Again we see the usual, monotonous rise in hostilities between the Palestinians and Israelis. As usual many people (maybe absorbed in western msm propaganda) rush to condemn the Palestinians. Too many others are so much bamboozled by the bible's narration of 'Israelites' as 'the people of God' selected to 'punish the wicked neighbours' . So unfortunately many people are blinded by the 'Israel' misnomer and the palestinians become the easier target of condemnation as the memory of the bible's 'wicked Israel neighbours', sometimes who 'needs to be exterminated' comes to minds! 

Whether or not leaders are driven by religion is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that leaders do indeed tacitly use these Bible stories to mesmerize people into a blind support for Israel! Without the bible stories, so many people would condemn Israel that it becomes politically untenable for leaders to support Israel. So yes, demystifying the bible is necessary.

We leave in a dangerous times, where even the illusion that media is a reliable source of 'truth' is being shattered before our eyes! In the west, their rush to label everything that Russia says as 'propaganda' has backfired! Ironically, people have ended up doubting the western media for this, instead! What makes the western MSM so sure that Russia is using 'propaganda' in the war with Ukraine exept that this is what the MSM itself usually uses in the US etc wars? If you are so sure that your neighbour's husband is battering his wife when she does xyz, then it can most likely be due to the fact that you yourself batters your wife when she does xyz, and you think that 'everyone is like you'. So the things we accuse others of normally reveals something about ourselves! This is the situation that the western MSM has found itself! That is why leaders that are against the fuelling money and weapons to the 'bottomless bit' of Ukraine are being elected!

It is in such a toxic media environment that we must judge the acts now in middle east! We must be careful not to be unwittingly led by propaganda into seeming to think that one thing is right as done by one person, and the same thing is wrong as done by another person! That, for instance, it is right for Russia to fire missiles to Ukraine but wrong for Hamas to do the same thing on Israel! That it was right for US to invade Iraq but wrong for Russia to 'do the same'. That is was right for Kosovo to unilaterally secede from Serbia but is wrong for Zaphorozhye to do the same from Ukraine. That it is right for Israelis to kidnap the Palestinians, but it is wrong for vice-versa to happen! People end up getting this wrong because it all depends on their favourite propaganda outlet! The propaganda outlet itself tells you not the 'truth' but what they want you to believe in order to advance their interests, or the interests of their patrons. Of course is such a situation, consistency will be hard to achieve! It will only happen when being consistent serves their interests, then they tell you consistent things, then they form a consistent so called 'laws', be they international ones etc

Now so many countries, including Britain and US advances the so called 'two state solution' to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What this one means is that these 'patron' countries do claim to acknowledge that both the Palestinians and the Israelis have a right to form a country, each of their own. So it is a 'neutral' solution where the end result doesnt (at least much) favour any group. However, in a stunning hypocrisy, they favour one side, arming it tooth and nail! How can you seek for a neutral solution via a biased procedure? If you do acknowledge that both the Palestinian and the Israeli equaly deserves to form a country, how does this translates into arming only one side in the conflict? Why doesn't the same logic for arming Israel apply to arming the Palestine?? Anyone genuinely advancing for a solution that creates two equal states MUST be neutral! Any one arming only one side actually either persues a 'one state solution' where the group he is arming completely overrules the other, or simply exterminates them in a genocide! There is no other option! The words speaks one thing, and the actions loudly speaks another thing!

It is not like they don't know how such 'arming' actually puts a spanner on the work. In the Russo-Ukrainian war, they say that 'they will negotiate latter'. Clearly, they are first waiting for the what happens in the battlefield to 'tilt in favour of Ukraine' before they can negotiate, and they think (maybe erroneiusly) that a flux of weapons delivered to Ukraine will help this! If we keep supplying weapons to Ukraine, they reason, then Russia might be led to believe that it cannot 'win the war'. This might lead Russia to be more interest with a negotiation. Since it will be Russia that desperately needs a negotiation, it will allow Ukrainian to dictate more on the terms, hence bringing obout an outcome that favours Ukraine more.

So pay a close look at the logic: If we arm the Ukraine, they admit, then the outcome of the conflict will be in favour of the Ukraine, against Russia. In other words Russia will lose as much as Ukraine think it can force Russia to lose, given the weapons it has! Apply the same logic to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we clearly see the un-stated mission! We seek a 'two-state solution', yes, but only through a negotiation that Israel dictates as much as it wishes! Combine this with the Jewish claim of the entire 'promised' land, and you can only guess that the unstated mission is actually to annihilate the Palestinians! What they want, actually is an unconditional surrender! No one can accept such, and the weapons are not as 'magical' as they believe. So the war simply becomes endless! 

Think about trying to help Israel dictate as much as it wishes, having in mind that many in the west believe that Israel is already occupying some of the Palestinian land! You find masses who don't know what they are doing! You have many people in the west who actually believe that Israel is just like 'Russia' in that it is in 'occupation' of another land. However, they suggest opposite solutions for this same problem! 'Since Russia is the aggressor', they are convinced, 'we must leverage Ukraine so that the latter might dictate more in a future negotiation'. But in Palestine, they advocate arming the aggressor in a bid to achieve the same results as arming the 'victim' in Ukraine! If 'insanity' is 'doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results', then doing different things over and expecting the same results must be a square of insanity!

The same reasoning can also be applied to disarming and blockading Palestine. There are only three reasons for trying to prevent your neighbour from arming. One is cowardice, the other is genuine concern for your security, and the other one is seeking to maintain your own tyranny! Only the second is unshameful enough, but it demand some de-humanizing your neighbour! In order for Israel to convince the world that it is for the second reason that they, for instance, blockade Gaza, they must present the Palestinians as to be fundamentally different from them! The latter must be barbaric, blood thirsty etc. They must be totally irresponsible with arms! This is the usual colonialists narrative to justify trying to infringe on the native's right to bear arms! (Everyone and every group in this world have a right to arm themselves, and blockades done to deny that is unjustifiable).

In reality, a blockade to deny arms (even as you yourself are on arming spree), is as justifiable as storing the military equipments in civilian areas and then blaming the other side for 'bombing civilians' in a war! The thing is that the other side must be allowed to obtain proper arms that can properly target the military, rather than the civilians, before we blame them on civilian casualties actually due to usage of bad arms! Both cases involves risking leveraging the other side, but for the sake of safety of the civilians.

All this shows that it is not the second option that drives Israel to blockade Gaza. Rather, it is the mixture of the two other more shameful ones! Israelis are both coward and tyrannical! The Hezbollah never went into a runaway attacking of Israel and there is no blockade there! Hamas, on the other hand draws from the same script as Hezbollah, and so there is no more need to feer Hamas than to fear Hezbollah. What we see in Hezbollah case is that an armed Israeli adversary is realy not 'barbaric' against Israel. It just is capable of deterring Israel from anyhow aggression, and this is all what Israel don't like! Israel wants impunity, and this is their whole point. They want to enter any air space they wish, when they so wish, and bomb them as they wish! Against doing such, they don't want any deterrence from any group! This is their true intent in blockades etc! The other is cowardice! They can't handle a peer-to-peer competitor! For Israel to fight you, for it to keep entering your space with jets etc, you must first be armed with stones, otherwise, it seeks negotiations and friendships! So they dare not rub such giants as Russians etc the wrong way!

A relativist offers two mutualy incompatible descriptions of what he says a black hole is, as is usual in these so called 'counter-intuitive' irrationalities:

1.) A star shrinks and shrinks until it disappears all together into a non-entity termed 'singularity'.

2.)No, a star doesn't disappear at all. When it is the size of 'Plank's length', we need a theory of Quantum Gravity to describe it and such a theory is not yet complete.

So after triggering the 'waaas' and 'aaahs' amongst the masses by saying that an object can shrink into non-existence, they secretly swap the hats and deny the very thing that they were saying! This is their usual trick. In effect, they are saying that they have 'proven' this irrational object and at the same time that they don't know what it is! What is it that they have seen 'out there' to 'prove' the existence of this beast? A zero-dimensional non-entity or a Planck length long dot?

This is not a scientific theory, anyway! If something can shrink into zero size, then we no longer have the main actor at all! The main actor have effectively shrunk into non-existence. We now just have objects gravitating around empty space, violating the very same theory of 'gravity' which stipulates that 'matter must be present' to cause gravity!

Maybe at this juncture, we need to clearly differentiate the concept 'mass' from 'quantity of matter'. Newton arrived at his conclusion by observing the sizes of gravitating objects. The sun has a huge mass simply because it is large, that is all! Quantity of matter is synonymous to 'volume of matter'. No other notion of 'quantity of matter' has any meaning! If things can shrink or expand without limmit then we cannot form a coherent notion of 'quantity of matter', and hence we can't form a coherent theory of gravity, or quantify anything that demands that we can measure 'quantity of matter'.

Nevertheless, the theory of 'black holes' fails as a science even if we define 'mass' in the usual sense of 'inertia'. We cannot accelerate a 'singularity' in a lab to verify that indeed things are gravitating around a 'massive' empty space termed 'singularity'. We can as well attribute the gravitation to a ghost and we cannot any more falsify the theory. We cannot experiment with abstract concept such as 'singularities' as they are indistinguishable from voids. The theory of 'black holes' relies on 'wink winks' and 'nudge nudge' developed from our OBSERVATION that massive bodies do exert gravity, but deny that our notion of 'massive' is correlate to the concept of 'size'. So they undermine the very same notions that underpins them. Then when they arrive at irrationalities, they blame it all on our 'intuition' rather than in their own incapability of consistently articulating the universe! This is unacceptable!

Lets now close examine the 'quantum' version. Do we need quantum theory to describe a severely compressed huge matter? You find that this appeal to quantum theory is confused because they tell us that it is the presence of huge number of particles that makes a phenomenon appear 'classic' rather than 'quantum'. Here, they switch gears and blame spatial size for 'quantumness'. Is a massive star somehow compressed into a dot describe by a quantum wave function and probabilistic location? Nope! this is a disingenuous way of application of QM because the 'quantumness' arises from the singleness of the particle we are describing it using a single wave function. It is the presence of large number of particles that makes an underlying quantum reality appear classic, not the VOLUME that the particles occupy. This is 'quantum decoherence' caused by a large number of waves vibrating in all manner of frequencies and wavelengths. This same reasoning can be used to similary debunk the 'big bang' version of appeal to QM. There is no way a whole universe can appear 'quantum' just because of its spatial size. It is the size of 'HILBERT SPACE' 'occupied' by the system, not the usual space, that makes quantum theory necessary to describe a phenomenon.

The theory of black holes uses wrong mathematics! It can be seen by a bit simple maths that the structure being described by Schwarzchild metric is not a 'curved space' in which a spherical ball is 'sitting on it' and 'weighing it down'. It is absolutely nothing of the sort. Rather it is a a paraboloid. It is a simple parabola that is 'swang around' as shown in the diagram below. As you can see, it has a hole in the center and as we will see, this hole is of radius equals to 'Schwarzchild radius'. The Einstein Field Equation' in this particular case describes a completely empty universe! There is realy no such a 'center' to hammer in a 'spherical mass' from nowhere, let alone a 'singularity'!

As you can see, the problem is that somewhere, the relativists surprisingly forgot that the 'r' appearing in the Schwarzschild metric refers to the flat background relative to which the 'space' is getting curved. But the same physicist bozos will tell you that 'the universe is not expanding into anything' when you ask them about the 'expansion' due to big bang. In other words they verbally insist that 'we live inside the curved space' but in their mathematics they treat the structure as if we live in the 'flat' background space! If you are careful to follow some simple calculus, you will easily note that this theory of theirs is manifest nonsense!

The following is a simple proof that the structure described by Schwarzchild metric is a paraboloid with a hole of radius a=Schwarzchild Radius.

This is just the equation for a quadratic curve offset from point (0,0) towards r axis by distace a. You can see this because in its equation: r=y^2/4a-a, r=a when y=0. So when we revolve the curve into a paraboloid like we saw in the above diagram, it will leave a hole or radius r=a. I differentiated the curve r=y^2/4a-a and then use the Pythagoras theorem for the infinitesimal triangle with lengths ds, dr and dy. The results yields the grr component of schwarzschild metric (the coefficient if dr^2) clearly proving that Schwarzchild metric describes a revolved parabola with a hole of radius r=a. Then note that they incongruously set a, which is just a radius, to a= 2mG/c^2 to try to force a mere mathematical description of a curve into describing gravity!

Another problem with the black hole theory is that as you can see, parameters turn to infinity when r reaches Scharzchild Radius. 'Time', for instance, 'stops' when you reach Schwarzchild Radius. So you realy never get to cross the radius, which is the event horizon. But maybe one should, at this pount ask 'relative to what' do 'time' dilates in GR. In their mathematics, time is 'bent' relative to the flat background space relative to which, the space time is bent. So 'time dilation' is actually the angle between the 'flat space' in the background and the 'curved space'. So 'time' is dilated relative to points 'outside' the universe, hence which cannot be observed!

The relativist will pretend that since the curved space described by the Schwarzschild metric approaches flatness as we get to a point infinite distance away from the 'center', we can talk of 'time' getting 'dilated' relative to 'time' at a point very far from the center. However, they forgot to think carefully and note that such a distant, supposedly 'faster ticking' clock cannot see itself as to be realy 'ticking faster', thanks to the 'dilation' being claimed to be the 'dilation of space and time' itself rather than that of the clocks. By the time signals reaches the distant observer, they will have been forced to tick exactly like the ambient signals by the very distortion of the space they are propagating in. I have explained in details this problem in a previous blog post.

After supposing that a 'distant observer' cannot see anything cross the event horizon due to 'time stopping' right at the event horizon, they now draw your attention to an observer in a free fall towards the alleged black hole. But this explanation is untenable because they tell us that Schwarzchild Metric, as a solution for Einstein's Field Equation is a complete description for space time in the vicinity of gravitating body. But we don't see these 'this observer sees that and that observe sees this' in the Schwarzchild Metric! We only see a 'curved space' as 'seen' by an hypothetical observer standing 'outside the universe'. It is from this point of view can we draw all these 'infinite time dillation' , 'event horizons' and such. There is absolutely no theory to describe what another observer might be seeing, much less one in which there is actually no event horizon at all. In effect, relativist is switching back and forth between the 'space time' as described by Scwarzschild and another hiding one fabrication in his head in which there are no event horizons etc! To justify existence of black holes, we must see space as described by schwarzschild, which forbids anything from crossing the event horizon. But to justify that things can cross the horizon, he verbally uses another theory, not described by any equation, that talks of a scenario wherein there is no black holes at all! It was the former theory that talked of black holes in the first place! It is clear that this other theory of what different 'observers' sees is never included in the original theory, which is just the Schwarzschild Metric. This is very bad! A theory must include everything in the theory! It must never leave other seemingly plausible claims to be released only during the time of debates. That is like a shell gamer hiding illegal cards behind the sleeves!

