Scientists uses both of these to explain everything and to understand nothing! Here, I am going to show them that they are contradictory, and so compel them to choose one! Emergent property is said to be a property present in the whole, but which is absent in the parts! So it is something worse than the following scenario: if you interrogate each and every American, you find that non of them like war. But together, they make up a war mongering whole! No! It is saying that even during a war time, it can be possible that the individual soldiers are not fighting at all! The war is fought by the whole army, but the individual soldiers are at peace with each other! This illogicality is needed to save what they call 'physicalism', as I will elucidate! Of course they cannot explain how properties can possibly emerge. It is pure sorcery!

You have probably been told that 'you are just a collection of chemical reactions'. So your beleifs are reducible to chemical reactions. But if this is so, then logics demands that your beliefs should be able to affect chemical reactions! They don't like this, of course. So they build an illogical bulwark! 'Beleif' must be a property of a large ensemble of particles but which the individual particles lacks! A large number of particles 'beleive' but each particle is not beleiving!

Of course they donnot use this criteria consistently. A large number of particles forming up the macroscopic objects 'moves' and so this drove scientist to think that even subatomic particles do move. Infact they tried to understand the motion of macroscopic objects by trying to analyse how atoms behaves! So the choice of what is or what is not emergent is arbitrary! It depends on the scientist's own prejudices and what he subjectively want it included or not in the fundamental world! It is not about understanding at all, since if we say that properties surreptitiously emerge in macroscopic world in ways that no one can understand, then of what use is there in trying to analyse the subatomic particles?

When it suits them, of course, they reduce you into subatomic particles. This is the main argument of the famous physicist termed Sean Carroll when he says 'the idea of soul contradicts the known particle physics'. Then some other physicists nodes like numbskulls as if the physicist has given a decisive blow against the 'soul' idea! How can you conclude this, if admittedly, the brain has some other properties that is not present in the properties of subatomic particles? Might this other property, identified in the whole brain, but which is absent in the constituent particles, be caused by the soul, incarnate in the brain as a whole but not in the individual paurticles? How can you tell this, if admittedly, physicists cannot deduce properties of macroscopic objects from the behaviour of microscopic particles?

'Emergence' is an organized ignorance! It is an 'envelope' with the word 'knowledge' written on it but with ignorance inside it! It was concocted by people who have a problem with simply saying 'they don't know'. A physicist cannot explain how macroscopic world behaves using his pet block game of shuffling subatomic particles, but he wishes to convince people that he is getting close to 'theory of everything'! To receive a lot of fundings, he needs to convince you that you can understand everything by gawking at whizzing particles in an ever growing fatter accelerators! But if you ask him to explain how a speck of dust moves using the knowledge he gained from the accelerator, he get stuck after some 3 steps! So he tells you that the speck of dust has 'emergent property', meaning that its property is entirely something else absent in the particles he was gawking at, and yet the particles makes up the dust!

There is no property that is present in an ensemble of components but that is absent in all the individual components, unless it comes from an additional thing 'incarnate' in the system, but not in the components! 'Emetgentism' is falsehood! Consider a floating ship. You may think that since Steel, sometimes, sinks, then a ship, floating as a whole, can be made up of sinking components, or pieces of steel. Such is the superficial observations that leads someone to talk of 'emergence'. But 'sinking' and 'floating' should be understood as sloppy concepts that should be better termed 'downard force being greater than upward force' of 'upward force being greater than downward force'. Then everything sinks to some extend, or if you like, everything floats to some extend. 'Floating' means the force of water is greater than gravity. So each and every particle experiences the force of water. Each particle is fully capable of floating, just as the whole ship. For insance, if gravity was weak, as in some planet, then the peaces of steel would float. Each atom experiences an 'upward' force which together, they sum up to be greater than the 'downward' force, and then the whole thing floats. The same way should be in any other so called 'emergent' property. The properties must exists in the components, but only in different ways or amounts. The combination happens to them in a peculiar way so that the properties sums up to manifest the property hidden in the components.

The need to invoke 'emergence' actually rather underscores the limitation of knowledge we might gain by studying things in isolation. We cannot know everything about the electron by studying it inside an accelerator! We cannot know of things that the electron is ABLE to do, but which it DOES NOT do it inside accelerators. It sucks for a particle physicist who wants to believe that ever bigger accelrators is a key to knowing and understanding everything! But it is true! Furthermore, we cannot know if there are extremely small forces acting on the electrons which cannot be detected in accelerators, but which we can, in an ensemble of gazillions of electrons! Take for instance gravity. The equations of quantum electrodynamics ignores gravity, and yet they cannot detect anything wrong with those equations, by studying them in accelerators. Only when we see large groups of particles in the macroscopic world do we notice that there is, infact, another force of nature! (But physicist did not say that gravity is emergent simply because, unlike consciousness, etc, the current prejudice allows a physicist to regard gravity as fundamental existent in nature!).

But how might we 'hide' mental behaviours etc in the subatomic world like we can, gravity?. In the latter, gravity simply sums up so it becomes big enough to detect it in a macroscopic object. But the mental behaviour etc is more like 'vector sum', meaning merely heaping matter together does not necesarily manifest the behaviour. So it is more like magnetism. In magnetism, the tiny magets must all face the same direction. So we might suggest a similar thing in mental behaviour, and other similar so called 'emergent' phenomenon.

So it is a mistake to think that an electron inside the brain etc will behave in the same way it does inside an accelerator. But it is even a greater mistake to say that this behaviour is due to a property termed 'emergence', as if to say that 'we realy know what causes the unique behaviour and guess what, it is emergence'. 'Emergence' is a term for 'it arises in ways we don't understand'! It is not an understanding of any sort! Instead, scientists should be open to the possibility that electrons are under influence of forces that are too tiny to detect say in accelerators but which they sum up, in some way, in large ensembles, so that the large ensembles manifests behaviours that seems absent in the individual electrons. Or in short, acknowledge our ignorance rather than using words like 'emergence' that seems to sound like we understand what is happening when, in fact, we don't!

If something moves from A to B, it of course, does not mean that that was its aim. Aim has something to do with internal forces that compels something to act in a certain way. So I can say 'aim' is a certain force of nature that compels things from within. Aim is a potential energy. The actual manifestation is a kinetic energy.

Now when you say 'I aim at making a chair', what exactly do you mean? How do we define an aimless event in contrast with an aimed one? If you aimed at making a chair, we can say that the chair somehow exists in your mind before you make one. This will drive you to select the typems of events that can bring about the chair, from the ocean of events that will not serve such a goal. So 'creating it in the mind', seems to be the first step in 'aiming'. But there are still more steps to go since 'creating a chair in the mind' is actually 'imagination' of one, and imagination of course does not mean the same thing as 'aiming'. There can be an imagination of a chair in your head, and even with all the processes of how to make a chair, but this does not mean that you have any aim of making a chair. So what is an 'aim'.?

Part of my aim (pun not intended) here is to close examine if 'aim' can fundamentally be in nature. In modern science, there is an attempt to depict natural phenomena as 'aimless', and so the brain must be an ensemble of aimless events! So in this view, there must be a way in which a combination of aimless events scan aim! That is to say each event is aimless but the overal combination of the events has an aim! I don't like this approach because if a macroscopic object moves, then all of its particles moves together so each particle must be capable of moving, if the entire ensemble can move. So if an ensemble of particles can aim, then each particle must contribute to the aim. So each particle must be performing a 'portion of aim'.

We also must use a more objective criteria to observe an 'aim' taking place. In so doing, we momentarily treat the 'aiming' the way a modern cognitive neuro scientist may treat it: as something that can be tracked by close examining the brain from without. At what point will the cognitive neuroscientist say 'behold the brain is aiming'? How does he define 'aim' in such a way that he can observe something 'aiming' from without? As far as I know, they have never made such a definition! So scientist's insistence that 'natural phenomena is aimless', means little in objective sense. They are invorking a term, 'aim' that they cannot illustrate what it means as observed from without! How does a particle that moves from A to B with an aim of moving from A to B differ from a particle that moves from A to B without any aim of moving from A to B?

To define such a criteria, we can begine by examining how we know that other people, apart from ourselves, can also aim. So we can, for instance, say that we know that someone can aim because he can say 'I want to hit that target' before he throws a stone. So the person can give us information that helps us to guess the probability of him throwing a stone and hitting something specific. So the first step is: if we can get the information that helps us find the probability that an object will get from A to B, then this information can come from the aim of the object to get from A to B. So 'aim to do x' is correlated to the presence of the information pertaining to 'doing x', before the actual 'doing of x' takes place. In other words if something aims at doing x, it becomes likelier for the thing to do x.

So one way we can examine if particles can aim to move from A to B is to see if we can tell the probability of them doing so, before they do so! But note that this must not be a probability entirely created by external factors. In must be created by factors inherent within the particle. I can predict that you will move from A to B but because I saw a bulldozer behind you, going towards B and I can see the likelihood that it will sweep you to B! That was not your aim. But if the information 'i want to go to B' comes from within you, then that is your Aim. But we must also not factor out the INFLUENCE of the bulldozer. If you saw the bulldozer comming, you can quickly begine to aim to move away from the road. So we must differentiate 'being moved by x' and 'moving in response to x'. In the latter, the object uses its own internal energy to move while in the former, it uses the energy of x.

Can we see such things even in subatomic particles? Now in quantum mechanics, one can find the probability of a particle moving from A to B, and the enviroment can manipulate the so called wave. The wave influences the probability of a particle moving from A to B but it does not provide the energy. So one might say that the particle moves IN RESPONSE to the wave. This is especially true in the case of the so called 'pilot-wave' model. Now when two or more particles interacts, especially to combine and form a single atom or molecule, there internal 'randomnesses' creates a resultant, ever changing wave. This wave in turn influences where the very particles will move to. Therefore since the ensemble of particles creates an information that influence their next position before they can move there, we can say that the particles (strictly seen as one) indeed first 'aim' to get from A to B before they actually get there!

