Roaring Lovely's Posts (172)

Sort by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more…

Say No To Crony Capitalism

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

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

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

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

Read more…

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Read more…

Quantum Mechanics And Observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conscious Observation 

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

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

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


Read more…

Islam Positive Side

Too often warring groups comes in the name of Islam. Alshabaab, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Taliban, Houthi, needless to keep naming. Too often there are wars where there are muslims. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya etc. So apparently, Islam is a war mongering religion. All this is when you peruse it carelessly. When you close exermine more deeply, you find another common denominator. In all these places where there are wars, and Muslims are there, they are all along the Saharan desert. When you move slightly northwards, to place like Turkey and Iran, you find lesser war mongering despite them being majority muslims. Same applies to Indonesia. So is it Islam or is it deserts that is prone to wars? The answer is, it is hostile deserts that creates war mongerings. Islam is mostly a beautifull religion. Latter, we will see the reason why dessert inhabitants prefer Islam.

During conflicts, media often over-highlights religion in a misleading way. A good example is resent events around the beautiful Al Aqsa Mosque. Just because war mongering was a retaliation to the misbehaviour around the Mosque makes the media propaganda present it as if it is a religious war. In reality, the major problem is the question of whether the jews or the Palestinians should own and control the area around the Mosque. Israel is trespassing into the Palestinian Teritory, that is the point. That the Mosque is there only dramatize Israel's mis-behaviour. Convince them that the mosque is built in another person's territory and I bet that they will surrender! So it is not more about Mosque. It is mainly about territory.

Islam is good because it recognized other regions other than Arabia as holy. Notably Jerusalem. It is also not a selfish, tribal religion. It doesn't venerate Arabs as special 'God's people'. This is notable because that was the norm of that time. Religions were an ugly contests about which tribe had the best god! One of them is Judaism, which more of belong to BCs!  But Jerusalem is remarkable! Beleiving that God appeared to Isaac in Jerusalem, and a temple was once there, they honoured Allah (God of Abraham, as prifered by Jews and Christians) by rebuilding the 'temple' there, which they preferred to call it 'Mosque'. So Al Aqsa is actually an honour that Muslims also shows to Jews by recognizing the holiness of their city and rebuilding what, according to them, is 'the temple that was once there' where Abraham worshiped.  (Ironically, it is Israelis that desecrates the place by throwing tear-gasses to people who are, according to them, honnoring the God of Israel in 'their own holy place'!)

Before Islam, Arabia was babaric, with thousands of competing, tribal gods. Islam tought them that it is not the case that each tribe has its own god. Rather, there is only one God and all tribes are equal before God. This brought unity and peace in Arabia, a fleat that had never been achieved! Christianity was not able to gain inroads in Arabia because of its unrealistic 'turn the other cheek' doctrine. Every christian preaches it but no one actually practice it! If a person steal their house, Christians  don't give them their land as well (otherwise there would be very cheap way for thieves to get rich near Christians!). They report it to Police. The police, of course goes and sin, perhaps toturing the 'criminal', and then Christians boasts that 'they don't harm anyone or revenge'! They are like Jezebels who prifer to use the husband to do evil and thinks she is without guilt. But how about when there are no institutions, no governments, no judiciary, no presidents etc What will a Christian do to thieves? So you see that Christianity can't erect a civilization out from pure barbarians! That is why Paul etc evengelized only in the then more civilized world of Rome and neglected Arabia!

Some say that Islam was spread by sword just as Christianity was spread by a gun. None of these statements are true. This stems from people who don't understand government. You cannot conquere solely by sword. You need a huge loyal army. However, armies are derived from the very population of people. To conquere, you need a lot of people to support you. So how did Muslims became the overwhelming majority, say in Arabia, and thus enabling them to subdue others? The answer is that Islam was spread peacefully. Once it became the dorminant religion was it able to exercise authority over other smaller religions. Arabs never displaced other smaller tribes. Such a method never leads to permanent and/or large scale conquering as it never increase your army. Arabs instead 'Arabized' other tribes. To take palestine, for instance, Arabs begun by peacefully spreading their culture and religion. Once the Palestinians  (first Jews) begun to see themselves as 'Arabs', then de facto, Palestine automatically became an Arab territory even without any war! Wars plaid far lesser role in the conquests. You see the same thing in Modern times, but more centered in Iran rather than Arabia. Because Iran is Shia Islam, every shia around the world recognizes, in some way, the authority of Ayatollahs in Iran. This makes Iran a significantly powerfull country even without having such a powerfull army! 

Iran is often falsely accused for 'supporting and funding terorists'. It is not understood that part of the faith in shia Islam is that there is only one leader in the Islamic world, a true descendant of Muhammad. This is the reason why Sunni governments fear shias. Obviously a shia majority will ultimately and automatically undermine the sovereignty of a country! It happened in Iraq, to the horror of US and Israel. This shows that US did not well understand shia when it lead to topling of Saddam. A shia government in Iraq makes Iraq a de facto, Iran!! Saddam understood this one very well, and resisted shia. This, in west, is demonized as 'restricting religion'. But as you can now see, religion in middle east means something different than it means in US. The latter method of governance cannot work in middle east, based solely on what majority of people in middle east believe. 

We erroneously condemn Muslims for endorsing wars because we think that secularism is a default state of human governance when infact, anarchy is the default! An American cannot, for instance, see that he too endorses war but opts to engrave it in a secular constitution. He says 'it is okay to do all wars, including using nukes, as long as you are not doing it in the name of religion, but if you throw a stone in the name of Islam, then you are a terorist doing a crime against humanity'! You wonder is it murder that we were trying to demonize or what?

Neither is dictatorship what immediately comes out from anarchy in the first step of government formation. The fact that US thinks that it is the first democracy in the world shows that US don't understand governments and should never be trying to topple governments. It should rather be getting educated on what government and democracy is! A constitution like that of US has one major weakness, and is the reason behind formation of vague cabals and deep state. While it provides procedures for establishing legitimate leaders, it does not clearly say how to form a legitimate army and other institutions. In other words, the constitution deceptively unroots the country from its history. It is a story that starts in the mid way with some entities already presumed to be there but whose authority is unjustifiable by the same constitution! Consequently, the constitution cannot erect a government from pure anarchy. It may be good in transforming a dictatorship into a democracy hence the erroneous  views like 'US is the first democracy'. On the other hand Islamic and other theocratic constitutions can do this, hence the earliest governments were theocracies. But I don't insist that it is only a theocracy that can do this. I only insist that naive secularism cannot do it.

Given a total anarchy, how do group of fighters completely subdue others to form what it looks like an army of a country? Even more importantly, having subdued all the others, in what sense do this army a legitimate body that should implement. The answer is that dictatorship can never form out from a state of no prior government! What we will have is more and more anargy as each tiny groups tries in vain to beat others into submission! The dorminant army rises only when it manages to recruit more and more fighters. Therefore the overwhelming majority automatically win, hence a democracy. That the west don't understand this is highlighted by the fact that it drags the world into excessively arming the millitary so that the millitary draws its power from the superiority of weapons rather than the masses! To the west, the question of legitimacy of armies is cowardly excluded from the constitution.

Thus Islam gained power by making majority of people believe that it was true, just, charitable and merciful and above all, it doesn't discriminate based on one's ethnicity or ancestry. Same cannot be said of Judaism which could not take off from the Jerusalem cocoon. Hence jews never concurred anything significantly bigger than Jerusalem's  compound, despite its military genius! If you are not an Israelite, one wonders how it is that you can be interested with Judaism! In Jewish temple, there is an outer place for gentils and an inner, holier place preserved solely for jews. Mosques have no such partitioning. One's holiness is not determined by one's ancestry but by how much you obey God. Of what use is a murderous, Abraham's descendant? This scored a couple of points above Judaism.

Judaism theocracy can only be an apartheid! Establishing it in Jerusalem will mean that if you are not a jew, there are places that you cannot ente in the town! Of course such a religion asJudaism cannot 'explode' and conquere the whole world, like they dream! Instead it imploded and it was flattened to the ground. But thanks to British folly. They sought to revive an ancient, barbaric culture that Romans, Greeks, Muslims and early Christians laboured hard to destroy it!!

Read more…

What Is Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

Some soldiers inaproprietly enters a Mosque in Jerusalem. Then gaza responds by firing thaosands of rockets to Israeli civilian cities. It is (correctly) condemned as a target to civilian. Then Israel retaliates by targeting the military (it is seen as their right and apororiate because it targets the hamas military wing rather than the civilians ). However the end results is that Israel kills more civilians that the Palestinians does! Call this one 'absurdity #1' It is just one of the myriads of absurdities in middle east!

