intelligence is 'the right thing' in question. We can similarly just swing the hand back an forth consciously or even do a stupid thing consciously and/ or 'intentionally'. So when looking for evidence of consciousness in natural phenomena, scientists should look for the more general 'evidence of doing it the right way' rather than 'evidence of intelligence'. The moon orbits the sun, for instance, 'the right way' in that 'an elliptical orbit is the wrong one for the moon'.

Finally we can come back to consciousness in machines but now having 'done the somersault correctly' to avoid landing on the head rather than on the feet. Becuse all natural phenomena have a type of consciousness, even machines might have them, but such consciousness will not be the one artificialy installed into the machine as if by a programmer. This also means that we cannot manipulate such a consciousness. We cannot 'imprison' it, 'punish' it or such. Or in short, such consciousness is not any different from the human consciousness in that it isn't  created nor even understood by the programmers. It comes about from the fact that natural phenomena, as applied in the machine, inherently has a type of consciousness, and not  because a programmer understands it and has intentionally created it. So since such 'machine consciousness' is no different from human consciousness, there is no need to worry that when it comes to 'machines that are conscious', some scientists will have the ability to manipulate consciousness at will. If they can't do it with humans, they can't do it in machines either!

Read more…

Pentagon Of Failure

'Pentagon of failure' are five main things that leads to failure. They are things that you must adhere to, if you want to fail. We will close exermine this exemplifying it using US's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, don't allow the US deep state to fool you with conspiracy theories that takes them off the hook! Their method is to retroactively restate what their mission, if any, was, in an attempt to create an illusion that they succeeded when in reality, it was an horrible failure! One is to simply deny that they ever had any mission in Afghanistan at all! A scapegoat called 'the dark cabal' planned it all! No,there was no 'terorist attack' in US! All of these was the master plan of 'the devil' in our midst. So sorry, but this was not our plan! Another is, of courset to say that there mission was to merely prevent Al-Quida from ever planning the attack again in Afghanistan! Ergo, they succeeded a long time ago!

So let me restate their true mission so you may see that it was a failure. The mission was to overthrow the Taliban government using the excuse that it was providing a safe place for terrorists. It was never to end the terrorism itself. It was to remove the Taliban government and replace it with another one which is more friendly to US. It was as simple as that! To merely stop Al Qaida, the best way to do it would have been what perhaps a 13 year old child was wondering why they don't do it that way: to diplomatically push for a negotiation with Taliban to end its support for Al Qaida. In case this plan A failed, then use plan B where they would overthrow Taliban, like they did, but not with the intention of permanently destroying it but with the intention of forcing it to negotiate only on the Al-Qaida issue. It is clear that Taliban would have been more than happy to chase away the Al-Qaida as a condition for the withdrawal of US forces. The end results would have been a victory for US! But this is not what they wanted! They wanted an end to Taliban rule, not an end to terrorism against US undertaken in Afghanistan!

1.) wrong aim 

So we have the first side of the formula for failure: asurping the duty of Afghanistanis themselves, or at least a pretext: to creat a 'better' government in Afghanistan, rather than to merely stop Afghanistan being a safe place for 'terrorists'. If your neighbour denies her husband his conjugal rights, the solution cannot be that you go and 'help' that woman by having sex with her husband, of course! This summarises well the problem with US's foreign policies and why they fail! They have wrong aims, at least in the eyes of the public, while persuing more hidden, unjustifiable reasons. So this 'aim' is why the American failed to bring changes in Afghanistan while they might have been persuing hidden, often evil agendas.

2.) Not understanding the nature of the problem 

The second side of the formula for failure to topple regimes is to not understand what government is, essentially in the first place! In USA, we have a military whose legitimacy is a mystery! It is so removed from politics that its accountability is difficult to discern. As long as the US military is so willing, it will allow for US's 'democracy'. The question of 'democracy' itself is removed from the military. So they create a false dilemma: either a country is a 'democracy' or a 'military dictatorship'. They were yet to understand that democracy is still possible even under military rule! In fact such is how an ideal government should be! But for US, the reasoning was that Taliban took power through military, therefore, rather than through the ballot box. Therefore Taliban was generally unpopular in Afghanistan. In other words they equate 'democracy' with 'regular voting'. It is like confusing 'love' with 'marriage', or even 'marriage certificate'!

A 'government' is nothing but a gang, often of criminals, that have merely monopolized the use of violence in a region. There is no dermarcation between a 'terrorist' and a 'legitimate army'! All governments begun not with an 'election' while a military is standing by, never! Such a military will be standing there for unjustifiable reasons! Real democracy comes prio to the establishment of a military. We elect the military leaders either directly using votes or indirectly by letting them get appointed by the elected leaders. Alternatively, we elect them by simply joining their ever growing militias. 

But US doesn't understand this basic thing about government. US military is never, directly or indirectly, elected by the Afghanistanis. Therefore it has no consent to work in Afghanistan! It can never be easily legitimate in the eyes of the Aghanistanis, unless Taliban was a totally wicked force, of which it wasn't!

The 'this are terrorist' designation, which stems from failure to understand government, prevented US from setting an achievable goal in Afghanistan. It is unreasonable to call such groups as Hamas, Kurds, Alshabab, Hezbollah, Houthi etc 'terrorists'. As military, they have command structures and they take orders from their superiors. Therefore their behaviours can be changed by merely changing their leadership or their philosophy. American soldiers were torturing people in Iraq and smearing them with faeces and other shameful things. Yet we cannot sensibly say that US military is a 'terrorist organization'. We understand the situation as changeable without a destruction of the entire military. We merely need to change leadership. A war is far from being necessary!