We can then understand the aiming of a larger ensemble, e.g. the brain. If each particle has an ability to aim to move from A to B, then collection of particles in your brain will manifest 'aiming' when all the quantum particles have synchronized their aims! A rock doesn't seem to have any aim because each of the different particles forming the rock has its own aim. One might aim to go to north, another one aims to go to north, another one west etc etc. The resultant effect, in sum total is what appears as an aimless stone!

What criteria do people use to infere that some intelligence has taken place? For instance when people say 'Artificial Intelligence', what do they mean in a nutshell? What can intelligent things do that blind forces cannot do? I think there are two main things that only an intelligent thing can do:

1.)Bring together factors that can work together to cause something, especially from among the factors that cannot make such cause.
2.)Bring together several entities that are different in several ways but are all similar in at least one way.

These are the two criterias that, when we intuitively see, we suspect that an intelligent being was at work! An intelligent being is not necessary to make something happen that is merely 'very unlikely' to happen by chance. Happening upon one ten diggit number is as 'highly unlikely' as happening upon any other number. But if we see a number like 7.456434566890543221 on a computer screen, we can say confidently that someone was just blindly typing on the keyboard, or that a chicken was randomly picking some grains that were lieing on the keyboard. But if we see the number π correct to 10 decimal places, no one can say that it was simply pecked by chickens that kept mistaking the keyboard buttons for grains! What is the difference between the two numbers? The answere is that in the latter, we have a series of numbers that work together to calculate the area of a circle. If we swap some numbers with others, it can nolonger calculate that area. We unwittingly use the criteria 1. Similarly, a chicken can peck nhf on a keyboard. But we don't expect it to similarly peck 2πr^2! We don't espect a chicken to pick symbols that work together to calculate the area of a circle!

Now of course anything can cause anything else. A single stone can block the way.But if several factors seem to cooperate to block the road is when we reason that someone intelligent did it. If the stone was perfectly spherical, and then a smooth road was dug for it to roll down through an otherwise rough terrain, then we can reasonably infere that an intelligent thing did it all. Only intelligent entities are able to pick approriate factors from amongst many and then integrate them so that they work together to bring about a single effect. Normally, it is intuitively obvious to infere intelligence. But articulating what we do in the process is also good. Modern scientists are fond of saying 'we should not rely on intuition'. So it is best if we can show that it is not just intuition that is at work. We can also unambiguously define the criteria and make totally objective judgments using logical inferences.

Again note that 'probability' argument is red herring here. It is not that 'it is unlikely' for a chicken to peck 2πr^2 on a keyboard. It is also 'unlikely' for the chicken to peck vhn! In other words inference of intelligence is not an argument from ignorance. We can say exactly what an intelligent thing itself DOES, not just what blind things, such as 'chances' CANNOT DO. To reasonably believe that intelligence took place, you don't need to rule out the posdibility of 'chances'. We only need to identify the event itself using the criteria of what intelligent things DOES and not what non intelligent things DON'T DO. This is how we infer anything else! When you see a lion comming, you don't have to rule out the possibility that 'it is just a dream' in order to escape! We judge that x=y by discerning similarity between x and y, not by looking for a difference between x and z!

Now what if 'chances' bring together factors that bring about a singe effect? Lets say the effect is siphoning water out of a drum. So we need a flexible pipe and then some means initiating the event placing the pipe apropriately so that one of its end is immersed in the water and the other end stays outside and is held below the water level in the drum. What I want to argue is that it is actually the multiplicity of causes that makes us think that a phenomenon involving bringing together of various factors to cause a certain effect is due to chances. So a tornado blows into a store and hurl a pipe all the way to a place just near a drum filled with water. Next, a small stone nearby rolls down and press one end of the pipe. Then just at the right time, a whirlwind blows the pipe so that it erects upwards but without pulling it off the stone. Then a strong wind blows horizontally, bending the pipe towards the drum, and so on and so forth until a siphon is made that draws the water out of the drum.

Now what if, instead of the winds doing all that, we saw a single object doing it all? We will never hesitate to say that the object in question is an intelligent being. The point is that we don't actually need to know the detail things that create the effects, when we think that all those events are, in some way, integrated and can be seen as a single entity. This is why we don't need to open people's skulls and see the detailes of things going on in the brain in order to conclude that a human is intelligent! If the chicken actually pecked π correct to 10 decimal places, we will never hasitate to present this as a convincing evidence that chickens infact know maths enough! In other words, like I said, we never realy rule out 'chance' when inferring that 'some being is intelligent'. All we need to do is understand the 'oneness' or 'interconnectedness' in the various events that could be said are 'happening by chance' and then simply watch out what the thing, which may be a set of many things, is doing! In the case of the wind, if we see the wind as a SINGLE thing doing various things, rather than seeing it as to be composed of seperate particles, then we will only conclude that the wind itself is intelligent, rather than saying that since the phenomenon was due to wind, then it was just a series of chances!

We can even argue that if the universe is seen as a single entity, or as sufficiently interconnected things rather than as a multitude of seperate things, then the concept of 'chance' itself looses any meaning! If a bulldozer pushes some sand, the sand will be aligned and we won't say 'the are aligned by chance'. But if different objects pushed the different sections and thereby aligning the sand is when we entertain the possibility of 'chance alignment'. If a single person called for a meeting, we don't say 'the people met there by chance'. But we can say so if several independent people called for individual people to meet at a venue only for the venue to happen to be the same for all the people called! In other words 'chance' has no meaning in the context of a single thing causing several things. It only has a meaning in the context of several things causing several things.

So if the universe is one thing, or interconnected things, and the universe does things that looks like the acts of an intelligent being, there is no 'chance' way of explaining away the apparent intelligence simply because 'chance' has no meaning when a single entity is causing several of the things that would have been said 'they are so by chance'.

It is sometimes argued that Darwinism violates the second law of thermodynamics which states that a thermodynamic system can only change from 'order' to 'chaos'. However the proponents do not articulate well what might be in their intuitions. This, of course, allows Darwinists to present an apparently convincing counter argument about how the solar system is supposedly 'open'. Here, I am going to hopefully guide you step by step into a deeper understanding of the second law so you may see that the argument against darwinism is actually irrefutable!

DEFINE RANDOM
Here, we understand 'random' in contrast with 'directed'. Lets begine by exemplifying 'random' and 'directed' using an object acted upon by external forces. If an objet is forced to move in a random direction, then it is equaly likely for the object to move westward , as it is to for it to move eastward, as it is to move northward, as it is to move southward. If it is more likely for an object to move eastward, then such a motion towards east cannot be 'random'. On the contrary it is DIRECTED towards east. So I contrast 'randomness' with 'directedness'. The out come of a die throwing is random because it is equaly likely to get any face. If it is more likely to get '1', then such a throw is not 'random'. On the contrary, it is 'directed towards' '1'.

THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM

A system in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot change. 'Change' here is 'the transfer of energy from one part to another'. So, for instance, there is no transfer of energy anywhere within an object with uniform temperature. Energy can only be transferred from a hot place to a cold place. This is the better statement of the second law. We will latter see that Darwinism actually demands a 'transfer of energy from one part to another within a system that is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium'. Their objection that 'but the solar system is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium' Begs the question that their theory already implies a correct understanding of this fact that 'the solar system is not in a thermodynamic equilibrium'. I will show you that this is not the case!

Darwinists already implicitly and unwittingly claim that 'the earth was in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium'!! In a different word, the Darwinists, as usual, equates their theory with 'naturalistic explanation' or even with 'science' so that 'if science can allow life to form' then it means 'Darwinism is possible/true'! This Darwinian objection is actually a fallacious argument that rely solely on the fact that the oponent of Darwinism is almost always the one trying to argue that 'there is no naturalistic explanation of the origin of life' in general, rather than simply attacking Darwinism SPECIFICALLY without insisting that GENERALLY, there is no possible scientific account for evolution.

But why can't there be a 'change' in a system in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? To understand it, think of an inflated ball. Such is an example of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium. Think of a single air molecule say at the centre of the ball. The molecule is constantly knocked by other molecules in the neighbourhood. The crucial point is that such a collision is RANDOM, meaning that it is as likely for the molecule to be knocked in any one direction as it is, to be knocked in any other direction. If it is equally likely for a molecule to be knocked in ANY direction, towards ANY direction, then given numerous particles acting on the molecule, the molecule will, most likely, end up nowhere. It will only keep darting back and forth towards all directions as it keep getting knocked from all directions. The same thing happens to all the molecules in the ball. So there will be no bulk motion of molecules in any way.

Now what if it is more likely for a molecule to be knocked westwards than to be knocked at any other direction? Then it will be knocked towards west more often than it is, towards any other direction. Such a molecule will eventually move steadily towards west. So the general rule is that a molecule will move towards a given direction if and only if it is more likely to be forced towards that direction than it is, towards any other direction. Therefore random forces (in this case knockings) cannot lead to a directed movement, and this is the principle behind the second law of thermodynamics. In a system with numerous particles, the particles cannot move towards a direction that is more likely to be forced away from. So the particles in the system must keep moving until it becomes equally likely for any particle to be knocked in one way as it is, to be knocked in any other way. It is this state that they call it 'a state of maximum entropy'. So they call a state of much directedness 'low entropy', but it is because you need 'few sentences' to describe such. If every molecule is moving eastwards, then we simply say 'all particles are moving eastwards' and such a system appears 'orderly' but if each particle is moving in its own direction, then we must describe each motion in details and such a system apears 'disoderly'.