Israelis Are Anti-Semite!

Isra-el means 'to wrestle with God'. An Israeli  (not Israelite) soldier invokes a picture of someone carrying a bag of bullets, grenades etc on the back, wearing several layers of bullet proofs on the chest, some hard lether tied on the knee, a thick helmet on the head, carrying a teriffying, thick and sophisticated gun, but wrestling with a un-armed, 13 year old boy! If there is any connection with the bible, then it only bring to mind the 'Goliath vs David'! This alone proves that these are not Semites! Semites are first and foremost, brave and shockingly fear less!.They go to a city with mere trumpets but determined to bring down the city! They trust in God, not weapons. There is no Semite who arms himself with an equivalent of a jet- fighter in a village for 'self security' purposes! Call this absurdity #2

Jews Are Not Yahweh's People

It is crucial that you know the difference between 'Israelites', 'Israeli' and 'Jew'. Israelites are ancient, lost tribes that were scattered by Assyrian Empire. Then the empire brought in inhabitants of Iraq and settled them in the province called 'Samaria'. Only the tribe of Juda and levi was left. However during the times of Nebuchadnezzar, Juda and levi too were scattered. Latter, some few were returned to Jerusalem so that it was now a mixture of various people from various parts of the empire. They correctly recognized that the concept  'Israel' no longer meant anything. So the land called 'Samaria' and Juda was named 'judea' and the far north was called 'Galilee'. The term 'jew' then was more of cultural and linguistic than ethnicity.

'Israeli', on the other hand is a confused concept that lacks knowledge and understanding. It insinuates that 'israel' rifers to a piece of land rather than descendants of Jacob! Call this absurdity #3

The bible highlights land policies that Yahweh's people must adhere to, and it seems this is universal to all Semites, including the so called 'Palestinians'. The simply non Semites are not against these. However, antisemites such as Israelis are very antagonistic to these policies. According to Torah, land primarily belongs to Yahweh, and not individuals. There is no such a thing as 'buying land'. We more or less lease it. The bible insist that we sell the crops in the land, but not the land itself. In the year of jubilee, we must return the land to whoever we bought from, if the person wants to buy it. It is an obligation. This is to say that if it were Semites that bought the land from Palestinians in 1900s or so, by 1940, the land should have been sold back to Palestinians if they so demand, for the bible says that 'though shall not oppress an alien living amongst you but you must treat them as one of you'. In other words even if Palestinians were 'immigrants' the Torah demands that they must be treated like Israelis! People who donnot obey Yahweh cannot possibility be Yahweh's people. Call this absurdity #4.

Palestinians Are Hebrews 

you hear it said that during the first Jewish Roman war, one million jews were killed and millions were scattered. Then  again in the second Roman-Jewish war, millions of them were scatterd. Then again during Hitler's time, 6 million of them were killed. Millions of them have been killed throughout where they were scattered. Make sense? Can a narrow and extreemly short strip of land in a hostile desert produce milions upon millions of people and scatter them all over the world?

A similar thing exists in the so called 'Arabs'. You are told that the 'Arab world' spans from morroco up to Yemen, almost a third of the world! In reality, the ethnic Arabs were a tiny group of people in Yemen who, seeing that they were very few and surrounded by hostile tribes begun a culture of 'Arabizing' people in order to create the illusion that they are many and thus deterring other tribes from exterminating them. Thus Ishmael in the bible is actually not the father of all Arabs. He was an Arabized Jew who met Arabs in the deserts of Arabia.

So most of the Palestinians were actually Arabized Jews. You cannot tell me that invaders were able to capture all jews from Galilee to Bethlehem and carry them away using who knows what. The scattering was actually done to as few as just 100,000 Jerusalemites. The rest of the Jews in rural areas, of course, could not be got. It is hard to capture even all rats or mice in your compound or even inside your own house, even with modern technolgy. Yet they want to tell me they could basket all jews from Judea to Bethlehem (ie intelligent humans) and scatter them like litter all over the world! Call this absurdity #5.

So this is what the fighters are doing! You left Your brother and went away and then latter came back, find him wearing a kufiya and some funny long dress, praying while facing Mecca, and you begine to fight him, claiming 'this is an Arab intruder!'

British Folly 

Lets say you are an American. What if one day china somehow takes over both Mexico and US. Since both countries are now under one empire, there is no more 'immigration law'. So Mexicans are encouraged to migrate to Texas and Carlifonia sinse, after all California was once part of Mexico. The mexicans now Migrates to Texas and Carlifonia with no limit? Does this sound like a good thing done to you, oh a Texan American? If yes, then why do you want an immigration law against Mexicans? If no, why do you uncritically support Israel that did the same thing?

But it is much worse in the case of Israeli. There is a reason why there was wars in ancient Palestine (eg jewish Roman wars). Whatever resulted from the wars may as well be better understood as 'natural selection', the kind of which that ensures that deserts are sparsely populated. Imagine a policy that persecute people in fertile places and then offer a 'solution' by encouraging them to migrate in large numbers to a narrow piece of land that is surrounded by an hostile desert, a land that is known to have been got up in bloody conflicts over scars resources. Can there be anything more stupid? Naturally people migrates from desserts to greener places so that deserts have smaller populations. But here, Europeans tried to force in a reverse migration, from fertile places to hostile places! The same Europeans like to brace themselves as the solution to this problem they created! Call this absurdity#6.

It is like a guy who keeps battering his wife. But then he says he loves her! The solution to the batterings, he suggests, is to send the wife to a distant place in the desert. 'Stay there, so I may not keep battering you, you know I love you too much, but err, er, I am battering you daily'. This is how Europeans, so they say, treats Jews. They love them so much, they provide jets and submarines. They condemn Palestinians for attacking them, and yet they tell us that they must leave there in Palestine to escape the persecutions from Europeans!! What garbage!

Read more…

Resurrection Of Plants

If there is a means through which a living thing can come back to life, it will always take the advantage of such a means, and it will come back to life. This is noteworthy as it changes the question about afterlife from a difficult 'if', 'why' or 'what' questions into a simpler 'how' question. In other words rather than, for instance,  asking if there is a soul, simply ask how there can be one. If there is such a means, then there is a soul! Is there then an example of how living things can , as if for evolutionary purposes, try to come back to life. The answer is yes, and a good example is a potato!

There is a difference between a potato that grows from the seed and the one that grows from the roots. The one that grows from the seed is the 'child' of the potato. However, the one that grows from the roots is the very same potato! In other words the potato growing from the roots is a resurrection of the same potato! It is not 'the offspring of the potato'. So several plants have attained the means for resurrection, ahead of animals! This also shows that resurrection is very biological. Living things strives, not only to survive, but to come back to life even after death, if means are there! This is the reason why the beleif in afterlife is universal. 

In the bible, they compared resurrection to germination after 'the seed dies'. You can now see that in the case of growth off the roots of a potato, this is literal! They 'rise with a different body' in that it grow from different food. But of course the food we eat when we grow (i.e. our bodies ) does not determine who we are. The genes does it better, but still not the best. The idea of resurrection is that the usual reproduction is not the only way of enduring that the genes leaves on even after death. So the potato stores some genes in the seed and also developes another means of growing off the roots! That is to say that the information pertaining to what the orgaism is is somehow stores in the very potato root itself. However when you exermine the root, it looks completely featureless! It looks, for all relevant purposes, like the potato is hopelessly dead. Infact you can cut it to pieces but each of the piece will grow into a plant. The information is holographic throughout the root! Such is how we should understand resurrection.

On appearance, there is no difference between a potato and a rock or even soil. Were it not from the hindsight, no one could tell that a potato can grow from the root. This is crucial point in understanding 'homeomorphic immortality' and resurrection. People think there is no life after death (through resurrection) because they look for something very similar to the gone body, rather than looking generaly from all things homeomorphic to the dead body. It is sort of like looking for the potato leifs in the roots and concluding that there are no leifs in the roots, but you can see that this is not the case. Yes, the leaves are, in some ways, inside the roots! A torus is homeomorphic to a cup. Likewise a seed is homeomorphic to a plant. They are one and the same even though they look totally different!

Likewise if you look at the soil, you can conclude that 'there is no life in it'. This is because you are looking for what is not crucial: the body, rather than what is crucial, the information. Furthermore the information need not be stored in a large space. Resurrection can just be a burgeoning from a very tiny 'seed' so that a mere speck of dust is all what is neaded!

Read more…

You have probably heard that Jesus will come and 'kidnap' Christians, flying them like witches to who knows where. Then as they 'marry' Jesus in the clouds, the earth is plugged into darkness, with a leader termed 'antichrist' reigning supreme. Also, you might have heard that Pope is infact the anti-christ,i or that the anti-christ infact came long ago and we are now leaving in the 'new earth' and 'new heaven' talked about in the book of revelation. All these confusions comes from a failure to understand the book of revelation. The book is challenging to understand it in its luxury of details. But it is not too hard to get a good glimpse that is enough to dispel most of the nonsense like we saw above.

