UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE - an anthology Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » Post Scripts » UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE - an anthology « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Universe simple
Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 01:09 pm:   


"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." -Leonardo da Vinci

Anthology - by Ivan D. Alexander - and all who contributed to the Humancafe forums}

Universum - 1888, Paris woodcut - C. Flammarion

"As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler; solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau


Anyone can understand this. There is no mysterious cabal to how works the universe. We humans are programmed to understand things logically, simply. We also have the ability to complicate things with amazing complexity, like the vast pantheon of ancient gods ruling the Earth, or the multiplicity of Deistic beliefs; or the mathematical complexity of modern cosmology into a neo-Pantheism [1] explaining “all that is” in the universe. The Big Bang multi-dimensional Strings universe is unbelievably complex. But universal reality exists with absolute economy, where nothing is wasted or wanton, a whole of reality interrelated infinitesimally to incorporate all that is the infinity of existence in every thing that is: a universe thinking itself as Logos [2]. The logic of the universe, from its constituent material parts to the evolution of life, is absolutely simple to understand once we find the keys to unlock its treasures. When taken as an interrelated whole, a wonderful quality of infinity-being comes together in a kind of emergence [3], where our understanding distills from its multiplicity of ideas into simple principles [4] operable across a whole spectrum of related ideas. We understand things because we see the connections in our minds as a complete whole. And it is for this reason we can all understand it, once we have the key. Otherwise, our understanding, theories, belief systems, become unbelievably complex, and flawed, where we believe things that are fantastic and improbable. This is a fallacy, because the universe is supremely economical in its internal organization, and thus sublimely simple to understand. What the Humancafe forums anthology helped us formulate, though never anticipated at its inception (1998) [5], is that the thinking of many minds drawing from vast resources can formulate in principle this simplicity to help us understand the universe. We did this by bringing our minds together. As these short pages will show, in principle, the Universe is surprisingly simple.

1. A BASIC PREMISE: Universal Constants

Energy in modern physics is always Energy [6], which means E=E in all its forms, such as kinetic energy, work energy, heat energy, or electromagnetic energy; including famous E=mc2 . This Energy equivalence also applies to the famous de Broglie E=hf equation, where Energy equals Planck's constant times electromagnetic frequency, the basis of Quantum physics. However, where all mechanical and electromagnetic energy may be interchangeable, gravity stands out as something different. Gravity may have more to do with inertial mass than electromagnetic energy [7], and in fact may prove to be inversely proportional. In effect, where today's Cosmology is based on Gravity as a universal constant, taken from Newton's gravitational constant G, and enhanced relativistically with Einstein's General Relativity mathematics; this universal constant may not be as now postulated, but is likely a variable constant, a constant on a curve [8].

This means some universal constants, which are measured and true in our region of space, may be variable elsewhere; in particular gravity's Newton G, which may be “constant” on a curve [9] with distance from our Sun or any hot star. Per force, this means the interaction within Quantum theory's E=hf and gravity theory [10] become paradoxical because they are both constants and variables. What this means in the end is that gravity is not a "universal constant" as now believed, but dependent inversely upon the Energy density where G is measured, so the universe may be "isotropic and homogenous" at gravity levels far greater than now assumed [11]. This also means the atom is more than a positive charged proton-neutron nucleus with a negative electron shell, but is mass defined by the level of Energy received [12], inversely proportional. And that, as the Humancafe forum discussions showed, there is no cosmological need for Dark Energy, nor Dark Matter, if Newton's G is a variable. In the vast stretches of deep space, far from hot energy, G is very high, perhaps five orders of magnitudes greater than measured on Earth, and the Dark Matter implied is dark gas and dust at higher G. The corollary to this is, taken as a line-of-sight 'tunnel' of light traveling through dark intergalactic dust, the distant photons traveling through this higher gravity arrive redshifted as observed. The redshift is at about the Hubble constant, and Einstein's universal constant [13] as predicted in General Relativity; but not from Doppler-like expansion of space, which changes everything: If gravity G is not a universal constant, then light traveling at c can bend and redshift as Einstein predicted, but observation of cosmic phenomena is gravitationally time-dilated by light c, not space expansion in flat-gravity G. Time, though an apparent variable observationally, nevertheless remains a universal constant [14]. Time is time, no matter how we define it.

The immense complexity of a General Relativity universe, of a 13.7 billion years old Big Bang origin, with Dark Matter halos around galaxies [15], very high gravity fast rotating stars, super massive galactic black holes, deep space hydrogen gas collapsing under high gravity into star combustion, extreme atmospheres for distant gas giants; all these begin to make sense in a variable G universe [16]. They reduce to a simplicity where Einstein's relativity and Lorentzian transformation [17] are mathematically brilliant and useful observationally; but in a universe where G is variable and time is an artificially defined construct, time-dilated observations are merely relativistic (observation) formalism. The universal reality becomes immanently simple: Energy is still Energy, famous E=mc2 remains (modifiably) operable, but where Gravity was one of the four fundamental forces with electromagnetic Energy, it now stands apart as inversely proportional. This is an alternate universe model to the one understood today, one much simpler. And therefore the universe is not expanding space, because redshift of distant cosmic light is an optical illusion; and per Occam's razor [18] we are not the center of the observable universe, though we are the center of our own existence in it.

2. AN INTERRELATED REALITY: A Basic Premise of Reason

Once the universe is simplified, a new emergence comes forward to further simplify reality. The observational limitations from light c time-dilation no longer rule all universal phenomena. All of universal reality is now interconnected with a geometric instantaneity, a superluminal interrelationship* capable of spanning infinity instantaneously. Same as gravitational potentials are infinite (there are no gravitons traveling at light c, for gravitational potential is felt infinitely and instantaneously), so all of reality is interconnected in real time [19], and it is all totally logical. Quantum entanglement communicates at near infinite distances, so all reality is interconnected [20]. Within this infinitely interconnected universal reality emerges the phenomenon of Life, which itself is nearly infinitely interrelated to its universe through a continuous line of living beings, both externally as Being and internally as Consciousness [21]. Within this external and internal interrelationship interconnectivity the mind forms another emergent quality, that of personal Identity, which is what our consciousness defines within itself: We are the Who of being human in All that Is [22]. Superluminal information is what holds together an infinite interrelationship of nearly instantaneous communications [23], within a universal reality not constrained by limiting light c information, but holding together as a whole totality known as each thing's identity. For us that Identity is known to us in the mind [24] as our mind consciousness. In a simple universe, we exist to bring fulfillment to consciousness [25], this "Who I am" that is for each our identity. We each living thing are interconnected infinitely into the fabric of all existence infinitesimally, at every level of our existence. Seen this way, the universe is essentially a 'biofeedback' loop. What we dream, search for, what we love, is all what we were born to do; it is also how the universe connects with us personally: This is Who we are [26] at all levels of existence.

It is for our reason [27], our critical thinking, to unlock the keys of the universe that will enable us to reach our full human potential as wholly conscious human beings, both personally and globally. In a simple universe, this key is simple and understandable for each one of us, as the three keys of reason: subjective, objective, and universal [28]. The last “universal” is still formative for us, where an idea is self defined to think itself from its interrelated totality. What it says, simply, is that the conscious human mind is infinitely connected of necessity to its Identity in the universe, and that mind has a right to be Who [29] he or she is. This is a fundamental definition of human Freedom [30], that we have a right to be ourselves, the Who we are.


The "Who we are" of universal reality exists at both points of the interrelated Cosmos [31], at the infinite of "All that Is" [32] and the individual person, our Who. Together, our interrelated reality works as one with us, when certain principles of mind and identity are observed: That we are truthful with one another in all things [33], and are mutually respectful equally. All reality "knows" itself instantaneously both within our being and that of all others around us. But reality can only work with us in truthfulness; it fails when we either deceive or are deceived. Either we are conscious of our universe and work with it, or we are unconscious and suffer without its consciousness. This is the Opus Rex [34] of our universal existence built on the principles of Existence, Belief, and our Social Reality. When we work together truthfully and with care for one another, as a work of service to ourselves and fellow human beings, we bring forth another emergence from the universal reality: a society globally conscious of itself [35]. And that propels us into a planetary consciousness future we have yet to experience, perhaps in ways most surprising to us [36]. As we reach out into infinity, in a simple universe, infinity reaches out to us at the same time. To respect all of existence, all life, and all of each other's humanity, our Who, is paramount to our working with a universal reality working with us: Each one of us, and every living thing, is a separate and unique identity, a whole universe due respect, within this infinite interrelatiionship reality. This is how we must interact, and is how our being in freedom with mutual respect of each other's humanity creates the universal consciousness in our earthly reality. When achieved, this consciousness is that which empowers us to seek our supreme potential as a human species.

These are the Principles [37] of a Conscious Universe, conscious of itself in us. We had done it before, with great leaps forward in human consciousness: a paradigm shift emergence of new understanding, a new public awareness that changes the world's belief systems [38], not always for the best. We as a human species in search of consciousness will falter, but ultimately as we had always done, we will move forward in time. This is our destiny, to become in our being the fullest manifestation of universal consciousness, our being interrelated into the Being of a universe conscious of itself. But this can be achieved only if human beings are allowed their freedom [39] to pursue this, to be truly Who we are. This is the greatest reason why we must have Freedom as a condition of our existence - each one of us to reciprocally be Who we are - to become fully human in Universal Consciousness - in a universal Life, a universal Love consciousness. This is all Habeas Mentem.


Imagine a world without war [40]. This is the threshold of emergence, to reach that next level of our human consciousness, both personally and globally. We must obey certain basic principles of human freedom, or we remain locked in a regressive cycle of conflicts, of social-unconsciousness immaturity, of violence and abuse, and tyranny of mind. In our present state we are like galactic orphans unconscious of the great simplicity of a conscious universe alive with Life, so stumble in a darkness of pantheistic illusions, unaware the universe is already designed for us to grow within it. All we need do is reach out with our minds and deeds, through intellect, both mind and soul, in a healthy body, and the Universe will open its infinite eye upon us. All human ideologies reduce down to the simplest, because we are already pre-designed to know this: Seek with joy and personal fulfillment a universal Consciousness designed as the very fabric of total existence, of Who you are. We are of necessity a part of that design because we have a mind. When we choose to reach for that universal Mind, we will usher in a millennium of exploring our God Consciousness, if we will it. All we need do is reach for it, be curious and be surprised. In a universe infinitely interconnected through an interrelationship reality capable of producing life and mind, this is Who we are as a human species. It is that large, and that simple.


FOOTNOTES, from Humancafe forums:

[1] Pantheism is still with us in the current belief systems

[2] Universe thinking itself as Logos

[3] Quantum foam 'Emergence'

[4] Concepts, misconceptions, and Principles of Belief

[5] The People's Book archives

[6] Energy equation revisited

[7] E=9E+16J atomic mass paper (Axiomatic Eq)

[8] The Modern Universe in G -flat- or is it curved?

[9] Variable G paper

[10] Quantum Theory made 'easy'

[11] Mining 'deep space' gravity

[12] The Atom, what is it exactly?

[13] Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift

[14] The Woo-woo Universe of Dr. Who

[15] Modified Gravity? Maybe 'variable G' too?

[16] In Principia Gravitas

[17] Time-dilation may be a function of electromagnetic information

[18] Missing piece of the puzzle on Variable G

[19] Is Reason a Good Tool?

[20] Squared-circle in 'real' time

[21] Unlocking the secret of God Consciousnes

[22] Each One of Us, Conscious

[23] Faster than light 'entanglements'

[24] Does "random" really exist?

[25] To Bring Fulfillment to Consciousness

[26] Who answers to 'who'?

[27] Teaching Critical Thinking

[28] Three keys of reason: Objective, Subjective, and Universal

[29] Be True to your Cosmic space

[30] Five basic Human Principles of Freedom

[31] Universal Computer -the Cosmos

[32] The Idea: All that Is

[33] The Given Word: Who we are

[34] Opus Rex - the Love of God and Humanity

[35] A Society Conscious of Itself

[36] Writing letters to the Aliens

[37] Principle as a rule

[38] World Belief systems, and sudden leaps

[39] The Reason of Freedom, as an inalienable right

[40] On the Axiology of War

*(Totality interrelationship reverses universal entropy, why we have Life.)


In these four short pages (with forty references, under three thousand words), we can see the universe is simple, but only on condition there is no war: no coercions, no abuse of the human spirit, no enslavement; but rather have the universe work simply on the principles of truth, mind consciousness, and human decency towards one another, equally. Through the fractal nature of information, and universe, this discussion can stretch easily to a thousand times; the search for understanding our universal reality remains open ended, into infinity. Yet everyone can understand this because in the end its principles are simple. By scrolling up and down the referenced pages, valuable discussions amplify this short treatise, contributed by many fine minds, and extends further out with external links. We all contributed to this, as a planet worldwide. To all "Thank you!" -- Humancafe Eds

Also see: On Emergent Universalism

The Question: Why something rather than nothing?

A New Universe, the book
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 01:59 pm:   

Count-down to Strangeness.

Is it not a strange coincidence that all these improbable factors of how works universal gravity come together with such ease into a strangely simple universe, if gravity G is variable? It all started here: A UNIFIED THEORY of Gravity and Energy: The Axiomatic Equation - September 2003


9. A VARIABLE MASS PER VARIALBE G HYPOTHESIS, per the Equivalence Principle and the Axiomatic Equation
The Pioneers Anomaly as measured shows a constant rate of acceleration towards the Sun at –a = ~8E-8 cm/s^2. This can be interpreted, in reverse order, as a gravitational phenomenon, whereby Newton’s ‘constant’ G is shown to grow at a steady rate over distance to cause this anomalous acceleration; which shows ‘as if’ G is growing at approximately 1 G per AU. This same result can be achieved in a modified Quantum equation, here called the Axiomatic Equation©, where Newton’s G grows in inverse proportion to solar energy received at a distance from the Sun, at about 1 G per AU. The resulting inertial mass acceleration towards the solar system’s largest mass, the Sun, is likewise shown per the Equivalence Principle to approximate the Pioneers Anomaly.

Is it not strange that a growth of 1G per AU, when taken as its square root, translates into an approximation of the Pioneer Anomaly?

Mass is both a function of energy, as per Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, and also a Quantum function of Planck's constant times c, divided by lambda l times the proton mass, also known as the Planck-DeBroglie equation. It will be shown that in addition to these, mass is also a gravity function, as defined by the Axiomatic Equation, derived here, as an extension of the DeBroglie-Planck-Einstein equation; where the proton mass is a variable, leading to a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant variable, which can then be computed into Newton's G gravity 'constant'. This Newton's G becomes a function of the Energy region where it is being measured, where for our solar system its delta G increases linearly at the rate of ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per astronomical unit from the Sun, one AU = ~150E+9 meters. The hypothesis is that what happens to atomic mass at the quantum level is how it converts into Newton's G gravity at the macro level, per the Energy regions where G is measured.

Why would a Quantum equation matched against a modified equation for gravity, G^2=g(c^2pi^2), yield a value of Newton's G variable for our solar system?

7. Boltzmann Constant numerical value, and a Gravitational G variable relationship
I keep asking myself this question, because as described in this post on Boltzmann's Constant here, the numbers seem to work out (though one order of magnitude apart) to support the variability of Earth's known G from its calculated orbital Energy, per the Axiomatic. This is a perpetual question for me, can it be right? I don't know. There is always the danger of concidental mathematical results, so what appears right may not be. Another danger is the 'preloading' mathematically of values sought for, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling methodology. In the above referenced post, I might have done what is a pre-destined result, by taking Joules for Kelvin for Earth's black-body 255 K (or 2550 K for Boltzmann equivalent), and then reverse engineering it back to a hypothesized variation in Newton's G for Earth due to its black-body Kelvin temperature. So if this is all that was done, nothing was proved, except that 255 K is the same as ~0.15E+16 Joules for Earth's total mass (vs. 1.5E+16 for Axiomatic Energy equivalent). But if the numbers work out for Earth's gravity to be relative to its orbital Energy, viz. 9E+16 Joules, and by raising that energy, in Joules, by 255 K (times 10) equivalent matches the expected variance in Newton's G, from computed 7.24E-11 down to measured 6.67E-11 G, then perhaps the fact that these two separate calculations for 255 K black-body yield the necessary adjustment to G, i.e., minus ~0.57E-11 G, from its orbital computed G, then is there justification to think that perhaps this is not a mere coincidence?

If Earth's interior heat is approximately 2500 Kelvin, then Newton's G at 6.67E-11 is about where it should be. Coincidence?

Also see how CMB matches with Boltzmann's as 'deep space gravity' 5 orders of magnitude greater than here on Earth.

Planck constant strangeness, may be changeable.

6. Mining 'deep space' gravity (and why redshift is at Hubble constant)
What it shows is how deep space gravity G must be about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater than Earth's known G. Here's is the reprint of the original text (see original for additional links) to review this very interesting phenomenon, also pointing towards why the Pioneers are slowing in the outer solar system:
(Please note this below was derived from the Pound-Rebka Harvard experiment, showing how light redshifts gravitationally.)

G-deep space, is the "gravitational G" for hydrogen gas over the distance of 1z. In effect, this is the amount of gravitational G needed to make light redshift delta 1 z.

The answer is: G-deep space = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Note this answer to 'deep space' gravity G is within approximation of another way it was derived, where E/c=1, as a relative 'limit' to deep space gravity: G = ~12.6E-7 N... approx. ~1.3E-6 N. (See more per post of March 30, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html for details, where deep space G=~1.3E-6. The significance here is that if 'cut off' photoelectric effect happens at lambda=~4E-7m, so that E=mc, then using Axiomatic the gravity G equivalent for deep space is in X10^-6 range.)

Similar result was also computed using Boltzmann's at CMB temperature 2.725 K, where G =~3.4E-6. Note how of the Four Fundamental Forces, the Weak force is also at 10^-6 level, same as where G flattens out in deep space. Again coincidence?

Also see: How fast can we travel in space?

New universal gravity-G 'constant': Space Gravity of 3.97e-7 G, and the Grand Unified Theory

Also note: "Accelerated expansion" of observed universe may be redshift artefact in variable-G deep space optical line of sight cone geometry.

5. Deep Space Gravity may be 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth, or in our solar system (per MOND equivalence)
This is a continuation of the Physics Forum post: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=161315 where MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) like effect may exist in our solar system, but at a much gentler rate. The two results for deep galactic space, per Milgrom's calculations is: a_0 = 1.2E-10 m/s^2, while per my calculations (shown below) in our solar system, it is 6 orders of magnitude lower: a_0s = 1.09E-16 m/s^2. If we find that within our solar system Newton's G is not a constant, but varies at the rather rapid rate of about 1G per 1AU, so that by Pluto's orbit, G is about 40 times what it is on Earth, but still of the order of magnitude 10^-10. However, per earlier work, out in deep space, this G grows (and perhaps levels off at) to a level of about 10^-6, which is about 5-6 orders of magnitude greater than here. But that was a rough 'guesstimate' and it may in fact be more like 6.

Is there one MOND for deep space, and another 'gentler' acceleration MOND for our solar system?

Also see: Why Dark Matter 'appears' non-baryonic and What is the Mass of the Universe?

4. Earth's inner core 'boundary'
Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth , says the inner structure of the Earth is taken from seismic shear waves, and at this time the figures for depths and size of inner core are 1210 km radius, and outer core is 2560 km thick (though this latter number may be inexact), which together give us a boundary of about 3770 km radius.

The reason I bring this up is that the inner core, from seismic wave shear refractions, remains a mystery. Why should the inner core show such incredible density? Why do seismic waves not penetrate it? It might be explainable in another way, that the micro-black hole at Earth's center acts 'as if' it were immense gravity. ...
Using the Schwarzchild equation for a black hole event horizon, for Earth's mass:

G=6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
M=5.97E+24 kg
c^2=9E+16 m^2 s^-2

R_s=G2M/c^2 = 8.85E-3 meters

This could mean, not definitive, that Earth has a tiny micro-black hole at its center (per Axiomatic Equation, where when all energy lambda cancels, E=(1-g)c^2, so g=1 when E=0, and converting to Newton's G, where G^2= (g)(c^2)pi^2, so G=c if pi drops out), which may account for the inner core's strangeness.

If G equals its (hypothetical) maximum potential, G= 3E+8 (m^3 kg^-1 s^2), where G=c at its maximum (per Axiomatic), then if taking R_s and multiplying by this, 8.85E-3 times 3E+8 = 26.55E+5, or 2.655E+6 meters, which is the same as 2.655E+3 km, or 2655 kilometers. (This is about 40+% of Earth diameter.)

The same calculation figured for the Sun's 'inner core boundary' was found to be at about the Asteroids belt. Strange?

Also see: Sun's radius to solar energy relationship

3. A New Spin on Earth's Rotation
Notice how the Earth's spin slows a millisecond during Winter, and speeds up a millisecond during Summer, for a full variation of 2 milliseconds from trough to peak. In the earlier posted on planetary spin (Mar. 2, 2005) there was found a relationship between perihelion, where spin slows, to aphelion, where it speeds up, as a function of internal planetary heat and background space temperature. (Closer to Sun means warmer 'background' so spin slows.) All planets exhibit a distance to internal heat versus background space temperature spin ratios.

Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter (northern hemisphere). This is not insignificant, given the regularity shown in graph above. Please note this is most marked by Mercury's spin (Sept. 12, 2006), which slows at perihelion where it temporarily 'stands still' for a few days. This is more than mere coincidence?

Though we cannot measure different G, nor different kilograms, during the Earth's solar cycle, since per Equivalence they remain constant for us, there may be a tiny measurement, not related to seasonal winds, in the Earth's spin. Again, coincidence, or variable G effect?

Also note: Venus super rotation atmosphere was discussed here, on Humancafe:
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST3619 (April 11, 2007)

2. Titan's atmosphere 10X taller than Earth's because it's less than 1/10th its mass
EARTH: (@ E=9.0E+16 J) proton mass= 1.67E-27 kg, for G=6.67E-11
SATURN: (@ E=0.1004E+16J) proton mass= 1.498E-25kg, for G'=68.5E-11

Earth's mass is 5.97E+24 kg

Titan's mass is 1.35E+23 kg

These are both in Earth kilograms, but the Saturn mass (roughly 10 AU, so 10 G equivalent to Earth's) is about 100 times equivalent mass for proton, for that orbital region (though Titan is so much smaller mass). Now look at Titan (moon), with an atmosphere similar to Earth's, largely nitrogen, the atmosphere is nearly 10 times taller than here. But the mass of Titan is less than 1/10th of Earth's! In fact, it is less than the total mass of Mars (all figured in Earth's kg at 1G). How can that be?