When debating on 'Artificial Intelligence', sometimes you are told that 'everything in the universe is conscious', therefore a computer must be conscious too! You are even told that a computer can be possessed by spirits. This is then taken to mean that fears of terminator-like 'rise of the machines' to take over the world should be taken seriously! So it is no longer 'artificial intelligence' at all. No, it is not technology any more. It is now a full blown incarnate evil spirits, a 'works of the devil' that 'no human can understand'!

This happens when you insist that a computer is actually nothing but a clockwork device no different from a series of gears and gogs. In this way, the idea that a computer can be 'intelligent' is misguided. So the advocate of the devil now switches gears and talk of spirits that can be incarnate in machines, or that machines being inherently consciou is plausible. But can the 'panpsychic' idea that 'everything is conscious' means that a computer can truely become 'intelligent' like a human being? I don't think so! First, everything is not conscious. I don't think that is the proper stand of panpsychicsm. If everything was conscious, there is realy no need for the evil spirits to waite for a human being to create a sophisticated computer. They can possess TV sets, vehicles, chairs stones etc. Those spirit would simply incarnate in your car and voila, it now becomes 'artificial intelligence' driving you to wherever it chose!

In panpsychicsm, we say that 'everything is proto-conscious', not 'everything is conscious'. Proto-consciousness is, in some way, like 'potential energy'. So it is a suggestion that consciousness is fundamental in nature even though no everything at every time is manifestly conscious. Movement is fundamental in the sense that it doesn't arise from a combination of things that each of them is not itself movement. But, as you can see, this does not mean that everything is in a state of motion. An object can still stand still, even if movement is fundamental properties of objects. It is in this sense of 'stopping from moving' that things such as stones, tables etc are not conscious. They are sort of 'sleeping', and even a conscious human can cease being so in a deep sleep. So it is not true to say 'everything is conscious', but consciousness is a fundamental property of all things, nevertheless.

A computer cannot be conscious because it is designed purposefully to mimic human activities without being conscious. Pascal's adding machine is designed to add numbers unconsciously in that non of the individual activities by the gears etc act with intend to summing numbers. They are just being moved by adjacent gears, and ultimately by humans, in a totally blind way. We don't need any incarnation of 'spirit' to explain how addition of numbers comes about. The process can be perfectly understood by a human, and it is very easy to do that. The fact that both the addition machine and the brain arrives at the same end: adding numbers, doesn't mean that they work the same way.

But a computer works exactly like a Pascal's adding machine! Inspect each and every component as it works, and you find it doing simple task that are, not different from 'movement of gears'. One transistor drives an adjacent transistor just like gears drives adjacent gears. The whole thing is totally blind! Complexity is not 'magics'. If each and every activity is blind, then a 'complex' combination of such activities results in nothing but a complex, blind machine. Anything else other than this is sorcery! Perhaps a spirit could incarnate somewhere in a transistor, but a computer is made purposefully not to work on such. This is because the aim was to create a machine that can be used and controled by a human being. Incarnation of 'spirits' would merely bring uncertainties to how the computer works and it becomes unreliable. It was for this reason that we wanted a computer to do the task, rather than a human doing it. The 'spirit' in human brings about what will be 'errors' from the point of view of those who want to employ the 'computer'. If you don't understand the spirit workings in the brain, which I suppose this is the case for scientists etc, then they will only seem like errors to you, and you will want a machine that 'doesn't have such errors', and a computer is precisely such a machine.

On the other hand, the brain works in a totally different way from a computer. A brain is not an 'ensemble of blind events' that each can be understood by a human being. Each component forming the brain, down to molecular level works in a 'chaotic' manner as influenced by the surrounding environment in a totally unpredictable way. If we were seeking a theory of 'soul interaction with matter', then we will not want one that results in absurdities such as 'why the soul does not incarnate in a stone etc'. A theory that allows a soul to incarnate in a computer is precisely such a theory. But if we suppose that the soul takes the advantage of microscopic wigglings, then we can readily explain why it incarnates in thr brain but not in a stone. This is because the brain has various means for amplifying and cohering those microscopic wigglings. On the other hand, the man made computer has none and does not tolerate any 'wigglings' that those tidy brains in tech doesn't understand, as they only brings about 'errors'.

When General Relativity (GR) is mentioned, what comes to mind is the picture of a ball sitting on an 'hammock' and 'weighing it down'. It is said that a massive object warps space time in the vicinity of a massive body. Notice that we are not told that the body warps the space time only at the region the object is sitting on. On the contrary, how the space time curves at where the moon is is supposed to be affected by the earth. So you expect that the equations of GR should relate the curvature of space time to the distant object at distance r, just like Newton's law of gravity relates force to the distant mass. However, you are totally mistaken! GR is a miserable theory that fails even to relate effect to its alleged cause!

Newton's law of gravity can verbally be stated as that a massive object attracts another massive object at a distance with a force that diminishes with the distance. This 'verbal' statement agrees perfectly with its mathematical statement. So Newton used the mathematics only to state the quantities therein in a more precise way. GR on the other hand uses arcane mathematics to effectively 'swap the hat and pull out the rabbit', a shell game very prevalent in modern theoretical physics! The notion than in physics, we talk verbally and then spit out some equation allows the theoreticians to get away with explaining a single phenomenon using two different or even contradictory theories while insisting that 'it is one throry'! The words speaks one thing, the equations speaks another thing!

In Newton's law of gravity, it is quite straight foward and the equation goes:

F=GmM/r^2

F=force
G=gravitational constant
m=the smaller mass
M=the bigger mass
r=distance between m and M

So the statement is very clear; an object of mass m, at distance r away from another object of mass M experiences a force of F that tries to pull it towards the object of mass M. So the verbal statement that 'it is the object of mass M that pulls the other object of mass m over distance is just restated by the equation albeit giving us the exact way the quantities are related. I say that 'the equation does relates the cause (object of mass M), to its alleged effect (the force F on the object of mass m).' The Newton's law does fulfils the very first task that a physics theory should be expected to fulfil. We just cannot have a verbal statement that 'the force F is caused by object M', while the equation is talking something else.

Now lets come back to GR. They say that the massive object, (eg the sun), causes the space time to curve in the vicinity of the massive object. So we expect the equation of GR to tell us something like 'given an object of mass M the spacetime is curved by such amount at distance r from the object'. So if you were to just take a glance at the GR equation, you should expect to see 'r' and 'M' somewhere etc. However, you don't see anything like that! At the left, we have a differential equation and at the right, we have energy density. Actually, you will find that the GR equation tells us that 'the energy density at point P, curves the spacetime at the same point, P, by such and such amount'. It tells us nothing about how the energy density curves the spacetime at any other place! However, this 'energy (or mass) curves spacetime at some distance away' is all that they verbally state as what GR says! This is why you are shown an object 'weighing down the hammock', ie an object curving the 'hammock' even at the region away from where the object is sitting on. Then of course they insist that it is the mathematical statement that 'accurately' presents the GR theory!

Now to be sure you get it very well, there is a way of stating Newton's law of gravity in terms of how a massive object causes 'acceleration' right at the region where the object is sitting in, and apparently, it tells us nothing about how it affects acceleration anywhere! This is called 'poison's equation'. So we might say that the GR equation, i.e. the Einstein's Field Equation' (EFE), is an analogy of poison's equation. But there is a trick that Einstein overlooked. The poison's equation (PE) comes from the following statement: 'the total (gravitational) flux crossing any closed surface is proportional to the mass enclosed by that surface'. This is called 'Gauss's Law', and is one way of stating the Newton's law. PE states that the 'convergence' of flux to a point is proportional to the (infinitesimal) mass density sitting at that point. So in this way of relating a quantity to a mass in situ, PE is analogous to EFE. However, how flux converges to a point is of course related to how it crosses some surface enclosing that point as they head to the point of convergence. It is clear that the flux will not converge to an 'empty space' but it will just past through that point. So equating the convergence to zero says something CORRECT about the behaviour of the flux at that 'empty' point, that the flux is not converging there, but it fails to tell us something else that is crucial: there is still a flux that is on its way to converging somewhere else. This is stated by the Gauss's Law. EFE fails to tell us this because it is only an analogy of PE but GR doesn't give us a corresponding analogy of Gauss's Law.

So in completing the analogy, it is not enough for GR to tell us that the Ricci curvature in an 'empty' area is zero. It must also tells us that in general, there is another 'non-Ricci' curvature that is related to a distant mass. This is how PE works; with us having Gauss's Law at the back of the mind. By relating the 'no-Ricci curvature' that exists even in an 'empty space' to a distant mass, GR would have indeed related the effect to its alleged cause. But GR just stops at saying Rυν=0, and proceeds as though this tells us all there is to say about an 'empty space'! In effect, they give us an equation for 'empty space' that is indistinguishable from an equation that would describe a completely empty universe!

By simply saying that a point in space time is 'Ricci-flat', we will not be describing a specific empty location away from a given mass, e.g. some distance away from the sun, contrary to how GR will mis-apply the Ricci=0 equation. On the contrary, it describes every 'empty space', from an 'empty' place that is light years away from any matter to a completely empty universe! Consequently, the equation just tells us nothing but how something can wiggle or not without being Ricci curved. This is like telling us how something can curve along only one direction without curving along any other direction, e.g. how a cylinder curves as opposed to how a ball does so. So there are infact infinite ways in which something can curve but remaining Ricci 'flat'. All a GR advocate have to do is simply pick one of the infinite curvings allowed by the simple Ricci 'flatness' constraint that agrees with experiments at a given region and then claim that the Rυν=0 is in fact describing that specific region! It is an hilarious fat lie!

Modern Scientist is trapped in a dilemma. While he wants to leave aside 'the subjective' or even deny its reality altogether, he also wants to create a notion that his 'science' basket actually includes everything 'real'. So whenever he talks of 'this is not science', he can manage to fool a good number of people into thinking that a scientist thinks that there is another valid kind of knowledge that only is 'not science'. In reality, he doesn't think so! He could have just gone ahead and deny the claim as 'not true' or simply say that he doesn't know if it is true. The 'new ager' on the other hand failed to 'read between the lines' to notice the indirect swipe against his claim when they are dragged into 'this is not science' folder. He ends up boasting about the kind of things that they were actually created to ridicule them! Non illustrates such mistakeness of both the 'scientist' and the 'new ager' than consciousness. While it is subjective and as such should be 'not science' in their narrow definition of 'science', no one can deny its reality. To avoid any legitimacy in 'this is a valid, non-scientific knowledge' rhetoric the modern scientists ended up accepting to take the bitter pill and hammerd 'consciousness studies' to accommodate 'science'!

By definition, or by the nature of consciousness, you cannot see something else getting conscious. You can only experience your own consciousness. So if we are going to study consciousness using the scientific method, we are going to encounter a problem. In order to verify that a given event is the one that generates consciousness, we must see the event generating the consciousness, which is impossible as consciousness is a state that is experienced only by being the thing that has it! This means that any hypothesis claiming that a given activity generates consciousness will not be scientifically verified. What are we going to study as 'consciousness'?

Perhaps the best thing we might do is only to rely on the testimony of the persons under study. As part of such 'testimony', one can also study one's own consciousness and then assumes that such is how everyone experiences it. So in theorizing the cause of consciousness, we might begin by noting the kind of substances that turns off consciousness, e.g. those used to induce 'deep sleep' by doctors. The 'consciousness' here will be what we get by the testimony, and we must tend tovignore things that we might observe from without! The study of consciousness must be a unique study in that we must not, as usual, tend to ignore testimonies as 'subjective'. In consciousness study, the 'subjective' is precisely the thing we are trying to study.

The new age's idea that 'going within' is a way of obtaining knowledge that might potentially be in conflict with knowledge from 'without' is also problematic! With this, we will arrive at a conclusion that is, perhaps, daunting at first: If there is a soul, then it is discoverable also via the scientific method! So the new age's idea that such an entity is discoverable only by 'going within' is problematic. New agers should just stop at offering the 'going within' as another alternative or as a way of learning some aspect of 'the soul' and not as a sole way of ascertaining soul's existence.

If you experience something 'within you', then it might at first seems that you are experiencing something that is totally out of reach of scientific method. This is because in science, we tend to study the objective world. However, since the whatever you experienced does affect your behaviour, a scientist can, in principle, observe that your behaviour is being affected by things that he cannot account for, by only considering 'the objective'. So the scientist will thus ascertain the existence of the 'things that can only be observed within'! So even if the soul is what causes consciousness, there can be no signal that somehow allows you to experience a consciousness but which, itself, cannot be 'observed' from without! You cannot, for instance 'see a giraffe' which cannot, in some way, be 'seen' by carefully examining your brain, even if such a 'giraffe' is in 'astral world' experienced by your soul! This is because your brain, when it offers the testimony, will be seen to be influenced by 'unseen forces' as it attempts to relay the testimony into the seen world! Scientists must see how information is being added to your brain from 'thin air' as it creates a potential for you to 'offer the testimony' or even 'influence your behaviour'.

This realization leads to the understanding that the only way you can experience a world 'within' that cannot be studied scientifically is if or when your soul has discarnated from the body. In such a state, you will try to consciously move your body but finds that you can't. This will be a scenario closely similar to the paralysis you experience when you are dreaming. You try to run but you find that your legs seems tied in some way! Then in case the soul again incarnates to the body, the scientists will immediately notice some changes to your body. Your soul now have ability to move your body, and feed some information to your brain.So the scientist must be able to see what appears like a 'fifth force' that is now at work in the body. Then in such a state, you are now capable of talking to the people in the visible world, give them testimony and even pretend that you are privy to an entirely out world dubbed 'the fifth dimension'!

