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

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

ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCES

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

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

I AM HOLLIER THAN YOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRYSTALS

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

MICROTUBULE NETWORK AND QUANTUM MIND

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

The Horse:  How might we ever obtain abundant energy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Better Explanation

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

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

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

The horse: Animals have a right to live

The lion: Yep.

The horse: Therefore we should never kill them.

The lion: Nope!

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

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

Animals have the same rights as humans

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

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

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

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

Overpopulation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apartheid 

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

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

 livestock prefers man

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

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

'First Law' Of Jurisprudence 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sending Information Problem 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lion: We are already there!

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how to test a 'quantum fanatic'. Tell him to volunteer in a 'schrodinger cat' type experiment. Isn't he saying quantum is cool? So why don't he get to the box and experience how cool it is to be 'both alife and dead'! Suggest this and all the quantum gawkers, including Heisenberg himself, flee through the window! Then you will know that they realy don't believe what they believe they believe! The above imaginary, ridiculous experiment is called 'quantum suicide' and the state of the schrodinger cat, understood as 'both alife and dead' in some way is called 'quantum immortality'. 

But this idea of 'quantum immorality' can be developed into a full blown, serious scientific theory of life after death! The workings of nature that enables immortality is able to be seen in our realm at the subatomic level just like the way you cannot see water in a tank but you may see drops sipping out of tiny cracks. 

But I don't want to be like new agers who carelessly throw in quantum theory as a wrong 'tree in the forest' theory and fail to even slightly address the difficulties in applying quantum mechanics in a macroscopic object. Apparently, this wrong notion, they read from bozos, is all they know about QM. So donnot mistake me with this other ignorant group of quantum flapdoodles that I don't want to be associated with. First, I don't modify QM without saying so. I am not foolish enough to credit my own work to quantum scientist who have never realy said such. I donnot target people who want to believe in something just because a gang of big names like Heisenberg, Dirac etc believed.

So as I theorise 'spiritual science', I at the same time criticize quantum scientists for failing to understand the subatomic world, an understanding which would have brought them to spirituality. Instead, they adopted the 'god does it in ways that no human can understand' type mystifications. Like new agers, they worship confusion! The only reason a new ager is attracted to a quantum guy is because unlike a Newt, he seeks no understanding. The 'hail, it is beyond understanding' is the bone they chase, even if they were told that they will be the neighbours of the devil in 

Is the schrodinger cat realy both dead and alife, or 'nether dead nor alife'?  Rather than dishing out a whopper that you yourself don't understand, and claiming 'it is beyond understanding', why not leave it open ended? I mean is something 'beyond understanding' just because Feynman, Einstein, Bohr etc failed to understand? How did science turn to a hero worship that is worse than 'messianism'?

The most logical conclusion is that quantum particle switches their states very rapidly. It is not 'beyond understanding'. It is very easy to understand! If you watch the TV, you will think that all the portions of the image appears all at once. You ar wrong!! Infact your TV screen is caused by a dot of light that is quickly scanning through all the screen, adjusting its colour and brightness in the process, thereby creating all the images. Each pixel image is displayed one at a time, but when they are rapidly displayed one after the other, they appear as though all the pixels are appearing all at once. So what you see on a TV screen is a dot that seems omnipresent, just like a quantum particle! So the claim that QM world has no analogy in classic world is wrong, and it is wrong in several levels. QM guys are just arrogant and ignorant. Instead of saying they have no clue of how to illustrate the events in subatomic world, they just say 'there is no way' as if they have already gone through all possible ideas in the whole universe!

The TV case can confuse almost everyone and yet it scan only 24 times per second! Now there is no known instrument that can resolve something that is scanning the screen at a rate of 2x10^37 times a second!! Can you even imagine how to determine? It this mere scanning is what is going on in subatomic world, how will a stupid quantum gawker rule this out? What happened to science as a tool more for ruling out possible alternatives than constructing a belief system?? 

Now in the case of schrodinger cat, the cat could have to die and resurrect at a rate of 2x10^37 times a second before an 'observation' gets it in one state and freeze it there! Of course no eye or instrument can see the cat dying and resurrecting at this rate! So we opt to say 'the cat is both dead and alife all at once'.

However, another thing called 'quantum decoherence' prevents a macroscopic cat from having all its particles behave like a huge quantum particle. But quantum decoherence does not destroy the wave completely. For instance, quantum decoherence can make a wave into a soliton, or wave-packet. The amplitudue is too low in some areas, that we can's see the 'particle' there. But when thinking of such states as 'death and alife', be sure to understand the wave in question. A quantum math-physicist can understand this wave analogically so that it has only two states. Normaly wave has infinite states, each state corresponding to possible location of the particle. But we don't need to think in terms of thus binary state if we understand the 'death' and 'life' state as to differ in mere locaton, momentum, spin and energy of the entire configuration of particles forming the cat. It is here that we easily see that the question of cat's immortality reduces to the question of what happens during quantum decoherence.

A crucial question that will lead you to understand quantum immortality is: what does it happen when there is a very low probability of finding a quantum system in a given state? For intance, if the probability of finding a paricle at the other side of the wall is extremely low, what will we see if we place our detector at that other side? Well, if we were dealing with a single particle, we will find out that it becomes very rare to detect a particle there ( but the particle does not disappear forever). However, if we are dealing with zillions of particles, the particles will cross to that othet side at random so that it isn't a surprise that every time you put your detector there, you will find some few particles there. In other words, a 'very low probability' translates into 'a very low density'. So when we say that the cat underwent quantum decoherence, we mean that its amplitude for a certain state is greatly reduced so that we don't see a cat in the other side of quantum superposition. But as we have seen, this amplitude is reduced, but it doent dissappear. Furthermore this reduction of amplitude translates into a density reducion. This means that there will always be an extreemly less dense body that behaves like a quantum particle! But this body can be understood as 'the spirit of the cat'! Being less dense and immortal, it fits all the criteria for 'spirit'!

THE HORSE: So curiosity killed the cat!

THE LION: But satisfaction resurrected it!

HORSE: I now believe that the cat has nine lives ☺

Of all the experiments that attempts to prove quantum mechanics, the delayed choice quantum eraser takes the beer being the most amazing! I am bringing this here because again I hear people saying that quantum mechanics teaches that when we believe in something, it comes into existence! (Why the hell do people want to believe in a bubble gas of a universe). But here I will show you the prototype of Quantum experiments. You will see that there is nothing like 'observer'!  Quantum bozo, totaly bamboozled by light, kill his hours gawking at criss-crossing rays that he doesnt understand! Quantum physicist is an hat swapping shell gamer you won't want to listen to, especially if you don't know science and/ or maths.