The same as for Titan's atmosphere would be true for all the 'gas giants'. How they have such large atmospheres? Especially if their rocky core is small, how can this be?

Other curious planet atmospheric phenomena:
Are Mars and Venus related? and
Pluto's Atmosphere Density Anomaly
Why outer planets are gaseous

1. Neutrinos are at femtometer wavelength
It seems there are other factors involved, as per Wiki's description of the Neutrino, though no lamda is mentioned there. However, checking on another paper: "Nonuniform Neutron- Rich Matter and Coherent Neutrino Scattering" by Horowitcz et al, I discovered it comes in femtometers in the range of one fermi = 1.0E-15 meters, so interesting. This is significant because I long puzzled over the Axiomatic Equation's lambda in E=hc/l*(proton mass) on the left side, where one kilogram of mass equals 90 petajoules, which makes l = 1.32E-15 m, at the output of our Sun (to give us proton mass of 1.67E-27 kg), which then translates into the proton-proton gravitational constant g = 5.9E-39 on the right side's E=(1-g)c^2; which itself translates into Newton's G, as per this paper: Variable G. So it all fits, except that Newton's G on Earth is only 6.67E-11, while per the Axiomatic calculations it should be 7.24E-11, but this was later found to be accounted for Earth's internal energy, using the Bolzmann constant, where Earth's interior works out to be about 2500K, probably close to its mean interior temperature.

This later dovetails into another discussion What's in between 'space' or inside the SMBH?, where there is a recap of the above. If all ambient light cancels inside the galaxy center, a 'super massive black hole' must result there, per the above variable G scenario, since it is hot energy at the femtometer wavelength that 'modifies' atoms into their respective mass. No light energy means total maximum mass. Was Galileo almost right? Coincidence?

This is the count-down to 'Strangeness' in a Simple-Universe. Or perhaps it is not strange at all, and today's Einsteinesque Cosmology is set for a count-down to total revision. It all fits: once G is found out away from Earth's known, the Universe is simple, and so beautifully balanced.

Also see possible 'inverse' relationship between Coulomb constant k and Newton's gravitational 'constant' G in the Addendum to Electricty made easy:
[Addendum: Coincidentally, the inverse of Coulomb's constant k is 1/k=~11x10-11, which is surprisingly similar to Newton's 'constant' G=6.67x10-11, though not significant except as a N force value (multiplier for F); strange, but not so much if gravity and e.m. energy are inversely proportional, which may lend credence to aforesaid: "To balance out this gravitational remainder (Strong force residue, what causes gravity to exist between masses), this attractive force is countered by a repulsive force, so positive charge of space is countered by the gravitational force of matter, which balances out with a repulsive force for like charge." This makes gravity and e.m. energy linked as inversely proportional, as per how Axiomatic Equation was derived; Coulomb's constant k should measure variable with distance from the Sun. Perhaps should also be found for universal Coupling Constants, when measured away from Earth's known values?]

Also see: Short cut to Proton mass and Space Gravity 3.97e-7 G, and GUT

0. Quantum Entanglement
The universe in 'real' time? Universal entanglement hints Einstein's Relativity may be incomplete.

Also see:
Why Universe is Mathematical
Gravity, the perfect illusion
MOND Revisited, why it is valid
First indications for a variable-G

"BREAD CRUMBS" trail - a chronological anthology
Summing up variable gravity-G hypothesis
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simplicity is key
Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 03:16 pm:   

Simplicity is the key.

Tai Chi

There is a human tendency to think that a very complicated question will yield a very complicated answer. But that is a logical fallacy, because in fact complicated solutions most often prove to be quite simple. This is the Occam's razor principle, that when all the complicated ideas, or complex mathematics, are finally cut through the answer shines illuminated as pure elegance and fundamental simplicity. Simplicity is the key. So in the (above) Simple Universe the answers to so many puzzles in cosmology, or human interrelationships and social interactions, including moral issues, the basic principles at work are most simple. So until we have that "ah ha!" moment where everything suddenly falls into place, we are lost in a cobweb of confusion. And when clarity is finally achieved we understand. That is the beauty of how the Simple Universe is built, with an absolutely elegant infinity of simplicity.

This is simplicity of the Tao, Tai Chi Chih, the calling upon the Chih to enter our personal being, the oneness of an infinite universe in Who we are, the Buddhist removal of illusion, the "love one another" of Jesus, the One God principle, the Golden Rule, and the simplicity of a universe working with us. It is that simple.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 01:01 pm:   

Hello Ivan,

I am sorry to hear about your experience with stroke in December, and I hope you will make the recovery you desire. You certainly have the right outlook.

In regards to your statement about simplicity, I believe you are correct about our tendency to complicate things. It's natural for our brains (when we don't completely understand a thing) to postulate a variety of possibilities. Once we discover the answer, on the other hand, we get a sense of epiphany because of the certainness we feel about the truth of our discovery. In essence, we may have an intuitive sense about what "rings true" to our sensory capacity. Information is never physically pushed into the brain, thus the potential for all that we can know already exists in our unformed neural networks. Learning is the process by which we turn the difficult into simplicity.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New gravity research?
Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 05:23 pm:   

New gravity research papers.

There seems to be a growing awareness that perhaps gravity in deep space is not the same as measured here on Earth. See recent papers per this post (Jerry) on BAUT: Are we on the verge of a paradigm shift re: gravity?

If we find this to be true, then the above hypothesis that deep space gravity is higher than here becomes a reality, and the Simple Universe theorem comes one step closer to being fact.

[Thanks Naive, nice to hear from you. Re urs


Learning is the process by which we turn the difficult into simplicity.

Isn't that the truth!]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 04:01 pm:   

Space is a omni-dimensional pathway that energy travels across. It seems that the amount of energy occupying space dictates gravity's effect. I wonder, however, what is the cummulative effect of matter or energy upon the "fabric of space"? In other words, as stellar bodies move through space, do they "wear it out" for lack of a better term?

I visualize your "hot star energy" hypothesis, as defining the range of a star's gravitional pull as similar to the range of light from a bulb in the middle of an otherwise dark area. For example, if you put a bulb in a giant airplane hangar, the light would not reach the outskirts of the entire enclosure, but instead would fade out at a certain range. If the bulb's radiance could be increased, so too would be the range of its influence. Is this how you "see" your variable "G"?

Here's another question: Suppose we coud design two, star-sized magnets (both in mass/density) that were similarly charged. Would they repel each other in space or collide? In other words, In physics the electromagnetic force is supposed to be stronger than gravitation. Is there a limit, however, where the sheer scale of mass will cause gravitaion to "win out" over the electro-magnetic force? What if they were traveling toward each other at tremendous speeds? What role would that play? These may seem like a foolish questions, but I believe the only way to understand gravity, is to understand the atomic nuances that contribute to it? I believe the standard answer is that they would repel each other, regardless of size, even though the gravitational pull of these giant bodies would be enormous. What is it about the electromagnetic force then, that allows it to "defy" gravity, and what does this say about the nature of what space or gravity is? How do you fit this into your variable "G" idea?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Universe 'anagram'
Posted on Friday, June 05, 2009 - 03:33 pm:   

The Universe is Simple Wordle.net generated 'verbagram', frequency of all our words, page above.

Universe Anagram3.jpg
http://www.wordle.net/ (image interactive) - a computer generated pictogram

Universe, Energy, Gravity - three key simple words, the rest simply follows.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

"I am"
Posted on Sunday, June 07, 2009 - 01:30 pm:   

"I am"

Stroke suvivor: Jill Bolte Taylor racconta il suo ictus

(Video- interactive- subtitles in 15 languages- click image)

Which do we choose? 'Who' do we choose?

"I am...?"

Also see how chaos drives the brain, NewScientist article & video.

And Why are our brains shrinking?

Discover Magazine: If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?


Some believe the erosion of our gray matter means that modern humans are indeed getting dumber. (Late-night talk show hosts, take note—there’s got to be some good comic material to mine here.) Other authorities argue just the opposite: As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers. Still others believe that the reduction in brain size is proof that we have tamed ourselves, just as we domesticated sheep, pigs, and cattle, all of which are smaller-brained than their wild ancestors.

Could it also be part of having to use less memory in our everyday? Back before writing and machines, we had to remember so much more. Now we can 'remember' with aid of technologies, like this internet phenomenon, but it was already evident with drawings, writing, books, to store information. So the brain could relieve that portion of its memory activity and relegate it more efficiently to other portions, such as critical reason, and more. (Late-night talk show hosts: Go back to sleep.) :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gentle Conclusion
Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 12:11 pm:   

Gentle Conclusion.

200px-Gandhara_Buddha_(tnm).jpeg (interactive)
Greco-Buddha of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, north Indian regions

There had been many theories of the universe throughout human history, and likely in prehistory, to explain the state of our human being under the cosmos. There are many studies and ideas existing today, all competing for our attention as being the true teachings, or the right path, for all humanity. The universality claimed by these teachings are often so forceful to regulate human lives, body-mind-soul power, that to resist them leads one into either social ostracism or severe punishments, even unto death. Such had been the force of power behind 'universal' religions claiming to be speaking for God on Earth through the voice of one man, or group of men, as the true teachings of what our human condition under the heavens are all about. That was how they pulled together into one whole complete theory of existence, or moral social prescriptions, with force of power. Either believe as told to believe, or face dire consequences either in this life or after death. The core power of such beliefs were force and punishments, or coercions, to bring it all into a complete whole. But this was false.

The time for such total human control, body-mind-soul controls, over our lives has come to pass. We no longer need coercive religions to tell us how to live. Modern religions have evolved to promote spiritual growth, not social controls, where each person is free to pursue a greater being, a greater consciousness, within the parameters of their chosen belief. It is not something automatically cast upon us at birth or early childhood, but is a spiritual belief system chosen consciously to promote our greater being within a higher cosmology of Life existence in the universe. Each human being of conscious mind has the right to choose their beliefs as it is reasonable for them to believe. That is the ultimate freedom for humanity, and it is the only path to a higher human universal consciousness of the planet, what will be our future as a collective humanity. That is the way to the truth.

Same as we need to strengthen our body's core muscles in Pilates to give health to the whole body, so must we find our universal 'core strength' to promote a healthy planet. All life and all humanity will benefit when we find the traction to give this core strength of what we believe universally. But not as we believe per coercive religions, rather only as we believe in the freedom of human reason to believe what is true. What we believe is truly our own, and exists only as a communication between ourselves and God, or the universal cosmos-consciousness. This is the major separation of religion and government, that where our beliefs are free to be chosen, to have freedom of religion, it is never imposed on another by force of action, or legally imposed on another, for this violates our core social values. We are individually free within the legal parameters of our constitutional democratic governing body, but we are wholly free to believe within the parameters of universal beliefs and religions. This is a core value of our civilization, our Opus Rex that has made us free and what sets us apart from the slavery of the past. This central core value, already tried and tested in most modern states of the planet, is the future that will take human consciousness to the next level. This, counter intuitive as it is, is where we as a collective humanity bring God consciousness into our world in a gentle conclusion. That will be peace.

See also: Natural Universalism
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, August 02, 2009 - 01:51 pm:   

The popular allure of an Einstein universe is in its inherent paradox:

"A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition; or, it can be an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. Koan, Catuskoti)." -- per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

In the above written "Universe is Simple" paradox is removed, since the universe is inherently non-paradoxical. But Einstein's paradoxical universe will remain popular, because of its inherent 'brain tease' complexity which gives it popular appeal. People love paradox! :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

a simple test G
Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 12:06 pm:   

A simple test is all that is needed to 'prove' the above simplicity of our Universe: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20123


Pioneer anomaly put to the test
Sep 1, 2004
The European Space Agency is considering a unique experiment that could explain strange gravitational phenomena in the outer solar system.

Track the G. All else will fall into place.

* * * * * *
...To be continued at "What do You think?"...

Also see: State of the 'Gravity-G' message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

GUT revisited
Posted on Monday, May 10, 2010 - 12:59 pm:   

The Universe is Simple, but also 'unfathomable' with present science.

This article in NewScientist today explains how GUT is highly unlikely, if not impossible:

The imperfect universe: Goodbye, theory of everything by Marcelo Gleiser


Like all good physical theories, GUTs make predictions. One is that the proton, the particle that inhabits all atomic nuclei, is unstable. For decades, experiments of increasing sensitivity have looked for decaying protons and failed to find them. As a consequence, the models have been tweaked so that protons decay so rarely as to be outside the current reach of detection. Another prediction fared no better: bundled-up interacting fields called magnetic monopoles have never been found.
For superstrings, the situation is even worse. In spite of its mathematical elegance, the theory is so detached from physical reality that it is exceedingly difficult to determine what a measurable string effect might be.

So it goes, that if gravity and electromagnetic energy are mutually exclusive, per the Simple Universe idea, then a reconciliation is unlikely. Now for science to find the same, that Newton's G is a variable.

More likely is this 'reality', that we discover in time the universe is a 'personal' identity of 23 dimensional being, integrated and interrelated not only laterally in our physical dimension of being, but also vertically in our spiritual dimensions.

In a simple universe, a refinement of the 'wisdom of the ages' will make rational sense to us, in time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Electricity made easy
Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 11:47 pm:   

Electricity made easy.

Let's take Coulomb's Law and do something creative with it. We know electricity works, much of modern society is powered by it, even the Mac on which I write this. But why is there a positive and negative charge, and why do like charges repel while opposites attract? Our understanding of electricity is well defined mathematically, but do we really understand what causes electric field to flow between positive and negative charge? Perhaps there is a novel way to look at this that may offer some insight into why this is so. Also, why does magnetism come in dual charge only? Let us consider.

Ben Franklin's kite electricity experiment (click image for interactive article)

From Coulomb's Law we have the following equation:

F = k q1 q2/ r2

Coulomb's constant k = 1/4pieo = 9x109 N.m2/C2 but can also be described as Volts per meter.

[This is somewhat similar to F=GMm/r^2 on a superficial level, but not directly the same, since charges are not only attractive but can also repel, so only superficially the same.]

Now, if k is taken as a constant, can it be also the constant as it applies to our place in the solar system vis-a-vis our locale's energy density of the Sun? This is how Newton's G is treated in Variable G gravity discussed on Humancafe forums. If so, hypothetically, then this Coulomb's constant is not really 'constant' but perhaps a variable in the same way as G, so with distance from the Sun it would be inversely proportional. In effect, k becomes smaller with distance from the Sun. We on Earth are close to the Sun, so its value, 1/k (inverse, see Addendum below), is actually a large value... but I digress.

Taken as a scalar function, Coulomb's Law becomes in effect a function of F= kq2 over distance r2, where E=kq/r2 is the Electric field.

Now, let us consider the Electromagnetic field, where a stationary charge has an Electric field, but a moving charge has a Magnetic field. Together, mediated by photons, both fields act as a combined force that causes interaction between electrically charged particles; the areas in which this happens are called electromagnetic fields. If this does not yet appear easy, it is because as currently understood it is not. Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental interactions in nature, along with the Strong interaction, Weak interaction, and Gravitation. The way to 'simplify' this electromagnetic field interaction is to first look at the Strong interaction, specifically that this interaction occurs only within the atomic nucleus, but virtually disappears beyond it. This makes it interesting, because there may be a way to understand the Strong force as a 'positively' charged force, while the interaction of the electromagnetic field, with photons mediation, is a responsive 'negative' charge, which results in the electron. And that electron moving over time is what causes electricity to flow as an electromagnetic field incorporating both charges.

Still not easy, but let us take it one step beyond. Let's hypothesize that it is all about positive charge, as found in the atomic nucleus, and the negative is only an incidental deviation from the positive. Let me illustrate it with an analogy to lightning: According to the Electrostatic induction hypothesis, updrafts in the atmosphere supercool water droplets into ice (-10 to -20 °C) which forms a positive charge at higher altitudes; the lower or middle section of the clouds have a slight negative charge at the cloud's base. Earth is positive charged, so as the negative charge of the lower portion of the cloud accumulates it 'sparks' and lighting occurs. But to look at it in another way (lightning has never really been explained fully), let's imagine that the upper regions of the thundercloud, which are positively charged, are more charged than the planet's surface; the electric potential accumulates as negative charge at the cloud's base, which means electrons accumulate and are ready for discharge. What this also means, in effect, is that both the upper cloud and planet's surface are both 'positive' charged, but because upper is more than lower, the difference in their positive charges manifests as a negative charge, such as at the cloud's base. Now, this is significant, because it relates back to the atom's Strong force, which is always positive charged.

Lightning discharge (click image to see animation)

The obvious assumption for this hypothesis is that colder atoms are more positively charged than warmer atoms, so the Strong force 'charge' exerts more positive on cold than hot, which would account for the colder top of thunderclouds have a higher positive charge than the planet's positive at the surface below. And the corollary to this is that this differential in positive charges is what defines the negative charged electrons as the mediators between these two differentials. Now, how does this apply to electromagnetism per se? The lightning example is merely to illustrate a concept, that the difference between positive charges, which is all the nucleus can have, is what generates electrons as mediators, same as photons, for this charge differential, that which causes electrons to flow from negative to positive; while the electric current (a kind of signal between charge duality) flows from positive to negative, reverse. In effect, the electric current is actually flowing from more positive to less positive, which interprets into a negative filling the gap. (Please note: the Axiomatic Equation has an analogous concept, that colder regions of space have higher G, which using the Equivalence principle means that colder is also more mass, which would be equivalent to greater positive charge, per this example.) Therefore, it basically comes down to a variable positive charge, which when differential causes an electrical potential, which is negatively charged.

Lightning potential on Mars dust storm (click image for original article)

These hot-cold differentials not only release electron mediators, but also higher energy Gamma rays and x-rays, which is significant. The Standard Model also covers the electroweak interactions in nuclear decay, how neutrons decay into protons. They are all related to this positive-positive interaction differentials. The neutron is 'hot' with electrons (positive made neutral), but 'cools' down into a proton, if so, resulting in beta decay. Electricity and electromagnetism are all related to this positive-positive differential phenomenon. But it does not explain magnetism itself, which is another matter, though related.

Magnetism, per this hypothesis, is a phenomenon that is the signature of the positive-positive differential incorporating both charges, the positive and negative together, produced by the resulting electric current. Hence, why we have 'electromagnetism' as a final product. It all relates back to the atomic nucleus, which is differentiated by hot-cold conditions present, which will result in the electric potential. In a bar magnet, this 'signature' is fixed, so positive and negative poles remain as long as the magnetization is present. But heating a magnetic iron bar, beyond its annealing point (Curie temperature), will break this signature and the magnet will lose its charge. However, if left in its magnetic mode, breaking the magnet in half will leave us with two magnets, both sections equally bipolar. This is the result of the magnet having 'rearranged' itself with the same signature which defined it in the first place. Breaking that signature can only occur when it is heated to a temperature above that of the positive-positive differentials, at which point it ceases to remain a magnet.

So, how does all this make electricity easy? The answer is because the phenomenon of the electron, like the photon, is a 'mediator' between positive charges. Whereas the electromagnetic energy will modify the positive proton, and inertial mass (per Axiomatic Equation) as a function of the modified Strong force, it will also mediate the charge potentials of the nucleus depending upon the level of e.m. energy received. The resulting differentials will then generate electrons, which will flow as an electric current between the resulting positive and negative potential charges. That brings us back to Coulomb's Law with which this discussion started, and from which I digressed.

If electromagnetic energy is a 'modifier' of both gravity potential G and electric potential, then k must also be modifiable by the level of energy density in which is resides. The result of this would mean, coincidentally, that in colder regions of our solar system, at smaller Coulomb's k, electric force modified weaker, our space craft should exhibit greater electrical longevity than warmer regions, where it is very strong (inversely to gravity-G). This would mean, in essence, that a probe sent to Pluto should prove longer lasting electrically than one sent to Mercury. Has this happened? Can it be measured? Mars rovers have lasted longer than designed, for example. But this is not a definitive proof, merely an anecdotal observation. The Pioneer probes, and Voyager, have lasted a very long time as they exit into the colder regions of space beyond our solar system. Coincidence, or is it merely a 'variable' k effect? This is for science to discover, and measure. We here are only presenting a simplified version of electricity. It could be electricity is that simple: it is a differential of positive-positive nucleus charge, nothing more exotic. The result is negative charged electrons, including the eletroweak interaction.

That leaves a final question: Why do like charges repel? This goes back to the 'bungee' force within the nucleus, as defined by the Strong force. It can only attract within the diameter of the nucleus, ceases to exert force outside it, and therefore it must repel. Positive charge will repel positive charge, or else it would violate the tight diameter of the Strong force. Opposite charge attract almost by definition, because a negative charge is a filler for positive-positive differentials. But the same charge must be opposite in action, or else the Strong force would dominate outside the nucleus, which it cannot do. The bungee force 'pushes' it back both inside and out.

So, why do opposite charges attract and same charge repel? The answer has never been given in physics, but accepted a priori that they do. However, looking into the atom as an analogy of positive-positive Strong force interaction, the answer may be surprisingly simple. Taking the lightning analogy again, the nucleus has a strong positive charge. But atoms do not exist in the dark anywhere in the universe, as they are constantly bombarded by electromagnetic energy. Light and other frequencies, especially those at the femtometer wavelength, interact with the atom's Strong force (positive charge) in such a way that the dual charge of these photons are split into their positive-negative components when they hit the atom, splitting off a negative charge counterbalancing the nucleus' positive charge. This leaves a remaining weaker (vis-a-vis the Strong force positive) negative charge surrounding the atom as an electron shell; with the weaker positive charge of the photon then anchored as a counterbalance to neutralize the atom's magnetic charge, same as in the lightning analogy, so the atom remains magnetically neutral. To preserve the electron shell surrounding the atom, the remaining weaker positive charge is cast off into space along the P-wave of the photon. By this mechanism, space is positively charged same as the nucleus, evidenced by super massive black hole axial jets at galactic centers shooting out positive charged particles into space. But like the remainder force from within the atom (vis-a-vis the Strong force and 1/137 e.m. interaction), this positive charge remainder is essentially gravitic in nature, an electro-gravity effect, which counter balances the gravitational effect of the atomic mass. To balance out this gravitational remainder (what causes gravity to exist between masses), this attractive force is countered by a repulsive force, so positive charge of space is countered by the gravitational force of matter, which balances out with a repulsive force for like charge. (It may be tempting to suggest here that this positive-space repulsive charge is the so-called 'dark energy' causing space expansion, but that is false; the gravity and positive repulsive interaction balance out exactly, so space is not expanding #6 but remains totally balanced; which also explains why high energy density regions of space will have low gravity, while lower e.m. density is higher G, all balanced out.) The negative charges repel as well, at least in the magnetic sense, though electrons flow in a current without repelling each other; it is only in the bar magnet scenario that negative and positive like charges both repel. It may even be considered that it does not matter whether the magnetic poles are positive or negative, since their charge signatures are both positive-positive in nature at either end, as a product of their atomic structure, and only manifest as dual charge because of how the atom is structured. When all is said and done, the atom is really what defines for us dual charge behaviorism, attractive when charges are opposite, but repulsive when the same. Space and gravity, like the Strong force nucleus, are all positive-positive phenomena, and the negative charge is nothing more than the counterbalancing charge of photon bombardment of atoms in space. This is true anywhere in the universe (with the exception of inside the super massive black hole where gravity mimics the Strong force), and which leaves the electricity generated by these dual charges as a natural phenomenon of how atoms are affected by electromagnetic interaction. Electricity in this scenario is merely the byproduct due to electron flow in positive charged space. (Now we can see why F=GMm/r2 is similar to F=kqq/r2... but we digress.)* The reason charges either attract or repel is that they are an interaction between the atom's Strong force and electromagnetic energy, with electricity and gravity as mere remainders. The atom is key to this dual charge phenomenon.