I have been questioning if physicist are correct in claiming that there are tones and tones of energy packed into hydrogen and that this can be released by fussing their nuclei together. I know some might wonder: do you want to tell me then that these physicists don't understand the nuclear physics? Well, if you close examine, you find that that is true! Physicists have no clue about nuclear physics! The problem is that in quantum physics, they offer 'no-answer-answers' to questions. In fact there is a tight room of questions you are allowed to ask!

Let me show you one of the reasons I doubt fusion energy. Remember they explain that this huge energy is actually the 'binding energy' of the so called 'strong nuclear force'. What this one mean is that the force that fuse nucleons together is so strong that it actually bangs nucleons together releasing gamma rays the same way hitting together two objects releases sound waves.

Now neutrons too experiences the strong nuclear force. So there is no reason why fusing a neutron with a proton cannot release this huge energy. Since neutrons don't experience the repulsive electrostatic force, it seems reasonable to try bombarding prorons to neutrons, rather than trying to force protons to protons.

Note that the neutron that is fused to proton will decay forming an helium nuclear. Again this confirms what I said because it is helium nuclear that they 'weigh' and then conclude that some 'mass' gets converted into energy in the formation process!

But do you beleive that fusing protons to neutrons can realy release the huge, fusion energy? They do say that in nucleosynthesis, proton first fuse with a neutron. Then another neutron fuses with the pair to form tritium. Finaly, a proton fuses with the tritium to form helium. But then , why can't a neutron fuse with tritium, and the decay into a proton, forming the helium? Why must tritium fuse with protons, the fleat that requires the unimaginable temperatures?

Now they admit that indeed fusing a neutron to a proton should, according to their theory, yield a lot of fusion energy! With this, you will expect that bombarding hydrogen with neutrons should easily form deuterium plus the fusion energy we wanted! But we are told that it rather kicks out protons like hell!

Now think about this very carefully. Neutrons are neutral, while alpha particles (helium nuclears) are positively charged. However, if you bombard beryllium with alpha particles, the helium fuses with beryllium to form carbon. So here, a charged particle fuses with a similarity charged nuclear, but a neutral particle kicks the nuclear away from itself!

So here we think of neutron as a 'billiard ball' kicking away a proton. However, earlier on, we were told not to think this way in the subatomic world! This was when we were asked to consider bombarding gold film with the same alpha particles. They reason that atoms must have a tiny, positively charged nuclear that 'knocks back' the alpha particles (Rutherford's experiment). So here, it is supposedly true that 'only positively charged particles' can knock other similarly charged particles. In other words, we are not allowed to think of subatomic collisions to be the same as the macroscopic world collisions whereby even electrically neutral objects can knock other neutral objects. Indeed if we think this way, we immediately see that Rutherford's inference is invalid! The alpha particles could have been 'knocked back' by a neutral particle. From Rutherford's experiment alone, we absolutely have no way of concluding that there are even charged particles in the gold!

So for Rutherford's conclusion to be correct, it must be true that neutral particles must never knock neither charged particles nor other neutral particles! However, we are told that neutrons do in fact knock protons off hydrogen at tremendous speeds! This is one of the cases where physicists uses a reasoning so well and then discard it when it doesn't serve them! They are not consistent!

It seems more reasonable to suppose that these 'neutrons' are, in fact, a kind of electromagnetic radiations, and so 'knocks off' protons in the same way light 'knocks off' the electrons. Presumably, the wiggling magnetism acts on the charges in som way. This brings us to the other daunting question as to why neutrons do not simply fuse. might it be because actually 'they are just photons'? We are told that neutrons experiences the strong nuclear force. Since such force should bang them together to release the huge energy, then fusing them should be very easy because they are neutral, so donnot repel.

We are also told that neutron decays into an electron and a proton. However, as usual, the quantum guys tells us that 'it is a fundamental particle'. He forbids us from thinking that a neutron is just a proton that has 'eaten' an electron. This is how they reasoned when they concluded that an atom is, in fact, made up of many subatomic particles. It is not that anyone can somehow zoom and see the atom. They soundly reason that there is no way an atom can spit out electrons and protons if we cannot think of an atom as a combination of these two particles. However, they discard this sound reasoning once it no longer serves them! They now tell us that even so called 'fundamental particles' can 'decay' into other particles!

The neutron case is really daunting because though a neutron can decay into a proton and an electron, the reverse cannot happen! How? It seems that what should be happening is the vice versa. Since proton attracts an electron, protons should easily swallow electrons and form neutrons. This would facilitate a very simple way of creating nuclear fusion to produce the supposed, immense energy. First bombard protons with electrons, then fuse them together. The neutral combination of electrons and protons would not experience the strong electrostatic force that requires high temperature to overcome. The fusion would occur at very low temperatures: cold fusion.

So lets summarize all the absurdities we have seen, and see what they sum up to:

1.)Charged alpha particles can fuse with similarly charged protons in the nucleas when they are simply bombarded to it, but the neutral neutrons ejects the protons at tremendous velocities!
2.)It is easier for tritium nuclear, which has one proton and two neutrons, to fuse with another proton to form helium, yet it doesn't fuse with a neutron and yet the latter experiences no repulsive force!
3.)'fundamental particles' such as electrons, neutrinos etc can 'decay' into other 'fundamental particles' that they are not made of!
4.)When an alpha particle bounces off a gold film, then we must conclude that 'there is a positively charged nuclear' that repelled it back, and yet neutral neutrons can knock protons away and alpha particles can fuse with nuclears!
5.)Neutrons can kick out electrons as the decay into protons and yet protons, which attracts electrons, cannot absorb the electrons to reform the neutron!

In quantum mechanics, you are never expected to think rationally and try to understand phenomena. Therefore no rational explanations are ever offered! What goes on is simply 'magics'! How do particle tell photon from gluon, quarks, neutrons? What does it 'vibrates' to create those quantum waves? No answers are given! We are just told 'it is so in quantum mechanics..'

It seems that there is a straight foward solution to the conflict in Ukraine. Since all the parties involved claim that they adhere to democracy, they should simply negotiate and agree on how to oversee a referendum in the disputed regions. Let neither Russia nor NATO 'win' or 'lose' , but let the people of Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donesk and Luhansk win this war. There will be no one humiliated at all!

However, there is a problem in the so called 'international laws' that needs to be fixed. There is a wise saying that goes: If you make peacefull way of change impossible, you only make a violent way inevitable. The peacefull ways are supposed to be engraved in the so calles 'laws' or 'rights'. All 'laws' should allow for a peacefull means for change. But international laws were largely made for short term expendiency, often by the world powers at then. They donnot always have moral or ethical foundations.

The 'international laws' failed to provide a clear and peaceful way of changing international borders. If you gloss through history, one of the most obvious facts you notice is that international boundaries are dynamic. The makers of 'international laws' should have had this fact in their fingure tips. However, they seemed to have 'buried the head in the sand' and assumed that the contemporary borders were now perfect, and so there wasn't any more legitimate reason to change the borders. But change is a part of nature. If you donnot allow a smooth change, you must only get prepared for a rough change! Countries that donnot allow for a peaceful change in their leadership (e.g. through the ballot) will only, at some point, experience a violent change!

According to the current so called international laws, it is both legal and illegal to try to change borders all at once! So it depends on the whims of whoever has the weapons! To be more precise, the question of 'unilateral secession' is very ambiguous. Literally, it is both right and wrong to unilaterally declare your independence! This is how the countries that championed the unilateral secession of Kosovo now condemns the unilateral secession of Donetsk etc, without too much shame! Asked why? they might tell you 'it is both right and is also wrong to unilaterally secede'! So what is 'right' or 'wrong' might as well end up depending on what the global powers want, and not what moraly 'right'/'wrong'! As usual in such 'both ways', they allow one to condemn others for doing the same things that they themselves are doing! Properly written 'laws' should not 'kick the ball back' to the subjects of those laws.

Here, then, let me try to clearly define when unilateral secession should and when it should not be done. My definition will be based on what is 'moraly right'. If you 'drive' unilateral seccession, you will find that it reaches an absurd end! So clearly, there should be some limit to unilateral sucession. If every ethnic group have a right to unilaterally secede, then why stop there? It seems that every 'tribe' has a right to similarly secede, then every clan have this right, then every family, and finally, every individual! The governments will fragment up until every individual lives in his own country! The reason humans created cheifdoms, kingdoms, empires, countries etc was precisely to avoid such. There was no way everybody as an individual could be sovereign! It would be nearly impossible to build roads, protect rivers etc, or even enforce the 'moral laws' which would now absurdly be 'the international laws'!

So a daunting question arises: when is it moraly legitimate for a larger group of people to coarse a smaller group so that both groups form a sovereign entity? At some point, this must happen, if we should ever form countries at all! How do we, in a moraly legitimate way, unambiguously define where one 'country' should end and where another should begine? If we can answer this question well, then we might as well for ever do away with all wars! It seems that the best way to do it is to use landmark geographic features. Fortunately, God gave people natural boundaries but unfortunately, they ignored them and formed artificial ones! If there were no natural landmark features, it is hard to understand how the world ended up being divided into different cultures, languages and ethnicities. There must have been features that led people live in 'enclaves' forming unique cultures, languages and ethnicities. So we might say that provided that there is a well defined, natural 'enclave', the people in that enclave have a collective right to assert some sovereignty. That is to say the majority in that 'enclave' can coerce the minority and prevent them from forming a unilateral succession.

To justify more on this criteria, let us see how we define 'individual' for the purposes of defining 'rights of individuals'. We breath the same air, walk on the same planet, drink the same water, received the same sunlight etc. What we do affect other people. When we talk, other people hear what we are saying, when we shine light, it falls on other people etc. So when seen from some angle, there is no clear cut boundaries that define 'individuals'. However, we could not accept any man made definition of 'individuals'. We used a clear natural boundary to define 'us' to be different from 'other people'. This is where our visible bodies end. So we used a physical feature. So it is equaly moral to use geographic physical features to define countries.

From this, we can now see that there is not always a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to the morality of the question of whether or not one country has a 'right' to invade another country, or whether or not one group has a right to unilaterally secede. Instead we must carefully close examine first whether there is legitimate or natural reasons why the boundaries were drawn the way they were drawn.The concocters of 'international laws' seemed to have been bogged down on this, and so they left the question of unilateral secession blurred. Apparently, they never wanted to use natural boundaries because the makers of the 'laws' as the very same powers that artificially drew many of the boundaries, intended to violate such natural boundaries! So they opted to say that 'if a group of people were oppressed, then they can unilaterally secede'! This is foolish because if you ask Israelis whether they are oppressing the Palestinians, they will, of course, deny it! Same is the case with Israel's allies! Ask Americans whether or not Kosovo were 'oppressed' and they say they were oppressed! But Serbians, Russians etc if course deny it! Ask Russians if the people of Donetsk were 'oppressed' and they say yes, but Americans of course deny it! So whose opinions do we go per? But ask even a cow whether or not there is a distinct physical feature separating Afghanistan from U.S., and he will, of course, agree that there is such! So in our criteria, we can, consistently condemned U.S.'s actions in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan, but we cannot as easily condemn Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Let us now apply this to judge the current Russo-Ukraine conflict. You can see that we cannot easily question the moral legitimacy of Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine, basing it merely on the current international boundaries because we cannot easily tell the moral legitimacy of the current boundaries in the first place! Legal legitimacy or international recognition does not automatically mean 'moral' or 'ethical' legitimacy! Before second world wars etc, the international boundaries were different. So who says which boundaries are 'legitimate'? From history, we can see that the secession of Ukraine from Soviet Union was a multilateral persuit. Ukraine never unilaterally declared independence from Soviet Union. Instead, Russia was involved in the decision. Infact the very formation of Ukraine as a state involved Russia. If it did not involve Russia, then that would have been a 'unilateral secession' and we have seen that such secessions are not necessarily legitimate!

Now the 'international laws' agree that unilaterally secession is not necessarily legitimate. But now I ask why? Why must we involve England in the question of secession of Scotland? For whatever reason, we can reason that England must, in some way consider its own interests when agreeing that Scotland should secede, or at least that is what the international law allows it to do. But then what if, after secession, England realizes that the reasons that led it allow Scottland to secede were problematic? Does England have a right to unilaterally withdraw from the secession? I tend to see that England will still have some moral legitimacy, for otherwise, the provision that England must be involved in the question of Scottish secession will lack moral legitimacy! The moral reason why England must be involved in the question of secession of Scottland is that we care about the national interests of England. So if we truely care for these interests, it is only moral to keep caring about them even after Scotland secede. Therefore if the secession turns out to harm English interests, it will only be moral to seek some reversal!

So we can see that a very rigid sticking to 'present' boundaries, even if the two countries experienced a relatively recent secession are just nothing but dry legalistic rules that lacks ethical or moral foundations! Instead, the question of sovereignty should be applied in a more flexible manner and is different as applied to different countries. Countries which were unified only recently should be treated differently from countries that share no recent history. Same applies to countries that share borders and those that don't. There can be some moral legitimacy for one country to invade another if they share borders. But the more the countries are far apart, the less legitimate is an attempt for one to invade the other.

Interstellar travel is practically impossible without a way of moving several times faster than light. As believed in presently, theoretical physics forbids such a travel. This is a major reason scientists dismisses claims that 'we are being visited by aliens' almost without any need to investigate them! The theoretical physicists have brainwashed their initiates so much that they think that instantaneous communication over a distance is 'absurd'. This is what they call it 'spooky action at a distance'. However, as I will show you, it is far easier to understand things if we think that things in the univers communicate with each other instantaneously, without any time in between transmission and reception, regardless how far apart the things are!

Let me first illustrate an absurd case for the 'no signal can propagate faster than light' doctrine of theirs. Imagine a heavy object tied with a rope and so is hunging near the earth ground. But the rope used to hang the object is so long. It is tied to a peg in a planet in stars! Suppose you now suddenly cut the rope in the stars. The relativist tells us that the object still must remain hanging for at least four years! This looks like more 'magical' than the so called 'spooky action at a distance'! Obviously a case where all signals must propagate at lesser speed than that of light leads to its own sets of more daunting absurdities!

