The 'bed bug analogy' is what modern theoretical physicist uses to instill in the initiate's mind that a human being can cogently talk of 'higher dimensions' while fully trapped within 3d. Ask where the alleged eleventh dimension is located and they frankly tell you that they cannot even imagine where it is, let alone see one! You get totally lost because you thought science was about things that can be observed. Perhaps you go ahead and think that you are the only one 'floating' inside a room composed of 'eleven dimensional' so called 'geniuses', but you are mistaken! As you will see, you are not alone! These self proclaimed 'geniuses' are actually victims of the infamous 'emperor's clothes'!

Ask how you can possibly 'know' of a 'fourth dimension', and you are taken to tour in 'flat land', the land whose inhabitants are all 'bed bugs'. These 'bed bugs' can, nevertheless do maths! So you are told that there is another poor guy like you, who similarly think that there are only two dimensions, but it is only because he cannot imagine a third dimension. Welcome to flat land, the home of mathematical 'bed bugs'.

This analogy is a non stater because, as you can see, a bed bug is actually a squarely 3d creature. It is not a 2d analogy of a 3d anything. It is a genuine example of a 3d object. Here, they might tell you 'come on, be more imaginative'. So lets imagine one that is flat enough that it is, in fact, a 2d 'creature'. You find that one such a thing doesn't exist! A basic lesson we learned in kindagarten was that an object doesn't have to varnish from all angles in order to varnish completely. If it disappears from one angle, the whole thing disappears. So we realy can't construct anything by adding 'dimensions' bit by bit. We either have a 3d object or we have nothing. The whole idea of '1d, then 2d, then 3d, then 4d...'. is poppycock because there is no such a sequence of things such as 0d,1d,2d,3d,..that makes us extrapolate and say 'next we have 4d,...'. We only have either 3d or we have nothing.

Since obviously there is no such a 2d 'bed bug' capable of seeing things from within a '2d', flat 'tissue paper', the physicist actually ends up contemplating on one 3d scenario, calling it '2d' and another equaly 3d scenario, and call it '3d'. He reasons with what can only be seen by a 3d creature and uses this to try to tell you how 2d entities inhabiting 'flat land' will see things! In reality, however, such 'creatures' that are impossible to exist, living in an 'hammock' that is impossible to exist cannot possibly see anything! What is before us is two considerations both of which are based entirely on what a 3d creature sees, not one seen by a 2d creature and another one, by a 3d creature.

With this, you will now understand my main argument against the flat land analogy. We will not talk of 'what a bed bug will see', like they incongruously do it in theoretical physics. We will just talk of measuring things relative to different back drops, having in mind that both back drops are as seen by a 3d creature. Lets consider the circle drawn on a spherical surface. The reasoning applied is straight foward: the circumference of the circle is, of course, 2πr, but if we pretend that the 'radius' (call it r') is distance along the curved sphere, the circumference will, of course, be smaller than 2πr'. Taking the 'radiuses' as though to be along the curved surface in which the circle is drawn is (erroneously) said to be how the 'bed bug' living in the 'curved 2d surface' will take them, being unaware of the curvature as it is along another 'dimension'. In reality, of course such a 'bed bug' cannot exist and as such the question of how 'it' does geometry is simply meaningless and so such cannot be a meaningfull analogy of anything! Inexistent scenarios cannot be an analogy of anything existent!

The problem with the above 'analogy' is best highlighted if you consider the case where the spherical surface is made by 'hammering' an initially flat sheet. Lets say you had already drawn the circle with radius r. If there was a 'ruler' embedded in the sheet that was initially indicating radius r you can easily see that the process of 'hammering' the sheet into a spherical surface necessarily stretches the ruler the same way it stretches the sheet itself, so that the ruler still indicates that the circle is r and never r'! Yes the length along the curved surface will be longer, but the ruler will be similarly longer, and so there will be no change in the measured 'radius'.

So you see that theoretical physicist's terrible fallacy is to use the unchanged 'out side' ruler and then insinuate that such is the ruler that the 'bed bug' uses, when in reality, the 'inside' ruler must bend, stretch and contract together with the 'space'. The mistake comes about because the theoretical physicist is actually considering two perspectives as seen by a 3d observer while erroneously insisting that one of them is what the '2d observer' sees, while the other is what the 'bed bug' thinks that the measurement 'should be'. By thinking this way, the physicists imposes the two perspectives onto the very same creature he tells us can contemplate on, and observe only one perspective! This leads them to the error of not noticing that there is only one 'ruler' (not 2) trapped in ths surface, and that ruler must bend, stretch or shrink alongside the surface, whenever the surface undergoes the 'distortions' due to 'curving'.

Finally, notice that this is very relevant to General relativity since 'space' is supposed to be 'distorted' by masses, which can move from place to place. The masses supposedly 'distorts' an originally 'flat' space, or at least alters the curvatures. Rullers donnot, in anyway, seems to exist 'out side of space' for them to help us tell whether or not 'space' is 'curved'! On the contrary, they must get distorted alongside the 'space' every time a massive object passes there. So the amount of change that the ruler undergoes is exactly the same as that which 'space' undergoes, rendering the ruler useless in informing us about how 'curved' the space is! The usual contemplation of 'alterance of Euclidean Geometry' supposedly observable from within the flat land comes from using an hypothetical  'out side of space' 'ruler'  that never streaches nor 'contracts' together with 'space', erroneously taken to be 'a ruler trapped in space' just because it can be hypothetically bent to follow the curvature.

Initially, the light passes from the star, through some point P and then all the way to your eye. However the sun will block the light from the star by having part of itself occupy point P. The supposed 'curvature of space' takes the point P away from any part of sun, in the process, so that the light now moves curvilinearly without any blockage from the sun. But if the movement of point P was due to the 'movement of space' itself as it curves, then it was supposed to take the sun itself alongside it, making the sun larger! The scenario would not have resulted in revelation of any star otherwise blocked by the sun.

The usual 'force' explanation of a bending of trajectory of an object, differs significantly from the 'bending of space itself' explanation in the following way: Supposing that the force acting on the moving particle is present only at some region, call it R. So should the particle move through R, the force will act on the object only briefly during its period of the entry and exit from R. This force will bend the trajectory of the object (assume that the direction of the force is perpendicular to the direction of the moving object). However the direction of the moving object thereby changes permanently so that after moving for a vast distance, it lands in a place completely far from where it would have landed, had it moved rectilinearly, i.e. without encountering any force. The corresponding notion of 'force acting only at region R' in the 'curvature of space' explanation is problematic. The space must be 'distorted' only at region R and it must 'return to normal' elsewhere. Therfore an object moving through R changes its trajectory only at around R and immediately comes back to its original trajectory. For an object to develop a parmanently new trajectory, all the 'space portions' throughout the universe must be altered! For light bent by gravity in andromeda to hit at your eye rather than landing on pluto, or even on the Pleiades, the portion of 'space' that sits in Pleiades must be brought all the way to your eye by 'bending of space itself'! This is because in such a theory, light is 'embedded' in space so that it can only bend when the space itself bends! Is this reasonable? Does a star in andromeda bends the space of the rest of the universe?

So we can now critically exermine the second, possible attempt to explain how stars otherwise 'behind the sun' are revealed due to the fact that the light moves around the sun curvilinearly. Initially, the light that hits your eye would have landed elsewhere had it kept moving rectilinearly rather than it getting bent all the way to your eye. Call the place it would have landed at 'Q'. In the 'curved space' explanation, the space portion Q is bent all the way to your eye! But this doesn't make any sense because if the space itself was the one getting curved, your eyes alongside your body would have been taken elsewhere too by the very 'bending of space'!

At this point, you might have noted that it is not easy at all to determine that 'space is curved' by taking measurements within the space itself. To notice a 'curvature of spcae', so it seems, one must move 'outside of space' and then find another 'space' relative to which the space in question is 'curved'. So you might have wondered what it is that physicists are talking about! You are right! What we can measure within the curved space is surverly restricted. If you bend a piece of paper, a 'bed bug' trapped in it,( so that it cannot in anyway see anything that the paper is bent relative to) cannot notice any change! However, if the 'bed bug' was living near the vertex of a cube, he will discover something 'strange' there. He will notice that unlike in 'elsewhere', you can fill the whole of supposedly '2 dimensional space' (unaware of the third dimension) by summing up only three 90 degrees angles (the three rectangular faces meeting at the vertex)! This is the nature of what it can, and how it is discovered about 'curvature of space' all while stuck inside that space. If the curvature is of the type that 'you need to cut the paper' to make it, then the 'bed bug' can discover the 'missing angles' by walking around the surface. There is nothing else that the 'bed bug' can discover! Have this one intact in your mind when criticaly examining the alleged 'measurement' done by relativists that supposedly shows that 'spacetime' is curved.

In the case of alleged discovery of 'curvature of spacetime' by observing how the starlights are deflected by the sun's gravity, the relativist wants you to believe that the 'bed bug' can tell that lines are bent by the bending of 'space' itself. In the picturesque of 'hammock' that is 'weighed down' by a spherical object, it is easy to see that the otherwise straight lines (geodescics) are actually curved around the spherical object. But this is all because we are seeing it in 3 dimensions and against the back drops relative to which, the lines are 'curved'. But for the 'bed bug', he can only see things curved relative to the things stuck within. He absolutely has no way of telling that one geodesic of 'curved differently' from another simply because the whole of space itself is curved. So here, the relativists confuse themselves with the very same 'analogies' that they claim are 'simplifications for laymen'!

Now lets consider the alleged measurement of 'gravitational time dilation'. First ask 'a clock is ticking slowlier near the earth surface relative to what clock'? relative to the one at the satellite? Then how do you compare these clocks? At first, this look straightfoward. But this is only because we make assumptions about 'spacetime' that the very relativist are trying to deny! Relativity denies us the ability to compare distant clocks as the light has to travel between them. In the case of 'rate of clocks ticking', the light suffers the same 'distortion' as the clocks as it travels from the satellite to the earth surface. So it is not clear at all what rate a clock in satellite will appear to tick as seen all the way from earth. As you will see, there must be a 'Doppler shift' like effect. That corrects any ticking difference between the clock on earth and that in the satellite.

This is how to see it even more clearly: consider two pulses of light emitted, at some point in space, P, one after the other. let T be the time period between the two pulses. These two pulses will travel away from P towards another point, Q. If nothing affect the spacetime in between P and Q, then for every point,R, along line PQ, there will be the same period T between one pulse arriving at R and the other pulse's arival. But if time is 'dilated' at around R, this same 'dillation' will affect the period between the two pulses. This renders the period between the two pulse arriving at R be T', so that T/T' is the 'time dilation between clocks at P and the clocks at R'. Therefore you cannot observe how a clock at P is 'dilated' relative to a clock at R by 'looking at the information about the rate of the clock at P is ticking, as conveyed by light'. The two clocks will simply appear to be ticking at the same rate by whatever way we obtain information from P!

But when you see the alleged 'measurements' by relativists, they fail to consider the effect of 'time dilation' on the light conveying the information itself! To be precise, they assume that the same period, T is maintained throughout the space no matter how spacetime is 'distorted' locally! This is both unreasonable and contradict their other allegation that they can measure 'Doppler shift' due 'expansion of the universe'. The 'time dilation' is supposed to be the effect primarily on spacetime itself, not on anything in it. The other things follows the suit because they are supposedly 'embeded' in space. If you 'stretch space' at some region, the wavelength of light passing that region must increase. If you 'stretch time' there, the frequency of light passing there must similarly reduce. This is how they explain 'red shift' due to alleged 'expansion of the universe' and they must not be allowed to switch back and forth whenever it suits them!

As you might have noted, generally, the relativist's trick is to decide in an ad oc manner what is affected by 'curveture' and what it is not so that they find an observable 'back drop' relative to which, the one affected by the 'curvature' supposedly reveals the curvature of the 'space time' in which it is supposedly embeded! You wonder how the nature can make the choice of what to 'embed' and what not to do it is done on the same spot, in favour of the relativist! In the starlight near the sun example, the sun itself is not 'distorted allongside the spacetime' and/or the observer's eye etc is not similarly 'distorted'. In the case of 'gravitational time dilation', the light emited by a distant clock does not undergo the 'dilations' even as it travels through supposedly distorted spaces! In the case of 'expansion of the universe', as you will notice, the objects themselves are not undergoing the 'expansion' even as 'space' itself is the one that is supposedly expanding!

Of course if the objects underwent expansion, by the same scale as the 'spacetime' itself, we will not notice any change by observing wavelengths of the light that is supposedly 'stretched' by the expansion of space! If you stretch a ruler alongside the object you are measuring, you will not notice any change! So how does then 'spacetime' expands without the expansion of the objects into which, they are embedded.? Why doesn't this exemption affect the light itself? After all the light too, according to the same relativity, have mass.

To begine understanding how wrong the relativists are, consider the difference between ordinary 'Doppler Effect' and the one due to 'expansion of space'. If a moving person firers a bullet away from the direction he is miving in at some time, t1, at some point in space, x1, and then firers the second shot at some time, t2 and at some point in space, x2 then by the time he fires the second shot, the person will have moved towards the bullet by distance: x2-x1= v (t2-t1), where v is his speed. Meanwhile, the bullet will have moved by distance x3-x1=c (t2-t1), where c is the bullet's speed. The difference, x3-x2 =(c-v)(t2-t1) will be the space interval seperating the person from the first bullet by the time he firers the second bullet. This spacing is seen by a stationary observer. So the ratio (x2-x1)/(x3-x2)=(c-v)(t2-t1)/(x3-x1)=(c-v)/c =1-v/c will be the ratio of the pacing of the bullets as seen by the moving observer to the spacing as seen by the stationary observer. This is the usual Doppler shift where the 'bullets' are 'the wave crests' and 'bullet spacings' are 'wavelengths'.

In the Doppler shift due to 'expansion of space' (or contraction in our case), the gun man does not fire the gun and then chase the bullet. Rather, the space 'shrinks' during the period between t1 and t2. So not only is it the case that the standing by observer will not notice any chang in wavelength (due to his ruler shrinking too), there is no reason that the same shrunk interval between the bullets will be maintained throughout the rest of the univers even as the 'bullets' passes through spaces that are shrunk or stretched by different amounts. If anything, we expect the interval to alter in perfect synchronicity with the alterance in the space they are embedded in. After all the reason the interval shrunk in the first place was due to the shrinking of space itself. Clearly we cannot choose when the shrinking or expansion of space affects the wavelengths and when it doesn't affect it.

With this understanding, we only have two scenarios, both of which debunks the relativists. First is that either the whole of the universe expands evenly, and we will not notice any Doppler shift because our light too is similarly expanded, or the space near our atmosphere etc does not expand and the light enterring it must 'shrink back' to 'normal' upon entering it and we will not notice any difference either! A 'Doppler shift' due to 'expansion of space' is simply unobservable from the point of view of the expanded space itself.

Like we have briefly seen, the only thing a 'bed bug' can tell about the corner of a cube is the apparent absurdity where only 3 90 degrees angles are enough 'to add up to 360 degrees'! The explanation is obvious when we see a cube from 3 dimensions. The corner, not being flat, it is farther away than what a 2 dimensional 'bed bug' might infer. In short, the 2d 'bed bug' takes a bent or a curved surface as though it were flat, and so makes false inferences as to how far places are. Distance along a curve, is, of course longer than distance along a straight line.

So when we consider a smoother curve, eg a sphere (preferably the earth), we can draw a circle on the earth's surface. if we think that the earth is flat, we will be surprised to learn that the circumference of the circle we have just drawn does not equal 2pir. This is because the radius along what is actually a portion of a sphere rather than of a flat plane, is longer than along a flat space. More bluntly, we are realy not dealing with a circle at all. we are dealing with something like a pan cake or a bowl, giving it a wrong radius by measuring it along the curvature.

Considering this simple fact then, if relativist wanted to suggest that we live in a 4 dimensional analogy of the 2 d surface, and that thus we are prone to the same tendency not to notice the 'pan-cake' nature of our so called circles (or even spheres etc). All he neaded, from scientific angle, is to spit out an equation that relates how much a circle's circumference deviates the simple 2pir formula (lets call it 'the pan cake deviation'). He would then relate this deviation say to the 'mass' at the center in forming a 'curved space' theory of gravity! It would be a very simple equation, with only a single term at the left side, and the 'mass' term on the right side, understandable even by an high school child!