Now let us generalize 'knocking' to the concept 'cause', and 'move' to the concept 'change'. Then when we talk of 'random changes in DNA' (mutation), then you see immediately that the reasoning above applies exellently to the issue! Specifically, you can now understand what I mean when I say Darwinists unwittingly insinuates that the system surrounding a DNA is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium! A DNA acted upon by random forces is in EQUILIBRIUM for all the relevant purposes of a comparison between the system and a thermodynamic system. The argument that 'but the solar system is not in equilibrium' is irrelevant to the issue! The Darwinist model begins at equilibrium, thats all what is relevant! Darwinian fallacy is to equate their, possibly sureal scenario with the actual condition of the solar system, and then say 'but tye solar system is not in equilibrium'. Hallo Darwinian 'soup' is not the solar system!

So the argument against Darwinism goes: if something, such as DNA, is in a system which is as likely to cause it to change in one way as it is, to cause it to change in any other way (ie with causes acting randomly at the thing) then such a thing cannot significantly change at all! It can only slightly change back and forth. In case of random mutations, it can only mutates this way, that way this way,..ie in a completely disorganized way, never steadily as if towards a certain goal! The second lawvof thermodynamics is just a special case of this statement that follows logically from the concept of 'random' vs 'directed'. causes.

NATURAL SELECTION IS A VEIN UNWITTING IMMITATION OF MAXWELL'S DEMON

Now, what if a 'demon' sits somewhere to 'select' only those particles that moves in a given direction. Will he eventually beat the second law of thermodynamics. Or I can ask 'can SELECTION beat the second law of thermodynamics, making an object move towards an otherwise unlikely direction? Perhaps Maxwell's demon can do that, but as I will show you next, natural selection is not equivalent to Maxwell's demon! It is simply not 'that smart'!

In dead we could still create steady changes in the DNA if we could 'select' those specific changes we desire, from a junk of zillions of unwanted changes. But does natural 'selection' actually select? The answer is no, because a thus selected DNA is still subject to random changes. For the Maxwell's Demon to truely select, it must prevent the 'undoing'. He must prevent the particle from moving in all the other directions apart from the desired one. This is a feature that natural 'selection' lacks. If a DNA mutates 'this way' and this way of mutating makes it more likely to reproduce, nothing after such a 'selection' prevents the DNA from changing backwards or changing in any other numerous undesired ways! The room that gives the DNA a chance to make a change in a 'desired' way also gives it an even more imence chance for the thus slightly improved DNA to be destroyed almost as fast as the 'positive' changes are made! Natural 'selection' does not change this fact!

One of the big blunder Darwinists make in their thinking is to seem to assume that the only thing that can remove a gene from the 'ecosystem' is for it to be 'selected away'! Specifically they overlook the most destructive destroyer of genes if 'measures are not taken', ie the very mutation itself! The cells have tight mechanisms for preventing mutations. If you removed this mechanism, then the genes will be destroyed in a single generation! Natural selection cannot even SUSTAIN a gene, let alone 'improve' it, if the cell far from trying to prevent mutations, welcomes it in the hope of 'improving' the gene! This is because there are vastly more ways of destroying a gene than of 'improving' it or even 'preserving' it! What will it stop a species from getting extinct way before the zillionth benefitial mutation happens to one of them, if mutations are happening regularly?

Again the analogy of thermodynamic system is apt in grasping this. The reason why a molecule inside an inflated ball can never move steadily towards any particular direction is that every time it tries to move that way, soon it is knocked to another direction, and eventually backwards. So it ends up darting aimlessly round and round. Mutations in DNA is no different! For every change in a certain manner, there is a change in another manner, and eventually a change back to square 1. Natural selection does not change this as it does not PREVENT reverse mutations. It only PRESEVE the 'foward' mutation. It is like allowing a given particle that moves in a certain direction, which can never lead to a steady motion of that particle towards that direction unless you PREVENT it from moving in any other directions!

This must be surprising because at a first glance, similarities between organisms seems to support Darwinism. Why do we have hands that are closely similar to those of chimpanzees? The answer 'because both humans and chimpanzees descended from the same ancestor' seems reasonable. So it seems reasonable to suppose that the similarities between organisms supports Darwinism as it suggests common descend. However, this is erroneous and fallacious! Infact, the similarities destroys Darwinism! Similarity between living things of different species can only be maintained if the change is done in a very carefull way to preserve the similarities. The Darwinian evolution is suppose to happen accidentally. As we will see, numerous accidental changes cannot preserve similarities. Natural selection cannot select 'similarities'. It can only select 'usefullness'.

Suppose you have 10 dice on the table. Innitialy they all read the same way. You are going to pick one of them randomly and then toss it. So the crucial point is that your choice to pick which one of the dice is random. So you close your eyes and then pick one and then toss it. You are going to repeat it over and over. You thoroughly shafle the dice and then pick one randomly and toss it. What you realize is that it will be a miracle either to consistently never pick some 3 or so dice or for some 3 or so dice to always read the same innitial value after tossing! In other words after numerous pickings and throwings, we espect all the dice to change!

Let me use another example. Suppose you have 6 dice and you have 6 people, each with one dice. What will it happens if they all throw the dice? What we espect is that all the six faces of the dice will show up. Even if it doesn't in a single throw, it will happen after only a few throws. What it takes a miracle to happen is for two or more people to always find a similar face of the dice after they throw.

Another example: Suppose you ask 100 people to write a 10 digit number randomly. It will be a miracle to find even only two of the people with an exactly similar number! Each number will be unique! Then if you ask them to write the numbers over and over thousands of times, you will find that they will end up writting all possible ten diggit numbers. What it cannot happen is for certain numbers to repeat over and over and thus certain numbers to never appear.

Now back to DNA. If DNA does changes randomly, then over a long time, and thus after millions of changes, we espect every aspect of the DNA to change! All possible configurations of the DNA must have happened in search for those DNAs that are fit for living things! Therefore if Darwinism were true, we expect to see all POSSIBLE living things in this planet, or at least extremely many types that makes finding two similar creatures practically impossible! At no point would changes in the DNA systematically omit certain sections of the DNA from changing, or omit certain ways in which the DNA can change, simply because the change is random and undirected!

Darwinists often unwittingly undermine their own theory. If, for instance, you show that evolution did not take as long a time as they often claim, a Darwinist might be tempted to say 'so evolution realy happen faster than we though'. This is wrong! The reason why they thought it has to take that time was so it may make a blind evolution plausible. If you are going to guess ten digit phone numbers, then you will take years of trial and error, in each guess! If you find that you always make a few step before you get the correct number, so that you don't include a long list of 'wrong' numbers that you tried, then you are not really guessing the numbers. Some 'magics' are happening, and this turns out to be the case in the living creatures, so 'evolution actually happens faster than we thought'.

Now let us exermine specific cases. You find that the leavs of a cassava, cannabi and castor are closely similar. Both tend to have seven leaves branching from a given center (though at times the two smallest leaves fuses to the adjusce leaves to form 5 leaves). Unfortunately, Darwinists never thought that it is wise to first try to understand how the living things makes their structures from DNA before they can stick to the idea that living things change into other living things through random changes in their DNA. This is unfortunate becuse only after such understanding can we see how plausible/implausible such a mechanism can be. For instance, is it reasonable to suppose that the stem of the cannabis plant can change to an hollow stem, in evolving into the castor stem without changing the number of leaves emanating from the center in the process? We cannot answer this question without first understanding the morphogenesis of the leaves as guided by the information in the DNA.

Having the 'right DNA' is just having a tiny piece of the puzzle. The DNA just specifies how to make proteins. Having a manual for how to make bricks is an entirely different thing from being able to build an house. We must reason with a cell that is already a life, and already with a behaviour that we cannot artribute it only to DNA without first understanding how the cell originated from just a DNA! There are already cell walls, ribosomes, cytoplasm etc that we don't know how they are built solely using the information in DNA. These structures affects the behaviour of the cells. We cant know how this comes about solely from the information in the DNA because cells divides while there are already other cells alife in their adjacent space, including the parent cells. This other cells influences the activities in the new cell. They do so in such a way as to determine what kind of proteins this new cell will manufacture. Therefore the events from the external cells (including the parent cell) influences the behaviour of the new cell, and determines its lifetime characteristics!

The morphogenesis of an organism doesn't happen in the same way proteins are created. In the latter, only the blue print in the DNA is neaded. However in the former, the entire BEHAVIOUR of the cells must be considered! So it is never easy to see how the shape of a leave follows from the information in the DNA. It is like the way it is not easy to see how a house comes about by studying the information in the brain of an architect! Yes we know that the collection of all knowledge the architect have does INFLUENCES the kind of a house he designs, but to explain how this does so is futile, and to insist that the information causes the house in the same way the DNA causes the proteins is a fat lie! We know that the information is just one thing. The insanely comples BEHAVIOUR of the brain is an entirely different thing! Same is the case in morphogenesis. So it is incredibly disingenuous for Darwinists to, following the discovery of DNA, insists that they now understand the mechanism under which the tail of an ape slowly disappeared in formation of a tail-less human etc! When we insists on the detail things that happened, including the 'tail morphogenesis' from the information in the DNA, we find that actually, they donnot have any plausible mechanisms for evolution!