It is a no coincidence that we think that the object will fall to the ground instantly, upon the cutting of the rope, no matter how far the cutting is done. The tension of the rope is never propagated as a wave, along the rope. The tension enables the waves, and is part of what dictates the speed of the waves, but is, itself, not limited by the same speed it defines! Same reasoning can be applied to electromagnetic waves. Like I have explained in a previous blog post, electromagnetic waves is understood the same way as we understand 'mechanical' waves. Only think of charged particles as to have its own kind of 'inertia' caused by electromagnetism, plus an ensemble of them having  a kind of 'stiffness'. So one way of understanding how to break the so called 'light barrier' is to manipulate the parameters that defines the speed of light, in a way analogous to 'cutting the rope', hence 'manipulating the tension'. How this can be done is hinted to you from my detailed explanation of electromagnetic waves in a previous blog post.

It is not hard to understand a universe wherein things communicates instantaneously even over vast distances. For a perfectly rigid object, it is straight foward to understand. If you push one end of such rigid object, its furthest end moves instantly. So all the portions of the solid moves in a synchronized manner. But for an elastic medium, the idea that the motion of the furthest end is delayed seems to make sense at first, but when you close examine, you find that actually it doesn't! In an elastic object, different portions of it can move at different velocities, unlike in a rigid object where all the portions must move in a synchronized manner. If you push one of its end, the velocity of the portions at that end will be maximum, then it decreases for portions away from that edge. If we are to say that the furthest edge cannot instantly move together with pushed edge, then there must be a point along the object where the velocity of the portions of the object abruptly becomes zero! This is unreasonable! Where is this place exactly, and why?The reasonable scenario is where the velocity diminishes slowly with the maximum velocity being at the pushed and the furthest end having the minimum velocity. So the furthest end is move instantaneously with the pushed end, albeit at a lesser velocity.

Another case to consider is a long rope initially lieing flat on the floor. If you hold one end of the rope and raise it, Then every part of the rope must begine to rise instantaneously with the part you held. The only difference is that the parts further away will rise slowlier. If we were to say that the parts at the furtherst end must waite until the wave arrives, then as you move away from the held edge, there must be a point where the adjuscent but further parts of the rope suddenly refuses to move up together with the upward movement of the nearer portions. As far as we can see, and as far as is reasonable, this scenario never happen anywhere on the rope as this would create an 'escarpment' at that point in the rope, if not a breakage! Again, the most reasonable scenario is where the rope at the furthest end is moved instantly by the movements at the other end, albeit at a slower velocity. It is this way that the height of the rope will decrease smoothly the further you move away from the held edge. Otherwise than this the height would abruptly drope at some point for unjustifiable reasons.

This understanding shows that in wave propagation, what we call 'waves' are actually slower signals superimposed on other 'faster' ones. All waves have a component that wiggles like a standing wave does. Consider the following 'standing wave':

 As you can see, several of its portions moves in a synchronized manner, with the only difference being that the amplitudes vary from region to region. Think of all waves, including light, as to have a standing wave component amid the other slower wave. To understand it, think of the electromagnetic field to diminish steadily over distance from the source. So the light vibration has another vibration that looks like the vibration of the string in the manner in which the string swings back and forth the largest at the middle, but swings back and forth the least near the end where the string is tied. However the swinging is synchronized so that all the portions of the string communicates with each other instantaneously. In this way, everything you do instantaneously affects everything else in the universe, no matter how far it is. It is only that the effect is SMALL over vast distances, and it is never the case that the effect DELAYS.What delays is a much larger version of the effect.

How Jehovah Witnesses (JW) emphasize on the 'garden of eden' story of genesis seems to make sense at first. It seems to make sense that originally, God intended people to never get sick, never toil and to never die. He intended them to leave forever in green environment, eating fruits, petting animals, singing, dancing etc. So from the very start we have a propensity to buy into a 'why narrative' that explains to us why all these 'bad things' happens to us. At first, we tend to think that only 'good things' should happen to us, and so there is no need to explain why we are happy, healthy etc. It is just like when we think that everything should fall 'down' whenever nothing is beneath them, we see no need to explain gravity.

Jehovah witnesses takes this opportunity to drive firm the Christian's 'original sin' idea. So all was well until suddenly, human disobeyed God. If God originally intended people to leave forever in an earthly paradise, it makes sense that he will try his best to implement his original plan. Therefore the idea of a future, earthly paradise makes sense in this way.

This seems a very cool plan. But wait a minute,...does the story really make any sense? There are 3 problems I like to point out in this 'earthly paradise' story.

1.)Though yes, we see no reason why we should suffer and eventually die, neither do we see any reason we should be always happy in a never-ending life on earth. Why do I get sick? Why do I enjoy music? Why do I feel pain? Why do I enjoy honey?...bla bla bla,...we see that there is nothing that distinguishes between 'positive' and 'negative' things as far as 'there being a reason' it should happen to us is concerned. Yet we just ask 'why do we get sick'?, 'why do we feel pain'? etc, as if it were obvious that we should always be experiencing the otherwise 'good' things.

If there is no better one of the two questions: 'why do we suffer' and 'why do we enjoy life', there is absolutely no room for a supposed 'better' answer such as 'it all happened because Adam and Eve disobeyed God'. Once we see no need to single out those questions pertaining to why negative things happens to us, we no longer see any reason for such answers as offered by JW etc! No, it is not true that death seems 'out of place', like something that came accidentally. Right from the start, we see living things being born and dieing. Dieing is as normal as getting born!

2.)How can it be said that every human being, every animal etc, all the billions of them (including dynausers, kangaroos etc) all got punished because of a 'sin' of just two people? Is this just? Why isn't everyone given an equal opportunity to 'choose' to or not to eat from a 'tree of life' in a paradise? Shouldn't everyone be born innocent in a paradise where they stay so until they make a personal choice to 'eat from the tree'? Why don't we inherit good things from our ancestors? If you tell a JW that you are righteous because you are a descendant of Noah, who was righteous, he will laugh at you! It is in inheriting good things that he comes to terms with realizing that 'inheriting righteousness' is unjust. Yet he quickly forgets this and next minute he tells you that were it not for that original sin, we would all be living in an earthly paradise, again as if we inherit righteousness of ancestors!

This story seems to be just any other 'why narrative' like those told all around the world. It is just a Jewish version! We are told a story of why tortoises have rough shells. It is as if it were obvious that tortoises should come with smooth shells at the beginning. Who said so? Then one day, the tortoise borrowed feathers from birds. Then he attached them to his legs and voila, he flew! But then he kept flying until he got close to the sun. Then the glue came off, and the feathers fell off. Then the poor tortoise came down falling. Then he hid inside his shell and luckily he hit the rock on the shell and the shell cracked. From then onwards, the shell of the tortoise got rough!

A point worth noting pertaining to what is implied is the way the latter tortoises somehow inherits this rough shell, becoming the perpetual victims of the errors of their ancestor!

3.)If you have seen it, the JW's paradise includes young children, parents etc. There are only two options. Either the children will stay as children forever or they will grow up and too become adult. They don't seem to think that the latter will happen. So the only option is that these children grows up and they too have their children. It is just the usual, normal life but without death! So how can this be possible in this earth? Can people keep giving birth without dieing for ever and ever without filling the earth?

This point should also raise an alarm in the heads of JW. It shows the glaring problem with the assertion that humans were meant to live forever on earth. The population of earth will grow without bound, tending to infinity as the life tends to eternity! The only solution is to maintain that humans, and other living things were meant to die. It was neither an accident nor a punishment. It was part of the plan to ensure that the earth holds more life than it can do it all at once. The earth on its own cannot sustain an eternal life. Eternal life can only happen if such life is lived in endless planets throughout the universe, 'parallel universes', 'planes of realities' and other such things. These are not about sins, rewards, punishments or lessons. It is just the way things are.

When a mathematician says 'imaginary', he does not mean the same thing as when other people says it. To many of us, 'imaginary' means 'something in the head'. There is no difference, for instance, between a 'real' chair and an 'imaginary' one, in terms of how they can look. As we will see, it means different thing in maths. Unfortunately, physicists sometimes uses 'imaginary' in a confusing manner. They use the word to refer to the mathematical 'imaginary', but without emphasizing that it is the mathematical 'imaginary', and not 'imaginary' in the physics sense. An example of how they use 'imaginary' this way is when they say that 'time is along an imaginary axis in Minkowski spacetime'. Someone might easily think that the quality of fourth dimension being unobservable in 3d is what makes time 'imaginary' in this case. In reality, it is nothing of the sort!

The other thing I will show you is how physicists walk away with actually being illogical by invoking imaginary numbers as though they can be used in physical quantities. Does 'imaginary distance' have any meaning in physics, with 'imaginary' in the mathematical sense? Or I can ask: 'can physical quantities assume imaginary numbers'?

In a nut shell, 'imaginary number' is just a number multiplied by the square root of negative 1, written as 'i'.

A 'complex number' on the othet hand, is just a real number plus an imaginary number. So again 'complex' means different thing in mathematics. In the usual speech, a 'complex' thing has myriads of parts. But in math, 'complex number' is realy not a complex number in this way. It just has two parts: a+bi.

Complex numbers arises when solving quadratic equations. Here is how they are solved:

The solution for the quadratic equation is a complex number simply if the value under the squaroot is less than zero, ie is a negative number.

Now let us see how they ought to be interpreted in physics. We will consider an object thrown upwards, under gravity. The velocity,v, of such an object, reduces steadily until it reaches zero, then in 'turns negative', meaning it now moves downwards. So the height, h, of the object increases until its maximum, hmax, and then it begines to reduce. Also note that v is given by the rate of change in h with time, ie the 'derivative of h'. So h is the 'antiderivative of v', which is same as 'integration of v with respect to time'. The result is that h is a quadratic equation with t as the variable.

That is for accelerating g. For deceleration one, use -g. Now to get the maximum height, we use the value for 't' when v=0. This is because at the maximum height, the object stops. We will also solve the equation for t, or 'write t as the subject of the formular'. So we will use the earlier formular for the solution of a quadratic equation.

This is the solution for 't'. Now to check at what time the height is at its maximum:

 We are now ready to interpret complex numbers as applied in the real world. Note that at the maximun height, the value under the square root becomes zero. Any height above that, the value under the square root becomes anegative number! So complex number has a straight foward interpretation: There is no time when the value under the square root is negative! This is because at no time does the height of the ball exceeds u/2g. To pretend that time can have an imaginary value is to say that a stone goes higher than it actually does!! It is simply being illogical and contradicting the facts!!

Since that is the case, how comes physicists tells us that physical quantities can attain imaginary values? Here are 4 examples where physicists makes absolutely nonsensical claims by not paying attention to the contradiction that comes by thinking that complex numbers can describe real physical quantities:

1.) NEGATIVE ENERY

As seen in the kinetic energy formular: E=1/2mv^2, if E becomes negative, then v becomes a squareroot of a negative number. So when interpreted consistently, there can be no velocity that can give a 'negative energy'. So what happens at the conversion of the supposed 'negative energy' into kinetic energy?

2.)BLACK HOLES

Consider the formula for the 'gravitational time dillation':

As you can see, there is a point beyond which there is no time dilation! This is precisely at 2GR=c^2, which is the Schwarzchild Radius. What the equation tells us is that like a ston thrown upwards cannot reach more than heigh u/2g, no object can move further than the schwarzchild radius, or further than the event horizon! This means that blackholes cannot form, nor can anything enter the event horizon. The equation actually negates the reality of black holes! To say that 'black holes can form', and ignore the meaning of 'imaginary time dilation' is as logical as saying that a stone thrown slightly upwards can actually reach the moon just because one can express the 'time' for such an event as a complex number! What nonsense!!

3.WAVE FUNCTIONS

The solutions for quantum particles are all given in complex numbers! This means that the describe quantities can cannot be attained in nature! Should real things be described by real numbers?

4.TIME AS FOURTH DIMENSION

As we saw in previous blog post, Lorentz Transform can only be a 'rotation in a four d space time' if time is imaginary. So as we have seen, this means that we can only describe Lorentz transforms as 'rotations in a 4d spacetime' if there is no time when such things happen!! In other words, what we actually have is a REDUCTIO-AD ABSURDUM against the idea that 'we are living in a 4 d space time'! However, by foolishly failing to pay attention to the meaning of complex numbers, the physicists ended up turning it on its own head!!

The idea that time is a 'fourth dimension' automatically (and maybe naively) begets the idea of 'time travel'. This is because treating 'time' as though some other mysterious 'direction' in space makes someone think of free movements through 'time' just like we freely move 'through' space. In fact, if time is a fourth dimension, it becomes more difficult to understand why time travel does not happen than how it can happen, at least not, why time travel does not as easily happen as any other travel through space. Since theoretical physicists are the ones talking of 'time' as a 'fourth dimension', it is natural to wonder if this physics at least gives some platform for the possibility of 'time travel'. Here, I am going to show you that absolutely, this is not the case!

To understand this, begine by noting that the idea that time is a 'fourth dimension' was not observed in nature. In fact, they cannot even imagine how such a monster as 'four dimensional space time' can be! This should ring alarms as science should be about observations. But by the time of relativity and quantum mechanics, science had been redefined as 'what scientists do'! Observation was no longer a necessity. We 'discover' by looking at an equation, not by standing somewhere in nature and using your eyes! Such is how 'fourth dimension' was 'discovered'. Indeed such is the only way one can 'discover' something that he himself admit that he doesn't know nor even imagine where it is! Imagine if Farraday told you that he can't even imagine where the wires, magnets, dynamos, motors and transformers are. What would it become of 'discoveries' of electromagnetic induction etc? Have this one in mind as we close examine what 'fourth dimension' might say about 'time travel'.

One might (perhaps naively) think that by talking of 'time' as 'fourth dimension', physicists think that 'passage of time' is the literal motion along the 'fourth dimension'. So if you move into the fourth dimension 'faster than the things around you', then you will automatically move into their future. But in 'time travel', such 'motion to the future' makes something instantly disappear. So it is like there are endless layers of 'universes' each lagging behind another in history. But this cannot be what the physicists imply as can be seen when they try to use such 'motion into the future' to, instead, explain 'time dilation' and other relativistic transforms.