3.)Setting unrealistic goals

The third side of the pentagon is one of the surest ways of failing. This is 'over aiming'. The US aimed to have a military that can beat any other military, anywhere on land, regardless of geography, in the ocean, in air, in space. They aimed at a military that can topple any regime any where, create on top of it, any regime that they want, crash any rebelion, crush any terorist group, anywhere on earth, under the earth etc.This is unrealistic, but the problem is that you end up believing in a whopper of your own making!

If US had aimed at merely pushing back 'terrorism', carring less about toppling regimes and 'creating democracies', they would have succeeded and thus save themselves monumental embarrassment and trillions of dollars! When Taliban offered to make a deal with US, breifly after the 2001 toppling, this was a good chance for US to end the war!! They had already shown, in the eyes of the public, how powerful they were! This could act as a good deterence to terrorism, even by the Talian itself. After all they would have nogotiated with Taliban, to end 'terrorism' in Afghanistan, as a condition for the Taliban to re-enter into the new government as a political party, akin to Hezbollah in Lebanon! Instead, US insisted 'they cannot negotiate with terrorists'! The aim is to completely crash Taliban,because they are 'terrorist ' and we are into 'war on terror', not a negotiation with it! This, of course, would embarrass US come 20 years, when they, themselves now bowed to Taliban for a negotiation!

US is yet to learn how to set realistic goals, that often demand that they get something better, and yet not 'perfect', at least yet. A good example is Iran's nuclear deal. It is very analogous to the Taliban 2002 offer. Though not perfect, it was better than none and still doesn't show in any way that US is the 'weaker', it only shows, in the eyes of the public, that US is 'generous' (because everyone 'knew' that US is very powerful)! But again US missed a chance to cover its ass! Instead they set unrealistic goal of demanding Iran to simplify bow to US and comply with its all demands in the exchange of sanctions relieves. They ask Iran, which has no war planes, to stop making missiles and to stop any proxy war in middle east! In other words, to stop defending itself, when it is obvious that Israel, for instance, can strike anywhere at any time just when it 'feels threatened' without any objective evidence for such a threat! To expect any country to agree with such, just to do business with US, is to be unrealistic because the risk of turning iran into another Iraq etc is more untenable than any crippling sanction imaginable!

4.)Incorrect estimation 

The forth side of the pentagon of failure is overestimating or underestimating. US, as we have tacitly seen, underestimates its ability to win by negotiations and overestimates its military capabilities. This is a serious problem but a very good thing to do, if you want to fail: underestimate some of your abilities and overestimate others. As you have seen Taliban, by offering for a dialog, shows it did not underestimate how negotiations can be another way of achieving their goals. By retreating, they did not overestimate their military and/or underestimate US's. Yet by keeping on fighting, shows they did not underestimate their military either!  This is a very good side of pentagon for success. If you underestimate yourself, you give up too easily. Do the vice-versa and you set up unrealistic goals that eventually frustrate you!

 5.)Spiritual indifference

This is the last side of the absurd pentagon. If you want to fail, trust such things as 'pentagons' or 'white houses' or such things!. When Taliban retook Afghanistan, the first thing they shouted was 'Allah Uhakbar', meaning 'God is great'. In other words 'thank God, I have succeeded'. US routinely say 'thanks to the most sophisticated military the world had ever seen'! They write 'in God we trust' in the notes but in practice, they seem only to trust the dollar itself, never God! That is a very sharp coner in the pentagon of failure!

 

Read more…

When Is An Hologram Conscious?

Can we take an hologram of an atom? At least in principle , we should be able to do it because the wavelength of light can get as small as we wish. According to theoretical physics, the smallest wavelength of light possible is the so called Planck Length, which is incredibly small indeed. When we shine an atom with light of extremely small wavelength, it will be just like shining the usual, macroscopic object with light of large wavelength. So taking an hologram of an atom is, at least, theoretically possible.

Next question is: is it possible to holographically store the information pertaining to the charge of the object that is being 'photographed'? Does an hologram only record the shape of the object (and perhaps color) or can it also record the charge of the object? The answer, in our universe, is 'yes' because protons, the carries of positive charge, are far heavier than the electrons. So light bouncing off a proton is of shorter wavelength (higher momentum) than the light bouncing off an electron (an object bounces off an heavier object faster than it does, off a lighter object).

Now our hologram will reproduce shape, colour and charge, particle per particle. At this point, it is nolonger just an image of the object. It is now a complete, possible recreation of the object! With some more skills, this can be done. In recreating an hologram, we create a soliton on the other end by summing up several waves of varying phase angles. This creats a series of constructive interferences at places where the object is there and a destructive interference where there is no object. If you know some quantum mechanics, this rings a bell. Such is how we explain the appearance of 'discrete particles' from waves. The following picture illustrates this:

wpac5.gif

 

 Then notice how an hologram is reconstructed by letting waves interfere constructively at a point:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy-Bechtel/publication/307956871/figure/fig2/AS:404509038792705@1473453878079/Left-Recording-a-point-source-optical-holographic-interference-pattern-Right.png

Then you see that the reconstructed image is actually an 'atom by atom' recreation of the original object albeit by using photons rather than the usual atoms. But we also know that when light of appropriate wavelength hit a nuclear, it can produce pairs of matter and untimatter. This phenomenon is called 'pair production'. So the next task will be to use 'gamma ray lasser' to reconstruct the image in such a way as to recreate charged particles in wherever there was charged particles in the object, thus reproducing the object itself, not a mere image! The gamma rays will also ensure that we take the picture of the interior of the object as well.