It borders on being a stage magician to say 'observer' when you mean 'preparation for observation'. Essentially you have swapped the hat and then pulled out the rabbit! This is essentially what the quantum guys are doing here, and in all the other experiments! There is no observer here, any more than an observer is there in any experiment. What alters the experimental outcome is an arrangement that facilitates observation, not the observer! But this is the case in all experiments!! If I place a telescope on my eye, I also block the light on the path to the ground. In this sense there is nothing new quantum magicians have discovered! But the quantum eraser experiment is still amazing, but for different reasons other than those peddled by quantum 'magicians'.

Now lets see clearly what is happening. Quantum Eraser Experiment is designed so that there is a detector that detects only the ray that passed through one slit,D4, and another one that detects only the ray that passed through the other slit, D3. Then there are two other detectors, D1 and D2 that both detects a mixture of rays that passed through both slits. That is D3 and D4, each detects a single ray and D2 and D4, each detects 2 rays. So seeing detecter D4 will tell you that light is definitely comming from the top slit, and seeng D3 will tell you that light is definitely comming from the 'bottom' slit. However when you see D1 and D2, you won't tell whether the light is comming from the top slit or from the bottom one for light from both slits is bent to pass through them.

So it is not a conscious observer seeing through the detectors that alters the experiment. It is not a confused observer at D1 and D2 that causes interference pattern at D0. Rather, it is the presence of rays that can confuse the observer that does that. To farther highlight that it is not even the detection of the light at D3 and D4 is the fact that the signal to these detectors is delayed (hence the name). That is before light reaches D3 or D4, interference pattern has already formed at D0! So ironically, this experiment actually spectacularly refutes QM in that it shows it is not measurement that causes interference pattern to disappear at D0. These two, measurement and interferance pattern, are merely corelated with each other. Instead of learning this obvious lesson from the experiment, quantum lunatics pulled out yet another insane, unfalsifiable, obvious rubbish: that the measurements at detectors affects the past!!! As you can see, the experiment actually shows nothing of the sort! The 'backwards causality' is a stupid ad hoc to save an already silly idea that would be easier and better to just discard it!! 

Observation does not cause a 'collapse', because a collapse can happen before observation. Instead of making this sound inference, a 'signal back in time' is proposed to make their claims effectively unfalsifiable! When thinking is not right, no experiments are of any value!

The horse: When somebody dies, can he still resurrect? 

The lion: That is a wrong question! Ask can something change  back to how it was before?

Quantum eraser is a type of resurrection! Interferance pattern 'dies' when we try to 'observe' which slit a wavicle went through. Then it 'resurects' when we nolonger know about which slit the particle/ wave went through! We saw in the last blog that resurrection is just about 'memory'. If particles or molecules can remember their previous states, then nothing can prevent the body, made from such particles, to resurect. This is because resurrection is just a return of the body to its previous state. So in general, 'resurrection' is a full return to previous state.

Quantum eraser experiment (QEE)is truely amazing, even when we dont explain it using quantum theory. Then, of course 'delayed choice quantum eraser' is more amazing than even resurrection! In QEE, a photon is passed through the double slit. Then we attempt to measure which slit it went through by first letting the photon through one slit get polarized in one way and letting the one through the other slit get polarized in the opposite way. Then we can infere where the photon came from by measuring its polarization. Then the inteferance disappears, since we can measure which way the photon went through. But then if, after polarizing the photons that way, we again polarize them such that we can nolonger tell which photon is which? Then the appearance pattern reappears!

Forget about quantum's 'god does it in ways that no human can understand' no-answere-answer. The above phenomenon is very easy to understand. It is easier than quantum bozos think and yet it is also more profound tgan they think: it infers the pissibility of resurrection! This also serves to show that mystifications and beleiving that 'nature cannot be understood' does not mean you understand such concepts as God, resurrection etc as 'new agers' tends to insunuate. It just means that you are mystified, nothing else. Your hope is in a lack of understanding. You are in to blissful ignorance! Whenever light in both slits are polarized differently, then they can't form interference pattern simply because the waves that are 'facing different directions' cancels themselves in what can be termed as 'decoherence'. So the fact that differential polarization means ability to measure which way the photon went through is just incidental.

Note also that some facts about QEE can be known by doing some simple experiments using the polarizing films found in liquid crystal screens eg those in a digital watch or a calculator. You will find that light through a polarizing film gets dimmer. Then the more you place polarizing films on each other, especialy if they are not exactly parallel, the dimmer it gets. In the language of QM, 'the number of photons get reduced'. This means that the explanation of QEE is very simple. The placement of a 'diagonal' polarizing film infront of a slit bocks some of the vertically polarized photons but not all of them. It is normally the vertically polarized photons that forms interferance pattern. This means that the light that forms intefeance pattern is now dimmer. But since the diagonaly polarized photons, which doesn't form interference pattern, are not similay reduced, the resulting light, which doesn't form interference pattern, overwhelms the light that forms interference pattern. So it is much like when sun rises, the stars seems to disappear. If we are shocked when the stars reappears afer the sun set, then it can only be because we erroneously thought that the stars actually disappears after the sun rise! This is how quantum gawkers tends to think. When they don't see something, 'it is because it is not there'. They are like male sheeps fighting on the summit. That is why they don't understand anything!

Now lets come to resurrection. As we have seen, the wave nature of anything never actually disappear (or otherwise there is no sensible way it would ever return if we were to 'erase the information that we gotten via observation'. Essentially the classic world comes about when we 'observe' the quantum world. However QEE shows us the quantum world can reemerge if we 'forget what we observed'! So the quantum world had really never gone anywhere in the first place. It had just hide! So if nature can fail to erase caleidoscope if information, that forms the entire world in what seems to be a total destruction, what makes us think that the information pertaining to where the body molecules are are ever destroyed when we die? If they are not destroyed, why do we think resurrection is difficult? When we die, what happens is something like the dimming of stars when the sun rises. That is to say not every particle that forms our body dies. What is left intact is a less denser body which cannot be seen because the denser body overwhelms the other body like the sun does to stars.

The horse: So I can see that trying to understand nature can lead us to spirituality, while just saying: 'it is beyond understanding' does not necessarily lead us so, like it doesn't, quantum 'mysticists'.

The lion: Yep, and this is in contrast to how new agers teaches!

What a spirit can do, matter can do. In the past, when people wanted to  believe in some 'magical' phenomenon, they first postulated that there exist something called 'spirit' that simply does it 'in ways that no man can understand'. 'Spirit' is an 'explain-it-all, God-between-the-gaps' joker card. But this mindset has to change! Rather than (non)thinking of s 'spirit' to do it in ways you can't understand, brainstorm some form of matter state that can do similar thing! I use to think that there is no known and seen matter that can even remortly mimick such 'magics' as resurrection etc. So I only posited some unseen type of matter. But I was totally mistaken! There is a form of matter that can do all it takes for something once alife but now dead to resurect! It is called 'nitinol'!