The important thing about this equation is that all the parameters appearing in it, which are just radiuses and circumferences, are all measurable within 3d. So the only thing of scientific interest will be the 'pan cake deviation'. But relativists, instead went for the complex equations that were meant to show that such deviations indeed measures the 'curvutures' of surfaces, a show that only make sense to an hypothetical 'higher dimensional' 'observer'. Now, be sure you understand this. So I will keep re-wording it. It is obvious to anyone, not just the mathematician, that if you draw a circle on a generally curved surface, there will be the 'pan cake deviation'. But the equation that relates this deviations to the curvature of the surface is complex and not many people understands it. Since the curvarture is in 'higher dimensions', some of the parameters appearing in the equation are actually distances that goes 'outside of space', and so those that can never be measured. In relating the curvature to the measurable parameters on the 'surface', the mathematican must equate terms that only include the measurable parameters (ie radiuses and circumference of the 'pan cakes' incongruously dubbed 'circles') with another term that includes parameters that cannot be measured. This second term is complex, a complex combinations of the rates of changes in gradients, of the curves (that is, for instance, considering the curves as 'graphs' embeded in a 'flat', coordinate system, eg a cartesian). The complexity is necesitated by the need to include gradient terms that are necesary to calculate the circumfrences on the surface. The relativist, instead of relating the first simple term on the left, with mass, he opted to relate the mass to the complex term appearing on the right, a needless complexity because they are mathematically equated! In effect, the relativist dwelt solely in a relationship that should have only been of interest to a mathematician, in order to drive firm the unprovable assertion that we are actually living in a curved space! Without being able to see the 'higher dimensions', we could adopt other explanations for the 'pan cake deviation'.

But even more problematic is how the relativist end up confusing themselves with their own vodka! Now the gradient of the point on graph (derivative in calculus), as uses to calculate lengths lieing on the surface of the curve using Pythagoras Theorem is given a fancy name termed 'the metric'. So they are squares of gradients, which when you take their second and third derivatives (rate of change in gradients), the rules of calculus spits out terms that includes the products of rates of change in gradients, which they call them 'curvatures'. This product is called 'Gaussian curvature'. It is just a mathematical exercise that adds no more physical insight to the main idea, which is that there is relationship between gradients of graphs and lenghts of lines drawn on the surface, a fact that is obvious without the need for any calculation! A physicist can just proceed to take measurements for 'pan cake deviations', relate this with 'masses' (if any), proceed empirically, and leave out the details of 'Gaussian curvatures' in terms of derivatives of metrices to pure mathematicians, since the parameters in the metrics include 'Cartesian coordinate system' that extends 'outside of space' that is beyond the reach of a physicist, and show the latter should not make speculations along those lines.

Since metrics, as gradients, includes parameters that are measurements of distances 'outside of space', the metric on its own is empirically useless! To describe 'curved space' using metric is to ask us to imagine an higher dimensional ' flat coordinate system' in which the 'curved space' is 'curved' relative to. So why are 'physicist' preoccupied with solving for the metrics as the bread and butter for 'general relativity', instead of being preoccupied with calculating the 'pan cake deviations' associated with a given mass, the way it is done in usual physics? The answer seems to be that they are confused! In schwarzchild metric, for instance, the 'raduses' appearing in it are actually distances in some backround 'flat' coordinate system that can be easily discerned by close exerminning 'spherical coordinate system'. They are not distances in a curved manifold at all! To obtain distances in the curved manifold, we must do some integrations, from which we will see that the manifold described by Schwarzchild metric does not have lengths corresponding to regions less than the so called 'schwarzchild radius'. The curve, instead, is a torus-like structure with a 'hole' in the center whose radius is Schwarzchild radius!

The correct calculation of the shape of the manifold described by Schwartzchild metric also shows another problem with Einstein's General relativity. Einstein's Field Equations EFE actually describes how matter 'curves the space time' it is sitting on, and tells us nothing about what the matter does to the space outside of itself! The EFE as applied to Schwarzchild metric in no way does it 'place the point matter at the center of the spherical coordinate' as it is asserted! The mass is freely chosen by the physicist to fit some experiment, hammered into the center, and then hope is made that it will fit other unknown data that is called 'confirmation of GR'! But then we have now seen that the Schwarzchild's Space Time actually has a hole around its center, and therefore there is nowhere to place the 'point mass'!

To solve Schwarzchild metric, the relativist is forced to say 'the Ricci Curvarture of spacetime equals zero'! He does not reference the alleged cause of the Ricci curvature in the mathematical statement hailed to completely describe our universe! He does not reference the 'point mass' because it is distant from the space, and as I said, EFE only describes how matter supposedly curves space time in situ! This should not be the case! If the distant mass is the cause of the curvature, EFE should be an equation that relates curvutes with masses AND with distance, like how Newton's law relates accelerations to distances and to the mass. Then we will see how the maths is stating that 'the cause of a curvarture at place x is the mass at place y. Or a mass of such and such amount, distorts spacetime to such and such extend, at such and such distance away from the mass. So in deed the mass distorts the space time at a distance. But if you just say Ruv=0, then we are just contemplating on a pure geometrical exercise that is yet to be inteprated in the real world. It might as well describe a completely empy world! it doesn't tell us where the 'mass' is. They latter allege that 'it is at the center' but after amusingly failing to see that the manifold is a featureless structure with a hole around the center!

It is easy to see why relativist got this confused. The formed a false analogy with Newton's gravity. In the latter, there are two equivalent ways of stating the law. One is the familiar inverse square law, and the other one is called 'poisson's equation'. The latter describes how masses gravitational affect masses in situ. But the two equations are related by a so called 'divergence theorem', so that even if we use poisson's equation to describe the gravity in the empty space away from matter, we can still relate the gravity with the mass via divergence theorem. This is cuptured well in Gauss's law description for gravity, where Gauss talks of the total gravitational flux crossing a Gaussian Surface that encloses the mass. Since the Gaussian Surface extends arbitrarily upto the 'empty space', then yes, the poison's equation does relates gravity to the distant source. But the curved space nature of the maths of GR does not allow us to even compare distant vectors, let alone form an analogy of divergence theorem. Therefore any comparison between EFE and Poisson's equation is misleading!

Relativists say that gravity is not a force. But then they also say that they have a task to reconcile gravity with the other forces of nature, eg electrodynamics, in forming a quantum theory for gravity! This is problematic because in quantum theory of particle interactions, fermions must 'exchange momentums' with bosons. This 'momentum' is problematic if gravity is not a force! To say that spacetime can morph into a graviton particle that delivers a momentum is to now deny that gravity is due to a 'curvature of spacetime'. You are now saying that 'spacetime exerts a force on the particle' just like all other 'fields' does!

Furthermore, to quantize gravity, one must be able to say what amount of energy is in a given portion of space, just like in quantizing gravitational field to form photons. The photons 'carry energy' which is in quanta. So we must similarly calculate the energy somehow 'stored' in the 'curvature of space' (like the energy stored in a bent bow?). We then quantize this energy by making it descret chunks of E=hf. But GR forbids us from thinking of a 'curved space' as though to 'store energy' because the curvature is relative. Gravity being completely equivalent to accelerating means that it only has what looks like 'kinetic energy' which is zero as seen from the co moving frame.

There are still more daunting problems with GR, but let me stop there for now, to allow you to absorb these!

When reading about astral projection, I noticed that people describe some processes such as  meditation etc, as a way of 'making the astral body float out of the seen body'. In summary, it seems like they are talking of driving the brain into some 'half sleeping' mode. However, what it normally doesn't follow is an explanation as to why such processes can 'release' the astral body. What is it about meditation or sleeping or even dieing that makes the etheric body, astral body or even soul escape from the body? Why can't we astral project or receive telepathic information etc at broad daylight, while fully awake etc just by wishing so or such things?

Here, I want to elaborate on the invisibility of stars at day time, which I have briefly mentioned elsewhere. There are two reasons why stars are invisible during the day time. One is what I may call it 'ganzfeld effect', and the other is what I may call it 'comouflage effect'. If you suddenly move from a place with bright light into a darker room, you will find that the room might at first be so dark that you may not be able to see anything at all. This is the 'gansfeld effect'. Your iris etc have adjusted to bright light by reducing the amount of light the eye can absorb. In the 'camouflage effect', the stars are invisible because of the bright background. During the night, the rest of the sky is dark, leaving the stars as the only bright objects. During the day, the whole of the sky is bright, camouflaging the stars. Both of These effects are caused by the bright sun.

Both these effects can be generalized to observation of everything. This can explain why some things are invisible, even the 'spirits' etc! Infact there is a famous research termed 'ganzfeld experiment' where they scientifically tested if someone can actually send telepathic messages. The basic idea is that if our senses are deprived of external stimulus, our brains will amplify the whatever signal it receives, in the hope of getting even the faintest of the signals. In such a state, the brain might be able to detect otherwise undetectable signals, including the telepathic ones! So it is like locking yourself in a pitch dark room for a long period of time, whereby you will find that your eyesight sensitivity significantly increases. Might you, in such a state, see things that are not even known to exist, e.g. ghosts?

But you must first notice that for this explanation to be truely apt, we must first explain why a 'ghost', an 'aura' a UFO etc might be visible, at least to some people (indeed as long as some people say 'they see' these things there must be some scientific explanation as to what went on in the retina etc). Specifically, in our case, the invisibility of auras, UFOs etc must be due to the fact that they emit a too dim light. So the physics at work in emmitance or reflection of that light will be the same physics at work in the observation of ordinary objects! This is what we must swallow for the claim that some people can see UFOs etc to have some credibility! The light must have bounced off the object, and so the object can interact with the electromagnetism in a way a physicist can explain! This is not 'immaterial' at all!

In the case of astral projection, it is a bit more tricky. This is because astral projection is not about seeing an object from remote. It is about being the very object that is invisible to the ordinary senses. The idea that I use is that we can always feel that we are out of our body but the fact that our seen body is at wake, we will always feel as if we are in the seen body. So we cannot experience ourselves in say the 'empty space' because the experience of ourselves inside the seen body eclipses the experience of ourselves inside the other body! This seems at first to be problematic since it seems to demand two 'selfs'. In the one 'self', we have our senses helping us the experience the other 'self'! So when the other 'self' is 'too bright', the senses belonging to the first 'self ' suffers from the ganzfeld effect! So which 'self' is the true 'self'?

The answer is that we are realy not one! We are many! For instance, our brain is composed of many cells. When one cell observs another cell, it appears to us like 'being aware of our own selves'. So we might consider our invisible 'parts of our brains' that exists beyond the seen brain. Just as the many cells of our brains still manifests the same single awareness, even addition of more cells can still be the same awareness! So our brains could be as big as the whole earth, but still the farthest portion experiences itself as one with the portion at the other end! In other words if we had the brain as big as jupiter, we would still feel like a single being inside such a brain. But if one eye was at the farthest point, then closing one eye and then opening the other would be like moving from one end of the planet to the other in a twinkle of an eye! We would immediately see the things at the farthest end. But all this is because the thus huge brain still manifests the same single awareness.

This now offers a different way of understanding astral projection. We can astral project because our brains actually doesn't end where they appear to end. They extend throughout the whole universe! This unseen 'brain' has all its portion interconnected with the rest portions. So the signals received from one part is communicated to all the other parts. If the signals received from the seen body is 'too bright', the rest of the 'brain' experiences the 'ganzfeld effect' because the signal from the bright portion is fed to the rest. Then the information that those other portions could have obtained get dimmed accordingly, creating the impression that the seen body is the only source of information. So incase the brain in Jupiter receives more information, you might begine to experience the things in Jupiter, seeming like 'you have gone all the way to Jupiter in a twinkle of an eye'. After all who knows what happens if we get teleported to a distant place? We don't seem to go there at all. Rather, the place itself seems to 'come' to our place, like the way the sun seems to move when the earth is the one moving. This 'moving without realizing that we are miving' is no different from just staying on the spot and obtaining all the information pertaining to that place so that it seems like you are staring at that place head on! So communication is equivalent to movement! With this, we can understand astral projection in a different way, where we don't realy move at all. We just keep obtaining information pertaining to different places one at a time, and the 'movement from one of those places to the other' is just illusory! What actually happens is that 'we are at all those places all at once' since our 'brain' is so big that it covers all those places, but we don't experience ourselves in all those places all at once due to ganzfeld effect!

Many people's hope for afterlife comes from the belief that the body is a shell or a container etc that house an invisible entity termed 'the soul'. The soul, so it is said, is the cause of our consciousness and sometimes it is equated to the consciousness itself. One difficulty that arises from this idea comes from the fact that we cannot exit our bodies at will. Why can't we simply leave our bodies behind once and for all and go to heaven and enjoy the bliss forever? This gives rise to the notion that our bodies somehow 'traps' the soul. Since our bodies are composed of charges of opposite signs etc, it is tempting to suppose that any such a system such as a computer can similarly trap the soul so that just like the way we can never exit our bodies, someone might, in future, invent a device that can hopelessly trap us forever inside say a machine, and possibly torturing us even forever! Thus the very hope of an afterlife is effectively turned on its own head!

The 'original sin' comes from the baseless belief that our consciousness is due to an unseen, entity that the supposedly understandable matter can somehow 'trap' it without itself being understandable, and hence 'there being no need' to carefully think of, and attempt to understand what we are believing in. I vehemingly reject this approach! We should try to understand 'the soul' as much as we do, 'the body'. We must try to explain how the body, or the soul, can achieve this fleat of 'getting trapped into each other' without them 'being on the same universe.

It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that if the soul is what we are, then it can, at least in principle, be studied scientifically! This being the case, we can also create theoretical models to 'explain' the soul, just like we do, to explain the forces of nature, such as gravity. To a careful physicist, or a philosopher, etc, the soul interacting with the body must come about like a 'fifth force' that has an effect in our bodies. This 'fifth force' can be discovered by carefully studying the brain and specifically noting how there is an effect that cannot be accounted for by known forces.

Since it seems that some people find it hard to understand this fact that 'soul' is discoverable by the usual scientific method, let me try to elucidate it more. Now, in a 'vacuum', we know how charged particles behave, in accordance with laws of electrodynamics. So for instance under a constant voltage, they will accelerate steadily. But if they encounter a 'soul' on its way, generaly they will alter their acceleration in such a way that a physicis will notice that either something is wrong with the laws of electrodynamics or there is some yet unknown 'fift force' that is at work on the particle. However the soul has just acted upon the charge in exactly the same manner it would have acted upon the charges in your brain so that it may eventually influence the body to act in a certain manner, e.g. raising your hand in what we term it as 'our conscious decision'. So it is clear that we cannot answer the question as to why the soul has never been detected by physicists by saying 'it is beyond understanding' or 'we feel it' or 'the mind is limited' or such jocker cards. These are false, absurd and misleading! We can and should understand 'soul' up to the point of explaining how it is consistent with known facts. To do that, we must make some model for 'soul'.

One explanation is that the disembodied 'soul' does not interact with charges. This bestows the soul with mechanisms of enabling and disabling its ability to interact with electromagnetism. This mechanism must be instantaneous. Upon exiting the body, the soul must be able to instantaneously switch off its electromagnetism. But this ability also automatically makes the soul incapable of being trapped by another machine, e.g. a computer. But since we can't use this ability to intentionally exit our bodies, there must be some rules followed by the soul that has no counterpart in the rules followed by the matter.

THE HORSE: How many colours does a rainbow have?

A:3
B:4
C:7
D:10

THE LION: The correct answer is that that is a stupid question. The rainbow colour varies so smoothly that you cannot tell where one color end and another one begins.

In schools, students were tacitly taught that a 'smart' student is the one whose answer tallies with that of the 'teacher'. Later, the 'teacher' is replaced by the 'expert'! Many later spends much of their adult life trying to unlearn this terribly erroneous mindset!

As in numerous cases, we see here that the 'smart' student knows that the correct answer is not even amongst the given choices! But he has to choose one, anyway. He knows that his own 'correct' answer is not relevant. What the teacher thinks is the correct answer is. Take note of this fact carefully. I will latter come back to it.

Before we move to the proper topic, let's do another warm up.

THE HORSE:Which one of the following is the best way of cleaning a house?
A:w
B:x
C:y
D:z

Again we learnt that to find out 'the best', we need someone first to give us a list to choose from! You cannot just go brainstorming for 'the best' from your own list. You must shuffle and check the list prepared. This erroneous lesson remains somewhere at the back of people's minds and is latter employed in electing 'the best leaders' in the so called 'reprsentatory democracy'.

The basic fallacy in the 'representatory democracy' is that if a leader is elected by the majority, then his opinion will reflect the opinions of the majority. Then they go ahead and deny the antecedent: therefore if a leader is not elected by the majority, then his opinion does not reflect the opinion of the majority. The 'representatory democracy' is particularly disastrous in countries where corruption is the norm. The leader's fundamental motive is not to 'represent the electorate' but to find a well paying job and/or other entirely selfish motives. If he needs a 're-election', it can only be because the glutton has not yet 'eaten enough'. If this is the case, then someone figured out that all he needs is to promise the leader the amount of money worth the entire tenure, or even more. Welcome to the world of lobbying! Why bother to struggle for the uncertain 're-election' quest when you can get the same or even more amount of money from a lobbyist with 100% certainty?