To explain lorentz transforms using the Minkowski Spacetime (where time is treated as a 'fourth dimension'), the space axis (x axis in a Cartesian Plane) is tilted into the 'fourth dimension', i.e. towards the 'time' axis. This means that the points along the x axis that are further away from the origin (the (0,0) point in the Cartesian Plane) are already 'into the future'! But then we can still see this locations at the 'present'! So the supposed 'time travel' that the Minkowsky Spacetime suggests in fact doesn't literally take anyone 'out of the present universe'. It is not a 'time travel' in any literal sense we understand 'time travel'. So 'traveling along a fourth dimension faster than the things around you' does not result in you 'time traveling' into the 'future'. It just means that your clock now tick faster than the surrounding clocks. It is just a 'time dilation'. A clock that has 'ticked faster than the others' does not, in relativity, goes to the future. It is still ' at the present moment', only indicating the 'present' as though it were 'the future'. Or in short, the 'time dilation' of relativity is SUBJECTIVE. It is the 'opinion of the clocks'. If one indicates Wednesday while the other is indicating Tuesday, then one 'is in the future of the other' in the sense of 'Minkowski Diagram', hence the need to depict 'time' as though the same thing as 'space', with the ability of one person 'rotating into it'. So 'fourth dimension' is actually pointless!! It is pure poetry! The two clocks that disagrees on whether it is Tuesday or it is Wednesday are both indicating THE SAME TIME. It is not that one of them is literally 'into the future' of the other. So we can take them to the museum, or throw them to the dustbin!

Even that being the case, taking Lorent's Transforms as 'rotations' in some four dimensional spacetime is still problematic, as I will next show. Like I hinted at the beginning, just gawking at an equation cannot tell us anything about what it might be describing in the real world. In this case, we specifically cannot infere that we are describing a 'four dimensional' scenario just because we are relating four parameters with Pythagoras-like relationships and things like 'angles' between them. If, for instance, you place one right angled triangle call it triangle A, on another such triangle, call it B, so that the base of A sits on the hypotenuse of B and A's base length is equal B's hypotenuse length then A's hypotenuse,d, will be given by d^2=a^2+b^2+c^2, where a is the base length of B, b is the base length of B and c is the height length of A. That is we have one hypotenuse, becoming the base of another triangle. Thus an equation cannot tell us how things are arranged or oriented in space, as A could be oriented at any angle relative to B. These are matters of observation of the world. Equations can only relate sizes of things, but never can they tell us what those things are or even remotely hint to us how they look like or how they are arranged in the real world.

In the case of Minkowski Space time, it is even worse because the equations still donnot make any geometrical sense even when we agree that lorentz transforms are indeed describing a four dimensional scenario. Relativists are miles away from reality! The equations look like those of 'geometry' merely in the manner of how symbols sits next to each other. It is a purely aesthetic similarity! The so called 'space-time' interval is supposed to be the 'hypotenuse' in the four dimensional 'space', but it is actually shorter than the base! It is given by

s^2=x^2+y^2+z^3-c^2t^2. So a 'minus' sign always sits to the left of 'ct' (or equivalently, . This is NOT a Pythagorean relationship! Infact if we were to force it into a Pythagorean Relationship, then the 'time' axis will be imaginary in the sense that we must always multiply it by a squaroot of negative 1!

But the 'space-time' interval, s, has many interpretations within a 3 dimensional space. If you shoot light to the roof of a moving train, say at distance x away from you, then the height of the train, h, will be given by: h^2=c^2t^2-x^2. So h can perfectly be interprated as the 'space-time' interval. Since the height of the train does not undergo any relativistic transformation, we understand why h is invariant in all frames of references. The Minkowski's 4 dimensional interpretation is obviously Ptolemaic with respect to this straight foward interpratation! Perharps Minkowski could not understand why the equations yielded an invariant spacetime. Perhaps he thought this was a very deep mystery. So he only thought of roating a rigid stick if a four dimensional space! Even with that, as we saw, it still cannot explain it at all because we have imaginary time axis which makes no sense in the real world!

We can deduce Lorent's Transforms this way: A right angled triangle is sitted so that its base lies horizontally and its height lies perpendicularly. Let PQR be its vertices. It is sitted so that P is at the left most part and R is at the top most part. So R lies directly above Q, PQ is its base lenght, QR, its height length and PR its hypothenuse length. So of the three angles of the triangle, PQR, the angle P will be at the opposite to the height QR. This will be the angle at vertex P. We now have PQ=PRcosP and QR=PRsinP. Suppose you now tilt the triangle upwards about vertex P by some angle B. So vertex P remains on the spot, but both vertex Q and R are taken upwards. Dropping a perpendicular from R to the horizontal plane nologer meets the plane at Q, but at a point nearer to P, call it Q'. It is now the length PQ that transforms to PQ' in a 'Lorentz Transform'.

Then PQ' will be given by:

 As you can see, to regard the Lorentz Transform as to be due to a literal tilting into the 'fourth dimension', we must replace a geometric distance, PR with'ict', rather than ct. The factor 'i' spoils the idea that time is a space-like 'forth dimension' one can somehow 'travel through'. In fact it makes the whole idea senseless! So Lorentz transform as a geometric rotation in a four dimensional scenario cannot make sense even to an alleged 4 dimensional creature. It is a total nonsense for a relativist to say that it is us being 3 d creatures that makes us difficult to understand such an idea. Rather, it is its inherent irrationality that makes it ununderstandable!

As I have suggested in some blog posts, we ,in sensible physics, never need to understand the equation v=ccosθ as to imply that c is the hypotenuse length of some right angled triangle, and v is its base length. The equation occurs in cases where geometry of triangles are not occuring at all. One such example is in sinusoidal waves, where c is the amplitude of the wave. It is even worse in longitudinal waves described by the same v=ccosθ. There is absolutely no geometric similarity with a right angled triangle. But they are described by the same equation!

If a force, F, acts on an object, but at an angle,θ from the horizontal, the component of that force that acts horizontally will be Fcosθ, and the component of that force that acts vertically will be Fsinθ .If the object is constrained to move only horizontally, then it is not unusual for the object to move at speed v=ccosθ, where c is its speed when the force acts directly on it, which is its maximum speed. This is because when there is friction, the force exerted on an object is proportional to the speed it will gain. The key point you should note is that we can think of an object moving at c at the angle θ, and to the horizontal and still describe the movement of its shadow as to be v=ccosθ. So we must be careful when interpreting such equations as the same equations can describe two totaly different physical things. It is this way that I explained the relativistic effects, like in this:

On the other hand, it is obvious that the 'geometric' interpretation of Lorentz's Transforms as though to be due to 'tiltings' in a four dimensional spacetime takes the shortening of objects due to 'length contraction' in the same way the shadows 'shortens' or 'lengthens' depend on the angle of sun shine! This is ridiculous because they haven't told us by what mechanisms we can be seeng the 'shadows' of objects tilted into the 'fourth dimension'. Same is the case for what the hell of a mechanism tilits the whole of space by mere motion of an object? Obviously, the 4 dimensional concoction was done by people not interested in gaining the actual insight as to what causes relativistic effects. They were merely interested in mathematical aesthetics!

As I will show you, quantum physicists uses the logical consequence of the definition of 'momentum', which they also deny it as 'product of classical intuition'! To be certain about the momentum of an object, one must be certain of at least two locations of the same object, and the time it took for the object to get from one of the locations to the other. This is a logical consequence of the meaning of 'speed' and hence 'momentum'. How can you be 'certain' about the speed of an object if you don't even know where it is in the first place!

It turns out that theoretical physicists, as in their usual usage of words, uses 'certain' (and thus 'uncertain') in a completely incongruous manner. The bible says 'faith is being sure of what we hope for and being CERTAIN of what we do not see.' (Hebrew 11:1). This is how theoretical physicist uses 'certain' (despite 'science' being depicted as 'anti-religion' and 'anti-faith'). They never saw any moving particle, but they were somehow 'certain' about its momentum! Indeed that is the only way one can be 'certain' about 'momentum' without being certain of location: if 'certain', like in the above Hebrews verse, means the same thing as 'faith'. So 'uncertainty' is just 'lack of enough faith', that is all!

In a nut shell, the theoretical physicist is actually talking about wavelengths, which he equates it completely with momentums, an equating which is actually theoretical. So no one observes 'momentum' in this case, so he may be 'certain' about it, and checks if he is 'uncertain' about the location. Rather, the momentum is INFERRED from observation of wavelength and by the application of deBroglie Hypothesis. By this, one can only get 'certain' about the 'momentum' by elevating an hypothesis into unquestionable truth, like in an act of faith! There would be no much problem with such, if they stuck there. Perhaps we can never be 'certain' about both a WAVELENGTH of a wave associated with a particle and the location of the particle. This is perfectly logical. The problem comes when the physicist now changes the hats and turns into an epistemologist or even a 'psychologist'. He now talks of this illogical 'being certain about momentum while being uncertain about the locations' as 'counter intuitive' (their usual wild card). They are preparing us to accept illogicalities as 'counterintuitives', so they may latter get away with fallacies in the name of 'counterintuitives'! We must accept this illogicality because, well 'experiments shows so', but as usual, they 'swap the hats' and 'pull out the rabbit' in the experiment. In this case, the 'momentum' is treated exactly as though it were LOGICALY tied with wavelengths, yet it is so only HYPOTHETICALLY!

The cornerstone of Uncertainty Principle, deBroglie Hypothesis, is problematic because though momentum is a vector quantity, wavelength is not, as best expressed by the meaninglessness of 'negative of wavelength'. To elucidate more, first note that when we say that 'momentum is a vector', we mean that we can decompose it into 3 components, each for the 3 directions in 3d space that are all mutually perpendicular to each other. So, for instance a particle moving at some angle along an inclined plane can be seen (or be decomposed) as to be moving both upwards and horizontaly all at once, with a certain velocity towards up, and a certain velocity towards the horizon, depending on the angle of inclination. If the plane is so steep, then it is rapidly moving upwards, and moving slowly horizontally etc. But how can we talk of 'wavelengths' for the wave similarly moving in such an inclined plane? It seems we should use the basic fact about waves that relates their speed to the wavelength as: c=λf, where c=speed, λ=wavelength and f=frequency. This way the wavelength of a wave moving a long a steep inclined plane should be very short when the wave is seen to be moving horizontally (the horizontal component of the wave), and very large as seen to be moving vertically. This is all due to the fact that the formula; c=λf makes speed directly proportional to wavelength. So if the horizontal speed becomes smaller due to the steepiness of inclination, then the 'horizontal wavelength' should be correspondingly smaller etc.

But then in the deBroglie Hypothesis, the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum, in direct conflict with c=λf, we have mv=h/λ, where h=Plank's Constant. So if we are considering a particle moving on an inclined plane, with the horizontal component velocity given by say vx, and the vertical component given by say vy, we will have two 'wavelengths' that don't corresponds to anything real about the wave! The deBroglie Hypothesis plainly lie that 'in a wave propagating along a steep inclined plane, the 'horizontal wavelength' is larger than the 'vertical wavelength'. That is what the formular mv=h/λ indicates (by putting λ in the denominator), while the formular v=λf indicates the opposite reality that is actually observed (by putting λ in the numerator)! It is this lie that, as I will next show you, will force the physicist to dart back and forth from using 'wavelength' as synonym for 'momentum', and again using the traditional notion of momentum, which is actually in conflict with the Uncertainty Principle! As usual, the physicist keeps 'swapping the hats' and then 'pulling out the rabbit' and getting away with it while the unvigilant crowd is watching!

The case we will close examine is the attempt to use the Uncertainty Principle to explain the single slit experiment. You will see that the physicist obviously uses the ordinary notion of 'momentum'. He insinuates that once the particles enters through the slit, they disperse away from the slit as they move away from the slit. So the wave-like patern on the screen is accually caused by particles of different 'horizontal momentums' (the component of momentum that is directed ALONG the screen), getting distributed on the screen. So a particle comming off the slit has at least two momentums, or better, 'two components of the same momentum'. One momentum takes it directly away from the slit, and the other one takes it away in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the first momentum. So it is the momentums of the second types that leads to distribution of the particles on the screen. So I call this 'the horizontal momentum'. The physicist then relates the first momentum to deBroglie Hypothesis (p=h/λ), thereby insinuating (perhaps unwittingly) that this momentum is certain (they first deduced the 'uncertainty principle' by completely equating momentum with wavelength, as if 'certain momentum' means 'certain wavelength), but they, perhaps deliberately, failed to relate the horizontal momentum with the deBroglie Hypothesis!

So the physicist have actually painted for us an absurd scenario! This stems from an inconsistent usage of 'Uncertainty Principle' that tantamounts to 'swapping the hats'. Originally, we are told that the 'Uncertainty Principle' is actually due to the 'Uncertainty of wavelengths', and that when we are thus uncertain about wavelengths, then we are accordingly uncertain about momentums due to deBroglie Hypothesis. But here, for the purposes of the single slit experiment, we are going to be uncertain about the momentum of the single particle somehow surfing on the wave with a certain wavelength! We have a contradiction! As you should see, the physicist is actually using the 'UNCERTAINTY OF LOCATIONS' (not momentums), and then using the now normal classical commonsensical reasoning that 'if we are uncertain about locations, then we are automatically uncertain about momentums'. After all how can you realy be certain about the momentum of a particle if you have absolutely no clue where it is, in the first place? However, it is this silly notion of 'being certain about the momentum without being certain about location' that they want us to swallow it by shoving the 'counterintuitive' 'Uncertainty Principle' down our throats!

To drive home the idea that the Uncertainty Principle actually explains the single slit experiment, he now refer to the classical 'wave' explanation. In this explanation, we have a neat wave spreading away from the slit! By this the wavelengths actually draws concentric circles around the slit. So we dont have 'uncertain wavelengths' at all, and particularly, the 'horizontal wavelength' is as certainly as the 'vertical wavelength'. So this confirms that the physicists are using contradictory notions of 'momentum' to explain the single slit experiment. They use the 'wavelength' definition for the 'horizontal momentum' and then uses the classic definition for the 'vertical momentum'! In the 'vertical momentum' they now use the usual, commonsensical definition for speed: v= (x1-x0)/t, where x0 is the location of the particle on the slit and x1 is the location on the screen. This is jarring because to be certain about speed v, in this notion, we must be certain about the two locations (x0 and x1) of the particle, contradicting the Uncertainty Principle! The uncertainty of x1, while we are certain of x0 is the UNCERTAIN OF LOCATION not of momentum. We are uncertain about where a particle is on the screen, and the (x0-x1)/t 'speed' should be regarded as meaningless because, as they say 'the individial particles traces no trajectory from x0 to x1'. Using such (x1-x0)/t for 'momentum' in quantum mechanics actually brings in a 'momentum' whose uncertainty is proportional to the uncertainty of location (x1 location), contradicting the Uncertainty Principle. Indeed such (x0-x1)/t speed can even exceed the speed of light, wherein again the physicist 'swaps the hats' and tells us that in quantum world, 'speeds' are solely 'wavelengths'!