If you hammer a nitinol metal into a face, then hold the shape in place and heat it to a high temperature, then cool it. Then guess what? You have created something that has some immortality! Now destroy the thing you have made by  crunch the nitinol to something shapeless  . So you may now think you have killed the original structure completely and there is no hope of ever attaining it except to painstakingly recreate it. But you are totally mistaken! All you need to do is deep it in hot water and voila! It returns to the original complex shape!! Now this is 'magic'! By this amazing behaviour nitinol illustrates several things I have been struggling to say in a single sweep! One of them is the meaninglessness of concepts such as 'magic'. If we ever see magic happening, it there and then cease being 'magic'! We humans confuse 'habit' with 'understanding', that is why we posit 'spirits' to do what matter 'cannot do'. We see matter in day to day and we confuse thus habitual perception with 'understanding'!

But now if 'dead molecules' can, at least in principle, remember where they were and return exactly to that place, isn't this all it takes for a corpse to resurrect! Sure, it is all it takes! Thus nitinol proves that matter is capable of immortality! Specifically, rather than thinking of a 'soul' (i.e. something 'beyond understanding'), just think of a type of matter that can resiliently snap back to its original form given the right condition, and we arive at theory of resurrection and immortality that is capable of being illustrated and thus easier to believe!

Remember that the original idea of immortality, such as in the bible, was thought to be via resurrection. To the bible, matter was transmutable into something that looks totally different, and that such will happen during resurection. But then somewhere human amused himself that he now understand matter and that according to the 'understanding', matter is inert and incapable of such fleats! But modern knowledge have shown in several case that this is not the case! So we need to go back to the idea of imortality with matter, i.e. not necesarily via a soul. 

Remember my definition for 'spirit' is just 'the unseen'. I don't pressume we know well what is in the seen matter that we may exclude it as we define 'non physical'. Then I emphasize that the word 'physical' is a misnomer and we should stop using it. My 'spirit' will look like 'physical' because in physics we call 'physical' anything that does affect the seen things in any way. So the dichotomy was actually between 'physical' vs the 'mathematical'. Naive people in the 'spiritual' camp hijacked the dichotomy as a way to justify spirit by terming it 'non-physical'. This phrase stems from imence ignorance of physics. Why not just stick to saying 'spirit is something we don't see and we don't understand well what it is', instead of packaging the ignorance in a knowledge-like envelope dubbed 'non-physical '? With this removal of cobwebs in the eyes, you are now ready to understand the spirit in space!

The apparent success of the 'physicality' chameleon stems purely from its ability to call anything it want 'physical'. If you insist that anything that can affect matter is physical, by definition, then the further claim 'everything is physical' (i.e. physicality) is redundant. But how can everything that can affect matter fail ti be 'physical' if by so doing, a physicist will automatically notice it in the lab? If a physicist go to siloam in Jerusalem , where the spirit came and stirred the water ( written in the bible), all he will notice is a strange physical phenomena. He might even say 'so Newton's first law of motion is not entirely correct after all ). He will only say 'physicality is stranger than we thought'. He will only expand 'physicality' to cover the new discovery, sweeping under the carpet everything we don't know/understand about the phenomenon!

Spirit And Forces Of Nature

What is the  difference between a 'Moses' moving the red sea water by waving a stick and a magnet moving another magnet? There is no substantial difference! In both case, something we don't know/ see is doing we don't know what to an object, with one object seeming to act on another distant object apparently with no intervening medium! The only difference is that one is in science books and the other is not. Both 'gurus' and physicists operates on the stereotype that if it is in science books, then it cannot be 'the spirit'. This is regardless whether or not anyone understands the phenomenon! We should get out of this jail! If the whatever is emitted by the magnet is the same as the whatever summoned by moses, both in its invisibility and in how it act on matter from remote, we cannot meaningfully call one 'spirit' and call one 'physical'. Our view of the world will be inconsistent! 

But a magnet seen as to have 'a' spirit is perfectly consistent with what ancient men, e.g. Jesus called 'spirit'. One would say it is a spirit that does a very specific event. Ancient men talked of 'the spirit of rain', 'the spirit of war'etc. They never saw spirit as something 'non-physical' in the modern sense of the word 'physical'. Thus they say Elijah was taken to heaven by a strong wind, in one verse, and then say he was taken so by the spirit in another verse. Clearly, they used 'wind' and 'spirit' interchangeably. The wind can be seen as a spirit, depending on how it behaves. They were a step wiser than modern 'gurus' and 'new agers'!

 'Field' is a deification of a concept. Physicist have no understanding of fhe electromagnetic phenomenon! They only have a profound illusion that they have one. Faraday coined the word 'field' because he did not understand magnetism. It was a hallmark of ignorance, not knowledge. Modern physicists have done absolutely nothing to further understand it. They merely deified 'field' into a physical object! This object behaves like an object only when the physicist wishes so. Then holus bolus, it morphs back into a concept that cannot possibly have any physical impact! Consequently physicists can think of the whatever exists in the vicinity of a magnet only in the context of pushing and pulling. But there is nothing existent that can only do a single thing. If I can push, and I am conscious, why can something have an ability to push but no ability to be conscious? Or rather, why is this duality only limited to forces. Why can a visible thing, e.g. a hand, push something and another invisible thing, field, does the same, while alsoinsisting that there is no equivalent when it comes to awareness? It rather seems natural to say similarly, consciousness, like ''pushing' can be done both by the brain and by invisible thing, incongruously called 'field'.

Consciousness Field

If we can talk of 'force field' that somehow pervade everywhere, which can behave like a pushing object, why can't we similarly talk of 'consciousness field' that similarly pervades the whole space that behaves like a conscious brain? Or in other words, if 'force', what usually requires a visible object (e.g. hand ), can happen without a visible  object, (e.g  in magnetic field) why can't consciousness similarly happen without a brain? There is absolutely no reason. Therefore the current scientific tendency to scorn at any idea of consciousness without brain, specifically as if it is illogical is without any philosophical merit! Instead, they operate on the non-sequitur logic that if consciousness is caused by the brain, then there is no invisible soul that can carry on consciousness!

Actually the correct reasoning is the vise versa. If consciousness is caused by the brain, then it is easily extended to the field around. If 'force' is extended even to the unseen, why can't consciousness? You may think that unlike in 'force', consciousness require the field to be solid-like. But you are totally mistaken. Light is a transverse wave, a phenomenon that is normally only possible in solids. So if apparently empty space can behave like a solid for the purposes of mediating transverse waves, why can't it also behave like a solid for the purposes of mediating consciousness, that is if you think that because the brain is a solid, solids are necessary for consciousness?