Now let us again close examine how the student answers the questions. It is clear that asking questions is not a good way of testing how 'smart' students are! Why? Because at the back of the mind, they know that what is 'correct' from their point of view is not what it counts. Rather, it is what is 'correct' from the point of view of the teacher that which will be rewarded marks! Such is how elected leaders get into a quagmire where trying to choose what is 'the right thing' to do. Worse is that they know that it is realy not the decisions they make that matter. Rather, it is the end results that will matter! So if a politician had promised to increase tariffs from a certain country, he knows very well that at the end of his period, what will count will be how good the economy got, not realy what he did! If he 'fulfilled' his promise, but nevertheless got the country into a mess, he will still be blamed for misleading the electorate and so will get duely punnished by the very electorate! This shows that the claim that 'if a leader is elected, he will do as demanded by the electorate' is fallacious! Then the corresponding denial of the antecedent is fallacious squared!

MARATHON PACE MAKER

If marathon were a race between only two to three people, it would be a mess! They can easily colude not to run to their best! They can wink wink or nudge nudge each other about how it is not necessary to run that fast. Why tire ourselves when only the better between us is all what counts, and not 'the best'? So they will sluggishly run aiming at the least and then only compete seriously in the final sprint! Such is how politicians do when there are only two serious parties in the country! They cooperate throughout their term and only make a serious competition in their final year during the campaign period!

In marathon, the solution is to introduce another marathon runner called 'pace maker'. This marathon runner is seemingly not serious. He runs at a pace that he knows very well that he cannot sustain it. When he sees that the supposedly 'serious' runners are following closely enough, and keeps doing so until he gets too tired, he withdraw from the race altogether. But if he sees that the 'serious' runners are too far behind, then he begins to reduce the pace, thereby resting in the process. He now runs at as a sustainable pace as his fellows, but kilometres away! He goes ahead and finishes the race, taking the gold! This is how the 'serious' colluding runners are punished by the 'non serious' pace maker!

Now I am not sure how to introduce a 'pace maker' political party in the politics such as those of U.S..It has been too certain that either democrat or a republican must win up to the point that they can just agree to rule in turns, perfoming a meanigless, outward show of 'competition' mainly apparent during campaign periods! There should be this seemingly unserious party that seems to make unrealistically fantastic promises, but which can be made realistic mutasis mutandis. It should be campaigning throughout the tenure but tend to widhraw from the 'race'. However when the two seemingly 'serious' political parties gives 'choices' that has no 'correct' answer like in that case of 'rainbow colors', the third party should never waste time but offer the 'correct' answer, getting to be serious and make conversations with their fantastic manifesto mitosis mutandis done during the campaign period!

After Newton amused himself that light was nothing but whizzing corpuscles, he immediately realized that he had just opened a fresh can of worms. Why then don't we see light as just that, speeding corpuscles? Why do we see a 'static' bright colors? This seems to be the question that bothered him when he said that 'we don't have a clue as to how the brain creates the phantasm of colors'. Like many people, especially after him, he erroneously concluded that 'color is a phantasm created by the brain'. He cared less to find evidence for that. Maybe if he found it, he would check how the brain does this wonder!

First note that we can't realy separate 'color' from 'light'. A 'colorless light' will not appear as light at all! So when someone delegates colors to the brain, he has actually delegated the whole thing to the brain. In effect, he denies what we thought he was going to explain! Light, he says, is a 'who knows how the brain creats illusions from impingings and/or vibrations'. But then as 'evidence' that his theory is correct, he points to the very same thing he is also trying to deny! Light must be particles, Newton insisted, because we see that the very light is collimated. In other words according to what Newton gives as evidence for his corpuscles theory of light, if light is ever whizzing corpuscles, then the corpuscles themselves are made of light! We need light to understand light!

The erroneous philosophy Newton unwittingly spearheaded comes because many people (Newton included ) tends to confuse 'existence' with 'spatio temporal presence'. Below I will elucidate on 'spatio temporal presence'. A corpuscle is 'spatially present' in that it is 'somewhere in space'. A moving corpuscles is ' temporaly present' in that it exist in a given location in a fraction of a second. So how a corpuscle can be said to exist is supposed to be easy to realize. So saying that 'light is moving corpuscles' is supposed to help us understand how such a thing can exist 'out there' simply because existence 'out there' is, according to them, the same thing as 'spatio-temporal presence'. But this philosophy is erroneous!

On one hand, Newton did correctly note that there is an analogy between light and speeding corpuscles. But he erred in thinking that this analogy will help him unlock the secret of light. He was supposed to also consider a case where the analogy would help him unlock the secret of movement of corpuscles. In other words he should not have presumed that we can understand movement by just looking at a moving object, if we cannot understand light by just looking at a blazing torch. I know this approach requires some boldness! Then he would be lead to the better idea that the mind reconstruct both movement and light from a deeper, more fundamental reality. This way, it becomes a bit easier to figure out how 'the brain generates the phantasm of colors from the impingings and/or vibrations due speeding corpuscles'. It does so in 'who knows how it might also creat an illusion of motion from colors'.

Notice also that we realy cannot form an idea of object without light! In 'spatio-temporal' sense, we might be tempted to define 'object' as 'that which has a shape'. But 'shape' in turn is defined by the finitness of the region out from which light is emitted or reflected. The concept of an object without light will be absolutely colourless and thus indistinguishable from the empty background! So to understand an object, we must first understand light! So the idea that 'light is speeding corpuscles' is circular! literally, it means 'light is speeding specks of light'!!

The same reasoning (mutasis mutandis) can also be applied to the idea that light is a wave. The evidence that a physicist offers is the famous 'double slit experiment'. He points to alternative patterns of 'brightness' and 'darkness' and then tells you that this shows that light is a wave! The blue light has different spacings from the red light etc. But when you close examine, you find that you are already seeing a 'blue' thing etc! If light is a wave, then the evidence indicates that it is a 'wave of light' itself! The light waves by rapidly changing its brightness throughout the space! So wave is more of what light does than what it is! Again the reasoning is circular! Saying that color blue is 'a wave of a certain frequency' is actually saying that color blue is the 'rapid alteration of the color blue'! We need the color to understand the color!

THE HORSE: You are wrong, based on what I experienced in 5D
THE LION: So describe it for me what this thing is that you experienced in 5D.
THE HORSE:No, that is impossible! Can you describe colour 'red' using words? That is what describing 5D in 3D terms looks like!

So if I show you how to describe 'red' using words, then there will be no more exuse!

Lets begin by the following description of the concept 'sphere':

SPHERE: a round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its centre.

It looks neat! So a 'sphere' seems to belong to the 'describable' camp! But when you close examin you find that if Archimedes, beginning in antiquity, was trying to check if something is a 'sphere' using this description, he will still be checking it up to now! The description dares you to first divide the surface until it is composed of inecistent specs of powder! In this way a 'sphere' is a collection of infinite number of inexistent non-entities he terms it as 'points'. To check if something is a sphere, you will have to take your ruler and check every point and how far it is from the center! you need to perform infinite number of measurements!

Mathematician often tries to pretend that he does not 'nudge' and 'wink' when describing something. In different words, he insinuates that he can describe something to an ET and the ET will understand it straight away, provided that he is 'smart enough' to be a mathematician! In other words, he wants you to believe that his descriptions does not rely on the language we created by first directly communicating our experiences. A mathematician is completely lost! He is out of touch with reality.

Nevertheless, despite this erroneous philosophy, mathematicians have influenced people to divide the world into 'the describable' and 'the indescribable'. Of course the mathematician could not describe 'red' like in the 'sphere' above. So this prompted people to categorize 'red' under 'the indescribable' folder and eventually some invented the unfortunate notions as'5D' and used the color etc as a justification!

lets look at another example. Describe the location of the Giza pyramid. This is yet another case where we are indoctrinated that it is 'describable' just because 'geometry' is, incongruously, a toying ground for mathematicians. A mathematician might spit out a grid of some sort. So he tells us that Giza is at such and such degrees meridians, such and such,...But this is not a description of the location of Giza. He is telling us how to get there and he calls this 'a description of the location of Giza' and everyone in the room nodes! If you don't know the location he placed 0,0,0, then his description is completely useless! In reality, he 'winks winks and nudge nuges' about your starting point while trying to pretend that there is no 'winks' and 'nudges' in mathematics!

To put it bluntly, there is nothing that a mathematician (and their cousin in mathematical physics) can describe in this world! They toyed about geometry and fool people that they can describe spatial configurations without reference to direct experiences but forgot to do the same 'toying' with colours etc and so they paved way to the idea that 'colours are indescribable', and eventually '5D' nonsense! But obviously a mathematician describes locations using other locations. Knowing about the locations of the points on the surface of a sphere is as good as knowing about the center of the sphere. So why would a new ager dare you to describe colours without reference to other colours? It is ignorance on what we actually do when describing things!

To describe colours, we need to know how colours are gotten by combining other colors. Of course we cannot, by just staring at a location, tell its 'accurate' grid. To do that, we need measuring tapes and the like. In case of colours, this trabslates to the fact that will not always know the exact composition of colours, by just staring at them, without mixing them and checking the resulting colours. knowing that the color purple is a misture of red and blue is as good as knowing how these constituent colors look like. But knowing that going to the Giza pyramid is a mixture of 'going to south and going to east' is similarly as good as knowing these 'primary' directions.

So there is actually no reason to think that colors are any less describable that spatial configurations. The habit of thinking otherwise comes from erroneous ideas we got in schools from il conceived 'science'. Scientists, for instance, found a corelation between colors and light wavelengths.This led them and some philosophers to the erroneous idea that colors are actually spatial configurations. But they hit a wall in trying to describe colors in terms of spatial configurations.  This is a big error in thinking! We describe locations using reference to other locations. So we should also stop at describing colors using reference to other colors. When we do that, we find that describing color blue is as good as describing the location of Giza, or describing a sphere.

You can see directly that color blue is a color in between green an indigo, just like when locating things. In this way describing 'blue' as 'the color between green and indigo is as excellent as describing a UFO as to be lieing between two given trees when trying to tell someone where it is. So you can see that it is challenging to describe the location of the UFO without reference to other locations. This challenge is the same as the challenge of trying to describe 'blue' without reference to any other color like it is 'describing it to a blind person'.

With all this, it cannot be the case that our inner experience is simply 'indescribable with words'. Rather, we simply have no way of ascertaining when we are experiencing the same things. If we could, we would point to the experiences and invent names for the various of them. Soon, there would be a complete language that is fit in describing those inner experiences by referencing other inner experiences and by performing appropriate 'inner experiments' to see how various combination of experiences yield other experiences. So the hindrance in description is not inherent in those experiences but rather in the fact that they are private.

THE HORSE: So I can say that many people learnt elementary geometry but not the 'geometry' of Hilbert Spaces?

THE LION: Yep, but I add that even the mathematicians themselves are yet to understand what they are doing.

First 'logic gate' is a misnomer. It is neither 'logic' nor a 'gate'. We should first define 'logic'. But as usuall dictionary is problematic. Here it goes:

LOGIC: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

REASONING: The action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

VALIDITY:The quality of being logically or factually sound.

PRINCIPLE: Fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beleifs.

SOUND: Free from fallacy.

Lets put it all together and see it:

LOGIC: The action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way conducted or assessed according to strict fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beleifs of
the quality of being logically or factually free from fallacy.

So logic is alogically and logical.

How can there be a 'gate' for 'logic' in this way? The concept 'logic gate' has nothing to do with the real meaning of 'logic'. It is just yet another way of impinging to your mind that a computer can 'think soundly and arrive at truth', a totally ridiculous claim! The most 'logical' thing about a so called 'logic gate', such as AND gate are statements:

1.) If one and one, then one
2.)If one and zero then zero
3.)If zero and one then zero

4.)If zero and zero then zero

what are these?

A logical statement might be:

If it will rain, then it must first be cloudy.

They just notice a yap yap yap IF, yep yep yep THEN and then called a set of gibberish statements 'logic gates'? As we will see, the only thing that such 'logic gates' can model in real world is how some stupid people might make decisions based solely on what they hear or what they are told. There are 4 types of fools that we are going to examine. I called them 'logic gates'. They are just that: GATES for other people's opinions etc. They can't think for themselves, they just sit there, listen and asses and discriminate other people's opinions. So if I call you a 'logic gate', I am terribly insulting you. Here we go, check if you are one of these guys.

AND GATES

Like we saw, these group of idiots think this way:
1.)If true and true, then true
2.)If true and false, then false
3.)If false and false, then false

In a nutshell, they say 'if everybody says that it is true, then it must be true' but if at least one of them disagrees, then it must be false. If you are that type of a fool, then you are and AND gate. A president can be this stupid. He just hear phone calls from CIA etc. 'if this person AND that person etc says that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then it must be true. But if at least one of them says there is non, then there is no such weapons. So he is just a 'gate' that allows some opinions to pass and blocks others.

NOT GATES

These morons think this way:

1.)If true, then false
2.)If false, then true

They say that if certain people claim that something is true, then it must be false. If they claim that it is false, then it must be true! This is rampant in political parties. If you are a republican and condemns war when democrats are in power, but endorse it whe republicans are i power, then you are a NOT gate. More clearly, if you are at such and such party, then you disagree with everything the other party says. If they say they want to end war in Afghanistan, you criticise them. If they don't end the war, again you criticise them for 'fighting endless wars', but you don't criticise your party when it does all of those things.

Another case happens with those who criticise mainstream media. If your reasoning is the simplistic: 'if mainstream media says it is true, then it must be false', then you are a NOT GATE.

OR GATES

These group of nincompoops think this way:

1.)If true and true, then true
2.)If true and false, then true
3.)If false and false, then false

These are the types who believe something just because someone says it is so, mostly they are sooth sayers. They don't care about those who might disagree with that statement. He once heard a 'channeled message' and believed it, without asking if other people said the same thing. Only one person needed to say 'the earth is ascending to paradise'. He 'resonates' with such, and from there, cares less of any other person's opinion! He is an OR gate because it doesn't matter who says it, as long as 'it resonates'. If this one OR this one says it, then it is true!

If you are that person who merely assert claims without offering any evidence, or backing it up with any explanation, saying 'you are only interested with those who reasonate', then you are, perhaps unwittingly, trying to find a fan base composed solely of OR gates bunch of morons! It is true because I said so! If you don't like it, then you are not one of my sheep, so go away!

EXCLUSIVE OR GATES

These are now the most confused types of bird brains. There reasoning is:
1.)If true and true, then false
2.)If true and false, then true
3.)If false and true, then true
4.)If false and false, then false

They beleive in something only because there is a confusion about it! If some people says that there are UFOs, and some says there are no such, then he beleives there must be UFOs. If there is no more debates about UFOs, then they cease beleiving in them! These type of people worships confusion. Whenever everyone believes in something, they begine to say 'it must be false'. The earth must be flat, all news must be false etc. But unicorns? No! these things must be there! When many people in mainstream did not like 'channeled messages', they believed in them. But when it went mainstream, they said 'these must be some mind control', so they ceased believing in them! If everyone believes, it must be false. Truth is there only whenever there is confusion!

We now have all our 'logic gates'. We can now create a very powerful computer made of a gang of idiots! Those in power will control such a population by pressing appropriate buttons. Then the 'computer' can do anything that they want.

I don't mean that you don't compute. You can compute like you can rotate. But the fact that you can rotate does not mean that you are a motor. That is what I mean when I say 'you are not a computer'. You are not limited to 'computation'. A computer has no choice but to compute. Type 6x6= and it has no choice but to spit out 36. But a human can give several answer. First he can just keep quiet and resufe to answer. He can tell you 6x6=66 or just tell you to and ask your grand mother! Computing 6x6 to get 36 is just one of the things we can do with 6 and 6, not the only thing we can do with it. You might think that this is trivial, or that if we make a computer complex enough, it can begine too behaving like a human. But here, I am going to show you that this is not the case! A simpler version of the brain, say like that of an ant or even a single celled animal always works like a human in the sense we saw above and a computer, however complex, always work like a computer! Complexity is not sorcery that can produce something out of nothing!