In the proper Uncertainty Principle, the 'momentum' that we are uncertain about is solely 'the wavelength'. If you pile waves of different wavelengths on each other, and then you are initially careful to make sure that their wave crests are all aligned at the 'origin' of the waves, you will note that their coherence rapidly reduces as you move away from the origin. The differing wavelengths ensures that the wave crests are not aligned elsewhere apart from at the origin. The further away the waves are from the origin, the more dis-aligned they get, and the more the cancel themselves rather than piling up. So they only pile up at thd origin. This scenario creats a wave packet around the origin. By this, we get 'more certain' about the location of the paricle, ie that it is more likely to be at the origin than at elsewhere. However, we also becomes more uncertain about its momentum as we are now using several wavelengths. But there is no such a scenario in the slit experiments. The supposed 'certainty' of the particles does not come from any pilling of waves at around the slit, nor do we have many 'horizontal wavelengths' at the screen. If this were the case, we would not have any interference pattern on the screen at all, as the piling of waves of differing wavelengths would lead to decoherence!

As if such murkings are not enough, the physicist goes ahead to use the 'horizontal momentum' that does not take the particle any farther away from the first fringe pattern! In other words the chose only those momentums that confirms the Uncertainty Principle, and blatantly rejects those others, as if to tell you the white lie that 'the interference pattern doesn't extend beyond the first fringe'! In the slit experiments, there are these fringes. We have alternation of 'bright regions' and 'dark regions'. To explain the single slit experiment using the uncertainty principle, you must only use the first 'bright region'. Thereby you get the 'momentum range', a range which should not exist since in principle, the interference pattern extends indefinitely!

There is another serious problem with the equating of momentum with wavelength and never being told of the actual momentum of the supposed 'point like' particle. According to quantum mechanics, when we observed the system, it 'collapses' into a 'point like' particle. We must be very careful at this juncture, with our metallic clubs ready so that we hammer the numb-skull if he now 'swaps the hats' and tells us that this 'collapse' is actually due to a sudden superposition of waves of myriads of wavelengths, that creates a shart 'wave-packet' at the region where the particle is found. This 'collaps' must actually be what the particle should look like. It becomes an entirely classic particle. a classic object is an ensemble of such 'collapsed' wavefunctions. Nevertheless, we can allow some degree of 'quantum decoherence' to explain some aspects of the classic world. So we might say that the decoherence creats the illusion of isolated objects from an underlying quantum soup. But there is another trick. It is not enough to explain the appearance of objects in the classic world.We must also explain why they move as they do, i.e. with a certain velocity. The certainty of location of an object via decoherence comes at the expense of creating the uncertainty in its momentum, by bringing in myriads of wavelengths. Se we cannot rely on 'decoherence' to explain the classic world. Somewhere, a 'collapse' must actually happen.

But how will we explain the 'collapse' of the momentum into a certain momentum? Since the 'collapse' of location produces a 'point-like' particle, we would espect the observation of momentum to similarly 'collapse' into 'a particle moving at a definite speed', contradicting the common interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle which tells us that 'there can be no trajectory of a quantum particle'. This interpretation comes from the error of completely equating wavelength with the momentum, rather than just RELATING them. We could have as well interpreted the Uncertainty Principle as just 'the inability to PREDICT both the momentum and the location', but not as 'the inability to OBSERVE both the position and the momentum of the particle'. When we can correctly predict where the particle will be found, it will appear there but it will appear moving in a speed that we could not predict. So we don't need to abandon the notion of a particle with a definite trajectory. We only need to abandon the claim of knowledge of such prio to observation.

But now in the usual equating of momentum with wavelength, we are never told at all why we see a moving particle rather than a wave. What quantum physicists have actually done is to deny that we can see both a particle of wavelength λ and a particle moving at v in a classical sense of motion. To them, the Uncertainty Principle means 'there is no trajectory'. once we see a particle at x0, there is no more wave. Thus they use a 'certainty' that comes about due to a 'collapse', to invoke a 'principle' that is actually the result of a 'certainty' that comes about due to 'superposition of myriads of waves', while also insisting that such a 'collapse' can also happen in a single wave! In other words we can suddenly become certain about the location of a particle of a certain single wavelength when we observe it. This contradicts the simplistic, common interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. This is not a surprise because actually there are two ways of becoming 'certain' about the location of a particle. One is if we make an observation and then there is a 'collapse'. The other one is if suddenly, there is a wide range of momentums leading to a sharp wavepacket. The Uncertainty Principle is only deduced from the latter case, and we realy have no need to apply it in the former case. Thus the Uncertainty Priciple should be compatible with a 'collapse' that brings about both a certain locations and a certain momentums. It is only that the location was uncertain prio to observation, but the momentum was certain, due to the certainty of the wavelength.

This ability to see both the classical momentum and the wavelength invalidates the Copenhagen Interpratation in favour of pilot wave interpretation. But it also ease the explanation as to why we see classical momentum in macroscopic objects, rather than only the wavelengths. The other notion that equates wavelength with momentum does not explain why we see objects moving around, rather than just wavelengths. What magic doe it happen where to turn 'wavelengths' into 'momentums'? This is the absurdity that we arive at if we follow the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'. But in the 'pilot wave', such a question don't arise since there are always both the waves and the particles. But in the latter interpretation, if we deny that there is the classic type momentum even in the quantum particle, were do this momentum comes from in the classic world? Quantum decoherence introduces uncertainty in momentum, not the certainty we see in the classic world. So it can't help us here!

The crucial difference between quantum mechanics and classic physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP). If the momentum of a particle is certain, then its location is accordingly uncertain, and the vice versa is true. For our purposes, the 'particles' in question will be the soccer ball, the players the referees, the coaches and the fans. The stadium, the field, the goal posts and the field markings will be the 'boundary conditions' necessary in solving the differential equations that describes the waves. So now lets place these guys, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Schrodinger etc on the field and lets watch what they will do!

The HUP says that if you are more certain about the ball's position, then you will be more uncertain about its momentum! When you are accurate about position, you miss the momentum! First understand well the 'direction' here. If you are standing directly away from the goal post, facing the goal, then the direction in question is along the goal, ie perpendicular to the direction you are facing. So the momentum in question is the one that take the ball along the goal, not across it, ie not towards the goal. So if you will try to get the right angle, in the hope of hitting the target, you will hit the ball with the wrong momentum, taking the ball to almost anywhere even all the way up to the corner of the field!

At any one time, the ball seems to be everywhere all at once! The ball seems to be at the goal, at the center, at the other goal and even amongst the fans! Same is the case with the players. A player seems to be running, sitting, getting subtiuted, getting injured, etc all at once! Playing Quantum football requires a competely different kind of skill! You can only increase the probability of being at a given region, but you can never be certain. Same is the case with your momentum, your energy etc. At any one time, you seem to be running at all the speeds and towards all directions!

Refereeing quantum football is also daunting! There is no way, for instance, of eliminating handball! At any one time, every player in the field seems to be handling the ball and commiting all the faults! So you can only define a certain probability that the players must not cross! We can only make the rule that 'you must not exceed a certain probability' that you will handle the ball. Same is the case with 'outside' or even 'goal'. At any one time, the ball is actually out of the field, with some probability. It is also at the goal! so the aim must not be to put the ball in the goal. Rather, it must be 'to increase the probability of the ball being in the goal to a certain threshold'. So it becomes 'goal' when one team reaches a certain threshold probability of finding the ball in the goal when observed!

This also brings another issue in quantum football! It must never be 'observed' by a classic player. This is because such an 'observation' will destroy its quantum nature. Nevertheless we can compromise a bit, adding some elements of classic world into this quantum soccer. The observeration can be done but only intermittently. So it is like observing the schrodinger cat briefly and then closing the box to recreate the quantum scenario. In this way, the game will be truely quantum. To 'observe the game', you will keep 'opening the box' and 'closing' it, and taking note of the positions of the players. You can now combine the pictures to create a classic movie. You will find that it is nothing like the classic soccer! The major difference being the unpredictability. But the team who will win will not be the one which put most balls into the goal, but the one which kept exeeding a certain threshold probability! With such a team, most of the time, the wave function 'collapses' to find the ball at the goal. So there will be a wave like distribution of balls. The winner will be determined by the 'density of balls' in the opponent's goal as compared with the similar 'density' in their own goal! So in quantum soccer, there will typically be myriads of goals, not just 2 or 3 like in the usual classic soccer.

Before Einstein developed Special Relativity, Hendrick Lorentz had developed the so called 'Lorentz Aether Theory' to explain the same thing. As far as physics is concerned, Einstein added (or in fact 'removed'), very little from Lorentz's theory. Einstein went ahead and generalized Lorentz's equations and it was called 'General relativity'. Then in a misleading way way, it is presented as if General Relativity exlusively Generalizes Einstein's theory, yet it is almost just mathematical! The equations fully satisfies Lorentz's Theory as well. Apparently, Lorentz's aether theory was never generalized by any of those prominent physicists. So here is a breif examination of such a theory. I will show you that it explains far better that the aetherless General Relativity!

Physicists can easily understand the so called 'relativistic effects' if they think that there is a medium that pervades everywhere (like the one they termed it 'Luminiferous Aether'). Since when we move through an apparent vacuum, we are actually moving through this medium, we can suppose that the relativistic effects comes about when the 'molecules of this medium' rushes past the object. Since unlike the 'vacuum', the medium is an entity, this allows us to conceive of a case where the object in question is 'stationary' and the medium itself is rushing past it, thereby eliciting the same relativistic effects as this scenario causes the same 'rushing past of molecules', as when the object itself moves through the medium.

This understanding of special relativity provides a very easy way of understanding how you can think of yourself as accelerating 'upwards' (together with the earth), while at the same time, another person at the opposite side of the earth can similarly think of himself, together with the earth, as though accelerating 'upwards' (now 'downwards', according to you). The aether is simply converging towards the centre of the earth from all sides. Remember that the movement that is essential for relativistic effects to manifest is 'the rushing of aetheric molecules across objects'. So we don't need a 'curve space' to 'make it possible' this apparent absurdity of 'the earth accelerating in all directions' (without exploding, of course). Therefore we don't need a 'curved space' to generalize relativity to apply to things in the vicinity of gravitating object resulting from them being seen as to be in 'accelerating frames of references'. That is to say when we think of earth as an accelerating frame of reference, and link such 'acceleration' to gravity, we can see how relativistic effects can manifest itself but with motion being a special case of the more general acceleration.

This understanding of what might be going on in the vicinity of gravitating objects renders General Relativity (GR) a Ptolemaic Theory. A 'Ptolemaic Theory' is an impossible to understand, complex theory that can be made to fit observation by adjusting several 'tunning knobs' inherent in the theory, all while there is a very simple way of understanding the phenomenon, provided that we make an appropriate assumption. The best example of a Ptolemaic Theory is where the name came from: the Ptolemaic theory of geocentric model. Indeed even special relativity is 'Ptolemaic', with the insistence of 'empty' space being analogous to the insistence of geocentrism. Both are strict insistence that are based on mere appearances. Indeed space (evacuated) appears to be empty, but it is nothing of the sort!

It is noteworthy that Einstein originally regarded the Minkowski's 4 dimensional space-time idea as to be superfluous. So it is good to examine what made Einstein change his mind. You will see that it was all because Einstein wanted so much to understand relativistic effects as though features of empty space. If at the juncture where he was working with GR relaxed his idea that 'aether was superfluous' rather than relax the idea that Minkowski's spacetime was superfluous, he would not have fallen into the temptation of incorporating 4 dimensional space time into relativity. He would instead go along the path of a 'generalized aether theory'.

The story goes that Einstein wanted to think of gravity as to be completely equivalent to the effects experienced in an accelerating frame of reference. However, he soon noticed (like you would easily), that there is actually no way of completely equating gravity to acceleration since gravity acts in all directions, and you accelerate only along a single direction. This is to say that two objects falling 'down' to earth, at two different locations, will converge as if they seek to meet at the center of the earth. The story goes on that then Einstein recalled the way, for instance, meridians meets at the poles. The meridians are the 'straightest lines' along the spherical surface. (such lines are called geodesics). With this, Einstein could amuse himself that actually, the 'converging lines' are 'parallel' when seen as 'geodesics'. But this redefinition of 'parallel' doesn't solve the problem. It only diverts the attention, and this may be the reason the story of 'the earth as accelerating frame' is suddenly dropped! Next, we are taken entirely into the journey to Riemannian Geometry, without any further attempt to show how this follows from the Einstein's Equivalence Principles! With the geodesics converging to earth, the earth still has to expand for it to be seen as an accelerating frame of reference! But we don't see the earth expanding! The only reasonable solution is to think of an entity accelerating towards the earth's center. Any motion relative to this entity brings about relativistic effects. It is what brings about the effects in steady motion, and what will bring about the effect in the vicinity of gravitating bodies. So Einstein needed not to think of 'curved space'. He only needed to give up the idea that relativistic effects are about 'space and time' and adopt the idea that they are about objects acted upon by a moving medium.

Let us now see how the 'generalized aether theory' solves even more daunting problem of GR that I have pointed out in previous blog posts. To recap a bit, note that if you attribute the relativistic effects to 'distortions' of space and time, like they do, we encounter the problem of 'relative to what' the space time is distorted. If 'time' is 'dillated' by some 'stretching of time' at a region, then every 'clock' at that region will get similarly 'stretch'. So how do we measure this 'dilation'? It turns out the they do in a ridiculous way that, as you will see, actually disproves GR! They correctly infere that if substance A, is at a higher altitude than substance B, then despite both sabstance A and B being the of the same element, the light emitted by A is at a higher frequency than the otherwise similar light emitted by B. This frequency difference is entirely due to the alleged altitude dependent, gravitational time dillation. But they erred in regarding this light emitted by A as to maintain the same high frequency as it move 'down' to lower altitudes. This error is all because it is supposed to be the 'expansion' of 'time' itself that 'stretches the light's frequency' at around the thus expanded 'time' (Just the way expanding of 'space' will streatch any object in situ together with the 'space'. In GR, time is treated geometrically like space!). So the light actually must get accordingly 'stretched' when it passes through the places where time is 'stretched' and must get 'compressed' when it passes through the places where time is 'compressed'. Thus in a 'curved spacetime' explanation of relativistic effects, there is no way of detecting those effects! The rulers, clocks etc are simply altered in the same way by the very same 'altering of space' that they sit in.