 

The question now is: 'can we, this way, recreate a conscious entity if we take an hologram of the brain'?. As you can see, there is no reason not yo think that this is possible! But having thought this way, you now need to turn attention to how nature itself might have done it already and overtaken us, (as usual). We have come to know, for instance, that the cells constantly emits photons. Might it be, by means of 'pair production' and 'interference patterns' trying to construct a copy of itself right next to it (take note that we don't need the whole hologram apparatus if the image we want is 'just adjacent' to the object since the light is yet to spread). Might this reproduced cells be the 'soul' or 'light body'?

Read more…

OBE Without A Soul

There is a need to consider alternatives to the idea that our bodies are empty vessels in which something 'non-physical' resides. This is if we are to answer a couple of questions in a least parsimonious way. One such question is: if our bodies are mere vessels, why can't we get out of the body (eg when we are sick), move with the soul check something in a far place, then come back to the body? Why do we need to phone someone over a vast distance if the body is a mere vessel? Is there a 'vessel' that you can't come out from at will? No! This is simplistic and it makes the idea of afterlife sounds far fetched to anyone who thinks scientifically.

Of course we can talk of Astral Projection, Near Death Experiences and other so called 'Out of Body Experiences' (OBE). However, if the body was a mere vessel, the acquisition of information via such OBE would be easily unambiguous. Someone could easily move out of the body and then check what is outside and surprise the pple inside, by correctly knowing about something outside the house without moving out with the visible body! I know there are claims of such cases but they are still unambiguous. 

Another issue relevant to the issue of 'non-soul explanation of OBE' is the one people often raise. They ask: If consciousness is just a state of the body, does it mean that all it takes to create another consciousness like yours is just a clone? Sadly, this is how some people conclude. Even some movies suggest that this is the case. To create 'one person at two places all at once', all you need is a perfect clone of the same person! But this is like saying that to create a hot object, all you need to do is to make another object that is perfectly similat to a hot object. Then voila! The other object will get hot too! 'Heat' here is analogous to 'consciousness' in that though both are just states of matter, it takes more than just a physical copy of the object for that object to acquire the state of the other object.

Consciousness is correlated to information. So a transfer of consciousness from place to place will obey the same rules of physics as those for the transfer of information. So for the clone to lead to a transfer of consciousness from one body to another, these two bodies must be entangled. Every time one aquires information, the other body must similarly aquire the very information. So both bodies are aware of the same information. But with such communication, you note that a perfect copy of the body is not necessary, as far as transfer of consciousness is concerned. Consciousness is more like program. Two computers don't have to be perfectly similar for them to run the same program. But communication between the two computers is of paramount importance. Another analogy is the transfer of heat between two bodies. A perfect similarity between the bodies is not important. We don't get into other people's bodies not because we are not physically similar but because there are no direct 'body to body' transfer of information.

The 'without soul OBE' then will be a transfer of consciousness into a copy of your body near the very body but which is not perfectly identical to it in the sense that the other body is not visible. To understand this, don't think about a 'clone' taking consciousness. Rather, imagine if your brain was so big that it covers the entire earth. This will take your consciousness to the other end of the earth in the same way you are somehow 'omnipresent' in your own brain. But we also know that we grow. A young whale might have avery tiny brain compared to an adult. As the whale grows, it accomodates 'other things' ss to be part of itself without, of course, losing consciousness. So the fact that we grow shows that consciousness is transferable from body to body, provided that the bodies comes close enough. It is very analogous to transfer of heat.

In OBE then, we don't realy 'come out' from the body. More accurately we somehow 'become in two places all at once'. It is sort of like a clone taking our consciousness as well. This 'clone' is the one that explore the astral worlds and it is still 'us' doing so in the sense that it is connected to us directly. Think of your left brain going to another place. Provided that it is in perfect communication with the right brain, it seems, to your awareness, that 'you are at two places all at once'. The 'perfect communication' can be achieved via a 'cable' of nerves.

You are now ready to understand why someone cannot easily 'get out' of the 'vessel' of the body, go out there and then collect information. The light gathered by 'astral eyes', for instace, is too dim since the astral body is too tenuous. Much light tend to simply pass through the body rather than get 'into' the body. The light to the visible, dense body, is too bright. So the apparent invisibility of the world as seen by the astral body is explained exactly the same way we explain why we don't see stars at day time.

Read more…

Reincarnation Without A Soul

If a body is just a vessel to contain a soul, then why do we need to die for the soul to come out? Well, you may talk of astral projection. But has anyone realy ever 'committed suicide' by simply leaving the empty body behind, in a never-returning astral projection? I don't think so! However, in a good theory of afterlife, there is a straight foward answer to this question, which you will see. There is no need for 'soul', if you understand 'soul' as 'non-physical entity that can survive death'.

9406832895?profile=RESIZE_400x

Now consider the following analogy: consider someone holding a rope ready to create a wave in it. Holding one end of the rope, he raises his hand. Let the raised thing be analogous to a living thing. Then let the lowered thing be analogous to a dead thing. Now if the person immediately lowers the hand while still holding the rope, a pulse is generated that moves along the rope, as shown above. So when the hand is lowered, the part of the rope just next to the hand get raised. When that part of the rope is lowered too,the part that is still ahead is raised, and this is how the pulse moves. So when the hand 'dies', the 'life' (the act of being raised) immediately gets propagated along the rope. But this rule is far more general and will explain why a 'soul' only moves 'out of the body' once you die. So have in mind the 'wave' analogy.