The understanding that morphogenesis and development follows from how a cell BEHAVES rather that what EXISTS inside the cells pose an insurmountable problem to neo'Darwinism. Supposing a small change does happen to the DNA of one cell. Then this small change affects the behaviour of the cell. This change in behaviour influences what cell manufactures. The presence of the things manufactured in turn further influences the behaviour of the cell and so on. Furthermore, the cell begins to send different information to adjacent cells, influencing those other cells as well, the circle repeats!! So we find that we have a chaos, rather than events that neatly follows some blue print. The shapes of organisms are realy not 'things from blue prints' but rather 'order from chaos'. The feature of a chaos system is the one where small, negligable causal changes does not result in small effects. A flapping butterfly in Tokyo creates tornadoes in America.! We find that reductionism fails as it meets insane complexity. So must neo-Darwinism fail because it is a reductionistic theory. It purports to explain the evolution to be a results of changes in DNAs. It is like trying to explain rain by positing that it is caused by butterflies! Such a claim can neither be explained nor empirically verified nor falsified because the explanation for rain will be impossibly complex and predictions of trains of events following the butterflies flappings will be impossible due to chaos.

Understanding morphogenesis this way, lets come back to the qieston of why the stem, the seeds and the size of castor changed from that of cannabis but the structure of its leaves did not change. A slight change in DNA, like we saw, should generally result in a huge change in the shapes due to repercussioning of events that changes the behaviours of cells. It is this chaotic nature of morphogenesis that makes changes that priserves some features all more unlikely. If changes were constantly happening to the plant's DNA, changes on the leaves structures would be very easy to happen and consequently, we would have so many types of leaves that  it would be next to impossible to find two similar things among two different species. Cannabis dinnot reproduce with castor or cassava. On the contrary, millions of changes are supposed to have happened in their DNAs, as they blindly searched for working traits. So why do they still have any similarity at all? If two people are independently throwing a set of 1000 dice at random, never copying from themselves, can they, after thousands of throws, finds that all the 1000 dice are reading the same value? Such is the absurdity Darwinism implies!

Quantum Mechanics (QM) offers an incoherent explanation of microscopic world. They begin by telling you that the particles are actually waves as described by the so called Schrödinger Equation (SE). How can this be? They say the amplitude of the wave at a given reigion gives the probability of locating a point-like particle at that region. But almost immediately, you are told that SE is infact wrong because it is not compatible with relativity. So we need another equation termed 'Dirac Equation' (DE) to describe the waves. This DE in turn only performs a single cat walk show into the arena and is, in fact never used! We must immediately move on the Quantum Field Theory (QFT).

In QFT, we treat the wave described by DE not as a 'wave of probability' as the one in QM. Rather, breifly treat it like any other classic, like the acoustic waves. From there you quantize it. So it is called a 'second quantization'. What this means is that 'change the wave into an operator' (a meaningless mathematical statement which I will elaborate it Below).

Consider a wave on a rope. The height of the potions of the rope keeps changing as the section keep moving 'up and 'down'. So in the mathematical description of waves, we talk about 'change in height' as compared to 'change in time' and also as compared to 'change in distance' along the rope. So I am talking about how the height changes as I move along the rope, and as time goes. If I stay on the same spot, the height only changes with time and if I take a snapshot of the rope, the height only changes with distance. In the language of 'operators', (which QM loves so much), we split our description of the wave into two. In this case the 'height' and 'the change in'. So we are splitting the statement 'change in height' into 'change in' plus 'height'! the phrase 'change in' is called 'the opetator' and the phrase 'height' is callef 'statefunction'.

The QM snake oil peddler treats 'change in height' as a multiplication of two things: 'change in' times 'height'! They say the operator 'change in' is acting on a state function 'height' to bring about 'change in height' (think of how mulitplications of two values are present as to symbols sitting next to each other eg 2πr). So 'change in' is treated like π and 'heigh' is treated like r so that 'change in height' is a miltiplication of two values like πr, in that funny farm of quantum maths!

So that is what 'operator' means! We cange the DE from a decsription of a wave into a 'change in', leaving us with the question as to what corresponds to 'height' then in QFT. It turns out not be a wave at all. It is a sureal 'wave of waves'! Rather than thinking of a single wave wherein its amplitude gives the probability of locating a point-like particle, think of a monster 'wave of waves' whose 'amplitude' is the probability of finding a wave having a given characteristic!

So what were we looking for? The QM guy has told us in summary:

1.)QM paricles are waves described by SE
2.) SE is wrong and we must use DE
3.)DE is wrong still and we must use QFE
4.) In QFT, we don't describe the waves but actually some 'wave of waves'

So the question of what particles are is swept under the carpet in the supposedly correct QFT as it conveniently moves to the next question!!

DE (Dirac Equation) is also wrong! I will explain it this way. Consider the formula for kinetic energy of a moving object:

E=mv^2/2

This is Newtonian in the sense that it does not factor in relativistic mass increase, as we speed up the matter to attain velocity v. So the relativistic formula for kinetic energy is different. It is given by:

crucial point is that this relativistic formular reduces to the same Newt's formular when we make v very small so that squares of v are neglected in the Taylor series expansion of the square root. This is desired becase relativistic effects are not manifest in objects moving with small speeds.

But in DE, we find that we dont reproduce Schrodinger Equation when we make v very, very small! We reproduce an entirely different equation that still has the speed of light in it! So it is actually wrong to say that DE is a correction of SE to make it compatible with relativity. Dirac's theory is an entirely different theory that REPLACES Schrodinger's Theory! But they lie that it COMPLETES it!

The problem arises because Dirac did not quantize the above equation for the relativistic kinetic energy, in analogous way Schrodinger quantized the classic kinetic energy. Hence he fails to form a quantum theory which, like the classic theory, the relativistic quantum theory reduces to the classic quantum theory for small velocities. Instead Dirac opted to quantize the so called relativistic energy and momentum equation.

This equation reduces neither to the classic kinetic energy nor to the classic momentum when we make v 'small'. Instead it reduces to E=mc^2, as you can see by putting v=0. This is a relativistic theory, not a classic one of any sort. So this equation is wrong. But the detail errors done by the relativist in deriving this equation I will show you, perhaps another day.

To understand why the earlier equation is the right one for relativistic kinetic energy, begine by close examining how we derive the classic kinetic enery equation:

Then note that to do the analogous thing in the relativistic theory, we must factor in the fact that the mass increases from velocity to velocity. So we will not use a constant mass, m, but a relativistic mass, m', which is a function of velocity. Then we use the calculus technique of subtituting v/c=sinθ, and hence dv=cosθ, and use the Pythagorean realtionship: sin^2θ+cos^2θ=1 to remove the square root.

Then to understand how this equation reduces to the classic one for the kinetic energy, perform Taylor expansion  (or binomial expansion) of the square root and note that in first term of the expansion, mc^2 is canceled by subtraction and in the second term the c^2 is cancelled by division and we remain with the formula for the classic kinetic enery and the rest of the terms involves higher powers of v, which can be ignored if v is very small.

Schrodinger quantized the classic kinetic energy (in a process I will show you next). Therefore if Dirac quantized the above relativistic kinetic energy, he would have arrived at an equation that reduces to Schrodinger equation for small v. He quantized an equation that does not reproduces the kinetic energy. Therefore Dirac equation cannot reproduce Scrodinger equation for small velocities. Therefore the equations are contradictory when they are describing small velocities! This problem will stealthly translate to a problem in forming a relativistic model of 'point particle' which reduces to the classic quantum idea of 'probability of locating point particle'. So the theorists opted to just ignore the question and insist 'in quantum field theory, particles have no locations, only momentum'! It should not be! it should have 'something' that reduces to 'location' when the momentum is small. 

To quantize kinetic energy (hence arrive at the Schrodinger equation), use the debroglie hypothesis and assume that the quantum wave is a sinusoidal wave. These waves are described by the sin or cosine function.

Here, λ is the wavelength, h is Planck's Constant, E is energy and ω is the frequency. So we are also using Einstein's 'photoelectric law' to substitute for frequency. Next, we perform the second derivative of the sin function and note how kinetic energy jumps to the 'back'!

So the second derivative of  ψ forms what we call 'the kinetic part of Schrodinger equation'. So schrodinger equation can be thought of as an implicit way of stating the classic equation for energy having in mind that debroglie hypothesis relates momentum hence kinetic energy to waves via the wavelength relation. The full Schrodinger equation has the potential energy, V and it reads:

The second line is a way of stating it using the 'operator' language we saw. So the phrase:

Is called the 'Hamiltonian Operator', and as you can see, it is a meaningless statement! It says 'change in change in plus,...' without telling us what it is that is changing! What quantum guys did was to find a way in which such differential operators, when 'acting on state function', which simply means 'differenting the state functions and adding terms that contain multiplication with the state function' is analogous to multiplying an nxn square matrics with an nx1 matrics. So the nxn matrics is the operator while the nx1 matric is the state function. Since the nx1 matrics can also be used as coordinates in an n-dimensional space, so that a multiplication by the nxn matrics is a 'coordinate transformation', the derivative of ψ  plus Vxψ to form the side of Schrodinger equation is seen as a 'transformation of the coordinates of an Hilbert Space'.

So in the formation of quantum field theory, the dirac equation (now thought of as to describe the classic wave) morphs into what they call 'creation and anihillation operator'. Since when you differentiate a function, another function emerges, in the Schrodinger Equation for quantum harmonic oscillator, the derived function can be seen as 'the one describing one more particle. So the 'acting by the operator' is 'creating a particle' hence 'creation operator'. You can now see that it is just a mathematical operation, but the will mislead you into thinking that actual 'creation' is magically taking place!