Now, isn't that electricity made easy? :-) Simple, no?


*[Addendum: Coincidentally, the inverse of Coulomb's constant k is 1/k=~11x10-11, which is surprisingly similar to Newton's 'constant' G=6.67x10-11, though not significant except as a N force value (multiplier for F); strange, but not so much if gravity and e.m. energy are inversely proportional, which may lend credence to aforesaid: "To balance out this gravitational remainder (Strong force residue, what causes gravity to exist between masses), this attractive force is countered by a repulsive force, so positive charge of space is countered by the gravitational force of matter, which balances out with a repulsive force for like charge." This makes gravity and e.m. energy linked as inversely proportional, as per how Axiomatic Equation was derived; Coulomb's constant k should measure variable with distance from the Sun; as should the alpha constant.

Note: This inverse Coulomb relationship may also relate to 'dark photons' or dark electromagnetism, which may explain why weakly interacting 'dark matter' may appear to be non-baryonic.]

Also see: Nuclear positive modified by e.m. energy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

23 Dimensions of Being
Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 - 04:15 am:   

Posted on Monday, May 03, 2010 - 01:24 pm:   

Life yearning
Pure love energy
Eternal universal love
Eternal love personal identity
Universal eternal mind personality
Universal eternal personalities interrelation
Universal total personality, Life conscious identity
Astral healing life consciousness, Astral dreaming creation
Astral identity personality plane, Astral full colors energy plane
Astral plane of universal existence energy, Total mind consciousness
Pure consciousness, Pure light existence, Gaia consciousness dimensions
Life consciousness dimensions, Life healing, Dream state dimensional existence
Interrelationship dimensions - all philosophies, religious beliefs, physical reality, ideas

From "23 Dimensions of Being"

See also: Working the Subjective Mind
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 01:44 pm:   


We can't live without it, nor with too much of it. Water must be balanced for Life.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Three forms of Reasons
Posted on Monday, June 06, 2011 - 11:29 am:   

One of my personal 'philosophies' is that there are Three Forms of Reason: Subjective, Objective, and something new, called Universal.

1. Subjective reason, the sense of cognition, the self-defining feeling of "I am" each person has. This is also where story telling comes from, what we weave in our imagination, going all the way back to primitive, mythical times. (Ego)

2. Objective reason, the mental ability of discerning fact from falsehood, an operative abstract reason needed for survival in reality. We are genetically designed to do this, though this is still challenging to us in that we must learn it. (Ego detachment)

3. Universal reason, where our mental ability is detached from either subjective or objective, but connects directly into how the universe operates on its own terms, which for us is not a natural ability but exists only as an intellectual potential. (Total detachment)

The first and second forms of reason are innately familiar to us, we all have it. It is the third form that is still mysterious, because we are unfamiliar with it. We may not yet have evolved the genetic ability to use this form of reason, since our minds are not designed to see things as the universe 'sees' itself. This form of reason is founded on the concept of 'emergence', where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and where complex systems evolve from simple interactions. Therefore, this emergent whole then modifies its parts, where a universal totality may actually define them in terms of itself: Everything is exactly 'where and how' it is because of where and how is everything else, in toto, both in time and space... to infinity. (repeat) In effect, this is where the 'emergent' interconnected, interrelated parts are all redefined by the whole, what I call the Universal Mind. It is a 'mind' for which we must still work very hard to connect with, because it is not yet natural for us. We can't see all the infinite interrelations with our minds that define Universal emergence, though we can logically know it exists, at least conceptually. But it is not easy for us to understand this, as we are not programmed to do so.

Emergence happens in the quantum foam, for example, how from basic particles form the laws of physics; or in the Game of Life computer simulations. It happens in Artificial Intelligence programming, where computers can 'learn' things. It's also evident in life's evolution, why there seems to be a progression in the complexity in species over time. Clearly the world-wide-web is 'emergent'. But the only time, I suspect, we can connect with this Universal mind is in sudden flashes of insight from intuitions, though we do not know how that happens. Maybe music is a part? Or poetry? Art? Or perhaps prayer and positive affirmations?... The brain is always processing, synapses working even when we sleep, so such 'emergent' flashes are not consciously willed but happen to us subconsciously. The brain is always observing, listening, thinking, and somewhere it 'connects' with all the parts put together into a whole, then something 'emergent' happens. We have that "Ah ha!" moment. This may be (my hypothesis) where the Universal reality 'connects' with us at the personal brain level, since our minds live within this reality. I don't actually know this. Though, I suspect it actually raises our consciousness.

So this third form of reason is looking into the 'God mind'. But it is not yet natural. We haven't yet evolved the mental physiology to do this, so it takes a lot of personal effort to get there. It is also, for me, the most exciting form of reason, because it opens new vistas of exploration transcending the subjective and objective mind, from what is 'personal' to the universal, viz. from selfishness to humility before the All. I also believe that if we work at it, consciously seek it, we will in time, over many generations, actually evolve the mind that can access this Universal reason directly. In those still, quiet moments, like in meditation, or in creative intuitions, when we are truly connected within ourselves; we may be actually hearing the Universe 'talking' with its Universal Mind... to us. And if so, though still highly mysterious, that is potentially very exciting.


Is this fiction? ... Listen for it.

I. Bruno

(Above was gleaned from earlier papers, August 5, 2006, on Humancafe forums: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/89.html#POST1446 , titled THE THREE REASON(S): SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, AND UNIVERSAL; and from http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/180.html#POST4552 , titled "Quantum foam 'Emergence' and the evolution of life consciousness", Feb. 16, 2008)

Addendum: I thought of this at the end of my yoga class today during savasana, that the above Three Reasons have a seeming parallel to our emotional states as well: Selfishness, Altrusim, and Humility. They are not so far removed from Subjective, Objective, and Universal. … Now that I think about it, is the Universal Mind the mystery of the ages, from religion to philosophy? (Where an 'emergent' balance of one leads to greater Consciousness, while balance of the other leads to greater Compassion.) Why has it been so hard to see? Because we are not there yet in our DNA? … In time, then, we will join the greater Universal Humanity.
16 June, 2011

Also see:
Working the Subjective Mind
Natural Universalism
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Living Fountains of Reason
Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 - 06:22 pm:   

Living Fountains of the 'Three Reasons', and how to access them.

"Man's mind, when it is most intent upon any work, through its passion, and effects, is joyned with the mind of the stars, and intelligences, and being so joyned is the cause that some wonderful virtue be infused into our works and thing."

- Henry Cornelius Agrippa, Counselor to Charles the Fifth, Emperor of Germany, c. 1530

Fountains of Rome - Via Giulia (interactive)

In the earlier post on the Three Reasons, in the above The Universe is Simple, I talked about the Subjective, Objective, and Universal forms of human reason, and how the first two are natural for us, though may need to be learned, while the third is still only conceptual, something mysterious and barely attainable in our present state of mental development. In this article I hope to show that there are pathways our brain neurons can take to help us achieve that still mysterious Third Reason, what I call the Universal, which is an 'emergent' state of mind. I then wrote:


This form of reason is founded on the concept of 'emergence', where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and where complex systems evolve from simple interactions. Therefore, this emergent whole then modifies its parts, where a universal totality may actually define them in terms of itself: Everything is exactly 'where and how' it is because of where and how is everything else, in toto, both in time and space... to infinity. In effect, this is where the 'emergent' interconnected, interrelated parts are all redefined by the whole, what I call the Universal Mind.

We at present are still unable to 'connect' with this form of Universal reason, though it exists in our everyday reality, because our brain neurons are not yet programmed to do so. But brain plasticity is a known phenomenon of how it can restructure itself (I experienced this first hand as a post-Stroke [Dec. 2008] brain-damaged recovery patient, and know it actually happens, it's marvelous!), so that what is the brain today may be a different brain in the future. If after many generations of this 'brain plasticity' exercises the genetic code gets re-written, then it is possible for future generations to have it embedded in their DNA, so they will access Universal reason more naturally and with less effort. This will be a human consciousness-emergent moment when it happens. However, this for now is mere hypothesis. Perhaps something like it happened eons ago when humans first started to use logic and Objective reason for problem solving and survival; where they transcended the Subjective mind of personal cognition and imagination (i.e., story telling), when they began using tools, fire, and strategic forethought, which was 'learned'; we may now be in a position to learn how to access this 'fountain of third form' of reason as well. It would mean exercising our cerebral neurons in ways that align us more closely with how this Third Reason operates on its own terms.

Third Reason is something that for now happens to us involuntarily, usually unexpectedly in quiet moments, such as sitting by flowing water, or a mountain glen, or desert vastness, and feeling suddenly 'connected' to all that is around us. Such 'emergent' moments are still rare, and somehow magical when they happen. Rarer still are their useful manifestations, or what we call insightful "intuitions" that help guide us through life. In our present state of mind, these are still 'spiritual' moments, where we feel connected with something larger than ourselves. It also happens during meditation, yoga relaxation, deep prayer, in spiritual social congregation, or just in those quiet moments when we feel at peace. But it will not always be so mysterious to us, nor esoteric, once we develop the brain-neurons ability to access this Third Reason naturally (though this may still be a distant future). Of course, when and if this does happen, it places our universal planetary consciousness on a whole new level, and our being in it operative in ways we now can only imagine. But if it is truly there, we will in time access it. But how?

Here is a list of some possible cerebral pathways to help us get to that Third universal Reason:

  • Stillness epiphany of being: This is those moments when we are very still, like in meditation, or resting quietly, and something 'emergent' happens, that we suddenly have insight or a feeling of connectedness to all that is around us. We suddenly feel "in the moment", and it feels good to be there, serene, alive.
  • Deep concentration flow: Whenever we are deep in thought, or seriously focussed on any task, we often enter that emergent moment where everything suddenly flows with clarity, and we have that "Ah ha!" moment, often solving some deep problem that had long eluded us.
  • Total immersion surroundings: This is like some form of 'baptism' we suddenly experience when surrounded by beautiful environment, whether socially, the arts, music, or natural settings. We have a sudden sublime feeling inside that connects us to the whole environment in an instant, and a response from deep within the soul acknowledges it. It is also one reason most people love Nature, because there it happens more frequently, and it lightens the burden of life momentarily with its beauty.
  • Powerful water flow: Ever sit by a waterfall and feel its roar in your whole body? That is also emergent, a total immersion into the moment, and it feels like it enlivens us to the foundation of our being. It also explains why waterfalls are so appealing to us, and so popular. The same is felt from ocean waves, or from white water rivers. They 'feel' emergent, somehow.
  • Positive affirmations: We do not know why this works, but for some mysterious reason "positive affirmations" either spoken or thought have a way of redirecting our lives, often in positive and surprising ways. Like in prayer, we may be connecting to the Third Reason of the universal Mind, though we cannot see how this happens. It just does.
  • Times of extreme stress: All of us felt that sudden 'intense focus' during periods of crisis or danger. This is more than mere adrenal reaction, but it places us totally in the moment where danger is a real threat, and our mind reaches out to some other succor than mere logic. It dives into a greater depth within itself and responds, often in unexpected ways, to what saves us. Survivors of wars, attacks, accidents, will often tell it so, as have heroes. They do not know how, but that moment was 'emergent' for them, and they lived.
  • Sincere compassion: This is perhaps the most difficult to access, because it demands a total ego detachment to be truly compassionate. For most of us, compassion is fleeting, as is reciprocal understanding, where our personal subjective mind wants to dominate, to not be dominated in return. Understandably, but there is also a detachment of mind that allows for the other to not be dominated naturally. To do that, one must have a compassionate, patient understanding of the other, and allow for the other to have their imperfections, as they should allow them in us. We all must learn from imperfections, because when we do, and are compassionate in the learning, with compassion for all life, we gain that special privilege of being in the Universal mind. Traditionally, such higher compassion had been called the Golden Rule. But it is more than that.
  • Creating beauty: Not all art is beautiful, sometimes it needs to tell an ugly story. But when focussed on beauty, or beautiful prose or music, it brings out a spiritual feeling that transcends the ordinary, and communicates that same feeling to its recipients. Perhaps that is what defines "beauty" in the first place, that it connects us somewhere deep within ourselves into that 'emergent' Mind of the universe, so it moves us, and others admire the work. When a sculptor brings life to form, or a painter sees with the soul, we see it and we 'know' it instantly. It is beautiful.
  • Intense listening: This is a 'person to person' immersion, where deeply attentive to the other's thoughts, or feelings, one suddenly has a 'merging' of minds, of souls, of emotions. These are magic moments we seldom really experience in life, since we are too busy talking to really listen. But when they happen, like lovers on a higher plane, we are suddenly connected with something much more beautiful on a higher scale of being. That is emergent, to truly listen, and care, soul to soul.
  • Appreciating all life: Whether admiring the delicate wings of a butterfly, or majestic dive of an oceanic whale, or wolf nursing her pups, it is all beautiful to our senses, to see real life as it is in nature. Those are magic moments, when our mind detaches from everything except the beauty of the living event. Who has not marveled at the innocence of a child? Or the magic of a living garden? Then we reach into that other emergent world, where we appreciate, however fleetingly, the universal beauty of all living things, and we are totally a part of it. Life is wonderful.
  • Being in love: The mind of a lover is not the ordinary, everyday mind of a thinking, working being. Rather, it finds itself immersed into some other reality, one that need not necessarily make a lot of sense, certainly not logical, but that guides us with almost unbearable lightness to the other, even if unrequited. The object of our love borders on obsession, can be sublime, and wanting nothing more than their happiness, as they make us happy. This is truly an irrational feeling, especially if it is challenging, to be so committed to another's love, while seeking the same in return. But it happens, and it is so common as to be universal for all human beings of the planet. We all, at one time or another in our lives, will fall in love. When it happens, it becomes intensely 'emergent' for us.
  • Natural vastness: Not everyone is drawn to natural vastness, and in fact I have known people to actually shy from it, wanting to hide or run away. But for those drawn to it, as is often experienced in the stark beauty of the desert, or on the vast seas, or under an infinite canopy of stars, where you are so alone, so in tune with your isolated existence then and there, that it becomes something more than merely 'being there'; strangely, that same can be felt in a cave; the experience becomes one of 'emergent' total connectedness to all around you. It is so grand, and feels so intense inside, that it can make you cry. I know.
  • Freedom of being: There is no possibility of happiness without the freedom to choose our being. This is a universal need of humanity, that each person seeks his or her being in reality within their capacity as best they can. But when enslaved to another person, that capacity is jeopardized and the person suffers. In fact, this may be the primary requisite of attaining Universal Mind and reason, is to be free to do so, as it is something distant and illusive when we are unfree. Under slavery, humanity was severely restricted in its ability to grow into the Third Reason. We needed to achieve Laws of Freedom protecting us from coercions, violence, and slavery to be able to come to the threshold of this Universal reason. Fail that freedom, and you are failing the Universal Mind. Without personal freedom, reciprocally responsible in every meaning of the word, our brain-neurons development remains stunted, and we cannot rise above the Subjective-Objective reason paradigm. It has taken a long time for Earth's humanity to get here, now we can move to the next level, if we choose. Freedom of being, enforced gently but firmly, is a mandatory first step to our next human-consciousness evolution.

Now, this was written by me in a kind of stream of consciousness, but certain recurring patterns are evident. Some key words: intense, beauty, vastness, lover, flow, connectedness, quiet, insight, emergence, affirmation, nature, water, feeling, compassion, happiness, life, freedom. These are all "code" words for when we reach into the Third Reason of the universal Mind. It happens naturally, it is usually very pleasant to experience, and a certain joy fills us at that moment. It livens our spirit and engenders health in us. These are the things, patterns and words, we must "listen" for in our hearts and minds, because that is when we are "connecting" with the Universal Mind. We had already been programmed, however crudely, to respond to this Third Reason, as shown above, but it manifested in us more as awe, mysticism, spiritual encounter, or luck, rather than something tangible we are actually entitled to connect with in our minds. It had been mysterious, probed from ancient times in a legacy of religious aspirations, mystic mysteries, even the occult seeking God, etc., then it fades out again. It had not yet been understood as something rather rational and innate in our brain functions, that we can understand this form of reason and work with it. But think about it, have not these "code" words been the themes of all our human endeavors, in the arts, in literature and theater, in film? What do people talk about, what do we yearn for, if not the Universal Mind?

So this is the big test of whether or not we have achieved true consciousness as human beings, when we can access this Universal mind naturally, propelled by our natural freedoms, almost instinctively, to manage our temporal lives. It is a given all understand and accept. At present, this is still too illusive for us, so we often fall back upon superstitions or confused mysticism, and their corollary coercions and deceits. But it is not so mystical an idea, merely one we still have difficulty connecting with, because we are not yet programmed to do so. Our evolution is still lagging. Rather, Universal reason should be in same category as Objective and Subjective thinking, just human brain-neurons connected on a Universal plane. Once we know how to do this, it will not be so strange anymore, and in fact will take our world into a whole new dimension of positive, healthy activities. We must work on it, for that is a beautiful future to reach for... Drink from the Fountains of Life. It is that simple. We can do this.

Waterfall - of Universal reason (articles embedded in image)

Be free of the Ego, and you are half there, the rest is natural.

Also see: The Portal

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Illuminated Universe
Posted on Friday, October 21, 2011 - 11:38 am:   

A Journey Through Space and Time

Space and Time.jpg
The Illuminated Universe (interactive)

Maybe not the real truth, yet, but we are still gathering information.

Courtesy Space.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Original Guilt?
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 11:11 am:   

Original Guilt?

King David as a shepherd, Psalm 23

I wrote on the Why is it still 'Hell on Earth' thread:
"When Earth's climate was changing and the grass savannas of north Africa and eastern Mediterranean Canaan were drying into desert, up on a grassy knoll by a fireside sat some shepherds, maybe in Sinai, who were discussing their lot under a star lit sky. Why was life so hard? It was already believed in Egypt under the Pharaohs, there was but One God, the Sun god Pharaoh as a failed representative on Earth now parching their pastures; so even within living memory forage and feed for their flocks was more plentiful. How could this god be so cruel to them? But as talk night after night lingered into dawn twilight, a consensus slowly emerged, that it was Man who was at fault. Long before science understood climate change and how overgrazing would turn their land to desert, humans were speculating on their existence in their changing land. Could it be that Man was fallen in the eyes of God? Somewhere in dim history we made a mistake? And since then had been cursed with hardship, so now all men are born of sin, of woman, and that paradisiacal existence of long ago had turned to suffering? It must have been so, they reasoned, or how else to explain their hardship when flocks die from drought and lack of feed? People, whole clans, were starving. The idea spread steadily as popular legends do, so by the time of Moses it was already well believed, that Man is born of Original Sin, and only God, the One God, was perfect; a Deity that would make a covenant with Man. Live by My rules, and you will be saved suffering, but disobey and you will be punished. The priests of the Temples liked the idea very much, as it could help them consolidate order and power over the people. The Egyptian Sun god failed them, but their new understanding of their One God, YHWH, "I Am that I Am", would deliver them from their hardships and failings of their Pagan ancestors. Moses assured them as much, and it was written into Genesis of the Bible, the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The rest is history. Thus was born the Abrahamic trilogy of faith, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

Is this not the fount of all world Biblical religions, that Man is fallen in original Sin? Is it not Man's fault that we suffer for being lesser beings, born of 'sin' and made to feel 'guilty' until redemption? And was it not around this "Original Sin" that world Biblical religions constructed salvation and redemption from it? I wrote in the same thread, Is Original Sin necessary for all the Abrahamic religions? that without this 'original sin' imputation in the Bible, the whole structure of Adam's fall and mankind's Messianic liberation from 'sin' becomes a house of cards. Remove Original Sin, and the whole structure comes tumbling down. Do we really need world religions' messianic redemption from original Sin? Or is it really 'redemption' from original Guilt?

Jesus as the Good Shepherd

The whole superstructure of religion is to impose God's Covenant on Man's fallen nature. This in itself is an inherently coercive structure demanding obedience from Man to allay Adam's sin in us, with punishments to follow if we disobey. But too often these punishments are man-made, so rather than await an inevitable death with its post-mortem punishments in Hell, humans take it upon themselves to punish disbelievers temporally. Repent or suffer is the modus operandi of this religious superstructure imposed on all humanity, in lesser or greater degrees. In Christianity the punishments have become, in modern times, rather tamed: excommunication, damnation, denial of communion, possible shunning socially; but in Islam the punishment, in these same times, is often severe: flogging, stoning, amputation, spiritual damnation or death. But is this necessary to fulfill God's Covenant with Man? No, not if Man's original Sin is nothing more than original Guilt. The Supreme Being of the Universe is far greater, and simpler, than the imputed mythologies of ancient religions, and far purer in our gnosis of belief experiences within our lives in it. We are indeed 'children of God' and there is no 'saving' us from this, because we are already made in the image of that Being. This is why the Universe is understandable to us, and why we can operate within it with abilities that to our ancient forebears would have appeared miraculous. There is no need to feel Guilt over any imputed 'original Sin' because it never existed in the first place. Remove the coercive superstructure of religious punishments, and you liberate the soul to seek God naturally, as it was meant to be.