The problem with a human being is that he always sees what he wants to believe. That is why if you take your computer to a capenter, he will begine hitting the screws with his hammer. The superficial appearance of a screw means to a capenter that it is a nail! That is how the scientists were bamboozled when they saw a neurone. Did the see some tree-like branches? Then they remembered the logic gates. Soon they were amusing themselves that the dendrites and the axon (and everything 'thin')are wires, the cell body (and everything 'spherical') is a transistor, or even the fancy symbol that they use to depict the so called 'logic gates' and the mealin sheaths were insulators. By the time they were saying that a neurone is featurless 'black box' that merely spits out an 'output' that depends solely on the inputs, alarms were supposed to have already rang and lights should have already flashed! We are dealing with bozos!

But when you close examine, neuron makes no sense as a 'logic gate'. It is something like a tree with 'branches', 'stem' and 'roots'. The 'roots' (called 'dedrites') branches off a single axon and then each branch joins a branch of the adjuscent neuron. So we have just two neurons connected together via myriads of synapses, a synapse in each dendrite. If the neuron were behaving like a logic gate, it would be connected to the adjacent neuron with only a single synapse, not myriads of them branching from the same place! Many dendrites means that each dendrite outputs a unique signals. So the outputs depends on what the neuron itself generates, not mere combination of inputs fed to the neuron. Futhermore, neuron itself is a living cell with DNA etc. It is nothing like a 'black box' of any sort. Instead, it is extreemly complex. So it is not a 'logic gate', since logic gates are 'black boxes' by definition (a 'black box' is a 'device' with only 'inputs' and 'outputs' since 'inputs' uniquely determines the 'outputs' and as such the details of what is inside the 'box' is not interesting).

We can define 'the living' in contrust with 'the mechanical'. The mechanical means that it has no choice. But how do we define 'mechanical' to capture this notion well? I would say 'mechanical is that which can only be acted upon by external forces'. So 'internal forces' adequately captures 'the choice' of the thing getting forced from within. The fundamental difference between a stone and an insect is that the former can only move if knocked, kicked, sucked etc by another object while the latter can move even with no external object pushing or pulling it. It is this way that a living thing is discernible just at a glance. We don't need a microscope or watch them 'reproduce' to tell that something is a living thing. logic gates then fits clearly under 'the mechanical' simply because how a logic gate behaves is completely determined by 'inputs', and nothing from within the logic gate itself. Neuron on the other hand is NOT mechanical, even though indeed it can act like a logic gate. What is taking place within the neuron can determine its output.

Now scientists in this sense donnot insist that a neuron is mechanical. But apparently, they hope that the neuron in turn is an ensemble of mechanical things. So it is a move of goal post! But here, we can also see that there is nothing within the neuron that is acted upon solely by external forces. In other words even if we further dissect a neurone, we still dont find anything like logic gates! Like in the neurone itself, or the entire human brain, we find things that can act like logic gates but which are not reducable to logic gates. Yes, a human as a whole can act like a logic gate. A stupid president can only decide based on a combination of inputs from his advisers! But the very president is absolutely capable of vetoing the pieces of advice. When the behavior of a president is completely predictable from what the minister, the intelligence personnel or even his wife etc tells him, then the president is acting like a 'logic gate'. If the rule is that 'if the minister of defence says we should go to war AND the Pentagon also says so, then the president will command for a war but he will not command for a war if the Pentagon and the minister disagrees with each other, then the president is acting like an AND gate! So we see that things that have choices can easily act like logic gates but it is a coffee time to get a mere array of logic gates to behave like things that can make their own choices! This may be the source of confusion that goes with equating sentient beings with computers.

An even better way to define 'living thing' is that: 'a living thing is any object that can take energy and then use it at its own pace'. The fundamental difference between say a stone and a living thing is the source of energy it uses in its movements. A stone can only move because of an external source of kinetic energy. A living thing, on the other hand, first absorbs energy either as 'potential energy' or it immediately converts the 'kinetic energy' into 'potential energy' and then stores it within itself. Whenever the living thing must use this potential energy, it must first 'ingnite the fuel' in some way, using its own internal movements of some sort. This difference between living things and the non-living ones is crucial as it can explain the origin of the 'freewill'. Of course when you show that even inside the living cells, the 'motor proteins' such as those that helps an enzyme move through the DNA still take in ATP first and then ignites it using its own internal movements, a scientist might be tempted to move the goal post even further. So the ultimate battle field will be to find yet another source of energy that moves the protein molecules themselves, causing them to ignite the ATP molecule by 'pulling off the phosphate' some distance away from ADP (the way you might pull the gun trigger to release the energy in the gun powder).

Before we see the ultimate cause of molecular movements, you might at first be a bit interested with the role of nervous system in muscular movements. But it is seen that at the neuromuscular junction, all the signal from the neuron does is to stop some proteins from inhibiting motion. So the input signal does not behave exactly like a logic gate when determining how musles moves. The exact manner how a muscle moves is still determined by the very molecules themselves. Again this is because the molecules uses its own energy to move, not the energy from the neuron. So what is the source of the energy that the molecules uses to ignite the ATP? Round and round, you will go, but ultimately it comes from the surrounding energies, such as those causing the so called Brownian Motion. Even the atoms emiting light first absorbs energy and stores it by 'changing the energy level of the electron' before spontaneously comming back to the lower energy level, thereby emiting the photon. The keyword here is 'spontaneously', by which the physicists means 'he doesn't know the cause', but we can see that it has internal causes. So the ultimate sourse of the forces that 'ignites' stored energy comes from withing atoms, not externally (in a process dubbed 'spontaneous'). In this way, nature fundamentaly works like living things, not like 'logic gates'! Note that whatever 'ignites' the energy stored in the atomic 'energy levels' does it in the same way the proteins 'ignites' the energy in the ATP! We have absolutely no reason to think that there is anything like logic gates inside a living thing, even when we zoom at it down to atomic levels! There is simply no such a 'black box' whose output is solely determined by its inputs. Every 'box' that you can draw always have INTERNAL causes that might be dubbed 'spontaneous'. I believe that these internal causes inherent in all things is the ultimate source of 'freewill'.

At this point you might note that even a transistor might have its own 'internal causes'. But there are two crucial differences between a transistor and anything that might act as a 'switch' in a living thing. First the transistor is fed by EXTERNAL power source. So 'switching' here is switching an external power. By 'external' here, we mean that the power source is not in any way intrinsic to the 'black box' that is supposed to be 'the decision maker' termed 'logic gate'. So if we wish to say that the sensation of 'freewill' is ultimately due to 'freedom to ignite potential energy', we see that transistors all powered by the same battery have no chance of exhibiting such 'freewill'. The act of 'igniting energy' is not, in any way, tied to the actions of logic gates. So the gates donnot ACTIVELY do anything. They are just that, GATES. They are mere runways for the kinetic energy to flow through, and never active things doing things energetically. So we have no reason to think that there can be anything 'feeling that it is the one acting' inside an array of transistor. There is no energetic action inherent in what we call 'decisions'. All energetic action is solely inside the battery, which is never even ignited!

Second, the electronic circuites are more of designed to read off the outputs as per what the gates SHOULD OUTPUT rather than what they are actually outputting. So even if the transistors themselves made their own decisions, the outputs are corrected accordingly. So electronics circuits are so designed to simply neglect anything that is not simply 'mechanical' in the name of 'they are errors'. This is done by simply reading the voltages above a certain threshold as 'one' and otherwise as 'zero'. But living things are neither digital, nor are they designed to be used by external agents, nor can we, in anyway, define what can possibly be an 'error' as outputted by a neuron.

You might have tried to study a computer but found that it is problematic to understand because they use such 'mental' concepts such as 'remember', 'tell', 'know', 'decide', 'think' etc. Strangely, the 'scientists' never saw it prudent to wait first until we have mastered the mind, then define these terms scientifically before we now check if it make any sense to talk of these terms in the context of a computer. For instance, what sense does it mean to argue that 'a computer remembers' as if 'maintaining stability' constitute 'remembering', but when you suggest that 'nature remembers' the very scientist now begine to fight you? I mean if a computer can be said to have memory, then everything in nature does have memory! This is just one of those many examples where 'studying science' is much more of 'studying the psychology of scientists' than studying the nature!

But as we will briefly see, there is no thinking, telling, knowing, remembering or whatever in a computer. The only thing that happens in a computer is toggling of switches, and nothing more. The similarity between a computer and a living thing is extremely superficial. A program is a series of numbers in binary form. So we might have some 5 numbers, say 3,5,7,8,6. When we have 5 numbers as our program, it means that we must toggle 5 switches, in a certain order,to carry out a given task. So we have switches A,B,C,D,E. 3, switches A, 5 switches B,7 switches C, 8 switches D and 6 switches E. It is a clock inside the CPU that rapidly display outputs. These outputs switches on the programs one at a time, but so rapidly that the computer appears to do it all at once. When 3 is switched on, swicht A is, in turn, automatically switched on etc. Numbers can switch simply because they are actually voltages that are fed to the bases of transistors.

Another program might simpy be 3,4,3,5,7,3,6,2,5,....in other words to increase the lenght of a program, you simply put together those very same few numbers, much in the same way you can construct several words, sentences, paragraphs etc using just 24 letters. This ensures that you can use just 5 switches to do all manner of tasks, depending on how you sequence your switchings. If you switch A, then B then C then D A might switch on the data from the file that stores a number that you pressed and switches it into another file called 'data bus'. B then might switch the whatever in the data bus into a circuit that add numbers. Then C might swich yet another input into the data bus and finaly D switches the whatever in the data bus the other side of the summing circuit. So the program A, B, C and D 'tells the computer to sum two numbers the are fed into the computer'. It is kind of program that you switch it on when you press 'equal sign' in a calculator.

So you can see that a computer is 100% mindless! The neurons donnot toggle switches that way. When what looks like '5' is fed into a neuron, it may OR MAY NOT toggle what looks like switch C. This means that the brain CAN work like a computer but is not REDUCIBLE into a computer. There is no such 'black box' in the entire brain that can ever makes it a must that a number such as '5' must 'toggle a certain switch' even if we check the brain down to atomic level! A computer, on other hand, no matter how complex it will ever be, will always be a combination of 'black boxes' that essentially toggle switches without gaving any other choice but to toggle the switches. Therefore a computer is fundamentally different from the brain. It is not true that they differ in mere complexity.

'Jupiter Brain' is a supercomputer that is as large as a whole planet! 'Matrioshka brain' is even larger, yes, larger than the Dyson Sphere!This is one of those megastructures that scientists, interested with existence of alien up there in stars, are searching for. Contrary to how it appears, it is harder to figure out the use of such a supercomputer than it is, to figure out how to build one! So the reason why the universe is not teaming with such 'brains' may as well be that they are useless, rather than that there are no ETs powerful enough to build them.

As the name suggests, these 'cosmic supercomputers' idea is conceived by people who think that the brain is nothing but an extremely complex computer! So an ET creating such a megastructure will have succeeded in creating a sentient being, hence a 'brain'! So this 'brain' has two functions. One is to simulate a reality and the other one is to simulate the brain. Since according to them, the brain is just a complex computer, then simulating a brain in a computer is supposed to simulate consciousness as well! So if we make a computer big enough, not only can we recreate all of us, but we can also create any universe we want. Indeed if a brain is nothing but a computer, then creating a Jupiter brain should be the ultimate aim of any civilization! You will be stupid if you think otherwise!

The thing that I like about this 'brain simulation' idea is the way in which the idea of a brain as a computer leads to the conclusion that thus immortality can be attained! This is one of the biggest ironies! But it is because the following common reasoning is a non sequitur logical fallacy, just like I have often suggested:

1.) My consciousness is caused by the brain
2.)The brain is nothing but a complex computer
3.)Therefore there is no life after death

The conclusion '3' does not follow from the premises 1 snd 2. To arrive at 3 you must show what does not cause consciousness, not what it causes it. In the case of 'being a computer', what will it prevent some future designer from making another 'computer' similar to your brain, hence effectively 'resurrecting' you. Of course there is nothing that can prevent such, so ironically, the people who wanted to deny after life, by supposing that the brain is just computer, ended up beleiving in another kind of immortality!

The idea of simulating everyone's consciousness by a single, massive computer closely resembles the new age idea that 'we are all one' and 'are experiencing some virtual reality' so that some 'mind' is all that exists. The only difference is that 'Matrioshka brain' or 'jupier brain' attempts to achieve such through technology! So two groups of people that seems to believe in two totaly different models of reality ironically ends up with similar conclusions as to the resultant of their models! As far as 'enjoying realities spawned by the same mind', the two models are indistinguishable. It is only the understanding of 'mind' that differers! But should this matter? I don't think so!

The Matrioshka Brain idea is also similar to 'God' idea, as far as experience is concerned! Indeed a person who believe that 'brain is a computer' should easily believe in God, if he thinks carefully further. Again, this is ironical since 'brain is a computer' is often seen as a product of the overally 'materialistic' who wants to deny God's existence. For instance if you think that a human can create a computer that is more intelligent than the very same human, then that computer might, in turn, creat another even more intelligent computer. This can go on until the computer becomes such intelligent that it might as well figure out how to resurrect all people! That computer becomes equivalent to God! But ironically, this 'creator of us' will be also our own creation! Such a 'God my son' being is called 'Omega God'. This is a kind of God who is 'Omega but never Alpha'. He will be there in the 'end' but he was not there in the beginning! It is a 'half of God', but of course which is far better than a 'no God' at all. Maltrioshka brains might be attempts done by 'intelliget robots' to create an 'Omega God'! So their god will be a massive robot! If we reverse this argument and say that perhaps we are already living in a matrioshka brain where the 'reality' we see is a computer simulation, we arrive at the same old idea of 'God' but now with a different understanding of 'God', yes even thinking of 'God' as an insanely complex robot. Again I ask whether this matter.I don't think so! Life is good, regardless. I enjoy honey. Who cares if I am a robot, anyway?

However, to pour some cold water on the 'Matrioshka brains' or whatever, one might note that at best, such a 'brain' would be nothing but a monstrous, rapid idiot in complete darkness! It has no better chance of being conscious than a series of gears, levers and gogs can be. It doesnt matter how large it can get. May be this is the reason scientists in search for intelligent, extraterestials (e.g. SETI) are yet to find one such a structure in the sky. The intelligent ETs simply knows better! So I find the idea of Matrioskha brain only good as a 'scalf holder' that might end up helping a so called 'materialist' to figure out not only how life can be after death, but also 'where' the 'heaven' is in such a case!

Do scientists, per chance, think that if you reproduce an exact copy of your brain somewhere, then your consciousness will appear at that point? This should be a monumental failure to understand consciousness, but it follows logically from the 'you are just a computer' premise! Thinking more carefully, you should note that you can only simulate what something DOES but never, what it IS. It is logically possible to make something BEHAVE completely like you, without the thing becoming you. In the case of simulation of your brain inside a 'Jupiter brain' in Andromeda, you won't suddenly appear as a consciousness inside such a computer. However, in case there is a COMMUNICATION between your brain and that supercomputer, then yes, your consciousness will appear as though inside that computer. Scientists are yet to understand that you seem 'omnipresent' inside your brain simply because it is interconnected and various points communicate with other points. So connecting your brain to another 'brain' just bring about the effect of 'having a bigger brain'. So CONNECTION, not SIMULATION, that can bring about transference of consciousness.

If we insist that 'computation' is what brings about 'consciousness' there is still, another thing that eludes these scientists. For the purposes of consciousness, a computer is not necessary. What looks like 'computation' can take place even without any computer! It survives to show how a 'transistor' can be there in the sand without any need for anyone to manufacture it! What we call 'computer' is not what brings about 'computation'. Rather, it is what makes a human being make use of the computation which already happens inside rocks! But for the purposes of just being consciousness, it is not necessary at all for the 'computer' to be useful to a human. To understand how such a 'computer' can exist inside a rock, think of a computer with an extremely flexible 'motherboard'. The wirers that interconnects the components cannot brake no matter how you munch the mother board. Now you are going to twist it and twist it,...crunch it, crunch it, munch it, hammer it etc. The computer will still be working since all its components remains interconnected the same way. But the computer is nolonger recognizable, and perhaps is no longer any useful to you!

In Islamic stories, we are told that Muhammad travelled from Mecca all the way to Jerusalem overnight by riding on a creature called al buraq. In modern times, of course all you need to get from Mecca to Jerusalem overnight is an aeroplane. So I note that with or without al buraq, we need another way of flying. Amongst other things, this 'democratises' such abilities. The problem with 'magic ways' is that they are often the privileges of a few 'select gurus'. In the era of al buraq, only Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were privileged to 'fly'! But the same reasoning should be applied in any other thing that people desires, e.g. 'interstellar travel', 'living in a paradise' or even 'life after death'! We should try to achieve such things whether or not some deities etc have done it for us 'in ways that no man can understand'.

