In this new economic crisis perhaps those of us who can should forgive certain debts in order to help a fellow person who owes you money or give them reasonable options to payback the money. Times will be tough for all. Perhaps to cure the world of this economic crisis, all world governments can pass amnesty (FORGIVE) on all debt for all and start a whole new world economy where no one has to beg for food. It's time perhaps for an economic reboot.

Special thanks to Pastor Mark Hughes for seeding the spark for this blog.

* Distortion applications
* Quantum radio
* Faster Than Light Travel
* Realitivistic Relativity
* Bonds
* Forces

Not specifically in that specific order and I'll also be blogging about other topics as I get inspired.

So stay tuned.

Look at a bucket or cup of water. It’s made of water molecules which have 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded together. In between these atoms exists space and time. In between these water molecules exist more space and time. Where my theories branch off from traditional science are when I state that all atoms are actually star systems “compressed”. That means that space and time at the quantum level is equivalent to our own space and time, but compressed making objects in it smaller and interactions faster because time is also compressed which translates into “fast” passage of time at the quantum scale. Essentially 1 minute in our space-time would be 571 years relatively at the quantum scale. Realities are relative separated by space and time which speaks to our perception of “things” and that it too is separated by space and time. Basically, quantum matter is also made up of more space and time. The amazing thing is that this process continues on infinitely making up all substances that make up other substances at any “reality” scale. My derived Reality Scale Constant S speaks to this separation of space-time as it relates to our physical make up in an EXACT relative relation to difference between quantum and celestial scales.

All that can be said is that “physically” we are all made of a “denser” space-time substance than the space-time we live in and that our bodies are onto themselves entire relative universes.  I know this is a bit daunting to understand or even be accepted, but our physical bodies, our brains, the atomic elements and molecular substances that make up our bodies are really just compressed space-time where the end result makes up you and me existing in a much less dense space-time. Now for you science geeks, space-time density can also be interrupted as energy levels so Einstein wasn’t wrong when he said matter was energy, but what “exactly” was energy? He didn’t define it definitively. Energy is and exists, in my theory, as a nature potential between different densities of space-time. Another thing that can be said is that even though “physical matter” is really just a perception separated by space and time at different densities of space and time, that it obviously contains structure. I’d argue imaginary and perceived structure but structure all the same. Quantum, atomic and molecular bonds do exist and aid in this structure of “matter”.

So from this structured “physical” existence of space and time, how do we come to have personality, exude awareness and intelligence? Essentially, our “physical” makeup, specifically in our brains, in its own “physical” structure, receives and transmits the accelerated space-time chaotic interactions at the quantum level or even smaller or of all space-time densities (infinite) existing in us and passing through us, and from this chaos through a very complex structured brain filters in our mental existence. Our brains react to sensory stimulation in the form of sight, touch and smell, but what’s the something in our brains that understands this sensory information to react to it. Cells, neurons (nervous cells), react instinctively to stimuli from our body independently most likely unaware of where the stimulation is coming from or how its own reaction will affect other neurons to react, but the end product of this collective cascade of cause and effect results in an intelligent reaction, be it instinctively in the case of animals, back out though the body affecting the environment external to the organism. This collection of neurons in our brains and how they’re linked together and to your body results in “you”. “You” exist in the “randomness” of interactions between the space and time between these neurons and possibly within these neurons. “You” are this space and time between these seemingly perceived structure cells of “matter” and the “matter” they are made of. The structure of your brain, a cause of your genetic code (we’re all still programmed), assists in exuding your unique “personality” this is why you and me are different, but the source of our “being” is in, actually in, the “randomness” in space-time. All random things are random until understood, so there are more questions to answer and this why we’ll never have answers to all of our questions. Now here’s the kicker, we’re all connected together by space-time so essentially we are the same space-time entity filtering through differently “structured” “physical” bodies much like water filters through different water filters differently, but the root source is the same.
 

Why do we need to know and ultimately become more than what we are now? I think the answer lies in the byproduct of our pursuits. What byproduct? The byproducts we built in order to make a great many of our pursuits easier, so to get to the point I’m talking about computers and software programs. They are a byproduct of our collective human pursuit. We “needed” a system to calculate more and faster, to store large amounts of data for processing by us of my other machines and all this is aiding us to achieve our quests faster and more efficiently. How can computers answer how we’re all in pursuit of something…seriously?! The computer itself, more specifically its software, doesn’t answer this but it alludes to the answer because we humans are all programmed also. It’s all relative.

Our specific programming is genetic. To deny it is to avoid the obvious. Some of us are tall, or short, dark skin or light skin, blonde or red hair and its all hereditary coming from our parents and ancestors. To be more specific, humans are not cats.  Why not? Because we’re programmed differently than cats. We walk upright and have larger, more complicated brains. So what if, being more philosophical and scientifically speculative, we were programmed at a very fundamental core in our genetics to pursue more. Is it our instinct for survival? Can the survival instinct be manifesting itself possibly in a quest to know the secrets of the Universe? How would that help us survive? Yes knowledge is power and with power comes the greater probability to a high chance of prolonged survival, for example via the ability to afford medical treatments. But honestly, finding the truth about something in the cosmos rarely translates into personal survival. There is something else in our structure, in our code, and I believe it’s the <b>basic instinct of curiousity</b>.

All humans have it and an obvious byproduct is the media as whole. To be more specific, tabloids and the paparazzi cater to this insatiable desire to know. As it pertains to love and falling out of love, many of us are curious that perhaps a particular person will fulfill you and make you happy but after you get this person and know more about them and something in you, you’re curiousity, starts seeking more and many of us don’t know it, deny it or translate it into something, such as progressing this relationship by living together or having children. This seeking more in a relationship can translate into conflicts with this particular person initiated by the person seeking more or with the greater desire for more. Conflict only arise if the personal seeking denies their internal “feelings” and would rather blame others as to avoid being culturally, socially or self-psychologically unaccepted. For example, “I was raised to be a good girl and my culture doesn’t allow divorce but I don’t love him anymore and this is making me depressed. There must be someone else better out there for me.” The same holds true for men as it pertains to this example perhaps to a lesser degree depending on the culture. Relationships are just one example of this quest of more, for something, for everything. My only advice to troubled relationships is to aid the advancement of your partner, friend, loved one together in order to both of you to collectively achieve more and find contentment together. Most the time this will not be easy and will take time, but depending the culture or the circumstances, the alternative is sometimes worse. If the relationship is abusive verbally and especially physically, get away from that relationship because survival is much more important. You can’t help someone if they’re going to abuse you to death. This example can also apply to your career and workplace advancement because the same challenges also exist there. If you had the choice, choosing a certain job was exciting then it lost its appeal after sometime due to conflict or lack of advancement so some of us cause conflict with others due to discontentment at the workplace perpetuating this discontent and creating a ”negative” workplace. Some of us might have the ability to just leave but others might not. If you can leave and you do, it still might affect the following job because your new employers might label you as unstable and be already planning for your departure before you even started. If you can’t leave it, you might start becoming very depressed which will affect other aspects of your life. The only solution is to resolve the root cause of the conflict overtime and make that a pursuit. A happy workplace is productive aiding the investors and personally contenting. Perhaps the work force overtime has to sway the employer to see this point of view or perhaps the employees can do things themselves to help each other. Ultimately, given enough time at one place, moving on to different things, in or outside your employment, is good because true happiness occurs only when we are pursuing something. To stop the pursuit is unnatural.

So if we’re programmed to pursue, to quest, to answer, what collectively are we ultimately leading to? Are we collectively leading to something as Humankind? I believe we are. Why? Because being programmed genetically, and this is speculative, alludes to the fact that we were programmed by someone. So this someone, call him God or his derivatives such as mother nature, randomness (as it pertains to Chaos Theory), or some advanced alien race, programmed us for a purpose. How can I say this? Well all things are relative. We build machines for a purpose so what if we were built for a collective purpose of “doing something”. What if we’re a collective machine/program whose basic functions are to survive and pursue (curiousity)? I’m starting to believe more and more along this line of thought. I can understand the need to survive, but what about the curiousity factor? What does this function achieve in the end? My personal belief is the drive to answer the ultimate question. Where did Existence come from?  Existence being and encompassing the whole Universe thus space-time and my favourite consciousness. A question still lingers, if there are alien races “out there” do they have the same basic drives? My cat is very curious, so relatively, perhaps all life is naturally curious.
 

Answer:
Yes I do make the assertion of an exact scale ratio relationship between celestial and quantum. I call it the Reality Scale Constant S.

Question:
“Now, are you saying that the forces and interactions of celestial bodies are equivalent to a smaller scale. If so, what do you mean by "smaller" (volume, "mass", magnitude of other interactive forces [gravity, electricty, magnetism, nuclear]?). “

Answer:
The interactions at both celestial, quantum and sub quantum are relatively the same. The difference is in rate of interaction. Specifically time travels relatively faster at the quantum scale about c times faster as seen from our perspective. Why? Because objects at the quantum scale , their "space", are condensed in relative comparison to our scale by a factor of S. So every time you make an S scale jump (divide) the rate of interaction is c^2 times faster (only if the objects have no spin). If they have spin the rate of interaction is even faster due to a space-time shearing effect caused by the spinning onjects. This was all derived after deriving the value of S and subsequently deriving (using S) that mass is charge at the quantum scale.

Question:
“Also, did you also say that the smaller sized realm and the larger size realms are not equi-dimensional?”

Answer:
Sorry, not recalling this part in my ebook. My definition of dimension is slightly different. I refer to dimension as the "substance" that makes up everything including itself. In my ebook dimension is "space-time and consciousness".

Question:
“Sorry if I'm asking some dumb questions that might later on be answered in some higher level physics courses, but I just want to understand how the flux of ideas came in and how they're all justified. I really don't mean any offense and apologize if I do.”

Answer:
No question is dumb and I take no offense, but I don't think you'll find my theories in higher level physics courses. First off they're very new since only within the last year I've decided to share them at by some of my family's and friend's urging. Second they're a bit radical for certain traditionalists to stomach but being radical doesn't make them wrong. All theories are radical, at varying degrees, even if the math absolutely supports it. Concepts take time to infilter themselves into the populous and to be taken seriously by mainstream science. This is an obvious truth of all institutions including our science institutions. I know this, so I structured a paper to support one of my theories, mass to charge relative equivalence, as elementary as possible in order to minimize speculation and increase understanding by the reader. It was intentional that this paper be done up in a complete elementary fashion so the simple math involved could obviously be seen and readily understood.

The justification of my theories revolve around 4 concepts all of which I've mathematically worked out or tested:

* Conscious Perception of Reality - how we percieve things and how space and time effect those perceptions all along the lines of "relative" perception
* The Reality Scale Ratio of S - based on my initial hypothesis which calculated mass to charge exactly - verified mathematically
* Space-time vibrations/waves/fluctuations and their interaction in regards to wave theory - explains all forces & celestial and quantum interactions quite well
* Space-time Distortion - easily verified experimentally

So where is this space? Where can we find it? Technically, its all around us, but we can't experience it the way I've described it here because we're on a planet. So what if we're on a planet?! Well it's a big "so what" because all celestial objects of "matter", planets especially, maintain a certain level of space-time density at their surfaces because they vibrate space-time from the infinitely high frequencies to a natural very low frequency at their surface. Earth does this too. We experience this vibration in two ways, emitted light (visible and invisible along with heat which to is still light) and by the effect of gravity. Actually we also experience it by simply experiencing wind because the cause of wind are changes in temperature on the surface of the planet. It's all to do with space-time vibration. So why aren't we rattling to death if the Earth is vibrating. Because the vibration is so fine that very high frequency space-time vibrations is not felt just as we don't feel radio transmissions, which too are space-time vibrations, and some of the lower frequency vibration, also "slower" travelling vibrations, are experienced as heat which technically can burn and harm us "to death". So yes, heat can vibrate us to death. The largest vibrations the Earth produces are embodied as the magnetosphere in the space surrounding the planet. So planets, stars, black holes all maintain a type of stable "space-time ecosystem" at their surfaces that is unique to each object of “matter” depending on their size and density. But I want to experience Nominal Space, how can I find some? The good stuff? In my theories, it's more in abundant “homogeneously” (in purity) in the deep dark distances between galaxies or in between clusters of galaxies, but Nominal Space in its purest form would require absolutely no matter at all, but that's just a matter of perspective also. I'd argue quite simply that our entire perceivable Universe exists in this very pure space-time substance called Nominal Space. That in this type of space, our entire Universe can be perceived as a simple quantum particle or sub-quantum particle, or sub-sub-quantum particle or infinitely smaller. So small in fact that it technically wouldn't exist to anyone else experiencing this pure form of Nominal Space.
 
Then BIG GA-BANG!! For some messed up reason, our entire sub-sub-sub-sub-infinitely sub-quantum particle "Universe" decelerated to 0m/s "relatively" and its size increased to its current glory also "relatively". Or did it? Is it still this very infinitely small particle? I also argue that it is and it is not. That to an existing observer who lives in this Nominal Space, as we all do, at a size infinitely bigger than our "perceivable" Universe (a large cluster of galaxy clusters), we are still this infinitely small particle which as perceived by this particular observer, we still don't exist.

Existence is a wonderful place.

Download my theoretical physics ebook at http://www.gpofr.com

For most of us in the North America, we have been and are oblivious to the foreign policies of the United States government in how other countries are handled. What I mean is in regards to hidden agendas in the US government in order to benefit groups or the American people as a whole. Ideally, I'd hope all implemented US policies were for the benefit of their people as any nation's policies should be for their own people, but ideal scenarios are rare. The problem with the US in particular is that it is so powerful where any action by it not only affects themselves but also the world. For example, the latest global economic suffering can be attributed to financial deregulation in the United States and the derivative mismanagement and greed of it's financial sector thereof. Again in my opinion, the US suffers from commercial over-lobbying which can hinder intelligent ethical policies that not only would benefit the themselves but also the world. Should the US be solely held responsible for all of the perpetual hardship in the world because of its own bad policies? No that's silly. The rest of the world should also foresee and judge the actions and policies in the US before they become detrimental to them. The world holds a shared responsibility along with the US to make this planet run peacefully. Granted the US is big and powerful and perhaps should hold more responsibility in comparison say to Greece. Unfortunately, we are all one very large global organism where the action of the biggest or the smallest nations ripple to all other nations. Taking this analogy a little further, it boggles the mind why one nation would want to kill off another nation. Seriously, this analogy basically makes warring nations look like human organs wanting to kill off each other or appear like self mutalation. We're all people in the end who live on the same planet. It makes no sense. Collectively and peacefully, we have the potential to progress humankind to unimaginable levels peacefully. Now, I'll say it loudly, " don't avoid the obvious!" Where I think the US government and some of its corporations, thus some of its people, are fully responsible are when they forcefully impose policies or themselves on peoples around the world where it's very apparent that the only benefactor is the US government or a small group within or associated to government. When this becomes stupefyingly apparent, the reputation of the United States as a whole diminishes, not just it's government. In many cases, this is a byproduct of political ignorance and financial greed. Unfortunately for John McCain, who in my opinion is a good solid man, his political party has been at the center of many of these blundering, selfishly apparent foreign policies. This perhaps speaks volumes at the underlining moral, ethical and even academic decay in the US. To explain, to create animosity in the world directed at you, just be pungent and ignorant towards others in the world. A lack of basic mutual, ethical courtesy along with a lack of intelligent deductive foresight is the root cause of this. Would John McCain be a good president, I believe he would. I also believe Barack Obama would also because he is a visual embodiment of change which at this juncture in our human evolution we, the people of world, desperately need. Hope and change should not just be embodied in a US politician. Anyone of us can be a vessel for change and hope. We can all make a small step towards peace and each step in the end is what really changes the world. We just have to treat others as we'd like to be treated. That goes for all politicians and people not just the ones in the US. There is so much hate in the world and honestly why? Revenge, selfishness, greed or just shear stupidity. No, it's a lack of mutual respect and ethics then its all the other stuff. If we'd were to think before any committing any action, " Would I Iike being the recipient of this action?" If the answer is no, then don't do it. Another question is, " Would a lack of comitting this action be rude or offensive, such as not helping someone else?" Or what about, " If I was this person in need, would I like being helped?" It's that simple and this is a fundamental core change in achieving peace. Of course, don't exceed your means. What I'm saying, don't jeapordize yourself or someone else in order to help another. Be creative and find an intelligent solution. For example, in helping the poor, its good to try and understand why they're poor. Sometimes it might be bad habbits or mental illness. Knowing the root cause of the problem and addressing it is the most effective, but also immediate help is very much needed. Thus the priority to helping anyone is addressing the need immediately and then addressing the root cause of the problem and handling it long term and permanently. But how can we find out the root cause of anything? I have a rule I recently heard and applied to my own life and its called the Rule of 5. Ask yourself 5 times the same question in relation to previous question. For example, why am I poor? Because I don't make enough money. Why don't I make enough money? Because I don't have a good job. Why don't I have a good job? Because I'm not qualified for a better job? Why am I not qualified for a better job? Because I don't have the education or skills needed for a better job. Aha! That's the root cause of the problem. Of course this is over simplified, but honestly a lack of education, skills and knowledge is why many in the world are poor and allow themselves to be subjegated to bad governments because a lack of knowledge results in fear. Ridding the world of fear is a noble cause through education.

The US aside, the world should stop looking towards the US for its solutions and start creating their own. The US will not solve your problems. If the US is at the center of their legitimate problems or the problems are too great to handle yourself, discuss it globally. Make others aware and ask for help. Ask others in the US for help because the US is full of good hard working people who are just not aware because they too are trying to survive and just live. Yes, the world is divided unevenly. Some have too much wealth and others too little and this understandably is the cause of much resentment. The only thing I can say, is do everything to get an education. Expand your mind in every way you can. An education is the most powerful asset you can possibly have no matter where you live. Even if its just learning to read, write and mathematics it will still server you and better your quality of life. Then, because of the current world we live in (at least for now), learn the basics of business and I stress keep any such venture ethical in regards to treating others as you would like to be treated. Bad ethics in business will come to bite you back. Develop something, provide a service, sell things or do all three. In the end, economic globalization will eventually even out (the Universal Law of Equilibrium) where the quality of life anywhere in the world will be the same. Personally, I envision a world with a much different economic support structure which I'll write about at a later time.

"looks like interesting stuff.

i think many of us have toyed with notions like this, but never really had the guts to try and verify/justify them."


Yes I know. Many of us have and obviously including myself. Why am I the first to attempt formulating a direct theoretical version of this notion? I can't answer that conclusively. I suspect it's because mainstream physics has further and further separated themselves from Neil Bohr's initial theory that atom and our solar system were relatively similar in some fashion. In my own theory of relatively equivalent quantum and celestial systems I calculate an exact scale ratio between the two which is something that boggles the mind why it wasn't done until now. but my theory didn't stop at the scale S value ratio but used it to also derive relative density and mass equations between quantum and celestial systems which separates my theory from that of Neil Bohr's initial theory and discovered a direct relation between mass and charge.[b] Mainstream physics has done remarkable work in analyzing how quantum particles interact as perceived from our [b]celestial[/b] relative point of reference. [/b] But because quantum systems appear so foreign in comparison to celestial system (which btw we have limited information on how planets and star systems interact over thousands, million and billions of years). My theory in the ebook states that quantum realm is exactly relative to our own celestial realm but the passage of time is faster at the quantum scale compared to the celestial scale and [b]so what mainstream physics has been seeing & analyzing for decades is [b]THE PATTERN[/b] of how celestial systems would interact over the course of thousands to billions of years or even more.[/b] I think mainstream physics has lost on some part the ability to philosophize on physics which I believe should be a precursor to formulating formal theories, but instead what happens are ideas outside mainstream thinking are sometimes shunned and our best minds, who reached a certain level of success, fear being ostrasised because it would affect their livelihood or reputation. It is in my opinion that fear is [b]partially[/b] responsible for not making this discovery sooner and the other part is due to a lack of formal philosophizing in physics where you still need to know physics and math but don't need to be confined to the current formal theorizing methodology...that would be the next stage. Before any good idea, there is brainstorming where anything goes and [b]some[/b] of mainstream physics has lost this ability to brainstorm in an open and constructive environment and there are too many reasons exactly why this has happened and some of them I'm probably not aware of.

"if its ok with you, i'm going post my opinions, critiques, mis-understandings etc. as i read through it. please keep in mind that i am relatively uneducated, and not particularly smart, so it should be a good test of your communication skills :)"

Please do. I have no problem with civilized opinions and critiques. Please don't demean yourself. I've met really stupid smart people. Intelligence too is relative and my belief is that all have the potential of achieving a higher intellect even if it takes longer than others and all we need is the will to want to achieve I higher intellect. Too many factors affect one's level of intelligence and a usually its a lack of knowledge and understanding which are two things that over time can accumulate increasing your relative intelligence. To me everyone is of equal potential intelligence.

"edit- let me stress again, im typing these comments AS i read, pretty much paragraph by paragraph. so hopefully it will give you some solid feedback on (at least) the structuring of your book."

I appreciate the feedback.

"Definition of reality
after reading the third sentance, i think when refering to reality, you should specifically state whether it is 'percieved reality' or 'actual reality'.
one of examples - 'the definition of concept is interchangable with reality' - (should be percieved reality), [also interchangeable with 'idea'?]"

Good point. In the book I do talk about a natural [b]actuality[/b] in physics, but what I was attempting to describe is that reality, even without actuality, is still a perception interpreted by the observer perhaps based in the actuality of physics if the observer is knowledgeable on the actuality of physics (something we relatively relate too also). For example, someone who suffers from a mental illness and hallucinates every moment of the day perceives a reality that is very real to them where the actuality of physics might or might not apply as it applies to us. Basically, without the observer's interpretation on the actuality of physics, physics would not be defined. That goes for one observer. Now if you include multiple observer's of the same event, the interpretation of some might be different than others but the majority consensus of all collective observer's is what will interpret and define that event, so the actuality of physics is the major consensus of physical events and this is what is taught in school as formal physics. Remember, everything we see and interact with is interpreted by us there is no way around this simple fact.

With regards to concept defining itself. In my opinion, thus in the book, due to interpretation, everything helps define everything else. You use your knowledge to
describe something, but your knowledge contains relative imaginary and understanding to other "things" in order to define this "new thing"

"i find your reality vs abstraction graph initially clear, but somewhat confusing after heavy analyzing, due mostly to terminology and the structuring of your ideas surrounding it (the paragraph above and below it)...

i assume you mean 'possibly perceived reality' vs abstraction. with 0 representing 'current perceived reality'.

if your going to say 'it doen't matter where the observer sits on this graph', i think its also worth stating that the observer (n) must always = 0.

so the observer can shift along the graph ([i]edit-limited by perception barriers[/i]), but 0 must shift also.

side note; at this point i feel like i want to define 'abstraction' as a value proportionate to the distance between perceived reality and actual reality. (you may be able to incorporate that into your theories at some point)"

The graph was a simple representation of how abstraction relates to our perception . The center of the graph is you, the observer, and the further out you go the more abstract things get. The left hand side was meant to represent quantum, the right hand side represent celestial, or small and bigger things respectively compared the observer. I agree, I wasn't too clear.

"Man in a Box
this is really nice metaphor. works well.

Man in a box 2 - the big picture
this one works too, but i don't think its as elegant.

it could use some refining and culling. even if your trying to hint at the variations in complexity of how 'reality's' relate to those they encompass.

Barrier of Perception
ahh ok, so the complexity of man in a box 2 is partly justified (at the end of the first paragraph). i still think it could be simplified though."

I agree it could have been simplified.

"also you give a clearer version of your definition of reality (that it is always based on perception). just a bit confusing after you allude to an 'actual' reality (one that is the sum of all the relative reality's) so early on (in the 'definition of reality')."

There is an actuality to reality, can't avoid the obvious, but it's how we, the observers, interpret it that makes our reality by major consensus. I described this above.

"The Commonality
i thought the first dot point was unecessary at first. but after thinking about it... i think the second one is. though i'm not sure.

you will probably get asked this sooner or later... what about computers? we can send a program out into space, with sensors for recording information and a hard-drive for storing it. these regions would otherwise be out of the range of our perception/reality (due to mostly environmental conditions).

would you argue that such a computer has little difference to a human? so could be classed as a 'living' consciousness? or that it is only our ability to recover the gathered information which make it an observer?

plenty of room for debate in that one."

This comes back to the classic notion, it no one was in the forest to see the tree fall, did it actually fall? It was on the forest floor so yes...but are you sure. Only after forensic analysis which still involves conscious interpretation. Essentially, exploratory probes with on board computers are much like our eyes, and is an extension of them much like the the telephone is an extension of our hearing. The probe with it's human-made programming analyzes data and interprets it based on our pre-programmed interpretations of "things" which include patterns. The probe then relays the information back to us for our interpretation. We, the observer, are always in this equation of reality.

There is a mystery I elude to in the book which is the mystery of us being programmed genetically like machines which eludes to a possibility that human programmed machines are actually a very, very low level of conscious entity created by man. This is far fetched, but theorist in the study of AI have mentioned the possibility of randomness in the AI machines. If any of this is true, and that's a big if, then probes too might be considered an observer. Again, far, far fetched but something to think about.

"you also bring forth the theory that everyone is living in a different reality. something that i have pondered more than once. and the voice in the back of my head is yelling 'yes, perception defines reality, but reality is only a perception of the universe, and it is the universe which gave us our perception'."

There you go. I think you got it. All "things" are self defining.

"next you also touch on the collective consciousness, something which i can accept might exist, though only throughout simular organisms (the creatures on this planet for example, but most likely only the self-aware). if you examine how the brain works, then relate the neurons to ants with their chemical trails and subsiquent collective intelligence (finding the shortest distance around an object for example), its not hard to see all of our conscious minds acting as a whole (though whether the collective mind is self-aware is another debate)."

Collectively, we aren't self-aware until the majority of us understand the concept of collective consciousness. Those that do probably do very well in the stock market which is an extension of our collective consciousness alone with the media.

"then you go on to rather casually say that everything is a product of our conscious minds. this is something else i grappled with for a while, after smoking pot too regularly and dipping in and out of psychosis.

hell. i think you just mentioned 3/3 of my most pondered theories in the space of a few paragraphs. YOU might exist only in my mind, there is no way to tell as far as i know."

Haha! I'm in you head.

"this 'radio' metaphor is interesting. i assume its because you don't want to mention the word psychic :wink: "

here's something to ponder philosophically, what if we're all the same entity just being filtered through different "physical" bodies much like water filters differently through different water filters.

"i don't believe psychic style connections are required to explain a collective consciousness, we are already pretty thoroughly connected as is, with genetic memory and human interaction. though argument stops short of sounding crazy, and im prepared to accept the possibility of some kind of psychic link, but as the effect of the collective consciousness, not the cause."

We don't need a "psychic style connections" because for global collective consciousness to occur, we already have the media, the internet, and our multiple phone systems. We're all connected already and all this technology is our global collective nervous system.

"know your sounding crazy. hinting that intelligence is caused by a good radio reception to the universal mind :).

i would rather define intelligence as quality, quantity and speed of knowledge, understanding and communication. i think you need to flesh out your argument on this point if you wish to make me or others think differently.

alright im getting tired (as you might tell from my deteriorating sentence structure), will continue this tomorrow. its been thought provoking reading so far, thanks"

You've got to remember some of the theories in my ebook are at an infant stage and require a lot more work while others are more seasoned. I am a philosopher also and like all philosophers I wanted to touch on explaining our physical existence except I attempted to derive it logically and formulate it where possible. So I did touch on a lot where somethings are far fetched notions & ideas. A warned everyone about this at the beginning of this thread.

"Certainly I'll briefly explain it.  



Essentially, all matter, where geometric configuration plays a significant part (ex. spheres), vibrates space-time. The range of frequency is virtually infinite but there is a difference between the infinite ranges of frequency due to the objects mass, density and size. Also, these vibrations superposition themselves from the central core of the object to it percievable surface. The superpositioning of these vibrations radiate outward at an infinite range of velocities including faster than the speed of light and slower than the speed of light again depending on the mass, density and size of the object. Basically all matter are sources of space-time vibrations so when these emitted vibrations interact, they superposition constructively, destructively or a mixture of both (take a look at the W.G.V. experiment in the book). Constructive superposition attracts and destructive repells. This accounts for interaction of quantum particles or different "charges". Charge is a perception of a misunderstood and misclassified interaction. Charge at the celestial scale is mass. Also, this superposition of space-time vibration is the cause for why celestial objects rotate.



If you want more detail and to understand the new gravitational force equation (with Q transfrom in place for G constant) download the book and goto chapter 12 also take a look at principles listed in chapter 18 which is a summary of the all the theories presented in this version of book ("The General Principles of Reality A")."