If 'empty space' can behave like a solid for the purposes of elasticity, then it can also behaves so for the purposes of plasticity. The latter helps us to understand 'disembodied soul'. Infact we model electromagnetic waves the way we model a spring. In the equations that describes a spring, it does so in such a way that the spring seems to have no plasticity. However, we know that all visible, oscillating mediums have some plasticity. This is to say that if you disturb an elastic material, it does not return to its original position in 100%. Elasticity is an unrealistic idealization. But this failure of things fo return to previous positions is the mechanism for all memory. So it is in this way easy to understand memory in space.

In Bruce Lipton's theory of consciousness, it is very easy to understand how consciousness can extend to the space around. According to bruce Lipton, consciousness is caused by the cell membrane potential. So configuration of charges in the neurons causes your identity. Since it is pure charge, then it can easily exend to the 'empty space'.

But we know that surrounding every charged particle, there are charges in the 'empty space' due to what they call 'vacuume polarization'. Infact James clerk Maxwell understood light as an undulation by means of polarization in aether. But when you close exermine what Maxwell called it 'displacement current', it looks perfectly like a neural signal! A neurone signal is a wavelike propagation of membrane pilarization. Iight too is a wavelike propagation of 'vacuum polarization'. So there is a good reason to think that behind light, there is something aware of itself as an actor (perhaps this is the spirit of God), especially if we think of Lipton's idea.

So if there is a cell membrane polirazation, there is a coresponding pilarizatoin in 'vacuum'. This creates a mirror image of the entire brain polarization but in 'vacuum'. This alone, if we go as per Lipton, means that awareness is effectively thus transfered to the 'empty space'. Then from 'vacume plasticity', entities like electrets remain even once the polarizing cells are removed, enabling the awareness to remain permanently in space, away from the body.

Thus we see that it is not too hard to understand a soul, or if you stick to the old version physical-non physical dilema, I should say we don't need a soul at all to understand how consciousness can be in space, any more than we need a 'soul' to understand how a force, energy or a wave can be in space.

When the word 'God' is uttered, you will probably soon hear the word 'proof'. The snake oil peddlers of atheism  have convinced people that existence is an issue of proofs. However nothing is further from truth. Existence of anything is a concept, and we don't prove concepts, we define them. That is why I insists that we don't need to know of existence of God as to be anything more than a Gaussian Surface. Indeed we don't need to know existence of anything as to be more than existence of that surface, if such a knowing even has any meaning at all in the first place.

Gaussian Surface

At some point, physicist seemed to have gotten contented  with describing real phenomenon using things that cannot even possibly be real. It is like a surrender to ignorance. So a description of electrostatic force using the concept of a Gaussian Surface is adequate to them! Gauss's law for magetism states that the total magnetic flux crossing a Gaussian surface is zero. That is to say a 'flux' that does not exist crosses a  closed 'surface' which does not exist. The surface itself encloses 'something' that does not exist! However, the concept of God that I am going to show you is far better than this Gaussian Surface non-entity. It just draws inspiration from it.

Imagine a closed surface of any shape, that fully encloses the earth. Then now imagine that gravity is caused by some fluid that gets sucked from the center of the earth. So this fluid converges to the center of the earth. Since it converges, the closer we get to the earth, the denser the flux gets. The further we move, the lesser the density. Infact it lessens in such a way that the total flux crossing a closed surface is a constant, no matter how large the surface is. That is for a large surface to have a total flux crossing it that is equal to the total flux crossing a smaller surface, the density  (as flux per area)of the former must be lesser. But this is easily captured by the divergence out from the earth,  which reduces the density. Such an imaginary surface that imaginary flux Crosses is called 'Gaussian Surface'.  When I say 'Gaussian God', I mean a god that doesn't have to be any more real than a Gaussian Surface!

Existence Of Anything Is Not Better Than Existence Of  A Gaussian Surface

Contrary to how you may think, existence of anything is just a concept that we formed in order to understand the universe. Many people have the erroneous idea that testing, touching, seeing or smelling a thing proofs that it exists. However, this is not the case. This is like saying that a long necked, spotted animal is a proof of a giraffe! That is it confuses meaning with proof. We simply conceived of 'exist' as to mean 'capable of being experienced'. So seeing a UFO, for instance, merely help us to understand what it means to say 'UFO exists'. It doesn't prove anything. Similarly, we can develop  an understanding of God such that seeing or hearing is unnecessary for us to understand what we mean by 'God Exists'.

Even so our knowledge in physics have helped us to understand that even seeing, testing etc are not direct proofs of existence! In other words a stone is nothing more than a 'Gaussian Surface' that we posited to explain why light bounces off an 'empty space', causing us to see something where we shouldn't! This is because objects are 99.999% empty and thus should be completely transparent were in not for the trick of light! So there is nothing in the surface that we see and call it an 'object', or so will we conclude if we think that 'existence' is more than just the idea that we formed due to the intuitive understandind that nothing can happen without a cause. So once we see an effect, we should immediately conclude that there is an underlying cause regardless whether or not we can see that cause. Otherwise our view of the world will not be consistent as we don't realy see a stone. We see an effect of 'bouncing of light'. But we similarly see the effect of God throughout the universe. Why do we want to see God directly  if, as we have seen, even a stone is never seen directly?

Existence And Explanation 

When we say that a rock exist but a shadow doesn't, we actually want to say that if you see a rock infront of you, it means that we cannot pass through the place. We use the reflection of light to explain the 'knocking' of objects. Then we note that this is all the importance of saying 'the rock exists'. We seem to mean 'it is independent from light'. We think that there is another cause other than the boomeranging of light such as 'knocking other objects'. Had we known that the knocking too is still a bouncing of light (such as particles being waves ), we might have concluded that the rock too is nothing better than a shadow! This is to say that just as shadow is dependent on an object, the rock is dependent on light!

Natural phenomena are ameanable to different explanations. One example is the case where someone explained flotation. He said that the reason you sink is that the water fears your legs. So it escapes from beneath your legs, leaving an empty space beneath which causes you to sink. So he said that if we cover the legs so that the water doesn't see them, then you will float! So they built the first boat and voila! People floated! So this 'ptolemaic explanation' is sirmilar to our explanation of why light bounces off a region by saying that 'an object exist there' and that this implies that if we throw a stone there, it too will bounce back. It is these 'predictions' that makes an hypothesis as good as a true one, even if it isn't, like the above case of 'flotation theory'. It seems that if we posit entity 'A' to explain phenomenon 'a', we can note that 'A' can also explain some other phenomenon, 'b'. Then we predict 'b' and voila, we find that 'b' is also there! This is all while it is actualy phenomenon 'B' that caused 'a' and perharps 'A' does not exist at all! But in all relevant cases, we don't need 'A' or 'B'. We just need 'b', which we came to beleive that  it is possible because we saw 'a', and we thought it was caused by 'A', which we could see that it can cause 'b' as well. In the case of objects, 'a' is light that we see, 'A' is the existent object and 'b' is the bouncing of stone off the 'hypothetical' object. 'B' is the electromagnetic repulsion.