In the days of the bible's book of revelation, a floating city was 'beyond human ability' to even imagine. Amongst other things, it was seen that 'only God can hang things upon nothing'. So a city in the clouds could only be built by Jesus for over a period of 1000 years! However, in modern times, such cities in Jupiter and even pluto are within human imagination! Infact humans are now imagining that some ETs might have built a supercumputer the size of the sun! They are now looking for such objects in the skies. In other words we can now imagine doing things using science and technology that the ancient men did not imagine even using magics! We have imagined type 1,2,3&4 civilization, beginning with that one which will build a Dyson Sphere around a sun! Dyson sphere is a project several orders more monumental that building a floating, New Jerusalem as specified in the book of Revelation!

Think about a 'New Jerusalem-like city' near pluto 'floating away'. Indead it could, itself, be an interstellar space-ship, now heading to stars. It should be built in such a way that 'it will not need the light of the sun'! The concept of 'day and night' has no meaning in such a city, at such a distance away from the sun. Since it is into an interstellar journey, we must find a way of living for all that time. So there will be no death and hence no mourning in such a city. But if we can figure out how to dodge death during all that time, then we might have figured out the secret for immortality alltogether. All these without the need for gods!

The bible suggests that one way of lighting such a city is to let the people there glow in what the bible termed it as 'glory'! In those days, whence the best torch was just a burning substance soacked in olive oil or such, lighting a whole city without a 'sun' was inconceivable! So it neaded God to do that 'in ways that no man can understand'. But nowadays we can do that using the so called 'light emitting diodes' (LED). So all we need it to wear a musk full of tiny LEDs, so that our bodies looks like the smartphone screens! So the need for God to glow inside the city goes the way of the need for al buraq to take people from Mecca all the way to Iraq! We will do all these without necessarily insisting that there is no God, nor insisting that 'God is not necessary'. We will just change how we understand 'action of God in the universe' just like we do everything else. Christians donnot pray for God to take them from Japan to Cairo. Neither should they expect God to take them from earth to stars, hand them a floating city, or even a life after dead, if we can do these things ourselves! If we can do it, then hurrah!

Perhaps the most challenging part will be to figure out how to live after death! People have thought of interstellar travel but few see that perhaps immortality is a fleat we must first achieve before we can think of moving to stars! Since interstellar travel will be too long or too dangerous then rather than thinking of how to dodge all the dangers, we can simply think of how to 'resurrect' people should they die! We can think of how to make a body that does not feel pain etc. All these shows that the conditions described in Revelation, pertaining to the inhabitants of New Jerusalem are compatible to those who are inside a huge spaceship in an interstellar voyage! One way to dodge death is transference of consciousness into a clone. So we must change our attitudes towards the science of cloning. To suppose that 'it is wrong to clone a body' because 'it is like competing with God' is like saying that 'it is wrong for a muslim to make an aeroplane' because 'it is like trying to compete with al buraq'! If we entertain such, then we can dismiss any technology using the same logic. God has never said 'he doesn't want a competition from humans'. A being who fears competition is a limited one! Humans are the ones who hate a competitor. Shoving this to God as well is a dis-respect to God!

So yes, we can make 'Jerusalems', Souls, immortalities, al buraqs, living things etc even while God is seated somewhere and this will be a non-issue to God. God does not fear any competition from humans! Granted God might have made all these things for us, or for the saints. There might be a New Jerusalem and a life after death full of joy etc. But so might there be an al buraq! All you need to do, to get from places to places, is to be holy and then  pray to God and then voila! A strange animal will appear before you and he will take you anywhere you want, from Jerusalem to stars! But does this mean we should not make aeroplanes or rockets etc?

It requires a 'very powerful microscope' to see the story of 'future paradise' in Old Testament bible! First of all there is absolutely no story of people 'going to leave in heaven' at all! People read 'prophecy of paradise' into verses that actually talks of just a future 'good world' that is not too difficult at all to attain. It is nothing like the otherworldly 'heaven and hell' that is so entreanched in the modern mindset. According to the OT writters, the so called 'future paradise' is just an extension of this very same world we leave in. As we will see, these 'future paradise' prophecies, looks more like failed prophecies!

The ancient Jerusalemites seemed to have been obsessed with being the 'darlings of the world'! Their ultimate dream was to build a city of jewels. The highways would be made of gold and every utensil in every home would be made of gold! People from all over the world would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year, taking all manner of gifts to that place. Children will be singing and playing harps on the streets with great joy. This would take place throughout the eternity! The Jewish 'messiah' would be the king of all the world. This king will have magical powers, even shinning and lighting the city! The weakest Jerusalemite would be as strong as David, and the strongest, i.e messiah himself, would be just like God himself! This 'glorified' future Jerusalem is what would come to be called 'the new Jerusalem'.

The NT bible is actually unleashing an era of 'spiritulizing' what looks likes 'failed prophecies' of OT. One of them is the very 'city of Jewels' at the heart of Palestine. By the time Jesus came, it had become clear that Jerusalem was not heading to become 'the city of jewels' where everyone on earth would struggle to make a pilgrimage to every year, as the prophets said. On the contrary, it was 'spiralling downwards' into a city of barbarians that murdered 'every righteous person' sent to it! Far from a 'darling of the world', it had become loathsome to the world! Latter, Jesus's desciples would term it as the contemporary 'Soddom and Ghomorra'. What a better term to call a place where the very expected 'messia' was ironically murdered. The ground was fertile for Jesus's otherwise too surprising declaration that not a single stone would be left on top of the other! What would be 'the city of Jewels' would actually become a heep of rubbles one more time! It seemed the prophecies would not come true!

Of course Jesus's prediction of destruction of Jerusalem was surprising even to his close disciples. This is the reason they thought that Jesus was predicting 'the end of the world'! There was no way Jerusalem could be destroyed! The Messiah would come in the mid way and terribly defeat the in comming army. The threat to destroy Jerusalem was actually the beginning of the 'city of Jewels' fulfilment! The 'immediate comming of messiah' misunderstanding is so deep that even Jesus himself seems to have missed it! But according to some people, the prophecy of the triumphant Jerusalem was more like a promise. This was conditional on at least one thing: the Jews had to at least welcome the very 'Messiah' whose reign from the city would unleash the golden era! However, nothing like this is apparent in the OT prophecies. They all seem to be unconditional declarations of what must happen in future.

This is one of the main reasons Jews even up to now rejects Jesus as to have been the promised Messiah. Jesus looks more like a 'defeated messiah', an oxymoron, according to the prophecy, where the 'weakest Jerusalemite' was supposed to be as strong as David. The Jews accuses Christians for quoting the old testament scriptures out of the context, when claiming that Jesus full filled the prophecies. However, when you close exermine them, you find that a contextual reading of the prophesies indicates failed prophecies! In the last parts of Zechariah, we read the triumph of Jerusalem over its enemies, with the help of the ' God-like king' who would dwell there. According to the Jews, this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled. This is true. No such a 'triumph of a city' has ever happened in history. However the historical context of Zechariah's prophecy is clearly the ancient times! In war time, Zechariah sees only swords, horses and spears, nothing even remotely like a modern warfare! He only sees ancient empires like Assyria, Egypt etc. Like all the prophets, he envisions 'Gathering of Jews' only from such places as Assyria etc. In today's world, most so called Jews are in USA, Russia etc. If we were to say Zechariah's prophecy applies to a future event, then we must not read it literally or within the context! We must read it like Christians did! By the way we see the same anachronism in the famous 'they will beat their swords into plowshares'. We now know that before humans did that, they first hammered them into guns, humvees, jet fighters etc. Reading literally, these prophecies seems failed ones!

Jews are mistaken in reading the last parts of Zechariah etc! Christian's view is better and in fact a way of saving it from being a failed prophesy! Zechariah does not mension a 'defeated Messiah', yes. He mensions only a triumphant one crashing the enemies of Jerusalem. But neither does Zechariah mensions the defeated Jerusalem! Reading Zechariah literally, and considering its historical context, it seems to be saying that the just built Jerusalem will never be destroyed again, just as it seems to be saying that the in comming Messiah will always be triumphant! But we know that Jerusalem felled miserably in 70 th AD and no 'Messiah' came to save it. To rescue Zechariah from being a failed prophesy, one must insert some over 2000 years of ruined Jerusalem that the prophet never saw! What is the difference between reading Zechariah this way and reading its 'messiah' prophecy as to have too included an over 2000 years of a 'defeated messiah' not mentioned in Zechariah?

Revelation chapters 21 and 22 is supposed to describe the 'heaven' often talked about by Christians. However we note that as described in Revelation, and also other parts of the bible, the 'heaven' differ significantly from the Christian story. The first glarring difference is that, it is not 'heaven' but the earth that is being described! Take a close look at this verse:

"24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life." Revelation 21:24-27

Obviously this is not 'heaven'. This 'city of jewels' is nothing but the continuation of the same Jewish dream of erecting a glittering city in Palestine! He (a Jew, of course) is talking about 'kings bringing splendour to it', which means the yearly pilgrimage during the 'feast of the tabernacle'. People from all over the world, so the writter says, will eventually bow to a Jewish kingdom ruled by their messiah! This is their ultimate dream! 'The Jews will rule all the world'. The people from all the world will visit Palestine to take gold, Jaspher, diamonds and all other 'splendours' to that place! If you don't do that, it will not rain in your country! This is not 'heaven'. This is almost the ordinary earth. There are still those who 'rule' (the nowJewish Christians) and the 'ruled'. There are still the 'impure' ones throughout the earth. It is only that they are not allowed to get to the city. So it is the ussual earth with the usual Jews/Gentiles (i.e 'the nations)! This worship of Yahweh, together with adoration of the Jews in a paradisic 'new earth' will go on for ever and ever! Eventually the whole universe will be centered around Jews and their God!

The other point that indicates that this is earthly city is the 'walls' and 'gates' anachronism. The 'wall' means we are still trying to prevent some notorious guys from breaking into it. This is anachronistic because the author did not envision our modern world of bombs, jets etc! In our world, cities nolonger have walls and gates. Secondly cities no longer invoke some sense of joy etc. mension 'city' nowadays and what comes to mind are vehicles, noise, smocks, stress etc. A city is a place where everyone is looking for money, everyone fear another person, everyone is selfish etc. In modern times, nothing is more absurd that saying that a city can possibly model some 'paradise'. It far more symbolizes some 'hell'! An idea of 'leaving forever' inside our cities sounds like an eternal torment!

This brings about another stark difference between the 'New Jerusalem' as written about in Revelation and the modern Christian's teaching about one. Notice that nowhere in Revelation is it written that the city is 'beyond human description' or 'no pen, no pensil or no mind' can describe the joy in the city. Or 'the city is beyond comprehension'. Infact the other does not even say that there is any Joy in the city! Modern Christians reads into it what they want to believe. The author only says there is no more pain, cry or death or mourning, period. He negates existence of 'negatives' without affirming any 'positives'. There is a reason for this!

Clearly 'comprehension', 'understanding' or 'description' is not a 'negative' on the same par with 'death' and 'mourning', yet modern 'spirituality' is so obsessed with them that it no longer comforts people with a promise of a world wherein there is no more death and mourning etc. Infact they say we will leave forever 'incarnating' in such miserable worlds! What promise do they offer to us? a world 'beyond comprehension' that one might breifly obtain by sitting cross legged or puffing some heavy dose of marijuana before you get back to the world of suffering. To modern man, 'understanding' is the problem! To modern man, 'heaven' is a 'place' of mental acribatics! It is a 'place' where all what you enjoy is seeing something happen that seems impossible to the mind, even if it means watching your child spirals into a black hole! He says 'hail, what a great experience! It reminds me of limitations of my mind'! What about the child? Er,..er, that might be karma, er,..er,,... who knows, 'it is beyond comprehension',... Modern man is lost, and this is one point I agree with these ancient guys whose ultimate dream was never experiencing 'something incomprehensible' but living in a golden city and dancing forever!

Imagine being in prison and then you see a strange, small animal. You get interested with it and so you start following it so you may take a closer look at it. Then suddenly you have to stop because you have reached the fence of the prison and off, the animal walks out of the fence. So poor you! You won't quench your curiosity! That is what came to my mind when I saw some Christians wondering if 'Iésous', the Greek word for 'Jesus', infact has something to do with 'zeus', the Greek God! Could it be that someone conspired to replace 'Jesus' with zeus? So they had to check if the original version was different from 'Iésous'. But they found that so was it written in the earliest New Testament bible! So the 'fence of the prison' is where it is written 'the original bible was inspired by God'.

How was Jesus called by his Hebrew speaking disciples? I know that as usual, when the answer is potentially what someone would not want to hear, they often say 'it is difficult to know'. However, it is often nothing of the sort! In this case, all we have to do is note that in Septuagint, the name Joshua is translated into 'Iésous', i.e. the same name they called 'Jesus' in the new testament. It follows then that 'Joshua' was the name for Jesus! So all you need to do is find out how Joshua is written in Hebrew and you find that it is 'Yehoshua' or 'Yehshua' or 'Yahushua', or 'Yahshua' etc. So when translating the bible into English, they noticed that the Greek speaking Jews who wrote the bible went far off in using 'Iésous' to refer to 'Yehoshua' but opted to correct it only in the case of the Old Testament 'Joshua' but not for New Testament 'Jesus'. In the latter, they chose to go even further off! This creats an illusion that Jesus had a name unlike any other name, and perhaps this is what they intended! Thus no one, for instance, calls himself 'Jesus' thinking that it is divine name but anyone can call himself 'Joshua', yet that was the real supposed 'divine' name! 'Jesus' is nothing but an horrendous mis-pronunciation of 'Joshua', which is, in turn, a mispronounced 'Yehoshua'!

So why 'Joshua' or even 'Yeshua' instead of 'Yehoshua'? The answer comes from the fooly of Jews. Jews came to develop superstitious beliefs against usage of their God's name. Notice that Yeho-shua is a short form of Yehovah-shua, which means 'yehovah saves'. Yeshua on the other hand just means 'salvation'. So replacing 'Yehoshua' with 'Yeshua' is not a small deal! By the 'don't mension God' superstition, Jews unwittingly ceased honouring their God in their names as were intended! How can you possibly 'praise Yahweh' in the hears of men, as the bible commands, if you are never allowed to even mension Yahweh? You will end up praising other Gods such as Seuz, kah etc, and this is what Jews does unwittingly. Instead of saying 'Hallelu-jah', they say 'Hallelu-kah'. So they cease praising Jah, thanks to the superstition! I will come back to critique this Jewish superstition. But lets first exermine the possible link between 'Iesous' and 'seuz'.

It is noted that the idea of 'God-man' was too abominable for Jews. On the other hand, this was the normal belief amongst Greeks. So could it be the case that the whole story of Jesus was more of Greek in origin than Jewish? It is said that the story of the real guy from Galilee, named 'Yehoshua' was not like that of a 'God-man' of any sort. It was a story of an ordinary man, hence he had just an ordinary, Hebrew name. This guy just wanted to remove the Romans off the Palestine by the help of Yahweh just as Joshua did. So this name 'Yeho-shua' would not be a coincidence. At around that time, such carnal 'Messiahs' were very common among the Jews.

Note, however, that it is reasonable to suppose that Yahushua was unique kind of 'Messiah' in that he was more spiritually oriented, than a militant one. Like the OT Yehoshua, this NT one expected Yahweh to perform a series of miracles to expell the Romans off the Palestine. He did not try to create a military to do that. Or in different words, he was more like the OT Yehoshua than the David-like militant one that, many Jews thought the real 'Messiah' would be.

It is the story of such 'Messiah miraculous triumph' that the Greeks created a 'God-man' myth around! So the story of 'Jesus', in this sense, is a Greek myth that is superimposed on a real history of a real man from Galilee. So the Greek story is an exaggeration. The Greeks then might have heard of the story of ancient Yehoshua who performed miracles such as collapsing the walls of Jericho. At then there was a fear of Yahweh throughout middle east. It was said that unlike other gods, Yahweh works from 'heavens and earth'. This might have led Greeks to think of their God 'Zeus'. Might this be the sky God 'Zeus' working amongst Jews? They might have wondered. If Seuz was secretly working amongst Jews, then it might as well be the case that Yehoshua was his son! (The idea that God has sons incarnate on earth was common amongst greeks). So to Greeks, it might have made sense to say that Jews did not pronounce Zeus's son properly and so called him 'Yehoshua' instead of a more Zeuz-like name: 'Ié-sous', which is perhaps 'son of Zeus'! Remember that Greeks, during the time of Antiochus Ephiphane placed the statue of Zeus in Jewish temple and tried to force Jews to offer sacrifices to him. So indeed Greeks seemed to entertain the idea that Jews do worship Zeus unwittingly!

Now lets come back to the ridiculous Jewish superstition. Consider this verse:

Isaiah 12:4 ►

New International Version

" that day you will say: “Give praise to the LORD, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted."

It is clear that Jews were instructed to proclaim the name of Yahweh amongst nations, and never to mension the names of other gods. But they did the opposite! Where did they get the teaching that 'Yahweh is un-mentionable'? By this superstition, as you have seen, they ended up uttering the names of other gods as they were too eager to subtitude 'Yahweh' with anything that sounds like 'god' even in their scriptures, all while other nations were too eager to proclaim their gods amongst the Jews! Eventually 'Yahweh' disappeared all together, becoming more like a tribal god than the God of all the earth! How could he be known without being mentioned?

In such verses as in Isaiah, a Jewish advocate of the devil may now say that Yahweh is actually asking them to proclaim his PERSONALITY amongst the nations, and not his NAME! Seems to make senss now!! But the verse that they misuse in order to falsely say they are forbidden from mentioning Yahweh comes from the second commandment: 'though shall not misuse my name'. Here, 'my name' would even fit more as 'my personality', but they arbitrarily choose when 'name' means just 'name' and when 'name' means 'person'! In effect, they wind up with an absurdity! According to this reasoning, Saying 'cursed is the God of Abraham' does not constitude 'misuse of Yahweh's name' since the exodus commandment does not riffer to the PERSON but to the NAME and saying 'Praise to Jehovah Jire' amongst Gentiles is actually a 'misuse of Jehovah' because the Isaiah verse riffers to PERSON and not to NAME! Make sense?

By this silliness, Jews donnot honnor Yahweh! It is O.K. if they do things that leads to Gentiles cursing their God, as long as they don't mension the name, yet they say it is the PERSON that must be honored, not the name! To honnor God, they think, is to say 'kah' and write G-d, say Adonai etc all while BEHAVING in a manner that is not worth a person named after Yahweh!!

From the superstition came the idea that YHWH's pronunciation is 'difficult'. However, it may sound Yahoweh, or Yehowah or Yahoveh or Yehovah. They are all equivalent in that Y comes from 'Yiyeh', H comes from 'Hahyah' and w/v comes from hoVah. So in the words Yiyeh, Hovah and Hahyah, we have 'yehovah' and 'yahoveh'. Since Yiyeh, Hovah and Hahyah means I was, I am and I will be respectively, then saying Yehovah or Yahoveh is a matter of the sequence you choose, which doesn't count as it is just a list.

Also as you can note the 'I was, I am and I will be' meanings that are important, and not the soundings! By overemphasizing on the sounding of YHWH, they Jews in effect insinuate that their language is, unlike others, of divine origin! This teaching is not Biblical! You can try to say 'I am' etc
in any language, and you mean the same! What 'God' is cannot boil down to an 'unatterable' sound somehow uttered by 7 or so Jewish 'gurus' once in a year at the day of 'Yom Kipur'. What nonsense!!

Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 is not hard at all to follow. It is just a 3 steps high school math exercise which everyone fond of quoting this formular should first close exermine it. That is to say this derivation should be as famous as the equation itself. Infact you should examine it yourself and arrive at your own conclusion as to whether or not it is correct.

I will show you that Einstein's derivation is erroneous. It is not possible to derive E=mc^2 using Special Relativity (SR). It should be obvious because SR is a theory solely of objects moving close to the speed of light. So you cannot use this theory to derive state of matter at complete rest! You cannot understand the physics of stationary objects by thinking solely of dynamic objects while insisting that the physics of the latter is different from those of the former! Theoretical physicists admits that no one has ever correctly derived E=mc^2 solely from SR and that perhaps it is not possibly to derive it this way. Nevertheless they lie to the public that E=mc^2 is a product of SR! Here I will rub it in, without any political correctness. It is not that E=mc^2 is not derivable from SR. It is CONTRADICTORY to SR, and I will show it to you before your face!

In SR, due to 'time dilation', we know that frequency, f, transforms as f'/f=γ where γ=sqrt(1/(1-(v^2/c^2)) is called 'lorentz's factor'. That is to say if 'time pass slow', then 'things vibrate slow' as well, so that the frequency transforms in a way closely similar to how time transforms. Einstein uses his photo electric law, E=hf to suggest that light energy too transforms the same way as frequency, that is to say E'/E=γ. The Taylor expansion (or binomial expansion) of lorenz's factor is given by γ=1+v^2/2c^2+,....But you don't even need to understand the maths behind 'Taylor expansion' to understand my argument. The math, nevertheless is not hard to understand. For now, just accept that γ=1+v^2/2c^2+,...This is not disputed by anyone.

Einstein considered a stationary object with intrinsic energy, H0. It emits light simultaneously in two opposite directions. Each light carries an energy of E/2. So E is the total energy. Having emited energy E, H0 reduces by that amount and becomes H1. So H1-H0=E. Then Einstein thinks of another observer moving towards the object at speed v along a direction perpendicular to the emitted light. Because of time dilation and the fact that energy is related to frequency by E=hf, the moving observer sees a different energy E' while the stationary one sees E. In addition to that, the moving observer sees the object as though moving at v. So in his calculation of the total energy of the object before it emits the light, he includes the kinetic energy, 1/2m0v^2 and 1/2m1v^2 after the object emits the light. So he assumes that the emission of the light of energy E changes the mass from m0 to m1 (he assumes what we thought he was going to proove!) The following is the clearer calculation:

 Note:

1.In the first line, Einstein envisions what the stationary observer will see. He 'sees' the intrinsic energy change as the object emits energy E

2.In the second line, he insists that this is what the observer moving at v will see. He will see that the total energy in the system will include the object's kinetic energy and that emiting the light energy will reduce the object's mass.

3.In the third line, he rearanges the equation and then in the 4rth line,  replace E in the left as indicated in the first line. He also replace E' with its lorentz's transform after taylor expanding.

This reasoning is problematic because if some intrinsic energy, H gets converted to light energy, and the thus converted energy alters as seen in a moving frame, then so must H alter as seen from that moving frame. To see the error more clearly, let the stationary body emits the whole of H, which is theoretically possible. Perharps the best way to see this is to let H be the very light itself trapped in a box. You can think of two rays of light bouncing horizontally back and forth off perfectly reflecting walls. Then suddenly, the two rays escapes in opposite directions as the relativists envisions. It is not reasonable say that the light that has emanated off the box has different energy, E' as seen by the moving observer but the same light trapped in the box has the same energy H as seen by the same moving observer!

 Note that here, we repeat the same calculation but envisioning a case where the whole of intrinsic energy gets converted to light. This is to make the error easier to notice! The following is the correct way of 'deriving it'

Note the second line where H must also Lorentz Transform. If H is equal to E, then if E is transformed in the moving frame, then H must be similarly transformed!

But we can even turn Einstein's thinking right on its own head. Accordind to Einstein's disciples, H must be the 'mass' that is getting converted to energy. So we can replace it with mc^2:

So the problem is now even clearer! If the stationary object will convert its entire mass to energy, then we can surely replace H=mc^2 and we now see that by using the same same H in the moving frame, Einstein's unwittingly fails to factor in the relativistic transformation of m! According to the same relativity, the moving observer can never see the 'rest mass' of the stationary object. He must see the 'relativistic mass'. When we factor in the transformation of 'mass', we find the the assumtion that H=mc^2 leads to a contradiction. So it is a reductio ad absurd. So we have shown that E=mc^2 actually contradicts SR!

At no point should 'mass' ever be treated like 'inertia'. Newton's law says f=ma. This 'law' is supposed to be a 'scientific' one and so it must be possible to test it. We must be able to push a stone of mass m, using a force of f and see if it accelerates at a. So we must have a way of knowing the value of 'm' before we accelerate the object, so we may test if it indeed accelerates as specified by the f=ma so called 'law'. Given that this is the case, how comes physicist measure mass, for instance using 'mass spectrometer', by pushing an object with a known force, f , watching how it accelerates and then shouts that they have 'measured the mass' and found it to be given by m=f/a? Whenever you see a team of physicists measuring 'mass' by pushing objects and watching the movie of their acceleration, know at once that you are dealing with a gang of idiots!

If an object or a particle has not grown fatter due to addition of more particles, nor have we watched it get compressed before other stuffs are added to it in order to return it to its original size, there is no meaningful way of saying that 'its mass has increased'. If, nevertheless, we see that its inertia has changed, then we don't say 'its mass has changed'. Rather, we simply say that Newton's second law is not scientifically correct because inertia of an object can alter without any observed alteration of its matter content. Therefore when a physicist measures atomic masses using mass spectrometer and then say 'there is a mass deficit' (converted to energy?) he is behaving like a lunatic! An object can only alter its mass via addition/ removal of more matter to the object in question. This addition/removal must be observable, just like when you are adding more floor to make an heavier bread! You can never infer addition of more matter by pushing the object and the watching how it moves. That way you can only observe its altered BEHAVIOUR and never, its altered INTRINSIC PROPERTY or amount of anything that constitutes the object itself, as opposed to its behaviour.

We are going to close examine that inertia is a thoroughly distinct property from 'mass'. I am going to emphasize the falsifiability of Newton's law, f=ma by showing how an object can alter its inertia without altering its mass. I will show you that this is the case in Electromagnetic Waves (EM waves). But first, we will close examine the usual, 'mechanical' waves.

If you want to pluck a ruler, or a similar object, to make it vibrate, you begine by pinning one of its end on a table, or on a similar object. So we have the ruler's free edge and its pinned edge. Before the ruler is plucked, it is in a rest state, which is straightened and horizontal. To pluck the ruler, you press down its free edge. So originally, before you release the ruler to allow it to vibrate it is curved downwards so that its free edge is taken to the furthest point away from where it was at rest state. Being the furthest means that it will take the longest time for it to move back up to it's place when it is at rest.

Now instead of a vibrating ruler, think of a more flaccid but springy 'ruler' or a similar object. Imagine holding one end so that there is the held edge and then the free edge. Initially, the flaccid object is lieing horizontaly (though not perfectly so, due to gravity). Now if you move the held edge suddenly upwards, the object will now breifly assume a shape bent downwards so that it now resembles the pressed down 'ruler' we saw above. This is because of the inertia of the points along the ruler, together with the ruler not being riggid enough to take all the points at once. But if you suddenly stop moving the object upwards, the object will now re-straighten itself at the more elevated position, and the inertia together with some degree of the springiness, may make the object vibrate briefly just like the plucked ruler. When you stopped moving it 'upwards', the held edge reached its rest state at exactly that instance, but the free edge took some times to reach its rest state. This is because the bending 'down' caused by the up movement of the held edge combined with the inertia of the points along the 'ruler', resulted in the free edge getting left at a point farthest from its rest point, just like in the bent ruler.

Now instead of moving the held edge 'upwards' and then suddenly stopping it, move it upwards up to somewhere and then suddenly move it back 'downwards'. The inertia of the points along the ruler will make the ponts farther away from the held edge keep moving 'upwards' even after you have begun to move the held edge 'downwards'. However, remember also that the points even further away from the held edge were left more 'down' when you were moving the held edge 'upwards', with the farthest edge being the most 'downwards'. All this results in a ruler that assumes a shape bent 'upwards' upto some point, before it now gets bent 'downwards'(an hill-like shape). So it has some 'highest' point somewhere along the ruler, like the summit of an hill.

Think of the ruler now as two rulers, call it ruler A and B, joined together at the 'summit' point. So ruler A is bent 'upward' upto the summit and then there, it gets joined to ruler B, which is bent 'downwards' all the way upto the free edge. So 'ruler B', is farther away from the held edge than 'ruler A' is. Note that these 'two rulers' are now in a state similar to the rulers that are about to be plucked rulers that are about to be released to vibrate. They are under tension due to the springiness. The 'ruler A' tries to bend back 'downwards' while the 'ruler B', due to inertia, tries to keep bending back 'upwards'. Since 'ruler B' is farther away from the held edge than the 'ruler A' is, the summit point gets moved downwards by the bending of ruler A while the point just further away from the held edge than the summit is gets moved upwards by the bending of ruler B, and it becomes the new summit. So the summit moves further away from the held edge. This is the wave moving away from the held edge.

Note that if you begun to move the held edge upwards and then suddenly stop at some time t0, then the farthest, free edge will move up to the 'rest' state at some latter time, t1, so that t1-t0=the half of the period of the full oscillation cycle. This is to say the natural frequency,f, of the vibrating ruler is 1/2 (t1-t0). Then if L=the length of the 'ruler', then L/(t0-t1)=2Lf, must be the speed of the wave.

The foregoing detailed description is meant to illustrate the two factors that are interplaying to cause wave propagation: the inertia and the 'springiness' of the medium. It also shows that if someone talks of 'waves' in a completely empty space, then that person did not do the homework of understanding the simpler acoustic waves, let alone the EM waves! Often he is actually confusing 'knowing how to describe motion mathematically' with 'understanding how the phenomenon is actually happening'. In the mathematical description, we cannot even differentiate a 'translation of a wavy object' with the 'waving of a straight object, so that only the waviness, not the object itself, gets translated'. They are both described the same way using the same stupid equation!

The perhaps surprising fact is that to understand the EM waves, we don't need any different insight from the one above. We only need to identify what it is that is behaving like 'springiness' and what it is that is behaving like inertia in an apparently empty space. Then the explanation will proceed exactly like in the so called 'mechanical wave' like we saw above. You will note that the property that is behaving like 'inertia', unlike in the 'mechanical wave', is realy not the 'mass', and is certainly not, 'the quantity of matter'. You will also note more clearly that the 'm' in the equation e=mc^2 refers to this other 'inertia', and never to 'quantity of matter'. Then also, you will see what 'speed of light' (EM waves) got to do with it, and perhaps thinking of the inertia in the 'mechanical wave' has already hinted it to you!

The speed of the wave along a string (related to the natural frequency of the string like we saw above) is given by:

v=sqrt (T/ρ),

where ρ is 'inertia density' ('mass' per length) of the string and T is its tension ('springiness') . This 'inertia' have come to be equated with 'mass' due to imprudent taking of the correctness of Newton's laws for granted! So we can rewrite:

T= ρv^2 or
Tdx=mv^2

Where dx is 'small distance interval' between some two points along the string and m is the 'amount of inertia' (erroneously equated with 'mass') sitting within the small 'dx' portion of the string. So ρ=m/dx. We then see that Tdx (tension times small distance) is the amount of potential energy existing in the 'dx' region. It is the energy stored by the tension streatching the somewhat springy string by the small 'dx' amount. So you see how potential energy in a region is equal to the 'mass' at that region times the speed of a wave squared. The reasoning is the same for the speed of light e=mc^2, having in mind that light is an EM wave. Then by the way note that we don't need any relativity theory to see such!

It is important to understand that an accelerated, charged particle, behaves like it has some inertia, even if it were 'massless' in the Newtonian sense. In other words charge plus acceleration is an 'inertia' on its own, without any 'mass'! Charge also has some 'springiness' in the sense that if you try to pull a charge off another opposite charge, it gets pulled back. We can use this to figure out EM waves if we think of 'empty space' rather as to be composed of charges of opposite sign. (This also explains the so called 'vacuum polarization').

The 'charge inertia' is caused by magnetism. A moving charge creates magnetism around itself. This magnetism, in turn, creats an electric current that moves in the direction opposite to the moving charge. This induced electric current opposes the original motion of the very charge. Therefore the charge has some resistance to change of its velocity that is not related in anyway to its mass! The 'induced current' is capable of affecting the velocity of the charge because electric current is actually a 'flow of charges'.

A single charged particle that is moving can be seen as an electric current. Infact 'electric current' is defined as 'the amount of charge crossing a region per given time'. To get it more clearly, think of an object of charge q, and of length x crossing some region R. Its leading edge is at R at some time , and its trailing edge is at the same R at some later time t1. So it is etering R at t0 and exiting it at t1. So the speed of the object, v, is given by v=x/(t1-t0). But the amount of charge crossing R at the time interval will be q, and so the electric current, I, will be given by: I= q/(t1-t0)=qv/x=qvA'/A'x=ρA'v, where A' is the area of the region and ρ is the 'charge density', noting that A'x is the volume in which the charge is sitting. It is in this way 'charge velocity' is related to 'electric current'.

Now the acceleration, a, of the charged particle, given by a=dv/dt,(read 'change in velocity/change in time) will be given by a=(x/q)*(dI/dt). That is given the equation I=qv/x, you note that the change in velocity,v, per given time leads to a coresponding change in current per the given time. So rate of change in electric current is propotional to the acceleration of charge. We will next see that the laws of electromagnetism introduces a kind of inertia (resistance to the acceleration) to the charge that is not, in any way, related to its mass but instead is only related to its charge and magnetism. The following image puts this more clearly:

To begine noticing the inertia, consider voltage across some conductor. When current flows through the conductor, it creates magnetism. The magnetism itself, when it changes, creates an electric current, through the same conductor. This induced current, when combined with the iriginal current causes of the 'inertia'. The voltage across the conductor is the source of the force that drives the charges through the conductor. We will use a law called 'Biot-Sarvat law' to describe the magnetic field caused by the electric current flowing around a loop of 'wire' (it will approximate a vortex ring in space), and then use Faraday's law to discribe how the changing magnetism induces voltage across the very same conductor. When the Faraday's law is combined with the Biot-sarvat law, we arrive at an equation that looks like Newton's Second law of motion albeit with a ficticious 'mass' that is not even an intrinsic property of the accelerated charge.

Voltage is related to force because it is defined as 'work done per unit charge'. If you pull a charge, for some distance, away from another charge of opposite sign, you perform some 'work' on it given by:w=F*distance, when we consider a distance around a circular loop, we have w=F*2π r, where F is 'force'. So voltage V will be given by: V=F*2πr/q. The following is the calculation:

Note the following:

1.the first line is the Biot-Savart  Law for magnetism within a single loop of a circular conductor. μ0 is magnetic permeability and B is the magnetic field and r is the radius of the circular conductor.

2.In the second line, I take the derivative with respect to time on both sides of the Biot-Sarvat law, which allows me to relate the change in magnetic field with time to the same change in Faraday's law, which I introduce it in the third line

3.In the fourth line, I combine the Biot-Savart law with Faraday's law by subtituting for dB/dt the A appearing in Faraday's Law is the area of the circle whose radius is r and the A' is crossection area of the conductor, ie the region R that we saw earlier.

4.In the 5th line, I use the relationship between voltage (V) and work and then force (F) to rewrite the combination of Biot Sarvat Law with Faraday's law. I also subtitute A=πr^2. We also notice that the equation is now similar to Newton's Second law F=mdv/dt. This allows me to recognize the ficticious 'mass' (m') that I point it out in the last line.

Also take note of the following:

1.)The ficticious 'mass', ie 'inertia' is not an INTRINSIC property of the charge as it depend both on μ0 and on A'! What this means is that it is a mistake to try to measure the 'mass' of a charged particle using a mass spectrometer, such as the one done by Kaufman!

2.)The current ,I, appearing in the equations is not necessarily the current in a good conductor such as a metal. In our case, it is a current in an insulator! It is simplistic to think of electric currents as only a feature of conductors, much like it is a mistake to think of motion to be just a feature of fluids inside a pipe. You will note that  though portions of a stiff object donnot flow like fluids, they still move slightly and then springs back. This is exactly how charges moves inside an insulator, even a perfect one, when they experience an electric field. They are pulled slightly away from the other charges before they are pulled back like in a spring, thereby though not being allwod to move throughout, like in a conductor, they are still allowed to vibrate or move slightly from their natural resting points. It is vibration that is all we need in wave propagation. The slight movement of charges inside insulators is still an electric current for the purposes of applying the Biot-Sarvat law and Faraday's Law.

To understand the EM wave, we need yet another equation that now indicates that the charges pulled apart can behave just like a spring when they 'fall back' on each other. To do this, begine by understanding the squared r appearing in 'inverse square law' as to be due to surface area of a sphere of radius r. So gravitational force, for instance, is, more acurately, stated in terms of mass per surface area, or 'mass density'. In our case, the 'law' in question is cuolomb's law, which can be stated as F=q^2/εA, where A is generally 'surface area across which the electrostatic force acts'. The case of inverse square law is a special case where A= 4πr^2 simply because the electrostatic force is spreading in all directions and thus crossing the entire area of some sphere of radius r. We don't use the standard inverse square law if the electrostatic forces (or 'field lines')are collimated as if passing through a pipe of area A. We can rewrite such 'cuolomb's law' as F=q^2x/εAx=(q^2/vol)x, where x is the distance, perpendicular to the surface of area A, moved by some charqe and thus vol=Ax is the volume scanned by the charge. So when you write coulumb's law in terms of 'charge density' (q/vol), it becomes just like the Hook's law for a spring. This shows that if a charge is being pulled away from another charge, so that there is a collimated electrostatic force between the two charges, then it behaves exactly like a spring when it gets pulled back by the electrostatic force. Here is how we relate the Cuolomb's Law with the Hook's law in a spring and thereby finds the ficticious 'spring's constant', k':

Note that:

1.In the first line, I introduce Cuolomb's law for the colimated electric field 'enclosed in a pipe or area A'). I also slightly rewrite it so that it is in terms of 'charge density',ρ, and by doing so, it immediately begins to look like Hook's Law, F=kx.

2.In the second line, I recognize the ficticious 'springs constant', k' by comparing the rewritten Cuolomb's Law with Hook's Law.

3.In the third line, I introduce the formular for the speed of waves, c, in a springy medium and then tried to rewrite the same equations by rather using the fictitious 'mass' and 'spring's constant' that we have seen. The result is that it shows that the speed of the waves in such a medium with ficticious 'spring constant' and 'inertia' is the speed of light!

So we can now combine this 'springiness' with the fictitious 'inertia' to figure out the kind of waves that can come about when this inertia and springiness interplay like we saw it the flaccid but springy ruler. This is Electromagetic waves! A neutral object is composed of charges of opposite signs that are sitting near each other. Whenever a force tries to displace the charges away from each other, the charges experiences a spring-like restoring force. When the charges are accelerating back to each other, they experiences a ficticious 'inertia'. The rest is understood like any other 'mechanical wave'! Also, this shows that 'empty space' is not empty at all, but is filled with an object closely similar to any other object, specifically, it is an insulator.

As you might have noticed, it seems idle to begine a talk about nuclear fusion energy by wondering if indeed there is such an energy in the first place! Apparently, it is a done deal! When you close examine though, you don't find an unambiguous demonstration of such an energy. Physicist gloss through experiments like numbskulls and then spend 99% of the time with stories and theories! Much of the story is of the 'so and so said it' or 'so and so did it' with very little detailed explanation of what they did!

One of the biggest problems with human beings is that when some claim is repeated over and over, especially with some confidence that it is true, people begine to believe that it must be true, and when more and more people believe in it, it begins to look unreasonable to doubt it! This is even if no one can demonstrate its truthfulness. This is how religions and all beliefs gets entrenched in society. But it is the same even in the so called 'science', and is even worse, sometimes!

UNAMBIGUOUS DEMONSTRATION

Lets begine by close examining carefully what I mean by 'unambiguous demonstration'. Human beings long ago begun to ignite dry woods in what we call fire, way before they found at least many of its myriads of applications. There are many glaring facts that are worth considering. One of them is that the caveman never needed any equation, calorimeter, subatomic theories etc to simply tell that there is some heat comming out of the wood that is bigger than its input! Granted, the detailed atom by atom explanation of what is going on during combustion is advanced science that requires an expert to explain. But simply noting that there is fire out of the wood and igniting the wood doesn't!

So the first crucial point to understand is that unambiguous demonstration that something is simply there or not (a 'yes' or 'no'), does not require equations, sophisticated instruments or any expert. In science, 'Experts' are almost always there to argue for ambiguities! If there is fusion energy scientists, or even leymen should be able to tinker around with hydrogen and create some sporadic eruptions here and there that clearly shows some energy comming out but which is merely challenging to tame and control it, just like lightning and thunder. Then sophisticated and expensive measuring instruments are no necessary. Only naked eyes should service, especially given how huge the energy is supposed to be.

FUSION IS SUSPICIOUSLY UNIQUE

In all the other sources of energy discovered by humans, from burning wood to burning hydrogen, humans begun by small scale production and then begun scaling them up. You can burn a whole forest, yes, but you can also burn a single grass, and often you begine small and then expand. Next, it was always easier to create a 'controlled' reaction than to create a runaway reaction we term it as a 'bomb'. At no point were humans able to create a bomb before they can create a more controled extraction of the energy. The reason is simple logic: it cannot be easier to create a rapid chain reaction than to create a slower one! It cannot be easier to run than to walk! So how could it possibly take just 5 years to create an hydrogen bomb but take more than 80 years to extract the supposed energy in a slower way?

A bomb makes a poor 'lab' for a scientist to study a supposed energy source. It is especially so for such an insane bomb as atomic explosion. One has to drop it and then run at the top speed and make sure that the monster can only explode once the poor scientist is tens of kilometres away! Nothing like a lab at all, that you can swear that you made a careful observation and confirmation of what physics went on it those pico-seconds! Specifically, perharps no fusion energy came out at all! Perhaps the fusion merely made the neutrons abundant, vastly increasing the mass of the uranium that underwent the fissioning.

'DISCOVERING' BY REASONING FROM THEORIES

As a matter of fact a scientist can walk away with blatant lies. A scientist is more like a lawyer. To win a case, you don't have to be the right one. You can exploit the loopholes in the laws and constitution to help yourself get away with a whopper. It is the same in science. Too often than not, all you have to do is to convince your peers. So one should be able to see that a mere 'thinking like your peers' can lead to erroneous ideas being totally accepted as facts. Not so with engineering! In the latter, it doesn't matter how many experts think that a device 'must work' if it cannot work, it will never be an 'engineering fact'! Engineering does not require 'peer review'!

A fusion half a$$ed 'scientist' donnot even see any need to begine by referring to an experiment that ever produced some energy out from fusion. He references a 'scientific theory' rather than some 'small scale engineering demonstration'. You might hear of someone measuring the masses of helium atoms vs those of hydrogen atom. The apparent reduction of mass, so it is said, must translate into a huge energy. Or you hear of theories of how the sun works etc. So these more of fit as 'science'. But the fusion research is funded as though an engineering project!! Engineers begin with a crude, but working, often small scale model, and then they perfect it and scale it up. An engineer wants to see some net energy, be it small, comming out. That is where 'engineering experiment' begines. He doesn't care about some ad oc explanation of where the supposedly huge energy went in the scheme of things! If there is no net energy, then for the purposes of engineering, there is no evidence of existence of such energy, go back to your labs! Neither does he care whether it comes from 'mass', 'a$$' or whatever!

But nevertheless lets zero in on science, not engineering. Newton told us that rate of change in momentum of an object is proportional to the forcevm applied. This is peddled around as a science fact, not as a mere convention. He wasn't trying to DEFINE what mass is. Presumably, if we don't know what 'mass' is, the Newt's law will be absolutely meaningless, at least as a scientific statement. 'Mass' could not be something, unknown to Newt himself, that awaited an Einstein to clarify it all while they were supposed to have tested the Newt's law experimentaly. What would they have tested?

In our case, we should ask a crucial question: what is the meaning of 'mass' for the purposes of testing Newts law as applied to helium atom? This is the crucial question that the scientists who were trying to weigh helium and hydrogen foolishly failed to ask themselves! If you measure the mass of helium by accelerating it in a mass spectrometer and then calculating it using Newton's second law, how will I falsify Newton's law if I say it doesn't apply in subatomic world? There is no way I can do this because the 'mass' has been so defined that Newt's law is always correct! This is not science. This is foolishness!! Such a definition of 'mass' is a physically meaningless concept. With that, no one should care if it is the same thing as 'energy'!

Nevertheless it is possible that inertia, not mass, is converted into energy. All they measure with the mass spectrometry is inertia. So by lack, they might have get something, only that understanding of what it is they are converting changes. But then there is yet another even more important factor: the charge. In mass spectrometry, they accelerate charged particles inside magnetic fields. So there are actually 3 known factors that influences how the charged particle accelerates. There is the massnc, the charge and the field. It is totally unacceptable to pick a convinient factor we want: mass and ignore the other factors! For instance in the equation usued sed to calculate the mass, we always have the ratio m/q, where m is 'mass' and q is 'charge'. So if 'm' seems to reduce, it might actually be the case that q is the one that has increased rather! Since q is not associated with energy, (e=mc^2), there might be no energy associated with fusion even if there is a 'mass defect'!

But if you think carefully, you find that it is reasonable to suppose that q alters from atom. First we know from experience that charge of an object easily reduces or increases. So the theory of 'charge alteration' will be just an extension of something to sabatomic world, that we already know it happens in the macroscopic world! So this latter theory should be more plausible! Second, we also know that charge can get 'screened' by what is called 'vacuum polarization'. In otherwords, it is very easy to conceive a case where the charge is failing to manifest its true value. The coulomb's force that we measure to infere the charge can be simply screened. In the case of helium atom, even the neutrons surrounding the protons might screen its charge or something similar.

Also, it may be true that yes, the 'mass' of helium atom has reduced. But this mass was never converted into energy. Rather, it might have been converted into the escaping neutron or some other unknown particle. So the 'mass' is not converted to energy. It is converted to another mass, hence 'useless' in this context! An analogy is given in the case of burning wood. If you weigh the ashes and the wood, you will find that there is a significant decrease in mass. But it is, of course, stupid to use the e=mc^2 equation and then suggest that burnig wood releases a huge amount of energy by converting the 'mass' into energy! The mass loss was due to the escaping smock, which does not necessarily get converted to energy.

WHAT DOES IT GOT TO DO WITH PLASMA INSTABILITY?

The factors that are thought determine the ignition of fusion energy are many, and they are combined into one equation. So we have a salad that closely look like the equation we saw that they used it to calculate the supposed 'mass' of helium etc. So the same same dubious reasoning will, of course apply.In an equation which contain charge and mass, they pick the one they like and then blame it on the entire behaviour of the particle. Similarly they use the Newt's equation: f=ma to calculate the mass of of particles. Since Newt 'must be correct'(baseless in the case), then the mass must be given by f/a. You must swallow this even if there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe there was an extra mass added or removed from the system. Since Newt 'cannot be wrong', we must simply swallow the assertion that 'magic must be happening' and 'rabbit is comming from nowhere'! All this absurdity is what we must swallow instead of simply questioning the absolute correctness of f=ma, even when we have a clear explanation of what might be causing the extra inertia, eg a magnetic field!

Such is the prototype of how physicists reason! If they are already messing with the simple f=ma, then when we have an hodge podge of up to 5 variables in an equation, they get hopelessly confused! Come the critera for ignition of fusion. We have plasma density, temperature, confignment time, magnetic field, bla bla bla. Since fusion energy 'must happen', then it only means that either the temperature was not enough, or the 'confinement time' was 'too short', hence the plasma was simply unstable! Thus the same circular reasoning they use to deduce the 'mass' of atoms is used to deduce that 'the plasma is not stable enough'. It is never that they observe such 'instability'. They calculate it by assuming that there must be lots of fusion energy!

You have probably heard them say that 'we have learnt a lot about plasma since we started the fusion research'. Good! They try to convince you that they can had failed to master the macroscopic properties of plasma when they had already supposedly mastered the subatomic world! How can you possibly 'know everything' about things that no eye can see yet you are yet to master things that are there before our eyes? They must be lieing! In 80 years, why have they not learnt anything about nuclear physics through the fusion research? Simple, unlike plasma physics, such fields like nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, big bangs etc comes with a great prestige from the point if view of public! It is humiliating to say you don't know much about an atom because you will then not be seen to be on the same par with the likes of Feynman, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg etc! So they opt to blame their failure of 80 years of futile research all on 'ignorance of plasma physics'. In reality, the problem is due to ignorance of nuclear physics!

71 If you have such confidence in your forces, come down to meet us in the plain, and there we can test each other’s strength. The power of the cities is ready to support me.72 Make an inquiry to find out who I am and the identity of the others who are supporting me. You will be told that you cannot make a stand against us. Your ancestors were twice put to flight in their own land.73 Now you too will not be able to withstand my cavalry and such an army in the plain, where there is not a stone or a pebble or a place to flee.” 1 maccabees 10:71-73

When you see something vehemently championed by government, then you should begine to suspect that it is handy in rallying and passifying masses so it is easy to control.

Soon we will, once again, be disrupted by millions of people accross the world buisy for a month of gawking at sets of 22 adults chasing a spherical sack full of air. Where did this lunacy came from? Where did human beings go wrong? To get an hint, consider the case of 'Goliath' vs 'David'. We have two armies, one for the Philistines and the other for Israelites. Then instead of fighting, a giant dares one side to pick one guy to fight him. In other words, the 'goliath' is saying that instead of all of us fighting to get the 'winner', lets just watch a wrestling tournament between two of us!

It is with such instances that the governments eventually learnt a good lesson. Sometimes all you need to do to satisfy the warmongers amongst the citizens (who are pushing for a war) is as simple event as a game! All they need to do, to satisfy their pride and egos is to 'win'. So anything that can create some sense of 'we are the winners' will satisfy the need, however pointless the activity itself is! We see this in Maccabees verse above. King Demetrius of Seleucid Empire is clearly seeing a war as a tournament! He needs a level 'playing field' to 'test who is realy strong'. So he dares Jonathan, the King of Hasmoneans to face him 'in the level field'!