But in the generalized aether theory, the explanation is straight foward. The relativistic effects are not due to any alterance of space or time. Only the physical objects that are moving through the medium are altered, or equivalently, the objects through which the medium moves are altered. So when the aether moves past an atom, it decreases the frequency at which that atom emits light. This ferquency will, unless altered by a physical medium,(not by space or time) be maintained throughout the universe. This explains why the frequency of light emitted by sabtance A is of a higher frequency as seen even from the altitude of substance B. Time itself at the vicinity of substance B has not been altered or otherwise this alterance would have affected the frequency of the light emitted by A immediately the light arrives there. So GR's explanation is not sound. We need a general theory of aether to explain apparent manifestation of relativistic effects in the vicinity of massive bodies, not GR!

Now let me hammer something on to the relativist's rocky head. Movement is never 'relative'. If you are 5 year old and are inside a moving car, you might easily be led into thinking that we might as well say that the trees and the poles are actually the ones moving backwards. So far for stupid people! If you close examine though (as normal adults do), you notice that the whole visible world is churning around for unjustifiable reason! The only rational explanation is that you are the one actually moving forward. Occum's razor rules out the explanation that maintains that the whole earth is the one moving 'backwards'.

But the information pertaining to that 'outside' world exists inside the supposed 'frame of reference'. that was the reason you could see it in the first place. There is light that exists in you 'frame of reference' that when analysed carefully, will reveal whether or not your 'frame' is moving through the universe. Similar thing is there for gravitational fields, magnetic fields, particles such as neutrinos etc. Therefore the scenario that the relativist draws for us, to introduce relativity, does not exist in the real world! There is no 'vacuum' in which something can somehow moves without any ability to tell that it is so moving, even in principle! So why suppose that relativistic effects happens due to 'movement through vacuum'? Why, for instance, should we not maintain that when flying the clocks around the earth, it was a motion relative to the earth's magnetic field that altered the clicks? Even if there is no aether, relativity theory is bunk because there are definitely other substances in space that can act as though 'absolute frames of references'. The 'vacuum' that the relativist created is an non-existent scenario meant only to make relativistic ideas seem plausible!

Let us see one simple way of how a movement through 'aether' might bring about relativistic effects. Think of sailing through some wind movig at velocity c. So the wind drives your ship. If you place your sails perpendicular to the direction of the wind, then your ship will tap the wind maximally. Then your ship will move at c, and as you can see, it has no way of moving faster than the wind. To make your ship move slowlier, you must tap it at an angle, call it θ. The your speed, v will be given by:

v=csinθ

Suppose also that the wind that passes through you ship drive some wind turbine. So this turbine will move at a maximum speed when at rest, and complete stand still when it moves at c. In general, it will move at speed u given by

u=cosθ

If you like, you can think of a turbine attached to the sail itself, so you can see how angle θ comes about.

From Pythagoras Theorem, we have:

cos^2(θ)+sin^2(θ)=1

so we can rewrite cosθ=sqrt {1-sin^2( θ)}=sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}.

To see more clearly, follow it below:

You can see that u/c gives the formular for 'time dilation'. So the clock ticking slower due to motion is amenable to very simple explanation in terms of being made to move in a turbine-like way by aether rushing across the clocks! Also notice how the interpration of appearance of Pythagoras Theorem via geometry, as if moving at v is 'at an angle' to moving at c, be it 'along a forth dimension' is an amusing 'Ptolemaic' explanation!

If you take a look at a spiral galaxy, it immediately suggests a vortex ring. The understanding of why there are spiral arms can be straight foward when seen as to be a result of its formation. First we might have some a bit featureless cluster of stars or durst. This creates a strong gravity which begins to attract other 'particles'. The 'particles' in question can be seen as to be those that formed an initially featureless cloud which was also slowly spinning initialy. The gravity then lead to the compression of this 'cloud'. As it got compressed, it begun to spin faster and faster. So the explanation exactly follows the steps in the explanation for hurricane etc. So the similarity between a galaxy and some hurricane will not be a coincidence.

This simple explanation is, however, rejected in mainstream science because it is thought that galaxies must be billions of years old! This means that the appearance of a galaxy must never be in such a way as to look like it is still under its early development. Galaxies, so it is thought, must have formed eons of years ago. So if it spiralled during the process, the whatever spiral structure formed immediately underwent endless windings until the galaxy grew featureless as stars settled into stable orbits rather than spirals. So pay attention that astronomers did not begun by any observation. They begun by supposing that galaxies are billions and bilions of years old. After which they must explain observations to fit into this idea of age of galaxies! Any explanation that 'confirms' that galaxies are zillions of years old will then be welcom regardless how 'Ptolemaic' it is!

So the explanation that they offer for the spiral arms goes this way: The stars or dursts or clouds or whatever are initially moving in ellipses. The axis of the bigger ellipses are tilted slightly from the axis of the smaller ones. So the larger the (elliptical) orbit, the more tilted the ellipse. This arrangement results in the orbits comming closer to each other at some areas and moving away from each other at the other areas. The regions where the orbits comes close together will be the denser regions. This fits together nicely to form what looks like two spiral arms!

There are at least two reasons we must reject this concoction of theirs. One is that it requires a miracle to allign orbits in such a manner. Why should we have orbits that are so arranged like marching soldiers, with stars aligned so well along the orbits? Why would myriads of stars share the same orbit? Who was the 'commander' of such an 'army' of stars marching in such a synchronized manner? The next reason we must reject the concoction is that if stars were actually along ellipses, then such ellipses would be visible! The galaxies would appear exactly like the way they draw them, with elliptical lines, and then we would see how they approach each other to form spiral arms that are superimposed on elliptical rings!

Notice that you can't fail to notice that Saturn rings are indeed rings, rather than looking like some 'clouds' around the planet 

Similarly, we cannot fail to notice that the commet tail is, indeed made of particles that are streaming out along straight lines.

There is a reason for this ease in noticing when all substances are aligned, orbiting or spiralling. It requires unbelievable conspiracy to hide this fact! You must be carefull to first create endless lines crisscrossing each other, and then place the particles on junctions so that you can't tell what line they belong in. Otherwise a chaotic sprinkling of pariticles so that they align will always show lines that are superimposed on chaos.

It is not too rare to hear someone try to convince you that 'sports are very important'. We even hear that it is about 'international friendship' and other jarring claims. Very soon we will have world cup. Then we are in for another month of taking, sleeping eating and $hitting football. But what does chasing a sack full of air got to do with 'international unity and friendship'? Even the name 'friendly match' is suggestive! If games were about 'international friendship', then all matches would be properly called 'friendly marches'! The name 'friendly' unwittingly reveals what were in the minds of the concocters of the whisky. Sports are about 'enemity' not 'friendship'!

Sports are bastardized plays and sanitized wars! It has absolutely nothing to do 'international unity' or 'friendships'! Sports does to 'play' what 'religion' does to 'spirituality'. It is an attempt to 'organize play', but in the process, they miss the point all together! Sports does not bring two conflicting or fighting nations together. It takes them further apart! Since 'we have parted with Russia' then 'we are not going to play with Russia in the next world cup'. While you might think that this is a 'misuse of sports', it actually follows logically from the nature of sports! The problem is not a 'misuse of sports' or even 'politicization of sports'. The problem is the sports itself!

Next you will be told of an array of 'doppings', 'match fixing',....yada yada,...And then the sports advocate of the devil will now try to convince you that 'this are the unfortunate incidences which spoil sports'. This is nonsense!! Doppings and other things stems directly from the very nature of sports. It is a more naked revelation of what sports are. If sports were about bringing nations and pple together etc, then a lot of emphasis needed not be placed on 'winning', and therefore the 'dopping' thing would not arise at all!

What sense do this mean? Do adults need to watch a gang of lunatics chasing a bag of air in order to be 'united'? Aren't adults supposed to understand the importance of unity using their heads? To understand the importance of unity, don't go to stadiums. Visit ants and watch them working together in unity and harmony. Then also zoom the lens and see if they play football to enhance this unity amongst themselves! If ants can do this without sports, why can't humans? Why do we need to spend billions of valuable money to erect stadiums, to help us do things that ants can easily do?

If sports were about international unity and friendship, then why can't you cheer the team of the other country? Why can't you rejoice when they win? Why do you cry like a stupid baby when the other team win? Why do the whole stadium (in 'home ground') grow silent when the person of 'the other country' performs magnificent moves that should have entertained all of us? It is because they are realy not 'our friends'! No one is in to stadium to realy get entertained by how the 'other' country might play against your own country. You would have like all the good show to emanate from your own country, not the other. You would have preferred the fans at the other team to only marvel at how smart your country is! That was the reason you invited them: to showcase how smart your country is. That is why you cried when you were beaten! They are about lunatic chauvinism, not international unity! It is about uniting your country against the 'enemy' country! It is about divisions, not unity!

Sports represents everything that can go wrong with a child, combined with everything that can go wrong with an adult! It is about people who never grew up to understand how childhood play comes up in adulthood. The kittens play, the cubes play, the puppies play etc. When they grow, they apply this play in hunting etc. But this doesn't mean that adults don't play, or watch plays. They do. An adult lion might wrestle with a cube etc. But then it is just that, a play! There is no referee, rules or 'scores' or whatever. This is because a lion is smart enough to understand that the main point is training, not winning anything! Yes, a cube might realy realy become good in wrestling and outwrestles the dad. But that is not the point!

Similarly, children normally stops at enjoying the play. They can form whichever team they like. If Russian children were playing with Ukrainian children, they would first creat a long row. Then they say 'go there, come here, go there.....'. You will find two teams but at a complete random! At no point will they form a group of 'Ukrainians' vs another one for 'Russians', unless instructed to do so by an adult! There is a reason for this: as far as enjoying the play itself is concerned, it is actually irrelevant what team you form!

When you hear children talk about the play, you realize that all they enjoy is the play itself. They get exited by a player drippling past 6 other players, some acrobatic kick or a diving goalkeeper. To an adult, all these are irrelevant, or even annoying, if it did not result in goals! But to an adult, a mere penalty awarded by a biased referee is even more exiting! An adult sports lover is a pervert child whose instincts don't understand that it is in the play that nature wanted us to enjoy so it may motivate us to exercise and so improve stamina, argility etc which are useful even in adulthood.

An adult sportsman loves to boast, that is all! He want to talk of how many goals his country scored, even if they are the boring ones presented on a silver platter termed 'penalty kicks'. If someone comes on the way, e.g. handling the ball, or player's shirt, he might even think of calling the police!! If you told the children whether they will report to the teacher, in case someone scored from offsite, it will lead to nothing but a cracking laughter amongst the children! This is because they still know that these are realy not 'serious' things as such! Adult sports lover is that idiot who carried over everything bad about childhood plays (eg quarrels, anger, winning, referees, complaints, report to authority etc) and left behind everything good about plays (e.g. a performance and display of argility, skills, stamina etc)u. When adult grown boys meet to talk of Arsenal, Man U or whatever, it is damn boring talk about what player was bought by who, what couch has what team employed, what rank is what team, which team did what team beat,....yada yada....They better shut the hell up!! Some even commit suicide when their teams fail to win! It is nothing like what boys would be discussing, e.g. how Messi drippled past 5 midfieldeers or how someone shot a 'banana kick' or how a goalkeeper saved a penalty etc.

What is 'sports' anyway. What is the meaning of watching whizzing cars or racing men? Do cheetahs care about what cheetah if faster than what in a fraction of a second? Of course not, and they know better! These are a very 'one dimensional' mindset that does not signify anything about any of day to day activities that are of importance to life. A cheetah knows that its success comes from a combination of skills that includes speed, argility, strength stamina, reasoning, timing, balance etc. A test of only one ability, e.g. speed is absolutely meaningless! Furthermore if you were to go along the road with your pen and paper to examine cars, then look for 'what car is moving realy fast', or 'what vehicle was the first to reach what town', pple might want to examine your head! This is because such things like we see in sports have zero relevance in day to day human activities! We don't do things to COMPETE with other pple. Even when we look 'far behind' other cars, we can be far ahead of schedule depending on our plan, which has nothing to do with the plans of others!

'tele' betrays an attempt to apply the technology like that of 'telephony', 'television', 'telegram' etc albeit to transport a physical object! So some definition of 'teleportation' talks of 'movement of an object without passing through the physical space'. (This definition is not very smart because actually 'space' is never 'physical'). But the notion is clear. When someone scans a document into a computer and then sends it through Email, of course you wont see anything actually moving through space. What passes through space are waves. The document however, can be reprinted at the other end so that it seems like 'the paper has gone to the other end without passing through space'. Apparently, such is what inspired the idea of 'teleportation'.

The basic idea of 'tele' movement of anything is that we don't need to move that thing itself all.This is because it already exists in some way at the other end. We only need the information pertaining to how to reconstruct it at the other end, plus a machine that can do the reconstruction at the other end. So what moves from one end to the other is not the object but the wave that carries the information pertaining to how to reconstruct or manifest the object. It is this way that 'tele' becomes 'fast' way of sending information. Rather than sending a physical letter, just send the fast EM waves. So the idea of teleportation comes to mind when we want to send an object but very fast. Suppose you want to go to stars. Can you convert yourself into some waves that travels very fast, and then reappear at the other end?

So in teleportation, speed is realized by the sending of some waves rather than sending the physical object. But we have learnt from quantum mechanics (QM) that 'particles' are actually waves! So if 'teleportation' is movement of something through waves, then QM teaches us that all movements are actually teleportations! In QM, what moves from place to place is never a 'particle' in the usual sense we understand 'particles'. Rather, a wavepacket moves from place to place. This quantum wavepacket can be seen as to carry information pertaining to the appearance of a 'point-like' particle. QM then doesnt describe how this 'point-like' particle moves from space to space. The point-like particle, just appears on the wave during observation, as if via some teleportation. So the waves just tells us of the probability of manifesting a particle at a given region. The manifestation itself is done via some mysterious teleportation into the place we are observing the particle in!