Now come to God. 'a' is the wonderful living things that we see around. 'b' are other things that we need, e.g. those we pray for. The understanding of 'Gaussian God' comes from realizing that the relationship between effects encodes the relationship between their causes, whatever they are. Anything that can cause 'a' can also cause 'b' since the principle at work in causing 'a' is closely the same as tgat one if causing 'b' . We get a glimpse of this 'principle' when we theorize that 'a' is caused by entity 'A' and that 'A' can cause 'b'. So it is like 'A' personifies a general principle that 'B' can also assume it. So we walk around the need to know 100%. Indeed our brains walks around this need and so, for instance it tells us 'a stone exists'

• IMG_20210131_103756.jpgWhy does the earth look like what it looks like? Many people will think that there is no reason.  One reason why they conlude so is that they see no patern in it. They think that  the continents formed randomly due to some series of cosmic accident. But if the earth formation was a no accident, there is realy something cool there, though it may seem spoky to some, or even creepy. Here, I am going to show you some weird pattern which cannot possibly be 'coincidence'

If you reflect the earth map and then rotate it clockwise by 90 degrees, it aproximately maps onto itself. Specifically, there are always two regions that interchanges, and surprisingly looks the same as the ususl earth map!. America interchanges with Antarctica and europe interchanges with Asia, with South Asia interchanging with west Europe. Africa interchanges with itself, with South Africa interchanging with West Africa. North Africa interchanges with East Africa etc. Israel interchanges with Arabia. Australia interchanges with Green land. Indian ocean interchanges with atlantic ocean. Red sea interchanges with Mediterranean Sea. Gilbaltra Strait interchanged with Aden Strait.

You see? Land maps onto an aproximately similar land, sea maps onto a similar sea, ocean maps onto a similar ocean and straits maps onto similar straits etc. Can we use this to understand some of things, eg 'geopolitics strugles'. As an example, two of world biggest religions originated from regions that maps onto themselves. Mecca approximately maps onto Jerusalem!

You probably have heard or read about something. Then somewhere else you are told that it is all a fat lie. This is the characteristics of the world nowadays. We leave at a time where propaganda is nolonger a monopoly by some institutions or prominent people and governments. But what does this do to another attribute that is crucial to a living thing: trust? 

Trust is important to all animals, from cockroaches to elephants, not just humans. We don't always have time or means to prove things directly. Most of the time, we have no way of actually knowing the truth at a personal level. So most of us are created to trust as a default position. That is we regard someone as to be honest until we prove that he is a lier, and never vice versa. A blind person knows that moon and stars exist up there. He also knows that a red dragon donnot similarly exist up there. He knows this through the trust that we all who are privileged to see can never conspire to fool blind people, or withhold some information from them. Similarly, one doesn't have to go to New York to believe that there is no huge mountain adjacent to the city. One simply trust the people who have been there themselves. 

The importance of trust is especially apparent when urgent decisions need to be made. If your neighbour raises an alarm, you quickly get there. You don't have to first prove that your neighbour is actually in danger. Of course you may latter realize that he was just playing some games with you. Similarly when someone issue a warning, e.g. 'dont get out, lock the door, a tornado is coming'. You don't first ask for a proof. It is better to escape an imaginary danger than to fail to escape a real danger.

But we leave in a time, where some people try to teach us that it is always stupid to heed a warning. The most notorious example is COVID 19. The governments measures to attempt to evade a possible danger is overdemonized just because 'there might be no real danger'. I don't see it this way. I see it like jumping up when someone shouts 'a snake'. Of course the snake may not be there at all. But this does not mean you did a crime to your muscles by jumping up, nor does it mean you are stupid or coward. You just had no time for proofs and arguments.

Over the years, people have taken advantage of human ability to trust. Our parents use it to indoctrinate us while we were young. The media, politicians, governments and scientists have abused our trusts. conmen have used it to pick pocket us. Consequently we now leave in a fearful enviroment where distrust abound. Everybody suspect everybody. We don't  trust books, courts, electoral bodies, churches, scientists, banks, schools, media, parents, children. The whole world speaks the native language of the devil, i.e. lies! Love goes through the window when distrust comes through the door, and vise-versa happens when the vise-versa happens! What remains is a dreadful state of fear that can erupt into formidable chaos upon the slightest miscalculation!

But it is a great error to think that post-truth is something perculiar to our era. Maybe you think that it is internet, social media etc that comes up with what you may call 'disinformation'. But you are totally mistaken! Technology did not suddenly change our character in 2000s, making us the sons of the devil. Internet just reveald us to ourselves in a better way. How else did all these historic propaganda came from?  How did we 'know' that the loving God of Israel will burn some people forever in hell? Sure liers were always there. It is only that prio to the information age, typing and publishing something was so devilishly difficult that only a few people were always effectively at the pulpit. It was also then extremely easy to censor, bribe, award prizes etc. This left a few people, around the government with the monopoly of propaganda. They could do that with almost perfect impunity, creating an illusory world for us. In other words internet merely democratized propaganda, thats all!

So how should we go about?  How should we harvest the benefit of trust while dodging the absurdity of disinformation? The devil is in the details. If someone says that he saw a thief in the house and another one says 'lier, there is no thief in the house'. Whom should you trust? That is the nature of the things we read nowadays! Someone says the climate is changing, another one says this is a chinese conspiracy to wreck some economies. Someone says covid is there, another one says this is a conspiracy to create one world government. Someone says there is amble evedince that elections were rigged another one says these are baselesd claims. Someone says the sun is a thermonuclear furnace and another one says it is an electric bulb. Each acuse the other of 'disinformation', 'pseudoscience' 'lies' etc.

But all of these claimers have common denominator. Non of them is showing us why we shoukd trust them and not the other. A scientist is an 'expert' solely via his own made up criteria. 'Trust a scientist because he is an expert'. A scientist is an expert, in turn, because a scientist say so! The whole argument is circular and ridiculous. A gang of people termed 'scientists' are ultimately self proclaimed. They developed during the time when sourcing information was amenable to monopolization. They are 'experts' strictly in their own eyes. They don't trust anyone else and expect everybody to trust them! They should come out and admit their nakedness by admitting they have never proven anything to the public. They have just convinced themselves in their own cocoons.