The main revelation of anti-christ begins in chapter 12. It is here also where John gives us an hint as to how to interpret the book, an hint tacitly ignored by the interpreters like in above. John gives us a revelation that we can easily identify it with an historic events that begun to happen in the past of the author. But the revelation does not give a one to one correspondence between itself and the historic events. We can identify the woman with Mary and the dragon with Herod. However, we cannot then make sense of the crown she is wearing or the seven heads of herod. Since the author obviously understood that Mary was never a queen, and that 'Christians' are not the descendants of Mary, we understand that the historic fulfilments of his revelation is not a one to one correspondence. If we took the revelation as to have been foretelling of Herod's attempt to kill the infant Jesus, then we will falsely conclude that it was a failed prophecy as Herod did not proceed to hunt Mary in an attempt to harm her.

We say that the 'fullfilment' of revelation 12 is a one to two, or more correspondence. That means for every one element in the vision, there are zero, one, two, three etc elements in history. Identifying the woman as Mary does not mean that there is no other entity that John was alluding to and symbolizing it with a woman. This, we get from John himself, thanks to chapter 12! This may be the general nature of the apocalyptic genre that was understood in those days but we are no longer familiar with. The writers of the NT definitely understood apocalypses this way. Take for instance the prophecy of Daniel. While we can clearly identify 'the horn' it talks about with Antiochus Epiphane, Jesus talks of it as an event that is yet to happen!

We must also be open to the possibility of failed prophecies as to have been the motive behind the invention of this confusing style of apocalypse. In case prophesies about what will happen to Mary fails, the author has a clever loophole! We simply take what was fulfilled and push the unfullfiled aspects to some unknown future, or 'too difficult to understand' riddles! This appears to be the case in Revelation (but not in Daniel, the pioneer of apocalypse style). In other words unlike John, Daniel never hints to us that he intends his visions to have one to two correspondence etc. The NT writters just presumed so, once the apoclypse style had been concocted as an ad oc to explain failed parts of prophecies. But this does not mean that John is doing this intentionally to creat a loophole! 

With this, we can now understand the visions better. Just as the woman does not allude to Mary alone, the son does not allude to Jesus alone and the dragon does not allude to Herod alone. The woman also alludes to Israel. The son are its kings in general and the dragon alludes to the gentile overloads who were always trying to 'prevent Israel from having a son of David on the throne' ever since the kingdom was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The woman with moon under her feet is just the age old dream of Israel rulling the whole world under the banner of 'kingdom of God'. During the time of Antiochus, Daniel tells us that 'messiah' was supposed to come and established the 'kindom of God'. (So that the woman may have the moon under her feet). Revelation tries to create an ad oc to explain why this did not happen. The 'war in heaven' alludes to the battle in priesthood during the famous Hanukkah wars where Israel emerged victorious, as recorded in the books of Maccabees. So the dragon ( in this case Seleucid Empire) 'was thrown from heaven', wherein 'he had grown up to' as written in Daniel. In other words the Jews used 'heaven' to symbolize their sanctuary. So when Antiochus entered and disegrated the sanctuary, he is depicted in Daniel as to have 'grown up to heaven' and 'thrown some of the starry host to the ground' and 'trampled them under foot'. (Daniel 8:10).

So clearly, John also intends to take us back to the Hanukkah wars. This obvous picture is missed because of failure to discern the non one to one correspondence nature between John's visions and history. So the son seeming to allude to Jesus wrong foots Christians into thinking that everything that comes afterwards alludes to NT era! 

 The 'war in heaven' lead to the re-consecration of the sanctuary. (The dragon lost its place in the heaven ). The dragon nevertheless 'persuaded the woman' in the sense that the kindom formed, which was supposed to be 'the kingdom of God' as per Daniel, was actually a kingdom by priests, or levites rather than the sons of David or Judah (so the son was 'snatched up to heaven' rather than rulling on earth). This begines from Mattathius himself who was a priests. He forms the Hasmonean dynasty rather than the 'kingdom of God' as promised to David. In other words someone (the priest ) who should 'be in heaven' (the sanctuary) is now 'on earth'. (the 'earth' is the world kingdoms).

The Hasmoneans having rose to power and difeated the Seleucids almost immidietly negotiated with Romans, which  was the major blunder that would make Romans conquer Israel. In other words 'the dragon stood by the sea shore', waiting for the beast (Roman Empire) to rise. Remember that the 'dragon' alludes to the corrupt priesthood that was behind Antiochus defiling the sanctuary and had now plagued Israel and reduces the priesthood office into 'kingdom' office.

So we see that we understand how chapter 13 follows seamlesly from chapter 12. The hasmonean dynasty paves way for Roman Empire, following the Hasmonean deals that effectively 'gave the power to the beast'. Howerver, if we think that chapter 12 alludes to the events only in NT, ie around the birth of Jesus, we cannot make sense of all these details. What, for instance, was 'war in heaven' that seems to come prior to 'the rise of the beast', yet 'the beast' was supposed to be already there when Jesus was born? Also, note that Herod replaces the Hasmonean Dynasty and so when he tried to fight Jesus, we can still understand 'the dragon' doing the same thing to Jesus, that it tried to do to 'the son of David' following the Hanukkah wars! In other words after the Hanukkah wars, messiah was supposed to come (the child was about to be born). But a 'ferrousious dragon' (the corrupt priesthood) was 'standing just next to the woman'!

Revelation chapter 17 gives us the clear interpratation of 'the beast'. This is because we know that John was writting this at around 70th AD. So the five fallen kings begun from Augustus all the way upto Nero, the fifth. The beast who was, is NOW not and yet he will come was Nero. We know this because Early Christians were among those who believed that Nero will come back and possibly be the eigth emperor of Rome! So Nero would be the eight emperor but also one of the seven. He was 'fataly wounded' and yet the wound healed. Also Nero is known to have persecuted Christians the most. So this prominent figure amongst Roman Emperors is clearly Nero.

Also, note the one to two correspondence in chapter 17. John tells us that the heads alludes to the seven hills the woman sits on. From this, we understand that he is alluding to Rome by 'the woman'. But when he says it also rifers to the seven kings, we should look for a more litteral woman that John had in mind. A sort of antithesis to Mary in chapter 12. As we do it, we find non other than the mother of Nero herself, Agrippina! Agrippina fits the woman in chapter 17 as perfectly as Mary fits the woman in chapter 12!

Agrippina was the master of wickedness, the Jezebel of Rome! She was trying to control the empire through what is closely like prostitution. Her marriages were of pure conveniences. She sought after the most prominent of figures in Rome. Finaly, she marries an emperor and seduced him to adopt her son, Nero as the next emperor! Then she murders the emperor and enthroned her son. All she intended was to turn her son, Nero into her puppet. So if Nero was the beast, Agrippina was clearly ridding on his back! So promiscuous was Agrippina that she is said to even tried to seduce her own son for sex! Remember that when you ride a horse, you are trying to stear it to move where you want, rather than where it itself wants to go. This is what Agrippina was trying to do!

But we know that Agrippina's attempt to control Nero failed miserably! Nero together with top individuals in the empire came to hate her so much. They conspired together and killed Agrippina. They burnt her body at the dinner place as if to want to eat her!! So we see that indead John was also alluding to the prostitude Agrippina, mother of the antichrist in chapter 17, to contrast her with the virgin mary, mother of Jesus in chapter 12!

Read more…

Superfluid Vacuum Theory And UFOs

Non locality is the quantum property that we are trying to harness to travel to fartest places in the cosmos in a twinkle of an eye. However, we know that quantum effects are microscopic but UFO is macroscopic. Had UFO been microscopic, we would be done. We already know that quantum wavicles collapses into structures that looks like the so called Gaussian Bells upon observation. But we also know that quantum effects can be found in macroscopic system. This is due to maintenance of quantum coherence. One such example is the superfluid.

'Vacuum Superfluid Theory' is a revival of aether theory, albeit which is now a superfluid. It is a theory taken seriously by physicisys. So if space is full of a superfluid, we already have a possible candidate for the quantum field we wanted.

To understand a 'superfluid', (and eventually our UFO) lets begine with a single quantum 'particle'. The quantum wave's amplitude is related to the probability of finding a point like particle at the region of that amplitude. So every time you observe the quantum system, you find a single particle. In QM, a single wave can describe more than one particle. If the wave is describing two particles, then every time you observe the system, then you will find 2 particles. The two particles are not necessarily at the same place. Their distance apart are generaly random. If the wave is describing zillions of particles, then every time you observe the quantum system, you will find the zillions of particles. Such a system, with zillions of particles, described by the same wave, is a superfluid. Ordinary fluids have their particles described by zillions of waves that cause dicoherence.