So in turning the Dirac equation into 'creation and annihilation operators', we nolonger treat the ψ as a wave. Instead, it becomes parts of the 'constants' inside the operator, like the way 'V' is inside the Hamiltonian Operator. So we are left to wonder what it is that act like ψ in QFT. It turns out to be a 'wave of waves' termed 'wavefunctional'. From here, the picture of a 'wave of particle' is lost! So QFT simply ignores the question of what wave/particles are, and does something else, while insisting that it is innacurate to think of particles as in the classic QM where there is no 'creation' and 'annihilation'! Thus QFT actually contradicts QM!!

Bible > 1 Corinthians > Chapter 15 > Verse 44

◄ 1 Corinthians 15:44 ►

New International Version
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

First we must do away with this 'dark' misnomer. It is so unfortunate that physicists use careless choice of words. They complained so much about the 'god particle' misnomer and did not care to do the same with 'dark blah blah'. So they better incongruously call something 'dark' than to call something 'god'. It shows how biased they are against 'god'. Clearly, what is 'dark' is our own minds! If we donnot understand over 90% of the universe, then we are still in 'dark ages'! 'Dark photon' here is even more telling as it is oxymoron. It litteraly means 'dark light'. So you got to know from this that these are just misnomers. Nothing is 'dark' in the ordinary way we understand 'dark'. Rather it is 'unseen'.

Next, the thorny, metallic club now lands on the heads of gurus. So if you are a 'guru' smilling at the mistaken physicists, it is now your turn! Reading through the first Corinthians chapter 15. You find that over and over, the bible explains life after death as to happen due to a change in the body, not due to something inherently immortal that somehow leaves inside the body! Even more importantly, there is no such a concept as 'materialism' in the bible. Neither does the author hinges on the 'your mind cannot understand' joker card to make his point. Rather, he only highlights that the spiritual body is different from the natural body(by which he means 'earthly') in the way stars are differnt from planets, or in the way a seed is different from a plant. In other words they are different not necessarily 'in a way the mind cannot understand'. The hope of after-life is what he is after, not a teasing to the mind by tickling it with something that ultimately doesn't make any sense!

If you asked Paul where the heaven is, he would tell you that it is 'up there far beyond the sun, far beyond the stars, far there'. He will not tell you that 'it is beyond the mind' or that 'it is in the 26th dimension' or such things. When people understood that the earth actually revolves around the sun, and as such, there is no heaven 'up there', they should have thought that there might be another place for 'heaven' that can similarly be visualized. Unfortunately, they could not conceive of such a place. So they opted to say 'it exists but the mind cannot understand'. So the embattling of 'mind' became essential part of new age religion. By the time new ideas came, they had forgotten what 'beyond the mind' was all about! The 'heaven' was a place of joy, understood by as simple an event as may be gulping some beer and noting how it might 'gladen the heart'. People did not conceive of 'heaven' as an acrobatical challenge to the mind for its own sake, such as to drive you to sit cross leged for hours, or to smock heavy dose of marijuana in an attempt to force your mind to accept irrationalities!

Having put aside the epistemological hindrance, lets now close exermine how physicists have come to understand the reality of other worlds that other beings might dwell on it! The secret is the idea so unfortunately termed 'dark photon'. So such worlds, will, unfortunately be termed as 'dark world' by a physicist. But there is nothing 'dark' about such because as we have seen, it has its own photons and 'dark photon' is actually an oxymoron! So those places can even be more full of light than even our world! Yes, they are the perfect candidates for what the ancient people called it 'heaven'. When physicists observed a distant galaxy, and noted that there is an unseen world that is bigger than the world we see, it should have rang bells! Might this be the 'heaven' that Paul et al thought that we will go there? Unfortunately, though, by this time, the religionists had found that in order to remain apparently legitimate, they had to insulate themselves from scientific criticism by saying 'it is not science' instead of just saying 'we have no scientific evidence yet'. So over time, anything that a scientist might know has come to be automatically thought 'that is not the thing' even though no 'guru' even understand it! If this unseen world had been discovered during the time of Galileo, it would have been hailed as a confirmation of the 'heaven' by the  scientists, who were still also the priests!

The unseen matter plus the unseen light equals to a complete world with planets, stars and some other things that might not exist in our world. So as we think of 'extra-terestial life' we should even think more about those who might inhabit this unseen world that the physicist will incomgruously call it ''the world of dark matter and dark photons' or simply 'dark world'. But 'dark' here is an incongruous word for 'unseen'. Since physics no longer, in principle, deny that the matter can possess the qualities for the 'spiritual' body, we nolonger need to define 'spirit' in contrast with 'matter'. On the contrary, we should go back to how Paul thought about it: the 'spiritual body' is as different from the 'natural body' as the plant is different from the seed! In other words Paul makes it completely open, the possibility of 'spirit' being a different kind of matter and yes, the so called 'dark matter' that physicist now confidently beleive it exists might be such a body! It will be different from the 'earthly body' just as the body is different from the 'heavenly bodies' like the stars, just as Paul though and not via an 'inconceivable difference' the way New Age teaches!

The 'spirit' is understood as 'that which cannot be seen, tested, touched etc', which, in summary, I call it 'the unseen'. The word 'matter' is nowhere in the bible. The idea that spirit is 'not matter' was concocted during the time when people did not understand that matter can also be the 'unseen'. So it was a lazy and sloppy way of answering the question: how comes the spirit can be there without being seen? The 'wisdom' (actually foolishness) here is that the asker assumes that 'everything is matter' and therefore 'everything can be seen'. So answering that 'the spirit is not matter', undercuts the critical potential of the question. Again it relies solely on the now obsolete undestanding that 'matter must be seen'. If matter can be unseen, then the 'immaterial' no longer serve the purpose it served: of 'explaining' why the spirit is unseen! So it is an obsolete way of tackling the question! It is simply no longer satisfactory for those with a good knowledge of modern physics! It is like trying to explain how earth does not 'fall down' to a modern physicist by saying the 'the earth rest on a giant tortoise', ignoring that physicists nolonger believe that the earth must 'fall down' if nothing is beneath!

When physicists discovered that matter is actually 99.9999% empty, the ball now unnoticeably shifted squarely to the other side! Hard now is the question of how something can be seen at all, not the other wat round! However, in the uncanny inertia, people still behaved as if the hard question is how something can be there without being seen! Why can we touch an object at all? Why can't it simply percolate throgh the empty spaces forming the 99.999% part of the object? So the ground was ripe for physicists to finally accept such ideas as 'dark matter', ie a matter which exists but is practically undetectable! It was eventually understood that what makes an object tangible was photons, not 'solidity'. So if something does not interact with photons, then the 'illusion' that it is anything but something 99.9999% empty could not come about.

But it did not end there! The spiritual world must interact with itself for it to have a chance to be indeed a world on its own. So it needs its own light. So though it doesn't interact with our light, it has its own interaction. So 'dark photon' completes the puzzle of making the 'world of dark matter' a complete world, just like this one, possibly with living beings inhabiting there!

Will the scientists be able to transfer consciousness into machines, and thus possibly imprisoning 'souls'? The short answer is no! They will always be able to transfer information. But consciousness is not information. Consciousness is the informed, not the information.

We begin by the recurring question: what is it in matter that makes it possible for there to be many individual persons, rather than a single conscious person? Is it the fact that there are many pieces of matter? Well, at first glance, it looks so. We think that we are not the same person as your friend, when aware of an even't simply because they have their heads and you have yours. Different brains, so we think, corresponds to different consciousnesses. But when we think more carefully, we find that this is puzzling! This is because matter is divisible and a piece of matter is actually composed of several pieces joined together. There are no permanent pieces of matter seperated permanently from each other. Thus according to the though above, what corresponds to a single person x turns out not to be a single thing but a set of things joined together!

So if we still want to attribute the origin of independent personality to a given ensemble of particles that are independent from other particles (eg because of spatial isolation), the feature that unifies them as a single set, distinct from other particles cannot be something permanently inherent within each individual particles. On the contrary, this property must be one that can be attained by each an every particle. In other words the characteristic of your brain of manifesting you as a person is something that the brain developed. It is not a property of the brain that is inherently peculiar to the particular brain. We would have concluded as latter if your brain were a single piece of matter that is permanently isolated from the rest of matter. We would have said your particular personality is the intrinsic property of that piece of matter, and you would be automatically imortal! But this is not the case.

Since it is reasonable to suppose that your personality is a due to a certain state of matter rather than a certain piece of matter, it is tempting to think that we can easily replicate your awareness, e.g.by creating a clone of your brain. After all that brain will now possess all the property of your brain. So since your personality is a property of your brain, then that other brain must also be exhibiting your personality and your awareness! But again thinking more carefully we find that such a view is problematic! A distant clone will be able to do different things than you are doing. The clone can be watching something while you are sleeping! But you, as single personality must either be aware or not. There is no in between. So incase your personality is also manifesting in a distant place, due to a different brain, then the two brains must communicate perfectly with each other.

So we see that it is actually the communication between two different pieces of matter that makes them manifest the same personality. It is realy not the similarity! Different parts of your brain are never similar, but they communicate. Communication is the key. So in order for scientist to transfer your personality to the computer, the brain and the computer must perfectly communicate. This feature requires some kind of entanglement with the computer and the computer must be able to absorb all the information from your brain. No computer can do that in any foreseeable future.

Also worth noting is that this feature of consciousness makes quantum consciousness more plausible explanation. In quantum world, you cannot copy nor delete information. This is captured in two theorems: 'no cloning theorem' and 'no deleting theorem'. You can only transfer information from place to place. So if we stipulate that for two brains to exhibit the same personality, you must copy them atom by atom (that is to say that even the quantum wigglings of atoms must be completely synchronized between the brains),

We find that such a copy, that is similar down to quantum scale, is impossible! So you will never be the same personality at two different places, if you see the 'yourself' as the entire property of your brain down to quantum level.