Now take a look at how electromagnetic wave 'looks' like:

9406846299?profile=RESIZE_400x

Note that in practice, these 'lines' should not be seen as lines at all. This is because space, not beeing empty, contains particles that are capable of being charged. Infact they get polarized. So in the real space, the 'field lines' looks like in the figure below:

 9406944873?profile=RESIZE_400x

Which when you zoom it looks like this:

9406945497?profile=RESIZE_400x

And it is so even in 'totaly empty' space, s phenomenon termed 'vacuum polarization'. Vacuum is composed of combined matter and antimatter that have 'annihilated' each other. Electromagnetic field repolarizes it as if to partially seperate the matter and antimatter. But now visualizing the electromagnetic wave as an alignment of polarized matter-antimatter, compare electromagnetic wave with axon potential along your nerve:

9406952863?profile=RESIZE_400x

Combining all these knowledge and premises shows that 'empty space' has all the properties that can make it behave exactly like neurones! This shows that awarenes can abide in space and moves like a wave. All what is neaded is merely to generate a pattern in space that exactly looks like the brain's axon potentials. But this can easily be done. Electromagnetic waves can form as complex patterns as there can be. This is how all the complex scenario in your TV get transmitted to your receiver. As complex a thing as to look exactly like an image of say a human being must somehow be getting 'moved' through apparently empty space.

There appears to be one last catch: the electromagnetic wave seems to spread. So if the undulations in your nerves copies the nerve itself into the 'empy space' as electromagnetic wave, such a 'brain' will seem to 'spread' into oblivion! However, it is never a must that waves spread. Infact, EM waves rarely spreads. Waves normally moves as 'wave packets', which never spread. In fact this is how physicists understands how waves can behave like particles, especially in Quantum Field Theory. This is how wavepackets moves:

9406988498?profile=RESIZE_584x

So a 'soul' can be simply understood as a 'wave of brain'! All the complexities of brain is encoded as nothing but the complex shapes in a wavepacket. Essentially, it is wavepackets in wave packets in wavepackets, and so forth.

But now since it moves at speed of light, how does it slow? The answer is that the electromagnetic wave is never much different from the waves that cobstitute these other particles, eg electrons, which can move at any speed, or even stand still. Infact, electron can be understood as light that has merely interacted with higs field to 'acquire mass'.

 

So we see that science alone, if we think very carefully, can explain 'soul' and 'reincarnation'. The popular belief that it can't is based more on prejudices and stereotypes than on careful thinking and analysis. It has become just a custom that 'there are some things that science should not be considering it carefully'. Or that 'science should just dismiss some claims', without giving it any thought. Furthermore, the human, inate desire 'not to know some things' is prevalent even amongst scientists!

Read more…

The Straightforward Need For A Spaceship

Like I have said severaly, if ET moves from stars to stars by waving a magic wand, then there is no purpose of a spaceship! Ironically this undermines the only objective evidence a UFOlogist offers for the claim that we are being visited by ETs. We have seen a few models of the universe to check what role a spaceship might play in those models. None of those models,  eg 'holographic universe' gives a straightforward need for a spaceship. Models of universe that purports that we are somehow 'omnipresent' or 'we move by magics' tends to underminethe very need for a spaceship or gives only far fetched explanations, like the ones I have tried hard to offer!

It should be clear that we don't move my 'magics'. If we did that, we might have already moved to stars by now! Elsewhere, I have explained why the claim that this planet is a prison, or something like that is untenable. It is a mere ad-oc to explain why we don't easily move to stars if motion to there is by magics. The best explanation for why we don't move to stars is that we don't have the technology for it yet. There is no bizarre way of movement! Before we developed planes, ships and cars, we could not easily move to far regions of the world. There was no 'magic' way round! There is no reason to think that the case is different for interstellar travel. At least not, if we are yet to demonstrate such a way of 'magical movement' in small scale. Way before man made a plane, he could watch birds and be ascertained that, though no such means for flying a human was there, it was at least possible, as they could see instances where they were achieved. Same applies to all forms of transports.

Movement to stars must be done through speeds far faster than the speed of light. This poses a big challenge as the laws of physics known so far prohibits such a movement! The only way to understand such is to try to explain Einstein's relativity in such a way that it is contingent on something in space that can be avoided. Fortunately, not only is such explanations possible, they are plausible and very rational!

There are many ways of explaining relativity. In one of them, it is seen to arise from electromagnetism. Motion of charges results in a force in between them termed 'Lorenz Force'. This slows the vibration of charges and hence 'time dillation'. So if particles have no fundamental charge, then there is no reason to think that it is subject to relativistic effects. One catch is that such particles cannot be visible (light is electromagnetic). They belong to the same category as 'Weakly Interracting Massive Particles' (WIMPS), the candidates for the so called 'dark matter'. As a rough explanation, the slowing of charges is due to 'friction in the medium in which light propagates as a wave.' This opposition from the medium is the one that 'converts the kinetic energy of electron into light energy' much the same way the air resists a speeding pebble to form a buzzing sound. So if a particle does not interact with that medium, then it is not subject to the same limitations much the same way light, unlike a pebble is not much slowed by the air in that it interacts more weakly with the air.