 A quantum decoherence that is due to heat, will create zillions of Gaussian Bells in the superfluid, making it look like usual fluid. However, quantum coherence due to sound will create a macroscopic Gaussian Bell. It is never the measurement appearing in the foundations of QM that creats quantum decohernce. So quantum decoherence does not solve the famous measurement problem. The decohered waves (Gaussian Bells) are still quantum waves which still describes the probabilities. They are not particles.The Pilot Wave interpratation solves the measurement problem by including a particle existing independent of wave.

It is never the quantum decoherence that creats the non-locality effect such as the ones described by the so called Bell's Theorem. Rather, it is the real 'collaps' that is the superluminal. So in the pilot-wave model, particle moves from some arbitrary place upto the place it is found in in a twinkle of a  eye! So Pilot Wave model is the ideal one for UFO! A UFO cannot be just the the soliton of the 'immaterial' waves, not matter how much the idea of 'the UFO is not seperate from the whole pervading field' is appealing to new age. The reason is that the wave is not superluminal. In a superfluid, for instance, the wave is just the sound waves in the fluid!

However, in a superfluid, the particles keep darting back and forth superluminarly whenever they are observed. The only problem is that the particles are not synchronized. Some are heading in one direction, others are heading in other directions. The net effect is a fluid that apears not to be moving at all! As you can see then, the major challenge of a UFO technology, that uses quantum non-locality, would be to synchronize the whatever force that is driving the individual particles so that they act in the same direction for all the particles forming up the UFO. The UFO engineers may make the spacecraft look closely like a Gaussian Bell intentionally so that it fits well inside the wave packet, to maximise the force that stops the air craft at that region. The soliton, in turn, is created by quantum decoherence due to 'sound' (or macroscopic vibration from the 'observer' of the UFO)


Read more…

Why Is Spaceship Necessary?

Of course UFOlogists are not, at least initially, telling us that ETs come here through witchcraft. They are telling us that they use advanced technology. Part of justification of this spaceships involves understanding this technology. Anecdotal evidences are not enough! So a sincere UFOlogist is expected to be interested with technological explanations of what looks like 'magic'. UFOlogy then is a new form of spirituality that embraces science and technology, not just 'magics'. However this original view is slowly removed and a purely 'magical' story is imposed! Things surreptitiously disappears in andromeda and reappears on earth fo reasons only gods know! Ironically, what this latter view undermines is the very UFO itself, their only objective evidence! If things happen by 'magics', UFOs are unnecessary! All a witch needs is perharps a broom!

Possible or impossible, we don't move from place to place by praying for God to whisk us like witches. We had to build our technology by studying science. The same will be the case in interstellar travel. Until we figure out the science by studies, theorizing and understanding, we will never make trips to stars! Neither will ETs do that! 

A key point in interstellar travel is overcoming the Eisteinian Barrier. So we must form a correct understanding of Einsteinian Barrier-such that it can be overcomed. We may then posit that once an entity has overcame this barrier, it moves just like an ordinary object, making a spaceship necessary. The process of overcoming the Einsteinian Barrier automatically cloaks a space-ship, as interaction with our light is what makes an object confined to Einsteinian Barrier. So it is not that 'ETs are Shy' or that there is a law that forbids ETs to deckoak, like some UFOlogists tells us! Rather cloaking is a necessary part of interstellar travel technology.

We must also form a correct understanding of quantum mechanics by adopting the most rational explanation: 'pilot wave model'. Remember that the most rational interpratation of Relativity allows for some overcomings of Einsteinian barrier. Thus only irrationalities and idiotic thinking amongst physicists that makes it appear like interstellar travel is impossible! Ironically, new age echoes only with nonsense from physics pulpits because they have, erroneously believed that when universe makes no sense, then 'everything is possible'. They don't care what the physicists are actually saying! They are talking of nonsense, and this reasonates with them! They are like flies who can only gather to a place when faeces are around, and not at any other time!

Quantum particles routinely overcomes Einsteinian barrier. In the case of 'pilot wave model', all we need is to figure out what in nature makes a tiny particle violets a 'law'. We realize there is no such a law! If we drop 'quantum magic' thinking, we know that if nothing forbids a single particle to do something, nothing can forbid an ensemble of similat particles from doing the same. All we need is synchronize that thing that is driving the single particle and make it drive a huge number of particles. Thus being rational help us to see a possibility which irrationality forbids!! Physicist are telling us 'by magics', it is impossible to move to stars. Thus magical thinking can also be used to form limited beliefs. It is not always the other way round!

A quantum wavicle, when it localizes, is a wave packet, which looks closely like a UFO. The quantum wave attains this shape when 'observed'. So if a spaceship is trying to use the quantum wayround Einsteinian Barrier, it must make sure that it is not observable throughout its journey, hence it gets cloaked. 'Observation' here is any interaction with light. So this huge UFO is able to overcome quantum decoherence by simply being a weakly interacting entity. It interacts weakly with electromagnetic field,  during its travel. In other words, the process that results in cloaking is the process that maintains the UFO in a state of Bose Einstein Condensate, enabling a macroscopic manifestation of quantum effects. So when not observed, the UFO wave behaves as if it is everywhere in the universe all at once! When observed, it collapses into a wave-packet, creating the farmiliar Ufo shape!

In pilot-wave model, wave-packets are not enough. There are classical objects that follows the waves. However they can move much faster than light. They move fast and they are stopped in places where the wave has highest amlitudes, obeying the so called Born's rule. In this case, an almost ordinary spaceraft will move to a place wherein the wave 'collapsed' into a UFO-like wave-packet. This space craft is just 'ordinary' in the sense that it uses fuel. The only difference is that it can turn its particles into a state of 'weakly interacting'. So this explains why a space-craft is necessary.

Read more…

UFOlogy Hypocrisy

If everything is possible, what is the purpose of a spaceship? Why not just wave a magic wand an voila, you disappear on earth and reappear in Andromeda! Clearly we need a better explanation for UFO than 'everything is possible' type baloney.

Ashtar Command Crew presents itself as interested with ETs and UFOs. Infact, it has a beautiful picturesque of a UFO. Same is the case for many people in ACC. You will find a captivating title about ETs, UFOs etc. He mensions UFOs in few steps, and you think that he is going to address some meaningful issues about ETs etc. In reality, he has no interest with ETs at all! He is only interested with half-assed 'Buddhism', 'Christianity', 'hinduism', 'Islam', 'devil worshipers' 'cabals', 'demons', 'angels' and the likes! There is no interest in science, technology, facts and objective reality! You only find psychological or psychiatric 'explanations' that are fit for a funny farm! A UFOlogist say, well, people in the assylum mights as well perceive reality. Some of them see UFOs. Therefore UFOs are real!


A UFOlogist wants to convince you that two ignoramuses makes knowledge! People don't see reality, he says. Therefore they are right. All such a UFOlogisy needs to do is to show that people see illusions. This, to him, means he has proven his case! He says some of the clouds a UFO sceptic is seeing is a formation of his own mind. Therefore a formation of a UFO by the mind of a UFO beleiver should be taken as real! In other words, he is only interested with psychitric cases! He defends the funny farm housing UFOlogy fanatics by merely pointing out another funny farm housing UFOlogy denialists! (Both denialism and fanaticism are not healthy, but humans don't fit into one or either of these extremes).

Most people don't see UFOs. However, most of them are not in active denial either. Everybody will embrace the knowledge that there are ETs visiting us with joy and excitement. You can experiment this way: create a baloon that looks like a UFO and see if people will report that they have seen one. You will find that they will! Not many people are denialist enough to shut off a perception of a real thing. So the psychiatric explanation of why we don't see UFOs makes no sense! UFOlogists shell gamers should find another way of fooling us!


The sensible physics explanation of why we don't see UFOs up there is not considered by these UFOlogists. The laws of physics does not allow such a dance in our skies! As far as we know, if a star-trecking ever happens, it is extremely rare to happen. Thus physics alone is enough to explain the rarity of UFOs in our skies. But UFOlogist is not interested with science and objective reality. He is fully absorbed into Buddhism, Zoroastrianism etc. A 'Jesus', 'Buddha' etc has no use of reality out there! Rather, he is into minds and hearts. He is too busy wondering who is worthy to get to heaven, reincarnate in hell, become a king in a new kingdom. He gets too busy with who is worthy or not, that he fails to check the reality of these things! Then of course when cornerd, he tries to pretend that all he is interested with is 'imparting values' and the like! The UFOlogist borrows this tactics from the ancient 'gurus'. You see 'Love' punctuated everywhere, even when we realy don't need this reminder! Nobody is saying he hates anyone. (It doesn't matter how much you say 'love'). This tactic is meant as a loophole, should his theory fails to make any sense! He can switch gears and say 'I am just jocking', or 'I was just talking about love'. So suddenly, the whole thing was realy never about UFOs at all! It was all about 'love'. So you were chasing a strawman all along!