Did religion civilize humanity in ancient times? Without a doubt, as missionaries from all religions, Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, including Islam and Hindu, have brought law and order, and some form of morality to barbaric tribes. But in modern times, though religions still hold commendable sway, this is more simply achieved by being mindful of when such morality and order encourages 'human agreements', as opposed to enforcing coercions. The only coercion necessary to achieve moral behaviors is to stop coercion. The rest follows of its own accord, naturally. In fact, is this not the whole principle of Habeas Mentem, that humanity has a greater consciousness, both personally and in toto, through personal agreements than coercions? We need not feel guilty over this, because it is our natural birthright. We as a rising human planetary consciousness have the right to seek each other out in agreement, and to be protected from others' coercions. That is a far greater reality to aspire to, and far more durable morally than any religious superstructure imposed on us, to achieve our true human Being. It is that simple.

the shepherd leads and protects his flock

The true Messiah had a simple message, "Love one another." There is little else that truly matters. The rest follows simply, with beauty, elegance, greatness, they all follow, with love. This is the simple Message for all humanity for all time, not with guilt, or sin, but with Love. And the Universe opens to you.

I. Bruno

Also see: And Adam gave Eve the Apple

One vs. Two? - a philosophical question

The Messiah Paradox
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New Age bunk
Posted on Monday, June 04, 2012 - 02:15 pm:   

What if "New Age" is speculative 'new bunk'?

ILLUSION_OF_REALITY_Wallpaper_sydpw.jpg (interactive - video, 10 mins)
The Illusion of Reality ~ Consciousness & Quantum Theory

That the whole of reality and the universe is all Consciousness may be true in some way. But that this inner consciousness in each one of us is what forms for us the physical reality in which we live, stretching from our personal existence to billions of light years away where the universe seems to peter out, is a vast stretch of imagination, and wishful thinking. It is a projection and has no real substance under serious scrutiny. For example, there is no way for our 'consciousness' to will itself to rise up from death, nor can it relieve the pain associated with real suffering in our physical state of being; predation is painful, to eat and be eaten is a natural state of physical being for most species, but the pain is real only for the one being eaten and not the one doing the eating. That the atom is a vibration of energy may be true (Humancafe article shows the atom as an interaction between a strong gravity nucleus with electromagnetic energy received), and it may even be a 'holographic' projection of universal consciousness, but it does not negate the reality of that projection as having real cause and effect independent of our participation in it. Things exist of their own, not of our volition for them to exist. To think otherwise, a basis for New Age thinking, is to project our "wish model" onto all of reality, so it is speculation at best, and grossly disingenuous, inaccurately irresponsible at worst. It is bunk.

The Universe may be participatory, and evidence seems to indicate at the sub-atomic Quantum level and marco-universal level that it is, including concepts of infinite interrelationships discussed here; but it is a gross oversimplification to think this is in any way a personal wish experience, such as insinuated in New Age speculations. In effect, this whole process of thinking ourselves as mere projections within a universal Consciousness is lovely as an elegant theory of existence, but it is not usefully practical in our everyday existence. We still have to eat, to stay warm, and to safeguard ourselves from being abused and attacked by others, whether animals or human, as well as natural disasters. Here is the danger of oversimplification of universal reality into a pop culture thinking it can raise its consciousness by us willing it to be so. Not that easy. The universe has certain rules and logic behind its structure, and it is far more demanding than our simply wishing it to be in our image. Scientific approach to all these questions and issues of consciousness is a better way. And once understood, it is simple. But there is no easy short-cut to us raising our human consciousness within the universal Consciousness, except through a rigorous understanding of how the universe works. And that's Science, not New Age. At the social level of inter-human interaction, wishing for good things, for peace and love, for mutual respect and affection, is simply not enough. Meditation, yoga, good thoughts and healthy living, joyfulness, all have their place in the human arena of existence, and they should be encouraged for personal well being and health, as well as a smooth flow of beneficial social interactions. But reality is very demanding. And to make the world work, it takes a lot of hard work, not fuzzy wishful thinking.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gravity 'remainder' of Strong force
Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 10:19 pm:   

In the May 2012, issue of Scientific American, in article titled: Loops, Trees and the Search for New Physics, it says (fair use):


Gravity does look like the other forces, albeit in an unexpected way. It behaves like a "double copy" of the strong subnuclear force that binds the constituents of nuclei together.

string_theory.jpg (interactive)
What is String Theory?

This little innocuous sentence captures the essence of where gravity comes from -- what we know as the weak force of G=6.67x10^-11 m^3 kg ^-1 s^-2 in our Earth orbital region -- as the "remainder force" from electromagnetic energy density from our local hot star, the Sun, and its interaction with the Strong force equivalence in the proton nuclei, as it is modified there and kept in a state of equilibrium, what we call the atom. (Per Equivalence, that remainder gravity also accounts for atom's inertial mass.) I doubt the writer, or physicists studying this, actually see it that way, yet, but in time it will become more evident. The search for 'gravitons' will prove illusive, as the remainder Strong force resulting in gravity has no such particles radiating it. It merely exists as a gravitational potential 'spooky action' at a distance, to infinity. Gravity is inversely proportional to hot energy, whereby gravity G is weaker closer in to hot star, but stronger further out, and some five orders of magnitude greater in interstellar space; so it is inherently different from radiant energy. Gravity stands apart as a force, has no polarity, and does not radiate anything; it merely is. Nor is it a 'universal constant' as now believed, but is variable in direct proportion (per Axiomatic Equation) to the inverse of the energy density received; in effect, it is a 'constant' on a curve. It is not coincidence that all the forces of nature are interrelated. That is how is structured the universes, and it is totally balanced as a cosmic whole, except for its 'emergence' evolution. But disambiguation of the Strong force is the key, as modified by radiant electromagnetic energy, whereby the remainder force is Gravity.

And no, there was no Big Bang (sheesh), it's all deep space gravity redshift. For Unified Theory to come together it will have to factor in Variable-G.

Also: the missing Higgs boson might be found after all, at 125 GeV range, as expected: New Particle at World's Largest Atom Smasher is Likely Higgs Boson - Space.com.

It sounds like a rather messy way to find 'intertial' mass, which is not a 'particle' but that's where they're at, for now.

RE 'Dark Matter', see Giant Dark Matter Bridge Between Galaxy Clusters Discovered. It may be nothing more than non-luminous molecules scattered in intergalactic space regions of sparse e.m. energy resulting in exceptionally high gravity-G, some 5 orders of magnitudes higher than Earth's G region, so interacts gravitationally only, not visible to us.

Also see: 'Dark matter' is structure of the universe? Still groping in the dark, regardless of Higgs.

Standard Model deviant

Also see: Gerber's Gravity


The contribution to the Newtonian potential at a given location in space at a given instant due to a mass m is strictly a function of the distance of that mass from the given location at the same instant.  In other words, if we let r[t] denote the distance from the given location to the mass particle at the time t, then the contribution of that mass to the gravitational potential V[t] at the given location at the time t is V[t] = -m/r[t].  Thus, Newtonian gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance, because the effect of changing the position of a gravitating mass is "felt" throughout the universe at the instant when the mass moves.  Needless to say, for the simple two-body problem this potential gives stable elliptical orbits.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Smashing tea cups
Posted on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 10:15 pm:   

Maybe atom smashing in Large Hadron Collider is like smashing tea cupe?


3D visualization of a collision event inside the Large Hadron Collider. Does a Higgs particle hide inside all that carnage?

Imagine you design an experiment where you are going to smash tea cups in a large 'smashatron'. Then you will measure the residue from the smashed cups. You will count the number of 1 millimeter pieces, then 2 mm. then 3 mm, and so on, until you get to the largest millimeters of 'expected' according to theory. Now, once these cups are smashed, do a statistical analysis of the pieces from each experiment, and repeat thousands of times. The measured pieces of cups are then recorded on a bell graph, according to the resulting distribution of shard sizes. So it looks like this:


Then you analyze the results and give them 'names' for each size shard recorded, and finally you come up with a standard chart of what you found. Unsurprisingly, the cup shards fall into a recognizable pattern that fits your theory as to how they are supposed to smash up. And voila! You have a 'standard' theory of smashed cups. To take it beyond here is problematic, since all we did was measure how tea cups smash up, of different sizes and shapes, until we have fitted curves for the results. But this is not too far off the mark as an analogy of smashed atoms and molecules. The decaying particles from LHC collisions are the shards. The results are skewed by what the theory predicted would happen. So when Higgs particle was finally discovered, statistically, after much effort and progressively more expensive colliders, you basically got a fit. That is not to say Standard Model is wrong, nor that atom smashing is invalid. But the similarity is striking.

Then break out the champagne, and get a standing ovation. :-) It's the best we've got.

And then it goes into hyperbole:


Higgs bosons imply the existence of a Higgs field, which is envisioned as a "condensate" that slows down speed-of-light particles and encumbers them with mass. If we find a way to "turn off" the field or create a local anomaly, we could end up with super-fast, super-express highways with mass-on / mass-off ramps. Miss your exit, though, and your next U-turn could be 100 million miles ahead.

What can we say? Is this boson the 'right egg'?

Also see: Hints of New Physics Detected in the LHC?

More at: Tracking high energy particles in a Bubble Chamber
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Galileo G.
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 03:51 pm:   

Galileo's complaint

650px-Galileo-sustermans.jpg (interactive)
a simple man, Galileo

I am a simple man. Some say I am delusional. But after a long life of trials, and vagaries both human and natural, I can say I am of sound mind. Except I see things in the world differently, so I may appear delusional to some, or wise to others. I will let history judge my works. It is not for me to do otherwise. It is in my vanity I write this testament, to be opened upon my death, for many have misunderstood me. I wish to clarify I am a simple man.

When still a young boy, my life in Pisa was uneventful, I found a love for mathematics. It came easy to me as I helped my father with calculations when building his musical instruments. Only later at university did I find the love for geometry. It was my fascination with scales and pendulums that led me to open my eyes to their mathematical wonders, of how the universe is a perfect harmonium of forms and numbers explained with mathematical precision. This was the wonder that cleared my life's path away from a life my father ordained for me, as neither the priesthood nor medicine could match my first love. Geometry became my mistress and mathematics her handmaiden. So I ordained myself to a life of study. Was that delusional, as they say of me? Is pursuit of God's truths, in observations and their mathematics, an error?

I had been called many things, even a "vehement heretic"! Yet I would delude myself to think I had actually found something unknowable to the mind of man, or God. Of course I would never challenge the holy Scriptures. If it was God's way of saying His truths to mankind, then I cannot improve on that. But man is a fallible creature that misunderstands often. So my instructions were to clarify understanding, not to confuse with heresies. Did I do wrong to try to find the answers with simplicity and truth? Oh yes, they honored me at the Academia dei Lincei in Rome for my 'eye glass tube', what they called in Greek "to see at a distance', their tele'scope. I am not vain to consider it a glory. I merely did what I had to do, and look. The planets came clearer, Jupiter with its garland of moons. The phases of Venus proved it went around the Sun, though I was much maligned for it. I was first to map the mountains and mares of the Moon. When I looked into the heart of the Milky Way, I was richly rewarded with stars and more stars. Was it delusional to look into the heart of God? No, I am a simple man who is curious, and no more. The perfections of the heavens are in the image of that perfection of God. My favorite is the circle, perfectly complete and infinite at the same time. Geometry's perfect forms are but His language, and I a humble student.

Oh yes, I had also done useful work. My technical inventions, with improved geometric calculations, found ready takers. The Prince hired me to calculate projectile parabolas for his canons, which I did, as well as the compass for military use. Did I sell my epistemic soul for technic pursuit? Perhaps. But are they not both God's works? The telescope, and then the microscope, and the thermometer are my greatest achievements. They solved problems by offering vision and right calculations. How could inventions that aid us be "heretical"? Yet, the telescope caused me much trouble with Church authorities. Even my daughter Virginia, whom I fathered with my beloved Marina, found fault with my explorations of the heavens. By then she was accepted into her convent, so perhaps I should not be critical of her ecclesiastic views. We are fallible beings beneath the perfection of the heavens, so must be forgiven for our limitations. I am not a proud man, but merely a humble servant of knowledge. For this they called me a "heretic"? "Don't persist, Papa, with your ideas of the Sun as fixed in the heavens" she would say. "You know it is in the Hebrew bible that it is the Earth that is fixed." We wrote letters. "But the oceans are not fixed, are they?" I would write back. "The tides flow to and fro, just as the Earth spins around the Sun, is it not so?" She could not answer to this, but to beseech me to be circumspect, prudent. Her love for me warms even now, though she had already passed to God… It seems only yesterday.

I learned they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in Campo dei Fiori, but then I said nothing. I suppose I am to consider myself fortunate that I too did not share the same fate in Rome many years later. The Holy Fathers were severe with me, they showed me instruments of torture. To this day I shudder at the sight, it so filled me with fear. How could humans be so cruel to humans? They say it is to keep the Holy Catholic Church pure, to free her of the viles of the Evil One. But does the Devil work to show us truths with reason, only to confuse us with errors and heresies? No, I cannot believe that. Reason and truths are from God, not the Devil. I think they burned Bruno unjustly. Same as they silenced me unjustly and kept me my final years imprisoned from the world. I have been judged unjustly by the Church authorities. Is that delusional of me to think they are fallible? Was it delusional that I thought comets went around the Sun in their fiery paths, gaining grains of sand when far, but shedding them in giant tails when near? The mathematics make sense, though it is puzzling their paths are elliptical and not perfectly round? Why is that? Surely God in His perfection would have made them perfectly circular orbits, same as for all the planets and moons. But my mind wanders now, I am not saying what I wanted to clearly. Same as when I wrote in my notes, my mind sees things backwards as well as forwards, and sometimes the two mix together, so something surprising and totally new emerges. I am not always in control of what I think and say, so help me God. Yet, I do believe Reason is from God and not the Devil. Bruno was burned unjustly… May the Holy Fathers forgive him.

It is God's simplicity I worship most of all. In my delusional moments, I imagine myself actually understanding Him in His own language. But it passes quickly, and I am again left to wonder alone in my solitude, watching the fire crackle to warm my feet. The mind wanders, then finds a safe rock to hold fast. I turn to the Bible and find His language there, simple and easy to understand. The universe is too complicated for one man to fathom, certainly to understand it on its own terms. It is easier to turn to one's fellows and ask them. Whatever the scholars tell you, accept it as said true, and life simplifies immensely. But I am cursed with wondering, so cannot long find solace in their stories and myths. No matter how clever and complex, the truths of life scream at me in their simplicity, and I cannot turn a deaf ear. God forgive me for my vanity, but I want to hear His voice clearly, such as it happens sometimes inside my head. Is that delusional? Then I am a simple man who is delusional.

May His Holy Father Urban VIII forgive me for my obstinate intransigence in my search for knowledge. He called it "vehement suspicion of heresy", as ruled by the Holy Inquisition. I am not guilty of such. My only guilt is that I did not better explain myself, so they misunderstood my fallible words. It was not philosophy that I sought, nor sophistry or polemics to challenge Church doctrine and dogma. Nor did I wish to place myself above others on whose shoulders I stood, their knowledge holding me up like a Prometheus on the shoulders of Titans. No, I am a simple man who craves no such glories. My life was a parabola that reached its apex early, and now well into its decline. I look back at the first conic section with wonder, and the second coming with dread of the unknown. Where do we go from here? What trajectory shall we follow when our soul joins with the stars? That is the heart of the matter, in fine, that we are born and then we die. To have lived a truthful virtuous life is the apex of man's achievements, all else pales in comparison like ruins. Yes, the glory of Rome was great once… But then they too died. May the Holy Father forgive me for my failures as a man, as the circle of life closes on itself, and save my soul in His infinite mercies. I wished to be a simple man. In my delusional dreams, with the clarity of Pythagorean scales, I thought I was. Or perhaps not... I let history judge.

G. Galilei (fiction)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Galileo Galilei Linceo
Posted on Monday, July 15, 2013 - 12:36 pm:   


Galileo.jpg Federico Cesi.JPG (interactive)
Galileo and Federico Cesi, founder of Academia dei Lincei

While staying in Rome we had the opportunity to attend a symposium at the Academia dei Lincei, Lincean Academy at Palazzo Corsini in Trastevere, on Galileo Galilei for the 400 year anniversary of his book published by the Academy on Macchie Solari (On Sunspots) 1613, in honor of the man who may very well have been the father of modern science. As one of the early members of Academia Lincei, Galileo added Linceo to his signature, so he signed his name "Galileo Galilei Linceo". The Academy was founded in 1603 by Prince Federico Cesi (1585-1630), making it the world's earliest Science academy. It was dedicated to the then novel idea that Natural Science and inductive reasoning was the way of the future, and their purpose was to publish and promote new scientists and their discoveries. Galileo had already published three years earlier his Sedereus Nuncius book of astronomy, showing the mountains and mares of the moon, and later phases of Venus and four moons of Jupiter. This launched modern astronomy and the 'scientific method' introduced by Galileo (and Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Alhazen et al) where observation was followed by inductive reasoning to form hypothesis, and where the language of science became mathematical. (Note, Royal Society in England was founded later, 1660, but unlike Lincei it was in continuous operation to the present.)

Nuncio Sidereo.JPG Lincei symbol.JPG (interactive)
Galileo's "Starry Messenger" Sidereus Nuncius; Academia dei Lincei symbol (photos by Celsia, library at Palazzo Corsini)

The purpose of the symposium (most of it in English) was to explore both the history of Galileo's science and where we are going forward in the 21st century. The focus was primarily on future missions in the solar system, from missions to the Sun as well as out into the solar system with robotic spacecraft observations. The past, however, as illustrated in the corollary publication "Galileo, I Primi Lincei e l'Astronomia" (Italian) given to attending members, there was also awareness of what odds Galileo and Academia dei Lincei faced during the times of the Holy Inquisition 400 years ago. Galileo then published at the Academia his Macchie Solari (On Sunspots), 1613. At the time, science was still a debatable idea which was enthusiastically supported by the intelligentsia of the time, including members of the Catholic Church (Jesuits, cardinals) who welcomed progressive ideas on science. But where these ideas conflicted with Holy Scripture, Church dogma and 'mainstream' Ptolemaic doctrine, they would be uneasy in appearing 'heretical', so treated such conflicting ideas as 'speculations' and not to be proven as absolute truths. This ran increasingly into conflict as scientific evidence continued to militate against the Ptolemaic geocentric system in favor the the Copernican heliocentric solar system. So what was at first gladly entertained by church scholars initially came into increasing suspicion of being treasonous to Church doctrine, and hence 'heretical' in nature. There were numerous attempts to fit, however uneasily, the new scientific astronomical observations with the new telescope popularized by Galileo into some framework that would appeal to Vatican scholars, and the Inquisition. For example, Tycho Brahe's creative compromise Tyconic solar system had the Earth at the center with the Sun revolving around it, and the planets in turn revolving around the Sun, not a comfortable fit but acceptable to some for a time.
(The great Biblioteca of Cardinal Casanatense -17th century, next to Convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva- in Rome then had some 25,000 books, some of which are heretical, but referenced by Inquisitors, as well as the metal orb of the Tychonic solar system.) Giambattista Della Porta wrote his "De Refractione" (1593) in support of Galileo's optics and astronomical observations, but not his scientific conclusions, as well as "Maggia Naturales" (1589) which merged alchemy with science. The telescope was then still debated as to whether or not its optics 'distorted' the reality it was observing, as argued by Christoph Scheiner (1573-1650), who also disputed Galileo's hypothesis, though aware that the old Ptolemaic system needed revision. In his letters to Archduchess Cristina de Lorena, Galileo made the case for separating Scripture from Science, and that biblical references were not to be disputed by scientific discoveries, as they were two separate forms of God's truths revealed to man, in essence. However, these debates did not endanger Galileo, nor the Academia, until he published his "Dialogo" (1623) as a fictional dialogue between Copernican and Ptolemaic philosophers, Ptolemy being represented by Simplicius (and vaguely Pope Urban VIII), that the Catholic Church (and Pope) took offense for openly challenging orthodoxy. Galileo was summoned by the Holy Inquisition, sanctioned for suspicion of 'high heresy', silenced and put under house arrest for the rest of his years. And thus was made the difficult transition from Scripture based 'science' to the modern Natural science, where dogma no longer ruled the intellect, but deferred instead to observation and hypothesis, with mathematics the new universal language of science. This was the legacy of Galileo.

1613 Galileo solar book.JPG Ptolemaeus book.JPG
Macchie Solari "Sunspots"; Ptolemaic book (Celsia)

Kepler book.jpeg 17th c. occhiale.jpeg (Interactive)
Kepler book; occhiali 17th century with manuscript (Celsia)

Cristina de Lorena.JPG Galilo letter to Cristina.JPG
Duchess Cristina de Lorena; Galileo letter to Duchess de Lorena (Celsia)

Roberto Bellarmino.JPG Scheiner.JPG (interactive)
Cardinal Bellarmine; Christoph Scheiner - detractors of Copernican system

Casanatense library.JPG 250px-Tychonian_system.svg.png (interactive)
Cardinal Casanatense Library with Tychonian solar system (upper center globe); Tychonian system

Dialogo by Galileo.JPG Diaologo 2.JPG
Dialogo by Galileo (interactive); Dialogo, Simplicio et al (Celsia)

400 years hence… Is the Galilean 'scientific method' at risk in the 21st century?

This is an ongoing concern in the scientific fields of today. We see it in the Creationism versus Evolution debates, as well as debates between believers and doubters in other mainstream ideas of science. For example, is the evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis compelling beyond doubt? Or is there room to challenge the ideas: that cosmic light redshift is from necessity from the Doppler expansion of space, that there cannot be other compelling reasons that are non-Doppler? Perhaps instead it could be gravitational (Dark Matter gravitational redshift, line of sight) in origin that would invalidate mainstream cosmology? Or perhaps going beyond the Standard Model? These debates are at risk as they were during Galileo's time. Today's charge of scientific 'heresy' no longer carries a death threat. But there are many subtle ways to silence those who are considered 'pseudo-scientists' because they challenge the Mainstream ideology, such as cut off research funding, silenced publications, loss of employment opportunities, academic ridicule, etc. Are the Galilean challenges to authority still with us? Is the scientific method alive and well today? Or is it faulty when driven by hypothesis bias orthodoxy (inadvertently enforcing scientific 'dogma'), to the detriment of science? Therein lies the Galilean dilemma in our 21st century...

Rome, Trastevere
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

One vs. Two?
Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 01:21 pm:   

One vs. Two?

Fractal GordianKnot.jpg (interactive)
Fractal Gordian Knot

There is something in the mind that wants to unite all into wholeness as a concept of Unity. However, this is frustrated by a universe that seems to be composed of opposing factors, or a duality of polarity that perpetually Divides rather than unites. How can this be understood without falling into the old traps of "us vs. them" or "good vs. evil", or light vs. dark, plus vs. minus, hot vs. cold, macro vs. micro, etc., and all the permutations in between? In observing reality, we see this duality multiply fractal like into a kaleidoscope infinity of diversity and multiplicity. So how can one derive unity from such diversity?