But I like to zeroin on a more teleological explanation for relativistic effects. Ask why must  an atomic clock slow down when it is moved? The answer is that if it doesn't do that, then the electrons orbitting the atom will be slung away from the atom like bullets off a machine gun! We capture this by a number called 'fine structure constant'. ( A)

A=q^2/hc

q=charge of an electron

h=planck's Constant

c=speed of light

This value is fine tuned in amazing way, to make life possible in our planet! This has drove physicists to wonder if the universe we see is the only one. There must be, they think, several other universes with different fine structure constants so that we are 'naturally selected' in a universe that happens to be condusive for light. But if we were to accept this 'many universes' explanation for fine tunning, ask what is it that varies in the right hand side of fine structure constant ? The easiest to explain is the speed of light. This is because we already know that speed of light varies from medium to medium. It varies from glass to water to air etc. So it is a matter of thinking of 'vacuum' as a medium on the same par with air, albeit a more tenuous, a view that is extremely easy to accept. Infact it is already seen as 'matter-untimatter potential'. This can undergo polarization in the vicinity of charged particles. This us termed 'vacuum polarization' and is similar to any other polarization in a medium.

 So think of space as to be interlaced by mediums of all manner of properties. In each medium, light propagates at a unique speed. In a medium in which light propagates much faster, everything moves similarly faster. If light propagates at twice c, a rocket similar to one on earth will move at twice the speed it moves on earth and so forth. The interlacing of media can be understood by considering the 'molecules of the media' as to have wave-like properties, as taught by quantum mechanics. So the interlacing is in much the same way radio waves of varying frequencies are interlaced in the same space, so that you can tune to different stations that seem to be on the same place but without interfering with each other! Though more challenging for solids or liquids, it is a piece of cake for waves. But this is not the only way for understanding interlaced realities.

The need for spaceship is now straight foward. Things moves the usual way even in those other 'universes'. It is only much faster! So the spaceship can even be the usual rocket but using a more reliable technology, eg a plasma truster, which collects plasma that is abundant throughout the universe and use it as fuel.

'Movement' to this other plane of reality will involve changing all the atoms of the crew and that of the space ship! This may be possible if we position our spaceship strategically so that it lies on a special place in space where matter from this other plane passes by. This matter is akin to 'dark matter' . It works much like raising the temperature of an object. If a warm object touches a cold body, the latter will soon become warmer and the former colder. So it is an 'exchange of properties'. Similarly if a piece of matter that has a property that enables it to interact with a medium that allows must faster than light travel comes close to the usual matter, they may 'exchange the properties'. This 'exchange of properties' is very common. When a moving billiard ball knocks a stationary one, they 'exchange the momentum' so that the moving one stops and the stationary one begins to move.

Read more…

Of course one can say that a UFO is necessary in an holographic universe in the same way a car is still necessary even if the world is holographic. However, we are interested with the hologram as used to provide a means for swift interstellar travel. Without forming good theories of UFOs and the universe, then UFO as objective fact rest on shaky grounds. Then who realy is interested with UFOs if they are only psychiatric issues to do 'minds', 'hearts' or such? So we must definitely address such pressing questions?

Does a UFO works by 'who knows how something might surreptitiously disappears at one point and reappear at another point in an hologram'? If yes, why do an ET needs to enter into a 'Mexican hat' like structure for this accrobatics to take place? 

An hologram is made by letting the information from a single point of an object get recorded throughout the hologram. So it is like myriads of photocopies mutasis mutandis. If you want to mean that thus this point is somehow 'omnipresent' throughout the hologram, then you arrive at the same daunting question that we often use to show what is wrong with the materialist claim that all it takes for your awareness to come about is your brain. We ask how about if there is a perfect copy of your body elsewhere? Does this mean that you somehow become 'omnipresent' in these two regions? Sadly, this is how some movies normally depicts. Two identical twins, so they tell us, shares the same awareness!!

Once you understand an hologram correctly, ie as copies of information, and that a copy of a thing is not 'the same thing at two places all at once', you begine to understand that holographic  universe does not immediately translate into 'a universe where everything is omnipresent.' So you can't 'move to stars' solely through the virtue that a copy of yourself (mutasis mitandis) is already there in stars. The copy is a copy of everything about you, except your awareness, a property we can't see from bird's angle to check if the object has. However, a copy of your body means that your awareness can easily propagate  from place to place without any object actually moving, much like a wave transfers energy without the medium itself moving. This movement of awareness does not require a soul, or anything 'immaterial'. Holographic universe completey obviates 'soul' or 'the immaterial' as a necessity for understanding teleportation, telepathy, reincarnation etc!

An hologram movie causes what appears to be motion in the projected image. The crucial point is that a certain movement is caused by a change in the hologram that barely resembles the motion that we see in the projection. Specifically, in the case of interstellar travel, there is nothing in the hologram that moves over vast distances. Rather small changes are taking place synchronously throughout the universe. This, at first, seems to show that interstellar travel, and other 'law breaking' events are easily done by performing action on the hologram itself, while claimimg that our awareness abides in the projected image in an illusory way! However, this is not necessarily the case. There can be a one to one correspondence between the 'laws in the projection' and the 'laws in the hologram' which makes manifesting say an interstellar travel in the projection  forbiden by the hologram itself, even if there is no such a restriction in the hologram! A UFO, however, is supposed to be an object as seen in the projection, and not in the hologram. So just what is it that thinking of the universe as an hologram helps us to understand about interstellar travel, especially via a UFO?