Governments needs constant, external enemies to direct the attention of its own masses so as not to focus on the otherwise overwhelming internal problems. Indeed early governments begun as nothing but war leaders. When wars ended, the early kingdoms usually lost their justification for existence. To justify this, they had to keep masses at constant tensions and fears. To justify the ever presence of a king, they had to constantly remind their masses that 'there is an enemy out there'. If this 'enemy' is just a games opponent, then the better! We can achieve 'the victory of our kingdom' without any need to shade blood! It is in this sense that an otherwise pointless event that only lunatics can take itx seriously is deemed 'important'. (The story of how watching idlers chase sacks of air became 'important' is closely similar to how money, i.e. just pieces of papers became the most important thing people chase in their lives!)

If you are willing to accept, this 'need' for games explains a lot! It explains why countries differ in almost everything, but agree that masses should routinely gawk at guys chasing bags of gases and other lunatic things. They disagree with the need for all other infrastructures, from airports to houses. But they never disagree on the need for a stadium. Once such groups like Hezbollah, Houthis and Taliban take hold of what remotely looks like 'state', the first thing they do is not to build a road, a bank or a school. The first thing they build is a stadium (alongside prisons, of course)!

Governments often need to deal with masses and groups as a whole, rather than dealing with individuals because the latter is too difficult. If everyone thinks differently then it gives governments an headache. But if we divide masses into just two groups, them manipulation becomes just a piece of cake. So for instance a parliament becomes far more manageable if we just divide it into 2 rather than it becoming as diverse as there are members. Games are ideal in preparing the mindset for this 'binary'. Being told, ever since childhood, that watching people chase a bag of air is 'important' is instilling to your mind that a division into two opposing and competing groups is 'important' even if they are actually persuing pointless events! This insures that you don't check important things that the politicians should be doing for you as opposed to contestations over pointless issues no difference in importance from chasing sacks for the purposes of 'winning' for its own sake!

The government wants you to chose sides before you think critically on important issues. Having chosen which side, a kin to chosing to be a Chelsea fan rather than a Liverpool fan, you now want your side to win at all course regardless of the issues it is persuing! This is because a growing up in the diet of 'Chelsea Vs Man U' taught you that winning on its own is the important thing. It doesn't matter what activity it is that you are contesting for! So if you are a Trump supporter, you will chear it if he tells you that he wants to end the war in Afghanistan. However, you will criticise Biden for actually ending the war! Winning is the important thing not the issue! If you are a Chelsea fan, you don't like it if Man U scores a goal, but you like it if Chelsea does the same thing! It is not 'scoring goals' that you want. All you want is 'winning '.

Notice that sports are 'toy wars'! At some points, ancient kings noticed that sometimes all what war mongers need is to showcase how good they are at throwing spears. And also the need for their masses to spectate such. So they created javelin sport for them as an alternative! Why kill people all for the purpose of showing how far you can throw a spear? Similarly, the horses running, jumping over barriers, jumping over rivers created the steeplechase! The David-like 'slings' created hammer throwings, smashing opponent's heads with heavy rocks created shot boots, etc. Latter, the more subtle 'ball games' were added. The first 'foot ball tournament' was actually an alternative for war between two communities!

But the realy amusing one is the rugby. There were these boys fighting for an avocado. They had friends. So when one grabbed the avocado and run, the other chased him. When he got him and tried to wrest the avocado off him, he threw it to a friend nearby. Then friends of the other guy begun to chess the new holder and cicle repeated itself. Finally one of them had to dive to put it out of the fence and ended the contest! That was the first rugby match. So how could this event centering around aroud greedy, avocado gluttons end up being an 'important' thing for people all over the world to watch?

The block-chain technology, used in crypto-currencies such as bitcoin can also be applied in situations other than those that involve commercial transactions. The basic idea of crypto-currency is to obviate the need for a trusted, centralized oversight of digital transactions. Since I have seen people complain so much about 'trusted media' nevertheless spewing fake news or propaganda, this have prompted me to seek of way of solving this using what I may call it 'crypto-news'.

In a nutshell, 'crypto news' does away with the need for a media in the same way 'crypto-currency' does away with the need for a bank. So news here, or 'information' will be traded like a currency! Tying to create 'fake news' will be like trying to create a fake bitcoin.

There is some analogy between news, digital currency, bank and media that I like to exploit to create a 'bitcoin' equivalent of 'news'! First, note that a digital currency is nothing but 'information' inside a computer. As mere information, it should be easy to fake. Just type the 'I have $1000' into the computer! So what is the big deal? For mere information to behave like solid money, in the sense of 'difficulty to counterfeit', some trick need to be done. Normally the bank need to be involved. The trusted bank will tell us what is a 'fake $1000' and what is a 'real $1000'. Since people don't print money, the bank can only know that I have gotten a real $1000 if there was a transaction that took place. In other words I can only get $1000 from someone else during a transaction. Any other way of getting the $1000 will be like 'printing it' rather than 'receiving it'. So it will be a counterfeit money. So a record of transactions is essential in ensuring that the digital currency is only 'flowing', but never getting created nor destroyed.

Of course there is also the 'mining' which add new 'bitcoins' to the circuit. The idea is to ensure that you 'mine the real thing' rather than the 'fake one'. They make 'mining a fake one' extreemly costly to the miner. In our case 'crypto-news miners' will be the journalists. Since 'mined bitcoin' is just information, I suppose that the measures used to ensure that the watever 'mined' is a 'real bitcoin' can be employed to ensure that the whatever news 'mined' will be real news.

Finally, there is the 'motivation' aspect. We must 'motivate' the journalist to independently 'mine' the news without being employees of any media. This can be done by making the news into an actual currency traded! We can use anything as a 'medium of exchange', from gold to just fiat papers. Some 'medium of exchanges' do have intrinsic values e.g. gold. So using news as a 'medium of exchange' will be even better than bitcoin since the former have some intrinsic value. So if you have some real news, you can trade it with a bitcoin, or with some other 'real news' that you don't have. You might be having real news about what is going on in China but you don't know what is going on in U.S. You can simply trade these news etc.

In schools, it is taught that After WW2, Japan abandoned its aggressiveness and zeroed in on industrialization and economic development, helping it to rise as a one of the most developed countries and the most industrialized one on earth. Impressive it looks! How would world be if every country made such a turn around and shun wars forever, under all circumstances? But when you close examine, you find that this is a fat lie! A country is not just a factory. There are so many things that should come out of Japan other than Isuzus ,Toyotas, clocks, magnets, motors, turbines, Rockets, behemoth ships etc.

Japan should not be a pacifist nation because it is aggressive, anyway! How? But you may ask. It is 'passively agressive' in the sense that it delegates its aggressive duty to a nuclear criminal war monger who has killed over 65 million people in the name of 'protecting such like Japan'! Imagine a tycoon who boast that he doesn't kill anyone, but when you close examine, you find that infact he has a murderous gang of body guards ready to do anything in the name of 'protecting the boss'! Allright, you have gotten! The tycoon cannot thus fool all the people all the time!

The entire post WW2 'world security order' was a connmanship plotted by U.S. and some few other powers to ensure that only one or two powers monopolizes the use of violence in the world! This process entailed pacifying the major powers and forcing them to cower subordinately under two or even one power! This is a 'world policeman' model! 'For peace to come to the world, they seemed to think, requires something like a world policeman'. This did not create world peace. It merely transferred violence from major powers to minor powers. Eventually, the criminal turn 'world policemen' ended up butchering untolled millions of people without anyone to restrain him!

Meanwhile, the nuclear war criminal ended up becoming not anything like a country but a mere global military fighting machine which spread itself into oblivion! The result is that the criminal cannot beat even bare footed Talibanis! So it is ironical that U.S. having easily subdued the major powers completely failed to subdue the minor powers! So the plot was actually a tragic failure in its larger long term ambition of subduing Eurasia before subduing Africa. Infact, U.S. never got to subdue even any other country, let alone Eurasia! Seeing this, Japan has realized that it was fooled! Not only could they beat U.S.,but U.S. is also not powerful enough to protect them! If they cannot beat Talibanis, Japanese wonder, how will they beat a bigger enemy, eg China, if the latter invaded Japan? Furthermore, they cannot protect Ukraine from Russia! So the writing is on the wall! Indeed U.S. did not beat Japan in the ussual, military way. They used a terror weapon to scare them into submission! So in effect, U.S. is a terrorist state! So if they did not MILITARILY (as opposed to terrorism) beat Japan, then U.S. infact as never won any war at all, and it raises question as to whether they can win any war!

The arrangement was that Japan should 'defend' the country but should never do any offence. This absurd arrangement is merely intended to limit Japan's military capabilities, as there is no demarcation between 'defence' and 'offence'. Indeed all countries call their forces 'defence forces'. In this arrangement, U.S.would do the 'offence' in lieu of Japan!! This is merely to enhance U.S. military capabilities in Pacific using Japan as a shoulder! This ensures that U.S. is always superior to Japan militarily, not only globally, but also in its immidiet region! This was, in turn, inspired by the fear of a militarily powerful Japan, especially which might not forget the criminal, terorist attack on Hiroshima etc! Imagine if Alquida mennaged to somehow cause a surrender in U.S. via some, not yet ever used terror weapon droped in American city. The worst thing for the group to do is to merely demand U.S. to cease fighting in Afghanistan and then immidietly leave U.S., as U.S. will definitely persue them, even with even more wrath than before!

But this is not to insist that Japan has not forgiven U.S..It is just not a guarantee, especially back then. We first needed to see how a completely independent, militarily powerful Japan could behave towards U.S. Fortunately, there is also some evidence that nations do indeed forgive, provided good leadership follows a conflict. One other equaly worse clash is between Iran and Iraq where the latter attacked the former using chemical wrapons and almost million people were killed! But they are now allies.

If Japan must always need U.S. to 'protect' it, then Japan donnot have any say in security matters! It must always just toe the lines of the superior military power! Failure to do so, the U.S. would simply black mail it! U.S. strategy in its (flawed) attempt to grip Eurasia is to insite enemity in neighbourhoods of strategic places. In pacific, put China against Philipines, Japan against north Korea, south korea against north korea,in midle east, put Iran against Saudi Arabia, Iraq against Iran, Iran against Saudi, Israel against Lebanon, in Europe, put Ukraine against Russia, NATO against Russia etc! The purpose of this enemity is to ensure that U.S. is always able to blackmail its allies by threatening them to withdraw their forces and/or military aid! Thus if Japan did not toe the lines of U.S. say in 'sanctioning Russia' US might threaten to leave Japan. But since there is a fearce enemity in the neighbourhood, and Japan has no its own deterent capabilities, this is not an option! Similarly US has ensured that France is tangled up in Mali, yet being in NATO, and hence militarily inferior, for the reasons like those in Japan, it cannot realy fight the 'terrorists' in Mali on its own! So to save itself from embarrassment, it must bow to U.S.'s demands whether it likes it or not!

Finally, you must understand that U.S. is not faithful to any of these allies! To U.S., these are just tools to be used to persue its real aim: subdue Eurasia! In does not give a damn about peace in Europe or elsewhere. Once an allie is of no more use, it is thrown away. Take for instance Saddam, Kurds, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia etc. U.S. bombs a place, let its 'allies' do the ground work, but when it finish its Job, or when it surrenders, it leaves behind the 'allies' to face the full wrath of the enemies it has fermented! Furthermore, US can even turn around on its allie, eg in Saddam! It make sense to say that even this Japan-US allie might end that way! U.S. will eventually find it expensive to keep supporting Japan even as it now need to compete with Russia, China, India, Iran etc! Indeed it is not wise to believe that a nuclear war criminal can just perform the act of terror on you, then it suddenly turns around and becomes your close, before going on to the 'next enemy' and also going ahead to kill 65 million pple!! Some of these new enemies were its allies in fighting you! If U.S. turned against USSR and China, after these supported U.S. to hammer Japan, then it can easily turn against Japan as well!

Fortunately, this nuclear war criminal has been besieged in Eurasia and its expensive, malicious, long term strategy had proven to have been ill conceived. It now has only two options: either spread itself until it cease to exist, and until it uses all its money in wars or go back tightly into the toilet of the world 'back' there in the other side!!

"But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 1:Corinthians 15:35

Human body has over 30 trillion cells! All these cells came from a single cell with a single DNA! Lets ignore for a moment the ideas like those of Rupert Sheldrake or Bruce Lipton in regard to morphogenesis. Lets stick to the mainstream's idea that the single cell has all the information pertaining to the whole body! So we conclude that it is possible to squeeze all information pertaining to a whale into something so tiny that it requires the most powerful microscope to see!

The bible teaches resurrection as the hope of life after death! This view has some advantages over the idea that the body has something invisible in it that is inherently immortal. One does not need to posit that 'the consciousness is not caused by the brain'. So this hope for resurrection does not rely of neuroscientist's ignorance of how the brain works, and therefore it does not become more irrelevant the more neuroscience knowledge advance! What causes consciousness is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is life after death. On the contrary, it should be what 'it doesn't cause consciousness' that should be relevant.

People, including Christians, came to reject resurrection because they just could not understand how a body, turned to dust, can somehow ever come back to life! In other words they asked the question in 1:Corinthians 15:35 but did not take the answer given in 1:Corinthians 15:37 seriously! As in reading several verses, they take it as a mere metaphor! Here, Paul seems to be making the 'burial' as a literal meaningless comparison to planting seeds on the ground and waiting for them to germinate! Is Paul suggesting that a body is just like a seed, which is 'planted' during burial only for it to germinate in future? They could not swallow such, so Paul must have been just speaking metaphors! But this is not the case! Paul is more literal than you may think!

First remember that even the development of a human body from a single cell is a marvellous event that is completely like germination! Nobody can explain how nature does this wonder. This means that we no more much understanding how the body develop from a single cell than we do, how it might resurrect from a corpse! Yet we think we understand the former! People confuse 'habitual perception' with 'understanding'! Our brain is an expert in fooling us that we understand what we actually don't! That is why we thought gravity was a no-brainer! What is 'hard to understand', so we thought, is how the earth can be 'hanging in the mid air'. So we concocted theories like that the earth is supported by giant elephants, who stands on a giant tortoise which is seated on a giant, coiled snake! Likewise it might even be easier to understand germination than resurrection! It is only stereotype that has it otherwise!

So we can savely remove 'germination' and put 'development' or, if you prifer 'mophorgenesis'. So 'resurrection' will be 'a burgeoning of the body from a tiny seed'! Resurrection is nothing but an extraordinarily rapid growth! It is growing from a microscopic 'seed' all the way to a full body in pico-seconds! The scientific explanation will be closely similar to how we might explain 'germination'! So in this sense, Paul was more literal than people may think!

But how can the body 'germinate', you may ask. Isn't the cell already dead? How foolish! The body has 30 trillion cells, and they all came from a single cell! Now proceed further. The DNA has 2 billion nucleotides. Relatively speaking, the DNA is far simpler than the body, and yet we think that the origin of the latter is far simpler than the origin of the former! Again we confuse habits with understandings! Scientists donnot remind us (and themselves) of the mystery of morphogenes as often as they remind us of the origin of DNA. We (and they) confuse this with 'understanding morphogenes better than the origin of life'! But this is just a profound illusion! We cannot understand how 30 trillion things comes about before we understand how 2 billion of them comes about! We must be fooling ourselves. Again remember the tortoise model!

So we can think that a single nucleotide is to DNA as DNA is to the body. If something as tiny as a DNA can contain the information of the 30 trillion cells, then it will be quite easy for something as tiny as a nucleotide to contain the information of just 2 billion nucleotides! I know this may sound strange because scientists often depicts nucleotides (components forming the DNA) as 'biliard balls'. They pretend, for a moment, that quantum mechanics have long dismantled such a view! Atoms are modelled more acurately as 'standing waves'. Then It is not too difficult to visualize how the information might be stored in the 'crests' of the waves just like the information can be stored in the nucleotides.

So in this model of resurrection, the information pertaining to your body, your mind, etc, is all packed in tiny molecules! These molecules will literally act like 'seeds' out of which entire bodies can burgeon under the right conditions! The growth of the bodies from the information in individual molecules will be much a kin to how the body grows from a single cell, using the information in the DNA. So the understanding of the resurrection only requires that we think of molecules not as dead objects, but more of as 'seeds' that retains the information of the bodies. Indeed we have no reason to stop at the DNA molecule. That is not where 'information storage' ended. Rather, that is just where the power of microscope to resolve a substance into more components ended!