Again understand quantum world very well. The information behaves like the particles! A motion from one place to another is still a transfer of information. So even though you cannot create two copies of the same information, you can still transfer the information in a manner like 'copying it at another place' but a copying that must be instantly accompanied by a 'deleting it at the earlier place'. So it is a law of conservation of quantum information.

But this is a very desirable property for personality because as we have seen, the personality must be a state of ensemble of particles, rather than a permanent intrinsic feature of something like a single piece of matter. Yet this state must not be copied from a distant place or otherwise we arrive at an absurd situation like becoming asleep in one location while awake in another location! For your personality to manifest in another ensemble of matter, it must cease manifesting in the original matter, making it look like you have simply incarnated in another piece of matter. If your consciousness is identified not with the classic information, like the one we can copy it to a computer, but rather with the quantum information, then immortality follows immediately because of the 'no deleting' theorem.

But all these also shows that we realy cannot 'capture' souls and store them into s computer' the transference of quantum information is not amenable to artificial manipulation at all. This is because any such manipulation involves 'observations' or 'measurement' which changes the quantum states! When we control a macroscopic object, we are never controlling it up to the quantum scale. Each particle will still be doing some its own things, eg Wigglings that are beyond your control. Thus when a scientist transfers a junk of information, he cannot do so upto the quantum information. Since we have identified the quantum information with personality, we identify the detailed wigglings with the free willing movement. Indeed such is how the 'quantum mind' hypothesis relates free will with the quantum uncertainty. So we conclude that consciousness can only move as it were 'getting copied and being deleted' if it does so free willingly. Otherwise, it gets 'observed' and changed completely.

Why is has Russia threatened to invade Ukraine. Again I read about ridiculous explanations such as 'Russia is afraid of a prosperous democratic government on its door since it will create an example that the Russians will seek to emulate'. It is taken for granted that 'democracy' will bring about 'prosperity' yet is has failed to do so in Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

The Russian-Ukraine scenario closely resembles that one of Iran-Iraq. When US et al sought to 'create democracy' in Iraq, Iran stepped in to thwart the US plans. Why? Why don't they want 'democracy'? The answer is that it is a sham democracy! The Israeli case highlights this problem well. No matter what government is 'elected' in Israel, it always results in an 'anti-Iranian' warmongering, pro-American regime. Iran do not want such a 'democracy' even closer to its own nose! Next, of course, will be for US to arm such a 'democracy' tooth and nail, even with nuclear weapons and chemical weapons so it may constantly threaten Iran, just like they used Saddam to do that. Israel is not close enough to, for instance, fly jets to Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities. This is exactly the same scenario in Ukraine. They want to create an excessively armed pro US Russian enemy just next to Russia as an effective 'power projection' to Russia!

But now ask the question: why is it that no matter what leader is elected in US, Britain, Israel etc, we always end up with the same same foreign policies! We end up with an anti-Russian, anti-China anti-Iranian, pro-Israeli etc! In terms of foreign policy, US etc is just like Iran! Ironically a country that shows some evidence of real democracy is, Iraq, despite its instability and militant political paries. We see Iraq's foreign policies beeing more dynamic. We see leaders such as Muqtada al sadr being less pro-Iranian etc. An election in Iraq presents some fair opportunity to bring about change in Iraqi foreign 'partners' or 'adversaries'! Nothing like that is seen in Israel, Britain or U.S.

So what should we conclude? Do majority of Americans always see Russia, Iran, China etc as 'enemies'? Do most of them support endless wars and bloated military expenditure? I don't think so! Americans differ in about everything even whether or not the earth is flat! There is no way they could mostly agree that 'there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq', i.e. a fat lie! It is better if people agree on a truth. We can simply say 'they are all well informed'. When they all agree on a lie, something strange is happening. Either someone realy know how to mesmerize them into a delusion or the claim that 'they agreed so' is a lie. I think the second option is more likely! A mass delusion is far more difficult!

So these 'democracies' are sham in that they don't result in governments that do what the citizens wants! Either the lobbyist or the 'experts' etc always have too much sway on the elected leaders.

You have most probably seen some science fiction movie, like 'Terminator' where someone 'moves' from 1900 to 2000, then to 2050 back to 2022! It can be entertaining, however, some people seriously think that such funny farm ideas has anything to do with reality! 'Ideas' on that par are so silly that normally one doesn't need to debunk it, as anyone can see it. Mension it, and people crack into some laughter. This lunatic 'idea' enjoys a peculiar status different from other similar lunatic ideas: it is blessed by the priests in pulpit of mathematical physics. In other words it doesn't matter how stupid an claim can be, as long as celebrities and Nobel price winners entertains them, some good number of people will also entertain them!

Notice that I put the 'idea' in quote because it does even qualify as an idea! 'Idea' betrays a statement that makes some sense, be it a slight one. Ideas means that one has to THINK in order to grasp what it means. A statement like pingy pang pang does not elicit any idea to your head because the 'words' have no meaning! So pingy pang pang is not an idea! It is simply a bubble gum for the pple in the asylum to push time with! 'Time travel' belongs to such categories! It is a statement that is worse off than a bark or a 'meow'. With some effort, you might grasp what the cat might mean by 'meow'. Not so to a relativist talking about 'time travel'!

It Is Beyond Understanding

Like I have hinted, we cannot understand pingy pang pang. 'Pingy pang pang' is beyond understanding! But then like saying 'your eyes cannot see,...', people can create 'emperor's cloths'. You see? It is only because 'your eyes are limited', otherwise there are plenty of cloths in the room! The emperor doesn't want to be seen as to be on the category of those 'lesser evolved' souls who cannot see the cloths! So he opts to say: yes, I can see the clothes! In this case the 'cloths' can be invisible simply because there are no such clothes. It is not that our eyes are 'limited'. Likewise our minds are not 'limited' to grasp such 'ideas' as 'time travel'. There is simply no such an idea! It is a 'pseud-oidea'. Like it should be the case always, don't allow people to sell poppycock using the 'our minds are limited' excuse. That is always an emperor's cloth you are about to buy! He is trying to evade 'bullshit detector' by going way round the 'mind' all altogether, making his claims a-priori, unfalsifiable!

The 'need' for 'Time Travel'

They could not sell the poppycock unless people developed some 'psychological need' for 'time travel'. So they concocted one by creating a whopper that should create an alarm! Note that the 'Terminator' 'comes' from '2030', or something like that, all the way to '1999'! He hopes to find a guy, a grown up in 2030 before he was born! So he is, in effect, saying that in case you are peeing in the wrong place on Tuesday , then when 'Wednesday' comes, you are still peeing on Tuesday as it were, on a parallel world! So he swings hopelessly from the already nonsensical 'passage of time into a 'passage through multiverse' without telling you directly! He sweeps this 'multivers theory' under the carpet and then asks you to debate 'whether or not time travel is possible', as if he doesn't have a redefined 'time' hidding under the sleeves!

When we say 'past' (eg Tuesday), does it riffers to some location 'existent' at the same time as Wednesday? That is the question begged when they ask 'is time travel possible'. In other words they are already in the second question, and the first crucial question is never asked! Imagine asking only if it is possible to go to 'heaven' above the blue sheet 'up there', thus creating only two camps: those that say it is possible and those that say it isn't. It doesn't give any chance for the right camp to emerge: those that say it is a meaningless question because the 'heaven' is not 'up there' above some blue 'sheet'. Of course if Tuesday exist (calling it 'the past'), why would it not be possible to travel there?

What Is 'Time'?

There are those who have it completely upside down! The reason why we thinkv'time travel is impossible', so they say, is because 'we think that time exists' or 'we think that time flows' or 'we think that the flow of time is real'! In reality, it is the opposite! If 'flow of time' or 'passage of time' was a real event, then 'time travel' would be as easy as 'travel along a river!' If the reality of the flow of river Nile does not prevent anyone from moving (say out of some boat moving with the water), why would the reality of 'flow of time', prevent 'time travel'?

But 'flow of time' or 'passage of time' are just 'metaphors' that, at best, might only interest poets. And this is the problem! 'Time travel' can only be poetic since 'flow of time' is not literal. Nothing is more ridiculous than dreaming of a machine that can do the 'time traveling'. It is orders more ridiculous than seeking for a mattress to cusion someone who is 'falling in love'!

But lets, for a moment, concede that 'flow of time' is a real, physical event and that thus 'time travel' is possible (strictly meaningful as a concept). Does this mean that you can go to Teusday and 'stop yourself from peeing along the highway' and so save yourself the embarrassment? If you jumped out of a moving vehicle and then go backwards, do you land in the same vehicle backwards in location? Does movement necessarily creates a trail of zillions of copies of a moving thing in space? If not so, why suppose that 'movement in time' does no?

To twist it a little bit, lets say 'changing the past' is possible. Then why think that the 'past' is sitted there, waiting for you to travel there so you may 'change' it? Why can't it change without anyone 'time traveling' to do so? Why can't we kill John corner's mother before the terminator comes? If so, why can't the entire 'past' simply change and becomes 'the present' leaving nothing in the past, so that 'passage of time' becomes like a 'movement in space' whereby no trail of the moving object is left behind? Then 'time travel' becomes a 'travel into nothing', hence a pointless travel, even if it were possible.

But that is getting too far! There is simply no such a place as 'past', 'present' nor 'future'. When you open your eyes, you are seeing what we call 'the univers'. We see OBJECTS and nothing else. We don't see 'something' called 'the present'. That is an abstract concept that your mind creats to make sense of the universe. The 'present' is like 'here' or 'there'. Only an idiot can say 'the present exists'. At best, we might say 'At the present, things exists'. In other words, we use 'present' to understand 'existence of things', but not as an 'existent thing' on its own. The 'present' as an 'arena' to 'stage the existence' is a more accurate understanding of the concept 'present'. Therefore the question of 'existence' does not apply to the concept 'present' as this is part of those concepts that allows us to conceptualize 'existence' in the first place.