Hologram brings in another entity as a necessity in making sense of a claim like 'an object (such as a UFO) is here or there'. This is light, in the case of man made hologram. I like thinking of this entity as awareness, in the case of holographic universe. Without light, the information in the hologram can neither have the notion of 'omniprecence' nor that of locality of say a UFO. It is the light that gets bent from distant corners in the hologram, and then is converged into a single place, to recreate the image. So the light brings about the notion that 'this distant corners in the hologram are actually nearby in the projection', hence the notion of 'omnipresence'. So these distant places in the hologram are  'nearby' only when we think in the light of what these regions will do to the laser light. It is at this point where I want you to stop using the analogy of the artificial hologram and begine to attempt to understand the universe as an hologram literally!

In the natural universe, what brings about the notion of 'these far places are nearby in some hologram' is quantum entanglement. So we can drop the hologram all together. It was only useful as a scalf holder. In these 'far regions' exist two entangled particles (special 'particles of location'). An object can appear to be 'entirely on the same spot' and yet all its portions are actually distributed throughout the universe! This is because our awareness generating identity is similarly distributed throughout the universe and the  the usual universe is constructed by such an 'all pervading brain' like it was a dream, albeit the brain, and thus information, is realy realy huge! The 'brain' interprates the entangled particles as 'near', and thus 'projects' them on the same spot in 'who knows how awareness comes about'. The exact process by which this projection is done is as challenging as answering the so called 'bindind problem' in the brain. So we already know that the brain does this tasks of projecting information from distant corners into a single point, in generating our awareness of the point!! We, for instance, see say a dog as to be intact. Its nose is 'just near' the eye. However, this is not the case in the brain! If you see the information in the brain, the dog is no more discernable than when you try to see an image in the hologram itself rather than in the projection. The 'nose' can, for instance, be in one corner of the brain while the 'eye' is in the other corner. But there are 'nearby' in the awareness of the dog, for unknown reasons!

So we don't need to think of an entirely different entity. Just think that your brain does not end in your scull but rather extends throughout the universe. Then the 'interconnections' in such a brain is now not via neurones but via the virtue that different regions are quantum enragled with themselves, providing a faster means of communication than the neural signal, even across vast regions of the universe! In such a case, movement can be as easy as in a lucid dream. However, we still need a way in which our brains can know how to willingly control something from remort. Or in other words 'to make the dream truely lucid'. In a dream, we don't always have this control. It is only when the dream get lucid do we begine to 'perform wonders'. Part of our ability to control things remortely will be 'altering the frequency our brains emits'. So it is much the same way altering the frequency of your phone can switch from 'phoning someone in london' to 'phoning someone in Tokyo'. It is at this point, can you now understand the necessity of a UFO. A UFO, in this model, must be made of a material that vibrates in a certain way. When the crew enters it, the standing waves created in it alters the brain waves of the crew and makes them 'vibrate like the space ship itself'. As they 'make a dream that takes them to stars', the crew must ensure that they recreate the same same UFO so that once they 'come out of the altered frequency', they may easily find their way back.

Read more…

Say No To Crony Capitalism

This beast 'vacuum sucks' the whole money and takes it to the 1% ruling class. It is the excellent fertile ground that grows the fungi we call 'the cabal'. Remove it, and you killed the dragon. Unfortunately, what people calls it 'capitalism' is actually 'crony capitalism', and then what they call it 'socialism' is still 'crony capitalism' and finaly, what they call it 'communism' is yet another 'crony capitalism'. So this 'crony capitalism' is a chameleon that is hard to notice! It comes in many names.

Crony capitalism is defined as 'the use of government to persue one's business interests'. When a member of parliament, a president, a cabinet minister etc also has a family or friends with big businesses, he contributes in awarding government tenders to his own family and/or cronies . So he is both a referee and a player all at once! He can't bargain for those who elected them because he wants to maximize profits for his families and cronies. So the public debt can only increase in a nation! We have poor people feeding the tycoons! This is one example of crony capitalism.

The other example is more subtle, but no less cronier. The president 'makes a deal' with his voters. He says 'I will bring back factory jobs to your town'. When he becomes the president, he imposses tariffs on imported goods. He creats a boom for certain businesses. This is crony capitalism, but here, the president's cronies are his political fan base, and perharps factory owners! In capitalism, the government stays away from businesses. It doesn't manipulate taxes, tender awards, tariffs, bailouts etc. The government does not creat, kill, protect, or bring jobs. This task is fully dedicated to individuals. It is the duty of individuals to creat jobs for themselves by erecting appropriate businesses, not the duty of the government. Capitalism does not create tycoons or giant businesses. It doesn't creat large scale farming where a few owns all the land and the rest are forced to slave for wages in the rich man's business. Crony capitalism does that. Pure capitalism only creats myriads of small, competing businesses. Crony capitalism directly took over from feudalism.

Another example of crony capitalism comes in the guise of 'helping the poor'. Unfortunately, they erroneously call this 'socialism', but it is crony capitalism.   A president promises to bring in 'free education', 'free health care', 'free salaries' and what have you! The cronies are now his political fan base who wants to get free things. So they vote for the president. The other cronies, of course are the business orchestrating these handouts. It should rather be the duty of individuals, not the government, to help themselves. The government uses force, and not true charity. Why not just help someone directly and short circuit the pipe line that heads to the corrupt guys there? If there was no crony capitalism that creats ten millionaires and ten million beggers, there will be no need for charity. So kill the right beast: the crony capitalism.