In a simple universe, there is no distinction between unity and duality, merely distinctions within Unity as it plays out in vast panorama of existence. In the end, it is all One. But from our observational perspective, there is in fact a great variety of 'ones' that make up the world we know. It seems to us that duality exists at all levels of the universe, from the biblical Genesis duality of 'God and the world', to the scientific world's duality of positive and negative charge, to the Standard Model 'duality' of a multiplicity of fundamental particles, to socio-economic rich and poor, even to gender male and female. So how could Duality ever be denied? It is obvious that 'here and there' are two distinct categories our human mind must accept as true. We are hard wired to see the universe that way, and our desire to reduce this to Unity is likewise a construct of our mind in it. It is the same with the ancient Egyptian, or Zoroastrian, Hebrew, Christian, idea of 'good and evil', which though a purely subjective idea is nevertheless a reality for us as a human species. We make distinctions, which in itself implies a priori a sense of duality. But there is a way around this problem of duality by introducing another term, and that is by adding one to it, which makes it a Triality. This once more brings it back to Unity. But how?

Three involves the basic common denominator of all the interconnectedness of things in existence, their interactions, or their 'interrelationship' all the way to infinity. Nothing is left out of total interrelationship, as nothing can be exempt from its interconnected web of existence. And it is from that totality of interrelationship that a new thing is born out, or emergent, that adds to the totality value that did not exist before: It adds One. Together, the totality again becomes this One, and the original duality plus one, as it is three, is always One.

This may seem paradoxical, but it goes a long way towards understanding what the ancient Hindus' 'Advaita and Advaya', and later Hua-yen Buddhism's interpenetrated reality came to understand of the Universe, that it is all a Unity. The ultimate greater goal of these non-dualistic spiritual philosophies is to join with a greater universal consciousness by dropping the ego, which can also be found in elements of Christian and Sufi mysticism. What they all hold in common is an understanding of the Universe as non-dualistic, but an interpenetrated reality that is totally interrelated back into our being-consciousness, which allows us to 'emerge' into our godhead, or the One. So strange that it seems, the Three is central to Unity, same as implicated subliminally in the Trinity of Christianity. When religions stayed focused on Duality, the 'good and evil' or 'light and darkness', they reached only part way into the whole truth, or it now seems in retrospect. There is a third factor that brings All to Unity, where the objective and subjective, Zen like, are brought into unity by human consciousness. And this is the same Consciousness that is brought about by a universe that is interrelated to infinity from three.

800x8003med3.jpg (interactive)
Duality vs. Triality

So what is the outcome of One vs. Two? It is Three. And that natural addition is what in final analysis identifies the meaning of One: the universal Unity. Every child knows one and two is three! It is that simple. But it takes a spiritually mature, conscious mind to understand that in the end, one and two is both three, and universally One.


Also see: Working the Subjective Mind
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Government best, least, equal
Posted on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 03:36 pm:   

Government governs best

Government that best protects the interests of free people in ways agreeable to the common good;

is government that governs least;

that where constitutional protection for all individual human rights from criminal coercion is its prime directive;

with equal protection for all.

irrespective of gender, spiritual beliefs, ethnicity or race, equally before the law.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gravity, perfect illusion
Posted on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 06:12 pm:   

Gravity, the perfect illusion.

Ancients knew it, that it is easier to roll stones downhill than up; philosophers of Ancient Greece knew it as a downward force;  Egyptian-Greco-Roman builders used it; it was Newton who identified it as a force, F=ma, to be same as G_F=GMm/r^2; so all knew it as Gravity. But it was Einstein who ultimately defined it totally geometrically in his General Relativity, that curved space-time around a massive object acts as its gravitational attraction, where G=(8piG/c^4)T, which completed the hypothetical notion of what Gravity is. In fact, it was an illusive hypothesis, because it measured exactly what we perceive it to be without betraying its true nature. We still are uncertain of what is gravity, perhaps even totally ignorant of it, though we think we know it.  Why is that?

Looking at the bigger picture: The space-time equations of General Relativity are foundational on Special Relativity's basic axioms, that light speed is constant, and that same laws of physics apply for all reference frames.  However, there may be a problem with this, that GR and SR are incompatible: in Special Relativity space-time is flat, while in General Relativity it is curved; (though Energy Conservation is same, as expressed by the tensor T;b=0 in both cases.) This then leads to a contradiction of sorts, that flat space time must equal curved space time in all reference frames at light speed  c.

For example, we know from amply verifiable observations that light will curve around massive objects like galaxies (gravitational lensing, even for dark matter galaxies) so it will arrive at light speed c in observed measured time. But will this time observed equal for same light arriving directly from the source (same distant star) and not curved by gravitational lensing, so both are equal at light speed c? One path of light is direct from its source, while the other is curved; yet light cannot exceed light speed c; so the time observed must be the same for same light (at c in all reference frames), viz., same time for light curved by gravitational forces around a galaxy as for light direct. If so, because curved path is longer, the only possible solution is to change time in curved space-time, so gravity lensed light will not exceed c, and both photons (from same source) will arrive at the same (adjusted) time. Otherwise, the longer curved path will take longer to travel than the direct one, so their respective times of travel would differ; or light would be forced to exceed c for curved path. For simultaneous observed time (for both paths of unequal lengths) to be the same, we must allow that time differs for one path versus the other; and that flat space time of SR is same as curved space time of GR, when adjusted for "proper" Time. It is now believed relativistic gravitational lensing shows time delay, but mathematically adjusted to relativistic time (slight gravitationally redshift for curved path), the light arrives simultaneously.

Carried over into gravity, we have a 'flat space' equivalence in Newton's gravity G, and a 'curved space' equivalence in Einstein's General Relativity. Both will give readings correct within their domains of applicability, though only if adjusted for relativistic observations: they appear Newtonian at low velocity, but Einsteinian at hypervelocity, though both observational readings are correct, as adjusted. In both cases, gravity is axiomatically a universal constant G, and acts on mass to infinity, so in both Newton's G and Einstein's G there is a simultaneity of force potential over distance, to infinity. Where Newton has no time restriction on gravitational force, the other has a mathematical geometric time adjusted restriction: GR gravity waves cannot exceed relativistic speed limit c. This of necessity means gravity action at a distance cannot have simultaneous cause and effect at relativistic cosmological distances. 

Newtonian gravity applied to space time of our solar system does not pose difficulty, and all works as it should. But with time delay of relativistic orbital gravity calculations, there should be discrepancy in how gravity waves time delay affects orbital behavior perturbations over greater distances; something not found observationally.  For example, close to home, the eight minute light delay from our sun -same c as propagating gravity waves- should register during solar eclipse, where gravitational effect is delayed by eight minutes; in fact, the opposite is true, gravity acts in real time and affects Earth's tides eight minutes earlier (Allais Effect, unconfirmed?)* than visible eclipse. So rather than flat space time, we find gravity at curved space time equivalence, where  gravity effect must be adjusted for real time, or in effect, 'proper' time, if it acts Newtonian. Then its effect, though time-delayed by graviton speed c, shows up in real time gravity effect (viz., gravitationally instantaneous). At least that is how it could be understood if General Relativity is correct. But if it is correct, and time is an illusion, then Gravity adjusted for time likewise becomes an illusion.

Another complication is General Relativity's incompatibility with Quantum Mechanics. Though both theories are well tested within their domains, they are irreconcilable except at the earliest instants of the Big Bang origin of the universe, and its first instances of time. This Big Bang theory is derived from both Einstein's General Relativity mathematics, in that its cosmological constant points to such an origin, and its implication from the Hubble constant, which confirms it. The Hubble constant is a distant cosmic light redshift phenomenon, implying the universe is undergoing a Doppler like expansion shifting distant light towards the red part of the spectrum. This too had been amply measured and proven correct, so it is now standard cosmological theory. However, this too may be an illusion. If distant light redshift is from causes other than space expansion, the Big Bang origin may not exist, throwing GR theory back into its cosmological constant foundation without supporting space expansion. And if so, the QM incompatibility becomes a fundamental basis for suspecting GR as illusive, that though Einstein's theory has been well confirmed, what we see from astronomical observation is not what it is. This is a case of observation giving off false readings, except within their domain of applicability, so they appear correct even if they are not. Distant light redshift could be gravitational redshift, except to make this work deep space intergalactic gravity would no longer be a universal constant; it would have to be orders of magnitude greater than measured here on Earth. In effect, the universal constant would be an illusion, one that could not be unmasked without measuring Newton's G far from Earth's measured value. This remains for the future, as at present we have not measured it so.

Gravity may be more illusive than we ever anticipated, and its illusiveness had remained well concealed by all the astronomical observations proving Einstein right. Yes, he was right if gravity acted in same manner as electromagnetic energy, provided we adjusted Time to make the relativistic math work; but it would prove illusion if gravity is not a universal constant, but perhaps G variable on a curve, so the equations of General Relativity would have to be adjusted for such. If so, then GR is incomplete, and may even in the end prove spurious, in that it gave us a perfect illusion of gravity that mimicked light c. To prove otherwise we would need to measure Newton's gravity constant G on a cosmological scale. This is not new exotic physics, just simple physics. And if proven, then perhaps a modification to Einstein's gravity geometry (factoring in deep space gravity orders of magnitudes greater than Earth measured G) may bring us closer to meaningful unification with Quantum Theory.

Some disturbing elements of General Relativity, and its attendant Big Bang theory, is that formation of the universe was so fast, nearly instantaneous in cosmic time. Fully formed galaxies within a few hundred million years of BB origin, with already massive black hole galactic centers challenges the imagination; same for near instantaneous inflation in first seconds of the Big Bang. Is it all illusion? How many collapsed stars would it take to make supermassive black holes within the short time of star creation, galaxy formation, and subsequent collapse? How hot would the universe need to be at its imagined birth for this to happen within a few hundred million years? (We may discover the further we look back in time, the more we will see, all already formed!) Unless gravity G was very great then, how did hydrogen collapse into star birth so quickly? If the universe is expanding, why is there no local evidence of this? Why is dark matter excluded totally from local observation? Could CDM be a high gravity G phenomenon, so it interacts with matter gravitationally only? We know dark matter galaxies can bend light for gravitational lensing, so it mimics large mass on a cosmological scale, but it is invisible to General Relativity theory.  Something is missing, and finding it is the great challenge to gravitational theory if we are to crack the illusion of what we think it is. Not new physics, just good science.

Our astronomical measurements confirm gravity theory within decimals tolerance, giving us near perfect readings within our theory's expectations. But it may be, like adjustable time (fully acceptable within its mathematics), merely a very fine illusion. In fact, gravity may be the perfect illusion. Regardless, the ancients were right, it is easier to roll a stone downhill than up. We in modern times still need to figure out why. It's just a matter of time.

*(See original by Maurice Allais: Should the Laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered?, first article Pdf, page 5, see Fig. 7a & 7b for time phase differences on maximun gravity effect and visible maximum eclipse time lapse.)
Also see Speed of Gravity -Wiki
and Variable Gravity-G revisited

Countdown to Strangeness
The Brilliant Beautiful Mind of Albert Einstein
The Mass of the Universe
Binary asteroid instabilities
MOND Revisited, why it is valid

Gravity Waves Found?

Also see: Gerber's Gravity


The contribution to the Newtonian potential at a given location in space at a given instant due to a mass m is strictly a function of the distance of that mass from the given location at the same instant.  In other words, if we let r[t] denote the distance from the given location to the mass particle at the time t, then the contribution of that mass to the gravitational potential V[t] at the given location at the time t is V[t] = -m/r[t].  Thus, Newtonian gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance, because the effect of changing the position of a gravitating mass is "felt" throughout the universe at the instant when the mass moves.  Needless to say, for the simple two-body problem this potential gives stable elliptical orbits.

IDA -Rome

This just in: First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements (2016)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

How old the universe?
Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 12:56 pm:   

How old is the Universe?

Space Today says:


Many astronomers say the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus 10 percent.

How do they know? There are four approaches to calculating the age.

1. One method of judging the age of the Universe involves its expansion. Astronomers see the Universe expanding. Galaxies around our Milky Way galaxy are moving away at a significant speed. That is one of the reasons cosmologists believe the Universe began in a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. Using powerful instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have been able to look at objects dating back most of the way to the Big Bang. This has allowed them to estimate the rate that the Universe has been expanding in the past. Projecting the data backwards, they calculated the Universe shrank to a single point somewhere between 13.5 billion and 14 billion years ago.

2. A second method of measuring the age of the Universe involves the age of white dwarf stars. A white dwarf is a small dense star, about the size of Earth, that has undergone gravitational collapse and is at the final stage of its evolution. Initially all stars are powered by hydrogen fusion but, after they run out of fuel, white dwarfs keep shining because they are hot. However, hot things cool off. White dwarfs gradually cool at a rate astronomers have calculated. The oldest white dwarfs have ages that range from 13.0-13.5 billion years.

3. A third method of assessing the age of the Universe is the study of star clusters. As with white dwarfs, astronomers have found that the oldest star clusters are 13.0-13.5 billion years old.

4. A fourth method of finding the age of the Universe looks at cosmic microwave background radiation. CMB radiation is a faint microwave electromagnetic signal that comes from all points in the sky. Scientists explain it as fossil radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the Universe. They consider CMB to be strong evidence of the Big Bang. They say that during the first 300,000 years of the Universe, it was filled with a foggy plasma. As the Universe expanded and cooled, hydrogen atoms began to form into protons and electrons. As a result, space became increasingly transparent. CMB seen today is light that was released when most of the hydrogen atoms formed and that has been traveling through space for billions of years. By analyzing variations in the intensity of the CMB radiation, astronomers calculate the age of the Universe at 13.72 billion years. ...

The answers given may be more to do with our observational limitations, that light gets too diffused at 13 billion light years to get a realistic observation. If the universe is infinite in space and time, then these may be conclusions based on such observational limitations. In a Simple Universe (where gravity-G is not a universal constant, and Hubble redshift is a deep space gravitational phenomenon) we may have to rethink on what we think we see. The paradox is that the universe is simply too old and too large to measure.

Also see: How 'big' Big Bang?

MOND Revisited, why it is valid
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Renormalized infinities
Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 02:45 pm:   

Deconstructing renormalized infinities.

Renormalized infinities (interactive)

It seems that whenever we speak of 'infinity' we enter a realm of science fiction. In common parlance 'infinity' is any amount that is too large, or too many, something beyond human comprehension. But in theoretical physics, such infinities do pop up in calculations, so they must be dealt with. Often, these infinities are found in Quantum Electro Dynamics (per Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga), where the mass-energy of electrons become infinite. The way to resolve these puzzling infinities is to do what is done with exceedingly small quantities, but in reverse: they are subtracted out or ignored, what is called 'renormalization' in QED mathematics. But there may be a conceptual way to understand how this renormalization occurs, if reality does this within itself naturally. This may explain why negative electrons, those with positive charge, positrons, pop into existence when in QED the electron sea energy rises to infinity. It may be nature's renormalization process at work, where 'infinity' is reversed back on itself with reverse electrical charge. So instead of infinite negative charge, a counter positive charge is created in response. The same may occur in the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' where higher energy on progressively shorter wavelengths tend towards infinity, but are 'cut off' to fall back into the ultraviolet range instead. It seems the universe likes to trip its own infinities.

But there may be a place where infinities are naturally 'renormalized' in reality, and that involves how the universe is interrelated, to infinity. If we think of infinite series of integers, 1, 2, 3, etc. and their inverse 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, etc., then taking either to infinity makes for infinitely large, to infinity, or infinitely small, to zero, which track each other in inverse proportion; yet their respective product of integer-infinity times its inverse-infinity is always equal to One. So in this sense, infinity applied against itself always 'renormalizes' itself to 'one', no matter how large the infinity, or how small its corresponding inverse tending towards zero. At the limit, infinity is always equal One.

Now, taking this into the real world of our physical universe, the one existential on its own terms, if not in our understanding or measurements of it, where all reality is interrelated into itself, to infinity; the default process is that its reflexive definitions from infinity, what gives each existential thing its universal identity (in terms of totality interrelationship to infinity), is what makes it be what it is from the 'pressure' of the rest of existence; therefore, the universe finds itself 'emergent' with an additional function of itself that did not exist prior, viz., the defined identity. So instead of closing itself off in a natural renormalization, it flips in reverse and creates an emergent effect instead. But this too is now part of the infinity, by default, so it reverts back on itself again. This process is theoretically infinite, but there is a limit where it trips itself, just like it did in the infinite electron sea by creating positrons: this infinite progression manifests itself in a single unity, what might be called the first molecule of life. In effect, an infinity, or what tends towards infinity, has its infinitesimal renormalization, which tends at the limit towards zero, and which is the foundational block of life. This does not explain infinity in its totality, something that remains in the realm of human fiction, but it does rechannel itself into its inverse image, which product is again One, i.e., one basic element of life.

We need not understand infinity to use it. Same as Giordano Bruno said four centuries ago, that infinity has no boundary and no center, it can be assumed his definition holds today. It may be as he had thought, that all points in infinity are its center. And that is where it closes in on itself, at its infinite centers. (In effect, when infinity is renormalized, you have a 'thing'.) Infinity exists in a drop of water as much as in the whole universe. Same as infinity fractals, there is no center and no end. In the end all measures are interrelated into their inverse, and where infinitesimals tend towards zero, at the limit infinities tend towards their inverse. Does zero times infinity equal one? We don't know for certain, but it tends that way, infinitely.

So using renormalization is not outside the bounds of infinity, nor outside the bounds of reason. Infinity both closes itself off, and continues indefinitely. But same as zero has proven itself useful calculus, at the limit, so has infinity. They are merely perpendicular functions of each other. Renormalized infinities is a fine fiction we can live with.


Also see: Why universe is mathematical
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tracking in Bubble Chamber
Posted on Friday, October 03, 2014 - 01:43 pm:   

Tracking high energy particles in a Bubble Chamber.

alpha-magnetic-spectrometer-nasa-dark-matter-12.jpg (interactive)
Electron-positron first seen in CERN

This is follow up on Smashing Tea Cups discussed earlier as analogous to what happens in atom smashing experiments. For example, in the Strange particle interactions in a bubble chamber (Woit & Garlin), it is described how particle tracks are identified within parameters of energy conservation and their momentum, by their curvatures, so weaker particle have larger arcs than stronger ones, which reveals their mass, charge, and velocity. In Judson's book The Search for Solutions, he describes earlier methods used to identify particles in a bubble chamber:


And yet agreement about the similarity of patterns is so natural that (in an example I owe to the English physicist John Ziman) people not specially trained in science are employed in particle-physics laboratories to search the thousands of photographs, produced there, of the tracks made by high-energy particles in bubble chambers or directly in film emulsion, to spot strange configurations, at best extremely rare, that betray the passing or the interactions of new particles predicted by theorists.

Since then particle accelerating experiments have grown more sophisticated with higher energies, where products of collisions are recorded in 3D and digitized for computer analysis. These observations default to the Schrodinger probability functions of the wave-particle duality, allowing both the energies of a system and likely location of a particle, per its probability density. Thus combining Schrodinger's equation, after equation's renormalization, with the particle's quantum electromagnetic field leads to Quantum Electro Dynamics, which is a highly successful and well tested theory.
These quantum observations are then guided by The Energy Distribution Function, which yields particles with inter spin, bosons, and half-integer spin, fermions; where at T=0, absolute zero, the probability equals =1; at higher temperatures, above the Fermi energy, renormalization is factored in as the probability of finding a particle in a given energy state decreases exponentially with higher temperature. Progressively higher energies yield more exotic particles, electrons, positrons, pions, kaons, anti-protons, charms, bosons, all the way up to Higgs. But higher energies require greater 'renormalization' in the calculated probabilities of finding a particle.

Back to the bubble chamber, all this is reduced to visible and measurable tracks in the superheated hydrogen or helium condensate of the chamber, analogous to above mentioned 'smashing tea cups'. But with a difference. Mathematical equations drive particle identification rather than visual patterns in a bubble chamber. The results are clearly spectacular, though the theories behind it may still be models not fully understood, or 'renormalized' to make math fit.

Also see: Mass of the Universe
Why Universe is Mathematical
Why Standard Model Incomplete
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Science, pseudo-science, and dogma
Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2014 - 01:34 pm:   

Science, pseudo-science, and dogma.


Ideally theory and data find agreement, so the theory drives observational data, and data validates the theory. In pseudo-science, the theory is validated by 'cherry picking' data that suits it, but this does not validate it inclusively, since some of the data is ignored or thrown out if it fails the theory. In religious beliefs or dogma, including theory dogmas, the data is superseded by the theory, so no amount of data can suffice to over turn it, since it is believed on faith. But now what happens if a good scientific theory is tested with observational data, but some of the data is deemed 'incomplete' or faulty? Then, as Einstein said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." In effect, if data driven by theory fails to support it, it is sometimes acceptable to ignore the data.

In some cases, this may still be good science, as data can be misleading. When I worked experiments in the physics lab, back in my youth, I often got data that was outside the norm of what theory expected (in fact I nearly failed physics, were my grades not marked on a curve). Bad data exists, and it must be discarded if the experiment was faulty or the examiner made observational errors. But the real test is if there are no identifiable errors and the data still fails to support the theory, is the data valid to contradict theory? Ignoring or discarding such data may put us into the conundrum of favoring some data over others, which defaults to 'cherry picking' in order to find agreement. And if scientific theory is so well established as to preclude observations that contradict it, are we not dangerously close to pseudo-science, even scientific 'dogma'?

There may be instances in the history of science where agreement between theory and data may be elusive, so it is ignored. If the evidence is in but does not fit theory, ideally one would want to change the theory. But as Einstein said "change the facts", which may happen more than one suspects in scientific research driven by funding, peer review pressures, academic acceptance, etc. Sir Arthur Eddington had said "Observation and theory get on best when mixed together", that observation is always flavored and sometimes saturated with theory. If you have a compellingly winning theory, one must be inordinately bold to not ignore the evidence and reject the theory, a psychological feat not given to most researchers. So if planetary atmospheric or mass densities, for example, are found different from what current gravitational theory predicts for the outer planets, and ignored, would it constitute good science? Or should we be alarmed that scientific 'dogma' is driving the theory? No matter how beautiful or mathematically elegant, theory must in the end submit to data, if it is to be science in its true sense. We can't see it if we don't look. For all the sciences from physics to biology, experiments and observations that contradict theory should be cause for closer scrutiny, not disregarded because they fail to find agreement with theory. In a simple universe, theory is only a model, idealized approximation of reality, but not the facts. As Galileo discovered, accepting observational facts may not be an easy feat, if theory dogma holds the reigns of acceptable 'evidence'. Or, as Philosopher of Science, Maurice Arthus, had said (1921):
"In reality, those who repudiate a theory they had once proposed, or a theory that they had accepted enthusiastically and with which they had identified themselves, are very rare. The greater majority of them shut their ears so as not to hear the crying facts, and shut their eyes so as not to see the glaring facts, in order to remain faithful to their theories in spite of all and everything."

