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

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

Existance And Proof

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

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

Advantage Of Solid 'Prana'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) wrong aim 

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

2.) Not understanding the nature of the problem 

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

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

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

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

3.)Setting unrealistic goals

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

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

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

4.)Incorrect estimation 

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

 5.)Spiritual indifference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which when you zoom it looks like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A=q^2/hc

q=charge of an electron

h=planck's Constant

c=speed of light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conscious Observation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israelis Are Anti-Semite!

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

Jews Are Not Yahweh's People

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

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

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

Palestinians Are Hebrews 

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

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

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

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

British Folly 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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