Read more…

When hyperinflation happens the fiat money becomes valueless. We see this possibility now even for the dollar, especially after the pandemic. The question is how will people leave if money becomes valueless? The answer, of course, will be the way they used to leave before money was invented. Life will not necessarily end with the end of money, if human being get prudent enough, and if he begines thinking about this, early enough, because the question is not 'if', but 'when' will a global hyperinflation happen!

The fiat money economy is ridiculous! It is what enables ten millionaires and ten million beggers! In barter economy, one cannot be a tycoon. Barter has its own outomatic regulation of whealth, which is the desirable state. It is never the case that 'the more of anything, the better'. The more the food, the better? The more the temperature the better? The more the blood? The more the saliva? Of course no! When anything begines to get more than necessary, it slowly begines to be harmful! You cannot stock 100 vehicles in your house. So in this specific case it is clear that the more you have vehicles, it is not 'the better'. However, when we translate this vehicles into their money value, it is nolonger clear! But here we note that the money models a notion of 'whealth' that is meaningless when we translate it all into goods and services, i.e. the things that we realy need! The whealth of money is an illusion! It is a model that has no counterpart in reality.That is why it can all evaporate in an hyperinflation.

When lootings were done in South Africa, soon there was shortages in food etc on shops. Soon a 'tycoon'  of money will have nothing to eat while the 'poor' will have plenty. The elites stole all the money and then the common person stole all the food! There is plenty of money, people are very 'rich', but there is nothing to buy! This shows how ridiculous the 'money' economy is! If we gave the south Africans plenty of dollars, we are expected to beleive that 'they will get rich', but we can see that this is not the case! If everybody has money, soon there will be nothing in shops! So goes the illusion of 'alot of whealth' in US etc, which are all owned by 1% of Americans! Of course they don't mean that the 1% has each stocke one million cars in their compounds! If these tycoons redistributes their money, then 'buying' will bring about the same result as 'looting'! The 'wealth' of the 1% ( i.e. the whealth of the whole country!) completely depends on the fact that not everyone wants to buy at the same time, i.e. it depends on the poverty of the rest!

So we desperately need to get back to barter trade, at least, mutasis mutandis. But how should we? The answer is that modern information technology can tackle the problems that led people to abandon batter trade in favour of money. Especially, barter trade was difficult to do since it required a 'double coinsidence'. If you had commodity A and lacked B, then it was difficult to find someone with commodity B but lacked A. But with modern technology, is it still difficult? The answer is no! Everybody nowadays have a mobile phone with internet connection. We can, for instance, easily creat a website that acts like a 'virtual market place', where 'buyers' and 'sellers' can 'tele-conference'.  What tele-confrencing does is simply 'bring everyone near'.  Once you oder, the goods are delivered by drones and services are delivered using a soon to be unleashed, a remortely controled robot. These robots will patrol everywhere. All these are possible with the current technology! We have reached a point when we nolonger need money at all, yet people are yet to realize!

 

Read more…
The famous scientist, Bruce Lipton noted problem in the idea that all cellular activities are controlled by DNA. However, he doesn't seem to realize that such an idea is crucial to neo-Darwinism. Same thing applies to all those who note that the famous human genome sequencing project was advertised using what is now seen as a wrong idea that most if not all diseases are caused by mulfunctioning of genes.

How can it be said that genes has anything to do with diseases? Disease can be understood as some malfunctioning of cells. So if we understand all cellular functioning as to be due to the control by DNA the root source of diseases can be seen to be errors in the DNA. Of course this exempts the malfunctioning of cells due to infections or injuries. It seems to be the case that scientists have no clue of what, if any, infections causes the majority of diseases. So they concoct this DNA explain it all idea.

But how does neo-Darwinism comes in? Well if you note a well engineered cellular functioning,eg the great body difence system then it is the habit of Darwinists to step in and say that it is all due to evolution via a series of accidents. Such evolution requires that every ingenious thing going on in a living thing must be controlled by DNA. This is because DNA is the point through which natural selection is supposed to take place. This mean that it isn't a surprise that scientists would soon or later amuse themselves that the body's wonder disease fighting and prevention machinery is all due to workings controlled by the DNA. So if we could know the whole of DNA, so they thought, then we will have the recipe for the cures of all diseases! Well, they were wrong!

If on the other hand there is another means through which the cell can carry out its ingenious functions without being controlled by the DNA, as Lipton suggest, then such functioning cannot have evolved the Darwinian way! So that is what is at stake!

 

 
Read more…

Quantum Mechanics And Observation

When you say the word 'quantum', you will soon hear the word 'observation'.Thats it! Quantum mechanics(QM) is popular because of 'yap yap observer creats the world yep yep',...and nothing much more! It is often said that QM confirms eastern mysticism where the world we see is a 'dream' all created by the power of mind and its 'observation'. But do QM realy teaches such things? Did physicists( or eastern mystics for this matter) somehow observed the world without observing it to check how it is when it is not being observed? Why don't they observe vacuum and creat money when they need them? Alright you have guessed well, it is nothing of the sort. If you are among those who have in mind only the 'yap yap quantum yep yep observations' then welcome to some lessons in QM.

If you have searched further you might have seen how ridiculous physicists behave when handling this matter. They say that when a quantum system is yet to be observed, it is impossibly in a superposition of states such as 'both a life and dead' and that only after observation do nature make up its mind as to whether the cat is dead or alife! Then they conveniently deny latter that this is in fact what they said! This is not a surprise. Like a religion, QM has myriads of sects and cults. So you must be care full when reading about QM or otherwise you will get hopelessly confused. Ironically the most confused guys are the physicists themselves. They are the worst victims of their own vodka.