Movement

'To move' from A to B means that at time t, an object was at place A and at some other time, t' in future, the same object was at place B. So to conceptualize movement, we need to take for granted that what 'past, present and future' means is obvious and given. Otherwise 'movement' or 'travel' itself will have no meaning. This means that we cannot apply 'movement' or 'travel' to time itself otherwise our statement will be circular and meaningless! We will say (rigourously) that 'At time t the terminator was at 2030 and at some other time t' in the future, the cyborg was at 1999'. Make sense? We have two 'times'. One is a 'reference' and the other is a 'referend'. The concept 'time' is appearing twice, with two inconsistent meanings! One has reduce completely to the concept of 'space' and the other is retaining the usual temporal meaning of 'time'. This paradox cannot be resolved because we must define 'movement' or 'travel' or 'change' in general using the temporal meaning of 'time'. Or in different words, 'change' is a concept that demands the 'temporal time' to make sense. But 'time travel' demands the 'spatial time', and yet 'time travel' itelf has to be a kind of 'change'!!

John: 5:4 "4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. "

Whenever you see miracles described in ancient times, such as those in the bible, it is good to pay attention to every details because therein might lie the secret science behind. Normally people fix themselves into two camps. One is those who just deny it all and conclude that they must be myths. The other is to accept it all and say 'it is beyond understanding'. Whichever way, there is no reason to think about it! But by so doing, we lose the opportunity to learn science that ancient people might have happened upon but gotten forgotten ! We will close exermine some details of what is said to have happened during healing miracles such as those in Bethesda.

Now if God can heal by just waving a majic wand and uttering 'be heald', what is the purpose of the specific instructions? Why wet a sick person if the healing is just due to the 'everything is possible' type explanations? Why should Jesus take the trouble of forming some mud, smearing the eyes and telling the person to go and wash the eyes? Why not just command the 'healing' to take place? Why should Elisha ask someone to go and immerse himself 7 times in water to get heald? Why ask the people to throw a stick on water to float the axe? Why should Joshua tell the Israelites to match around the city and then blow the trumpets? Could it be that it is some science. Sure, they are invoking 'cause and effect', not just 'miracles' in the sense of 'everything is possible'. It is more like a doctor giving some therapy instructions that the patient may not understand why they work.

In reiki, it is said that there is an all pervading fluid that can flow through the body. To give a chance of being correct, we must wrestle this story off the 'new ager's' type (non) explanations such as those that renders only 'gurus' able to ascertain the reality of such. The 'chi' must be able to interact with the seen matter, and especially water, as water is essential component in the living body and is paramount to health. Therefore if a kin physicist stands by to watch while reiki is taking place, he should be able to see something strange, just like one could, if he stood near Bethesda. Certainly, this cannot be an 'only the guru can discern', entirely subjective non- event.

Chi might attach itself to water in order to be able to interact with the visible body. Normally, the chi may not interact with the visible matter. So it has the ability to 'engage and disengage' itself off the matter. For the 'reiki' to take place then, it is good to find chi when it is in the 'engaged' state. This explains the need for the water to get stired first by the 'Angel' (which may be the chi). The 'stiring' indicates that the chi is in an 'engaged' state at around that area. In other words, there is a place where in the chi there can interact with water and so reiki can take place there since chi must be able to interact with the seen matter, especially the water' for it to perform the 'healing'.

Whenever scientists want to dismiss a claim about nature, they insist on a 'what must happen' if that claim is true. This thing that 'must happen' is often a stupid thing that cannot happen. Then they do an experiment to test whether this stupid thing 'happens', which, of course will return null! Then the conclude that the original claim is falsified! They do the opposite when they want to affirm a claim! They test 'predictions' that actually donnot necessarily follow from the theory, or sometimes those that don't follow at all! I will illustrate this using the famous Michelson Morley Experiment that is said to have disproved Luminiferous Aether.

Now understand that luminiferous aether is like water. Light wave will be like water waves but in the luminiferous aether.

Premise: if luminiferous aether exists, then one should be able to measure the speed of light that varies depending on your speed relative to aether, even if you carried out the experiment in the underground! By this premise alone, you should be able to conclude that either the physicist is disingenuous or does not understand a very preliminary fact about waves or both!

Fact 1:
If a wave passes through a barrier, then the medium undulation in which constitute the wave must also pass through the barrier.

Fact 2: If a wave cannot pass through a barrier, then neither can the medium undulations in which constitute the wave can pass.

These two simple facts are those those that the bozos who were experimenting about aether seems not to have understood! To understand it, begine this way: consider water in a basin, or any other water tight container. Can there be a water wave outside that container? Or I may ask: can the wave penetrate through the container if the water itself cannot? Of course the answer is a no! But more accurately, a small wave will escape the wall as a sound wave, but much of the energy will remain within the container. The wave is something done by the water itself, not something that somehow exists on its own, like a ghost that somehow incarnates in the water. It is this latter thinking that bars physicist from understanding our universe!

Now get to the next step. If you carry the container, can you 'leave behind' the wave while taking the water? Of course no, for the reasons similar to those above. At no point can the container fails to 'carry the wave' if it carries the water. Finaly, now immerse the container in an ocean and ask the same questions. You find that it makes no difference. Yes, there will be a small wave that escapes the walls of the container but much of the wave inside the container will remain in the container, bouncing back and forth. At no point can waves simply ease through the walls as if the wall doesn't exist.

Now lets twist the reasoning a bit. Can a wave fail to cross a barrier and yet the medium passes through it? Note that this requires even more magics! What is it that can stop sound from passing through a wall without stopping the air itself? To allow the air, the 'wall' must be a 'sieve' of some sort. But the holes through which the water escapes across the barrier will, of course also allow the sound to pass through simply because the sound is the undulation of the air and will do so even as the air passes through the wall.

So we arrive at the conclusion that at no point can an opaque object (which doesn't allow ligh to pass through) can somehow allow aether to pass through. There is simply no way of 'stopping the wave' without 'stopping the medium'. It is harder to stop a sound from passing across a given region than to stop the air itself! Try it, and you will see it!

These arguments summary exposes physicists in question as incompetent and thus incapable of carrying out the experiment to determine the existence of aether! So their conclusion is null and void. Their conclusions are a simple results of failure to understand waves!

There is a problem in defining something you believe in in a negative way such as 'not explicable by science', 'indescribable', 'non-physical' etc. If you do that, you are prone to be frustrated. The 'inexplicable by science' does not tell us what the phenomenon actually is. It relies on what is going on at the other side of the camp, not on the side that believes in the phenomena it is categorizing as 'miracles'. It says: 'you want to know what miracles are? Then donnot ask us, watch what the sceptics at the other side of the campus are doing'. Specifically, waite until they surrender attempt to explain them when they do that, guess what? That is a 'miracle'! Of course you will be frustrated if you try to find a 'miracle' this way!

Those who say 'miracles are inexplicable by science' donnot understand 'scientific explanation'. Specifically, they don't understand how agile the 'explanations' are, and the fact that such explanations doesn't have to be ultimate true! Anything that can be observed happening can be explained by science. Here I am going to illustrate it using some bible 'miracles'.

Elisha Knowing: 2 kings 6:12:

“None of us, my lord the king,” said one of his officers, “but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the very words you speak in your bedroom.”

In modern times, what would we say if someone seems to know what you speak in bedroom? Of course we will just suspect that there is an hidden microphone somewhere, say under the bed! It is a simple as that! In ancient times, no one could imagine how someone can hear someone at a distance. So what is 'explicable' or 'inexplicable' depends on time and the amount of knowledge. The 'inexplicable by science' definition is one that becomes the more irrelevant the more scientific knowledge advance! We need an opposite notion, one that becomes more relevant the more we know and understand the world. Notice that the 'scientific explanation' doesn't have to be ultimately correct (in fact this turns out to be the power of science)! Well, perharps something else entirely is causing Elisha to know what is spocken in secret. But perhaps light is also something else entirely and not a 'wave' nor 'particle'.

Jesus Enters A Room With Doors Shut!

This is a no-brainer to a modern physicist. In fact there are many ways of explaining this. I will consider only two of them. One is to say that Jesus first 'went into another dimension'. If you are inside a closed house, the house is not necessarily closed along the 'fourth dimension' and other 'dimensions'. But I don't like this explanation as it can now make a 'new ager' to redefine 'miracle' in yet another negative way e.g. 'not visualiseable by the mind'. The other is to simply say that Jesus's body went through the subatomic holes in the wall. We have come to understand that objects are not single, impenetrable bricks. They prevent other objects from moving by forces of nature. The 'forces' seems totally 'immaterial' but they act like objects in a way that is not difficult to understand. The point is that the forces may or may not interact with objects. A glass does not interact with a magnet (at least in the macroscopic scale). So it moves near a magnet as if there is no magnet there. If you place a piece of iron beneath the glass and place a magnet on top of it, the magnet can drag the iron as if the glass is not there! Such is how a body can move through a wall, as if the wall is not there!

But Why Should We Explain 'Miracles'?

There is zero benefit in saying 'hail, this is inexplicable'. Yet such 'surrender to ignorance' has been idolized in 'new age' as if it has some deep spiritual benefit. It has non! Nature is amenable to various explanation. Nature works the same way even in apparently two totally different phenomena. Lets for instance close exermine light and sound. A sound attenuates by obeying the 'inverse square law' in a way that is easy to understand. So one can suppose that light too attenuates that way. Guess what, he is correct! So showing that a phenomenon, e.g. vibrating an object in remort can be mimicked by sound waves shows that such 'remort controlling' of the object is possible even if there are no sound waves in this case! In other words, modelling a phenomenon using sound helps us know of or understand something about the phenomenon even if the phenomenon actually happens through light and not through sound at all!