Also see: Tracking Pluto's density
When science and politics collide
Devil Sugar, Demon Salt
Gravity, the perfect illusion
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nuclear positive modified by e.m. energy
Posted on Monday, October 13, 2014 - 12:52 pm:   

Nuclear positive charge of atom modified by electromagnetic energy.

This is a continuation of Electricity made easy. What is the atom and why does it have dual charge? Can it be a positive on positive charge interraction?


Using the Axiomatic Equation we can derive the imputed gravitational G for where electromagnetic Energy is set to E=zero, which is where all ambient electromagnetic energy cancels on a point, what happens in a galactic black hole or inside the proton nucleus of the atom; where G works out to be ~3e+8 m^3kg^-1s^-2 (see below how derived)*, which is Newton's G equivalent of the nucleus Strong force.

This compares with background space gravity G, where it is orders of magnitude greater than measured on Earth; using the light redshift as a Boltzmann CMB model of space G, we arrived at G = ~3.4e-6 m^3kg^-s^-2, which is gravity G necessary for distant cosmic light to gravitationally redshift at about the Hubble constant.

Taking them together as an interaction of Strong force G and space background G, multiplying out their interaction, we arrive at:

3e+8 G * 3.4e-6 G= 10.2e+2 G ratio of positive interaction
= 1.02e+3 as their product ratio.

Now compare the ratio of proton mass with electron mass, where
Proton = 1.672623e-27 kg is divided by Electron = 9.109389e-31 kg, we get:

Proton mass/Electron mass
= 1.836e+3 ratio (same as their ratio of electron Volts).

Which appears surprisingly similar to the above derived G ratio of 1.02e+3. Though it is a rather poor and unconvincing approximation, especially if deep space G is closer to the Hubble derived 3.97e-7 G, where the outcome would then be:

Proton center (3e+8 G) * deep space (3.97e-7 G)= 1.19e+2 (G), or 119, dimensionless, which is closer to the fine structure number, 137. But all this now is speculation, and as is inconclusive.

Why was are these two significant? Thinking 'outside the box', we might infer that the G relationships are analogous to earlier discussed 'positive to positive' charge relationships, which further imply that such positive charge differentials cause the negative charge to balance out the higher positive charge with the lower. Taking this concept to the atom, therefore, may explain how electromagnetic energy generated by our local star, the Sun, modifies the positive charged nucleus with negative charges electrons to balance theom out into a charge neutral atom; locally modifying gravity-G as measured on Earth. In effect, if so, the Strong force positive charge is reduced by the lower amount space background positive charge by a ratio of 10^+3, which coincidentally approximates the same mass ratio, or electron Volt ratio, found in the proton to electron relationship in the atom. And if so, the electron is a product of these greater-positive (Strong) to lesser-positive (space) interactions, as mentioned in Electricity made easy article. It may also imply that the proton-electron ratio is a constant in space, no matter what is the local hot-Energy cum gravity-G, and thus perhaps why light velocity c is a constant isotropic through the cosmos.

Standing back from it a moment, we may have completed the quest for variable gravity-G and come full circle. What started out about a dozen years ago as an energy function using Quantum E=hf and Einstein's E=mc^2, further incorporating the proton-proton gravitational 'constant' (viz. g=~5.9e-39) to derive Newton's gravity G (6.67e-11) per the Axiomatic E=hc/(lambda*proton mass)=(1-g)c^2, has now morphed into a charge relationship of how is modified the positive atom nuclear charge with the negative electron charge, a function of Strong G versus space background G, as modified by the background energy of all space. The result is a charge neutral atom with the measured proton to electron energy and mass ratio. Both nuclear G ratio and mass-energy ratio are approximately the same. This does not constitute a proof of variable-G (must first measure it in space), but it may be an important clue of how electromagnetic energy modifies the nucleus into its positive-negative charge balance, what is the atom.

*(How Strong force G derived:
Newton's gravity G can be derived from the proton-proton gravitational constant (g=5.9e-39) per equation:
G^2 = gc^2pi^2, so that if g approaches =~1 of the nuclear Strong force, the value of pi drops out on a point, and G approaches =3e+8, which dimensionally mimics light c; think extreme gravitational redshift.)



This is merely anecdotal curiosity, but if we take Strong maximum G and multiply by Axiomatic light lambda, we get a modified Strong force of the nucleus:

3e+8 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 * 1.32e-15 m = 3.96e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

which approximates background space gravity-G, viz., 3.97e-7 G for Hubble redshift (vs 3.4e-6 G for Boltzmann CMB, above).

Incidentally, it is interesting to note, perhaps a coincidence, that the light wavelength associated with the Photoelectric effect is 397 nanometers, or 3.97e-7 meters. This was also the lambda hypothesized as a 'cut-off ' for deep space Gravity, why so-called 'dark matter' is invisible, and appears non-baryonic. Strange this number keeps coming up...

Please note: How does Higgs Boson give mass to particles and atoms?

What is the Higgs Mechanism? (simple math) short explanation alludes to the Higgs field as a kind of 'fog' within which the Higgs particle resides within its "value expectation value":


3. Some fields couple to the Higgs field. After a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs field is separated into two parts. The first part remains a dynamic field, and its quanta are the Higgs bosons. The second part is a constant (called the vacuum expectation value), and the equations that describe the coupling of the Higgs field to other fields become equations that describe the other fields coupling (quadratically) to themselves, which in quantum field theory is interpreted as giving mass to a field. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field is therefore proportional to the mass of each field.

Can it be analogous to the space background energy of 3.97e-7 G? Though this is merely speculation, there may be a connection between Higgs Field energy and space vacuum energy 'fog', where the higher G of background space 'absorbs', or confines, the Higgs particle within a tight radius, what determines the atom nucleus and its mass. This is the mass Boson of ambient space vacuum, if so, which is further modified by ambient electromagnetic energy to become atomic and particle mass as measured (on Earth). Beyond Earth's distance from the Sun, same as gravity-G, this mass may measure different.


Also see: Space Gravity 3.97e-7 G, and GUT
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Einstein's carousel
Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2015 - 01:42 pm:   

Einstein's Relativity carousel, grabbing the brass ring.

Carousel brass ring

Was Einstein retarded? Well, of course not. He was one of the world's greatest minds. But he may have retarded physics by an over reliance on his Relativity, of which axioms may be flawed: Not all reference frames are equal. Though highly lauded, not all scientists agree with Relativity, that it is a circular merry go round based on some false premises, one of which is light not being a universal speed limit. There had been prominent dissenters to Einstein's Relativity, some Nobel Prize winners, who failed to grab the brass ring from Einstein's carousel. Names like Michelson, Millikan, Essen, Rutherford, Ives, Mach, Tesla, all thought Einstein's Relativity was dogmatic nonsense, confused contradictory thinking that failed to clarify reality. Yet, how could that be, since experiments for past hundred years had proven Relativity correct?


How can so many Nobel laureates, inventors and great contributors to society go to their grave believing relativity was false? How could anyone not be convinced all the way into the 50s and 60s? Wasn’t it proven over and over and widely accepted by that time? Isn’t that what we are taught? History is written more by popularity than by fact and unfortunately science occasionally follows suit. There are logical reasons why these great men of science never accepted relativity. There exists very significant experimental evidence against it. Unfortunately, there are far too few people willing to challenge the safety and security afforded them by belief systems. Only those exceedingly strong in mind and of the greatest humility can stand to see that which they held in the highest regard, those things they trusted as universal truth, utterly fail. Only those with the greatest mental fortitude and confidence can become one of the few willing to withstand the onslaught of ridicule and not be swayed by the popularity of popular belief.

Who will in the end unseat Einstein's popular hold on physics and astro-sciences, to pull the brass ring from Einstein's carousel? The answer will come from rigorous science, where the tests and results will not be favored by Relativity's 'merry go-round' bias, but based in hard evidence from the real world. Brilliant, self referencing mathematical modeling may not be enough.

In our crude, simple algebra calculations, we found many mutually supportive parallel theories that could prove Einstein wrong. First, gravity-G may not be a universal constant; second, gravity-G may be orders of magnitude greater in deep space than measured here on Earth; third, the CMB discovered may be a function of the Boltzmann constant, not echo of the Big Bang; fourth, Earth's inner core boundaries, and the asteroid belt, may be functions of interior mini black holes in the Earth, and Sun; fifth, the large atmospheres of solar gas giants and their moons may be function of higher gravity-G, same for highly eccentric comets gassing out in the inner solar system where G is lower; sixth, Quantum entanglement's simultaneity may disprove Einstein's Relativity; and there are more, such as the Time paradox. These had been simple calculations, not the sophisticated math to usher in new physics, but they show there could be cause for scientific doubt that Einstein's carousel, popular as it is, is not immutable. The Standard Model is incomplete. Good science will of necessity win out, and the prize go to whomever is best able to describe it in terms better than presented thus far. Who will grab the Prize? The brass ring is in the offing for those who dare. Meanwhile, patiently we wait.

Also see: Brilliant, Beautiful Mind of Albert Einstein

(short story) Welterweight Pluto takes on heavyweight Einstein

E=mc2 was theorized before 1905? - Scientific American

Relativistic mass conundrum
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MOND Revisited, why it is valid
Posted on Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 01:25 pm:   

MOND Revisited, why it is valid.

Comparison of the observed and expected rotation curves of the typical spiral galaxy M33 (per Wiki)

In Deep Space Gravity I had written:


Newton postulated that his gravity ratio between masses is a ‘universal constant’ G, and it had been used as such ever since. However, though we get good orbital results for our solar system, this ran into difficulty when orbital behavior for outer galaxy arms were observed, where they acted as if there was more massive matter there, invisible to us, so dubbed ‘dark matter’. Mordehai Milgrom’s MOND solution was to factor in an acceleration force, F = ma^2/ a_o, which translates using F = GMm/ r^2, into a = (GM a_o/ r^2)^1/2, where Milgrom calculated the value for a_0=1.2×10^-10 m/s^2 empirically. This does not invalidate Newton’s constant G, but it does indicate that over great astronomical distances, force from gravity may have a modifier in it.

I had also written earlier regarding MOND: Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift, MOND, Pioneer Anomaly - Are they all the same? that:


The equation v=(GMa0)^1/4 allows one to calculate a0 from the observed v and M. Milgrom found a0=1.2×10-10 ms-2. Milgrom has noted that this value is also

"... the acceleration you get by dividing the speed of light by the lifetime of the universe. If you start from zero velocity, with this acceleration you will reach the speed of light roughly in the lifetime of the universe."
(see Wikipedia on MOND)

There is speculation that somehow these coincidental relationships are significant, but as yet no cosmological theory unifies them. As per the Wiki page:


Indeed, the potential link between MONDian dynamics and the universe as a whole (that is, cosmology) is augmented by the observation that the value of a0 (determined by fits to internal properties of galaxies) is within an order of magnitude of cH0, where c is the speed of light and H0 is the Hubble constant (a measure of the present-day expansion rate of the universe).[1] It is also close to the acceleration rate of the universe, and hence the cosmological constant. However, as yet no full theory has been constructed which manifests these connections in a natural way.(*)

But there may be a way where these diverse theories can fit together, if we consider how distant cosmic light redshifts at the Hubble constant.

Quite simply, considering that light passing through deep space very high gravity-G is gravitationally redshifted at about the Hubble constant, then it can be implied that what we see here, both 13.8 billion years later, as light from 13.8 billion light years away, and that light had been 'decelerating' for all that time and distance (why it redshifted); then what we see at its source (CMB) is essentially equivalent to having had light 'accelerate' for the same time and distance. The two are inverse images of each other, so the analogy fits. Instead of light accelerating from v=zero to v=c, we have the reverse, where light decelerates (via redshift) from c to zero, and we have the strange phenomenon that at MOND's a0=1.2×10-10 ms-2 we have both the 'age' of the universe and its Hubble constant roughly equal, in the aggregate. The devil is in the details, to better understand exactly what deep space higher gravity-G is, but we are not yet there. First we must visit gravity-G in our outer solar system and see what it is there. But it all fits, if gravity G is variable as theorized.

(*)This can be calculated as:
Hubble constant (per Harvard) divided by light speed c is equivalent to light absorption coefficient A_c0, per Toivo Jaakkola (pg 11), which also equals MOND acceleration a_0:

A_c0 = a_0 = H/c which is
A_c0=1.2e-10 m s-2= H/c whereby
H = 1.2e-10 m s-2 * 3e8 m s-1
H = 3.6e-2 m s-1 (meter per second squared) measured per light year.

Taking Hubble's initial measurement:


Hubble's initial value for the expansion rate, now called the Hubble Constant, was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years... That was followed by other corrections for confusion, etc. that pretty much dropped the accepted value down to around 100 km/s/Mpc by the early 1960's.

a conversion which has a 3.12 divider to convert from Mpc to km/second.

Then H = 100 km/s per Mpc divided by 3.12 (conversion to meters/second) = 32 km/s (per million light years)or in effect
= 3.2e4 m s-1 / 10e6 light years = 3.2e-2 m s-1 (per light year) where

~H = ~3.2e-2 m s-1 (above) vs 3.6e-2 m s-1 (per light year) Hubble constant as a function of A_c0 = H/c

which in effect, gives a relationship between cosmic light absorbtion, vis-a-vis measured Hubble constant, and empirically derived MOND acceleration, as essentially equal ratios.

This could be a further indicator that cosmic light redshift at the Hubble constant is a function of deep space higher G gravitational light shift absorption, equating MOND's cosmic acceleration a_0 with light absorption A_c0, a proof as shown.


Also see: Gravity-G Revisited
Mass of the Universe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Living Universe - why we worship it
Posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 - 02:53 am:   

We live in a Living Universe - why we worship it.

Water, the Elixir of life

To worship is something personal in us, though universal to humanity. Whatever our religious belief, one we were born to or one adopted in life, we find the need to be mindful of it, to enact demanded signs and sacrifices, to pray, and perhaps ultimately surrender ourselves completely to it, at least before we die. That worship is something greater, an almost living force in us that transports and transforms us by the power of its spirituality, taking us into a fuller consciousness of our Self within the context of a Universal reality: We are that Living Reality. We live within it in awe of its total living power to grant us our physical and psychological being, as well as our spiritual Being. And for that we worship.

Not all are moved to worship, same as not all feel with same intensity the Self that powers us in every instant of time. We are all different on our personal paths that will focus on where life takes us. That is the natural diversity of life in the universe, that each living thing must find its own way. Though we are born alone and die alone, what is the stark reality of our being, it is the manifest beauty of all around us that makes our lives rich with experience, the loved ones as well as the troubled, the naturally beautiful as well as the ugly; they are all part of us! And when we worship, we remember them. For some, it is gratitude, for others wonder, while for some overwhelming; but they are all part of the whole we call life, what we feel deep inside the Self.

How much more simple to make worship a formality. Had this not been done through the ages? A routine is established by tradition and teachings, often by some central figure of divinity; Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster; whose manifest personality launched a movement far back in history, the religious order worshipped by many over time. This gives it legitimacy in the strength and numbers of its devotees, their prayers and structured demands of the faith, the beauty of their temples. So we follow in obedience its laws and norms, which simplifies our worship. Do as fellow worshippers do, and obey in humble submission, and your obligations to the faith are fulfilled. But there is a reason why this obligation is satisfying, why our worship is important to us. Why did we have religion, if not to eliminate superstition? Now in the Western world, it is mostly for common fellowship, built on a foundation of humanistic conscience, if not yet in the East. There will always be spiritual pursuits, though the future of religion is secular. Not all forms of worship are the same, but there is an underlying cause for its universality, why humans have worshipped from prehistory and pagan times to today. It is because worship is natural for us, to a greater or lesser degree, same as the feeling of Self is natural for us. In it is the comfort of feeling Who we are in our universal reality.

There is comfort in numbers, in traditions and religious formalism, but there is greater and deeper comfort in our spiritual connection to all reality, our living being in All that Is. This is true for all humanity, even if non observant or avowed atheists, that we are connected to all of universal reality intimately, down to the Quantum level, whether or not aware of it. We are alive in this reality, within our lifetime, which automatically involves us in our living existence. For us the universe is alive within us in every cell of our body; conversely the Universe for us is alive, a living reality. To this reality we are totally connected, interconnected via the natural and necessary mechanism of interrelationship, down to the quarks and atoms from which we are made. That we are alive is the magic of an infinitely interrelated totality, the why we worship. Even if we are not aware of it, all life celebrates its aliveness, it loves life and does not want to die, because life is such a precious gift. On a grand scale we live because that is what we are meant to do, and we want to.

Many questions arise, since life can be so imperfect. Why do some die young? Why do others suffer horrible deaths, violence and pain? Why are some born crippled? Why do current religions give only partial solace to such suffering, or to injustice? Even, why do some religions cause such suffering and death? The answer in a Living Universe is surprisingly simple: Life does not die or suffer on a cosmic scale, only on a personal scale. We suffer, we die. But our existence in this life is but a spark within the eternity of Life. Therefore, in terms of the Universe, we never die, but merely transition within it. Is this not the idea of the Soul worshipped in all religions? Unbeknownst to us, shrouded in mystical mystery, there lies a hidden truth, for us more a subjective belief, that our life is eternal, an infinite expression of the Self manifest for a time, born into this reality, but ultimately not of this reality; we are alive on a cosmic scale, and to that Universal reality we never die. Life goes on there in perpetuity, continually expressing itself in a cosmic cycle of death and rebirth. For the Universe, death is merely a transitional interruption, so it does not suffer our death. The injustices of this world and its suffering, and our death, is an entirely local and transitory event. Universally, within the cosmic dimensions of our being, we never suffer, we never die. We simply are, though mostly not aware of it.

And that is the object of our worship, that universally we are so much more than the shortcomings and troubles experienced in life. As eternal beings manifest within an Eternity of Being, alive with Life, with love, and everything dissolves back into infinity. We are born alone and die alone, but the living reality of our Being is infinitely connected and perpetual. Only at the local level is this felt, and so we fear suffering and death. On a cosmic level, what Life manifest all around us to infinity, the same infinity that manifests in us the Self, absorbs our pain and suffering, and upon our death reabsorbs the Self. But the Self does not die! Once born we never die. Rather, our life is the beauty and greatness of a Universe alive with Life, in us identified and expressed as that point of being we identify as Self; this is Who we feel inside us. What a blessing it is for us to be participants in this living miracle! And when we worship all Life, love all its beautiful and wonderful things, we are absorbing its infinite presence, its divine blessing, in this life. And that worship is universal.

So where have religions strayed from this universal blessing? In focussing worship on form rather than substance; we got diverted by the superficials of worship. It matters little if we pray or worship standing up or sitting down, kneeling or with forehead to the ground, or singing and dancing; they are all expressions of human worship. Infinity does not judge how we pray; but it is alive to what we pray. That is the substance of prayer and worship, what is it we do and say. But it goes further, in how we sacrifice and suffer in our worship, how we love life, all made of the same substance in universal terms; it is the stuff of a living joy. They are but states of being within the Self. How we are in every instant of time in this life, what we are and do in this local life, in this body, this time, is how our worship transfers to the Eternal; and how we are defined or expressed in the Universal is then how we are expressed now. We are, in effect, our prayers manifest universally, same as we are our actions manifest. To suffer is to sacrifice for our Self, so it too is a form of worship, same as expressions of joy are worship, all bring blessing without judgment to our being in this life, as we choose to live in it. In fact, all we do is worship.

So in the end there is no real formalism to worship other than the experience of being, how our life manifests around us. All we do is of necessity a form of worship, as it is for all living things, because the universe we live in, at its infinite totality, is an infinite living reality, so we cannot help but worshiping Life in all we do. The reality manifestation that forms around our being is then our personal reality, which may or may not be happy for us, but which of necessity will reflect for us our Self in the world. And this is where the substance of our worship, our prayers and meditations, in all our actions, will feed back on us from our Self at infinity. This is where we are tested, by how will we face our life and the lives of others, in all reality, or how aware we will be in this. This is the substance of religious worship: How we worship Life in its substance. Religions seldom asks this of its believers, mainly concerned with correct worship. What is the substance of worship in a Living Universe? Life is!

When seen this way, a great fog clears from how humanity worships. Of necessity, we worship because that is how we are in every instant of time in a Living reality; it is Who we are. Also of necessity is how our lives manifest in our reality from how we worship; we create our living reality in the Self. Therefore, it is of necessity that we do and live our lives fully conscious of life, and love, in this reality interchange between our personal existence and the Universal existence; they are converse images of each other. When understood this way, only one conclusion fits these requirements of worship, one that is least damaging to the Self: that we live all life with humility and Compassion. This means all that we do as substance of worship, the how and what of each taken step, each word, each conscious moment, each act, we must do with compassion and conscious awareness of all things. It is like water, flowing over and around us, that we flow with least coercion, and from which we drink life. We are alive in a very big place, same as it is alive in us. What follows is the natural world manifest, what this worship creates for us, both personally and universally. Then there is no longer need for formalism in worship, for in our living and loving being, we then become Who we are in the Self. Then, like an infinite pool of clarity, our life reflects our Compassion.

Compassion is our ultimate expression of the Self in this reality, not because it is merely evident in how we interact with each other, but because it is the natural expression of how a Living Universe manifests its blessings in our lives. Be compassionate, and your world's reality will return compassion. That will-to-compassion is then the true formalism of worship, that it manifests in all things we do. There is no need for religious rules of conduct, nor need for punishing those whose faith waivers or disobey; these are all superfluous; all we need is instruction in how to be compassionate, how to love one another. In a Living Universe we do because we must. And in all we do, for good or ill, or for happiness or sacrifice, all these things will reflect our lives in infinity. Are we compassionate? That alone will define Who we are in the Self. The universe will not judge, but our lives will reflect ourselves in it. This is of necessity, because our Self lives in this existence for that purpose, because we must, so in the end we only judge ourselves. The Universe will accept whatever our judgment, because that is Universal being the only way it can be, with infinite Compassion: All is forgiven at infinity. We, as its human sparks of existence, then only worship it with compassion for all things, the way it is itself. That is the form and substance of all universal worship, of necessity, if we are in the Self as our true Who.