In Quantum Field Theory, the distinction of particles is done away with all together. This is to say that if you swap two electrons, it will be like you have not done anything at all! Infact you think of particles as wave packets themselves. So they are excitation of an underlying field. This means that all motion is teleportation! There is no notion of 'movement' in ordinary sense at all.A pulse dies in one place and an entirely different pulse is generated from another place. It is 'entirely different' simply because an entirely different portion of the same medium is excited. With this understanding of matter, we see that we must think of something like a 'soul' which moves from place to place in order to preserve our identity, or perhaps better, we think of ourselves as somehow 'omnipresent' in the quantum field. Then teleportation becomes easy to understand. Nothing actually moves. We are already there at the place we would appear. We are just not yet manifest. So teleportation is actually a game of 'manifestation' and 'demanifestation'.

If in QM all fundamental particles actually moves via teleportation, you may now wonder why the entire macroscopic object doesn't similarly teleport. If so, then you are on the right track! In QM, what we now explain is the ussual motion, not teleportation! For a macroscopic object to move from A to B, it must appear to be at every point between A and B at a particular moment. In other words it appears like at no point does teleportation happens during movement. In reality though, teleportation happens at every moment to each of the individual particles! The reason the entire object donnot seem to teleport as a whole is that the particles teleport more often to the points very near, and only rarely teleport to distant places. In other words the probability of a particle teleporting over a 'macroscopic distance' is low. Then the probability of the entire ensemble of particles making up the macroscopic object, all of them teleporting to the same, macroscopic location is near zero. So QM does not forbid teleportation. It only makes it extremely rare.

The bible record some landmark events and mentions the period in between them all the way from Genesis until Israel and Judah's Exile. We can use this, plus our knowledge of the time of Israel or Judah's exile to calculate what dates the various landmark events ocured. We can then use this date to compare with the dates of other events in the surrounding, that are not recorded in the bible. We can then see how much the events mentioned in the Israel's surrounding tallies with how they are mentioned in the bible. For instance we can check that Ramses 2 reigned from 1279BC-1213BC and you will see that it corresponds to the Period around Jephtah's leading of Israel. You can then read more about Ramses to check if he was aware of Jephtah and the events mentioned in the bible. 

Here is the method for dating when Israel moved out of Egypt. We will use the bible entirely!!

We are told that Israelite journey to cannan took 40 years, and then Joshua led them for 28 years. Now take a journey with me through the book of judges, beginning with Judges 3:8. We note that Israel was ruled and lead by several judges or nations, and in each reign, we are told how long it lasted. So we can simply add all of them. It goes this way:

Aram=8 years
Onthiel=40 years
Moab=18 years
Ehud=80 years
Canaan=20 years
Deborah=40 years
Midianite=7 years
Gideon=40 years
Abimelech=3 years
Tala=23 years
Jai=22 years
Philistine+Amonnites=18 years
jephtah=6 years
philistine=40 years
Samson=20 years
Anarchy~40 years
Samuel=40 years
saul=40 years
David=40 years
Solomon=40 years

This is a total of 653 years. From Solomon, we have the period of 'divided Kingdom' which (you can check it like in above) lasted for 390 years before Israel went to exile. From history, we know that Israel went to exile at 721 BC. So add 653+390+721=1764 BC!

This seems absurd!! It dates back to Pharaoh Yabkim Sekhienre! This is centuaries before Ramses 2, and yet the latter pharaoh ruled cannan! The period of kings and/or judges overlaps the period of Ramses 2's reign in Canaan!!!

You can do your own calculations and check it for yourself!!

I have checked for the Israeli kings. It seems there was an error. I think The 390 years includes upto the time of Judah going to exile, not Israel. Here we move:

Jeroboam=22years
Nadab=2 years
Baasha=24 years
Elah=2 years
Zimri=7 days
Omri=12 years
Ahab=22 years
Jehu=28 years
Jehoahaz=17 years
Jehoash=16years
Jeroboam II=41 years
Zecharia=6months
Shallum=1 month
Menahem=10 years
Pekahiah=2 years
Pekah=20 years
Hoshea=9 years.

You see that the total years add to 227 years. When you add 227+653+721=1601

So according to the bible, Israelites came from Egypt at 1601BC!! This is hillarios! It was the period of Hyksos Dynasty! There were no pharaohs! Specifically, it was during the reign of King Khyan.

But the important thing to note is that this math still shows the absurdity that Ramses 2 reigned in Canaan at the same time Judges of Israel reigned there!!

 Here is the math for Judah:

Rehoboam=17 years
Abijah=3 years
Asa=41 years
Jehoshaphat=25 years
Jehoram=8 years
Ahazia=1year
Joash=40 years
Amaziah=29 years
Azariah=52 years
Jotham=16 years
Ahaz=16 years
Hezekiah=29 years
Manaseh=55 years
Amon=2 years
Josiah=31 years
Jehoahaz=3 months
Eliakim=11years
Jehoiachin=3 months
Zadekiah=11years

TOTAL=387years

According to Wikipedia, the kingdom of Judah started at 930 BC and ended at 587 BC. So it lasted for 343 years. So you can see that the secular dating tallies well with the bible! So I don't know how one might re adjust how the secular dating is done, such that it rectifies the supposed errors in Egyptian dating, but somehow preserve this tally with the bible!! What consistent method can we use?

Combining all these, we can now calculate  the dates for all these events. Here is the results:

Move To Conquer Canaan

1.)1626BC-1686BC.....Israel under Moses
2.)1586BC-1558BC.....Israel under Joshua

The Judges Period

3.)1558BC-1550BC.....Israel under Aram
4.)1550BC-1510BC.....Israel under Onthiel
5.)1510BC-1492BC.....Israel under Moab
6.)1492BC-1412BC.....Israel under Ehud
7.)1412BC-1392BC.....Israel under Canaan
8.)1392BC-1352BC.....Israel under Deborah
9.)1352BC-1345BC.....Israel under Midianites
10.)1345BC-1305BC.....Israel under Gideon
11.)1305BC-1302BC.....Israel under Abimelech
12.)1302BC-1279BC.....Israel under Tala
13.) 1279BC-1257BC.....Israel under Jai
14.)1257BC-1239BC.....Israel under Philistines and Ammonites
15.)1239BC-1233BC.....Israel under Jephtah
16.)1233BC-1193BC.....Israel under Philistines
17.)1193BC-1173BC.....Israel under Samson
18.)1173BC-1133BC.....Israel under Anarchy
19.)1133BC-1093BC.....Israel under Samuel

The United Kingdom Period

20.)1093BC-1053BC.....Israel under Saul
21.)1053BC-1013BC....Israel under David
22.)1013BC-973BC.....Israel under Solomon

The Divided Kingdom Period (Israel)

23.)973BC-951BC.....Israel under Jeroboam
24.)951BC-949BC.....Israel under Nadab
25.)949 BC-925BC.....Israel under Baasha
26.) 925BC-923BC.....Israel under Elah
27.)923BC-923BC.....Israel under Zimri
28.)923BC-911BC.....Israel under Omri
29.)911BC-899BC.....Israel under Ahab
30.)899BC-861BC.....Israel under Jehu
31.)861BC-844BC.....Israel under Jehoahaz
32.)844BC- 828BC.....Israel under Jehoash
34.)828BC-787BC.....Israel under Jeroboam 2
35.)787BC-787BC.....Israel under Zechariah
36.)787BC-787 BC.....Israel under Shallum
37.)787BC-777BC.....Israel under Menahem
38.)777BC-775BC.....Israel under Pekaniah
39.)775BC-755BC.....Israel under Pekah
40.)755BC-746BC.....Israel under Hoshea.

The divide Kingdom Period (Judah)

41.)973BC-956BC.....Judah under Rehoboam
42.)956BC-953BC.....Judah under Abijah
43.)953BC-912BC.....Judah under Asa
44.)912BC-887BC.....Judah under Jehoshaphat
45.)887BC-879BC.....Judah under Jehoram
46.)879BC-878BC.....Judah under Ahazia
47.)878BC-838BC.....Judah under Joash
48.)838BC-809BC.....Judah under Amaziah
49.)809BC-757BC.....Judah under Azariah
50.)757BC-741BC.....Judah under Jotham
51.)741BC-725BC.....Judah under Ahaz
52.)725BC-696BC.....Judah under Hezekiah
53.)696BC-641BC.....Judah under Manaseh
54.)641BC-639BC.....Judah under Amon
55.)639BC-608BC.....Judah under Josiah
56.)608BC-608BC.....Judah under Jehoahaz
57.)608BC-597BC.....Judah under Eliakim
58.)597BC-597BC.....Judah under Jehoiachin
59.)597BC-587BC.....Judah under Zedekiah

When lightning was the only 'bright' thing we know of near us, humans insisted that the sun is nothing but some huge lighning balls. When humans discovered fire, they now changed the theory, insisting that the sun is a 'camp fire in the sky', powered by firewoods. When we discovered electricity, again, we updated our solar theory, insisting  that then sun is nothing but a huge bulb up there, with 'wires' supplying the electric energy, invisible. Finally when we discovered the nuclear energy, we now concocted the latest vodka! The sun is now a gigantic thermonuclear furnace! Thus our modern theory is, in no way, a distinct theory 'based on research and knowledge'. Neither should you be bamboozled by the modern technology, into thinking that 'if people knows how to unleash such a terror as a nuclear bomb, then they must be truely privy to the sun's secret'. Even the lighting of the first fire in the cave was a great technological advance. However, this does not mean that those who lite the fire were privy to the sun's secret. So just as we now laugh at the idea of a sun powered by firewoods, we should also not forget to laugh at an equaly ridiculous idea that the sun is a thermonuclear furnace!

Today I am going to show you one of the results of the 'we understand the sun' illusion. The picture above depicts how the sun rotates. As you can see, it is yet another acrobatics! The sun's equator rotates faster than its poles! Now make sure that your brain's 'nuts' are well tightened, and then think carefully about this. For the sun's equator to rotate faster than its poles, it has to overcome friction, meaning that constant energy input is required! The sun rotates like an ENGINE, and not like a top somehow spun only once in the distant future, and then left to do that for over millenniums, like they say in mainstream. If equator's rotation requires energy input, why not see the entire sun's rotation as to be driven by some energy? The 'conservation of momentum' explanation appears to me as weak in this instance. It is only strong if we don't see any source of rotational energy.

Now comes the mainstream explanation as to why the sun rotates differentialy. I may summarize it this way:
1.) The heat at the sun's core causes convection currents, which causes the fluid in the interior of the sun to move all the way up to its surface.
2.)The fluid that moves from the interior of the sun up to its equator encounters the fluid moving at a greater velocity than the fluid that moves from the interior to the poles.
3.)Therefore the sun's equator will rotate faster than its poles!

What a ridiculous explanation!!

The day you will boil water and then the 'convection currents' in the water somehow makes the whole water to stire around the centre of the cooker, then you can be sure that there must be a demon in your room, or perhaps you are witnessing the Pool Of Bethesda incidence!


The mainstream explanations does not come from any logic other than:

1.) The sun's differential rotation implies that input energy is required to power it.
2.)The only source of energy possible in the sun is the heat generated from its core!
3.) Therefore the ultimate cause of the sun's differential rotation must be the heat comming from the sun's core via convection currents!

As usual, and for understandable reason, no room is left for the possibility that we don't understand the source of the sun's energy hence an explanation that sources its energy from the interior must be swallowed, however absurd, because 'that is the only source of such a huge energy'!

Now lets begine with a static sun. Can heat from the center makes it rotate? Of course such will require magic! The only thing heat can do is to make the fluid churn around in a completely random way. Heat does not have any inherent rotational energy at all, that can somehow be 'biased' towards any particular direction. But what magic will it happen if we now begine to spin the sun? The heat energy will not aquire any rotational energy. The energy for rotation will come from the original kick, and original kick alone. The presence of convections merely superimposes the churning onto the rotation, making up a rotating, churning, hot ball, nothing more!

Using different words, begin by noting that the mainstream's explanation means that the heat energy from the core does, infact, adds angular momentum to the sun. This is because without the heat, the sun's equator would rotate at a slower rate. So the heat adds an angular momentum that is equal to the one needed to increase the equator's rotation! But angular momentum is a conserved quantity. This means that the mainstream's explanation demands that heat energy has an inherent, angular momentum that happens to be directed towards the direction of the rotating star!

The mainstream's explanation is nonsense because mechanically, you can make something moves faster only by hitting it with another object moving even faster. The sun's rapid movement st the equator cannot possibly be what causes itself to move even faster than itself! The only way for what they claim to happen would be for the fluid at the core to increase its speed as they move away from the center. But we know that the opossit infact happens! the more an object expands, the slowlier it rotates. This is due to the conservation of angular momentum.

What powers the sun's equator rotation cannot be heat! And so the sun has another powerful source of energy that is not considered in mainstream. Perhaps it is electromagnetism or gravity, or something completely unknown!!!

The Sun As An Homopoler Motor

But what if we say that the sun is actually an homopoler motor driven by an electric current that converges to the centre (much like the way 'electric universe' guys insist). Since the magnetic field runs from the north pole to the south (or vice versa), Then the explanation for the
rotational differential speed is now straight foward! This is because whenever a charge moves inside a magnetic field, the field exerts a force on the charge that is directed both perpendicular to the magnetic field, and to the direction of the charged particle, and which depends on the velocity of the charged particle (this is lorentz's force law). So if magnetic field points to the north, and the charge is moving downwards, then the charge will be forced to move eastwards (use the Fleming's Left Hand Rule to determine this). If the charge was moving downwards inside a conductor, then it forces the conductor itself to move eastwards. This is how electric motors works.

Now for the charge moving across the equator, all the way to the center, it will be forced to rotate at maximum speed, since at the equator, the moving charged particle cuts through the magnetic field perpendicularly. However, for the particles moving to the centre but across higher latitudes, the component of the particle's velocity, that is perpendicular to the magnetic field, is now smaller, with the component being exactly zero at the poles. In other words at the poles, the particles don't cross the magnetic field lines at all, they only move parallel to it. At higher latitudes, they cross the field lines, but at lesser rate than the way they cross it at the equator. At the equator, they cross the field lines at the fastest rate simply because they are crossing it perpendicularly, hence facing the shortest distance from one field line to the other. Since the lorentz's force law is about the velocity as in 'rate at which the particle crosses the magnetic field' and not 'rate at which the particle moves', we see that definitely, the charges crossing the equator will be deflected the most.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DaringWelloffIndianabat-max-1mb.gif