Scientists are at the forefront at creating distrust and confusions in our society. While they teach 'distrust' and emphasise 'proofs', they nevertheless expect us to trust them! The cut the branch that they are standing on! When they say 'something is proven', they strictly mean 'to them'. They see no need to prove it to the public while they tell us that  they are at liberty to deny even truth provided it is not proven to them. In other words if you see a UFO, they will deny it because they themselves havent seen it. But if they see a corona virus, you are expected to believe it even if you yourself haven't seen it. Who do they think they are? Special human beings? Nonsense! There should be 'public science' and 'private science'. Scientists can't puplicaly proof anything. They teach unprovable hogwash! They teach big bang, wormholes, blackholes, asholed, evolution etc. It is these gibberish science that have helped create distrust in institutions.

Soul: The unseen entity that carry on ones consciousness even after the death of the seen body.

There are other ill-defined, subjectively experienced notions of 'soul' such as 'self' etc that can be divorced from the issue of life after death. But such is not what I am referring to here.

The common reasoning that insist that if our consciousness is caused by the seen body, then we die with the body is actually a non-sequitur logical fallacy. It is like saying that if the fire was caused by petrol then without petrol, then fire is impossible. Yet this fallacy has become the bread and the butter of the argument about afterlife. It seems that all it takes to show there is no afterlife is to show that consciousness is caused by the brain. The score seems very easy! But here, I am going to kick the ball off the penalty area all the way to the midfield, frustrating those who thought they were just about to score!

It seems absurd to say that in astral projection, it is the body itself that moves to the astral world! After all the body don't disappear during the projection. However, when you close exermine the picturesque of astral projection, you find two bodies. One of them is the visible body and the other one foating is the unseen body. Upon the re entry of the unseen body, it effectively disappears into the seen body. The same thing can be achieved if the body litteraly splits into two and then one of them immediately turns into the unseen. The splitting is closely similar to cell division.

But why shouldn't the body simply dusappear? Why should it split first. First of all, it is realy not 'splitting'. It is more like cell division. In cell division, stuffs that are not cell becomes cell. So 'division' is a bit of misnomer. 'Creation' is more acurate. In this model of astar projection, a seen body is getting created out from the seen body. Then the seen body turns into the unseen! This happes in split seconds. So you can now understand that the lone disappearance of body will violate a conservative law of physics. Naively we say 'matter cannot be created or destroyed'. However, we should rather state that the seen matter cannot become unseen without an equal amount of unseen matter becoming seen on the spot! So rapid swapping is perfectly allowed. It is much like when you see a movie, of a static object, you think that you are seeing a single image when in reality you are seeing thaosands of similar images that are swaping very fast.

Pauli Exclusion Principle shows that indead there is such a conservative law. The principle states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. It is a multidimensional generalization of the usual law that 'no two objects can ocvupy the same place'. The concept 'state' generalizes 'location'. A quantum wave of a certain frequency can be seen as a certain quatum state. So this frequency seems 'occupied' in that at a certain location at a certain time, only one fermion can vibrate at that frequency. Should another fermion at tgat place,  try to vibrate at this frequency, it forces the fermion that was already vibrating at the frequency into vibrating at another frequency. So should an unseen matter try to become visible, this forces a visible matter to turn invisible on the spot!

It will come to many as a surprise to learn that  it is possible to explain continuation of life after

death even if the brain is the sole source of consciousness! This decouples the question of whether or not the brain is the sole source of consciousness from the question of whether or not there is life after death. This is usually the bread and the butter of the afterlife argument. But it is doomed to fade away. The idea of 'soul' came when the ignorance of matter abounded, and bankruptcy of ideas was at its climax. No one during the times of Descartes, for instance, had any idea of an hologram.We should not use old arguments to justify something.

But first I must say that over time, the concept 'soul' has come to acquire another meaning other than 'invisible thing that can retain one's consciousness even after the death of the visible body.' It seems that people were desperate to say that our consciousness is caused by 'soul' to the extend that they equates consciousness or 'self' itself to 'soul'. It is not this latter type of 'soul' that I am trying to show that it is no longer necessary. This 'soul' still exist in the idea that I Will show you. Same is true for 'incarnation' walk in etc.We don't do away with all these in the sense that an equivalent of them exists in the holographic immortality.

Death-Life Homeomorphism

Mathematicians say that a cup is the same thing as a torus! It is so because one can mould a cup all the way into a torus without any cuttings. In other words changing a torus into a cup does not change how various portions of it are interconnected. So the concept 'topological similarity' is a similarity due to the similarity in the interconnectedness, caring less about other similarities. 

It is not hard to accept that if consciousness is caused by the brain, then how its neurones are interconnected is what matter, but not the shape of the brain. It is much like a computer which can be made by inteconnecting all its component using flexible wires so that you can twist it, fold it, crunch it, chew it etc without damaging the computer even a little bit. but I will like you to extend these further and thinking of the necessity of maintaining the interconnection between atoms alone, and never caring about maintaining anything else. Then you are about to get the idea of death as a transformation of the body like in the case of transformation of a cup into a torus, i.e. as an homeomorphism of the body and that consciousness is a 'topological invariant'. In simple words the transformation that we call 'death'  does not provide changes to the body that are necessary to erase its consciousness.

Hologram Analogy 

Holograms have remarkable properties. Some give us great insights into the spiritual. Now first think of the fact that you can recreate the entire hologram even using a small piece of the holographic plate. That is to say if you smash the plate into pieces, you don't destroy the image. Literally,  if you 'kill' the plate, you don't 'kill' the image. The image is the 'soul'. You can begine to see how hologram does the equivalent of or even explain 'soul'!

If you see the hologram, especially the transmission type, there is no image there to see! The image is 'dead'. Still if you shine the ordinary, decoherent light to the hologram, it doesn't reconstruct any image at the other end! The image is there relative to the coherence of the light you shine on the hologram. Finaly a 2D hologram has all the information pertaining to a 3d scenario. Literally, 3 dimensions exists inside of 2 dimensions!

Holographic Universe

The crucial feature of an hologram is that there is information pertaining to every portion of the hologram at every other portion. We say the information pertaining to the image is holographic throughout the plate. Now let us come to Quantum Mechanics .QM teaches us that before observation, a particle exists as a wave that is spread throughout the universe!! So at every point in space, there is a crisscross of all waves from all the particles in the universe! The information pertaining to every particle exists everywhere in the universe as if to be holographic! After observation, the waves don't cease to exist. Rather their amplitudes gets very small due to quantum decoherence.