We worship because we must. Same as we must live in this life, so does the Living Universe drive our worship of it, because it is truly wondrous and beautiful, its natural beauty wholly awesome to us. We live in a Living Universe, so its worship is automatic, of necessity. Beyond religious formalism, we worship because we live. The defining moment of this worship is whether or not we do this with compassion. If done with compassion, the Compassion of the universe will manifest for us our true Self in this life. This then is Who we are, born eternal, eternally forgiven by the Universal Compassion, it forgiving because it must. When our lives are lived in worshipful compassion, this is Who we are, personally and universally. In the end, we forgive and act with compassion because we must. That is the beauty of a Living Universe, why we love all Life, and why we worship it.

(continued on The Silent Path)


Also see: Creating with Subjective reality
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shortcut to Proton mass
Posted on Saturday, February 06, 2016 - 01:30 pm:   

Short cut to calculating Proton mass, per universal Gravity.

Quantum Gravity

If we take the Axiomatic equation

E=hc/(neutrino lambda*proton mass)

we get, for Earth's Energy, E=9e+16J, which becomes

E=(6.626e-34 m^2 kg s^-1 * 3e+8 m s-1)/ (1.322E-15 m * 1.67e-27 kg/kg), equal to E=9e+16 J

Now if we assume deep space gravity-G to be about 3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 we can arrive at (Earth's) proton mass by dividing Planck's constant, 6.626e-34 m^2 kg s^-1, by deep space gravity-G, ~3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, so that we get

6.626e-34 m^2 kg s^-1/ ~3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 equals

= 1.67e-27 kg (kg s m^-1) as an expression of proton mass.

What can this mean?

One way to think of this is to assume ALL background space gravity is approximately 3.97e-7 G, and all Planck constants are relative to their Energy states (on Earth, h is 6.626e-34, but it becomes a variable dependent on regional E), so that local regional proton mass is always a function of these two values. The only constant here (as figured in Mining Deep Space Gravity, where it was ~3.47e-7) is deep space G, which works out to be about 3.97e-7 G.

This then becomes a way to estimate both proton mass and Planck's constant for different regions of space where E varies, but the only true constant for ambient space anywhere (except in a Black Hole, where it is 3e+8 G) is at about G=3.97e-7. In effect, because deep space gravity-G is a constant, if you know either Planck's constant or Proton mass, you can calculate the other, per:
Planck's h = deep space G constant * Proton mass

Therefore, if distant cosmic light redshifts at about the Hubble constant as a function of gravitational redshift at the deep space G function, then that G value is the dominant gravity for all ambient space (regardless of what is local regional G as a function of E, per Axiomatic), where gravity is isotropic and homogenous at the Universal G=3.97e-7 (about 4 orders of magnitude greater than Earth's 6.67e-11 G, as now assumed universal). And if so, that is the Universal gravity-G that should be used to square the Standard Theory's Quantum gravity, where the Gravity constant can unify with Quantum theory into a Unified Standard Theory of everything.


Also see: Countdown to Strangeness

Coincidentally, light velocity c may also play a role in how maximum G, the kind found in galactic Black Hole, 3e8 m3 kg.kg-1 s-2, or in Proton, is affected by light 3e8 m s-1, to translate into ambient interstellar Energy. For example, hypothetically, if:

Max G x Light c = Space E squared

(3e8 m3 kg.kg-1 s-2)(3e8 m s-1) =
9e16 m^4 kg.kg-1 s-3 (per second)

then the resulting product:

E=Sqrt (9e16 m^4 kg.kg-1 s-4) = 3e8 m^2 kg/kg s-2 ( Joules), which may be ambient E space energy.

All of which again seem to support a variable gravity-G hypothesis.

Also see: Summing variable gravity-G
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Existence of 'Self'
Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2016 - 03:37 am:   

The Existence of 'Self'.


Cogito ergo sum is Descartes' philosophical proposition "I think, therefore I am," which is elemental in how the Western mind thinks of itself in our self consciousness. This is a basic premise largely followed by the modern Judeo-Christian world, with some ascetic monastic exceptions (where mortification of self brings one closer to God), to define the person as an individual, a separate identity of being. In some Eastern philosophies, particularly ascribed to Buddhism, the 'self' is a kind of illusion we ascribe to ourselves. Their philosophical proposition is that our self awareness is a manifestation of the One, a universal existence best achieved in non-thinking, in a merging of one's mind with infinite reality. By this reasoning, paradoxically, the most desired achievement of 'self' is to discard it, whether through a meditation of 'mindlessness', or in a graduated process of self liberation from one's ego to achieve bliss in the infinite consciousness. In still another philosophical tradition based on holy writings of the Koran, the 'self' is subsumed to a group consciousness, where the mind is not defined in terms of its universal existence, or its self consciousness, but in the belonging and submission to the group's consciousness as judged by their holy scripture; all to achieve personal perfection within the social and religious parameters of their beliefs, and after death. In such cases, their minds and bodies are not their own, as they belong to a collective of the faith, of husbands and family, male members of the Umma, the Deity's temporal spokesmen, etc. These three examples of 'self' consciousness are fundamentally different from one another, yet they describe our collective human self consciousness in the world today. Each is how we see ourselves in the self, or how we seek it as a natural person. Yet, they are all somehow related, so together they represent humanity's consciousness of itself, where any of these could be valid. Or perhaps there is a transcendent awareness of Self, one that best defines our human condition. In short, Who is Self?

Taking these three examples as paths to self-consciousness, they take us in opposing directions, or in effect they cancel out in terms of themselves; viz., we cannot be self-conscious of the self if we are to submit to 'non-self' consciousness, either in detachment, or in group attachment, as these are fundamentally opposed to each other. Yet, they describe real human efforts in describing some level of awareness of 'self.' Nor are they without merit in and of themselves, as each has beneficial consequences if applied earnestly. The self-awareness of "I am" is a consciousness of self in the affirmative, which demands personal responsibility; self-awareness in detaching from the ego is a step towards counter-affirmation, or negation, where the spirit of 'self' is released from conflict; while submission of ego to the group-consciousness is an affirmative negation of self, where the self surrenders itself to the responsibility of the group. All three exist to varying degrees in all of us, though we may all have different 'cut-off' points as to where we wish to engage in any of these paths to 'self.' What makes these mutually exclusive paths interesting is that they manifest at the social and cultural level exhibiting different collective personalities. On the whole, where one dominates, the other gets negated, so there is constant elasticity between which 'self' dominates. So choices made exhibit which part of our personality operates, which in turn influenced how we manifest our reality around us. At the limit, extreme choices will swing us into one mode or another, sometimes totally dominating our behaviors. When so, what results is a totally skewed existence, which will either manifest in a happy state for us, or one of personal and societal suffering.

We all operate at different states within these parameters of 'self', so at varying times we may be more conscious of our "I am" identity, while at others in its negation. These are personal choices which may be done unconsciously at times, so we may not be fully aware how we make them. Whether finding serenity in a state of mindful meditation, or releasing mind in surrendering our ego, or submitting to a group psychology, all have their purposes in human existence. For example, a soldier on duty may be more focused on the group dynamics than in personal choice affirmations, which releases him or her from personal responsibilities in following orders. This may be counterbalanced (when not actively on duty) in a state of ego-negation, whether in contemplation or prayer, for the self seeking solace. Another example is the health benefits of yoga and meditation, where serenity and pause relieve us from more dominant modes of self. Consider issues of ethics, or making executive decisions, where a sense of self is dominated by responsible affirmative response on what needs focus. All these operate at different levels in our self existence continually. It is when one mode of self is dominated totally at the expense of others that we may become imbalanced in our existence, with consequences to how we will manifest our reality. A person in constant confrontation mode, for example, will manifest a different reality from one in serene meditation. Both cannot be operable equally without conflicting emotions disturbing our being. We must choose one over another at some point. Whether consciously or not, in fact, we do this continuously.

To a greater or lesser degree, our self-existence will depend upon the dominant culture within which we live. A Tibetan monk will have a vastly different cultural environment from a warrior in battle, same as a business executive will have a different existence from a volunteer worker, though all three modes will have traces of the other. If the culture is self defined as an ego based self-awareness, much as dominates the West, then its social reality will reflect it more as an energetic society driven by personal achievement and dynamic searching; its explorations in the sciences and arts, literature and architecture, civic governance and society at large, all will display such dynamism. If instead the culture is one of passive acceptance, or existential fatalism, so will its world display these in how it is structured, perhaps tending more towards lethargy than developmental goals. Likewise, if the culture is one of submission to an aggressive social imperative, so will it exist in a state of conflict and oppression. These are natural outcomes of how we see the world and choose to live in it. Some will be more successful than others in manifesting our social happiness, but these are elements of our human evolution reflecting our state of self-awareness. Pulled too far in any direction, where the elasticity of choice is either broken or forbidden, the imbalances resulting are entirely of our own doing in how we respond to conditions. The universe is a large place that allows for infinite possibilities without judgement. The judgements of our success or failures is entirely a product of our existence in Self. We choose, and so it is, whether or not we understand it. It all starts with what we believe. As Descartes surmised:
"That we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order."
So is it in our personal philosophy of life no matter the culture within which we exist, that we create our reality within the Self-image we had personally chosen. It is Who we are.


Also see: The Examined Life
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

When things cancel
Posted on Monday, November 14, 2016 - 01:37 pm:   

When things cancel out - reducing truth with reason.


It is standard in mathematics to cancel like terms on both sides of an equation, or to cancel likes from above and below a fraction to simplify the equation. This is a way of reducing complexity to simplicity, to make the mathematical statement clearer. It is the same when examining people's' voting, where one side of the issue is counterbalanced by the other, so both sides in effect cancel out except for the remainder, which a resulting majority will decide the issue. So can it be with any argument, where issues within the argument cancel out so to reduce the argument to the crux of the matter, what remains a decisive conclusion.

This principle of mutual exclusion to reduce an argument can apply to many conditions, including on how people think in solving problems to come to a truth, or exchanging ideas. In an earlier discussion on critical thinking there were mentioned four points in the Socratic method for arriving at a truth:


* What is the source of your information?
* What assumptions are you making?
* Is a different conclusion more consistent with the data?
* What is an alternate explanation for this phenomenon?

This per force defaults to a process of elimination, where the least likely candidates for solving a problem are eliminated, or they cancel out, so we are left with the most likely solution. And this in turn defaults to creating a hypothesis, or model, once the problem had been reduced, to what best describes the solution. This method can be especially useful on the fourth point, of finding an 'alternate explanation' from what had been accepted, where further reduction reveals a new idea.

In a way, the same can be said of interrelationship, where a totality of interrelated connections reduces down to an identity, or condition, or event. All the interrelations buffeted by waves of forces and patterns undergo a process of reductive cancelations until a final product, of how the total image of sum-interconnections come together at a defining point, or moment, manifests it. Hot cold, light dark, all likes and unlikes, left spin right spin, assessing risk, etc.; they all cancel proportionally until manifests a remainder, whether statistically or in fact. That is the final product of interrelationship. But that things cancel in real life is not the main point. Rather, it is that self-canceling products, or arguments, leave in final analysis a remaining value which aims at a truth arrived at, both in nature and with reason, with absolute economy and simplicity. That is the truth and beauty of when things cancel out.

In most issues discussed or debated, whether arguments or hypothesis, the final product is more easily achievable when employing a process of reduction through cancelation. Take out the parts of the argument that self-cancel and the rest falls easily into place, so a final solution is evident. This could be especially useful in debates on any issue, where within the arguments posed, self-cancelations are made evident, leaving behind the salient points under discussion; this helps eliminate many misunderstandings between parties, and hopefully to diffuse passions involved, to stay on topic, and clarify rather than confuse.

There are instances when such natural cancelations are skewed, so the remainder product is false. This could happen when the values, or assumptions, are themselves faulty; then the result is not true. It could also happen when the reasoning is based on matters of faith, the arguments not based on facts but on assumed beliefs. (See below.) In such case, reason becomes invalid, as it must be accepted as 'true' a priori, where only belief is acceptable to the believers, and any reasoned counter arguments fall on deaf ears. Another case is where the facts are untrue, purposeful lies, then the self-canceling mechanism, except to catch the lies, is confused, so it yields nonsense. In short, if the source of information is faulty, so are the results. Correct data and informational integrity are of necessity a principle of reason.

If one is told "you don't have to understand it, just believe it", alarm bells should go off, that reason cannot be employed, as it had just been cancelled. Whenever reason is cancelled, the process stops. In most cases we have a natural filtering mechanism separating fact from fiction, where we intuitively cancel out self-contradictory terms to arrive at the truth. Such cancelations are a natural element of reason, per Occam's razor, a simplicity derived both in nature and in our reason. The truth is like a message in a bottle, where it can long bob on ocean waves, until one day its message washes ashore. That is how things reduce, or cancel, into truth.


Also see: Why universe is mathematical
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Faith based on love
Posted on Friday, November 18, 2016 - 08:45 am:   

When faith is based on love.

Faith is beyond reason, it is simply believed as true. When tested against reasonable argument, it cannot sustain itself except as an article of faith, so there is no infinite regress to its origin: Faith is. But so is love beyond reason, as it exists in us who love as an indissoluble fact of our loving. There is no deeper understanding than the fact we have this feeling we call 'love.' Whether a love of a mother for her child, or child for a parent, or love between lovers, spouses, for a teacher, a friend, one's animals, gardens, or love for one's country and land and people; they are all indissoluble as a natural feeling felt in our breast. So is love of one's church and religion, especially (for those who can) the love of God; they are subjective feelings without any objective justification. We love, or we do not love, for love is an irreducible article of faith. And same as love is indissoluble, so is it with faith, that there is no deeper a priori justification for its existence. To "love one another" has no deeper justification than to believe on faith, that love is itself the bedrock of our belief. But once love exists, it has a 'reason' all its own against which none can argue. This fully justifies faith based on love, for love is.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Does interrelationship invalidate the gods?
Posted on Friday, November 25, 2016 - 11:22 am:   

Does 'interrelationship' invalidate the gods?


The universe is a big place, its infinity able to manifest many possibilities. Faith based reason (per above) has no objective justification, no infinite regress, but the belief in a greater deity to which we respond beyond reason, that we believe simply by the act of believing it. If someone feels the love of God, and is able to return that love with devotion, then for that person God exists. We live in a 'living universe', so this God's infinite love exists as a possibility. For those who choose to believe solely in reason, in essence atheists, such devotion to a deity is a curiosity but largely meaningless. A universe powered by its internal interrelationships allows for both possibilities, both reason and faith, without prejudice. We are what we believe, so our existence will be colored by how we believe in our subjective mind; there is no objective justification for either, as belief is based on what we feel intimately in our subjective self, a faith which like love in our hearts can be beautifulI. In effect, such belief is beyond our judgment

But what if we believe that interrelationship powers all on the universe, is this an act of 'faith' in itself? Does this become our 'god'? One answer is 'yes', that though interrelationship is an abstract idea without the need for invoking a deity, it has no deeper justification than believing it to be true. But in another way it is not, as the 'deity' of interrelationship foundational to a 'living universe' is not a god; it is merely a set of rules on how the universe works within itself. This 'belief' is unfalsifiable, as are all faith based beliefs, except for the evidence that when conditions of an interrelated reality are met on their own terms, things work. In the sphere of our human existence, when the precepts of (interrelationship derived) Habeas Mentem are met, that we consciously seek to do by agreement rather than coercion, our social and personal reality tends to work; hence why societies respecting democratic values of equality and human rights work far better than those still locked in a coercive top down dictatorial mode. The universe does not judge, as either condition can exist, but we have the power to choose which we prefer in our reality, with commensurate results. Is this a matter of 'belief'? No, it is simply a matter of observation.

The universe is what it is, so any condition it manifests in reality is true. Then whether or not we like it is our subjective response to that reality, not an invocation of God. The truth, no matter how illusive or imaginary for us, is always at bottom of what interrelation manifests in its infinite possibilities, by its own rules. We do not have to believe it, nor worship it, but in the end truth will assert itself in time. Whether or not we believe in God, or the gods, is largely immaterial, except as an expression of our inner beliefs, all of which is true. So even if we live in a holographic universe, as some postulate, the 'reality' manifest is still true in terms of itself, and the best we can do is then believe it or not. The results then manifest for us our reality, which we can either accept or reject, since the universe offers no judgment but that is how its reality will project for us. This projected reality, though at times illusive, then determines whether or not things work for us. And if it works, and we call it an 'act of the gods', then that is what it is for us to base our faith on; conversely, it is merely what it is. Success is our proper alignment with how an 'interrelation universe' manifests our forecasts and expectations, whereas failure is when it does not. The gods may have little to do with it, except in our imagination, but interrelationship does not invalided their existence. If we choose to believe, in some parallel universe sort of way, even if we believe for the wrong reasons, our reality will manifest, out of the infinite possibilities of a universal reality, what we come to believe. Then we can either choose to accept the outcome, or reject it, as the universe will manifest the outcome without judgment. In short, the gods, or God, is our choice.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Examined Life
Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2016 - 01:42 am:   

The Examined Life - in a Simple Universe.

Plato and Aristotle

Plato is attributed with saying that Socrates declared at his trial "The unexamined life is not worth living." This was Socrates' answer when being accused of corrupting the morals of youth, in that he believed questioning everything was paramount, and living an 'unexamined life' is not worth living. This is in itself a fundamental precept of philosophy: Life will end for all of us, and only an 'examined life' is worth living. Though today it is interpreted more as an examination of psychology (as per Stephen Grosz' book "The Examined Life"), it nevertheless stands as a founding principle of examining our lives in all of existence, what motives shape us, and what we do with our lives. But the philosophy underpinning how we are in our existence, and what principles shape our motives, is reducible in an infinite regress to what we consciously, or unconsciously, have come to believe in our lives. Brought down to its fundamental origins, we are what we believe.

In more modern times, we may have come to a new understanding how Plato, and hence Socrates, may have been transcended, where our beliefs of our universe had changed enough to give us a new perspective on the nature of our existence in an infinite universal being, and our being in it. This fundamental understanding may now be reduced to a principle of universal simplicity, where the complexity of an observed, or imagined, universe can be reduced to its simple principle of infinite interrelationship in how the universe works within itself, and how we are Who we are within it. It is the 'Who' that answers to our subjective being in existence, the identity of our being in it, that in the end defines the motives that drive us to be who we are in our lives. From these definitions of our being, our Who, we can then examine our lives to give meaning to our existence. Who we are is then reduced to what we believe, whether understood consciously or felt unconsciously, as those beliefs define interactively with the reality within which we exist. What unfolds from these beliefs is then how we are in our reality, both psychologically and existentially, what defines for us our lives.

This is a question of underlying philosophy. If the patterns that unfold from our beliefs in a 'relativistic' universe lead to unimaginable complexities of multi-universes extending to fractal infinities, then the world perceived will be seen through these lenses of complexities. But if on the other hand we perceive the universe simply, then our self image in this existence takes on simpler dimensions. These are fundamental philosophical differences in how we perceive reality. For example: If in the prior perspective, where light velocity c defines our universe in relativistic terms, where light is 3e8 m/s is the ultimate universal speed limit defining 'proper time', things look one way; but if the latter, where the universe interacts with itself instantaneously, simultaneity in 'real time', the universe is different. Which is it, proper time or real time? These are fundamental principles that are seminal to a broader understanding. Observationally proper time, and existence interrelated at real time, are then the operative dichotomy in how we understand our existence and with it how we define our beliefs and reality. The examined life accepts both observations, but only one will define our existence within our reality in terms of Who; the other excludes us from it. In fact how we understand light, c=3e8 m/s may be the rock bottom demarcation of how we understand reality and what we believe. For example, hypothetically, if 3e8 m/s is not only light velocity but also a coincident value of universal ambient energy as E=3e8 m^2 kg s-2 (Joules), or perhaps conversely as maximum gravity G (Black hole, or G inside atomic proton, interacting with light) of G=3e8 (SI units undefined), then multiplying either value by femtometer neutrino lambda 1.32e^-15 m yields a universal ambient deep space gravity 'constant' of G=3.97e^-7 m^3 kg/kg s-2 (as opposed to universal constant G=6.67e^-11), which changes our perspective of universal reality. This simple dichotomy, yet to be confirmed, defines for us how we believe: Are we in a complex universe, or one of maximum simplicity? With that alternate vision comes our response to how we examine life. Is it simple or complex?

The Examined Life is belief dependent. Socrates believed in life after death, so his impetus for examining life was to continue in the afterlife, choosing death over exile to continue his search. His belief was that a life without the search for meaning was itself meaningless. But if one's belief is divorced from a universe with greater meaning, a kind of nihilistic existence, then examining life is relegated back to psychology, meaning that what constitutes our mind and its beliefs are without greater involvement with its reality other than its experiences, which themselves can be immensely complex. If on the other hand the mind is held within context of its ambient being, that it is infinitely interconnected with its reality, the infinite complexities are reduced to its identity, its Who, as an expression of that reality. This simplifies it down to 'Who it is', which ranges beyond its psychological being, but becomes a part of its infinite reality. This is the belief that drives its self examination beyond psychology, for now it must find meaning within its greater existence, both in life and the world around it. How does a person's life fit into the patterns of a greater whole, its greater mind, as opposed to its mental state? These are the beliefs that drive our mind into an examination of self, what becomes our Examined Life.

On this day 18 years ago we opened Humancafe with the intent and hope to find pathways to a greater human understanding in terms if its greater existence, in effect, its greater consciousness. To generate these understandings, as examined on these forums, was the hope for a greater world consciousness, where humanity as a whole would find its place in a greater universal reality. But what do we believe? We experience, we analyze, we hypothesize and conclude; these are what drive our self examination and our beliefs. Are they against a backdrop of a universe involved with us, both in this life and hereafter, or are they in the context of a 'Cartesian' universe separate from us? These are two fundamentally different beliefs opposed to each other: Where one lends meaning and opens the road to greater explorations of human consciousness, all connected to an interactive universe; the other remains self contained within its nihilistic existence, hence mainly psychological. It is not so hard to discern one from the other. But once defined, it becomes a greater impetus for our search for meaning in our lives. The future milestones and signposts of that discovery will define who we are as a person, and collectively 'Who we are' as a world.


To all who had come to these sites, and those who left their mark, Thank You!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

How 'interrelationship' connects everything
Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 02:11 pm:   

How 'interrelationship' connects with everything.