At the heart of confusion in physics is their habit of not completely abandoning 'wrong' theories in the guise that they can make good approximations of observed world.You will hear of 'relativistic QM' vs 'non relativistic QM' as if these two theories can coexist in the same universe. In reality though, these theories are mutually incompartible. In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), particles must be seen as 'point size' because of relativistic stipulations. But the 'collapse of wavefunction' is said to 'connect QM maths with observations'. This is ironical since point sized particles, whatever that mean, cannot possibly be observed. So what are these non point like entities we observe and term them 'particles', e.g in a bubble chamber? At some point, you will be forced to say that we actually observe tiny wave packets. So the 'collaps' don't happen (since the collapsed state is the zero sized, unobservable particle ). This contradict the earlier picture of QM where the particles are 'created' from waves via 'observation'. Despite this, physicist teach QM to laymen ( and sometimes to thenselves) as if QFT don't introduce any changes in the concept of particle because of the mis perception that'QM is also correct as a non-relativistic theory'. The world is either relativistic or not, never both. Physicists cannot be allowed to switch back and fort to fully cover their asses.

So ridiculous enough, we are left wondering if quantum state actually 'collapses' upon observation yet this was all what QM was trying to teach! The problem gets compounded this way: 'observation' is  thought to be a classic event. This means that observation necessarily involves myriads of particles, e.g those forming your brain. But the particles themselves are supposed to be the quantum. So if we think that the classic world is composed of collapsed quantum particles, then we need an ensemble of collapsed particles( the brain ), to collapse the quantum particles (via observations). We have an egg-chicken paradox.

There is realy no need for this 'paradox' at all. Quantum decoherence does solves the so called 'measurement problem', and here I will explain it.

In a single particle QM, we have a wave. The amplitude of this wave gives the probability of finding a point-like particle at a given region. This is called Born's Rule. But in a multi-particle QM, the Born's rule must be re-interpreted so that the amplitude of the wave now gives the total number of particle at a region, or the amplitude gives the density at that region, if the substance is dense enough. 

Now during 'observation of a single particle', the wavefunction of the single particle suddenly enters a far denser place, i.e. a place full of myriads of other waves emanating from the ensemble of particles forming a classic object. The classic object here can be, but is not limited to, a measuring device. Then the wavefunction for the in-comming 'single particle' intermingles with the other waves and summs up to form a 'wave-packet'. The wave-packet is tiny, and looks like a single particle, but in reality, they are many particles. Indead an eye can never see a single particle. Infact the particles are thought to be zero dimensional, hence obviously cannot be seen! The wave-packet's amplitude is the density or the number of particles in the region.

You can now see that the measurement 'problem' comes from a fundamental error of trying to force in a meaning to a 'observation of a single particle' when in reality, we can never observe a single particle! The wavefunction simply doesn't have to 'collapse' for us to 'observe' the particle, simply because we are not actually observing the very particle but rather the exited particles in the classic device that is 'detecting' the particle . The point is that the same same wavefunction that describes a single particle can also describe myriads of particles but now with the meaning of amplitude having been redefined from 'probability of finding a single particle at a region' into  'the number of particles at the region'. This redefinition immediately happens as the wave joins other waves of the classic world, before the wave 'collapses', obviating the need for 'collapse' altogether!! So there is no 'problem' to solve! We simply cannot solve a 'problem' by regarding what created the problem in the first place as though to have been a perfect theory! It wasn't!! It erred in demanding a Meaning to a meaningless concept!!

Conscious Observation 

The 'new age' teaching is erroneous is two main ways. One is to suppose that 'observation' creats a paeticle. The other is that it all happens in one's consciousness. Thus in 'new age' thinking, there is no objective reality! New age idea is, in fact solipsism. This theory is unfalsifiable and as such, is not part of QM. According to QM, uncertain is the particle's momentum,position, spin etc, not the particle's existence. Then consciousness is theoretically unnecesary in making these certain. Only interaction with classic world in general. Thus the world exist even without our awareness of it.

However, this doesn't mean that consciousness necessarily plays no part in the 'collapse'. It only means that a personal consciousness causing reality, i.e. solipsism is erroneous. Furthermore, an additional theory of 'quantum mind' is necessary. This also moves some of the domain to biology, as part of 'bio-physics'. Here I will attempt such a theory.

Consciousness can be brought in only by understanding that there is no clear boundery between a conscious entity and a non-conscious one. The brain, for instance, is connected to everything else, including the measuring instruments in the laboratory. There is a subtle medium that interconnects everything. The theory of 'quantum mind' relates interaction to concious decisions. Indead we don't even need quantum mechanics to understand that the 'collapse' can be influenced by a distant mind! We link the mind with the brain. This is the first 'mind-matter' link. Then we link the brain to the external world. Then you note that the particles are so small that the consciousness can 'collapses' them even from remort! To 'collapse' a wave, all you need are myriads of waves of varying wavelengths. But the particles in the brain are, themselves, waves already. These waves extends to the whole universe and influenced the 'collapses'! When two molecules superimposed on the same place are vibrating 180 degrees out of synch, then their waves cancels. Howevery if you take them abit further a by only a fraction of their wavelength, which is at a range of billionth of millimetre, something the brain can easily do,  it can begine to generate a significant wave. Such waves, when they extend from the brain can help in 'collapsing' wave functions even from remort! It is in this sense that awareness can affect collapse at a distance.

 

Read more…