In the brain, it is not hard to accept that what is goung on, ultimately, is one atom affecting the other atoms in the regions nearby. So if the same thing can happen to the same set f atoms forming the brain, even after death, there is no reason to think that death brings ab end to consciousness even if brain is tge sole source of consciousness! But why should we think that the same things as it happened during life cannot go on even after death if all the atoms are still and always 'near' each other in the sence that all their waves permiates everywhere? If a certain pattern of interactions between a set of atoms constituted a certain state of your awareness, then the same set of interactions between the very same set of atoms can still happen because the atoms are effectively 'everywhere' as waves. This is the crux of the idea of 'holographic immortality'.

Of course to fully explain 'holographic immorality' we must add in some few other adjustments to QM. But I am impressed that QM as it is almost explains the 'holographic immorality' entirely! There must be a way in which the wavicles that are spread throughout the universe maintains a notion of spatial configuration of the atoms in the brain but in a 'non local' way. Particles that are near each other in the brain are more 'entangled' with each other. The information pertaining to the degree of entanglements between what waves exists throughout the univers. So if we have 3 particles aligned in the brain, say A,B and C in that order, the wave of A is more entangled with the wave of B than it is wigh the wave of C, throughout the universe. So the information pertaining to the spatial order is encoded in the manner in which waves are entangled. This creats an information pertaining to the 'image' of the brain that is 'holographic' throughout the universe, hence some immortality that is analogous to the invisibility of the hologram even when we break the plates into pieces. In other words, we now have endless copies of 'brains' throughout the universe. Ergo the death if one of them is inconsequential.

Now how about the things that such awareness wilk experience in what will appear like 'living in a world'. The answer is that the mind will use the information gathered throughout the universe and reconstruct a spatial scenario that is a world on its own.

Without a proper address of the issue of the origin of consciousness in the brain. Nobody should be interested with purely subjective issues (except a psychologist or a psychiatrist ),that is to say those that are explicable, for instance, by the 'hallucination' idea. Who is interested with aliens,  'love', 'messages' etc that only exist in some people's heads, whether or not elicited by DMT, marijuana or whatever ? The answer is 'nobody' (except mad people ). Given this simple common sense, it is a surprise that almost no one considers science around these ideas, except those who erect them for the sole purpose of knocking them down,  insisting that they must be hallucinations.

A question that one should ask is that if aliens exists independent of our brains what does DMT do to the brain to reveal those aliens? Then one should go ahead and seek for a detailed atom by atom explanation of the mechanism! Then you will quickly realize that the common idea of 'spirit-matter' dilemma must be wrong! If a kin scientist observes the brain that is under DMT, he should, at some point, observes the brain being actet upon by something that he can't account for! In other words the new age ideas of aliens, channers, souls, spirits etc are actually scientificaly falsifiable! New age claims are more like those by astrologers than those by a Christian. So the non-answer: 'it is beyond science, mind etc' is fatally erroneous!

But what if a scientist does infact observes the brain and discovers that some strange information is comming into the brain. Will he now say, wow! So there are things that are 'beyond science, the mind etc'. The answer is no! Such naive claims comes from ignorance of science. Science is more like a method than a stance. DMT revealed aliens,  observable by studying the brain carefully, will henceforth become a new science. Furthermore, a scientific theory will be offered to explain how DMT reveals the aliens, if such a theory don't exist already. However, it is never a good idea to theorize afterwards in such a complex case, especially if we can theorize before. As you will see, the theory helps the scientist to make a good guess of how to search. 

There are two uses of a neuron. Either a neuron can transmit signals or it can generate them. When it does so, the neurons attached to it cannot necessarily tell the difference. Your visual cortex can't tell the difference between light bounced off a mirror and light comming directly from the object. That is why it 'creats' an image behind the mirror. This necesary 'neuronal relay' shows that the new age idea that we should find the truth only by 'going within' is extremely erroneous. We should completely abandon this baseless belief! We should carry out scientific research to confirm our experiences just like you touch the glass to confirm that the image you see is not comming from behind the glass. Gawking at the image alone and hailing, hey, personal experience, is not enough.

However the wake brain usually tells the difference between a signal generated by the adjacent neuron and a signal transmitted by the neuron. But it may not always tell the difference between a signal received by the neuron from another world and a signal generated by the neuron.This may be because such worlds may be so numerous that the brain will be too 'noisy' if it allows all those signals. Therefore itis quite possible that the brain filters those other signals alongside the 'signals generated by the neurones themselves'. If a stone from the astral world cannot injure you, as it simply penetrate your body, the brain might not have been created to interpret such a stone as real. I think the brain cant tolerate spoky yet harmless scenarios. If you were in the forest, you might be chased all the day by an harmless demon from the astral world, so that by the time the harmfull lion from this world comes, you are already exhausted. However, under DMT, this function of the brain may be adjusted.

But heow does DMT do this? Think of four neurons, AB Cand D. B and C are parallel to each other and they are both connected to A and D. The connection is such that a signal comes from A then it enters both B and C and then enters D from both B and C. However, a signal from another world might enter C. Usually D double check the signal by ensuring that B is firing while C is also firing, befores it transmits the signal So a signal that comes from C alone doesn't get past D very vividly as D recognizes that it is not comming all the way from A. This ensuers that our view of the world, which comes from A, is not distorted by the signals generated by C  C have a tendency to generate strong signals since it is also used for our imaginations.

Enters DMT.  Usually B sends a signal to D by realising the serotonin neurotransmitters. What DMT  it does is to mimic serotonin and binds to receptors in D that usually  comes from B, all while C is releasing its signal to D. This tells D to treat the whatever signal comming from C as to be comming all the way from A. So the brain perceivs the signal from C as to be comming from beyond the brain itself, as desired. So DMT here is indead helping some neirones to correctly interprate the origin of the signals.

This, at first, may make you think that thus our brains deceive us and that an external stuff is correcting a 'natural mistake'. I don't think nature makes mistakes. So I add that when we are dreaming, a similar mechanism takes place and indead our brain is created not to deceive us in telling us 'the message (in the dream ) is not comming from the brain'. So the mechanism for tapping into another world is there. It is only that psychedelic is bringing it to work while you are awake.

You have probably heard t

hat heaven is a higher level of frequency rather than a far away place. So you can reach to heaven by raising your own vibration so that you are at resonance with the heavenly vibration. So we experience a reality that we resonate with. If you vibrate at a low frequency level, you will experience hell etc. All this is good except for the fact that somewhere, the physics of vibrations and resonance went through the window. People turned it into a metaphor for things like 'if you feel love, joy etc, then you experience the heaven within you since love and joy etc are associated with heaven". So the heaven is reduced into a mere sentiment that only a psychologist or even a psychiatrist is interested with!