In our case, lets say a phenomenon is caused by something else that you want to call it 'a true miracle'. This 'true miracle' will be analogous to light. But now a 'scientific explanation' is analogous to sound. The phenomenon is 'vibrating an electron'. So if light vibrates the electron from remort, it will be 'a miracle', according to this line of thinking. Here we presume scientists are not aware of light. They only know of sound. However, showing that a sound can vibrate something from remort will show that the 'miracle' is possible!! In nature, it realy doesn't matter what phenomenon actually causes another phenomenon. Physics works the same way in all the forms of energy. What is not forbiden for light to do, in some way, it is not forbidden for sound to do, it also. So if our task were to merely show that a phenomenon is possible, then we can use anything in nature to mimic the causes of the phenomenon and our mission will be accomplished!

Next, it can help us discover more! James Clerk Maxwell and many other 19nth century physicists were fond of thinking that magnetic force is mediated by a water-like fluid. At some point, they reasoned that if water can create waves, then this other mysterious 'fluid' mediating the magnetic force might mediate waves as well. So they discovered electromagnetic waves. Again the key point is that the whatever mediating the magnetic force needs not be actually the 'water'! We are able to go way round the need to know the exact cause of magnetism because nature works the same way in all medias and in all forces. Therefore the knowledge we gain from studying one aspect of nature is useful in shedding some light in another aspect of nature. Yes even the knowledge we gain from studying the seen is useful in unlocking the secrets of the unseen!

We should form an habit of explaining miracles. We should stop fixing a lot of weight on the cause of a phenomenon and zero in more on the phenomenon itself. Then brainstorm the various ways nature can create the phenomenon. In 'new age' what cause a phenomenon seems to be more important than the phenomenon itself. This is erroneous! In the case of Elisha, the most important thing is the aquiring of knowledge, not the exact manner in which the information got into the mind of Elisha. Same applies to Jesus. All he wanted to do was to cross the wall. He would care much less of the acrobatics that went on to bring about the effect. The 'inexplicable by science' is only good as a reminder not to dismiss a possibility of a phenomenon just because you don't understand how it may happen. We don't need to insist that 'this phenomenon is not explicable by science' if someone is not trying to use the 'inexplicability by science' as a premise to deny the possibility of the phenomenon. To do so will be to make 'explicability' or 'inexplicability' the thing we are after rather than the phenomenon! This is foolish! It is like a dog so much salivating after a bell to the point that he begines to go after the bells instead of food! Yes, it nolonger want food. It just want the bell!! So goes new agers going after 'black holes', 'other dimensions' etc. They just got after anything 'inexplicable' even if there is nothing that comes after it! It is like graving for a bell that does not mean there is any food after!!

I saw an object that no one can Identify. Therefore it must be an ET spaceship!

It is easy to see that the above argument is fallacious. Yet people have often waged a battle on whether or not there are 'UFOs'. An ET sceptic, for instance, spends too much time debunked UFO photographs. You see, this Meier's photograph is just an optical illusion. It is, as if debunking the ET hypothesis reduces to showing that there is no real UFOs. But, of course, you know what would happen in case it becomes clear there are UFOs out there. They shift the battleground to the issue of whether or not the objects are realy the ET spaceships. Common sense should tell you that a sceptic should not have spent too much time debunked UFOs if such objects, if real, doesn't prove anything. In other words, if unknown objects up there doesn't prove anything pertaining to ETs, then it is not worth the hype.

At the other side of the coin, the ET proponents spends a lot of time showing people photographs and videos of strange objects up there as if this is all what it takes to prove that ETs are here! You see, there is an object there that seems to defy known laws of physics, there is an object with strange shape up there, even trained pilots or soldiers cannot identify it, and other yada yada. What do existence of such objects prove, apart from proving that we are ignorant of our sky?

We cannot rely on ignorance to give a positive proof! We cannot say 'scientists cannot explain such, therefore it is the acts of ghosts'. We must give a positive evidence, and not point to a lack of one, at the other, often sceptical camp. In the case of UFOs, (and other cases), it is ridiculous that people begun to engage in debates on whether or not there is evidence for ETs before they could articulate what it means to 'have an evidence of ETs' in the first place! Do some strange crop patterns prove that there are ETs? Does our failure to explain how a phenomenon was done on earth prove that ETs did it? Do dreams personal contacts prove that we are being contacted by ETs, or perhaps they are angels, gods, demons, or worse, just hallucinations? What is it that, a prior, constitute 'a prove that ETs are here'?

If you are in Arabia, and wake up one day and saw a stranger walking around in a strange vehicle, you cannot say 'this person must have come from outside Arabia'. You cannot tell where someone is comming from from how they look! You must, in some way, show the evidence that the person was at place x, outside Arabia, at one time, and now he is in Arabia. You must, for instance, show the photograph of the person in Egypt and then give it as the evidence that 'this person is a visitor from Egypt'. Otherwise you will just be making unsubstantiated assumptions about 'what type of people or things must they not be originating from Arabia'. You are blurring, for instance, what may as well be a discovery of 'unknown people native to Arabia'.

What is it about a saucer, that an object looking like that in the sky must originate from other planets? Before we can answer this question, a photograph or even direct experience of such an object in the sky does not prove anything about ETs! What is it unearthly about forming strange pattern on crops? How about being contacted by strange beings? How do you prove, for instance that some demons are not lieing to you that they come from stars? Perhaps they are invisible beings that dwells solely on earth and they know nothing about other stars. Of course people have expanded 'ET' concept to include what looks like the 'angels' or the 'demons' etc in the traditional religions. So what was the point of abandoning these religions? Of course in the bible, etc, the angels can go up there 'far beyond the stars' to 'where God is'. So if we ascribe 'magical' properties to ETs then we are winding up with the same old claims. So what is the difference between an ET and an angel? The only difference should be that the former is a 'physical' being in a physical planet that moves around using the technology they made rather than invorking 'the power of gods'. Granted, the technology may seem to be completely like a miracle. But the difference should be that the ETs worked with the technology using the knowledge they gained about the universe. An angel don't need to understand physics. He only needs a 'command of Yahweh' or someone like that.

So this lands us to one of the real 'evidences of ETs':

a)demonstrate the small scale version of the physics they use.

Long before people could go to moon, people could demonstrate the physics at work. People could shoot objects up, be it even over one meter high. So it remains to imagine that such a process, when 'scaled up' may eventually land man to moon. People could imagine such mileniums ago! So claiming that 'our technology is too limited' is not an excuse for not trying to figure out how an ET might fly. A demonstration of physics that can take someone to stars in split seconds will be a powefull evidence that ETs must be visiting us. It is the case that if there is a possible means of doing something, someone have probably already found out an actual way of doing it, and in the case of such a huge universe like ours, the probability uproaches certainity. Yes even in milky way alone. But if there is no such a means, the the multitudes of planets in the universe serve nothing to increase such a probability. It will be like adding a large number of zeroes with the hope of obtaining 1.

But perhaps you need a clue of how we can 'know' how to get to stars without being able to do it. It may be the case that we need to something as huge as a Dyson sphere to create 'portals' capable of taking people to stars. Such 'portals' may be demonstrated in small scales or in ways too dangerous. An example may be the fusion research. Of course scientists believe that an actual, controlled fusion plant is possible, even though we may not build one in centuries! A scientist will not have a hard time believing that some ETs might have already built a fusion power plant.

b)Demonstrate astronomical knowledge

Think carefully. If someone is in regular contact with ETs, we expect them to be an amazing fountain of knowledge about the universe. An ET from stars will of course have easily visted planets within solar system. Such a 'cosmic tourist' will have tremendous knowledge about the universe that he can share it with any vontactee. He could tell us of Comet Ison way before any scientist could detect! He could check if there is ort cloud etc. There is no reason why an ET should lecture us volumes of things about things on our own planet eg politics, how to go about our day to day life etc, in so called 'channeled messages', but tells us nothing about their own homes and other things that we cannot otherwise know. We don't need an ET to tell us 'love your neighbour'. We have more than enough humans to do that!

There is an interesting case involving the Dogon tribe, where they show some knowledge of the cosmos that is hard to explain how they obtain them. This is a good example I know of, but is still not 'predictive' enough. It is 'postdictive'. A predictive, Dogon-like knowledge of the universe, amongst the alleged ET contactees will be an evidence of reality of ETs worth millions of UFO photographs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Wrote Deutoronomy, Judges, Samwell and Kings?

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

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

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

Stability 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where:

fi=forces 

μ=permeability 

I1=current in one conductor

I2=current in the other conductor.

r=distance between the conductors

l=the length through which the current has passed.

In our case, we have where

dq=change in charge

dt=change in time.

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

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

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

where:

ε=permitivity

then where Fc=the centrifugal foce So we have

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

Now, when the charge is not moving, the centrifugal force, fc must ballance the electrostatic force. So

Fc=the centrifugal force when the atom is not moving, and

Fq=the centrifugal force then the atom is moving.

But the centrifugal corce is given by:

fc=mu^2/r

where:

m=mass of the charged particle 

u=the rotational speed of the particle.

So the results is:

where u'=the rotational speed of the particle when the atom is not moving. This is the formular for 'time dillation'. And so we see that indead for the centrifugal force to balance the Lorentz's Force, the movement of the electron must reduce by the same amount as 'time dillation'!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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