They adopt only the religious explanations. No science!! Why did some people see a UFO  and others didn't? The better, scientific explanation would be that not everyone was looking at the sky and the apparition was extreemly brief. It is just like many people, including scientists, have never seen ball lightning, but they are real. But this scientific explanation will not create a chance for the hierarchies in the 'spiritual' world! This is not the castle system they like! Here, there is no mension of karma, hell and heaven! So they don't like such! So they adopt the explanation that only the blessed ones in the high places of the castle can see UFOs! Only 'the pure in heart will see God'. So those who see UFOs are simply the sees of modern world. They are those privileged to 'talk with Yahweh'. They are the 'old souls'. So sorry, you will have to rencarnate here several times, clear your karma etc before you see UFOs.

But UFOs simply cannot possibly declock anyhowly as the interaction with light brings with it the interaction with cosmic dursts and Einsteinian barrier. Science makes more sense than these religions! But it also means that you are not a sinner if you don't see UFOs. This explanation does not appeal to religion because its intent is to manipulate and pacify. Religion has no interest with real metals up there in the sky. It is whatever the metal may do to pacify you that they are interested. So saying just anyone with his eyes fixed upwards will see a UFO serves no purpose!  Religion cannot use ball lightning, Comets, etc to manipulate us, even if they too are rare apparitions. But if we attach so ethics to it, then yes, religion is interested. He can now say 'blessed are the peace loving, for they see UFOs'! Then of course who doesn't love to be seen as a member of 'highly evolved' army of UFO seers? He will be greated well and given the best seats in a UFO meeting! Thus the UFOlogist can use emperor's clothes to recruit members to the new religion!

Religion has not interest with constraints of nature. If you say that some things are impossible, it serves no purpose to religion. You only open up the possibility of another explanation other than 'you are unworthy sinner' for why some things don't happen. They have conditioned us never to fix on what we need and seek for whatever means of achieving, be it technology or whatever! It is never getting to stars that he want for you! No! All he wants is to manipulation you, thats all. He wants to 'raise your vibration', 'make you pecefull', 'reprogram your negativity' etc. The promise to stars is just a bait! So he is realy scared of interstellar technology. That is the mosy ironic thing! What use will it be for a 'sinner' to get to 'heaven' using a way round technology?

The belief that 'everything is possible' only begets 'fingure pointing' type explanations of why we don't see that 'everything'. Like Christians, they only tell us that the root reason is that wr are 'sinners'. They try to recolour this using words like 'lower frequency', but they essentially mean the same thing! So you see why the belief that 'everything is possible' is handy? It is not that he wants a lot of things for you. You don't need a lot of things. You don't need to watch 'immovable stones' colliding with 'unstoppable objects' up there in the sky. What for? But they press on you that 'even this is possible'. Providing 'the impossible' counter-examples are disastrous as they open up the 'you are not a sinner' alternative explanation, which spoils the mission. He wants you to believe that everything is possible but ' ye first the kingdom...'

So 'everything is pissible'. Ask why we are not making trips to stars and he tells you that this planet is a prison! Other 'hollier' beings are enjoying the whole cosmos, making regular trips here and there. But here? No, this is a rehabilitation center! It is meant for wicked half demonic beings. You are trapped here till you learn and evolve. Then you will be whisked like a witch to anywhere you want! So it is never technolgy. It is pure magics. All you need to do is appease the gods with a good conduct and you are there! Again they try to hide the obvious language of ancient religions with words like 'higher vibration' but they mean the same. When they say 'vibration' it betray some physics but it is nothing of the sort! 'Lower vibration' is simply 'sin' and 'higher vibration' is simply 'righteousness'. He is rebranding the bottle, but the snake oil is the same!

The result is disaster! The followers feer and hate fellow human beings! 'We are governed by demons', 'our fellows are letting us down by failing to 'awaken' et c. They fear our leaders, governments, new tecnology, doctors, new presidents etc. These are the people imprisoning us to this hell. We hate ourselves. Lunatic Conspiracy Theories abounds etc! All because we believe that it is our fault that we leave in this planet and cannot get anywhere we want, nor get visited by our star brothers. But it is never our fault. There is simply no interstellar technology that can easily do such fleats as these religious goons, asurping 'spirituality' are selling to us!

Read more…

Understanding Crystalline Body



You have probably heard of 'crystalline body', read more and find that they won't tell you what it is. They will tell you what it does! They won't explain or justify why most of these thing it does requires a crystalline body!! They will talk of healing past traumas, feeling love, staying focused, going within, breaking old patterns, reprogramming etc. They are just usual 'pseudopsycology'.

Can you say there is a dynauser in your house then only talk of 'what it does', saying it cooks, it wash, it drives your dog to wag tail, it makes the cat meaow alot, it makes the visitors come home etc? No, because all these avtivities can be done by other things other than a dynauser. A huge size of your explanation should be dedicated to explaining, for instance, why is it not your child who was cooking.

A legitimate explanation offered is that our carbon-based bodies cannot withstand light from 'other dimensions' and so we require a new body. However, they donnot immediately notice that such exlpanation means that we must then explain our biological bodies in the light of the spirit, or otherwise what they are saying is as counter-factual as the claim that a dady exists up there in the sky above the blue sheet! If we observe our cells as they receive the light, we should be able to notice that something is going on, especially when they are about to be damaged by too much light from the 'other dimension'. It is just like in we must see Yahweh somewhere as our earth moves round the sun, somewhere up way above the supposed blue sheet! So for our idea to be consistent with facts, we need a deatailed, scientific theory of 'higher light-carbon body interaction.'


We cannot say 'we are moving from a carbon based body to a crystalline one' any more than you can say you are changing your car from a metal based one to a blue one! So this is a misnomer! Crystals are defined as 'an object with atoms that are highly organized'. So almost every solid is a Crystal, according to this definition. The first picture above shows a microtubule, the kind of structures found in cells as seen in the last picture. The second picture shows sodium cloride crystal. As you can see, sodium chloride only differes from a microtubule in the manner in which it ends on the surface! In other words the only difference between what we call 'crystals' and many biological structures is merely their surfaces, not their inner structures!


We can say that the tubuline network is the seat of our soul! The piped tubules are the channels that contains a quantum coherent field that can as well be understood as 'light from another dimension'. The tubules can be connected to what they call the 'nadis' in eastern religions. Then yes, it cannot withstand too much light, that is why, for instance, you can't be 'too happy' or 'too loving'. However, another body that can widhstand it is just another unseen layer that closely looks like the tubulin network. It is not an entirely different 'crystalline' because, as you can see, the tubulin network is already a crystalline body!!

Read more…

Sun Powered By Gravity

The Horse:  How might we ever obtain abundant energy?

The Lion: By tapping into the flux of weakly interacting particles (eg neutrinos ) that are rushing towards the earth surface, driven by the earth's gravity.

These particles comes from the rest of the universe. They are pulled towards the centers of massive bodies. Such a source of energy will be akin to hydroelectric power albeit one that doesn't require a constant lifting of the fluid because the fluid is already naturaly lifted. In other words abundant, gravirational potential energy is already there. This is due to some cosmic particles being naturaly 'up there', unlike water which needs to be lifted by evaporation, requiring input energy, e.g. from the sun. Here, I am going to explain sunlight using this cosmic energy, rather than the usual thermonuclear engine.

Why Do We Need Another Theory Of Sun's Energy Source

There are two major reasons that makes me reconsider the source of Sun's energy:

1.) The consistent failure of the nuclear fusion research.

2. )The inverse temperature gradient of sun's corona.

The laws of thermodynamics forbids energy from being transfered from a colder place to a hotter place. The sun's atmosphere is hotter than the sun surface. Therefore probably the sun's energy flows from the atmosphere to the surface and not the vice-versa! According to the standard model, a cold surface will have to be sandwiched between two hot regions! How can this be? Can you cook food using the flames beneath the cooker without heating the cooker itself? It is true that another form of energy, other than heat, such as chemical energy, can flow from a colder place to a hoter place. The petrol in your car flows from the colder place, the tank, to the hotter place, the engine, where the chemical energy is converted to heat. But I will argue that such cannot be the case inside the sun.