In the phrase 'higher frequency' many people are more captivated by the word 'higher' than by the word 'frequency'. That was the reason they liked the idea that heaven is up there in the sky. This meant the heaven is a 'higher' place. When we learnt that the earth rotates and that we sometimes face 'downwards', it became clear that 'up' is not any 'higher' than the 'bottomless pit 'down' there. So people invented another place for heaven that retains a notion of 'higher'. Unfortunately this eagerness to have a 'higher' place corrupted the original intent of forming a vibrational idea of heaven.

At first, analogy was drawn from radio or TV receiver. Your TV 'experiences' a station that resonates with it. This is litteral resonance and the 'heaven' vibration too must be litteral. So your TV has its own kind of vibrations that are 'sympathetic' or not to the incoming signal. If the TV was an hologram and we get connected to it like in a virtual reality, you can see that we could almost already create planes of (virtual) realities using this simple TV technology. You move from one to another by simply tunning the the TV. This highlights how easy to understand 'planes of reality' using the idea of frequency levels. Also note that in the TV, a 'good' or 'bad' channel has nothing to do with its places in the bandwidth. 'Higher vibration' does not make Aljazeera good, joyfull or truthful. 'Frequency level' is just like a 'location'. Same was the case in the original idea of heaven as 'another level of vibration'.

DeBroglie Waves

The theosopher went ahead to suggest a realy good idea. Quantum mechanics suggest that particles are actually waves. So the theosopher only added the idea that there are debroglie waves of all manner of frequencies and that the waves we see are of a specific band widht. Hardly does the theosopher moves beyond this before dividing into the subjective, irrelevant world, like a typical new ager. He waves a hand over science and logical underpinnings like a numbskull.

The problems with the simplistic debroglie waves analogy are many. One of them is that he is not making it clear what is the  equivalence of a radio transmitter and a radio receiver. We are only seeing an equivalence of radio waves. We see objects because light bounce off the particles. The ability of the photon to bounce off an electron does not depend on its debroglie wavelength( or frequency ). It depends on its charge, spin etc. If a photon of a certain frequency approaches an electron of any debroglie wavelenght, the photo will bounce off with any frequency, provided that the electron does adjust its wavelenght in the process. Therefore we are actually able to see debroglie waves of all manner of wavelengths. We are not 'tunned' to a narrow band width as in a TV receiver.

 Vibration Explanation Of Charge

Since whether or not light bounces off an electron depends on its charge rather than its debroglie wavelength (light is electromagnetic wave), we must find a way of linking charge to vibration if we are to apply the idea of resonance to explain planes of reality. Fortunately, it is very easy to do that! In fact we end up with a theory of electromagnetism that is easy to understand  (maistream science cannot explain electrostatic force rationaly). 

Consider two balls immersed in some fluid. Both the balls vibrate by rythimically expanding and contracting. (Like heart beat). If both the balls vibrate at synch, i.e. both expand at the same time and contract at the same time, the two balls repel each other. This is because a push transmitted by fluid is stronger than a pull. However, if one of them vibrates at 180 degrees out of synch, i.e. one is contracting when the other one is expanding, both the balls experiences an attractive force. This is because the push from one ball is canceled by the pull from the other without there being a similar cancellation from  the sides of the balls that are facing away from each other.

This type of electrostatic force requires that the frequencies of the charged particles be exactly the same. If one of them vibrates at another frequency, then both balls will experience an alternation of repulsion and attraction. For the theory to explain the ekectrostatic force well, the charged particles must sharply discriminate other frequencies. This is is easily achieved if the charged particles vibrates in a series of harmonic frequencies. So one plane of reality will actually be composed of a set of harmonics that are all an interger multiple of some fundamental frequency. 

This vibration in a set of  harmonic frequencies is also a good idea as it then is evidenced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Infact it gives us some insight.This is to say that I can go on to suggest that this charge vibration is the generator of the debroglie waves themselves! Mainstream theory don't have the source as in what vibrates to create the waves. Then I will use the Pilot Wave Interpratation of quantum mechanics. Specifically, the idea of sharply discriminating frequencies  (hence wavelenghts, hence momentums) is very symmetrical to the idea of sharply discriminating position of the particle. We discriminate other positions by increasing the uncertainty of momentum (hence wavelengths). This is done by superimposing several waves so that they cancel themselves everywhere except where the particle is found. Similarly, we discriminate other momentums by imposing several (to and fro ) momentums to the particle. Remember that when one charge vibrate at a different frequency from the other, it begins to experiences a to and fro motion. So at a given instace, it (say particle B) experiences a force from the other particle (say particle A), that depends on how much its frequency deviated from the frequency of the  particle A. Ultinately, this force varies sinosuidaly with the frequency deviation from particle A. So the frequency here begins to act exactly like a spatial location. To cancel forces at all other frequencies except the desired frequency you have only to superimpose several harmonic waves on A. Thus the manner in which we confine a particle to a certain momentum is exactly the same as the manner in which we confine it to a certain location.

All this explains why Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be expressed both in the position space and in the momentum space. But more importantly,  it shows that the 'frequency space' is exactly like the usual space we see in. We can confine a plane of reality sharply into a certain bandwidth and make this bandwidth as narrow as we wish (this means making that reality not to interact with other realities even that vibrate very close to it). In Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we say that we can make the momentum as certain as we wish by mathematicaly doing in the momentum (frequency) space, the same thing we do in the usual space to make its position as certain as we wish.

Entry And Exit From Other Frequency Levels

A question now arises as to why things cannot simply alter their frequency levels an disappear. But consider that a similar question can be asked of the spin of subatomic particles. Why can't ekectron spin at a different rate? The particles seem to spin as though spinning is their intrinsic property! Spinning is not any different from vibration. Infact a vibration can be seen as a spin as seen from side way. That is why we talk of angels in vibrations or describe them using sine waves.

NeverthelessI can still explain why things don't seem to disappear by using conservative laws, especially the law of conservation of momentum. This law can be enforced by ensuring that every time an object e.g. a billiard ball stops moving a similar billiard ball must begin to move on the spot to carry on the momentum. We observe this as though the moving ball is stoped by the going ball that is hit.

Now consider the way debroglie relationships relate momentum of a particle to its wavelength. The law of conservation of momentum translates to the law of conservation of wavelength (hence frequency). So if it is true that for every object to increase its momentum, a similar object on the spot must reduce its momentum, then if an object increases its wavelength, a similar object must reduce its wavelength. So whenever an object disappears, a similar object appears on the spot. This swap is too fast for us to see. So we think that objects never disappear.

An analogy is made in the case of temperature.  An object cannot increase its temperature without getting in contact with an already hotter object. When it does that, the hotter object must reduce its temperature. But the analogy is not perfect. The vibrating realities are not pure thermodynamic systems. They are more akin to quantum fluctuations than thermal flactuations for otherwise the vibrations would reduce with time.