In his intriguingly clever 1970s TV series Connections, James Burke showed how history is not only linear but interconnected in ways that surprise us with what superficially appears unrelated is in fact part of a whole web that drives development. So the discovery of nylon, for example, was driven by Lloyds of London and the American Revolution (episode 7). These episodes were stimulating to make us think alternatively of how things come about, and how the world is interconnected in both place and time to become as it is.

The underlying cause of change is therefore a product of interrelationships, some of which we can identify, but many are hidden. Taken to its extreme, we might say that a walk in the woods might alter the course of a ship at sea. There is no obvious linear connection between the two, but there may be hidden interconnections, perhaps a shipment's diversion or 'mayday' was decided for myriad reasons while walking, or the person walking is the president of a nation embroiled in war negotiations that fail, or connections totally unknown. Connections exist in real time constantly, why the world's events are all interrelated. But at root cause is the concept of 'interrelationship' itself, that all reality is constantly interconnected, everywhere.

Mostly we think of interrelationship among people. It is natural for us to interact with friends and family, community or business, so such interrelated activities, both mental and physical, are what powers our inter-human relations. On the emotional level we have 'relationships' which can extend to many friends and loved ones. Socially, many interacting relationships define our human condition. But this is the mere tip of a broad pyramid. There are many layers below the summit. Just beneath is a layer of interrelationship fundamental concepts. The underlying principle is all things are somehow interconnected. Starting with an abstract idea, that if three things are in isolation, two coexistent items will modify the third. This gives each item a 'definition' in relation to the other two. This concept taken to include all reality, to infinity, means each thing exists as the interrelationship pressure of everything else allows it to be, what identifies it in relation to the whole. Interrelationships exists as an abstract idea, but in real terms it is how the universe defines every part of itself, from the quantum level to macro existence. In short, all existence is interrelated from the atom to galaxies, all interacting over space and time. As a geometric mechanism, all reality is defined in terms of itself in real time, instantaneously, what gives each thing in reality its universal identity.

The next level down is that all interrelated reality has affect on all living things. This is emergent, that the definitions from universal interrelations constantly redefine life in terms of itself, so it changes as these identities change over time. This is evident in life's adaptability and evolution. We as human beings are part of this emergent reality, so we too are influenced by what we experience and do. When we become conscious of this we become active participants in our evolution, what ripples out to reality with every choice we make. Choose wisely and your life evolves with your consciousness.

The still broader level below this includes all the knowledge, all ideas, the arts, all human aspirations, and outwards all the way to our search for meaning in existence. For some it is in search of an examined life, for others it is a mystical religious experience in a universal search of God. In all cases, we extend our being with what we think and feel and do, and all reality responds to our being in it. Whether conscious or unconscious of it, we are what we believe, and our connections to all existence reflects this.

Finally, the broadest base of this existential pyramid is how we are in the world with each other. This is the interrelationship of ourselves with the self of every other being, and everything living thing. We live in a self defining, emergent universal reality that by extension, because it is so infused with life, is a living reality. We live, strive, dream, interact and love, are born and die within a living universe. This is where we give validation to our existence and inter-personal interrelationship, what is as the top of our pyramid. When we do this consciously, how we are in the self, without trespass on the being of others, within the realm of agreement rather than coercion, we lend validity to each human being, and all living things, per a living universe that defines itself. And when that happens, a new human consciousness emerges, one that in time will define the future reality of our whole planet.

So when James Burke presented Connections, they were infinitely larger than imagined. The connections go much deeper than we know. At the point of contact with others we are intimately interrelated with what we understand, what we feel and observe, but greater still is much of what we do not know. We are connected to everything, all reality and all life. Those interconnections, in the manner of interrelationship, redefine for us Who we are, over time and at every instant in time. We live in a simple universe, one that makes it all possible for us, by its own rules. To know this then becomes our defining moment, how we are with ourselves and each other. We are so much more.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Emergence takes time
Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2017 - 03:01 pm:   

'Emergence' takes time.


In the earlier discussion on the Three Forms of Reason we wrote:


1. Subjective reason, the sense of cognition, the self-defining feeling of "I am" each person has. This is also where story telling comes from, what we weave in our imagination, going all the way back to primitive, mythical times. (Ego)

2. Objective reason, the mental ability of discerning fact from falsehood, an operative abstract reason needed for survival in reality. We are genetically designed to do this, though this is still challenging to us in that we must learn it. (Ego detachment)

3. Universal reason, where our mental ability is detached from either subjective or objective, but connects directly into how the universe operates on its own terms, which for us is not a natural ability but exists only as an intellectual potential. (Total detachment)

The first and second forms of reason are innately familiar to us, we all have it. It is the third form that is still mysterious, because we are unfamiliar with it. We may not yet have evolved the genetic ability to use this form of reason, since our minds are not designed to see things as the universe 'sees' itself. This form of reason is founded on the concept of 'emergence', where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and where complex systems evolve from simple interactions. Therefore, this emergent whole then modifies its parts, where a universal totality may actually define them in terms of itself: Everything is exactly 'where and how' it is because of where and how is everything else, in toto, both in time and space... to infinity. (repeat) In effect, this is where the 'emergent' interconnected, interrelated parts are all redefined by the whole, what I call the Universal Mind. It is a 'mind' for which we must still work very hard to connect with, because it is not yet natural for us. We can't see all the infinite interrelations with our minds that define Universal emergence, though we can logically know it exists, at least conceptually. But it is not easy for us to understand this, as we are not programmed to do so.

For the infinitely interrelated whole to restructure per emergence, all the connections must fall into place exactly as the totality redirects it parts to do so. Though it happens in real time simultaneity, it still takes time to reorder itself. We have evidence of this time related emergence in life's evolutionary scale. It took billions of years to achieve simple cellular life on Earth, hundreds of million years for complex life to emerge. But then in a mere one or two million years we have human evolution, and since the awareness of objective logic, our technological evolution took place in mere centuries. Once consciousness takes hold, everything accelerates. Yet, it all takes time to form.

It is same in our personal lives, where emergence per infinity interrelationship works with our personal identity. We may think solutions for problems in our lives take 'forever', but they are merely following how they 'emerge' over time in response to our life-being and choices. Some solutions are subliminal, in that we are not aware of how we effect change; it may be intuition or dream, or prayer, that effects a needed change to resolve a personal issue. Or it may come in the form of friends, or strangers, who are at the right place and time to offer aid. These emergent events are still mysterious for us, as they form in the universal mind. And at this time, other than some intuition insight or dream revelation, that mind is still inaccessible to us. Likely, we have not yet evolved the neuro-circuitry to access this directly. So patience is called for when solutions to problems are sought, that they will reveal themselves, in time.

The same applies to larger social scale evolution. Problems may be resolved quickly under clear and able leadership and healthy democratic principles, but mostly they are laborious, frequently driven by crisis, and only historically do we see the changes that had taken place over time. It is in the nature of how works interrelationship and the universal mind, that unless we see an immediate solution to problems, they will resolve in an emergent manner, which takes time. The same can be said of mass collective awakenings, or great art works, or music, that they burst on the scene suddenly, though were long time forming. So patience, watchfulness, and sometimes prayer or positive affirmations, will all yield results, though it may take longer than we like. That is how the emergence works, in its own place and time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Infinity no center per Bruno
Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2017 - 09:13 am:   

Where infinity has no center, but is everywhere its center, in defense of Bruno.

photo.jpg (interactive)
Giordano Bruno

Bruno was a 16th century Italian philosopher who was condemned by the Holy Inquisition for his heretical views, and burned at the stake in Rome's Campo dei Fiori, February 1600. Among his philosophical beliefs was that there is a plurality of worlds in the universe, where the stars are suns like ours, and that they are surrounded by orbiting planets, some of which may be inhabited as is ours. This did not sit well with a Catholic dogma of the time that Earth is unique in the Heavens, and that God sent his only Son, of virgin birth, to redeem its original sin. Of course this makes mince meat of the Church's claim that it is the ONLY universal Catholic authority representing God, if our planet is just another insignificant rock in the infinity of space. So a plurality of worlds, that Earth was but one more planet of many, was heresy; it led to his condemnation. But there were other reasons the Church found him guilty, especially his publications ridiculing the Catholic Pope, as he did in The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast. From during his stay in England, per Wiki:


During that time Bruno completed and published some of his most important works, the six "Italian Dialogues," including the cosmological tracts La Cena de le Ceneri (The Ash Wednesday Supper, 1584), De la Causa, Principio et Uno (On Cause, Principle and Unity, 1584), De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi (On the Infinite, Universe and Worlds, 1584) as well as Lo Spaccio de la Bestia Trionfante (The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast, 1584) and De gl' Heroici Furori (On the Heroic Frenzies, 1585).

Here was material the Catholic authorities could really sink their teeth into. Included was Bruno's paradoxical treatment of 'infinity', that it had no center but everywhere was its center. Religions love paradox, but only their own; you have to die to have eternal life, for example. That along with other heretical ideas, such as transmutation of souls, viz., reincarnation, and his doubts on the Trinity and Christ's mother Mary's 'virginity', got him into the fire. His publications were subsequently banned, and many destroyed. Nevertheless, Bruno was rediscovered in later centuries as a worthy philosopher and mathematician who re-wrote Cosmology to fit his seminal thinking. One of his most intriguing ideas was that 'in infinity everywhere is its center'.

Campo dei Fiori statue of Bruno

This philosophical idea of an infinity defining itself on a point is foundational to the idea of interrelationship as discussed in these forums and the concept of a Simple Universe. The implication is that any point in the universe is defined by the interrelated state of being of all existence to infinity. Everything is what and where it is as the pressure of everything else defines it in relation to its interrelated totality, to infinity. The emergent result is that any point in infinity is exactly as that interrelationship totality defines it, in the image of its infinite totality. Therefore, every point in infinity is its center, and at the same time infinity has no one center, as the points are infinite. This simple theorem, perhaps not stated this way by Bruno though its definition is implied, is what bothered the Church. Because if so, the universal cosmology shifts from being terra-centric to universal-centric, and that puts the Catholic universe on Earth to be but one more insignificant point in the universe. The implication then is that the Church's power to claim universal authority, speaking for God and ordering His kingdom on Earth, is thus but one more insignificant point. This was trouble, and Bruno paid the ultimate price for it in Campo dei Fiori.

The emergent idea, that infinity has no center but everywhere is its center, carries implied in its definition a revolutionary idea, that we are all connected at our point of being to universal infinity. So if everyone of us, defined by our self aware state of being, is the center of a personal infinity, we are of necessity more than what we know in ourselves, since we also carry infinite emergence in ourselves. Each one of us is all of infinity, we are all universal beings. We are connected to everything, and are thus empowered by that connection when conscious of it. And if so, Bruno was right. But to date the Catholic Church has not pardoned him for his 'heresy' nor their error in burning him at the stake, a pardon that is long overdue.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Universe Biofeedback infinity loop
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2017 - 01:15 pm:   

The Universe is an infinity Biofeedback loop.

Biofeedback loops

We live in a Living Universe. Everything in our universe is interconnected to infinity, so from that infinite web, what we call 'interrelationship', emerges a new definition of its parts. Over time this new definition is Life in the universe. Where it is possible for living things to thrive, they exist. But this natural existence is not in a vacuum. Rather it exists because of near infinite interrelations surrounding it, and from which are redefined its conditions of existence. Life lives in this complex interconnected web, and from it emerges its living being. Therefore, the fact that life exists, per interrelationship emergence from galaxies down to the quantum, defines our universe as a living totality. This is not a closed system, but rather is perpetually open ended as long as life exists, reproduces, and evolves. In effect, life is a 'biofeedback loop', one that extends from each living thing to infinity.

Of course, we humans are part of that equation. With our evolved brains and minds we are able to consciously interact with our interconnected reality to suit our purpose, if we choose to do so. Regardless of whether or not we are aware of it, the universe hugs us closely at every instant of time, down to our every atom, so we are in constant 'communication' with our greater reality. For now we can know this only in the abstract, that we can reason how interrelationship works, since we had not yet evolved the biology to communicate with the universe directly. For that we would need to be conscious not at a self awareness level, which is normal for us, but at the Universal Reason level, which for us is still illusive. But think of a biofeedback loop where we are aware on a universal mind level, where the infinite interrelations are emergent not merely for our biological functions, what keeps us alive, but also at the mind level, where our mental functions connect directly with the universe's self structured reality. Then the biofeedback loop of infinity becomes directly accessible to us. But as we are not there yet, this future state of human consciousness and its resulting human reality, is still but speculation, a mere dream.


For us the universe is many things, understood many ways. Like an infinite shapeshifter, the universe can be viewed from many angles. To religionists it is a God's creation; to physicists the universe is quanta of energy interacting into mass and force; to a programmer it is digital, bits of ones and zeros; to a mystic the universe is vibrations of higher and lower energies; for some others it is dreamtime, or a hologram; and to an astrophysicist, the universe was born a short 14 billion years ago from nothing, and mathematical. Plus there are many others, in all these cases a credible story can be told, but much of it unverifiable, and probably not a few wrong. We have a very small window in which we can test theory and find it usable. This is also true for interrelationship as a dynamic force in the universe. If at rock bottom all reality, all energy, all mass, and all factors of events are infinitesimally interrelated into an infinite self-defining emergent whole, then it is the basic glue that holds together all reality, as well as holding together all its living things, and ultimately our understanding of it. Perhaps it may be truly understandable in another way, not purely with our reason but with that part of the mind still hidden from us, perhaps more like intuition or instinct, the universal mind's biofeedback. There our reason fails, but the universal reason takes over, though we are unawares. Perhaps in time, with yoga and meditation, with a greater awareness of our place in the universe, our minds will biologically evolve that possibility. But for now, such totality biofeedback is merely an emergent potential, still a dream. Some may be dreaming a bigger picture, but for most we are largely unawares, while we slowly wake from an eternal sleep.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gravitational lensing made simple
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2017 - 01:59 pm:   

Gravitational lensing made easy.

(Please note, this is speculative, an alternative theory to General Relativity, and NOT suitable for your physics class.)

Solar eclipse, Relativity put to the test - 1919 (interactive image)

Einstein's theory of Relativity was first put to the test in 1919 total solar eclipse by Sir Arthur Eddington, proving light bends around the sun as predicted by Einstein's gravitational lensing.


Eddington's experiment proposed observing the Hyades at two different times of the year. He would first measure the location of the stars when the sky was completely clear of anything that might bend their light waves. He would then measure their location again, this time with the sun in front of them. It would have to be done during an eclipse, when almost all of the light from the sun would be blocked by the moon, to ensure the accuracy of the data. Comparing the two measurements would show if the sun caused any deflection of the light from the stars. Einstein's equations predicted a deflection of about four-thousandths of a degree, or 1.7 arc seconds.

It proved correct, as Einstein's equations predicted. However, could there be a simpler explanation of this gravity lensing phenomenon?

If we assume gravity does not travel at light speed c (as predicted by Einstein) but is instantaneous, and we know light travels at c, then could we reconstruct 'gravitational lensing' with simple geometry? For example, take the moon at the beginning of total solar eclipse, and label it A, then take the moon at end of total eclipse and label it B, both observed on Earth at point C. The time elapsed between the beginning of total eclipse and end (_2017, August eclipse) is 160 seconds, so we can construct a long triangle A B and C. We know light travels at 3e8 m/s, so light would have traveled from the moon to earth in 1.282 seconds, which would draw a line from A to C. Now imagine that at the same time the totality begins the moon's gravity blocking the sun arrives from A at C 'instantaneously'. So the light takes time to arrive on Earth, while the gravity arrives instantaneously. This allows for C to be moved along the Earth's surface (moon travels in orbit at about 1 kilometer per second), times 160 seconds of totality period, and times 1.28 seconds time of light travel, so a line at bottom of long triangle at C extends along the Earth surface for 204.8 kilometers, which marks the end of totality.* Let's call this point C'. So now we have a geometric rectangle of A B and C C'. Draw a line between A and C' to give the hypotenuse of triangle A C and C' which gives us the 'angle of deflection' for the sun's light coming to Earth during the total eclipse. That angle of deflection should measure the angle of gravitational lensing witnessed during total solar eclipse, both for the sun's light and any star positioned directly behind the sun at the same time.

Note, this example is a solar eclipse specific phenomenon, not to be confused with general gravity lensing, such as caused by large gravitational bodies in space, galaxies and dark matter lensing. In the solar eclipse the moon is merely the object blocking light, which is measurable as angle of deflection, while the sun's massive gravity is the cause of lensing. The measured angle of deflection is here treated as a blocked light phenomenon, not gravity lensing itself. The result is therefore a solar eclipse phenomenon showing how gravitationally lensed light from behind the sun registered as observed on Earth. Furthermore, the reason Einstein's prediction is 'double' classical Newtonian result may be accorded to light bending both before arriving at the sun, and after leaving the sun, so the two values doubles the angle of deflection, as measured.

Gravity lensing

This works only if gravity is instantaneous, while light travels at c, so the gravitational lensing effect is a derivative of these two interactions. Why would that be? It would be so if, and only if, light remains 'linked' to its origin in its travel through space (at present an effect still unknown) so there is an overlap of light traveling at c with gravity traveling at infinite speed. What happens at lunar position B is felt on the ground (on Earth) gravitationally 'instantly'; but it takes time for light from behind the moon at B to reach its observation at C'; so the offset between the two, B C' and A C', their hypothenuse, is what determines the deflection angle of light. In essence, the light between A C and B C' is represented by the hypothenuse A C', where it is both entangled and stretched to 'appear' gravitationally lensed. Therefore, that angle of deflection is what determines the 'gravitational lensing' as predicted by both Newton and Einstein. But it was Einstein (who showed it was double Newton's prediction) who got it right. The rest is history.


*(Approximstion, duration may be longer, viz., from beginning of eclipse to totality, would need to be tested.)

Also see: Mercury's 43"/century precession made easy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Some Big Bang cosmology peculiarities
Posted on Monday, August 21, 2017 - 12:49 pm:   

Some Big Bang, modern Cosmology peculiarities.

Big Bang

Earlier in the Giordano Bruno 'infinity has no center' post, we also mentioned that, per interrelationship, everywhere in infinity is its center. This in some way relates to modern Cosmology, where anywhere we look, in any direction in the universe, going deep enough, we arrive at the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which marks the observable edge of the universe. This 'edge' of the universe is isotropically some 13.8 billion light years away, which per the Big Bang and expanding universe scenario (the universe may now be some 45+ byn lightyears across) is actually its center stretched at 'infinity'. When you stop and think about it, what we are seeing in the CMB 13.8 byn ly away is actually the origin of the universe, at time-zero, or shortly after the theorized Big Bang. So if we could magically teleport ourselves to the 'edge' of the observable universe, we would actually find ourselves back 13.8 billion years ago at 'time zero', when the universe was but a point (immediately through 'inflation' milliseconds later became the origin of the known universe). Hence the beginning of the Big Bang from a point, that now is everywhere observable as the 'edge' of the universe's CMB, is both its center and everywhere its center.

Wasn't it Einstein who wrote about 2 dimensional flatlanders on a very large (nearly flat curvature) sphere that "the universe of these beings is finite and yet has no limits." The flatlanders can wander in any direction, what for them could be 'infinite', yet in the end come back to where they started. So like in Einstein's example, and General Relativity where gravity eventually closes in on itself, no matter where you go in the universe, or how far, you will eventually 'close in on yourself' and return to your starting point, because the infinite universe, which has no limits, is in the end finite. Now this is all mathematical, using Gauss and Riemann non-Euclidean geometries, so this 'infinite but finite' universe can only be explained mathematically as four dimensional space-time, and it can be defined observationally in fine detail (proving Einstein right again). Per how we understand Cosmology today in a General Relativity universe, this is basically the belief regarding the Big Bang creation, an infinity that is finite, which is expanding, is 13.8 billion years old, and all mathematically valid, proven to several decimal points as being correct within its parameters. Is this not peculiar, that four-dimensional Gauss, Riemann, Minkowsky, Ricci, Lorentz, Hamilton, Hilbert space-time mathematical formalism can have us suspend rational thought to accept what is perhaps more cabalistic than reasonable? It appears this is so. And like the flatlanders living in two dimensional space on a very large sphere (which actually makes it three dimensional, minor detail) we are left to wander in an infinity which we see as finite, at least mathematically.

But this brings us to a conundrum, a paradox, that a finite-infinity fails the test of being infinite, since it is but one subset of a larger set, which is infinity. You can't reverse that, to say that infinity is a subset of a finite set, since that leads to nonsense, and a contradiction of terms. But that is exactly what the flatlanders, and by extension the rest of us, did to accommodate the Big Bang expanding universe scenario, mathematical formalism generalized by Einstein et al. So we three-dimensional 'flatlanders' are in fact contemplating the infinite with finite, to arrive at a finite-infinity, which is explainable only in renormalized mathematical terms if you accept infinity as a 'subset' of the finite. Therefore, everywhere in infinity is its center, where we see the CMB any which way we look; and infinity has no center, since its center (CMB) is in fact at its edge of observational space. But is this not a paradox, since this conclusion can only be assumed with an origin 13.8 billion years ago as the Big Bang? Without that BBT, the infinite would have no center anywhere that is observable. Furthermore, is it true that CMB is time-zero? Could it not just as easily be where our observations using the electromagnetic spectrum start to fail, and the best we can do is see a very reduced cold light, what we call the microwave background, which is just a universal heat minimum? Perhaps that is the finite subset within infinity, what we can observe before light fails us, and not the other way around.

This conundrum in fact has a very simple solution. Stop expanding the universe, stop gravity curling back upon itself; instead allow for the observable universe to be but that, what we can see, and beyond that observation horizon exists an infinity of possibilities, including a universe so infinite its mass is isotropic and homogenous, and does not curl gravity upon itself. Then you may ask, what about the Hubble constant? Doesn't it prove the universe is expanding? Well, it can be interpreted that way, but it is far cleaner and simpler to see the Hubble constant as an artefact of gravitationally redshifted light (line of sight) from the remote edges of the universe, without having to impute expansion. Of course, this can only be true if deep space gravity-G is orders of magnitudes greater than what we have measured here on Earth. In fact, it would have to measure at about G=~3.97e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 in the vastness of intergalactic space, to redshift as observed; a universe which is infinitely big and not expanding or contracting. In some strange anthropomorphic way, we had reversed the natural order by making infinity a subset of the finite to suit our sense of order in the universe. But it is not so, though beautifully mathematically self-contained. More likely a mere mathematical fine fiction. Infinity merely is. As Bruno long ago theorized it has no borders, and everywhere is its center. Our infinitesimal vision of existence is but a minuscule within its greater reality, hardly worth a mention.

It's a Big universe. And thus we gaze into infinity.

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration