{"id":1404,"date":"2023-01-29T15:45:48","date_gmt":"2023-01-29T15:45:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/?p=1404"},"modified":"2023-03-11T15:10:10","modified_gmt":"2023-03-11T15:10:10","slug":"space-time-relativity-and-the-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/space-time-relativity-and-the-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Space, Time, Relativity and the I"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Placing Physics on a Biological Base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

by<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frank W. Andres<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a9 Copyright, Frank W. Andres, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All Rights Reserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please visit us at our website…http:\/\/www.CFTheater. Info<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please give us your comments and ideas at Andres.Frank @Yahoo.Com<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our blog is actually a small website inside of a large one…in which all<\/p>\n\n\n\n

things are free…Everything on our larger site is either free or very inexpensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We all…and we mean you, too.!..We all need to work together in Creative Clusters to help build the Future!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Time, Space, Relativity. We have really gone through all of this before \u2013 way back in the 1970s. We thought we had left these topics behind \u2013 for good. However, we have read books recently which still address relativity as if it were a topic which should be addressed. In these books very often the criticisms we made way back when \u2013 are actually mentioned \u2013 but then ignored. Well, what happened way back when was: Einstein wrote a book on relativity designed especially for high school students. It was a masterly work, wherein all the basic ideas were set out plainly in just a few pages. All of the defects in the theory were laid out plainly for all to see. So we wrote our book \u2013 and well, now 50 years later, as we say, this topic seems to repeatedly raise its ugly head! But this time instead of explanations in a few pages \u2013 the same hypotheses are back with 20 to 30 pages of mathematics attached to each topic! – deduced from the same original ideas! All of this mathematics is really just an obfuscation \u2013 a fog \u2013 that lies on top to simply overwhelm the reader as it creeps in \u2013 ‘on little cat’s feet’ \u2013 to reference a famous poet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, as we have said: We have gone through all of this before \u2013 back in the 1970s. The fact is: Space and time, of course – are not ‘out there’ \u2013somewhere in the black of the cosmos! They are tools that our mind uses to describe, examine, and measure objects in the world external to us \u2013 and describe, examine, and measure their movements. And really, no ideas have emerged to convince us otherwise. Well, fifty years later we are older and a bit wiser \u2013 so let us revisit those ideas \u2013 but now we shall consider all of these ideas \u2013 in the light of the I<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our past minibooks, we have placed all of the social sciences on a biological base. Now, it is clear: it is physic’s turn \u2013 it is physics time – to be placed on a biological base. Well, we shall make a start here. We shall be more thorough in our next minibook which will be concerned with: Quantum Mechanics. Yes, after all these years – the I <\/em>seems to be the answer physics has been looking for. In this minbook, we shall begin to show how the fact that there is a hydrogen ion in your brain \u2013 that is, ‘looking out’ \u2013 is able to shed light \u2013 over all of this!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Space, Time, and Energy<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The social sciences can be made more powerful by placing them all on a biological base \u2013 and we have made considerable progress in doing this in previous minibooks. If all disciplines have the same methodology, and are all grounded in a biological perpective – they can talk to each other. What isn’t apparent immediately is that if these changes in the social sciences are made, not only are the social sciences compatible with each other, they are compatible with all the physical, chemical, and biological sciences, as well. This allows all the sciences to talk to and work with each other. We are truly striving towards one Science \u2013 which will include: Everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is also not apparent is: Chemistry and physics need to be placed on a biological base as well. The benefits of doing this with physics<\/p>\n\n\n\n

will become apparent in this and the next minibook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this minibook, we shall look at the concepts of space and time \u2013 the four dimensions \u2013 and our investigation will lead easily to an unexpected discovery: the fifth dimension! We really<\/em> \u2013 have gone through all of this before!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philosophers and physicists are different in their comprehension of space and time – right off the bat. Philosophers think that space and time are tools in our minds, utilized by the mind to deal with matter outside us. Physicists think that space and time are ‘out there’ \u2013 somewhere \u2013 that the four dimensions are external to us \u2013 they are necessary to understand the external world, but they were not created by our minds \u2013 more exactly: they were not created by Consciousness \u2013 they are just kind of woven into the fabric \u2013 of the universe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the first question we shall ask in this minibook is: exactly what are the five dimensions? A physicist does not really seriously consider an answer to this question. He or she would simply asssert that these things are obvious to anyone. Well, clearly, they are not! Addressing this question is simply indispensable if a physicist is serious about finding a theory of everything \u2013 about finding that one theory that can explain everything!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what is a dimension? Well, a philosopher would say: A dimension is a tool \u2013 that the I<\/em> utilizes to examine, describe, and measure objects and the movement of objects in the external world. When one uses such a tool, he or she takes something that she or he knows and compares it with something he or she doesn’t know. How does this work? Well, here we go: Let us put our knowledge to work!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what is space? That is easy, you say: Space is ‘out there’ \u2013 somewhere \u2013 all material objects reside in it \u2013 it must be like nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, as we have said, a philosopher would say: Space is a tool \u2013 it is a comparison \u2013 made by our minds \u2013 between something we know \u2013 and something we don’t know. Yes, indeed, we do such a thing in order that we might be able to examine, describe, and measure objects that are external to our bodies. Space measures the extension of matter \u2013 it does not exist without matter. If there is no matter, there is no space \u2013 the usual understanding of space is that it is the absence of matter. However, if there were no matter, we would not have an idea of ‘no matter’ \u2013 thus there would be no space. It is why the concept of ‘zero’ was long in coming \u2013 ‘zero’ always has a context \u2013 zero what? – ‘zero’ is always related to something \u2013 there is nothing on the hill over there \u2013 what? – well, there are no cows. Oh. Space is always related to something.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the idea of ‘space’ is used to describe the ‘extension’ of matter. Well, let us be moe specific about this \u2013 in this way we can quickly bring mathematics into the discussion of these things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, we utilize ‘space’ in the following way: As we say, a dimension is a tool that an I<\/em> utilizes to examine, describe, and measure objects external to it. A dimension is a comparison \u2013 yes, that is right \u2013 surprise! It is always a tool, an idea that exists in one’s mind \u2013 that compares something that we know \u2013 know for sure \u2013 with something that we do not know very well. We use a dimension to gain a better idea of what that object external to us – might really be like \u2013 and in this way we obtain information that we might use to manipulate that object and change the world around us \u2013 to build a better world in which we may live \u2013 and survive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the dimension of Space <\/strong>is: We take an extension of known length \u2013 a ruler \u2013 and measure an object (say, a rock) of unknown extension \u2013 we use the ruler in three directions \u2013 Ren\u00e9 Descartes came up with all of this. First, using the ruler, we measure straight across, horizonatal to our sight \u2013 second, straight up and down, perpendicular to the first direction \u2013 and then, third, the direction perpendicular to both one and two \u2013 in each of these directions we utilize the ruler to describe the rock. We have marked the ruler with inches and feet, units universally recognized and we have compared these markings with the extension of the rock in each direction. These comparisons give the recipient an idea about the rock. An examination of the rock, a scientific discussion concerning the rock, may now be based – on these three comparisons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, we may be more general about all of this \u2013 about what ‘extension’ may actually refer to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In mathematics the effort to unify the disparate fields of mathematics into One has centered around one focus: the concept of symmetry. For example, in the field of geometry, any rotation is a symmetry of a round table. Study of symmetrics has led mathematics to the notion of a group. So groups: In mathematics, there are groups of rotations; there are braid groups \u2013 and so, so much more. In physics there are groups which have been used to classify elementary particles and they helped predict the existence of quarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So symmetry: Let us relate this to the ideas of space and time. Space as we have said, is related to the ‘extension’ of an object. An object is symmetrical if it maintains its shape and movement \u2013 even when we apply change to it. An object which maintains this constancy is deemed to be ‘symmetrical’. As we have said, a ruler can be helpful in discerning such symmetry. Space leads to the discernment of extension in objects, then to similarity among the extensions of various objects \u2013 to the grouping of these objects on the basis of such similarities \u2013 then to definitions attached to objects which can be grouped in a book \u2013 so we can be looking for certain objects that we might be interested in investigating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what is time? Continuing on with this line of thought: Well, we have found that Space measures the extension of matter \u2013 so Time<\/strong> measures the movement of matter. Again: ‘Time’ is a comparison between something we know with somethng we don’t know. If there is no matter, there is no time. How do we use time? We take a movement we know \u2013 like the movement of the earth \u2013 which a clock duplicates \u2013 and we compare that movement with the movement of matter (like a girl running) which we do not know. The earth moves so many miles during the same duration that the girl moves so many feet \u2013 a clock divides the circumference of the earth into distances \u2013 called: hours, minutes, and seconds \u2013 each equivalent to a certain number of miles \u2013 this comparison gives the recipient another idea about objects external to our bodies along with an object’s composition, visual appearnace, chemical reactivity \u2013 and scientific discussions may come from this description, examination, and measurement of objects external to us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To measure the movment of particles, something faster than the movement of the earth is required \u2013 mainly to save time \u2013 we must remember that the rotation of the earth may always be used for this comparison!: so, the speed of light is a constant, known speed with which we can compare other particle movements. However, as we say: One must take care to make certain in the use of dimensions \u2013 that the universal rulers and earths and light used for measurement must remain constant \u2013 that they do not vary in any way from a normal expectancy. For example, if for some reason a scientist might think that light always travels the same speed regardless of the motion, the speed, that a perceiver may be transporting his or herself – which would be nonsense \u2013 then light would necessarily have to be moving at billions of speeds all at once. Even if this were possible \u2013 which obviously it isn’t – then light would no longer serve as an instrument with which one might desicrbe the movment of other particles. One would have to go back to that one certain movement we know is constant \u2013 the movement of the earth \u2013 even if such calculations might be more laborious and time-consuming. As we say: The speed of the earth \u2013 does not change. Therefore, it may always serve as an instrument for measuring time. You see: when one gets caught up in a flurry of extensive mathematical discursions \u2013 one might inadvertantly forget what he or she is actually talking about!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One word concerning the speed of light at this juncture:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no empirical reason that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. And what is happening in the real world is what is of concern to us here \u2013 and not what might be deduced from some mathematical equation. Scientists have actually made decisions concerning the ‘spin’ of a particle \u2013 which we shall talk about in our next minibook: a particle cannot possibly rotate like a top, they say \u2013 it does seem to revolve somehow and this revolution should exist for the observed magnetism to be there. However, it is impossible for a particle to rotate like a top \u2013 because, well, if it were a photon \u2013 it would be traveling at the speed of light already and a rotation would necessitate some part of that particle \u2013 what in the heck would that part be? \u2013 to rotate faster than the speed of light!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So!!?? I think scientists have just found an instance in the universe where the speed of an object is moving faster than the speed of light. This to us seems to carry more weight than the origin of this myth: which was the result of a ‘thought’, ‘gedanken<\/em>‘, experiment that Einstein somehow conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still: Again there must be symmetry in the concept of time. The interaction among certain objects must exhibit a certain constancy, similarity – over time \u2013 first one moves, for example, then the next,- and we notice the sequence of occurrences again and again \u2013 for symmetry to exist in this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this it must be recognized that the idea of ‘change’ is like the ideas of space and time \u2013 all of these are mental things \u2013 ideas. Ideas are products of two things always working together \u2013 a Consciousness \u2013 is always working with an allied memory. There is not space, time, or change ‘out there’ \u2013 only the present with its memory of past presents \u2013 past Nows. (Please see the section on Nows – below.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what is the fifth dimension? Look around the room you are in. Immanuel Kant said that the dimensions exhaust, describe everything in the room around you. He said the dimensions are space and time \u2013 but he missed one: What in the room around you is not described by the four dimensions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Light! Well, the light from the lamps in a room, the light from the sun. Light is energy. Energy <\/strong>is the fifth dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which brings to mind Einstein’s equation: E = mc^2 \u2013 m<\/em> incorporates the three dimesnions of space, c<\/em> is the speed of light, used in the fourth dimension of time \u2013 E <\/em>incorporates the comparison of a uniform, known quantity of energy against which an unknown amount of energy can be compared and measured. Notice that in this equation, the equals sign is not an equals sign: As that would mean that the term on the left side of the equals sign is a subset of the terms on the right side of the equals sign \u2013 which an autonomous dimesnion cannot be: Thus, this equals sign is actually a transformation<\/em> sign \u2013 think nuclear explosion! Notice that one reason a formula like this is so simple is that the terms include a lot of complexity and comparfison with other things to begin with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All right, so, what if there are more than five dimensions \u2013 what would they be like? Well, as we already entertained in the previous books we have written: dimensions are used to describe essential aspects of matter \u2013 extension, movement, and of energy \u2013 associated with objects in the external world. Other dimensions might describe things like: Smell, taste, sound, beauty \u2013 when physicists talk about strings of energy folded up and hiding seven or eight dimensions \u2013 well, this mght look neat mathematically \u2013 but conceptually things are more messy \u2013 with time and space you have rulers, and clocks. With other dimesions: You will have things like roses and honey Mathematics and dimensions are not of the gods \u2013 We are animals. We have to go through certain steps \u2013 to arrive at a Truth! First, we must know what reality is. Then we can use mathematics and dimensions to describe that reality. You cannot start<\/em> with mathematics and expect to generate the real world – a priori \u2013 <\/em>unless you are interested in how the left side of the brain works. The left side of the brain possesses interconnections and structures that mimick regular patterns found in the external world \u2013 because neurons are made of the same stuff. Still \u2013 some of what is found in that hemisphere is relevant to a discussion of the external world around one \u2013 and most isn’t. It is better to start with the real world \u2013 make generalizations, and hypotheses \u2013 which the right side of the brain is super at doing. People are either left or right hemispheric dominant in their brains \u2013 they are not both. Then using mathematics one can develop models which can test these right hemispheric hypotheses in an empirical way. Both sides of the brain must work together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See how physics \u2013 quickly becomes biological.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relativity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now that we know what the five dimensions are \u2013 we can look at the concept of relativity. Of course, the topic of relativity is associated in our minds with Albert Einstein. Actually the first scholar to look at relativity was Bishop George Berkeley. He was plenty exhaustive in his examination of it \u2013 yet he did not come up with the shocking, incomprehensible conclusions that Einstein did. Now that we know what the five dimensions are, we can see where Einstein has made mistakes with his conception of relativity. A lot of confusion enters his thought here as he mixes two attributes of the speed of light: Speed of light as a physical phenomenon; and speed of light as a tool which we can use \u2013 to measure movement of objects external to us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So first there is special relativity: This has to do with the speed of light and clocks. As far as space is concerned: Einstein swears that a block becomes shorter as it approaches the speed of light. There is \u2013 no physical reason for this. There is no reason a block should become shorter as its speed propels it outwards into space close to the speed of light. This supposedly all occurs as a result of distortions in human perception. The reflection of light off the front edge of the block and then off the rear \u2013 ultimately reaching the eyeball at different times – does all the damage. The speed of light supposedly is always traveling the same speed for all observers regardless of their motion or position \u2013 so what one see \u2013 is Truth! Light cannot lie! All of which defies common sense. However, physicists swear that we must leave intuition and commopn sense behind. This is high powered physics \u2013 we should become innured to impossible things!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So .first!: Light is the phenomenon our eyes use to discern and describe objects extenal to us. Second, the speed of light is used as part of the three dimensions to describe the extension of matter. So when Einstein says that objects moving away from us at the speed of light become shorter \u2013 what he is saying is: The images of objects normally are not distorted as they move away from us at normal speeds becaue light travels so fast that it could travel around the earth seven times in one second. Therefore, in our experience, perception of things on earth is pretty much instantaneous. There is no noticeable difference between the perception of light reflected from the front and rear of a block as it moves away from us. However, as a block approaches the speed of light, light reflected from the front edge of the block would take longer to each our eyes than light reflected from the rear because there is a longer distance to travel involved! So of course, the block would appear shorter. We can actually calculate what the difference in time would be for the leading-edge light to reach our eyes versus the rear-reflected light, using Einstein’s formula for relativity. But there is a c<\/em> in the equation \u2013 and light is always the same speed regardless of the relative motion of the perceiver \u2013 therefore, the block must actually be becoming shorter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

` No! No one is questioning the speed of light here \u2013 even if it is \u2013 a bunch of nonsense! As we say: It is highly unlikely that light is traveling many speeds at once. Even if there were True: What we are concerned about here is the distance light must travel during a a certain duration of time \u2013 with a certain image in tack. The block is moving heck a fast – so by the time a photon of light reflects off the front of the block which is moving outward into the sky and that photon reaches the rear of the block where another photon is now being reflected \u2013 the block has moved a long distance \u2013 the light reflected from the front of the block and the light reflected from the rear, each with different images embedded in it – are attached to different moments in time and so the block appears to become shorter to the perceiver. If a person were lying on top of the block as it moved at a speed close to the speed of light \u2013 and that person were able to survive to testify as to the integrity of the block \u2013 he or she would swear upon a Bible that the block is still the same block \u2013 its dimensions have not changed! When it comes to blocks moving near the speed of light \u2013 symmetry is still there \u2013 the predictable is still happening!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Space describes, examines, measures the extension of matter. The dimensions of blocks are not altered by the speed of the blocks – therefore space is not affected by the speed that matter is moving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Time: When clocks move away from us at speeds close to the speed of light \u2013 the light travels a longer distance each instance before it reaches the eye with its image in tack \u2013 time seems to be moving slower. Again \u2013 well, there are two mistakes here: first the image of clock is moving over longer distances during each second of its moving away from the perceiver \u2013 thus the clock seems to moving slower \u2013 thus time is slowing down, Again, No! No one is questioning the speed of light here \u2013 it is the length of duration between emittance of photons of light \u2013 each with its own image attached \u2013 that we are talking about here. There is an increased distance between emitter and perceiver every second \u2013 thus photons are arriving later and later. This is a perception thing \u2013 not a time thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there is the obvious thing: Clocks have nothing to do with time \u2013 per se<\/em>! A clock has to be doing certain things before all that mechanism has anything to do with time. The hands of the clock are moving around \u2013 as we have said: They must be, need to be, duplicating the motion of the earth \u2013 exactly \u2013 before that clock has anything to do with time! If a clock is perceived to be moving slower over time \u2013 well, the earth \u2013 is still moving at the same speed. The deviate motion of the clock has not seemed to have impacted the motion of the earth. Time is the comparison between something which is constant \u2013 which we know for sure \u2013 compared to something whose movement we do not know \u2013 namely a a person running \u2013 and this has nothing to do with clocks \u2013 per se<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So all of this special relativity stuff of Einstein immediately collapses to the Truths Bishop Berkeley talked about years before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As far as general relativity: Well, this is about gravity. There did not seem to be any gravity particle at the time that Einstein lived \u2013 so Einstein asked: How about this idea? What if space and time are ‘out there’ somewhere \u2013 and gravity bends it \u2013 or it bends and creates gravity \u2013 or something? It is a bit confusing as to what Einstein actually said about all of this. Nevertheless \u2013 space and time are not ‘out there’ \u2013 they are in one’s mind \u2013 they are comparisons our mind makes to help describe, examine and measure objects, matter extenal to us. They have nothing to do with gravity. In fact, we now have found that gravity is actually found in only two places \u2013 in the nuclei of hydrogen atoms buried deep in tiny Black Holes \u2013 and in helium which is created by the fusion of two hydrogen atoms \u2013 which results in there being two Black Holes revolvng around each other. So there is now no reason for a space- time continuum ‘out there’ to exist \u2013 in order for there to be an explantion as to the origins of gravity. Which is all very fortunate: A space-time continuum couldn’t actually exist anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Now<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

‘What is<\/em>,’ said the philospher Parmenides, not quite a million days ago, ‘is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete, immovable and without end.’ What is<\/em> \u2013 is \u2013 of course, totally incomprehensible. Of course what Parmenides was talking about was: Consciousness. When we talk about space, time and relatviity, we are addressing the most important questions a physicist can ask. A physicist is roaming far from his field. Into the field of philosophy – wherein there are experts \u2013 more suitably trained \u2013 with dispositions more in tune with the temperament of such discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we have said, in the first draft of this minibook: We were attempting to place physics upon a biological base. The problem is: During the past 100 years, physicists have opted to build the future of physics using only the tools of mathematics \u2013 and little else. Therefore, we shall accept their wisdom of approach \u2013 and turn our attention to this mathematics that they have so much faith in \u2013 well, we shall consider all of this in detail in our next minibook \u2013 which will address the topic of: Quantum Mechanics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The thing is: It is apparent after some thought \u2013 that it is mathematics itself that needs to be placed upon a biological base \u2013 then everything<\/em> seems to fall in place – especially when one is talking about the unification of all the fields of mathematics. But this is part of a discussion to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, we are attempting to gain a perspective that will instantly help a discipline \u2013 that is, physics \u2013 that is caught in a quagmire of ideas, such as: Relativity, quantum mechanics, space, and time \u2013 Yes, as we have said: Indeed, this effort has been like physicists attempting to be philosophers. Yet this effort has evolved to be more like physicits attempting to be mathematicians. Which is all right even necessary \u2013 as long as it is accepted that mathematics is only one discipline among many – that all the disciplines are necessary to address problems nowadays. We need a Science of Everything. Otherwise one is left on an island of isolation \u2013 stranded in an ocean of ideas that are unable to progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we say: Of course what Parmedides was talking about is the I<\/em>. He was talking about the ‘Now,’ He, without realizing it \u2013 was talking about the phenomenon \u2013 of Consciousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We know that from the Intellectual Autobiography of the Viennese philosopher Rudolf Carnap, that there was the following conversation between Carnap and Einstein on time:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once Einstein said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And well he should be concerned! Because – of course, the ‘Now’ that Einstein was referring to was related to the one crucial thing \u2013 that as we have said \u2013 that physics has indeed left out of its equations: Consciousness!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where there is movement, there is energy. Where there is energy there is Consciousness. Where there is Consciousness \u2013 there is time! Consciousness is Now!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

‘Now’ \u2013 is the beginning \u2013 it is an empirical instance in \u2013 it is the cosmic declaration of \u2013 Time!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For some reason some physicists actually believe that because physics can be reduced to a theory of everything \u2013 which in their dreams will be some sort of definitive equation \u2013 a succinct declaration Truth of All things!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– when such mathematical equations are possible – ones that can stand for all things for all time \u2013 then time itself will seem to become frozen \u2013 perhaps even will be kind of sloughed away. In the physicist’s dreams: We won’t need time at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is one problem wth this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Now<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Now is Consciousness. The Now \u2013 is a moment in time \u2013 which can never be erased \u2013 without erasing the I<\/em> \u2013 that is attempting to utilize mathematics in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Now is a moment in time. Yet a Now is fragile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Now is unable to stand alone. Consciousness has never stood for that. It has always had memory by its side. One isolated Now cannot be sustained, accepted, continued. There must be past Nows in a memory nearby \u2013 for a present Now to be meaningful. There must be past Nows \u2013 for an I<\/em> too move \u2013 to move a body \u2013 to move a world! Consciousness will simply not \u2013 accept \u2013 lack of meaning. Consciousness simply cannot exist without past experience \u2013 or DNA which provides instinctual information, a sort of canned memory that comes with the console..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, once there is memory, there is one other thing: There is now the possibility of: Projection! \u2013 into the future \u2013 the anticipation of future Nows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can’t you see how all of this is in the brain. There is no Now \u2013 ‘out there’ \u2013 somewhere!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes! Of course time – is an I<\/em> thing. It is a mental thing. This ultimately is because Change \u2013 is a mental thing. A noticeable difference \u2013 between two Nows – Wherein which process, the I<\/em> is utilzing memory. Yes, what there is: Is a hydrogen ion in our brain which drags the cosmos into our lives. All science, all thinking must begin \u2013 with the I<\/em>. Each of the sciences must be placed upon a biological base – each must be viewed from the perspective, the knowledge possessed \u2013 by the I <\/em>\u2013 in one’s brain. But you counter, that I<\/em> is not bioloigcal \u2013 it is cosmic. Indeed it is, my son and daughter. And that makes Life Cosmic entities \u2013 nevertheless as long as I<\/em>s are attached to a brain, well, as long as an I<\/em> is in charge of a living entity \u2013 it is a biological entitiy – until death occurs to that larger biological entity of which it is a part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE END<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Greater Cosmos and the I<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has always puzzled us how scientists can assert that the universe is ‘flat’ \u2013 and then one never hears about that phenomenon ever again. Isn’t that fact sort of important? We mean: If there was a Big Bang \u2013 well, if that happened: There must have been an explosion \u2013 and explosions usually result in a sphere of firey hell \u2013 not a flat whisp of a cosmic hair piece. Well, physicists say: there was expansion, contraction, untold numbers of variations in the creation of the cosmos that could have resulted in a flat universe that is like a sheet of paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We don’t think so. We don’t have minds of physicists \u2013 we have experience with ten other disciplines \u2013 other things come to our minds \u2013 a flat universe may be an important piece of information which can help one conjecture as to the creation of the universe itelf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the physicist myth of creation is: Well, there was nothing. And well, Boom \u2013 there was everything! So there!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, there is something physicists call: The cosmic vacuum. Wherein: Anything is possible! And from which, in which, anything – may emerge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us put on another hat right now of say: well, a sociologist \u2013 well, someone without any preconceived ideas about cosmic things. So the universe is flat \u2013 eh? Well, what if the universe was not the result of an explosion \u2013 of which there seems to be little evidence except that galaxies are moving outward from one spot \u2013 well, so, no explosion. What if what happened is: there was a cosmic flare \u2013 like a flare emitted routinely from the sun. As below \u2013 so it is above. The same processes seem to occur at various levels in the universe. A flare would be more like a sheet of paper than like an explosion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeh, but there is no sun!? So we must be saying that there was something there before the universe was created – which was immense and the universe is just an incidental propulsion from this immense thing’s surface. Why haven’t we seen such an immense thing? Well, it may be an immense Black Hole. There seem to be Black Holes at the center \u2013 at the creation of everything in the universe \u2013 including hydrogen ions which were the first things that were created by this immense thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So if this were True \u2013 then the whole question of multiverses \u2013 remains – a question. An immense Cosmos that predated our cosmos would mean the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the laws we are aware of \u2013 came from the same immense origin \u2013 which presumably has created all the universes within our reach that we might ever be aware of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Somehow this immense entity has created a world exactly right for us to live. Or more likely a bunch of hydrogen ions took what was given to them on earth \u2013 and created Life which was consistent with what they were given.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, they made all of Life \u2013 out of sugar! How have scientists missed this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of the cosmos was created by one immense Consciousness. One immense Consciousness did not give of itself – annihilate itself and break into a countless number of I<\/em>s. One immense Black Hole created a baby cosmos comprised of one hundred galaxies with Black Holes at the center which probably had something to do with the galaxies’ creation \u2013 and every particle then created which were hydrogen atoms – possessed tiny Black Holes, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus the flair emitted from the greater cosmos – was full of Black Holes, Consciousness, and gravity,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, as we have speculated before in other minibooks: If this flair is flat \u2013 and if hydrogen ions created Life \u2013 then these talented, Consciousness embued particles must have done things like this before somewhere else \u2013 either above or below the present flair \u2013 or as part of the immense cosmos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So my son and daughter \u2013 there is the counterpart to a God. We are not \u2013 alone!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bibliography<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arianrhod, Robyn, Einstein’s Heroes \u2013 Imagining the World through the Language of Mathematics <\/em>(New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 323 pp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barrow, John D., New Theories of Everything<\/em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 260 pp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feynman, Richard, et. al., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II<\/em> (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison \u2013 Wesley Publishing Co., 1964), 263 pp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mlodinow, Leonard, The Drunkard’s Walk \u2013 Randomness Rules Our Lives<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(New York: Pantheon Books, 2008), 252 pp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Orlin, Ben, Change is the Only Constant \u2013 The Wisdom of Calculus in a<\/em> Madcap World<\/em> (New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 2019), 319 pp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n