Though you can take chemical energy from a cooler place to an hotter place, you cannot transfere heat energy from a cooler place to a hotter place by first converting it to another form of energy. So you cannot, for instance, convert heat energy in the engine to petrol energy, then take the petrol into an even hotter place, eg a furnace, and then turn it back into heat energy (without inputting any other energy eg by pumping). Such a transfer of energy will lead to a perpetual moving machine of the second type, which violates the second law of thermodynamics. One could convert heat from one part of the ocean into fuel take it to another part and burn it, extracting energy in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium. So the only way for the sun to transfer enery to the hotter corona is by converting the heat energy into magnetic energy from the even hotter interior. Why should this happen? At what point and why will heat say, well, lets now turn to magnetism and escape? Though it may not be impossible, it is not plausible! Why not try another model and see how it perform?

Can 'force' such as gravity produce energy? The answer is yes, if there is an object already distant from the source of the force. That object accelerates towards the object that is sourcing the force. Infact the best example is elecrostatic force which normaly creats light, e.g. when you take off a cloth. The electrons accelerates towards a charged object, then upon hitting the object, they stop and thus converts the kinetic energy to light energy. The disadvantage with creating light using electrostatic force is that it quickly neutralizes. So However powerfull, e.g. lightning, it last only for a while. This limitaion is not there for gravity. Infact for gravity, it is the opposite. The more particles fall into a gravitating object, the stronger the gravitating object. This is because the gravitaing object is now heavier.

 The sun's gravity is imence. If you were standing on the sun's surface and then release a stone, (i.e. from an height of around merely one meter) by the time it reaches the ground, it will be whizzing at around 120 km/h, i.e. faster than a speeding car! Now imagine a pebble comming all the way from pluto, steadily accelerating how fast will it be moving by the time it hit the sun? It is almost beyond imagination! A mere collection dust that is fraction of the earth's mass is enough to create sparks visible from the earth, should they colide with the sun. So yes, a constant bombardment from cosmic particles is enough to create the sunlight you see! Comparing the light emitted due to earth's gravity with the one emitted due to the sun is like comparing what the electrostatic force in your comb can do with what the electrostatic force can do in lightning. In other words, the electrostatic force in the comb is not enought to creat visible light. But then one in the lighning is enough to illuminate a swath of land. It is the same with the sun. Only replace electrostatic force with gravity and electrons with any particle that is acted upon by gravity, and you see that indead gravity can be the source of sunlight.



Read more…

Why Don't ETs Appear Unambiguously?

It is repugnant to logic for UFOlogy to present to us Christianity Islam, Hinduism, Zoriastrianisms etc, painted in different colours and then claim theirs is not a religion. Once they do that, all the problems with Christianity etc lands on their heads. We have a problem with the idea that there is an invisible dad up there in the clouds who can do everything but opts to fold his hands and watch misery on earth because, though he can do everything, he can't  solve petty social ethical issues on earth for us without violating our free will! 

Ufology essentially presents the same thing to us. Heaven is the 5D. Hell is some prison planets. Yahweh is some advanced, benevolent, extraterestial beings. The devil is some dark aliens, angels are star families. the antichrist is the cabal. The prophets are the channelers. Miracles are some advanced, extraterestial technology. Saints are the few, awakened, old soul, lightworkers vegeterians. The sinners are the rest of human beings. The saviours are the starseeds indigos and Trumps. The holy spirit is the energy. The bible is a collection if channelled messages. And so on! Then they mock Christians for saying the same things!

Then all the problems and the illogicalities of Christianity enters! These advanced beings have all the solutions we need. But they cannot lift even their fingure to help us because we have sinned! We polute the planet, we kill animals, we rigg elections, we are corrupt and selfish, we intentionally create poverty for the benefit of a few, we withhold technology that can solve all our problems so a few may benefit. So sorry, but God has hidden his face from us! In otherwords 'the overaly benevolent beings' must completely smear human beings to justify their own failure to help us despite their ability to do so! So UFOlogy needs a demon of a human being. If we are not as bad as such, their religion collapses in picoseconds! Of course true love is impossible with such! They can talk of love, but so what? Even Christians say that Yahweh has unconditional love and yet he will cast sinners into an eternal torment for the condition that they drunk beer, danced to rock music and did not believe that someone invisible is up there in the sky, despite them never seeing such! So don't let mere mention of 'love' fool you. It is impossible to be loving if all the time the wickedness of other people is in the uppermost of your mind.

According to the UFOlogist, human beings are ruled by evil cabal, against their will. Yet the reason why the ETs are not appearing is that they don't want to violet our free will by not seeking the permission of the very same 1% demonic cabal claimed to be rulling us against our own will. Make sense? Like Christians they are just trying to solve the problems they created for us and expect us to regard them as our saviours!

The UFOlogist have unwittingly concluded that ultimately it is the evil cabals who will save us from themselves, not the benevolent ETs! The ETs will stand there watching from remort and then bring in their advanced technology once the cabal save us from themselves. All of this is because they don't want to override the will of the 1% demonic, cabal who are ruling us against our will!!  Thus they care about the will of the 1% wicked peolple more than the will of the majority of us, and the wills of many, benevolent ones amongst us. Thus we end up with a worst story than the one for christianit. At least Christians never said that Yahweh is waiting for the consent of the devil in order to at long last bring down his kingdom! They just opted to say they just don't fully know how Yahweh does things!

The Better Explanation

We know that the anyhow entry of things into the observable world violets the laws of physics as we know. Therefore if a story demands such things to happen, it only makes sense to wonder perhaps it is the physics, not ethics, that prevents the ETs from appearing to us anyhowly. You cannot say your mom, who went to Iran is not appearing to you because you are not ready to hug her, and completely ignore the more obvious explanation of technicality. If we don't make this ludicrous explanation for our moms who are merely kilometres away, why should we go holus bolus to rely on this explanation when now the 'mom' is in andromeda?? Thus to answer the question well, we need to consider the physics of interstellar travel. I often attempt such physics.

Read more…

Eating Is Amoral

'Amoral' here means 'outside the sphere at which moral judgments apply'. 

Occasionally you hear of or read about someone overconfident about his ability to judge what is right or wrong. Since eating meat involves killing, it seems that its wickedness is unquestionable. Therefore there is no room for discussions or dialogues. It is all a matter of the more 'moraly superior' vegetarian to issue preachy monologues and curses to the immoral zombies who eat dead flesh.

The horse: Animals have a right to live

The lion: Yep.

The horse: Therefore we should never kill them.

The lion: Nope!

It is not immediately clear why the conclusion does not immediately follow from the premise. But let me use an example: round worms have a right to live. Good! But does this mean men should not deworm themselves, since de-worming kills them? Does the rights of an animal to leave overrides your circumstances driven need to kill them? Or should we say round worms, flees, ticks, jiggers etc have no right to live? Why should this right to live apply for some animals and not others? The only tenable conclusion is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. 

The right for a round worm to live means that it has a right to difend itself against efforts of a man to de-worm himself! It has the right to develop resistance to drugs. This right is neither granted for nor defended by a human! It has this right whether a man likes it or not, acknowledge it, or not, difend it or not. Just as animals don't need to help humans difend their rights, humans don't need to help animals difend their rights. A human has a right to live, but a lion also has a right to have one for a lunch! You see?

Animals have the same rights as humans

The preachy vegetarian has asurped the duty of animal's spokesman! If you want to know what the rights of animals are, 'ask the vegetarian'! There is no question of whether the animal itself has a different view. No question of whether a chicken may prefer to be swiftly killed by a human rather than sucked blood slowly by a monguos. No, 'the vegetarian knows better'. Yes, better than chicken itself! Then according to the vegetarian, it is cruel for a human to swiftly kill a chicken but it is ok for jackal  to chew it from legs upwards!

The vegetarian has created stupid straw men and then knocked them down. He lists supposed 'arguments by meat eaters', arguments that nobody have actually made them! One of them is that 'human should eat animals because he is superior to them'. Humans are also eaten by crocodiles, lions and pythons. Meat eaters don't regard this as 'wickedness from lions' against a supposedly superior being. Having a right to eat another living thing has nothing to do with 'superiority' otherwise the most superior animals would not be humans but snakes,  lions, hyenas, dogs, etc.

This 'equality' between humans and animals is maintained only as long as it favours the vegetarian. The animal is briefly 'promoted' into a human and then immediately 'demoted' back! If he doesn't do that, then his argument that 'killing an animal is just like killing a human' turns on its own head! If animals are just like humans, why is this 'likeness' only applicable to the human prey and not the predators? If 'we are just the same as animals', why is it ok for a hyena to eat meat but not so to a man?

It turns out to be yet another human 'superiority complex' comming in the form of moral superiority to animals! It suck to say we are on the same par with dogs, worms, hyenas, warthogs etc! We think we are closer to God than animals. So we should be far holier! But the only way of saying that a man has same rights as animals is to maintain that man too is not forbidden to eat other animals. So we are all the same! There is no reason to exempt carnivores in this 'sameness'. With that, man becomes as loving as a cat, and as innocent! We must not only consider 'same rights' with animals only when it makes men guilty and ignore it/ deny it when it makes man innocent. This is a one sided deal!


What if there were no carnivores such as lions? Then herbivores would become zillions and graze the land bare. So you can agree that killing the herbivorous is good for the ecosystem. However, the vegetarian's argument will be inconsistent! Putting it togegher, it says: 'it is good to kill herbivores but it is bad for a man to kill them because they have a right to live!!' The 'right to live' is only called into question when a man hunt one or two, all while at the back of mind, he maintains that thaosands of them, including the one hunted by the man, should be killed by the lions, cheetahs, leopards etc. Make sense? If something is good for nature, e.g. killing some herbivores, it cannot also be bad for a human to contribute to doing this necessary thing!

The horse: so are you saying that it is ok for men to kill other men to reduce population.

The lion: nope! I am saying it is not a sin for a lion or a crocodile to eat some men! 

It is amoral for one species to eat another. On the contrary, this is good for the ecosystem. Foodchain was meant to be there. But people have concluded that animals are amoral when infact it is only relative. A dog has no human morals, but they have their own morals. A human is amoral from the point of view of a dog, and vice-versa is the same. According to a dog, it is not a sin to queue for sex but it is a sin to snarch a bone from another dog! According to chicken, it is not a sin to eat another one while still alife, but we are espected to beleive that 'they feel bad when one of them is eaten by a human'! But accirding to chicken, it is a sin not to warn others of a comming eagle. So when a cow is killed by a human, it sees no difference from you when a lion kills a human. According to the cow, you are forgivable because you have no morals (the cow's). You are innocent and 'less evolved'. But the vegeterian argument universalizes human ethics, rights etc. It is yet another antropocentrism.

The vegetarian says that human should stop keeping animals. Then he should grow plants like shit. This, he thinks, will provide for human needs for the land that could be used for animals is now available for farming! The vegeterian assumes that when the human stops rearing cattle, they stop eating, when infact they will begine eating a far more land as they will become overpopulated! The vegeterian's argument is totally stupid!! Remember that these animals are now like humans. They 'should not be killed' so their population will now grow like human. Since they are also 'vegetarian', they compete with man over grazing land. You see, the vegeterian's argument that without meat, we have enough land to grow food is flawed! It doesn't take into consideration the land for the livestock themselves . If livestock must live, then we don't have enough land for a worldwide vegetarianism!

We can say we take the livestock to game reserves. But what sense does this make? Saying: cattles should be killed by lions because, having the right to live, they should not be killed by humans? Can you save the life of your child from a soldier by throwing himto a python? Some say that these animals would not be there if human did not keep them! Make sense? Saying livestock should have extincted thaosands of years ago because they have a right to live so they may not be killed by humans?


In some many areas, it is impossible to grow plants edible by humans. Only grass grow. So the only way to survive is to eat meat and drink blood! If the vegetarian argument were tenable, it should make universal sense since morals are universal. A person in semi arid areas grew up knowing that one should not shun meat because at times it is the only available food. So how can you argue to this person that eating meat is immoral? But argument that 'this is immoral' should be understood by all men regardless of their circumstances. Morality should be universal and apeal to all consciences. There are no things right for one group and wrong for another group. Such laws are called 'apartheid'. In this case, it is very problematic. The vegeterian should keep calling meat eaters 'zombies' while also some are recognized as to be entitled to eat meat and others are not! This creats a notion that some humans are animal-like and it is not their fault when they behave like animals, e.g. by eating other animals.

No! What is right or wrong should apply equally to all people. But since it is impossible for some people to live without meat, it cannot be wrong to eat meat for every other human! Granted, it may not be advisable but it is amoral! In this sense we all have equal moral standard. Then you see that man is as responsible as an animal when it comes to what to eat. He too is driven by circumstances.

 livestock prefers man

Go everywhere and you will find that to escape dangerous night predators, chicken goes to human houses at night. It is not that they don't know human too is a predator. They know!! Human is just better! It is a choice of which is better between two insipid options, a kind of choosing we should learn to do and understand! Nature does not always give 'the best option'. It is the same for all livestock. The cat followed the man to feed on the mice in his stores. The goats followed the man to protect him from leopards by building a fence for them etc. Look at sheep!! They follow the man, not the vice-versa!!! Man goes ahead and the sheep comes behind. This is because a man, standing tall, can see distant place and see predators from far and also see green grass from far!  Protecting them from even more dangerous predetors etc may be, according to them, worth the sacrifice of a man eating two to 3 of them once in a while. So how can a vegetarian talk of 'animal rights' that overrides their rights to choose and then say 'this right to live means that we should throw them to be killed by leopards'. It is very ironical that the vegetarian argument is beginning to sound like the evil one!!

This type of relationship is called 'symbiosis' and is universal. Infact the cells of your body are in a symbiotic relationship. When you work, you kill some of the cells of your body. That is to say some other cells kills other cells in your body!! However, the cells of say your skin, chose you rather than living alone like bacteria, even though you would kill some of them when you hold something etc! It is a question of whether it is worth the sacrifice. Your body begines to kill you slowly in what we perceive as 'aging' in order to prevent another killer (cancer) from killing you too quickly! So yes, biological organisms are fond of making sacrifices, sometimes choosing to be killed in one way rather than the other. In a world where we must all die anyway, this is not a big deal at all!

'First Law' Of Jurisprudence 

A basic tenet of justice is to let the wronged to bring the case. If some people complain that there are theifs around and so many people are beeing stolen from, then there is no answerable case if no one is complaining that he himself have been stolen from! In other words you can never take a case to court on behalf of another person. Nobody has the right to go to court and complain that I have been stolen from if I myself is not complaining! There is a reason for this. A complain to a third party is not the only way of settling disputes. The case for children is already problematic. A child has no say, so we believe. So in case someone wrongs a child, we can jail them for a life imprisonment before the child grows up. But we a times get surprised to learn that according to the now grown child, the person did no wrong and should be released!! The child might also have been denied a chance to forgive!!

The vegeterian arguments sees animals as morality unresponsible! They are like children or mentally retarded individuals. It is only the vegetarian who knows the real problems of the animals, not the animals themselves. The vegetarian's approach is terribly patronizing! Then according to the vegetarian, the real problem of the animals is lives!  However it is evident that this is not the case! A cow, for instance, like a cow is only disturbed by immediate threat, not a far into future death. If offered a choice, a cow will chooses a silent, distant death than a constant threat. The major problem of a cow is getting some grass, watter or getting rid of flies buzzing around the nose or eyes. It has no concern with next year harvest, life or anything like that. These, to a cow, is just like pants, neck ties lipstick, a camera etc,  which are, though very important to a man, are worthless to a cow. Take a laptop and he will use it as a toilet!

The vegeterian take is to override the real concern for animals and impose human concerns as though an animal is equivalent to a mentally returded human. It is like, well, 'they need it but they don't know it cause they are less evolved'. So they impose concerns like life assurance, things that are of zero concern to livestock! Nobody has a right to go to court to complain that my neighbour is smocking weed to my nose if such a thing does not concern me, even if inhaling weed can cause cancer to me. No one should patronize me!

Read more…

Entanglement With 'Particles Of Space'

I have seen that some people like to think of space as though a physical object. It is a road, a fabric,a tunnel (and also it doesn't exist ). But we don't need this contradictory view of 'space' to present those ideas. We can present the idea of aether. What they want is to locate things relative to something else. I am in Cairo, to get to Johannesburg, I must first get to Khartoum,then to Nairobi, then to Harare. Since objects not regions are now seen to seperate me from Johannesburg, another way round to getting to Johannesburg becomes conceivable: you can 'recurve' the planet and bring the city itself! That is now sounding like a sensible way of acheiving what the concept of a wormhole, is meant to achieve in a senseless way whereby empty space is taken as a literal road!

But thinking in terms of aether rather than space has even more advantage. You can think of the aether as to be made of molecules that are capable of quantum entanglement! Like I said, consciousness recognizes 'nearness' and 'farness' in terms of communication. Two photons that are quantum entangeld appear nearer to each other than the disentangled one, even if one of the entangled ones is in andromeda! If you don't believe this, consider the fact that when you dream, the moon appears to be far up there yet it is just in your own visual cortex!

But we want to create a 3d space and locate things, mapping them to be 'near' or 'far'  based solely on how they are quantum entangled, caring less of where they actully are in the spatio-temporal sense.  With this, we can say you are in cairo if you are entangled with the city. Why should we not say this if such entanglement allows you to interact with the city in all ways? But generaly, it is not the visible objects that I want you to think of as being entangled with. Rather, it is the molecules of aether. If you are entangled with a certain molecule, then you are at the same point no matter how far it is. It is the information that makes something appear near, not 'spatio-temporality'. As long as information is in your visual cortex, for instance, an object appears as though infront of you!

We can go into details on how to create a notion of 'up', 'down', 'far' etc. It is simple to do that. Two photons that enters a barium borate crystal horizontally comes out entangled in such a way that their total momentum in the 'vertical' direction is zero. So whenever one photon 'pushes' the other, its own momentum reduses. The two photons seem to be sitting just next to each other along the vertical line, no matter where they are in the universe! By a similar process,  we can creat another entangled photon, but now which sits next to one of them but along the 'northern' axis. A photon is 'further' away from another if it is entangle with it in a secondary way, i.e. if photon A is entangled with B, and B is entangled with C, then C is 'farther away' from A than B is. On and on we can play, creating an ensemble of particles to form an omnipresent object, with a notion of 'intactness' or 'solidity'!

At this point, you can now understand why we should rather talk of 'entanglement with paticles of aether' rather fhan entangling say the electrons directly. We also want to create a notion of 'this electron is far from the other' but with 'empty space' in between them. We do this by entangling one electron with one aetheric particle. This aetheric particle is, in turn entangled with another aetheric particle. It goes on and on till an aetheric particle is entangled with the other electron. So we say that one electron is 'far' from the other if it is entangled with it indirectly with many aetheric particles 'in between' in a 'chain link'. 

 A question worth contemplating about is: might the brain have made this game of entangling all its particles so that death will be irrelevant to its continuation?  Such a death is what I call 'homeomorphic death'.

Read more…

Quantum Entanglement Communication

Theoretical physicists said 'there is no faster than light communication during quantum entanglement' not because they observed so but because Einstein's theory, not tested for single particles, said so! By so doing, they unwittingly declared than Einstein himself either did not understand quantum mechanics or relativity, the theories that he himself was one of the pioneers!! But Einstein, as I will show you, understood QM so well and as he said it does undermine his own theory.

Quantum entanglement stems from the 'omnipresent' nature of quantum particles that is very easy to understand by even a child, let alone Einstein. This 'omnipresence' definitly undermine Einstein's theory, and Einstein correctly understood it, while the modern, confused bozos don't!. If a particle, when not yet observed, can be found anywhere from hydra to andromeda, then observing it, allowing it to re-enter the quantum state, and then observing it once again can be found to have gone from hydra to andromeda in pico seconds! Einstein's theory, like Newtonian Physics, is a classic theory, not a quantum theory. All classic theories break down in quantum level and emerges in macroscopic world through quantum decoherence. Therefore we don't need confusing way of  (mis)understanding QM as though Eisteinian barrier applies even at quantum level. Drop this, and QM becomes easy to understand! A particle simply moves back and forth at zillions of time faster than light. In true science, it is not a 'theory' that we pledge our ultimate loyalty to. Rather it is 'experiments'. We just don't want to contradict experiments, we don't care about contradicting theories. SR have never been tested in the specific case, therefore we have no experiment to contradict.

Sending Information Problem 

The problem of using quantum entanglement to send information superluminary is a problem in practise and not a problem in principle. It absolutely has nothing to do with Einsteinian Barrier. Nothing is 'getting heavier and heavier' as it tries to break the barrier. Therefore physicists are quite disingenuous to link this purely quantum phenomenon to Einsteinian barrier instead of correctly pointing out that it is a coincidence. Einsteinian barrier happens to a beam of decoherent particles, not a 'single' coherent wavicle. Therefore Einstein's theory, like Newton's or Maxwell's, is not fundamentally true. However, unlike Maxwell's etc, SR has been sold out like a religion!

quantum entanglement happens when there is a conservative law at work. Therefore the un-manipulativity of quantum entanglement to send information is easy to understand. What alters say the momentum of the entagled photon is its entangled partner, not the 'observer'. So the observer cannot modulate the momentum to send information. For the observer to alter the momentum, it must first 'observe' the photon, 'destroying' its quantum nature. So this is pure quantum nature of particles that must cross into the classic world via observation, not Einstein's theory. Einstein's theory is irrelevant to this. Once the quantum particles cross to the classic world, they now obey classic physics, including SR.

You are now ready to understand that any manifestation of quantum physics in macroscopic world will allow for superlumanal communication. If, for instance, we have a quantum mind, then our minds can attain superluminal communication, therefore appearing to be 'omnipresent' in some domain! First understand that 'observation' does not completely destroy the quantum nature. It merely diminishes it vastly, beyond the abilitty to detect through ordinary means . This is done through quantum decoherence, which suddenly reduces the wave amplitudes but does not destroy them.This is why quantum effects are actually sometimes manifest in macroscopic world, eg in superfluidity, magnetism, Bose Einstein Condensate etc.

In quantum state, two entangled photons are 'omnipresent'.  Therefore they can always interact and exchange their momentums etc. When decoherence happens, following an 'observation', the particles now begine to spend most of their times in isolations so they can nolonger interact often enough. However, what is crucial to understand is that the interaction still happens, but rarely. However, if there were, originally, large number of such photons, then this 'rare interaction' translates into 'fewer interacting particles'. In other words in classic world, the beam of light that is quantum coherent and thus able to be entangled is too dim to detect in usual ways, but this beam is alwsys there!

Finaly note that the idea that we can't send information by exploiting the quantum entanglement comes from the apparatus being seen as different system from the entangled quantum state. We say well, quantum particles gave a strange way of commonucation. But if macroscopic quantum coherence is maintained, then we can see ourselves as to be part of the entanglement pairs, hence it is us who are in the quantum soup! Therefore we definitely can send the information. 

Read more…

Telepathic Omnipresence

The Horse: How will we get to the farthest stars?

The lion: We are already there!

The concept 'presence' is generalized so that 'spatio-temporal presence' is but one of them, or even not the fundamental presence. You can be spatially present but 'spiritually' absent, or vice-versa, or so goes the poetry. But I am not into poetry here. I am into some literal science, not worthless metaphors.

Omnipresence as a feature of awareness is not too hard to grasp. If you close one eye, you see an object. If you open it and close the other, you still see the same object. It appears in the same awareness even if they fall into different regions of the brain. The awareness is omnipresent throughout the brain! But it is so as long as the brain is interconnected to itself. So interconnectedness obviates the need to travel. Nobody thinks that he needs to move to his own visual cortex  in order to feel that he is present there. But what if we had the brain as big as the universe itself? Then we would feel as though we are everywhere in the universe all at once!

I define 'presence at A'  this way: 'If you are able to instantly influence, or be influenced by everything happening at A, then you are fully present at A'. The usual 'presence' you know of is called 'spatio-temporal presence'. Spatio-temporal presence then is not an end on itself. Rather, it is a means of achieving something. You want to see a giraffe, to talk to someone, to be talked to by someone, to kick a ball, to push a table etc. So you spatially avail yourself there. Communication with a region is the main purpose of traveling to that region. So 'spatio-temporal presence' is just one of the ways of achieving that 'perfect' communication, but it is not the only way! Then 'spatio-temporal omnipresence' is the one that is problematic. But the one that I am calling it 'telepathic omnipresence' is non spatio-temporal. 

When you dream, the whatever appears in your visual cortex is taken as though to appear 'out there' like the usual objects. Likewise there are signals in the brain that are taken to mean 'movement of your legs, arms etc'. The dream can appear to be very real, though. So all it takes to create what looks like a total reality is just the information like that which normaly come to the awareness from that 'outside'. So telepathy+dream=reality!. Imagine if someone is in Cairo, say in a stadium. Then you somehow dream being that person. The dream is so strange that you dream everything the person experience! When he sees a goal, you dream of a goal, and it appears exactly as it would, if you were actually there! So your dream and that person's experience is perfectly synchronised. You dream everything he experiences. The question now is: is there any difference between having such a dream and being actually in Cairo? No! There is no difference! But this can happen if there is a way in which your brains are such interconnected as to be perfectly synchronized.

But what I am calling 'telepathic omnipresence' does not need a person at the other terminal to transduce the information. As long as some instantaneous interconnectedness is there, the brain can alwsys collect the information and use it to constract a reality as it were a dream. Next blog, I will talk of  quantum entanglement and decoherence to explain the physics at work.

Read more…